accident report

Well Steve, you do bring up a good point. The story here keeps changing from a 35 MPH T-Bone to now what looks like a sideswipe form a merge where the truck did not yield right of way. The part not being talked about is what Nates wife did or didn't do in the situation. Did she apply her brakes or even sound her horn to try and avoid the accident? I would suspect that one of the reasons why the officer did not issue a summons is that if he did, he might have to issue one to Nates wife as well for as Max defines it, careless driving. If she saw what was happening, which according to Nate, she did and did nothing to attempt to avoid it, then she did not take complete control of her vehicle and again, by the Max definition, could be sited for careless driving. Without any tickets issued, it is still clearly the fault of the other driver but if tickets were issued and the ones being summoned choose to fight them, a whole new world of hurt could begin for both sides and since he did not witness the accident or the events leading up to it, he played it safe.

Reply to
TBone
Loading thread data ...

the "story" has never changed. it has been clarified as different information has been requested.

i find that statement ill-informed. my wife was driving down a busy city street when from nowhere a truck slams into her side. she did nothing wrong here. she saw the truck coming a split second before impact and attempted to swerve but was unable to due to oncoming traffic and lack of adequate warning.

the highway patrolman did tell me that he could have issued a citation for failure to get the address changed on her drivers license, and for not having her insurance card with her. neither of these however, would prevent issuing a ticket for a moving violation.

Reply to
Nathan W. Collier

I am not calling you a liar Nate but first it was a T-Bone at 35 MPH and now I don't have a clue what it was. You did mention a stop sign somewhere near the accident but who had to stop there. You also mentioned 35 MPH AND that there was no hard right which indicated that it was more of a merge situation with your wife obviously having the right of way.

With the above information and the fact that you did say that your wife was wondering which vehicle he was going to hit, hers or the one in front of her, it appeard from what YOU said, that she had more than a split second which is the whole point, there are too many possible variables for the officer to make assumptions on. Now if this was a merge situation gone bad, why didn't your wife see the truck coming or how even could the truck come out of nowhere?

Sure it would have. A violation is a violation and if he tickets for one, he has to ticket for all of them.

Reply to
TBone

You sure seem to have made a bunch of assumptions about it and you think you know a lot about it

I never got fired fro ma teaching job Jerry, thats just something you made up. I await proof otherwise.

LOL, yeah, it must seem like that to those with limited knowledge of how the tenure system works.

Wow, thats somehting I don't recall, likely because it never happened. Feel free to post proof of that too.

I wasn't fired from any jobs, but feel free to bring proof of your claims.

How it screwed me out of what? Jeez Jerry, ya ought to come up with some facts before ya go posting so much crap.

I don't recall either of them being a major deal, I don't even remember the comic books.

You really ought to get proof of this stuff Jerry.

I'd read em if they existed, but I doubt they exist.

It'd be great if someone would back your claims, but no one is.

Well, you seem to think you know my resume, so go ahead, recite it for us.

Wow, you sure do write a lot of shit in reply to one or two lines from me.

Your turn.

Reply to
Max Dodge

well, ask a question, you gotta accept the answer.

i guess that the answer is pretty much........no......... huh tom and max?

Reply to
theguy

LOL.... well using your often used tactics I don't have to prove anything. But if you're really interested just go back to July 21, 1999 in this very ng and you will find what you seek.

Gee maxi, how can you not recall either being a major deal and yet not remember them at the same time..... damn those archived posts.... get you every time.

Don't need it..... you just proved it.

But you just said they were not a major deal...... so they must exist....make up your mind maxi.

Naw..... i had already decided today that I was through with you maxipad. Exposing you for what your really are has some rewards I guess but it also has the downside that I have to stoop to your level to do it. Very distasteful....... kind of like having to scoop the dog litter out in the yard. So come on back with your moronic last word that seems to be driving you over the edge and then maybe you can get a good nights sleep. I'm sure mommy will enjoy no more screams in the night. I guess you realize by now that all anyone just has to do a google search of news groups with the name Max340 and all your old bullshit pissing matches pop right up. You can run but you can't hide maxipad. Oh BTW, I did find it very interesting the two names you chose to identify as very close friends on this ng. Very interesting indeed. How is that saying.... Birds of a feather......Good night Cliff....

Nate, I am glad your family and no one else was hurt in the accident and hope you get your truck fixed soon. Only point I was making with you was I thought you were being a little more concerned about depreciation value than need be. I guess to each his own. Sorry your thread turned into a shitty pissing match but I'm sure you have seen it before.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry

Whjat I seek is proof that you are correct. What I'll find is surely something different. Thats why I choose to let you prove it by posting it here on this thread. Once again amusing that you went looking for it.

