Jump to content
CaddyInfo Cadillac Forum

Your opinion...please


Caddyman

Recommended Posts

Well. got in an accicdent today with the caddy :( (not too bad)

this was yesterday at 830 pm and slippery roads. the driver in front of me lost control of her vehicle, and I collided with her passenger door, like a t-bone. no one was hurt, but she had BALD rear tires! I think she hit the brakes, locked up the rear a and spun, I had no where to go, on a two-lane road.

who's fault do oyu think it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Woops, sorry to hear that. Hope everyone was ok.

Often these are marked as no-fault I suppose because it is not obvious.

I think you can argue that you had a reasonable expectation that the car ahead of you would not suddenly turn 90 degrees to their path of travel. And I think you are correct in criticizing their car condition as being a contributing factor to the accident. On the other hand, were you following too close for conditions -- i.e., did you have time to stop if they had not gone sideways, but instead slid to a panic stop turned the right way around?

Bruce

2016 Cadillac ATS-V gray/black

Follow me on: Twitter Instagram Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vehicle with bald tires is inherently unsafe and should not be on the road at any time, period. Tires are what makes contact with the road and are the most important piece of safety equipment on the car - more so than seatbelts and airbags. Brakes create friction and heat, but the tires ultimately stop the car. They should at least write her a ticket for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle - just as if she were caught not wearing a seatbelt.

For you to be not at fault, you would have had to be following at a safe distance for the speed you were driving. I know how you feel. I once hit a woman in the back who had no brake lights. No brake lights signaled me that the vehicle was moving. It wasn't. I turned to check my mirrors, looked up and realized too late that this vehicle was stopped right in front of me. I made sure that the woman was alright, but the second thing I said to her was that her brake lights did not work and I did not realize she was stopped (bright sunny day).

Vehicles without brake lights don't belong on the road either!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's tough one. It could be argued that she caused the accident by "driving to fast for conditions" and "operating an unsafe vehicle". She (or her attorney) would argue that you were "following too close for conditions". Was any body ticketed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she lost control of her vehicle for no reason wouldn't it be her fault. About 4 months ago I was following an old toyota and the lady driving it slammed on the brakes for no apparent reason and I bumped her from behind. It was her fault because she put on the brakes for no reason. Her insurance covered it. It seems kinda like your situation!

IMPORT CRUSHER

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

police werent sent because it was an emergency conditin, and they wouldnt respond to non-emergency calls. She lost control because her tires were bald, and spun, I was on a two lane road, about 2-3 car lengths behind her, no where to go.

In Virginia, you must have a minimal tred depth on your tires, and furthermore, on a snow emergency road, you canot drive a vehicle that is not properly suited to no cause any type of delay or blockage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I want to say sorry about the accident.

The violations she committed was failure to maintian her vehicle, and loosing control of her car. If her hitting another vechicle as the result of her loss of control, she would have been at falut.

Leagally and--yes--morally it was your falut. Sorry if you don't like my stance, but was your fault 100% Let's be fair! You lost control of your vehicle; othewise, you would not have hit her. What you're trying to do is blame your loss of control on her loss of control. If you are in controll of your vehicle, you can stop it before you hit something--no matter what the circumstances. If you cannot understand this concept, you follow too close.

(When I went to school, they had Driver's Ed. It consisted of one hour a day, 5 days a week, and it lasted for the semester. I fugured it out quckly, but as a safety measure, this concept was most redundant, trying to beat it into people's heads. There are cases where you get hit, and there is nothing you can do about it. However, if you're a defensive driver, other than a car pulling out in front of you, it is impossible to hit the car in front of you, without it being your falut.)

You didn't allow enough room, and you said so. You stated that you had 2 to 3 car lengts. Car lenths and following distance have nothing to do with each other. If they still teach such things in Driver's Ed, following distance becomes exponential with speed. To set a base line, 10 mph requires one car lentht, 20 mph requires 2, 30 requires 3. So you were doing 20 to 30 mph--correct?

That forumla is only for ideal conditions. The conditions were less than ideal, so you should double it, meaning that in order for it "not to have been your fault," the speed you were traveling would have been 10 to 15 mph. (I'm not being nasty, I'm just trying to show you why the accident was your falut.

