REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Police Forum

Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-09-2012, 11:25 AM   #1
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Crash investigations

When a crash happens where the police attend, whose job is it to determine fault for insurance claims?

I know the police investigation will ultimately assign fault for the purpose of writing up a ticket, but is the police assignment of blame used by ICBC in determining fault for insurance purposes, or does ICBC do a separate investigation?
Advertisement
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 12:33 PM   #2
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
You really answered your own question. Police investigate for violations of laws and ICBC investigates for insurance liability purposes. Sometimes ICBC uses Police reports, often they do their own investigation. I was driving a private vehicle that was hit by another car. Driver got a VT for unsafe backing fro Police and then ICBC required statements from me & my passenger to assign liability for their own investigation. Many ICBC investigators are retired Police officers with traffic experience.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 12:40 PM   #3
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Thank you.

One more question - under what circumstances would ICBC want to exclude evidence from a dashcam that vindicates the driver of the camera equipped vehicle?
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 04:54 PM   #4
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
I can't see why they would want to exclude evidence? Unless the video was edited in some way that the "facts" it presented were distorted due to the editing, I can't see why they would not want to know what happened.

Just because a section of video shows something happening, that does not mean that it shows the entire series of events truthfully. Someone could tailgate you dangerously, flash their high beams at you, honk their horn, then switch the camera on and for the few seconds before the crash, show them driving normally and you suddenly braking for no visible reason. Would that show what really happened? Yes, but it was not the whole true story.


If you remember the Rodney King video all you saw was about 2 minutes of him surrounded by Cops who were beating him. What you missed was a dangerous high-speed car chase, being held at gunpoint and resisting commands to prone himself when he stopped in a very high risk gang area of LA. You were never shown that the other guy in the car did what he was told and was arrested without fuss or any injury. You also missed his refusal 14 times to stop resisting and his repeated attampts to get back up on his feet. You also were never told that he had a criminal record for violence and that he later tested positive for illegal drugs...and you were never told that LAPD policy was to do exactly what the Cops did. They were forbidden to even pepper spray him because of a lawsuit, the Taser they used was not effective and they were required to use pain compliance. They had wrestled with him first but he threw them off because of his strength and drug cunsumption. What the video showed on TV was a bunch of racist Cops beating a black "motorist" for no reason. Pictures are important, but context is even more so important.

Last edited by zulutango; 09-09-2012 at 09:03 PM.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net