Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,321

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    Quote Quoting angelogladding
    View Post
    I still don't see how travelling 30 MPH in a friend's car on the same surface the following day allowed for immediate stopping with no skid marks far, far ahead of the intersection in which we collided.
    You had a predictable reaction - not a sudden reaction to something in front of you causing you to over-react and lean on the brake as hard as you can. Even with ABS, most people who are not experienced drivers do just that and thus they negate the benefits of ABS.

    Furthermore, might you be able to explain how the ABS affects stopping potential before the skid marks as well as how the vehicle damage is coupled with the skid mark velocity determination?
    Discussing these issues does not change the issue of fault, only the issue of speed.

    The reason to mention it was a new car also helps describe the situation, particularly that the car indeed has ABS and that the breaks should be in top condition.
    ABS is designed to be applies with steady and slightly increasing pressure ... however, in panic, most people slam the brakes as hard as they can. This not only damages the ABS but actually can result in far less effective braking as well as often locking them up.

    It shows that he was unfamiliar with the area; a good reason to be driving at, not above, the speed limit.
    Again, not relevant. He could have been doing 65 and you would STILL be required to enter traffic ONLY when it was safe to do so. Vision obstructions and speed are contributing factors ... your entering into traffic befroe it was safe to do so was still the PCF.

    Keep in mind that a civil court or an insurance company are free to decide a divided percentage for fault - the state of CA does not do that.

    The report specifically stated that we were both in, what seemed to be, equal(?) violations.
    Don't read the narrative (presumably under Opinions and Conclusions), look at the PCF on page 2.

    My Dad works as an insurance agent/rep and has told me that I'm going to get my license taken away for 6 months. I trusted him naively.
    I am unable to find a section that authorizes a license to be suspended for failin gto be insured at the scene of an accident, but it might be there. It is not something that I deal with. If you had provided FALSE evidence of insurance to the police or the court, THEN the court would suspend your license. Otherwise, I don't see a suspension.

    I have never seen a skid quite like that. Not when personally driving or driving in another car during similar situations. As I mentioned above I am really interested to hear any information regarding speed determinations above and beyond the skid marks themselves (e.g. breaking before skid and collision damage)
    There are different TYPES of skids that can tell an investigator different things about the vehicle and the speed ... also, whether the skid starts on all four wheels at the same time, two wheels, etc. You have locked wheel skid, centrifugal skid, ad nauseum.

    Again, the speed of the other vehicle is not all that relevant here.

    I don't have the report handy but I will advise.
    The PCF (section and party) will tell me a lot about what the officer was looking at.

    Remember, HE was there, I was not . I did not see what he saw, but i do have a few hundred of these things in the tank and none have been disputed successfully in court.

    - Carl
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    not sure
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    Even if you were the at fault driver, your license shouldn't be in jeopardy of being suspended. To add you on, will there be a substantial increase in the rate?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,321

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    If he is found at fault? Given his age? Oh yeah - it will be very stiff!

    - Carl
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    not sure
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    If he is found at fault? Given his age? Oh yeah - it will be very stiff!

    - Carl
    Well, given his age, I assumed "it will be very stiff", but then I realized you were referring to the increase in the insurance rates!!!!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,321

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    Quote Quoting cissycicle
    View Post
    Well, given his age, I assumed "it will be very stiff", but then I realized you were referring to the increase in the insurance rates!!!!


    - Carl
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    not sure
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post


    - Carl
    Sorry, I thought it sounded like good news, but again I wasn't thinking of the insurance!

  7. #17

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    Discussing these issues does not change the issue of fault, only the issue of speed.
    At what point does speed become an issue or determination of fault?

    Again, not relevant. He could have been doing 65 and you would STILL be required to enter traffic ONLY when it was safe to do so. Vision obstructions and speed are contributing factors ... your entering into traffic befroe it was safe to do so was still the PCF.
    What I still can't seem to understand is how the speed (A) is not directly relevant to my entering the intersection prematurely (B)? Had he been driving within the legal speed limit there would have been no field of vision problem. If not A, then not B. Is there some critical logic that I am missing?

    There are different TYPES of skids that can tell an investigator different things about the vehicle and the speed ... also, whether the skid starts on all four wheels at the same time, two wheels, etc. You have locked wheel skid, centrifugal skid, ad nauseum.
    If it helps the skid marks were perfectly straight up until the point of collision. I also have photos showing to what extent my front end had entered his southbound lane. Would those be of importance to upload to show what I mean by "inching out"?

    The PCF (section and party) will tell me a lot about what the officer was looking at.
    If I can remember accurately the officer marked me for "failing to yield to traffic on a highway" and him for "speed in excess of marked limit".

    Remember, HE was there, I was not.
    The officer was young. He said that he'd have a "traffic collision specialist" come help assess the situation. He, however, instructed both tow trucks to take the cars out of the intersection before the specialist could come. Upon follow up I spoke with the specialist who said he came to tell the officer two things: where to start measurement and where to end measurement. Is this common practice? That is to take the cars away from the scene before proper diagnosis (pictures & measurement).

