*** The official car accident thread***

[screwbash]

Park St, Morvart

charge the driver of the white car,he park the wrong side of the road.

[VexXx Dogg]

As expected, the Forester took the impact like a champ. Saved the box Lancer person too by absorbing energy. 1 front cut and it ready for family duty once again.

I hope the lancer man make a jail

[Soul Collector]

As expected, the Forester took the impact like a champ. Saved the box Lancer person too by absorbing energy. 1 front cut and it ready for family duty once again.

I hope the lancer man make a jail

It really did. The 4 occupants being able to walk out of that with no critical injuries alone is a testament to the safety they known for. The lancer men got the brunt of it. One of their seatbelts burst, the driver had buss up lip etc.

The officers seemed to know the driver, not sure, but they didn't want to administer a breathalyzer test despite seeing and smelling the guy. They also saw him throwing his stack of cups out the car saying it's not his and frig him up...

He also had NO INSURANCE.

[pugboy]

No insurance should be banned from driving, when you have no insurance and you injure others as well as damage other property
it is the worst because the victims have no real recourse.

[rspann]

What I just read ? Seat belt burst ? WDA...

[Soul Collector]

No insurance should be banned from driving, when you have no insurance and you injure others as well as damage other property
it is the worst because the victims have no real recourse.

This is where I started losing my sheit a bit. Why the hell am I making insurance payments for? Am I not insuring against this VERY thing? Drunk idiots, people who are on the road who AREN'T supposed to be there, case in point driving with no insurance.

And if I gathered correctly, if insurance hears you or the even the wrong driver is drunk, they will have no part to play in it and it would move onto criminal proceedings, something so. Suing etc. So tell me again just wtf we paying insurance for?

As for the no recourse part...well yeah. Uncle just get to walk away after almost destroying a few families and also property. All he saying is "sorry". I don't want him to have a license at the very least. Will keep y'all updated if I know what comes of him yes.

[pugboy]

Insurance companies does breaks and find all kinda excuse not to compensate too
I hear if the wrong driver not listed on policy they does refuse to pay even if obvious case of who right.

[Soul Collector]

Exactly so ^
The more dealings I had with various insurance companies over the years, I swear, they are more like a huge law firm rather than an insurance company to help people in times of crisis. And it's not like you're asking for a favour eh, you paying your money for a legally required, essential service. But a service with just how many limitations? I going to walk with a very specific list of questions next time I have to renew my insurance and see what kinda responses I get.

[rspann]

When you buy insurance , these questions are asked beforehand . They want to know the risk so they ask who is going to be driving , where it's going to be parked , ages of drivers , and other info that you sign to. If you breach the policy they are within their rights not to pay. The premium cost is proportionate to the risk . A new driver doesn't have the experience so it's a higher risk and the premium is loaded. They won't pay if a driver is drunk , because he is not supposed to be in control of a vehicle in the first place.

[pugboy]

The problem is when the owners lend/rent cars and have no idea of these fine prints
It is the victims to ketch not the errant driver who borrow a car to pull bull

[screwbash]

No insurance should be banned from driving, when you have no insurance and you injure others as well as damage other property
it is the worst because the victims have no real recourse.

how will dis wuk when demerit points add up and license suspended and them kaka holes still wah drive and pull bull and drive drunk and make a RTA, what will be the innocent man recourse? plenty cases will come before the court before the year end.

[zorced]

This whole story is beyond appalling. Thank goodness you guys' health was the exception to the madness.
Also making me consider a fozzy again.

[foots]

What I just read ? Seat belt burst ? WDA...

I eh seeing the number plate on that lancer, but I remember having a PAK series in that colour musbe 15 yrs ago. The seatbelt buckle mount had rusted through and had to be welded back in place.

Thought it was a bit too sketchy and sold it soon after.

[maj. tom]

So the lancer man was fish drunk and the police eh do nothing to him?

Yuh eh see dem so deserve a caved in skull with a wheel spanner? Demerit points doing he something in real life? Tmrw he driving again without a license and still drunk again.

[shake d livin wake d dead]

Early morning

[shake d livin wake d dead]

[Dave]

Hence why we have a flourishing foreign used industry and stolen car market!

[shake d livin wake d dead]

Anedda one

[rebound]

Wtf!!! Laying on the side is the new style?

[Rovin]

e wuz geeing ah lil too hard ....

[Spitfir3]

truck man have real nuggets to be pullin out d road with a car coming at you at that speed

[elec2020]

Could someone clarify to me, cause i could be wrong, but ain't the truck man would be partly liable as the car man technically had the right of way

[pugboy]

hard to prove even though car was speeding
car man shoulda hit the truck but of course risky with life

[elec2020]

Got you... if he hit him he would have had more of a case... but no guarantee he would have survived... technically both parties wrong eh... but i studying in those kind of cases who insurance and police would count as the one who caused the accident... the guy who was speeding... or the guy who came out from a minor onto a major road without due care to individuals who already proceeding on the major road

[agent007]

In the first frame below, you can see the truck driver already fully crossed the immediate lane to enter the other lane of the road. You can now see the black vehicle which the driver already lost control of, before entering that frame. Therefore, driver of black vehicle was going at a rate of speed that exceeds his ability to stay in control, whether right or wrong, especially knowing there is a street there and pedestrian crossing lines.

In the second frame below, you can see the truck already almost fully positioned onto the other lane, where the black vehicle makes contact with the pole. I think driver of black vehicle is wrong.

Pedestrians could have gotten killed here. Everyone is fortunate to walk away, because, that black vehicle was decelerating hence the fish tail onto the side walk. He covered about 30ft in 1s, which means at the point of deceleration including friction, the speed at pole impact could have been 33kmph. Prior to car driver entering that frame and prior to slamming on his brakes, he could have been going in excess of 50kmph which is above the stipulation for that road.

[elec2020]

Got u... make alot of sense... i dont dispute that the car guy was speeding... what i was studying is the car guy crashed because he was trying to avoid the truck... if the car guy did not attempt to slow himself down he would have t boned the truck... in t bone accidents isnt the guy who was coming from the minor road deemed wrong... but this accident may be a bad example as the frames u showed me make for a really compelling argument that the car guy was way over the limit

[shake d livin wake d dead]

Piarco intersection

[shake d livin wake d dead]

Today's play

[shake d livin wake d dead]

Nissan love

[shake d livin wake d dead]

Small thing