TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Drunk Driving
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by Spam PS: Chem, do you work in Insurance or some such? I'm getting that hint from your responses. On a totally unrelated matter, I have a question about fault. My buddy rear-ended a lady on Sunday (the big snow-storm) who was parked in the passing lane on an 80km/h road. She wasn't stuck, her car worked, she had just decided to stop while she made a phone call from her cell. I don't know if her emergency lights were flashing, but even so it would have been tough to tell right away that she was stopped since people drive slowly with their 4-ways on all the time during snow storms. Since she was in park, her brake-lights weren't on. It's my understanding that all rear-endings are the fault of the rear-ender, is that in ALL instances?

I'm an insurance adjuster....unfortunately for your buddy he is going to be considered at fault for the accident as per the fault rules of ontario....regardless of whether the woman is stupid and parks on the highway.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I'm an insurance adjuster....unfortunately for your buddy he is going to be considered at fault for the accident as per the fault rules of ontario....regardless of whether the woman is stupid and parks on the highway.

Those are some fucked up rules right there

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Those are some fucked up rules right there

Not really... a stationary object is pretty easy to avoid failing to do so means he wasn't paying close enough attention or did not have control of his vehicle. The same would be true in nearly every North American jurisdiction under common law.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced you would be charged with DUI for either so I think its fair to compare the two, I don't see how its any different.

The point is, there is no street test to prove that i AM high,
so that makes its COMPLETELY different.

Plus, you can act normally...
When ur drunk, and i dont mean 0.08, i mean wasted, ur showing signs, regardless of who you are.
You may mumble, fumble through ur wallet, act nervously or even be more obnoxious, whatever...
Let alone your breath REAKING of booze...

If you're high, well at least me personally, you can and will act completely normally not showing any signs of not being sober.
(ps if in doubt, ask Shanny about my "high face")
Granted there IS a limit with drugs (excluding weed) as well where you just cannot drive, but its WAAAAAAAY diff than booze.

But in the case of weed i know that i have NEVER smoked enough to the point of "not being able to drive".
Impossible. Weed slows me down. I've been smoking regularly for like 14 yrs, and i have NEVER sped while stoned, EVER


So they (drugs and booze) are COMPLETELY different.
How will they know i'm high??
Not showing any signs doesn't even give reasonable doubt for them to even search me or my car.
Been pulled over dozens of times when stoned, and NEVER once had a problem...EVER.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I am sure the number of times you drive sober out number the few times you have driven high so the chances of getting into an accident while sober are greater.

LOL, i'm not being a dick, but to be COMPLETELY honest, for 11 consecutive yrs,
from the ages of 16 to 27, i DEFINITELY drove stoned more often than sober.
Pretty much all my friends in Windsor are in the same "boat".


Realistically, in those 11 yrs, i drove at least somewhat stoned about 75-80% of the time.

I have been in one 1-car accident (in Ibiza and HADN'T smoked weed) and a grand total of 1 speeding ticket

quote:

Originally posted by TheVrk But in the case of weed i know that i have NEVER smoked enough to the point of "not being able to drive". Impossible. Weed slows me down. I've been smoking regularly for like 14 yrs, and i have NEVER sped while stoned, EVER So they (drugs and booze) are COMPLETELY different. How will they know i'm high?? Not showing any signs doesn't even give reasonable doubt for them to even search me or my car. Been pulled over dozens of times when stoned, and NEVER once had a problem...EVER.

Just because you are not speeding doesn't mean you are still fully capable of driving....even stoned you are still under the influence....remember both alcohol and weed are drugs. There are physical signs to being under the influence of any drug.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Just because you are not speeding doesn't mean you are still fully capable of driving....

Thats subjective...as ANY regular weed smoker says they drive slower.
From ppl i've met in Windsor, to Kitchener, Toronto, Montreal, Amsterdam, here in Croatia, Detroit, Budapest to name a FEW...

quote:

remember both alcohol and weed are drugs. There are physical signs to being under the influence of any drug.