    I hate to nitpick but more importantly I don't want to waste your time. What I am most confused about is the issue of speed. I'm under the assumption that breaking distance increases quadratically as speed increases. I'm also under the assumption that speed limits are based appropriately off road conditions (lanes, lane width, parking/no parking, etc.). If he had been going 65 MPH down that street there would just be no way to safely enter the intersection for a left turn.

  8. #18

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    All things considered, is there any way to bring this to civil court?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,321

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    Quote Quoting angelogladding
    At what point does speed become an issue or determination of fault?
    When speed is the issue.

    When determining the PCF we have to ask ourselves, what ONE thing - when removed from the situation - would have prevented the collision from happening? In this case, a slower speed on the other vehicle is not likely to have prevented the collision (unless it was 5 or 10 MPH). The one thing present here that would have kept the collision from happening would have been if you had not "inched" your car forward beyond the limit line in to the lane of cross traffic.

    What I still can't seem to understand is how the speed (A) is not directly relevant to my entering the intersection prematurely (B)? Had he been driving within the legal speed limit there would have been no field of vision problem.
    Not necessarily. it still comes back to the responsibility of the person ENTERING traffic.

    Again, the law governing what law enforcement must decide is different than what a civil court or an insurance company might decide. If you had insurance, your company might argue that your fault was split. But, again, the police are likely to determine that YOU were at fault.

    If it helps the skid marks were perfectly straight up until the point of collision.
    That's the point of deviation at the area of impact. The speed issue can also be altered based upon the type of impact, the amount of skid after impact, etc. But I really doubt that speed is the issue here as far as the police will be concerned. It might be ... you might get lucky and the officer doing the investigation has seen things differently.

    I also have photos showing to what extent my front end had entered his southbound lane. Would those be of importance to upload to show what I mean by "inching out"?
    You are still obligated to enter into that lane ONLY when it was safe to do so. No, I don't know how you can do that short of inching out, but that's why we have "associated factors". But, we still have to establish a PCF even if the collision was understandable.

    If I can remember accurately the officer marked me for "failing to yield to traffic on a highway" and him for "speed in excess of marked limit".
    Probably you in the PCF for 21802(a) and him for CVC 22350 as an associated factor. That would still leave you at fault.

    He, however, instructed both tow trucks to take the cars out of the intersection before the specialist could come.
    In non-injury collisions, you're lucky they even took a report. Unless either of you were injured, they don't have to take a report. And unless they intend to file charges against someone, they are not going to spend a lot of time dealing with it. Collision reports are essentially documents for insurance companies. They have little other purpose.

    Is this common practice? That is to take the cars away from the scene before proper diagnosis (pictures & measurement).
    For this kind of crash? Sure. It's not that big a deal, and opening the intersection is generally more important.

    Besides, as I have repeatedly said, what happened is pretty clear.

    I'm under the assumption that breaking distance increases quadratically as speed increases.
    Okay. And ...?

    I'm also under the assumption that speed limits are based appropriately off road conditions (lanes, lane width, parking/no parking, etc.). If he had been going 65 MPH down that street there would just be no way to safely enter the intersection for a left turn.
    His speed does not change the fact that pursuant to CVC 21802(a) you cannot enter the intersection until it is safe to do so. It is prima facie evidence that you violated this section when you get hit by a vehicle traveling in its proper lane.

    21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
    entrance to
    , or within, an intersection shall stop as required by
    Section 22450
    . The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
    vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
    approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
    shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
    or she can proceed with reasonable safety
    .


    If the driver were signaling a turn, or swinging wide on an errant turn, then we'd have a different situation. But if he were driving straight in his own lane, then you were almost certainly at fault.

    Again, you will have to look and see what the reporting officer has put for the PCF. You may get lucky.

    - Carl
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,321

    Default Re: Not-at-fault accident while exempted on Mom's policy in CA

    Quote Quoting angelogladding
    View Post
    All things considered, is there any way to bring this to civil court?
    With enough money, you certainly can (figure at least $5,0000 for an attorney). You will have to likely pay for a reconstructionist as well - at $200 per hour, and unless the damages are extensive, you may not prevail.

    - Carl
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. At Fault Accident with Excluded Driver
    By tetedur in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 05:32 PM
  2. Auto Insurance: Excluded Driver Involved in an Accident, No Fault State
    By ella in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-22-2009, 07:10 AM
  3. Auto Insurance: After Accident, Insurance Company Claims Teen Was an Excluded Driver
    By confusedincali in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-26-2009, 02:43 PM
  4. Auto Insurance: Must The Owner Be Named On An Auto Insurance Policy
    By Dexster in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-28-2007, 03:41 AM
  5. Traffic Accidents: Determining the At-Fault Driver's Insurance Policy Limits
    By aydriel in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-08-2006, 02:17 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources