I was just in an accident
- Thread starter epj3
- Start date
Glad to see you're ok Eric, an ankle will heal.
lpquick nailed it in the head though..
Looks like your frame is bent? - any insurance no matter how good will probably 'total' your car since it's that old, and give you a check for it's value. There's no way you could repair that for less than the car's value is on the books. Which totally sucks, because I understand where you're coming from with time spent in the car..
It really doesn't look all that bad, old cars 'are' more solid, I bet that A8 looked like crap compared to yours.. The problem is, the frame looks bent, and that's alot of body work if nothing else, easily a few grand there..![[:(]](/images/smilies/frown.png "Frown [:(]")
Keep us updated man, this should 100% be the other drivers fault according to the law clip you posted. You should at least walk out with a decent check, maybe you can get into another E30 at a good price, and buy yours back at scrap price from the insurance company for parts? (just an idea, not a fun one to think about, but...)
lpquick nailed it in the head though..
Looks like your frame is bent? - any insurance no matter how good will probably 'total' your car since it's that old, and give you a check for it's value. There's no way you could repair that for less than the car's value is on the books. Which totally sucks, because I understand where you're coming from with time spent in the car..
It really doesn't look all that bad, old cars 'are' more solid, I bet that A8 looked like crap compared to yours.. The problem is, the frame looks bent, and that's alot of body work if nothing else, easily a few grand there..
Keep us updated man, this should 100% be the other drivers fault according to the law clip you posted. You should at least walk out with a decent check, maybe you can get into another E30 at a good price, and buy yours back at scrap price from the insurance company for parts? (just an idea, not a fun one to think about, but...)
Why is everyone saying that it was the other driver's fault?
The law that he posted said that you could pass on the right if it was safe to do so. That means that you have to slow down and cautiously go around the car, not maintain speed and go around without looking. Think about what the guy in the Audi saw. Depending on many conditions including the kind of car that was making the left he could have not been able to see anything until you came right at him from the shoulder.
I am not saying that it is 100 % anyone’s fault, but in this case I think it was up to you to determine weather or not it was safe to pass him. Passing on the right is an irregular thing to do while driving, as is driving in the shoulder. That being said I would tend to think that it would be up to you to make sure that you were going to hit anyone or anything by making those maneuvers; the other guy was just making a left.
The law that he posted said that you could pass on the right if it was safe to do so. That means that you have to slow down and cautiously go around the car, not maintain speed and go around without looking. Think about what the guy in the Audi saw. Depending on many conditions including the kind of car that was making the left he could have not been able to see anything until you came right at him from the shoulder.
I am not saying that it is 100 % anyone’s fault, but in this case I think it was up to you to determine weather or not it was safe to pass him. Passing on the right is an irregular thing to do while driving, as is driving in the shoulder. That being said I would tend to think that it would be up to you to make sure that you were going to hit anyone or anything by making those maneuvers; the other guy was just making a left.
I didn't maintain speed, I did downshift into 3'd (flow of traffic was going slow) and slowed down, and then started to speed up as I was next to the vehicle in front of me.
It was safe - and its not irregular. There isn't one person out here who wouldn't have done the same thing. It's perfectly legal too. I wasn't in the shoulder either. The car in my lane was already turning as I was going around them, so I was still more than half in the lane itself. The person making a left turn wasn't moving either until I got right behind them where they started turning so I started to accelerate. It's absolutely legal to do what I did. I did it cautiously. The only reason I say I wasn't going any faster than 35 is becuase I had slowed down quite a bit, and didn't start accelerating until they actually started to turn.
BTW It's illegal to cross into an opposite lane of travel - so no matter what, he is more at fault than I would be. Remember, I was still in my lane of travel. The guy in the audi was moving quickly too - notice my bumper is pushed to the passenger side...
It was safe - and its not irregular. There isn't one person out here who wouldn't have done the same thing. It's perfectly legal too. I wasn't in the shoulder either. The car in my lane was already turning as I was going around them, so I was still more than half in the lane itself. The person making a left turn wasn't moving either until I got right behind them where they started turning so I started to accelerate. It's absolutely legal to do what I did. I did it cautiously. The only reason I say I wasn't going any faster than 35 is becuase I had slowed down quite a bit, and didn't start accelerating until they actually started to turn.
BTW It's illegal to cross into an opposite lane of travel - so no matter what, he is more at fault than I would be. Remember, I was still in my lane of travel. The guy in the audi was moving quickly too - notice my bumper is pushed to the passenger side...
![[rofl]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_rofl.gif "ROFL [rofl]"){kind=icon}
Oh man, silly cheese people.What has this got to do with being a BMW? If you are covered for the car (not just for third party cover etc) it won't matter a bean about liability for the accident.
When it comes to cops & insurance companies they will also weigh up the 'young guy' aspect of the incident. Regardless of real fault, if a young driver is involved skews the perspective.
Sad pic of your car... behind bars & everything.
When it comes to cops & insurance companies they will also weigh up the 'young guy' aspect of the incident. Regardless of real fault, if a young driver is involved skews the perspective.
Sad pic of your car... behind bars & everything.
NZL said:
What has this got to do with being a BMW? If you are covered for the car (not just for third party cover etc) it won't matter a bean about liability for the accident.
When it comes to cops & insurance companies they will also weigh up the 'young guy' aspect of the incident. Regardless of real fault, if a young driver is involved skews the perspective.
Sad pic of your car... behind bars & everything.
When it comes to cops & insurance companies they will also weigh up the 'young guy' aspect of the incident. Regardless of real fault, if a young driver is involved skews the perspective.
Sad pic of your car... behind bars & everything.
NZL said:
What has this got to do with being a BMW? If you are covered for the car (not just for third party cover etc) it won't matter a bean about liability for the accident.
When it comes to cops & insurance companies they will also weigh up the 'young guy' aspect of the incident. Regardless of real fault, if a young driver is involved skews the perspective.
Sad pic of your car... behind bars & everything.
When it comes to cops & insurance companies they will also weigh up the 'young guy' aspect of the incident. Regardless of real fault, if a young driver is involved skews the perspective.
Sad pic of your car... behind bars & everything.
Do you think they'll give me the value of the car back? At least - a reasonable amount? I'm EXPECTING at least $3400 because of all the recent repairs I've done (like the 4 days and $500 I spent replacing my clutch...).
If not I'm not sure why I'm paying an extra $30 a month for insurance.
Will this work in my favor? It's worded a little better than the previous text I pasted.
http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA3304.html
http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA3304.html
Here ya go, Why I'm not guilty. I also take back that I was going no faster than 35 - I HAD to have been going around 20 mph when it happened. I slowed down to the point that I was JUST in the process of downshifting into 2nd to re-accelerate becuase the SUV in front of me making the left turn slowed down. BUT the SUV started making their turn so I put it back in 3'd and proceeded to go around them as they made their move. Normally it wouldn't have been a problem. I was still more than half way on the road!!! The cops would attest to this (where we were stopped on the road) and I'm sure there's some kind of skid marks unless some how abs kicked in, which of course there would be no marks.
From the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes:
Title 75: Chapter 33: § 3322. Vehicle turning left.
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left within an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is so close as to constitute a hazard.
Title 75: Chatper 33: § 3304. Overtaking vehicle on the right
(a) General rule.-The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under one of the following conditions:
1. When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the berm or shoulder of the highway.
2. Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaken vehicle, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.
(b) Limitation.-No passing movement under this section shall be made unless the movement can be made in safety.
I NEVER LEFT the shoulder of the road (which as the statue says, is perfectly legal to pass on the right as I had, except for when you would have to leave the SHOULDER of the road or there is an obstruction or if it requires you to drive off the roadway. I did NEITHER. I was at least halfway on the road itself, other half on the shoulder of the road. It is absolutely NOT illegal to do what I did, and he is at fault.
From the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes:
Title 75: Chapter 33: § 3322. Vehicle turning left.
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left within an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is so close as to constitute a hazard.
Title 75: Chatper 33: § 3304. Overtaking vehicle on the right
(a) General rule.-The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under one of the following conditions:
1. When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the berm or shoulder of the highway.
2. Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaken vehicle, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.
(b) Limitation.-No passing movement under this section shall be made unless the movement can be made in safety.
I NEVER LEFT the shoulder of the road (which as the statue says, is perfectly legal to pass on the right as I had, except for when you would have to leave the SHOULDER of the road or there is an obstruction or if it requires you to drive off the roadway. I did NEITHER. I was at least halfway on the road itself, other half on the shoulder of the road. It is absolutely NOT illegal to do what I did, and he is at fault.
i don't know how pa's insurance works, in michigan, we have teh good ole no-fault, so you pay no matter what, unless you have broad collision, which states, if you are not at fault, deductalbe is waived. (of course you pay a bit mroe too..) but the insurance would at least cover the damages to the car right? or the blue book value for it. degree of fault may result in higher premiums.. but then again, that's just my guess and no expert insurer's opinion.
i'll be pulling for ya to get the best out of the situation. it's gotta be tough to be in college and have to go through this crap. nothing like putting in hours on end and money into a car, only to get shitty compensatiion out of it. but you know, as gloomy as things may seem, after a pouring rain, there will always be sunny days. hope everything works out in the end.
i'll be pulling for ya to get the best out of the situation. it's gotta be tough to be in college and have to go through this crap. nothing like putting in hours on end and money into a car, only to get shitty compensatiion out of it. but you know, as gloomy as things may seem, after a pouring rain, there will always be sunny days. hope everything works out in the end.
Well, this is where the grey area comes in:
(b) Limitation.-No passing movement under this section shall be made unless the movement can be made in safety.
The cop could argue that the oncoming Audi making a turn made your passing on the right an unsafe move, particularly if the vehicle you were overtaking was an SUV that obstructed your view of the area in front of it. Technically, you are never supposed to pass a vehicle unless you can be certain there are no other vehicles around that would make the passing unsafe. The cop could argue that the SUV obstructed your view of what the oncoming traffic was doing, so you really couldn't pass him safely. I really think the judgment of fault could go either way in this case, depending on how the cop interprets the law or feels about the situation.
Shouldn't you have already found out who was at fault? I still don't understand why the fault wasn't assessed at the scene. Seems kinda shady to me
(b) Limitation.-No passing movement under this section shall be made unless the movement can be made in safety.
The cop could argue that the oncoming Audi making a turn made your passing on the right an unsafe move, particularly if the vehicle you were overtaking was an SUV that obstructed your view of the area in front of it. Technically, you are never supposed to pass a vehicle unless you can be certain there are no other vehicles around that would make the passing unsafe. The cop could argue that the SUV obstructed your view of what the oncoming traffic was doing, so you really couldn't pass him safely. I really think the judgment of fault could go either way in this case, depending on how the cop interprets the law or feels about the situation.
Shouldn't you have already found out who was at fault? I still don't understand why the fault wasn't assessed at the scene. Seems kinda shady to me