by Guest » Wed Jul 21, 2010 07:48 am
I was in an auto accident on a highway...the traffic was at a dead stop...I pulled onto the shoulder and managed to not hit anyone. The driver behind me hit me. The officer said the report will come out in 6-8 days. My dad reported the accident to my insurance..because i had a concussion and went to the hospital. SO i have not spoken with my insurance..however I did call them back this evening and left a message as no one answered. Do you think its ok to stall them for the next 6 to 8 days...so I can wait until I am able to read the report. I just think its wise to know exactly what this officer is stating about the accident before opening my mouth to anyone.
Do you agree...is it ok be straight with them and tell them that I want to wait until the report comes out before giving my statement, will they understand..is that a common thing. Or will they be ticked off by that?
Do you agree...is it ok be straight with them and tell them that I want to wait until the report comes out before giving my statement, will they understand..is that a common thing. Or will they be ticked off by that?
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 07:17 am Post Subject:
Well, people don't always swerve to the shoulder due to avoiding what is ahead. Sometimes when I am behind someone and I come closer towards them...sometimes they dont like the speed I am coming towards them with...and they will pull onto the shoulder as a precaution to avoid me colliding with them.
I pulled onto the shoulder because I saw with my peripheral vision in the rear view mirror a car coming closer towards me at a fast pace and I stopped onto the shoulder to avoid her colliding with me. She was going to crash into a car at the speed she was going no matter what...whether it be into the left lane, or the right lane, but she chose to crash into the car on the shoulder which happened to be mine. Before I started slowing down to the upcoming stopped traffic...the cop asked how far behind me she was. I told him she wasnt really far away, but she wasnt real close either, somewhere in the middle. So she had enough of a distance to have slowed down...that is if SHE was actually paying attention to the car ahead (mine), and to the other cars ahead as well. SHe could have clearly seen the cars in the right lane ahead were at a complete stop. I wasnt driving a big suv obstructing her view..she could have seen along the sides of my car and even through my untinted windows in daylight that the cars in our lane ahead were at a complete stop. Now I just wish I could see the police report...because I was running on adrenaline after being stuck on the side of the highway crying in fear as the cars whipped past me...I had a concussion..I was really out of it and scared, and seemed a bit hyper I would imagine.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:20 am Post Subject:
.
.
carsaregood,
You state that you had a concussion.
Could you describe what occurred for you to have an concussion from a Rear Impact? It seem very unusual to me.
Just wondering.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:39 am Post Subject:
It sounds to me like this is a case of inattention. Usually when the police report lists under contributing circumstances inattention will always be the at fault driver. Because of this, an insurance company will list that driver as the at-fault party. She will listed as D1 or Driver 1 on the report. Do you know if she received a ticket? Even though the report isn't ready, call the police and see if they will tell you what Driver 1 was cited for.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:41 pm Post Subject:
I talked with my dad and brother and they gave me their support I am not at fault.
Only important if either one is the judge in your case, but since they are relatives, they would legally have to recuse themselves.
Yes, carsaregood, California is a COMPARATIVE negligence state, so as long as you are less than 50% responsible for your damages, you will be entitled to some recovery from the other party.
Pulling onto the shoulder of the freeway for any reason other than "an emergency" (such as a vehicle disablement) technically violates the "sign law" in the Vehicle Code. That's the section that describes a white sign with black lettering, such as those on the CA freeways that state "Emergency Parking Only as a "directional" sign that must be obeyed (like the signs "Right Lane Must Turn Right"). It is not uncommon to be cited for that violation by law enforcement, and the other driver could have been (either that, or passing on the right).
However, the at fault party's insurance company could try to raise the defense that YOU should not have been on the shoulder either if your vehicle was not disabled, even if it was a last-ditch effort to avoid a collision with their insured. Had you not pulled onto the shoulder, the collision might have been avoided. (Their argument, not mine.)
Well, that's an argument that carries a lot more weight in one of the other contributory negligence states, not so much in California. Here, it could raise your "percentage of involvement". To 50%? Not likely. 10% to 25% is probably more reasonable. If you end up in front of a judge, you may have less to worry about than if in front of a jury, but some of our judges are idiots who ignore the obvious and hand down ridiculous decisions almost as often as the juries do.
