i know that life insurance and car insurance are fundementally different.

But thats my point. The driver gets punished (i dont care what insurance jargon refers to it as) and the pedestrian does not. Meanwhile id argue that most car/pedestrian accidents are the fault of the pedestrian based on the behaviours ive witnessed, especially in toronto.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 i know that life insurance and car insurance are fundementally different. But thats my point. The driver gets punished (i dont care what insurance jargon refers to it as) and the pedestrian does not. Meanwhile id argue that most car/pedestrian accidents are the fault of the pedestrian based on the behaviours ive witnessed, especially in toronto.

Jay, the pedestrian would be "punished" under the law if they are found to be negligent by being bared from recovering part or all of their damanges (depending on the apportionment of negligence between all parties involved). With regard to insurance, the idea of paying increased Life premiums for being a pedestrian struck by a car is perposturous as they do not pose an increased risk. Now, if life policies also covered liability then there may be a case to be made.

The driver's rates only get affected if they are liable for the collision. If the pedestrian is trully at fault and negligent then the driver's rates would not increase.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

What I learned from my near miss with a moose was you are not liable if you don't change the direction of the car's path. So, if u swerve and hit something else, u are liable. If u aim for the moose, not liable. Whether u live is another story... I think that rule is lame. Sure, I understand they wanna prevent claims from people swerving to miss squirrels and such, but a moose?? There should be an exception.

Moral of the story:
Aim for the person.

___________________
"When I die, I want to be buried under the dancefloor"- Frankie Madgenta

quote:

Originally posted by tatgirl What I learned from my near miss with a moose was you are not liable if you don't change the direction of the car's path. So, if u swerve and hit something else, u are liable. If u aim for the moose, not liable. Whether u live is another story... I think that rule is lame. Sure, I understand they wanna prevent claims from people swerving to miss squirrels and such, but a moose?? There should be an exception. Moral of the story: Aim for the person.

I'll clear it up a little. Technically, an animal collision is a collision claim and damages would be paid under collision coverage. Most insurers, however, will deem a driver to be "not at-fault" for an animal collision and will waive their deductible. This is not actually something they have to do under the law or the policy but most insurers recognize that animals do run out infront of vehicles and there is little the driver can do to avoid collision. Now, if you swerve to avoid the animal and are successful in doing so but collide with another vehicle or object then the collision is not an animal collision but a vehicle or object collision. It is exceedingly rare that an insurer will waive your deductible in either of those types of collisions. For good reason too, the insurers would rather you hit the animal and kill it then swerve to avoid and cause another accident that could result in injury or damage. Granted, hitting a moose is going to total your vehicle and may cause injury but the law forces insurers to be consistant in applications of rules, making an exception for moose would essentially allow exceptions for any instance in which the driver felt hitting the animal may result in injury. The key to remember here is that the insurance company can and should charge a deductible for animal collisions (if governed by the strict letter and intent of the policy) but usually do not.... they're doing you a favour..... seriously, and insurance company doing something nice.

BTW, in Ontario fault for accidents is determined by the Fault determination charts which are availible on the website for FSCO (Financial Securities Commission of Ontario). I recommend you all read them and if you're ever faced with a situation where you will not be at fault for an accident you take no measures to avoid said accident. Example, if someone makes a left turn in front of me I will not swerve, break or otherwise try to avoid them.... they are at fault, any attempt to avoid could result in me losing control and being at fault.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by tatgirl What I learned from my near miss with a moose was you are not liable if you don't change the direction of the car's path. So, if u swerve and hit something else, u are liable. If u aim for the moose, not liable. Whether u live is another story... I think that rule is lame. Sure, I understand they wanna prevent claims from people swerving to miss squirrels and such, but a moose?? There should be an exception. Moral of the story: Aim for the person.

Exactly!!! people cause more accidents when they try to avoid them. (depending on the situation and speed) best thing to do is just try as stop.

I have hit a few dogs, cats, fox, deer etc.... over the years. i am not going to put my life or others at risk by trying to avoid them.

two occasions i have been in recently.

#1 - im driving in a city and i see a fat squirl dart across the road and stop for a second in my lane... i keep driving w/o even thinking of trying to avoid it. but at the last second it runs into the next lane and the driver nearly spins out and hits me while trying to avoid the fury tailed rat!!

#2 - im driving on the QEW, and everyone is going about 110-120kph. there is a small grocery bag floating in the air and sure enough it comes down infront of a guy and he swerves in his lane and nearly losses control of his car by trying to avoid it!

I know if i have a bag infront of me, i will just move the car enough to have it avoid my antenna if i can. but if it hits... oh well.