How fast food can destroy your car

[Flylow11]

Well I stopped by Wendy's for lunch today( a salad and unsweetened tea that's this is what i get eating healthy lol). While leaving I pulled out into traffic only to have someone merge into my lane while I pulled out. Anyway crushed passenger side door and scraped up the rear door. All the curtain airbags deployed which really rang my bell. I digress........car is at the body shop and I await the sad news.

 

[SHOdded]

So sorry to hear! Are YOU OK? Hope to hear good news ...

 

[Flylow11]

I'm doing good air bag burn and bruised hip from seat belt thank you for asking, now I'm just sick over my girl.

 

[BlueSHO]

Damn that sucks. Any pictures of the carnage?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Flylow11]

I'll try tomorrow. I'm gonna run by the body shop. I wonder what the repair cost will be with airbags popped.

 

[SilverSH0]

Dang man, glad you're not too banged up. I read merged into your lane and it sounded pretty minor. But deploying the airbags and having a bruised hip from the seatbelt makes it sound a lot more than a minor fender bender.

 

[Flylow11]

Not sure of his speed he was mid 80's not sure he even knew what happened. He keep saying I pulled right in front of him. I don't think he realized he crossed into the other lane. Nice guy and at least no one was badly hurt

 

[OmaHahn]

Police called? Who was ticketed? Not to be mean, but mid 80's??? Dang! The DMV REALLY needs to start cracking down on drivers that are in their golden years! Sorry, but i laughed when I read that he said you pulled out right in front of him - but what I was envisioning is you pulling out and 2 mins later he rams into you - I bet all he fixated on was your car pulling out and wasn't even watching the road!
On a serious note - this is exactly why I NEVER pull out / turn onto a road while other vehicles are coming - even if they are in another lane - never know how stupid they are and might change lanes right into you! Just like I never turn when I see a car coming with their turn signal on - again, never know how stupid someone is and might not even know their signal is on!

 

[Flylow11]

LOL!! True. Yeah he was born in 1932. No one was ticketed which I was told means they aren't assigning fault. So we will most likely have to take care of our own vehicles. The body shop said they est the damage at about 8500. Not to bad

 

[SilverSH0]

LOL!! True. Yeah he was born in 1932. No one was ticketed which I was told means they aren't assigning fault. So we will most likely have to take care of our own vehicles. The body shop said they est the damage at about 8500. Not to bad

First off, the police do NOT determine fault. The police are there to take reports, give information to the insurance companies, and issue tickets if someone did something illegal. My guess is no one got a ticket because there were no laws broken. Merging into an occupied lane isn't illegal (unless someone failed to yield at a sign) but will result in an accident. I know police don't determine fault because I was in a minor accident many years ago and the cops told me it was my fault. It went to insurance and they determined the other driver was at fault. A lot of people believe the police determine fault but that's incorrect.

Just make sure you talk to your insurance and give them your side of the story. They will get the information they want and then decide who's at fault (or how much fault each party is responsible for). Just because the police might RECOMMEND no one is at fault doesn't mean insurance will come to the same conclusion.

On another note I disagree with the DMV cracking down on old people as that's age discrimination. I couldn't make the statement, "The DMV needs to crack down on Asian people who cannot drive" because that wouldn't be accepted by anyone. Thus it shouldn't be accepted to discriminate against people simply due to their age. There are many older people who can properly drive and don't have issues. What the DMV needs to do is crack down on EVERYONE. All one has to do is pass a test at 16 and then pay a fee to keep their license. They need to implement a regular test every few years that everyone must pass to keep their license.

 

[Flylow11]

I agree I gave a complete statement to the insurance company today. And yes I agree with age discrimination being wrong. If you're a bad driver you shouldn't be on the road. And recurring tests would help regardless of age sex or race. But I do think after a certain age tests should be yearly to make sure the individual is safe to operate a vehicle.

 

[OmaHahn]

On another note I disagree with the DMV cracking down on old people as that's age discrimination. I couldn't make the statement, "The DMV needs to crack down on Asian people who cannot drive" because that wouldn't be accepted by anyone. Thus it shouldn't be accepted to discriminate against people simply due to their age. There are many older people who can properly drive and don't have issues. What the DMV needs to do is crack down on EVERYONE. All one has to do is pass a test at 16 and then pay a fee to keep their license. They need to implement a regular test every few years that everyone must pass to keep their license.

So....I agree to a point as I'm the one who mentioned "old people." In all reality, the older you get, your reflexes, vision, hearing, decay and the human body basically falls apart - without a single doubt affects driving ability. Therefore, it's not discrimination - such as jobs that require you to lift a certain weight, stand, etc isn't discrimination if someone in a wheel chair submits an application. Asian people that can't drive is totally irrelevant but that would be discrimination against that race. I agree there are older people that drive fine, but again in reality, even these people are going to be a much higher risk for an accident due to their age - it's just a fact. How many times do you read about "someone," driving through a farmers market or smashing through doors & windows of a retail shop killing & injuring loved ones? Guess what?......it's always an old person! Sorry!