The important factors in the accident report (I assume CHP, not city police or county sheriff) are the other party's approximate speed as estimated by the officer, which could have been unsafe for the conditions (did her airbag deploy? That only happens above about 15-18 mph), and her statement as to the reason she collided with you -- does it demonstrate inattention ("I was looking at my cell phone", a Vehicle Code violation), or does she maintain you suddenly pulled in front of her while she was driving on the shoulder? (since passing on the right, especially on the shoulder, that's also a problem for her, not you).
So, while my opinion means nothing in court either, you should not hesitate to cooperate with the claim investigation. Accident report in hand or not. As Trench has said, the accident report means less to the insurance company than you might believe. And speaking from first hand knowledge, some accident reports would be better off having never been written.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 08:46 pm Post Subject:
FK, when she crashed into my back end...it was a hard impact. My head rest struck the back of my head very hard. I was driving yesterday and the day before...the vibrations and little bumps on the road hurt my head while driving. I have to keep my head off the rest so there is less vibrations. And I had a headache at the top of my head. My head is not healed yet...still sensitive and headaches with driving and alot of movement.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 08:57 pm Post Subject:
Thanks Max Herr, that was good information...and thanks Trench too.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 09:44 pm Post Subject:
I was going 60 mph (the speed limit) towards stopped traffic on the highway.
DO you think slowing down at 60 ft away is negligible?
What would be the minimum distance to slow down that is non- neglible?
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 07:40 pm Post Subject:
DO you think slowing down at 60 ft away is negligible?
(Perhaps you meant "negligent"?)
60 mph = 88 feet per second. "Slowing" from 60 mph to 0 is not going to occur in 60 feet, let alone in one second -- even with the best ever antilock braking system.
If you read some of the ads for cars that do 0-60 in 4.3 seconds and 60-0 in 300 feet on a wet surface, what would your opinion be? It's about the same ratio (and indicates not very good brakes or tires).
So, if you really meant to use the term "negligible" -- the answer is YES, the slowing in 60 feet at 60 mph will be negligible -- it will improve dramatically upon impact with the immovable object directly in front of you.
If you meant to use the term "negligent", any attempt to stop demonstrates something that is not negligent. Not giving yourself enough stopping distance is, however, negligent.
Why? Because negligence is defined as "a duty owed, and a duty breached." You owe all other drivers the courtesy of not colliding with them, just as they all owe you the same. One way to do that is to not follow so closely at your chosen speed that it would be impossible to stop just millimeters short of a collision. The screeching of tires on concrete and the smoke of burning rubber is all very impressive. Stopping without colliding is even more so -- especially if by a mere millimeter or two. Demonstrates the ultimate control (or perhaps Divine Intervention and the power of prayer) over an act of unsafe driving behavior.
What is the minimum distance needed to slow-down depends on too many intangible factors to give you an absolute answer. Some "authorities" recommend a "three-second rule" (three seconds between you and the vehicle ahead), but at 60 mph, that's still only 268 feet, and might be 32 feet short in some circumstances. When I was "learning to drive" at age 15-1/2 (in 1968), we were taught one car length for every 10 mph. Today, AAA recommends 30 seconds between you and the car ahead.
But all of that is based on a dry surface and tires and brakes in good working order. A 2400 pound Ford Fiesta travelling 60 mph will stop in less distance than a 8,600 pound Hummer, and much less distance than a semi tractor-and-trailer weighing 80,000 pounds. None will stop in 88 feet (according to Car and Driver Magazine, the 2011 Fiesta goes from 70 mph to zero in 170 feet, and the Hummer H2 takes 163 feet at 60 mph, while a tractor-trailer could take between 256 and 430 feet depending on the temperature of the brakes).
So all of this is rather arbitrary guidance. How long will it take your brain to react to the sudden danger ahead? One second (88 feet gone) . . . two seconds (176 feet gone) . . . still need at least 163 feet or more to stop . . . three seconds . . . impact!
Then again, if I even tried to keep 30-seconds between me and the car in front on a So Cal freeway in rush hour traffic, I would be home before I left, having to drive backwards to maintain the required distance. So I take that suggestion as rather imprecise and not very useful under some driving conditions.
Driving on a dry and open road at 60 mph, even 30 seconds of distance may not be enough if I'm distracted by billboards, nearly naked drivers in the car next to me, cows in the pasture, or my choice of playing an "air guitar" or eating a bowl of cereal while steering with my knees (OK, I don't do either of those, but I do find the sight of a prize-winning Holstein almost irresistible, and the nearly naked drivers . . . )
Add your comment