I'm reading this thread on the Lotus forum on accident and I'm wondering how the resident LEOs would determine fault.
For example, there's this one owner got T-boned because this 65 yr old lady ran a stop sign. His side did not have any stop signs at all and basically his car was totalled. Anyways, for whatever odd reason, he was deemed at fault even though the other driver was the one who ran the stop sign, what's the deal with this?
Quote from: NomisR on June 18, 2008, 11:20:40 AM
I'm reading this thread on the Lotus forum on accident and I'm wondering how the resident LEOs would determine fault.
For example, there's this one owner got T-boned because this 65 yr old lady ran a stop sign. His side did not have any stop signs at all and basically his car was totalled. Anyways, for whatever odd reason, he was deemed at fault even though the other driver was the one who ran the stop sign, what's the deal with this?
Need more details before I would even want to guess.
Who deemed him at fault, the police, or his insurance company?
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on June 18, 2008, 03:03:59 PM
Need more details before I would even want to guess.
Who deemed him at fault, the police, or his insurance company?
The police, not a lot of details were posted since he was advised by the lawyer not to so details were sketchy.
Just wondering if there's any reason this could have been done because it doesn't make sense.
Quote from: NomisR on June 18, 2008, 11:20:40 AM
I'm reading this thread on the Lotus forum on accident and I'm wondering how the resident LEOs would determine fault.
For example, there's this one owner got T-boned because this 65 yr old lady ran a stop sign. His side did not have any stop signs at all and basically his car was totalled. Anyways, for whatever odd reason, he was deemed at fault even though the other driver was the one who ran the stop sign, what's the deal with this?
You have to be doing something very illegal to be deemed at fault when the other person ran a sign.
I'd fight this like hell.
Was he DUI? That's all I can think of.
Senior citizens have the right of way. It's a privilege that has to do with age.
Impossible to determine fault without the facts (and, when you're hearing one side of a story, you're rarely hearing all of the facts). Many times, the circumstances are very different when you're on the scene of a crash as opposed to when you're hearing what happened from one of the involved people.
Well, considering he was driving
(http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f3/71266d1200689823-accident-neil-aka-stig-neils.jpg)
Through this intersection
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/neil_rat/IMG_0122.jpg)
It seems like it's pretty easy intersection for the other car to run the stop sign.
Only reason him to be put at fault was because he was out at the time the statement was given and the fact he was driving a lotus with a helmet on means he must have been speeding.. :rolleyes:
And it's an accident by a 65 yr lady which means they never lie :rolleyes: So the fast expensive "exotic" car driver with a helmet on must be at fault.
Even though that may not be what happened but that's a most likely scenerio for this since initial statement was probably only received from the person that caused the "accident" since the victum had to be airlifted to the hospital.
Quote from: sparkplug on June 19, 2008, 08:42:04 PM
Senior citizens have the right of way. It's a privilege that has to do with age.
Works for me!!! :lol: :ohyeah: :devil:
Got a link to the original thread?
Quote from: thecarnut on June 20, 2008, 10:51:30 AM
Got a link to the original thread?
Original thread doesn't have much info in it anymore because it was mostly deleted on the advice of the lawyer. All that remains is people asking if he was ok and then saying glad he was ok.
Darn, that sucks.
So...
Is his car for sale?
Quote from: NomisR on June 20, 2008, 09:59:12 AM
Well, considering he was driving
Through this intersection
It seems like it's pretty easy intersection for the other car to run the stop sign.
Only reason him to be put at fault was because he was out at the time the statement was given and the fact he was driving a lotus with a helmet on means he must have been speeding.. :rolleyes:
Was that the actual car? If so was it even registered for use on the street?
And it's an accident by a 65 yr lady which means they never lie :rolleyes: So the fast expensive "exotic" car driver with a helmet on must be at fault.
Even though that may not be what happened but that's a most likely scenerio for this since initial statement was probably only received from the person that caused the "accident" since the victum had to be airlifted to the hospital.
Quote from: Raza on June 20, 2008, 01:40:21 PM
So it's cheap?
Elises with structural damage are nearly impossible to repair, and without the chassis, all you're left with is a mediocre Toyota motor.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 20, 2008, 04:52:09 PM
Elises with structural damage are nearly impossible to repair, and without the chassis, all you're left with is a mediocre Toyota motor.
That would make for some expensive off track excursions.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 20, 2008, 04:52:09 PM
Elises with structural damage are nearly impossible to repair, and without the chassis, all you're left with is a mediocre Toyota motor.
