[Soundy]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=938688229511881

[meme405]

I don't know what to say.

I'd rather discuss this video:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=939714742742563&set=vb.161807307199981&type=2&theater

[Inaii]

I don't know what to say.

I'd rather discuss this video:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=939714742742563&set=vb.161807307199981&type=2&theater

I love how his friends are laughing their asses off in the background. Best part of the video imo.

[hchang]

If the biker could control his emotions the whole situation could have been avoided.

At the end of the video he sure sounded proud to have been in a second accident.

[Retrac]

If it were ICBC 50/50 everyone gets increased premiums!

[Inaii]

Wouldn't it actually be 50/50 though? The bike shouldn't have gone because it was unsafe and the driver clearly wasn't paying attention since he hit the bike.

Or did I miss something?

[meme405]

Given that video it would obviously be 50/50.

Both drivers are guilty of entering an intersection when it was unsafe to do so.

I think the MVA here in BC states that unless you can clear the intersection fully you shouldn't enter it at all. Both drivers obviously couldn't do so, so neither of them should have been where they were at the time of the accident.

[Jas29]

Wouldn't it be the riders fault 100% the other car was already in the intersection your only supposed to enter the intersection once all cars have cleared.

[Soundy]

Wouldn't it be the riders fault 100% the other car was already in the intersection your only supposed to enter the intersection once all cars have cleared.

This would be my take... at most I'd put 25% on the white car. Might be different IF we knew the circumstances of him getting stuck in the intersection - whether he rolled on in knowing he wasn't going to get clear before the light changed, or if someone up ahead pulled a dumbass move that stopped smooth-flowing traffic just as he got into the intersection.

As for whether he even should have seen the bike - put yourself in the white car's place: you're focused on traffic ahead, anxious to get out of the intersection you've become trapped it, because you know you're pissing off all that cross traffic. Things start to move, you're looking for maybe an escape route into the other lane, and you're sure as hell making sure you don't slam into the back end of the red car in front of you. You know that cars coming from the left have nowhere to go, so nobody is going to be coming from your left, and absolutely the VERY LAST thing ANYONE would expect is that some impatient lunatic on a bike is going to try to squirt between you and the car in front of you. You can see on the video as well, the bike is at or behind the driver's shoulder, probably well outside of his peripheral vision at the best of times - I don't know why there should be ANY expectation that the drive should have seen the bike.

As it is, whether the white car was stuck there because he was a dick, or just a victim of bad timing, we don't know... but what we do see is that the bike's move is 100% illegal.

[InvisibleSoul]

My take is the accident is 100% the fault of the motorcycle.

While the car may have committed an MVA violation by getting stuck in the intersection, the violation itself did not play a role in the accident.

The reasoning why the motorcycle is at fault is what Soundy said above. There shouldn't be any reasonable expectation for the car to anticipate anything to go through the space between him and the car ahead of him, and certainly not at the speed that motorcycle did.

[320icar]

100% the motorcycles fault. That's coming from a fellow rider. He SAW THE RISK AND CHOSE TO WOT it through

[Jas29]

Lol the Wot was the best part what was he going to prove even if he did make it between the two cars. I have gotten annoyed and pulled in the clutch and revved my bike at people jaywalking but never try to gun it past them

[meme405]

My take is the accident is 100% the fault of the motorcycle.

While the car may have committed an MVA violation by getting stuck in the intersection, the violation itself did not play a role in the accident.

The reasoning why the motorcycle is at fault is what Soundy said above. There shouldn't be any reasonable expectation for the car to anticipate anything to go through the space between him and the car ahead of him, and certainly not at the speed that motorcycle did.

Actually I retract what I said previously, the above is a great point. The white car did commit and MVA infraction, but the accident was entirely avoidable on the motorcyclists part.

I do still believe that ICBC would likely have given a little bit of fault to the white car simply to collect deductible from his ass. I think about it this way:

If someone is speeding through an intersection and gets hit by a red light runner, if ICBC has documented proof that the speeder was exceeding the speed limit they do still assign a portion of fault to the speeder.

This is the exact same case, while the accident was entirely the fault of the rider, the other person did also do something wrong, which had they not been doing the accident would not have happened.

[InvisibleSoul]

Actually I retract what I said previously, the above is a great point. The white car did commit and MVA infraction, but the accident was entirely avoidable on the motorcyclists part.

I do still believe that ICBC would likely have given a little bit of fault to the white car simply to collect deductible from his ass. I think about it this way:

If someone is speeding through an intersection and gets hit by a red light runner, if ICBC has documented proof that the speeder was exceeding the speed limit they do still assign a portion of fault to the speeder.

This is the exact same case, while the accident was entirely the fault of the rider, the other person did also do something wrong, which had they not been doing the accident would not have happened.

I can definitely see ICBC try assigning blame to both parties as that's in their best interest.

The example you gave might not be an apples to apples comparison though, because I'm assuming the act of speeding itself did contribute to the accident, whereas I don't think getting stuck in the intersection did.

[Soundy]

This is the exact same case, while the accident was entirely the fault of the rider, the other person did also do something wrong, which had they not been doing the accident would not have happened.
Ah, but here's a question: why did the bike not go BEHIND the white car? The next car behind him was fully behind the stop line, you could be pretty much guaranteed he wasn't going to be entering the intersection. So what is the rider thinking going IN FRONT OF the white car? So he can scare the driver? Maybe flip him off?

I can definitely see ICBC try assigning blame to both parties as that's in their best interest.
I never understood how people think this is so? They're going to collect what they can (ie. what they're legally allowed to) either way. If the fault is split 50/50, the damages are split 50/50, as are any hit to the premiums.

In fact, if you look at it based on what we see in this video (and assuming this story happened in BC - this video clearly isn't, so what ICBC would do is irrelevant except as a discussion point)... car driver is middle-aged, possibly with several levels of safe driver discount or even RoadStar status, so even if he's 100% at fault, he likely has "accident forgiveness" and won't see a change in his discount anyway.

Meanwhile, you have an obviously young, hothead rider - already a poor risk and with minimal discount, if any. If he's 100% at fault, he's far more likely have his premiums jacked and put more money in the coffers.


The example you gave might not be an apples to apples comparison though, because I'm assuming the act of speeding itself did contribute to the accident, whereas I don't think getting stuck in the intersection did.
That's the key: CONTRIBUTE. The driver being stuck in the intersection doesn't CONTRIBUTE to it. The rider's selfish actions and idiotic choice to ride between two cars did.

[InvisibleSoul]

I never understood how people think this is so? They're going to collect what they can (ie. what they're legally allowed to) either way. If the fault is split 50/50, the damages are split 50/50, as are any hit to the premiums.

Are you sure about that? I've always been under the impression that even though it's 50/50 at fault, each person's premium goes up the same as if it was 100% fault.

I haven't found anything that says otherwise.

[Soundy]

Why would it work that way? That would be considered double-dipping, would be against every known insurance practice, and would probably be illegal. Plus it would mean there'd be no reason not to call EVERY crash 50/50.

[zulutango]

We don't know why all the cars were stopped past the stop line on a red light facing them so all we can really comment on is the bike. It would be classified as an "unsafe start" under the BC MVA and he could be held responsible for the crash.

Starting vehicle
169 A person must not move a vehicle that is stopped, standing or parked unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety and he or she first gives the appropriate signal under section 171 or 172.

[freakshow]

Why would it work that way? That would be considered double-dipping, would be against every known insurance practice, and would probably be illegal. Plus it would mean there'd be no reason not to call EVERY crash 50/50.
I've always known it to work that way. Does anyone have links/docs saying otherwise?

My impression was that if you're over 25% liable, and you let ICBC pay your portion, your premiums go up according to the CRS.

This would make (relative) sense because your premiums don't go up based on the value paid out. If ICBC pays out my $2,000 accident, or $20,000 accident, I move the same number of spots on the CRS.

[SumAznGuy]

We don't know why all the cars were stopped past the stop line on a red light facing them so all we can really comment on is the bike. It would be classified as an "unsafe start" under the BC MVA and he could be held responsible for the crash.

Starting vehicle
169 A person must not move a vehicle that is stopped, standing or parked unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety and he or she first gives the appropriate signal under section 171 or 172.

Based on this, then it would be a 50/50 accident since it was unsafe for both cars/motorbike to move.

[Soundy]

This would make (relative) sense because your premiums don't go up based on the value paid out. If ICBC pays out my $2,000 accident, or $20,000 accident, I move the same number of spots on the CRS.
Yes, but I doubt it goes up the same based on your percentage of fault. Again, if you go up six steps whether you're 25% or 100% at fault, why wouldn't they just call EVERYTHING 50/50 and get more money out of everyone? It doesn't make sense.

[zulutango]

Based on this, then it would be a 50/50 accident since it was unsafe for both cars/motorbike to move.


No...all we know froom the video was that the bike made an unsafe start. IF you are left in the middle of an intersection, you cannot sit there for the cycle of the light and must move. The problem is that we do NOT know why the cars were there. The bike should never have started into the intersection unless it was clear. ICBC would have to find that the car drivers should not have been there to assign any liability to them.

[meme405]

No...all we know froom the video was that the bike made an unsafe start. IF you are left in the middle of an intersection, you cannot sit there for the cycle of the light and must move. The problem is that we do NOT know why the cars were there. The bike should never have started into the intersection unless it was clear. ICBC would have to find that the car drivers should not have been there to assign any liability to them.

This doesn't make sense to me, because for the exact same reason the motorcycle shouldn't enter the intersection, that white car and the car in front of him shouldn't have entered the intersection as well...

What reason is there that would have constituted that white car legally having entered the intersection to end up in that position?

[Soundy]

This doesn't make sense to me, because for the exact same reason the motorcycle shouldn't enter the intersection, that white car and the car in front of him shouldn't have entered the intersection as well...

What reason is there that would have constituted that white car legally having entered the intersection to end up in that position?
One possibility: traffic is flowing smoothly, white car is legally entering the intersection on a green... some jackwad just past the intersection pulls out where he shouldn't, stopping traffic where it is in the video. Or someone in the middle of the next block stops to parallel park. Or a flagger stops traffic suddenly. All sorts of things that could cause smooth-flowing traffic to come to a halt trapping drivers in the intersection who had entered it legally.

You saying it's never happened to you?

[meme405]

You saying it's never happened to you?

It has most definitely happened to me, it happened to me today on Georgia actually. I just assumed that it was a ticketable offence, since under section 127 of the MVA you are required to ensure that can clear an intersection before you enter it.

It's why I am very conscious to make sure when I pass the stop line, that I am actually 100% able to go entirely through the intersection.

Getting trapped in an intersection, while it happens, is usually the result of impatience, poor driving, or lack of awareness.

[InvisibleSoul]

Yes, but I doubt it goes up the same based on your percentage of fault. Again, if you go up six steps whether you're 25% or 100% at fault, why wouldn't they just call EVERYTHING 50/50 and get more money out of everyone? It doesn't make sense.

Yes, it doesn't make sense... and that is WHY people keep saying ICBC will do everything to make the accident 50/50 because it's in their best interest, and screws the parties involved.

Shared or undetermined fault (http://www.icbc.com/claims/determine-fault/Pages/Shared-or-undetermined-fault.aspx)

Your insurance premium may increase if you are found to be more than 25 percent at fault for a crash unless you have been claim-free for a long time.

If you're only 25% at fault, your premiums don't go up.

Again, I can't find anything that says you only go up three steps if you're found 50% at fault.

What happens if you're 75% at fault? You go up 4.5 steps? Doesn't sound like that would work.

This should be pretty easy to find out though... surely there have been many people that have been in 50/50 accidents.

Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it can't be true.

It also doesn't make sense why taxes are collected every time a used car is sold... but yet the government still does it.

[SumAznGuy]

Again, I can't find anything that says you only go up three steps if you're found 50% at fault.

http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/costs/Documents/crs.pdf

It all depends on what position you are on the CRS.
Assuming 20+ years of accident free driving, then you are at level -20 and enjoy 43% discount on your insurance and will just up 3 steps to level -17 if you have an at fault insurance that ICBC has to pay on your behalf.
If you were at level 0, then after an at fault accident that ICBC has to pay out on your behalf, you would jump up to level 6 which is a 75% surcharge,

Yes, it would be in ICBC's best interest to call everything 50/50 unless you car argue it down to a 25% fault.

[Soundy]

It has most definitely happened to me, it happened to me today on Georgia actually. I just assumed that it was a ticketable offence, since under section 127 of the MVA you are required to ensure that can clear an intersection before you enter it.

It's why I am very conscious to make sure when I pass the stop line, that I am actually 100% able to go entirely through the intersection.

Getting trapped in an intersection, while it happens, is usually the result of impatience, poor driving, or lack of awareness.

And yet, sometimes things change in the blink of an eye... otherwise you'd be slowing to a crawl or stopping before entering EVERY intersection, just to be sure the guy ahead of you cleared first. Right?

Naturally, most places, that means three or four right-turners from the other direction will jam themselves in there first and you'll never get to cross that intersection... much to the chagrin of everyone stacking up behind you.

[InvisibleSoul]

http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/costs/Documents/crs.pdf

It all depends on what position you are on the CRS.
Assuming 20+ years of accident free driving, then you are at level -20 and enjoy 43% discount on your insurance and will just up 3 steps to level -17 if you have an at fault insurance that ICBC has to pay on your behalf.
If you were at level 0, then after an at fault accident that ICBC has to pay out on your behalf, you would jump up to level 6 which is a 75% surcharge,

Yes, it would be in ICBC's best interest to call everything 50/50 unless you car argue it down to a 25% fault.

Okay, yeah... forgot about how the steps work, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make for Soundy.

Bottom line is I don't believe it matters whether you're found 50%, 75%, or 100% at fault... the steps you move up is the same.

If you're a -20 CRS level and you get into a 50/50 accident, you'll move up 3 steps just like you would for a 100% at fault accident.

[kkthind]

Was it necessary for the biker to accelerate so quick? He probably could've cleared the traffic by going around the back of the white car if he didn't go too fast and that's if the white car did start moving forward

[SumAznGuy]

Bottom line is I don't believe it matters whether you're found 50%, 75%, or 100% at fault... the steps you move up is the same.

If you're a -20 CRS level and you get into a 50/50 accident, you'll move up 3 steps just like you would for a 100% at fault accident.

Sorry, that post was meant more for Soundy too.
So unless it is 75/25 or 100/0, both parties will see their position on the CRS change based on what level they were at.
For the person found at 75-100% at fault, then only their position on the CRS will change.