Got hit by my by neighbour...

[Sebi]

Hi,

I apologize if this question was posted before... I'm not sure if I'm doing the right steps! This is how it happened: I back out from my driveway, mirror-signal-blind spot, shift into 1st gear, then BAM! My neighbour from across the street backs out his driveway without looking, straight into my rear door. The window is intact, the front door and rear quarter is fine (can't even find a scratch), but the door is bended, including the black upper frame with the window.

His insurance will increase, so he offered to pay for the damage. However, I don't think it will be cheap to fix, plus rent a car for a few days. What's the best thing to do? File a report at a collision centre, get a quote from a shop, talk with the guy, and if it doesn't work out call the insurance company? I'm afraid that if I call the insurance guys too late, I'll be in trouble...

Thanks in advance!

[FoXy]

Get a quote and see what he says. You can either take it to the dealer or to some sort of reputable shop.

[geobur]

ya there is no law that says you have to report it right away, it just states you should report it a collision reporting center as soon as possible. I had an accident on a Friday night and didn't report it until I believe the following Monday or Tuesday. After I was getting quotes on how much it would be to fix without insurance.

I would check how much it will cost to fix and tell your neighbor and see if he is willing to pay it. As long as it is done right who cares if insurance was involved or not (better for him, better for you)

if he doesn't want to pay that price or wants you to take it to "his buddy or this guy that can do it cheaper" tell him you would rather go through insurance. Don't let him screw you around.

All you have to do to go through insurance is go to your nearest collision reporting center and report it. But make sure you have all the details of the accident.

[SKYMP3]

Looks like the whole door needs to replace then has to re do the wiring.
At least $1000-1500 I would say

[gabbygenier]

i can tell you from experience (happened to my car twice now on the rear driver side door) it will be around 2000$. i went to lots of places for quotes here in Ottawa and the cheapest i found was 1800$ at one place cause i was a preferred customer (had been there for 3 accidents already) and that was not through insurance either. all the other places quoted me above 2000$

[Gizzmo_jr]

Make sure all decisions are on your terms.

When I had an accident years ago, the guy wanted to pay out of pocket.
Start with a quote from a garage of your choice. Present that to them, and if they don't accept you'll have to escalate it higher (insurance). Never let them do a favor for you, it's their fault!

[gabbygenier]

Make sure all decisions are on your terms.

When I had an accident years ago, the guy wanted to pay out of pocket.
Start with a quote from a garage of your choice. Present that to them, and if they don't accept you'll have to escalate it higher (insurance). Never let them do a favor for you, it's their fault!


+9999999 on this. ive had issues twice because i was trying to be nice. just get the insurance info from them and if they start dicking you around just call your insurance.

ive had to get the cops to call one person and they were on the phone for 2 hours before they gave them the insurance info. not fun at all

[Sebi]

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the quick answers! I got his insurance details, plates and phone number, but I can always go to his house, he lives literally across the street. I don't know him personally, this is why I'm a bit sceptic about letting him pay... can he refuse to pay the bill? The witnesses are my wife and his wife only.

Should I report the accident to the collision centre? I feel I should, the damage is obviously over $1k... if I do report it, can I still by-pass the insurance and let him pay for the repair?

[midnightfxgt]

If it gets reported, they will notify your insurance company and it will be a hassle.

Get a quote, get him to agree (in writing would be good) to pay, and get the work done.

[geobur]

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the quick answers! I got his insurance details, plates and phone number, but I can always go to his house, he lives literally across the street. I don't know him personally, this is why I'm a bit sceptic about letting him pay... can he refuse to pay the bill? The witnesses are my wife and his wife only.

Should I report the accident to the collision centre? I feel I should, the damage is obviously over $1k... if I do report it, can I still by-pass the insurance and let him pay for the repair?

As far as I know as soon as you report it, you will have to get insurance involved. So if you don't care and that's the route you want to go with do that. But if you are trying to give your neighbor the benefit of the doubt to keep things civil get one quote some place you trust and see if he is ok with the cost (probably close to $2000) if not say it will be easier to go through insurance then you can report it. As long as you have his insurance info there will be nothing more you have to worry about pretty much. However in this situation the insurance companies might want to take a look at the damage to determine who is at fault...even though you say it was clearly his...because like you said only witnesses are you, him and both your wives...

[geobur]

If it gets reported, they will notify your insurance company and it will be a hassle.

Get a quote, get him to agree (in writing would be good) to pay, and get the work done.

+1

[113GT]

your title hurted my brain.

I feal licke eye lawst sum braen sells

[Sebi]

Sorry about the title... sticky keys!


your title hurted my brain.

I feal licke eye lawst sum braen sells

[mathew.poulos]

your title hurted my brain.

