Posts by darkranger8

Hey there. 🙂 This actually happened quite a while ago.

darkranger8 said:Hey everyone, I’ve got a few questions and would really appreciate some insight.

So, there was a car accident, and the police showed up to do their investigation. I handed over my ID and insurance info just like they asked, and I took a breathalyzer test. I walked away with two pieces of paperwork: one was the official alcohol and drug test report showing a 0.0, and the other was a notice stating my plates were impounded because the car isn't drivable anymore. I didn't get a copy of the actual accident report on the spot. The cops basically told me I'm at fault here—that the other driver isn't responsible and the damage is going to hit my insurance policy.

So, here’s what I’m wondering:

Do I actually need to be there when he goes to meet with my insurance company to get his car appraised?

And does he even need my specific insurance details for that appraisal process? (I don't think he has them since I gave everything to the officers rather than him, and the official accident report should be arriving in the mail later anyway.)

Then there's the accident itself. I lost control of my vehicle—even though I was totally within the speed limit—and ended up spinning out until I was sitting perpendicular to the road. That's when he slammed into me. The police are pinning it on me because I lost control of the car in the first place.

But since he's the one who actually struck my car, and usually the person who rear-ends someone is the one held liable, shouldn't he be sharing some of the blame for not keeping a safe following distance or failing to brake in time?

Thanks for any help.

Well, a few months have rolled by and I haven't received anything in the mail. But then, out of nowhere, the other driver reaches out to me. He starts telling me this whole story about how he probably hit his head on the roof during the crash, had to see doctors, wore a neck brace, and all that good stuff.

Then he asks if I could send him my full name and vehicle registration again. When I asked him why on earth he needed that, he claimed the police need my details for court. 😁.

The whole thing felt super sketchy to me, so I pressed him for more info. Over our two conversations, his story kept shifting; first, he said the doctors needed my info, but after a long-winded explanation about his health struggles, he finally admitted his lawyer needs the data. I tried asking which court we're talking about or who the actual plaintiff is, but after a bunch of back-and-forth confusion 🙂 he refused to give me any specifics.

Now I'm sitting here wondering if this is just him trying to file a private lawsuit against me, and if that's the case, what does the legal process even look like?

Lawrence Wood56 said:Whether the cops actually show up or not doesn't really matter; the main thing is that you're always supposed to swap info.

Common sense doesn't always line up with how the legal system actually works.
You win or lose based strictly on the facts. If you really think you've got a case, I guess you should just ask the judge to call for an expert witness during the main trial.

You really have to figure out what actually caused the crash—whether it was speeding, an unsafe pass, or just being exhausted. Alcohol, drugs, or meds are more like contributing factors that might or might not have been the main reason it happened, though I guess you definitely can't just ignore them.

I guess that's probably the best way to go about it. Good luck!

The thing is, I honestly don't even know if I'm right here. I know for a fact I messed up by losing control of my car. To be fair, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how it even happened. There was a car right in front of me that slammed on its brakes, and while I tried to react, I just wasn't fast enough. In my attempt to dodge them, I jerked the wheel and ended up spinning out, but I didn't actually hit the guy in front of me.

I totally own the fact that I was wrong for not keeping enough following distance, which is why I lost control. At the moment, I felt like it was all on me. But now that I've had some time to cool off and think about it, I'm wondering why the same standard wouldn't apply to the driver who was tailgating me from behind...

At the end of the day, I never even touched the car in front of me; he's the one who hit me.

Lawrence Wood56 said:Nah.

Section 176 of the Highway Safety Act.
If you're ever involved in a fender bender where nobody actually got hurt and it's just damage to the cars, They really ought to be.If possible, maybe just get those cars off the road right away to keep traffic moving? And then someone should probably fill out and sign the European Report or whatever else is needed. Maybe we should swap some personal info and vehicle details. I guess..

It’s a bit tough to really weigh in on this based on just one sentence. But, I guess it looks like they're leaning on the Highway Safety Act here—you know, that rule about drivers needing to maintain a safe speed. I guess we should probably just adapt. I guess you have to account for everything—road quality, visibility, weather, how your car's handling and load are set up, and even how heavy traffic is—just so you can stop in time for whatever comes up. It's basically about being able to react to anything you can reasonably see coming.

I guess it’s not even about breaking the rules, it's more like the speed limit just isn't set right for this road.

I guess that whole idea about the person who rear-ends someone being automatically at fault isn't really backed by science. To me, blame for following too closely or not adjusting to someone else's speed should probably be looked at through actual facts—like where and when it happened, road conditions, how the highway was designed, and even how the drivers were feeling. There are just so many other factors to consider.

btw, I guess someone's fault only really gets proven in the proper place—the court.