Nearly impossible? I have a hammer, duct tape, and four seasons of MacGyver on DVD. I eat "nearly impossible" for breakfast.
Quote from: Raza on June 20, 2008, 08:22:25 PM
Nearly impossible? I have a hammer, duct tape, and four seasons of MacGyver on DVD. I eat "nearly impossible" for breakfast.
LOL.
I prefer frosted mini wheats actually.
Go for it.
He's simply not being straight on the story - it just doesn't make any sense. My hunch is that he was indeed speeding excessively.
The police report simply doesn't state "driver A ran stop sign and t-boned driver B. Driver A is at fault." There was reasoning behind their findings.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 20, 2008, 09:19:34 PM
He's simply not being straight on the story - it just doesn't make any sense. My hunch is that he was indeed speeding excessively.
The police report simply doesn't state "driver A ran stop sign and t-boned driver B. Driver A is at fault." There was reasoning behind their findings.
Well, since the guy had to be airlifted out, it's quite possible that he didn't get the chance to tell his side of the story to the officer on scene.
The question is: did the officer have anybody else there besides the other driver that gave their accounts?
Quote from: Raza on June 20, 2008, 08:22:25 PM
Nearly impossible? I have a hammer, duct tape, and four seasons of MacGyver on DVD. I eat "nearly impossible" for breakfast.
Raza, that's great!
Quote from: GoCougs on June 20, 2008, 09:19:34 PM
He's simply not being straight on the story - it just doesn't make any sense. My hunch is that he was indeed speeding excessively.
The police report simply doesn't state "driver A ran stop sign and t-boned driver B. Driver A is at fault." There was reasoning behind their findings.
Even so...she ran a stop sign...at the very least she is partially responsible.
Quote from: Submariner on June 21, 2008, 10:13:21 AM
Even so...she ran a stop sign...at the very least she is partially responsible.
Ohio crash reports require that one of the involved parties be marked as "at fault." Basically, the most at fault driver in the crash (usually the one with the biggest contributing factor in the crash itself) is marked as "at fault." That doesn't mean that both drivers couldn't have contributed significantly to the crash...I've cited both drivers out of a crash on many occasions and what they did to contribute to the crash was in the report, one is just usually more "at fault" than the other.
Quote from: NomisR on June 18, 2008, 03:23:55 PM
The police, not a lot of details were posted since he was advised by the lawyer not to so details were sketchy.
Just wondering if there's any reason this could have been done because it doesn't make sense.
My guess he's full of shit. Not enough details- doesn't sound kosher- and no need for a lawyer in a traffic ticket case- I call BS on this one right off the bat.
edit- I didn't see the airlifted part right away but my BS call stands.
Quote from: ifcar on June 19, 2008, 10:00:33 AM
Was he DUI? That's all I can think of.
DUI- suspended/denied/revoked- above posted limits/ unsafe speed for conditions (construction zone) - no lights- had turn signal on but didn't turn causing traffic crash- improper use of turning lane- improper lane usage (other)-
Several ways to be found at fault- especially if there were witnesses.
Quote from: NomisR on June 20, 2008, 09:59:12 AM
Even though that may not be what happened but that's a most likely scenerio for this since initial statement was probably only received from the person that caused the "accident" since the victum had to be airlifted to the hospital.
I've been to a lot of traffic crashes and I've never seen anyone wearing a crash helmet - that's strike one.
That looks really residential- so it's quite probably 25-35 mph zone and it's a construction zone so even if it WAS a 35 zone it's probably limited now to 25. Strike 2.
I've never ever seen anyone airlifted who was going 25-45 and hit broadside (angle) crash. Granted it's a small car but I've seen lots of small cars broadsided. Strike 3.
It just doesn't happen- there's way more to the story he's not telling like which side was he hit one- what was the secondary impact with- where did his car come to rest- how many feet of skid marks were there prior to primary impact from his car- how many after impact- how many after secondary impact- how many witnesses- lastly- what was his speed at 1)prior to impact 2)at point of impact 3)prior to and at point of secondary impact 4)how far from primary impact to resting point 5)how much damage to both cars (need to see photos to roughly guage crush data.
I just don't believe his story based on the little info and the photo.
Quote from: bing_oh on June 22, 2008, 12:08:28 AM
Ohio crash reports require that one of the involved parties be marked as "at fault." Basically, the most at fault driver in the crash (usually the one with the biggest contributing factor in the crash itself) is marked as "at fault." That doesn't mean that both drivers couldn't have contributed significantly to the crash...I've cited both drivers out of a crash on many occasions and what they did to contribute to the crash was in the report, one is just usually more "at fault" than the other.