If you've got Visine, there are NO physical signs of smoking weed.
Even without it, the only "reasonable cause" for a cop is the actual smell of weed...red eyes are hardly ever enuff of a reason

quote:

Originally posted by TheVrk red eyes are hardly ever enuff of a reason

Haha this reminds me of when I was in high school...we would get suspended for 3 days if our eyes were red

Student: Why am I getting suspended?

Principal: Suspition that you were smoking marijuana.

Student: WHAT? THAT IS FUCKIN GAY.

The principals in my high school were fucking pricks

quote:

Originally posted by Paulinho Haha this reminds me of when I was in high school...we would get suspended for 3 days if our eyes were red The principals in my high school were fucking pricks

Aw thats terrible...

The principals in my high school were the exact opposite: SOOO cool.
They loved us, at least the athletes, cause all 3 of them were football players back in their day...
They didnt care what we did, as long as we passed...
Just like niwadays, they were only after the dealers

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Holy shit... sorry to write so much but it's not really as simple a question as it appears on the surface.

Craig's detailed responses FTMFW.

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Craig's detailed responses FTMFW.

Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard A really really long and concise answer to my question.

Thanks for all the info Hazard. There were no injuries as it was just a light fender-bender. How does the insurance-reporting work? They didn't exchange insurance info, she got his phone number and license plate and drove off.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Not really... a stationary object is pretty easy to avoid failing to do so means he wasn't paying close enough attention or did not have control of his vehicle. The same would be true in nearly every North American jurisdiction under common law.

The way he told the story when I asked for more details is that he saw the car with plenty of time to stop, but it appeared to him that the car was still moving and he assumed it was just another slow driver with their 4-ways on. He started to slow down, but didn't start attempting a full-stop in time. There was also a van in his right blind spot blocking him from moving to the right to avoid her car, so he eventually slid into her doing about 15. So, had he hit his breaks in a attempt to stop right away, the accident would have been avoided.

I'm convinced that they DEFINITELY need a light on the back of the car notifying others that the car is in PARK. It makes no sense to me that if you hit your breaks, 3 bright red lights warn cars behind you that you're stopping/stopped, but if you're in Park, there's nothing to notify vehicles behind you that you're not in motion. In a snow-storm, with people DRIVING with their 4-ways on, emergency lights just aren't enough warning.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam They didn't exchange insurance info

That was a mistake - if she didn't have insurance info, he would be in a much better situation, since she couldn't threaten to go through insurance. If you have insurance, and you get into an accident, there's no reason not to take the other person's insurance info, regardless of fault.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Holy shit... sorry to write so much but it's not really as simple a question as it appears on the surface.

I know you like to educate people on insurance but damn that was a long and accurate answer.....I would give detailed answers like that but thats just too much billable time I would be loosing. You could have simply said that he is 100% at fault for the physical damage claim but may not be 100% liable for any injury claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Thanks for all the info Hazard. There were no injuries as it was just a light fender-bender. How does the insurance-reporting work? They didn't exchange insurance info, she got his phone number and license plate and drove off.

For your friend it may be a good thing that she didn't exchange insurance information but if she does go through insurance the company can just run an insurance search on the plates.

FYI....if ever in an accident and you may not be at fault get the insurance information....it only makes it more difficult for the insurance company to confirm information and will make the whole claim process take longer....and unfortunately if the insurance company can't confirm insurance information then the claim may go against your collision coverage and would be considered an at fault claim which means your rates are going to go up....and nobody wants that.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam How does the insurance-reporting work? They didn't exchange insurance info, she got his phone number and license plate and drove off.

Reporting a claim is as easy as picking up the phone and calling your insurance company... the very friendly, professional, and exceedingly brilliant insurance adjuster on the other end will walk you through the rest. Okay, I may be a little biased.

If your friend has sufficient damage to his vehicle to justify a claim then he should call his insurer. They will either ask him to get a couple of estimates or they will send an appraiser out to see his vehicle. They may want to meet with him for a statement; however, if it's just a minor loss they'll likely just interview him by phone. His damages will be paid less his deductible. If he has loss of use coverage he will get a rental paid for while his vehicle is being repaired.