I feal licke eye lawst sum braen sells

I was wondering what the neighbors sexual preference had to do with an accident

[terapr0]

the problem you're in now is that without a police report, it's your word against his and there's nothing to stop him from changing his story.
Happened to me not long ago in Niagara Falls NY. Some ******* in a minivan ran a red light and clipped the front of my car - totally acknowledged that it was his fault, gave me his insurance info (I was so upset / rattled that I didnt even notice it was expired) and acted like he was going to take full responsibility for everything. Sure enough, like 2 months later I get a call from my state farm agent saying the guy changed his story and is now claiming it was all my fault. Even with my photos and witness statements, it was my word against his and they ruled we were both at fault.
No matter how inconvenient it may seem at the time, ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS get a police report....even if you're in the middle of the street with people honking at you to move, wait right there and let the police determine fault. It's the best insurance you'll find.

$0.02

[geobur]

I was wondering what the neighbors sexual preference had to do with an accident

lmfao took me a while to understand your post...then I got it and loled my boss looked at me strangely :p

[terapr0]

is "a$$hole" really blocked out? they can even say that $hit on the radio.
Holy unnecessary political correctness batman!

[Lockdown]

Just get in writing that he was at fault
then get in writing that he will be paying for it

if either of these conditions are not met, go to the collision reporting center

I believe all accidents with damage over $800 must be reported, this may have changed to a higher number

[geobur]

Just get in writing that he was at fault
then get in writing that he will be paying for it

if either of these conditions are not met, go to the collision reporting center

I believe all accidents with damage over $800 must be reported, this may have changed to a higher number

I believe it is over $1000 now

[Lockdown]

I believe it is over $1000 now

I'm sure this is over $1000

[geobur]

I'm sure this is over $1000

probably. Unfortunately with the way cars are built these days pretty much anything can be over $1000 no such thing as fender benders anymore. :/

[Lockdown]

probably. Unfortunately with the way cars are built these days pretty much anything can be over $1000 no such thing as fender benders anymore. :/

True. unfortunately building them safer, with multiple crumple zones, means a lot more pieces have to be replaced rather than repaired.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

If it gets reported, they will notify your insurance company and it will be a hassle.

Get a quote, get him to agree (in writing would be good) to pay, and get the work done.

go to the collision reporting centre after hours when the insurance agents aren't there....then you don't have to report the collision to the insurance company right away if you don't want to.

OP... if you had finished backing out of your driveway and were going forward when the neighbour backed into you, he is 100% at fault section 19(a) (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900668_e.htm) ... file the Collision Report, it is your proof that, if you do go through insurance, you aren't scamming them and that you have sworn proof of the details of the incident.

you can give your neighbour a chance but, in all likelihood, he is not forking over $2000 to fix your car unless he feels that his insurance will increase >$2000.

[Rob23]

If it gets reported, they will notify your insurance company and it will be a hassle.

Get a quote, get him to agree (in writing would be good) to pay, and get the work done.

This is not completely true. I have reported collisions to the collision report center and not reported it through insurance before. It depends on your insurance company.

[geobur]

True. unfortunately building them safer, with multiple crumple zones, means a lot more pieces have to be replaced rather than repaired.

honestly I think I would still prefer a big metal beast of a car like the cars of the 60s lol...although they weighed a hell of a lot more, and were harder on gas which is the main reason they have made them smaller and crappier. They needed to figure out ways to increase fuel economy and lower car emissions, so they used lighter materials and made cars smaller thus they had to rely on the crumple zones as that was the only way they could make the small light cars of today safer. Other than that I think overall the big steel cars were safer. Way less injuries and deaths from car accidents years ago than there are today.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

honestly I think I would still prefer a big metal beast of a car like the cars of the 60s lol...although they weighed a hell of a lot more, and were harder on gas which is the main reason they have made them smaller and crappier. They needed to figure out ways to increase fuel economy and lower car emissions, so they used lighter materials and made cars smaller thus they had to rely on the crumple zones as that was the only way they could make the small light cars of today safer. Other than that I think overall the big steel cars were safer. Way less injuries and deaths from car accidents years ago than there are today.

reducing injuries and deaths in car collisions means dissipating the energy from the crash BEFORE it reaches the people inside the passenger compartment.

dissipating that energy calls for crumple zones (the crash energy goes into deforming metal rather than breaking bones)

here's a way to illustrate this...

1) imagine you run into a wall with a "metal beast" of a beam (one that cannot deform, or deforms minimally) against your chest... what happens? the beam barely deforms, as it is quite "strong", and the beam goes through your chest. but hey, there's barely any damage to the beam so it doesn't cost anything to repair.