As I do when I drive, I'm giving you ample leeway: That one car lenght for each 10 mph is flawed because stopping distance becomes exponential with speed. You should have 2 to 3 seconds between you and the car in front of you. (99.9% of the drivers on the road never have 2 seconds, so lots of people cannot understand why it's their fault when they plow into someone.)

At 10 mph, one car lenght is about 2 seconds. At 20 mph, 2 car lenghts is a little less than 2 seconds. I don't remember the forumula, but it's less than 2 seconds. Let's say it's 1.89 seconds. That means that at 60 mph, six car lenthts is much less than 2 seconds. If you always maintain maintain at least 2 seconds, and have the average .75 second reaction time, you stand a good chance at not running into the car in front. Remember this formula only applies to ideal contitions, and when conditions deterioate, you need more than 2 seconds.

What I'm stating is fact, not opinon, and if you were following the rules of the road, it would have never happened. You have to remember I zero sympathy for people who run into the car in front because I understand and I drive using the the simple concept of safe following distance, allowing me to stop, even if they slam on ther brakes for no reason.

I've been down that road too. I'vb been rear ended 3 times, twice fairly light taps and clobered hard once. All three times, the idiot in front of me slammed on their brakes. (Well, one idiot's car stalled @ 40 mph, and he shifted it into "park" to restare it.) In all cases I stopped. In the cases of the 2 love taps, I had plenty of room beteen me and the idiot, but the people in back couldn't stop. In the clobbered case--the idito shifting into park--I also stopped. In fact, I had enough time to look at the guy in his rear view mirror and just start to mough wtf, when I got clobbered from behind, pushing me into the car in front.

The point I'm making with total accident history is that I always been able to stop. (I'm not claiming that I have never come close to plowing into someone. The thing is that I was luckey enough to "wake up" in time. The thing is that if I didn't wake up, I certainly wouldn't try to blame the person who stopped.) The point is that I always manage to stop. Because I always manage to stop, why can't the rest of the people stop? It's because of driver error from the driver behind.

You and others are probally pissed off at me. That's okay because lots of people piss me off when I drive, especailly tailgaters, meaning most drivers. My goal isn't to piss you off; instead, it's trying to show you an important fact that you overlook. If you and other's don't understand, I'm sorry, and we should move on and enjoy exchanging comments on whatever issues that arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no one was hurt, but she had BALD rear tires! I think she hit the brakes, locked up the rear a and spun, I had no where to go, on a two-lane road.

If this isn't an argument for mandatory state equipment inspections (which include a minimum tread depth), I don't know what is. Personally, I don't think the worldwide-accepted 2/32" tread depth is enough tread...I always replace my tires way before they get to that point, but unfortunately, that's where the wear bars are and that's where the legal limit is I think.

It sounds like you're from Virginia, and that's great -- because they have mandatory inspections annually. Check into that to see what the depth threashold is -- and then see if you can measure her tires. It sounds like you won't have access to her vehicle, so that may not be possible. But if you can, measure them, and then check the windshield decal to find out when it was last inspected.

In the end, I agree with Bbobynski -- if you couldn't stop, for whatever reason, you were too close. Depending on the speed, and the snowy conditions, 2-3 car lengths isn't near enough to be able to stop in an emergency. Under snowy or icy conditions, I use the 5-second rule. Stay at least 5 seconds behind someone, because that's likely how long it'll take you to stop if they hit another car or lose control themselves.

Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond)

"When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was traveling at 7~10 mph. The VA state minimum is 2/32 of an inch, but I beleive that her negligence in driving an unsafe and dangerous car, was the cause of the accicdent. That was the cause of the acident, and the cause of her doing a 90 degree flip, and blocking both lanes.

Thanks for all of your inputs.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling is that you will each bear some responsibility for the accident.

If the other driver's tires were worn PAST the safe tread depth, and that is why it went out of control, I believe that would be contributory negligence.

As for you, if you were following a safe distance, you should have been able to stop before hitting the other car. One must also take into account that we are not perfect and sometime our attention can be distracted, for a moment, and if your reaction time is not exceptional.....accidents will occur.

It is difficult to judge distances, straight in front of you. For example; in California the dashed lines on the freeway are 9' long, most people would swear they are only 3' long. Reflectors are typically spaced at 50', most people would think about 15' to 20' apart. Notice that all lettering, that is placed on the road, has exaggerated height, but normal width. This is to increase readability by drivers viewing it head-on, when moving toward it.

