1 - You will now know better than to speed in wet/slippery conditions. Lesson learned. You will not make the mistake again so don't beat yourself up over it.
2 - I don't know if the light was yellow or red when you passed the line but proceeding through the intersection wasn't a bad call so dont start second guessing yourself going forward. Just keep in mind to look for cars that can't stop as you proceed forward from a red in the future.
3 - Accidents are accidents for a reason. They happen to the best of us.
A short story of my own -- one winter several years ago, I was in a similar situation as you. Light turned yellow and in the wet snow and ice I knew I would never be able to stop in time, especially since I lost traction and started sliding. I saw my life flash in front of my eyes and thought I was going to get creamed by cross-traffic. I regained traction and instead of hitting the gas and accelerating forward through the intersection - I tried to turn thinking that I would take the hit in the rear instead of the side. Well, i lost traction again and slid into the curb. It was an overpass and I thought the car would flip and I'd end up in the highway. That was the 2nd time my life flashed before me. Oh, and did I mention that took place in all of about 6 seconds? Luckily all was well. -- Add a signature here
In a lot of states no fault insurance is in effect for exactly the type of accident you had. No one was killed or seriously injured and to stop long litigation, basically your insurance co and his insurance co blames no one and just pays up.
I am not in insurance, but my wife was for 20 years and no fault was introduced for minor accidents like this. Maybe you should have jumped on the brakes, and maybe he should not have been so quick to turn in front of you. The insurance co's in a no fault state admit no one knows and just pay up. If they argue over $5,000 the lawyers give the insurance co's a bill for $10,000 and eventually a check for $5,000and no one wins.
You did not give your self appropriate time or an escape route if something bad happened. Something bad happened and you learned.
Sorry, you were at fault for driving at unsafe speeds for weather conditions.
So if I am driving at unsafe speed for weather conditions, and someone runs a red light and t bones me, am I still at fault? NO. Just because you are speeding, or driving to fast for the weather, doesn't automatically make him at fault. He entered the intersection on yellow, and the person making the turn turned in front of him. The person turning needs to yield to the person going straight. -- No Victim=No Crime
If the police were involved, they would have cited one driver or the other. I would hope a minor detail like that wouldn't have been left out of the story by the OP....
Stop assuming things that aren't always true. Here in my city, police help exchange info and rarely cite someone for something, especially in non-injury accidents. -- No Victim=No Crime
...the light turned amber. Normally I would have time to stop, but I knew that with the current weather conditions, I would have a high chance of skidding into the intersection. I decided to go through the light
Was this my fault?
In the US, at least to every state I'm aware of, yes, you're at fault. You effectively ran a red light (or disobeyed a traffic control device).
yellow is a gray zone most yellows last 2 to 4 seconds here.(we have much higher speeds.(45MPH) 72.4km/h to (70mph) 112KM/h
Person making a left turn has to yield to traffic and make sure he has the room to make that turn i.e intersection is clear to all traffic. More then likely the SUV driver is at fault.
55 indicated in a 50 zone is not excessive, that's kmh not mph
If you can't control you car, 30 in a 50 is too fast. MPH or KMH
For some reason going slower (driving slower)makes me more nervous rather than going fast.
It's also a proven fact that slower speeds = higher # of crashes
most accidents I seen on the freeway were low speed crashes i.e high volume of slow traffic. i.e no one paying attention. playing with your radio,cell phone, ipad etc...
I find driving under 35mph is more dangerous rather then going 45-65 on the street. (those are typical speeds here .) today on a local highway I got to 95mph damn that VW with the TDI 2.0l guy passed me up like I was standing still he was going about 110-115mph or so.
(going faster makes me pay more attention to the road.)
"But as soon as the light turned, the driver waiting in the intersection turned left in front of me" If he started his turn, did he have a green light?...green arrow? If he had green, then your light had turned red. If he did not have green, why would he wait only to turn before he did so?...or did he run the red?
