sharkey

iTrader: (1)

Yeah.. but anyone who has been in a accident likes to think they are not at fault, no matter the type..

If i was o.p. reading the replies.. id be like "crap, my premium is going to go up"..

Again.. he needs to lick his wounds..

JSolo

iTrader: (14)

@BB, given the scenario in post #12, under what circumstances would the vehicle with the green light share fault? Perhaps if he gunned it as soon as the light turned green.

If one is going with the flow of traffic and someone runs a red light there may not even be time to react.

Black Betty

iTrader: (60)

Red light runner is at fault for running the red light, obviously. Green light driver is required to yeild to a vehicle already in the intersection. If he doesn't, then he failed to yeild. Simply having a green light doesn't absolve a driver from exercising due caution in avoiding a collision. You can't simply "go" under any circilumstabce just because you have a green light. The same principle why you aren't allowed to simply smash into the side of a car that's blocking the intersection when your light turns green. You are required to wait for them to clear before you go, even though they aren't supposed to be there.

Keep in mind that most US traffic laws typically state which vehicle is legally obligated to yeild, not who has the right of way. There's a subtle difference.

Google "yeild to vehicle in intersection" and I'm sure you'll get various interpretations from different states. It varies somewhat from place to place.

nogoer

I feel your pain man. You're def at fault but people can be real frakking aholes sometimes. The red light runner didnt even make it fully into the intersection and the other guy just slammed on the brakes in panic. Who isn't in some sort of tailgatingish position in this scenario when a pack of traffic is pulling out from a red light.

I was in an accident last year on a 3 lane highway where some absolute moron in a plow truck in the middle lane just decelerated hard for some unknown reason. The woman behind him panicked and in her attempt to avoid that guy invaded the left lane which was full of other vehicles coming up to highway speed. I admittedly was following the pickup in front of me too close and when he zagged to avoid her because she was now in the left lane i had nowhere to go and beaned her from behind. I still dont understand how a car invading my lane is my fault when she is supposed to yield to a full lane of cars before merging.

canucklehead

iTrader: (9)

^ unfortunately, the spirit of "defensive driving" sometimes enables the morons of the world to continue doing what they do best - that is, leave a trail of destruction and frustration in their wakes. and if you are the unlucky person to come into contact with a moron, you somehow end up losing in the eyes of the law/insurance. one can only hope the morons will end up generally losing in life as a whole so your loss would be minor in comparison.

(tongue planted firmly in cheek) only other solution is to colonize a new country or republic where people are hand picked according to their aptitudes, abilities and judgment to create a utopian civilization. isn't that what Trump is aiming for?

2008G-Man

No, just wants the laws of our nation followed and come into this country legally, abiding by those laws. I love when a Canadian makes smarky remarks about our country. Why do you have border security going into Canada?

Ryne

iTrader: (12)

A little more than 7mph...

kickintheglass

^ I've been hit as a pedestrian at this speed. And it was definitely faster than 7mph

canucklehead

iTrader: (9)

^ OT, but trust me, we have just as high percentage of moron drivers as you guys down south and our share of questionable residents/visitors up here, at least in the larger metropolis. and we have a growing number of furious citizens who will hopefully force the problem into a campaign issue.

CAD border security has been a bit of a running joke for a while. just don't try to tell them that...

The Bark

Yeah, unfortunate all the way around. I just had someone back into my car parked on the street in front of the house just the other day. Damage isn't too bad, but the hassle of getting it fixed and potential hidden costs when I sell it/trade it in have me more angry as I went through that with my last car. The stuff shows up on Carfax/Autocheck and become negotiation points, not to mention trying to get a DV (Diminished Value Claim) is pointless considering the damage may only be $1500-2000. And this is just two weeks after somebody egged my car and damaged the paint overnight on July 4th.

Kris9884

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, this will probably not be a cut and dry 100% fault case. The insurance companies will likely split faults of some kind. You obviously followed too closely and didn't stop when you should've so it would mostly be yours. Either way, whatevs, glad to hear you'll be coming out with a fresh front end.

bikezilla

iTrader: (2)

The driver in front had turn signals on, was traveling at a reasonable speed and stopped in a pretty obvious and controlled fashion.

It's difficult to understand why the following driver did could stop also unless they were distracted. From the vid it looks like the follower didn't brake at all before the collision. Of course that is hard to tell from a dashboard vid.

Sorry OP, it would be a long row to hoe, to get the IC to see no fault on your part.

But thanks for sharing the vid. It suxorz this happened, especially since the cause was that someone half-stepped into the intersection.

At least you do have insurance.

This week my co-worker got rear-ended by someone that was hit from behind and forced into him.

Even though the ppl who hit him were not at fault, they had no insurance, mis-matched registration/vin/plates and suspended license.

When the Po-po arrived they seized their car and were forced to call for someone to get them... The person who showed up *also* had expired plates and inspection.
F'in scofflaws!

bikezilla

iTrader: (2)

Seems fairly cut and dry to me.
For example what if instead, an animal ran into the intersection.
The driver in front would still have had to stop, and the follower would have to as well.

There are very few circumstances I can think of when hitting the rear of another car is not the following car's fault.

All operators are obligated to maintain a safe stopping distance between themselves and the vehicle in front of them. They are also obligated to maintain enough awareness to observe a situation and have the ability to react.

Mostly because it is unreasonably difficult to be responsible for yourself as well as the car behind you.

The Bark

There's also something to be said that looking at the older versions, you knew it was an Infiniti. Well... that's because you have a posteriori knowledge/experience based on what, thirteen years of hindsight? It's a brand new design and several years from now, people will identify it with the Infiniti they have come to know, too.

Black Betty

iTrader: (60)