Next time when it is safe, glance at the road lines and/or reflectors straight over your shoulder, and think about the line and reflector spacing. Looking to the side and seeing the "true" length at high speeds can be a real eyeopener.

I would recommend not following at any particular car length. The prevailing rule is follow at 2 seconds when in a car, and 4 seconds when in a truck (big rig). If your speeds go past 70 mph increase your following time by 2 seconds (and watch out for the Highway Patrol).

Good luck with your car, and try to take this accident in stride. As bad or angry as you may feel, use it as a learning experience, to never let it happen to you again.

-George

Drive'em like you own 'em. - ....................04 DTS............................

DTS_Signature.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Michigan it would depend on the mood of the officer that came to the scene. Both parties could get a ticket. Her for not retaining control of her vehicle and you for following too close for conditions. A couple of weeks ago I rolled my Geo metro while dodging a deer and very much could have gotten a ticket for not having complete control of the car. In Michigan, you are not supposed to swerve for a deer which the officer stated to me. I rebuted with the fact that it is a Geo Metro, a car that sits low to the ground and with a hood the slopes down to the bumper. I told her that there was no way that I would hit a deer with that car because there is a good chance that it would launch up the hood and through the windshield into the passenger compartment. One of the paramedics concured with my theory and she did not issue a citation.

Caddy_Grill.jpg2008 DTS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad that both of you are o.k.. Unfortunatly I have to agree with the majority in that you were following too close for the conditions. If you were following far enough behind you should have gotten stopped. I have seen it time and time again, people follow other people too close in bad conditions. You said there was no place to go, what about the berm or ditch.

I was following someone in a car once, it was a couple and they were kissing. I looked through their car and saw that the person in front of them had there brakes on to turn so I slowed down. Well the kissing couple were destracted just long enough to hit her when she turned. The driver that hit her claimed she did not have her signal on, but when we looked the signal was still on.

I realize sometimes we do not like to admit we messed up, but in your case I think you should claim some responsibility. We all make mistakes and sometimes we have to pay for it. Sorry I know it is not what you want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who married an insurance adjuster...(It was late and I was drunk)...

The majority here are correct and you will probably be hit with 100%. Sorry about the bad news. Oh and she asked me to add that you shouldn't confuse liability and legality they are related but can be different.

For example... Driver A turning left slams into Driver B who is going straight through the intersection... lets say Driver B was doing 20MPH over the speed limit and tells the attending officer this fact... Guess what will happen...

Driver B will get a ticket and Driver A will get 100% of the liability. Why? Because liability law is about what a logical person would do in a given situation... My wife would love claims like this... "But the other driver was speeding" my wife would reply "So you turned left in front of a speeding vehicle... 100%... Next!"...

Other complaints such as the other driver: "had bald tires", "was illegally parked", "stop suddenly", "was going too slow", "was going to fast"...etc etc. etc. usually had little impact (sorry about the bad pun) on liability...

caddy.jpg

Easin' down the highway in a new Cadillac,

I had a fine fox in front, I had three more in the back

ZZTOP, I'm Bad I'm Nationwide

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caddyman;

Unless I missed something:

"You were going between 7 and 10 mph, and following 2- 3 car lengths behind and the car in front of you spins out."

Wow, It's hard for me to fathom why you would be charged. With that rational did everyone involved in the pile up on I80 in PA a few days ago get charged ... because these folks obviously wern't in control of their vehicles (... neither was the $hit bird who was driving the rig that jack-kniffed that triggered the event)?

3 car lengths at 7 MPH (best case scenairo) that's a pretty good cushion, though I would add more depending how icy/snowy it was as well as the terrain, flat, hilly, curves ... etc.

OynxSTS:

If you get a chance it would be interesting to hear who's liabile when someone cuts in/pulls out in front of you and then gets on the brakes thus creating a rear end collision.

JIm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats hard to tell I know that 9 out of 10 its the person followings fault but in your case it could be different story do to her tires and the fact that there was slippery roads make it even better. Good luck.

user posted image

Defending Northstar perf a qtr mile at a time!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I understand the whole rea-ender thing. If had rear ended her, for almost any reason, it would be my fault, but the principle reason/cause of the accicedent was her conscience neglegence of driving an unsafe, illegal, ill-suited car in snaow and ice with BALD tires!