 

[SilverSH0]

So....I agree to a point as I'm the one who mentioned "old people." In all reality, the older you get, your reflexes, vision, hearing, decay and the human body basically falls apart - without a single doubt affects driving ability. Therefore, it's not discrimination - such as jobs that require you to lift a certain weight, stand, etc isn't discrimination if someone in a wheel chair submits an application. Asian people that can't drive is totally irrelevant but that would be discrimination against that race. I agree there are older people that drive fine, but again in reality, even these people are going to be a much higher risk for an accident due to their age - it's just a fact. How many times do you read about "someone," driving through a farmers market or smashing through doors & windows of a retail shop killing & injuring loved ones? Guess what?......it's always an old person! Sorry!

I disagree the statement "Asian people can't drive" is irrelevant in the context I'm using it. You are correct in that it is irrelevant in terms of can someone drive or not. The context I'm using it is to show that it's unacceptable to use a single discriminating factor (such as age) that's not relevant to requirements to qualify/disqualify someone from something.

Yes, the older you get the more your body falls apart and that affects your ability to drive. The proper way to deal with that is to set up tests that ensure everyone can meet the minimum body requirements to drive. That might be sight, hearing, reaction time, etc. Age itself is not something that can qualify someone to drive. As you get older it can become harder to pass the tests (as reaction time slows, sight becomes worse, and heard degrades), but age is not the qualifier and is just as irrelevant as race.

If a job requires you to lift a certain weight and stand, it's not discrimination to reject someone in a wheelchair because you have defined physical requirements that person cannot meet. It would be discrimination to say a job requires someone to be 7 foot tall and because because Asians are statistically the shortest people in the world they are disqualified. No, you establish a minimum height and anyone who cannot meet it is disqualified.

The point was that for driving test we need to establish the minimum requirements and then require everyone to pass those tests. But establishing a test and saying anyone over the age of 70 must take and pass this test to keep their license is discrimination. Yes older people are more likely to have driving problems, but that is not what makes them bad drivers. Just because someone is more likely to be in an accident doesn't mean you single them out as the only ones to pass a given requirement.

 

[SHOdded]

I think if you follow driving laws to the letter, you cannit drive safely in today's environment. You have to be flexible and adaptable to the situation at hand. If evasive maneuvers are necessary, be prepared and consider not just your own safety, but that of those around you. So that is the level of training a driver should be expected to have.

 

[Wood's Bull]

Silver SHO I'm not picking a fight but having been in law enforcement for over 30 years I can say that it is definitely the police's job to investigate and assign fault in a motor vehicle crash. Just because their findings and the insurance company's don't agree doesn't mean that the police agency investigating the crash merely provided their reports to the insurance company. In Michigan, where I work, there is a section on each report that lists a hazardous action code for each driver involved. That tells the Secretary of State (MI's DMV) which driver caused the crash. That block is purposely blanked out on the copy of the crash reports that the public receives, but is filled in on the forms issued to the insurance companies and used in court.

 

[SilverSH0]

Silver SHO I'm not picking a fight but having been in law enforcement for over 30 years I can say that it is definitely the police's job to investigate and assign fault in a motor vehicle crash. Just because their findings and the insurance company's don't agree doesn't mean that the police agency investigating the crash merely provided their reports to the insurance company. In Michigan, where I work, there is a section on each report that lists a hazardous action code for each driver involved. That tells the Secretary of State (MI's DMV) which driver caused the crash. That block is purposely blanked out on the copy of the crash reports that the public receives, but is filled in on the forms issued to the insurance companies and used in court.

I can tell you that it's not that way in Indiana. Having been in an accident where the police told me it was my fault and I wasn't at fault, I can tell you the word of the police is not the final decision. In my accident the police told me it was my fault and it was a minor fender bender so I told the other guy to get an estimate, let me know how much it was, and then if it wasn't too expensive I would pay out of pocket (because I also believed the police determined fault and they told me it was my fault). He came back with $2,500 for something that was only a golfball sized dent in the fender so I told him to turn it into insurance. After it was turned into insurance and they got done, they said it was his fault and his insurance paid for my repairs. What I've stated is what they told me in that they determine fault and not the police. So I'm also not trying to pick a fight, but first hand experience tells me the police don't have the final word.

You can fill out the reports and list the hazardous actions for each driver, that's simply reporting facts like I stated originally. Regardless of who the police say is at fault (and they can state who they think is at fault), the insurance companies make that call.

 

[Racer X]

This is why I drive with a dashcam now. Takes the he said/ she said out of it and get's right down to the facts.

 

[Wood's Bull]

In Michigan, the hazardous action code is what is used to determine fault. In a court, the judge will use that to make a determination. Laws in each state vary so your experience in Indiana will be different from mine. I have investigated my fair share of accidents and can tell you from experience that those codes are used. Your insurance company might take other things into consideration like, how long you have been a policy holder or your claims record. Or it could have simply been the officer that investigated the accident decided to give you a break after reviewing your driving record.