We can cite both and we can find both equally at fault or we can simple find one at fault with the other having played a contributing factor.
Quote from: Submariner on June 21, 2008, 10:13:21 AM
Even so...she ran a stop sign...at the very least she is partially responsible.
An accident scene where two cars traveling at about the same speed collide at 90 degrees (presuming she blew the stop sign) would look much, much different than if the speed between the two cars varied greatly. Add in mass of the two vehicles, the point of contact between the two, and the distance each traveled after collision, and it's relatively easy to judge what happened.
IMO, the investigation showed he was at fault as accident investigation is pretty straight forward science. How exactly he was found to be at fault is hard to tell given how little information is available.
Quote from: rohan on June 22, 2008, 06:38:09 AM
I've been to a lot of traffic crashes and I've never seen anyone wearing a crash helmet - that's strike one.
Perhaps one reason for that is that the windshield on that car is all but removed completely- you'd need at the bare minimum some decent eyewear to drive that thing at any speed.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 22, 2008, 03:00:46 PM
Perhaps one reason for that is that the windshield on that car is all but removed completely- you'd need at the bare minimum some decent eyewear to drive that thing at any speed.
Yep. I'd definitely want a helmet in that car.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 22, 2008, 03:00:46 PM
Perhaps one reason for that is that the windshield on that car is all but removed completely- you'd need at the bare minimum some decent eyewear to drive that thing at any speed.
Then the car was illegal to drive and that's probably got something to do with it. Most if not all states require windshields -especially if they were originally equipped.
Quote from: rohan on June 22, 2008, 04:48:17 PM
Then the car was illegal to drive and that's probably got something to do with it. Most if not all states require windshields -especially if they were originally equipped.
Perhaps. There's a windshield there, but it can't be doing much of anything.
P.S: Would a Jeep with a folding windshield be illegal too then to drive around with the windshield folded down?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 22, 2008, 05:06:15 PM
Perhaps. There's a windshield there, but it can't be doing much of anything.
P.S: Would a Jeep with a folding windshield be illegal too then to drive around with the windshield folded down?
It's also illegal not to have a rear window, apparently - or so I learned when I drove from Mississississippi to South Carolina in my '79 LeMans after hurrican Katrina.
Quote from: NACar on June 22, 2008, 05:07:38 PM
It's also illegal not to have a rear window, apparently - or so I learned when I drove from Mississississippi to South Carolina in my '79 LeMans after hurrican Katrina.
All I know is that I drove around all the time in the Jeep with the windshield folded and no windows or doors and nobody ever pulled me over for it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 22, 2008, 05:11:35 PM
All I know is that I drove around all the time in the Jeep with the windshield folded and no windows or doors and nobody ever pulled me over for it.
I wonder if there is some exception to the law, or if the folding windshield is "for off road use only"
Quote from: NACar on June 22, 2008, 05:20:52 PM
I wonder if there is some exception to the law, or if the folding windshield is "for off road use only"
I don't know.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 22, 2008, 05:22:16 PM
I don't know.
Most likely the cops just overlook it because it's expected on a Jeep. It's not like they have the motor vehicle regulations memorized, they'll just pull you over if it looks unusual - such as a sheet of plastic on a 79 LeMans with a sagging rear end that might have a trunk full of drugs or Cubans.
Quote from: NACar on June 22, 2008, 05:24:49 PM
Most likely the cops just overlook it because it's expected on a Jeep. It's not like they have the motor vehicle regulations memorized, they'll just pull you over if it looks unusual - such as a sheet of plastic on a 79 LeMans with a sagging rear end that might have a trunk full of drugs or Cubans.
You're probably 100% correct there.
Although, I'd never make the claim that sometimes cops use minor equipment violations as an excuse to pull over a car just to find out if they were up to something more nefarious...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 22, 2008, 05:26:39 PMAlthough, I'd never make the claim that sometimes cops use minor equipment violations as an excuse to pull over a car just to find out if they were up to something more nefarious...
Why not? I'll openly admit that we use minor equipment violations to stop vehicles suspected of criminal activity. It's not a secret...it's called a pretextual stop and it's been upheld by the US Supreme Court as perfectly legal.
