jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) No one expects, or is required to anticipate a 2000 lb. stationary object in the passing lane. Why yes , yes they do. All the time in fact. Those who dont generally (virtually universally) get an @ fault accident on their insurance records Cite? . Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Who really cares who pays for the motorcycle? . What are you talking about. Things are becoming clearer. I dont think you know much about insurance matters. Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Cite? . For what? That people are trained and do keep a proper lookoput for things on the road in front of them? If so...I cite common knowledge and humans desire to not want to die. Quote
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 What are you talking about. Things are becoming clearer. I dont think you know much about insurance matters. This is a criminal matter. . Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 This is a criminal matter. . And we are talking about both. Quote
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) For what? For this: Those who dont generally (virtually universally) get an @ fault accident on their insurance records That people are trained and do keep a proper lookoput for things on the road in front of them? If so...I cite common knowledge and humans desire to not want to die. You've never driven behind a truck you couldn't see past?. Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) And we are talking about both.No, you've deked into 'insurance' to distract, because criminal responsibility is clear.Do you think the motorcycle owner''s insurance should pay for her car? . Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 For this: Those who dont generally (virtually universally) get an @ fault accident on their insurance records You've never driven behind a truck you couldn't see past? . If someone hits or runs into a fixed object on the road they are at fault. This would include a car parked/broken down etc. If the object is on the move , rolling ,bouncing etc then they are not at fault. Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) No, you've deked into 'insurance' to distract, because criminal responsibility is clear.No , not at all. Some of us understand there are broader implications involved. Do you think the motorcycle owner''s insurance should pay for her car? . Do ' I ' think ? No, I know for a fact that it wont. However that is not to say the MC drivers insurance record took a hit. Maybe just maybe that may be transferred to his wifes record, but likely will not be. Edited July 9, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
GostHacked Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Not to me, no, nor to you. But I believe some people here are inclined to blame the man on the motorcycle more than the 'soft hearted woman' chasing ducklings. I was replying to one of them. . Well, ask yourself if you would do the same thing she did. If so, why? If not, why? Edited July 9, 2014 by GostHacked Quote
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Why yes , yes they do. All the time in fact. Those who dont generally (virtually universally) get an @ fault accident on their insurance records "stationary"? We expect moving cars, and we keep a reasonable distance from them ... a distance that assumes that they will take time to stop too. But a parked car? When you often can't see past vehicles in front of you? I don't think we're expected to anticipate that. . Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 "stationary"?Yes stationary, as in fixed in spot. Like a tire, a log perhaps, all sorts of things fall on roads and become stationary We expect moving cars, and we keep a reasonable distance from them ... a distance that assumes that they will take time to stop too.We do expect moving cars, we also expect hazards to present themselves. And when we dont keep a reasonable distance, we tend to hit them. So thank you for finally coming to the realization that the MC driver failed to do so. But a parked car?Parked, broken down, crashed, abandoned,stopped in traffic, doesnt matter a lick . When you often can't see past vehicles in front of you? I don't think we're expected to anticipate that. . Yes we are, and we are also to leave enough room .....in case something is stopped on the same road we travel. So yes, MC driver didnt do that now did he. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 And in the civil suit, you'll probably see a totally different outcome. As far as an insurance company is concerned, he was in the wrong. She may not even be so, thought she was certainly negligent in her actions. He was not keeping a proper lookout, and he was not obeying the rules of the road. It's extremely simple, and some of you are trying to make it very complicated. The death doesn't change the HTA or insurance rules. The insurance rules are this. She did something that caused the death of another motorist. That was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding. She's at fault even in a civil suit, since the burden of proof is far greater in a criminal trial. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Bingo !You might want to check your lines again. Quote
Smallc Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 The insurance rules are this. She did something that caused the death of another motorist. No, as far as the rules of the road go, he was more in the wrong. I'm quite scared to drive now knowing that some of you are out there, not expecting hazards to present themselves. Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) The insurance rules are this. She did something that caused the death of another motorist. That was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding. She's at fault even in a civil suit, since the burden of proof is far greater in a criminal trial.Uh no. Not at all. Insurance uses a fault chart. where in the fault chart this accident lies, will show who to attribute blame to. Its not an exact science, but the MC driver will be shown to be at fault, or in the very least partial at fault. And in undewrwriting, even 2% at fault means you have an at fault. (IOW 2% = 100%) And no one can sue anyone over this accident. Quebec law prohibits it. Edited July 9, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 For this: Those who dont generally (virtually universally) get an @ fault accident on their insurance records You've never driven behind a truck you couldn't see past? . Seemed to have missed this. Anyone who runs into anyone else is considered to be at fault,be it 5% or 100%, it still is an at fault claim. Quote
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 So thank you for finally coming to the realization that the MC driver failed to do so. Please don't try putting words in my mouth. There is no question about who has criminal responsibility here. . Quote
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Well, ask yourself if you would do the same thing she did.No.If so, why? If not, why?Because it's dangerous and negligent and someone could be killed.Not even for a person, because more people could be killed. . Edited July 10, 2014 by jacee Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Please don't try putting words in my mouth.No need to try. You admitted as much. If youd like you can go thru life thinking you are free to slam into all manner of road hazards. Reality will get in touch a little while later. And when this conviction is overturned , or on appeal reduced in some way, we will see the reality. Quote
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 No need to try. You admitted as much.No need to be offensive.If youd like you can go thru life thinking you are free to slam into all manner of road hazards. Reality will get in touch a little while later. Even if something flies off a truck, someone is liable for not securing it properly. And when this conviction is overturned , or on appeal reduced in some way, we will see the reality. I have no doubt that her sentence will be more realistic than the max. But she needs a better lawyer. . Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Even if something flies off a truck, someone is liable for not securing it properly.Generally no one is held liable. If its moving, the ins co pays and moves on. Nothing else gets done. If it is on the road and you hit it, you are liable. Quote
jacee Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Generally no one is held liable. If its moving, the ins co pays and moves on. Nothing else gets done. If it is on the road and you hit it, you are liable. Liable ... for damage to my own car? Who cares! This is criminal liability. . Quote
guyser Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Liable ... for damage to my own car? Who cares! I dunno....why did this get posited? Even if something flies off a truck, someone is liable for not securing it properly. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 he was more in the wrongYou have got to be trolling me. Get out of here with this nonsense. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.