He grabbed my cell number and full name, just like I did with his. He didn't ask for any info on my car, and I didn't ask for anything regarding his. It looks like neither of us had heard a peep about that European Report, either—honestly, the cops didn't mention it to us at all. They did take down my vehicle details, though, so I'm pretty sure they pulled the same info from him.

Are you actually sure this article is talking about those situations where the cops show up to process a crime scene? To me, it only really makes sense if we're talking about cleaning things up privately without any law enforcement getting involved.

So, I finally asked him at the end if he’s actually going to need that for the assessment or if it's just extra noise, you know? 🤷

Lawrence Wood56 said:Nah.

Section 176 of the Highway Safety Act.
If you're ever involved in a fender bender where nobody actually got hurt and it's just damage to the cars, They really ought to be.If possible, maybe just get those cars off the road right away to keep traffic moving? And then someone should probably fill out and sign the European Report or whatever else is needed. Maybe we should swap some personal info and vehicle details. I guess..

It’s a bit tough to really weigh in on this based on just one sentence. But, I guess it looks like they're leaning on the Highway Safety Act here—you know, that rule about drivers needing to maintain a safe speed. I guess we should probably just adapt. I guess you have to account for everything—road quality, visibility, weather, how your car's handling and load are set up, and even how heavy traffic is—just so you can stop in time for whatever comes up. It's basically about being able to react to anything you can reasonably see coming.

I guess it’s not even about breaking the rules, it's more like the speed limit just isn't set right for this road.

I guess that whole idea about the person who rear-ends someone being automatically at fault isn't really backed by science. To me, blame for following too closely or not adjusting to someone else's speed should probably be looked at through actual facts—like where and when it happened, road conditions, how the highway was designed, and even how the drivers were feeling. There are just so many other factors to consider.

btw, I guess someone's fault only really gets proven in the proper place—the court.

Looking at it from a common-sense, health-conscious perspective, I can't help but feel that if I wasn't matching my speed to the situation, then he couldn't have been properly adjusted either...

Lawrence Wood56 said:Nah.

Section 176 of the Highway Safety Act.
If you're ever involved in a fender bender where nobody actually got hurt and it's just damage to the cars, They really ought to be.If possible, maybe just get those cars off the road right away to keep traffic moving? And then someone should probably fill out and sign the European Report or whatever else is needed. Maybe we should swap some personal info and vehicle details. I guess..

It’s a bit tough to really weigh in on this based on just one sentence. But, I guess it looks like they're leaning on the Highway Safety Act here—you know, that rule about drivers needing to maintain a safe speed. I guess we should probably just adapt. I guess you have to account for everything—road quality, visibility, weather, how your car's handling and load are set up, and even how heavy traffic is—just so you can stop in time for whatever comes up. It's basically about being able to react to anything you can reasonably see coming.

I guess it’s not even about breaking the rules, it's more like the speed limit just isn't set right for this road.

I guess that whole idea about the person who rear-ends someone being automatically at fault isn't really backed by science. To me, blame for following too closely or not adjusting to someone else's speed should probably be looked at through actual facts—like where and when it happened, road conditions, how the highway was designed, and even how the drivers were feeling. There are just so many other factors to consider.

btw, I guess someone's fault only really gets proven in the proper place—the court.

Look, I know it hasn't been scientifically proven in a lab setting yet, but honestly, in all my years of seeing how things go down, when there isn't any alcohol involved, the pattern is pretty much statistically undeniable.

So, what’s the move here? Just show up to court, face the music, and see how the chips fall where they may?

Hey everyone, I’ve got a few questions and would really appreciate some insight.

So, there was a car accident, and the police showed up to do their investigation. I handed over my ID and insurance info just like they asked, and I took a breathalyzer test. I walked away with two pieces of paperwork: one was the official alcohol and drug test report showing a 0.0, and the other was a notice stating my plates were impounded because the car isn't drivable anymore. I didn't get a copy of the actual accident report on the spot. The cops basically told me I'm at fault here—that the other driver isn't responsible and the damage is going to hit my insurance policy.

So, here’s what I’m wondering:

Do I actually need to be there when he goes to meet with my insurance company to get his car appraised?

And does he even need my specific insurance details for that appraisal process? (I don't think he has them since I gave everything to the officers rather than him, and the official accident report should be arriving in the mail later anyway.)

Then there's the accident itself. I lost control of my vehicle—even though I was totally within the speed limit—and ended up spinning out until I was sitting perpendicular to the road. That's when he slammed into me. The police are pinning it on me because I lost control of the car in the first place.

But since he's the one who actually struck my car, and usually the person who rear-ends someone is the one held liable, shouldn't he be sharing some of the blame for not keeping a safe following distance or failing to brake in time?

Thanks for any help.