REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

Splmash · 07-20-2010, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vafanculo

Question for OP. Did you pull over because you wanted to help out, or did you have any suspicion that it could have been related to you?
Posted via RS Mobile

I stopped because my car has been having a little problem lately. It doesn't run as smooth as it used to be so I thought my bumper flew off or something. It's happened before. From the point I stopped to me parking and getting out of the car, I realized that my car didn't have any problems. But when I parked I saw her car half way on the curb. So I ran towards her car to see if the driver was ok. By thsi time she looked confused and was looking around.

Great68 · 07-20-2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skidmark

The outcome will be less serious than if you did take off and then get tracked down. Taking off implies a guilty mind too and I have no doubt that this can be held against you later in civil court where you could end up paying the whole bill yourself as ICBC can deny coverage for you and sue to recover damage to others when you fail to remain.

Since his car wasn't damaged and he didn't think he turned unsafely, it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to assume that he had no involvement in the incident and continued driving on his merry way... Why would that imply a guilty mind?

I mean if the police tracked him down later, and he said "I didn't know I had any involvement in an accident, my car doesn't have any damage" that wouldn't be a truthful answer?

Splmash · 07-20-2010, 03:26 PM

The fact that I was halfway down the block and then she hit something puzzled me. I am positive that when I turned I did not see her. If she saw me, why in the world did she try to swerve into the direction I was going and not in the open lane to the left...

Splmash · 07-20-2010, 03:27 PM

She also started swerving once she was half way into the intersection passed the lane where my car turned into.

Gnomes · 07-20-2010, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great68

Since his car wasn't damaged and he didn't think he turned unsafely, it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to assume that he had no involvement in the incident and continued driving on his merry way... Why would that imply a guilty mind?

I mean if the police tracked him down later, and he said "I didn't know I had any involvement in an accident, my car doesn't have any damage" that wouldn't be a truthful answer?

My thoughts as well.

BallPeenHammer2 · 07-20-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skidmark

You did the right thing by hanging around and making sure all was well. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. (Especially since there was a witness that could have pegged you if you did decide to take off!) The outcome will be less serious than if you did take off and then get tracked down. Taking off implies a guilty mind too and I have no doubt that this can be held against you later in civil court where you could end up paying the whole bill yourself as ICBC can deny coverage for you and sue to recover damage to others when you fail to remain.

15 meters of skid is about 50 km/h if I recall correctly.

It would be interesting to know the outcome after you finish up dealing with ICBC if you felt like updating the thread.

I always wondered about that calculation. From my experience, vehicle of different sizes, weight stop/skid at different lengths. Also included in the calculation are obviously the speed, but also road condition, grade, tyre condition, make and model of tyre as well as tyre rating. Don't forget braking ability as well.

How would that calculation compensate? I mean, the vehicle is easy enough to know, but what about things like brakes/tyres?

BallPeenHammer2 · 07-20-2010, 05:53 PM

oh and also: I used to take nanaimo and 41st every day at a previous job. It's a pretty dangerous intersection.
A LOT of ppl drive VERY fast on that stretch. HOWEVER, you should always be able to see the ppl coming down 41st, no matter how fast they're going. I've never had trouble and my car was really low at the time too.

Again, I don't believe ICBC would find you at fault. There were no vehicle collisions.
the speed that one travels (50km) is built so that one can see and react to unexpected situations. If she was driving 50k, she could've stopped without hitting that curb. God knows I've been in her shoes, but never hit anything.

Soundy · 07-20-2010, 08:44 PM

I drove this route today, eastbound on 41st. The uphill stretch starts just after Gladstone (one block west) and doesn't crest until just before Clarendon (one block east). Crossing Nanaimo, I could easily see all oncoming cars for over a block.

There's no reason this woman shouldn't have seen the OP making the turn well in advance, unless she was seriously speeding, and/or not paying attention.

mkchoi0801 · 07-20-2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

I drove this route today, eastbound on 41st. The uphill stretch starts just after Gladstone (one block west) and doesn't crest until just before Clarendon (one block east). Crossing Nanaimo, I could easily see all oncoming cars for over a block.

There's no reason this woman shouldn't have seen the OP making the turn well in advance, unless she was seriously speeding, and/or not paying attention.

The thing is, she doesn't have to give a single damn about who's turning in that intersection as long as her light is green. It should have been the OP's responsibility to make that turn safely.

Splmash · 07-21-2010, 07:33 AM

I did make a safe turn. My car was through the intersection and half way unto a block heading the opposite direction.

I'm heading into ICBC right now, I'll keep y'all updated!

Soundy · 07-21-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BallPeenHammer2

I always wondered about that calculation. From my experience, vehicle of different sizes, weight stop/skid at different lengths. Also included in the calculation are obviously the speed, but also road condition, grade, tyre condition, make and model of tyre as well as tyre rating. Don't forget braking ability as well.