Here's some pictures of the car after the accident
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/neil_rat/IMG_0102.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/neil_rat/IMG_0107.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/neil_rat/IMG_0113.jpg)
Quote from: rohan on June 22, 2008, 06:38:09 AM
Several ways to be found at fault- especially if there were witnesses.
I've been to a lot of traffic crashes and I've never seen anyone wearing a crash helmet - that's strike one.
That looks really residential- so it's quite probably 25-35 mph zone and it's a construction zone so even if it WAS a 35 zone it's probably limited now to 25. Strike 2.
I've never ever seen anyone airlifted who was going 25-45 and hit broadside (angle) crash. Granted it's a small car but I've seen lots of small cars broadsided. Strike 3.
It just doesn't happen- there's way more to the story he's not telling like which side was he hit one- what was the secondary impact with- where did his car come to rest- how many feet of skid marks were there prior to primary impact from his car- how many after impact- how many after secondary impact- how many witnesses- lastly- what was his speed at 1)prior to impact 2)at point of impact 3)prior to and at point of secondary impact 4)how far from primary impact to resting point 5)how much damage to both cars (need to see photos to roughly guage crush data.
I just don't believe his story based on the little info and the photo.
My guess is, this is exactly the reason why he was found at fault regardless of actual fact. First you see a fast looking car, and then you see a guy driving with a helmet. Regardless of what actually happened, the officer would automatically assume the driver was speeding.
But the windshield or lackthereof is road legal in CA. It has the bare min required height for CA.
Quote from: NACar on June 22, 2008, 05:07:38 PM
It's also illegal not to have a rear window, apparently - or so I learned when I drove from Mississississippi to South Carolina in my '79 LeMans after hurrican Katrina.
What a worthless law. How does it square with convertibles/roadsters?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 22, 2008, 05:06:15 PM
Perhaps. There's a windshield there, but it can't be doing much of anything.
P.S: Would a Jeep with a folding windshield be illegal too then to drive around with the windshield folded down?
Must have windshield up in Michigan. However, I suppose as long as your not hurting anyone officers in your area generally have more to do than bother with that. But, you could get a citation.
Quote from: NomisR on June 23, 2008, 09:48:48 AM
My guess is, this is exactly the reason why he was found at fault regardless of actual fact. First you see a fast looking car, and then you see a guy driving with a helmet. Regardless of what actually happened, the officer would automatically assume the driver was speeding.
But the windshield or lackthereof is road legal in CA. It has the bare min required height for CA.
You are joking, I hope. Officers see fast looking cars on a daily basis, and many have fast cars themselves. We are hardly impressed upon that easily, otherwise, police would fall for every lie ever told to us.
What we look for is totality of circumstances when investigating a traffic crash for fault.
And, failing to find the "totality of circumstances" opt for excessive speed as a politically safe haven.
Quote from: NomisR on June 23, 2008, 09:48:48 AM
My guess is, this is exactly the reason why he was found at fault regardless of actual fact. First you see a fast looking car, and then you see a guy driving with a helmet. Regardless of what actually happened, the officer would automatically assume the driver was speeding.
He would have had to have been going at some pretty spectacular speeds for me to take a speed over a stop sign violation when determining at fault in a crash. Besides, I don't know of any officer who would make speed the primary contributing cause in a crash without spmething more than a fast-looking car and a schmuch who thinks he's Mario Andretti and likes to wear a helmet...like, maybe, skid marks?
Quote from: bing_oh on June 23, 2008, 11:02:55 PM
He would have had to have been going at some pretty spectacular speeds for me to take a speed over a stop sign violation when determining at fault in a crash. Besides, I don't know of any officer who would make speed the primary contributing cause in a crash without spmething more than a fast-looking car and a schmuch who thinks he's Mario Andretti and likes to wear a helmet...like, maybe, skid marks?
Excellent! I congratulate you. You have no idea how rare that is.
Quote from: hounddog on June 23, 2008, 10:07:14 PM
You are joking, I hope. Officers see fast looking cars on a daily basis, and many have fast cars themselves. We are hardly impressed upon that easily, otherwise, police would fall for every lie ever told to us.
What we look for is totality of circumstances when investigating a traffic crash for fault.
Yeah, but you look at rohan's post, the driver was basically deemed at fault already without any further investigation. Well, will have to see what happens when in court I guess.
Rohan found him at fault based on the tiny shards of information you gave us.
Even I could read that out his posts.
Quote from: James Young on June 23, 2008, 11:08:29 PM
You have no idea how rare that is.
I am fairly confident you do not either.