As far as the other party goes; if she chooses to report this to her insurance company the same process will take place; however, she will not have to pay a deductible and her rental will be covered regardless of what coverage she has. Her insurance company will, as chemy stated, get in touch with him for insurance information or they will simply run an insurance search based on the plates (this is partially why you have to tell the MTO your insurance company and policy number when renewing your sticker every year). Once they know who your friend's insurance company is they will contact that insurer to confirm that the policy is valid and that they agree your friend is liable for the accident. If your friend has not reported the claim by this time his insurer will likely open a claim for him and call him to confirm the details of the collision.

From a premium standpoint... if your friend's insurer is notified of the collision then there is a good chance he will see a rate increase next year. I could not venture to guess how much, premiums are set by underwriters... I'm not involved in that aspect at all. Because he was involved in an at fault collision he will be considered a greater risk to insure (essentially, the fact that he had this at-fault collision is evidence that he occasionally drives with undue attention or caution). The value of the claim makes very little difference to the premium increase. I would suggest that if the other party makes a claim and his insurer is notified then he may also want to claim his damages since the effect to his rates will be about the same regardless.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Not really... a stationary object is pretty easy to avoid failing to do so means he wasn't paying close enough attention or did not have control of his vehicle. The same would be true in nearly every North American jurisdiction under common law.

Normally I would fully agree but in this case there were some other factors at play:

1. The dumb bitch stopped in the middle of the road and not on the shoulder to chat on a cell phone

2. It was during a snow storm where visibility is reduced

3. She put her car in park so she had no break lights

4. Normally her hazard lights should have been a red flag but lots of morons drive around with their hazard lights on in the snow

To me she is at least 50% responsible for that accident.

double post, I dunno why it won't let me delete it

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Normally I would fully agree but in this case there were some other factors at play: 1. The dumb bitch stopped in the middle of the road and not on the shoulder to chat on a cell phone 2. It was during a snow storm where visibility is reduced 3. She put her car in park so she had no break lights 4. Normally her hazard lights should have been a red flag but lots of morons drive around with their hazard lights on in the snow To me she is at least 50% responsible for that accident.

Negative Ghost Rider... the key here is did the driver of the striking vehicle take proper action to avoid the accident as would a reasonable person... the answer is no. A reasonable person would have seen the stopped vehicle, identified it as stopped and taken action to either move around it or stop behind it. The circumstances of why she stopped make very little difference, he had opportunity to avoid and failed to do so, he is the proximate cause, he is at fault. Your argument is about the same as arguing that the city is liable for you hitting a pot hole because the pot hole shouldn't have been there.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Negative Ghost Rider... the key here is did the driver of the striking vehicle take proper action to avoid the accident as would a reasonable person... the answer is no. A reasonable person would have seen the stopped vehicle, identified it as stopped and taken action to either move around it or stop behind it. The circumstances of why she stopped make very little difference, he had opportunity to avoid and failed to do so, he is the proximate cause, he is at fault. Your argument is about the same as arguing that the city is liable for you hitting a pot hole because the pot hole shouldn't have been there.

Ok, I'll give you that, but she should still be flogged for being stupid

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Ok, I'll give you that, but she should still be flogged for being stupid

stupidity is what keeps people like Moral and I employed.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced stupidity is what keeps people like Moral and I employed.

it's true... 60% of all claims are caused by the stupidity of one person or another. If there was an exclusion for stupidity I'd be out of work.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard it's true... 60% of all claims are caused by the stupidity of one person or another. If there was an exclusion for stupidity I'd be out of work.

No kidding, it seems like not a week goes by without at least one moron trying to hit me with their car on the highway.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Negative Ghost Rider... the key here is did the driver of the striking vehicle take proper action to avoid the accident as would a reasonable person... the answer is no. A reasonable person would have seen the stopped vehicle, identified it as stopped and taken action to either move around it or stop behind it. The circumstances of why she stopped make very little difference, he had opportunity to avoid and failed to do so, he is the proximate cause, he is at fault. Your argument is about the same as arguing that the city is liable for you hitting a pot hole because the pot hole shouldn't have been there.

It can be tough to tell that a car is stopped in a snow-flurry, the moving snow can play tricks with your eyes such that a stopped vehicle can appear to be moving. But otherwise, yes, it should be fairly simple to avoid a stopped car if you're paying attention.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.