I've seen plenty of people start a left turn when the lights turn yellow. They assume that all oncoming traffic is going to stop at the light, so they pull out right in front of oncoming traffic that may or may not be slowing down. Due to that, I would pin it on the driver making the turn, except for the fact that OP was speeding in poor weather conditions. I could see both parties being deemed at fault in this case.
Best to assume that they are not stopping. unless you visually see them stopping.. 80/20 at best I assume people are going to run the red light ( prevented 2 major accidents)
a smaller car going about 50-60mph westbound missed me by 2-3 feet. as my light had turned green after the left turn signal cycled for going northbound I had just started going into the intersection
there was a lot of cars waiting at the light(eastbound) it would have been a BIG mess
and once from a big rig running it. ( I waited too see whether or not he was going to stop.) he was lucky that the rig did not jackknife. the rig ended up stopping in the middle of the street.
It seems like there's a lot we don't know. "But as soon as the light turned, the driver waiting in the intersection turned left in front of me" If he started his turn, did he have a green light?...green arrow? If he had green, then your light had turned red. If he did not have green, why would he wait only to turn before he did so?...or did he run the red?
Normally I would wait tell the light turns red(or traffic is clear) to make my turn if it has a yield on green. the guy turning on yellow should have waited tell it was clear/ turned red and made sure that traffic was actually stopping.
Most of the lights have Green yellow red for left turn here but there is a few bad spots were there is only yield on green.
(going faster makes me pay more attention to the road.)
So because you don't pay attention its more dangerous, not that faster speed is safer. You are the one creating the dangerous condition by not paying attention not because of the slow speed. You sound like my kid when he was 20 trying to justify the 3 speeding tickets. Your reasoning sounds just as stupid as his did.
I think it was mentioned (later) that the OP (probably the IP address) is from Canada. But still, there is only one state I know of where no-fault applies to property damage and that is MI. In all other states it only applies to injuries and even then, to a very limited extent.
I live in a no fault state. It's a garbage law that should never have been passed. I was the first person in the state back in the 70's to meet its limits and be able to sue the drunk driver who hit me and the law just served to delay any sort of justice by several years. It's not really no fault because if the medical bills (which could come much later if one of the parties develops a stress disorder, neck or back problem, etc from the accident and that is not visible at the time of the accident) exceeding a certain threshold monetary amount then fault rules because either party can sue. Generally, the monetary threshold is not that high. Thus, fault needs to be established even in no fault states. Plus, fault determines the penalty amount placed on the one at fault when their insurance policy is up for renewal. That is why the police are ALWAYS called...ALWAYS. It is for your protection that the police are always called and there is a record and fault is established at the police/accident level.
The degree of fault may be disputed in the courts, but even in no fault states, fault should be established by the police at the scene of the accident. Not calling the police is grounds to get your insurance cancelled when it comes up for renewal. Never, ever let the other party talk you into not calling the police UNLESS BOTH PARTIES SIGN AN AGREEMENT THAT IS WITNESSED THAT THEY WILL NOT CONTACT THEIR INSURANCE COMPANIES EVER ABOUT IT. There is NO savings to the extremely high cost of insurance because the state has a no fault law. Wikipedia has no idea what they are talking about. They don't even mention the fact that many accidents will exceed the threshold anyway so that no fault will not apply. Plus,. property damage is not a part of No Fault so fault MUST be established IF the insurance companies are to be involved in the repair of the automobiles...that is unless each party plans to pay for the repair to their car and, in that case, why would the insurance companies be involved? Just so that the faulting party could have his/her insurance jacked sky high for years (the length of time and jacking amount dependent on state law).
The OP will probably suffer for several years because of her rashness (driving over the speed limit AND in adverse weather conditions puts her at fault). If she lives in California she will get about a 40-50% surcharge on her policy for the NEXT FIVE YEARS. In Hawaii, it is three years and our state legislature is talking about increasing it to match California's law. If the police were not called (which I doubt happened since the Fire department was there) then the best thing she could do would be to pay for the damage to both cars herself and NOT report it to either insurance company so she won't be punished with sky high rates for future years forced by the state she lives in or by her insurance company. If she doesn't live in a state with a surcharge punishment law then whether or not she should report it to her insurance company or not would be determined differently. Her insurance company could tack on extremely high rates for years and, because of her age, she could find herself uninsurable for years by any company except at extremely high rates. At least she is a female under 25 rather than a male. (Of course, much of what I and others have said may not apply because it sounds like she doesn't live in the USA).
What happened to her anti lock brakes? I don't understand why she thought she would skid into the intersection. Three car lengths from the intersection, apply anti lock brakes and she should have come to an immediate, safe non-skid stop before the intersection. Sounds like she was really speeding...much higher speed than she admits to. -- When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
Everyone is all over the board on this one, as happens many times, when someone posts a "what if" question about an accident. Each Country, Province, State and Political Unit has its own customs and Laws.
I worked in the Insurance Field as a Field Adjuster. My job description was 80/20, 80% in field and was enforced when it came to performance reviews and raises. I met people face to face, canvased accident scenes for witnesses and much, much more. The companies I chose to work for used a dedicated or outside Appraiser on the Vehicle Damage, though I could write my own sheets, if need be. This was before the Call Center Model was introduced. My work load was around 30% Auto and the rest General Liability.
Beefs between Insurance Companies were not handled by Attorneys but went to Intercompany Arbitration if the amount was under $20k. If someone got an Attorney or Suit was filed, I was still on the Claim. My Supervisor would change to the Litigation Supervisor and our Attorneys would do the Atty stuff and wait in the wings.
Police responding? It depended upon the jurisdiction, the political units budget, availability of police units, the Police Chief or Mayor's emphasis on the use of police resources [think drug vs auto vs burglary vs ??], where the accident happened and a host of other reasons, that many times made no sense.
Accuracy of Police Reports? Usually pretty good, but on more than one occasion they got it wrong. More than once, I have met an Officer to go over their notebook and memory and what did not get transferred from that to the Official Report.
I only covered incidents in Washington and Oregon. Oregon has a special law that I used a lot, as it is a modified comparative liability state:
811.100 Violation of basic speed rule; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of violating the basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to all of the following:
(a) The traffic.
(b) The surface and width of the highway.
(c) The hazard at intersections.
(d) Weather.
(e) Visibility.
(f) Any other conditions then existing.
(2) The following apply to the offense described in this section:
(a) The offense is as applicable on an alley as on any other highway.
(b) Speeds that are prima facie evidence of violation of this section are established by ORS 811.105.
(c) This section and ORS 811.105 establish limitation on speeds that are in addition to speed limits established in ORS 811.111.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, violation of the basic speed rule by exceeding a designated speed posted under ORS 810.180 is punishable as provided in ORS 811.109.
(4) The offense described in this section, violating the basic speed rule, is a Class B traffic violation if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed that is not reasonable and prudent under the circumstances described in subsection (1) of this section even though the speed is lower than the appropriate speed specified in ORS 811.105 as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule. [1983 c.338 §563; 1987 c.887 §9; 1989 c.592 §4; 1991 c.728 §5; 1999 c.1051 §229; 2003 c.819 §5]
I did run into a lot of "experts" as to how an Insurance Claim worked, that were so far off the mark, it was ridiculous. And this included many Attorneys who did not work many Accident Claims.
I worked as a Company Adjuster and later as a Licensed Independent Adjuster. I was appointed to the Panel for InterCompany Arbitration and saw many cases and the work product of other companies and Adjusters. Some work product was pretty pitiful. I also was particular as to what Company I would work for and turned down many recruitment attempts. With one Company, they sent me to many off site training opportunities, including negotiating, The psychology of people and how to read and work with them to name a couple. That is not counting the associations I belonged to that put on training sessions, nor the Defense Attorneys who would do breakfast or lunch and discuss some upcoming changes and challenges.
(going faster makes me pay more attention to the road.)
So because you don't pay attention its more dangerous, not that faster speed is safer. You are the one creating the dangerous condition by not paying attention not because of the slow speed. You sound like my kid when he was 20 trying to justify the 3 speeding tickets. Your reasoning sounds just as stupid as his did.
I remember how all the timers are for the street lights are in my area. the issue is people making last second left and right turns and putting the turn signal at the last possible second. this is a issue especially on right turns since a lot of spots don't have right turn slots.
another issue is failure to maintain the car i.e bad brake lights turn signals etc... seriously the bulbs are not very expensive 3-5$ for a set of 2 at the most. The fine will set you back $370 if you get caught with bad bulbs I replace my bulbs every 6 mo (all the bulbs except the low/highbeam & interior bulbs)()
NO excuse for driving with faulty bulbs since OBD2 will light up something on your dash and ding when a brake bulb is out or turn signal will hyper flash when a bulb is faulty depending on the setup of the car
811.100 Violation of basic speed rule; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of violating the basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to all of the following:
(a) The traffic.
(b) The surface and width of the highway.
(c) The hazard at intersections.
(d) Weather.
(e) Visibility.
(f) Any other conditions then existing.
(2) The following apply to the offense described in this section:
(a) The offense is as applicable on an alley as on any other highway.
(b) Speeds that are prima facie evidence of violation of this section are established by ORS 811.105.
(c) This section and ORS 811.105 establish limitation on speeds that are in addition to speed limits established in ORS 811.111.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, violation of the basic speed rule by exceeding a designated speed posted under ORS 810.180 is punishable as provided in ORS 811.109.
(4) The offense described in this section, violating the basic speed rule, is a Class B traffic violation if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed that is not reasonable and prudent under the circumstances described in subsection (1) of this section even though the speed is lower than the appropriate speed specified in ORS 811.105 as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule. [1983 c.338 §563; 1987 c.887 §9; 1989 c.592 §4; 1991 c.728 §5; 1999 c.1051 §229; 2003 c.819 §5]
Most speed limits are made up by politician not by engineers and/or based on how the road was designed.
politicians uses these speed limits in order to make the state or local city the most amount of money on tickets. It's a proven fact the lower speed limits makes the state/city the most amount of money possible.. aka speed traps and has a higher number of accidents.
If the speed limits were higher there would be less accidents and less tickets
Also they say going faster wastes more gas this is incorrect I find optimal gas mileage/speed at
after about 90mph it start to drop off due to wind resistance.
He was traveling too fast for the conditions. You don't have to be going over the speed limit to be going too fast.
Pull up next to a cop while going the speed limit and wave to him with both hands and you can very easily receive a ticket for "traveling at an unsafe speed". -- mbsastronomy.com
Either way, since the intersection was controlled by lights and by definition if one was yellow or green, the other was red, the party at fault was nearly entirely the driver who ran the red light. The speed, if it is about the speed limit, is immaterial, really. If someone walks between two parked cars into your path are you travelling "too fast for conditions", no.
Unless there is a camera or a witness it will come down to one drivers word against another.
The way I read this is that the SUV was already in the intersection waiting to turn left on the green. The light changed while he was already waiting.... and he hurried his turn. The OP entered the intersection late (on Red) and there was a collision. I think the OP as at fault. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
I guess I don't really understand how anyone can say one car was at fault for not driving safely for conditions when the other car turned when it was not yet safe to do so, and got t-boned for its trouble.
If one car incorrectly judged the conditions and made a mistake (whether it be travelling too quickly or not stopping when they could have stopped), so did the other one. If the OP had said they were waiting at a light in the rain, the light turned yellow so they turned in front of an SUV that appeared was going too fast for the conditions, they'd also get told off for being young and silly.
I don't have the assets to cover it if I get blamed.
Insurance is there to handle not having the assets to cover it.
What sort of insurance coverage do you have? Presumably cover for the other guy is legally required. How about insurance for your own vehicle, regardless of fault?
You may be facing an increase in premiums if at fault.
Your numbers are off and do not in ANY way compare to, as far as I am concerned - no cars - cars on the road - even hybrids. It still takes more gas to go faster and turn more RPMs - the car is decidedly NOT at idle when doing 70+ mph. I do an hour drive every day and my car is NOT at idle at 70 on the highway. Wind resistance also become more of an issue at higher speeds - it takes more power to move the car thru the air as speeds increase - well before 90 mph:
quote:The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag is given by:
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW).