How would that calculation compensate? I mean, the vehicle is easy enough to know, but what about things like brakes/tyres?

Something else to think about, too: all the skidmarks show is that she was going about 50 *when the brakes locked*. I've seen plenty of panic stops where the brakes only lock the last little bit - usually happens when someone is braking and then realizes they're not stopping fast enough and press a little harder. She could have been doing 100 over the crest of the hill, saw the other car, hit the brakes, then as she dropped down to 50, hit them harder when she though she wasn't going to stop in time, and locked them up at that point.

I've also seen where you can be braking right at the threshold of lockup, then hit a bump, rut, or something else that causes a slight loss of traction, which then causes the brakes to lock, and being at the threshold already, they don't release again once you get traction back.

Just speculation, but it means that just because the skidmarks are "only" 15m, it doesn't mean she wasn't initially going a lot faster. As skidmark (the other one

) says, it would really require a reconstruction specialist to fully make sense of it.

SumAznGuy · 07-21-2010, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

I drove this route today, eastbound on 41st.

Did you see the skid marks on the ground?

OP. what type of car was she driving? Was it a newer or an older model?

I've had it happen to me before where I was on the edge of locking up the front brakes, and then I hit a bumpy section of road and the ABS kicks in and I don't fully stop until I am in the intersection. So I know what Soundy is saying about braking without locking up the wheels at a later time.

Splmash · 07-22-2010, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

Did you see the skid marks on the ground?

OP. what type of car was she driving? Was it a newer or an older model?

I've had it happen to me before where I was on the edge of locking up the front brakes, and then I hit a bumpy section of road and the ABS kicks in and I don't fully stop until I am in the intersection. So I know what Soundy is saying about braking without locking up the wheels at a later time.

the car was more than a decade old. it was an old 94-95 mazda.

wing_woo · 07-23-2010, 08:53 AM

So, what did ICBC say?

xilley · 07-23-2010, 10:37 AM

was she hot?

winson604 · 07-23-2010, 08:31 PM

Not exactly the same situation as you but I'll throw it out there anyways. Friend was on a side street travelling Westbound and was trying to make a left hand turn Southbound onto Renfrew. At the intersection it was a Stop sign so like anybody else my friend stopped. Due to the parked cars on the street it's a little harder to see cars coming down Renfrew Northbound. There also was no traffic light at this intersection. He very slowly inched passed the stop sign and about maybe an inch or so of his car was into the intersection. Any car going Northbound on the right hand lane woudln't have been able to hit my friends car if you were just driving on the right lane as there was more then enough clearence for that car in their lane but because that car saw an inch of my friends car sticking out they freaked and swirved into a median. They were definately speeding and their car got pretty fucked up. My friend decided to go see if they were ok and they said their ok and everythings all good. Sometime later ICBC calls my friend and says sorry it's your fault because you were at a Stop sign and regardless of what happened you being passed the stop sign caused that person to crash. Didn't matter that they were speeding or just freaked out they pinned it 100% on my friend.

Gnomes · 07-23-2010, 09:09 PM

^wow that totally sucks. Too bad there's no easy way to fight that

MarkyMark · 07-24-2010, 07:01 AM

^ were there witnesses for that or did he just admit that he was sticking out? I find it hard to believe they pinned it on him for sticking out an inch. Your supposed to stop at a stop sign and then inch forward if you can't see
Posted via RS Mobile

Soundy · 07-24-2010, 09:05 AM

ICBC is pretty messed up sometimes... my first-ever accident, I was turning left into a store parking lot just past an intersection. A guy in a (must have been speeding) delivery van coming from behind me decided to pass on the left (despite it being a double line and with oncoming traffic) and smoked me halfway through my turn.

ICBC decided it was 100% my fault... why? Because I was making an illegal U-turn, they said. When I asked how they came up with that, the adjuster asked if I was going to be going back in the same direction I came from. I said sure, after parking for a couple hours. He replied that that was a U-turn.

winson604 · 07-24-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

^ were there witnesses for that or did he just admit that he was sticking out? I find it hard to believe they pinned it on him for sticking out an inch. Your supposed to stop at a stop sign and then inch forward if you can't see
Posted via RS Mobile

No witnesses period. When my friend went to see if the person was ok the conversation only consisted of the other driver saying omg I saw a bit of your car and panicked. I was absolutely shocked when my friend told me that ICBC had called him about it.

ICBC told my friend the rational is the fact that it was still because of my friends car sticking out that caused the other person to panic. They said it doesn't matter if you were a stop sign or not, the fact remained that it was your car that caused them to crash. FU ICBC

twitchyzero · 07-24-2010, 01:55 PM

it's okay to stick around, but why did you get her your info, ESPECIALLY your DL #? If you're not involved in the accident, you don't need to give anyone info unless you are witness, in which case you are not cause you didn't see shit, only the aftermath.

As a witeness name and number is good enough, no need for DL info.