If she had proper tires, and proper tread depth, so on, she would not have lost control, that is my argument. Bear in mind that onthe street it happened has a cement median to the left and a cemet road-noise blocker ont he right (10 feet+ high) so there was no where to "turn off"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OynxSTS:

If you get a chance it would be interesting to hear who's liabile when someone cuts in/pulls out in front of you and then gets on the brakes thus creating a rear end collision.

JIm

Unless you get an independent witness the person doing the rear-ending would be liable. Un-like most other law... in terms of liability you are not innocent until proven guilty. In all accidents one vehicle will be "declared" "dominant". The dominant vehicle is always presumed innocent. In the case of rear-enders, the dominant vehicle is the one being rear-ended. In the case of left turns the car going straight through the intersection is dominant.

I know this sucks but it is the way the insurance/liability industry works.

My wife took a second look at your situation and she suspects that your adjuster will tell you that the proximate cause of the accident was not the first driver loosing it…due to bad tires but was due to the icy street. Or in other words, both cars lost control the first one was lucky not to hit anything… The second one not so.

But hey this is just one adjuster opinion in a remote part of a different country… Your adjuster is there to argue for you (and your insurance company).

If you’re lucky, maybe the first driver will have a rookie adjuster and when he goes in for his claim he will say it’s all his fault and just fall on his sword… In my wife’s opinion this is your best hope for a win.

Let us all know how this turns out… For your case I hope we are wrong. Good Luck!

caddy.jpg

Easin' down the highway in a new Cadillac,

I had a fine fox in front, I had three more in the back

ZZTOP, I'm Bad I'm Nationwide

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as you may guess from my member name, I am an attorney in NY who practices personal injury law. No offense, but you have a tough case. I'd take hers in a heartbeat over yours. Not to say I wouldnt take yours, and that you might still have a valid claim, but at best, there is 50-50 liability (AT BEST).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is that it is legally your fault. You were following too close to stop. Period. Whether she slid sideways or whatever....

Correct. The police will put you at fault simply because no matter what is happening in front of you, you should be able to stop your vehicle without incidence.

With a good attorney you might be able to get some of the fault on her but it's not likely and will probably cost you more than what the car and damage are worth. However, you may need an attorney anyway since she might end up suing you. I would consult with an attorney.

If you really want to make people safe drivers again then simply remove all the safety features from cars. No more seat belts, ABS brakes, traction control, air bags or stability control. No more anything. You'll see how quickly people will slow down and once again learn to drive like "normal" humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point I would like to add is:

This is also a good time to say that everyone should be carrying a camera at all times. Photograph the accident scene from a 365 degree angle as well as the damage to both vehicles and the contributing circumstances which in this case was bad tires and maybe bad road conditions.

Example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?...ation_id=136174

Because of these photographs I took of a dreadful accident, this man was able to sue the bus company and receive full compensation for this accident and the destruction of his vehicle. Also, the witness statement that I gave was paramount. The camera was a Yashica T4 loaded with Ilford 3200 speed black and white film.

If you really want to make people safe drivers again then simply remove all the safety features from cars. No more seat belts, ABS brakes, traction control, air bags or stability control. No more anything. You'll see how quickly people will slow down and once again learn to drive like "normal" humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing fancy, but I have a camera stashed in every one of my vehicles. They're just one ot those twenty shot disposable jobs with a built in flash. I got a dozen of them fairly cheap ( <7 bucks each). A small price to pay, that could save you big money and time.

'93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is a no brainer. He was following too close. Doesn't matter if the car in front had cement blocks or go cart tires on. What the car DID do was force you to react and obviously you were too close to be able to control your vehicle in a timely manner. The roadways are constantly full of unpredictable events and you cannot control them. You can, however, control your driving habits to better deal with unpredictable conditions.

I used to date this girl and she managed to flip her new Honda with new tires on I81 and in dry conditions. Rolled that Honda 5 times. Maybe if she had bald tires on it wouldn't have happened. What caused the accident you ask? She was distracted with the radio knobs. I give her credit though because she didn't try to blame her negligence on the driver next to her who managed to stay in his lane. That's right, she knew it was her fault and didn't try to side step it. Would be refreshing to see more of that.

"Burns" rubber

" I've never considered myself to be all that conservative, but it seems the more liberal some people get the more conservative I become. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...