There is a large difference between 10 hp and 80 hp in terms of gas usage and RPMs (heck a large difference in 10 hp to 30 hp) unless the car is geared WAYYYYYYY weird. Which would make its performance going a regular speed to be pretty horrifically bad.
In my car - the mileage starts going down at 67-70 mph and greater. I get 30-32 mpg highway till those speeds. -- Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain
Most speed limits are made up by politician not by engineers and/or based on how the road was designed.
politicians uses these speed limits in order to make the state or local city the most amount of money on tickets. It's a proven fact the lower speed limits makes the state/city the most amount of money possible.. aka speed traps and has a higher number of accidents.
I could give a rat's ass who determined the speed limits. When someone drove faster than the conditions permitted and created an unsafe situation, a normal auto accident turned into one that was more complicated.
Since I worked on the Billable Hour, there was more work to do and I made more money as I could justify billing more hours.
And at times required multiple visits to the accident scene. I could also bill more mileage [I opted out of a company vehicle and used my own] and other expenses, meals, lodging and what not.
Plus the Law I posted is the Law for the State of Oregon and has remained the same since I first started working in the Insurance field in the late '70s.
I do not understand what your statements have to do with the Law of the land?
The speed, if it is about the speed limit, is immaterial, really. If someone walks between two parked cars into your path are you travelling "too fast for conditions", no.
If the road is icy, snow covered, it is foggy, sun in the eyes or some other condition, then that can and has come into play.
The speed, if it is about the speed limit, is immaterial, really. If someone walks between two parked cars into your path are you travelling "too fast for conditions", no.
If the road is icy, snow covered, it is foggy, sun in the eyes or some other condition, then that can and has come into play.
Concur.. And this is why I stressed admit nothing.. Great video on why one should not talk to the police..
. The mantra applies to police, irs agents, insurance adjusters, etc.. People will foolishly give information they don't need to give, or worse give conflicting information..
There is no reason that there is a greater fault.. I had a parking lot incident simply backing out, when a driver across and two stalls down was doing the exact same thing at the exact same time.. Was deemed mutual fault and that was the end of it..
In this cause there is negligence on both sides. It could be argued that had the OP not been driving to fast for conditions, the whole thing thing could have been avoided..
-G -- It's a fact : Chicks dig Mafia players. 'Wanna help buy a goat?' - »www.kiva.org
Fortunately I have only been involved in 1 accident and I had a State Patrolman in his car as a witness. I was rear ended by a driver, they say was going over 100mph. He died at the scene. I ended up with minor injuries and my old Chevy Farm truck was totaled but repairable. The guy almost hit the cop and at the time before and after, there was no other traffic on the freeway.
Your numbers are off and do not in ANY way compare to, as far as I am concerned - no cars - cars on the road - even hybrids. It still takes more gas to go faster and turn more RPMs - the car is decidedly NOT at idle when doing 70+ mph. I do an hour drive every day and my car is NOT at idle at 70 on the highway. Wind resistance also become more of an issue at higher speeds - it takes more power to move the car thru the air as speeds increase - well before 90 mph:
quote:The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag is given by:
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW).
There is a large difference between 10 hp and 80 hp in terms of gas usage and RPMs (heck a large difference in 10 hp to 30 hp) unless the car is geared WAYYYYYYY weird. Which would make its performance going a regular speed to be pretty horrifically bad.
In my car - the mileage starts going down at 67-70 mph and greater. I get 30-32 mpg highway till those speeds.
depends on the car but I do not feel air drag tell about 90-95mph i.e feels like the car is braking/slowing down significantly from air resistance . I keep it between 1k-2k-rpm
My dads car I can feel the significant air resistance starting at about 45mph even on the freeway down hill the car slows down from air resistance my car will speed up on down hills with out pressing the gas..
If the OP returns to the topic, then can ask a mod to re-open the topic otherwise it is a now pointless hypothetical question with insufficient information.
·
·