What archived posts, you haven't posted anything that proves what you've said, so.... keep trying.

LOL, yeah, I guess you finally decided that you had enough of playing the games you claim you don't, only to retreat after claiming you weren't gonna post anymore.

LOL, The part where you stooped was where you attacked Nate for having legitimate concerns, attacked TomL for eloquently stating his point, attacked Tbone for whatever, depending on the day, attacked Budd for being Budd, and then decided t call me names for no apparent reason.

All of it was below the normal conduct you practice in here. IOW Jerry, despite the fact that I regularly disagree with you, it was worth dragging you around a bit until you realized that you had in fact, gotten off the normally respectable hole you claim. I dunno WTF your problem was, but hey, you jumped into the mud.

Nothing to hide from, Jerry, as you haven't proven a damn thing, since none of the things you've claimed were true.

Yeah, I guess it wouldn't surprise you to figure I'd spent several hours via phone and internet helping TomL with trans difficulties, since you attacked him too. Hell, for all the arguing you seem to think I did with Nate, I'd be glad to chat with him and help out if he had a problem. Remember Lee? He stopped here for several nights, even camped out in a local bar for a couple of them, drinking and having a good time. Yeah, I'm such an asshole.

Your turn.

Reply to
Max Dodge

oh i didnt think you were.

no, i said that he was travelling at 35mph, not that the actual impact itself was while travelling 35 mph. the 35 mph is relevant to show his negligence.....you dont travel through parking lots at 35 mph and the driveway is maybe 75 feet so he had to be running 35 through the parking lot, assuming the highway patrolman's estimate is correct based upon the skid marks and whatever else they use to assess speed.

its not a merge driveway, but its not 90 degrees either.

relatively short driveway, truck was still in the parking lot while in my wifes direct field of view.

Reply to
Nathan W. Collier

Ok, fair enough. Since I have no idea what the intersection looks like, I'll keep my opinion and theory's to myself (hard to believe, huh :-) Either way, I'm still glad that none of your family was hurt and I hope that your wife's tests came out ok. I am curious as to what the insurance company is going to do about the depreciation issue so if you don't mind, let us know what they did (in general).

Reply to
TBone

no, i _asked_ for your (collectively) opinion and im not going to whine about the ones i dont like. i just want to make sure all facts are clear.

certainly. im not worried, my attorney is prepared to move forward if my insurance company doesnt make me a reasonable offer.

Reply to
Nathan W. Collier

As far as determining liability, the insurance reps actually do look at that. If driver A was on the main road, and driver B was on a side street and ran into driver A, driver B's agent will try to determine if the driver A did everything they could to avoid the accident, even though the driver B failed to yield the right of way. If driver A could have swerved to avoid the accident, braked, beeped the horn, but didn't, then the settlement might be reduced by a certain percentage in some states. Actually no one "has" the right of way, the question is who is required to "yield" the right of way.

John

Reply to
JPH

I think thats your best bet. Sucks spending money on a lawyer, but then you don't have to do the leg work or keep after anyone but him. Means the business of making money keeps going. eases the mind a bit too.

Reply to
Max Dodge

In my State "Massachusetts" if a person pulls out of a private driveway or business driveway, they are at fault 100% unless the person already in that road way is on the wrong side of the road.

The driver that is coming from the non-public funded road has to yield to= all on-coming traffic.

Your State may have different road rules, check them out!

Kurt

P.S.

That was a nice truck.

Due to E-Mail spamming bots my reply address is incorrect.

Reply to
Kurt

Especially when anti-lock brakes are involved.

Reply to
Ghingus

not an issue here, he was driving an 80's f250. i know ford started putting anti-locks on the late 80's f150 but i dont think they made their way into the heavy duty line until the 90s.

Reply to
Nathan W. Collier

even then wasnt it a RWAL system?

-chris

Reply to
Christopher Thompson

i dont think so, not on the heavy duty trucks. perhaps someone else knows more about the ford line than i do.

Reply to
Nathan W. Collier

Well, one good reason to stop before entering the traffic from a driveway, alley or parking lot entrance gate is

BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO STOP IN MOST STATES.

But check your state's current driver's licensing manual to be sure.

Budd

Reply to
Budd Cochran

Good driving habits, if not the letter of the law, require two complete stops and visual checks: one for pedestrians before crossing the sidewalk and one for approaching vehicles before entering the roadway.

Rick

Reply to
Yofuri

Absolutely. Utah does, Colorado does, Indiana does. Those are the three states I've held driver's licenses for and the US military does also.

Budd

Reply to
Budd Cochran

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.