2) now imagine you run into a wall with a beam that has crumple zones against your chest ...what happens? the beam deforms completely and you walk away with little to no injuries.

which would you rather prefer?

[geobur]

reducing injuries and deaths in car collisions means dissipating the energy from the crash BEFORE it reaches the people inside the passenger compartment.

dissipating that energy calls for crumple zones (the crash energy goes into deforming metal rather than breaking bones)

here's a way to illustrate this...

1) imagine you run into a wall with a "metal beast" of a beam (one that cannot deform, or deforms minimally) against your chest... what happens? the beam barely deforms, as it is quite "strong", and the beam goes through your chest. but hey, there's barely any damage to the beam so it doesn't cost anything to repair.

2) now imagine you run into a wall with a beam that has crumple zones against your chest ...what happens? the beam deforms completely and you walk away with little to no injuries.

which would you rather prefer?

hmm...probably the "metal beast" of a beam...but I would avoid running into walls with it. Just in case :p

[113GT]

is "a$$hole" really blocked out? they can even say that $hit on the radio.
Holy unnecessary political correctness batman!

shit

ass-hole

*******

[Lockdown]

hmm...probably the "metal beast" of a beam...but I would avoid running into walls with it. Just in case :p

There were less deaths because there were less people

[geobur]

There were less deaths because there were less people

I believe you mean less crappy drivers :p

[Lockdown]

I believe you mean less crappy drivers :p

No there were the same percentage of crappy drivers, if not more. There were just less people in general. Either way, the lead sled is dead for a reason. That may be a Dr Seuss book

[mathew.poulos]

These crumbling bumpers are hit and miss.

The GFs Ford Escapse has a plastic lower piece on the front bumper, similar to the rear valance on some 3's.

When she bumped someone it only costed a few hundred bucks to get it replaced. Where as on my old Jetta, there was one small little dent in the back left corner from being rear ended, and it was ~2500 for an entire bumper as they could not repair it.

[Flagrum_3]

No there were the same percentage of crappy drivers, if not more. There were just less people in general. Either way, the lead sled is dead for a reason. That may be a Dr Seuss book

Not a Chance! There is definately a much larger percentage of crappy drivers nowadays, unquestionably. Half the morons out there nowadays couldn't drive 'properly' if their lifes depended on it...trust me on this.

When it comes to vehicle deaths; I viewed a documentary a while back on the subject and the statistics showed a higher death to accident ratio back in the day, and more deaths period. Reason being, sure you were driving a tank, but so was the other guy. Problem was no one wore seatbelts, and so you have two tanks hit eachother and neither one 'gives' an inch, people would be thrown around like ragdolls. I can remember reading, back then, about shitloads of accidents where the passengers were ejected thru the windshields!. Even when they brought in the seatbelt laws, many people died simply because of internal injuries from the belts. Think about it, if the car doesn't give and stops dead at 60 mph, the human body then must give at a rate of 60 mph, hense the internal damage. Crumple zones have basically eliminated the chance of this now. So maybe these cars are more expensive to repair, but atleast you have a far better chance of walking away from an accident alive or not crippled...Pretty fair trade-off I'd say.

_3

[Lockdown]

Not a Chance! There is definately a much larger percentage of crappy drivers nowadays, unquestionably. Half the morons out there nowadays couldn't drive 'properly' if their lifes depended on it...trust me on this.

When it comes to vehicle deaths; I viewed a documentary a while back on the subject and the statistics showed a higher death to accident ratio back in the day, and more deaths period. Reason being, sure you were driving a tank, but so was the other guy. Problem was no one wore seatbelts, and so you have two tanks hit eachother and neither one 'gives' an inch, people would be thrown around like ragdolls. I can remember reading, back then, about shitloads of accidents where the passengers were ejected thru the windshields!. Even when they brought in the seatbelt laws, many people died simply because of internal injuries from the belts. Think about it, if the car doesn't give and stops dead at 60 mph, the human body then must give at a rate of 60 mph, hense the internal damage. Crumple zones have basically eliminated the chance of this now. So maybe these cars are more expensive to repair, but atleast you have a far better chance of walking away from an accident alive or not crippled...Pretty fair trade-off I'd say.

_3

I'll wait for your proof on the first part that is " unquestionably "

Lets deal in facts and facts only please

Being that neither of us was around in the 60s and I am guessing only one of us was around in the 70s neither of us have the first hand knowledge. Shoot some facts though, and lets have at it.

"unquestionably" is italicized why? I want to be sure I have the correct meaning that you are trying to convey

[SilentJay]

Please excuse my half-baked logic here - I'm operating on very little sleep.

If the damage caused by the accident is proving to be more expensive than the $1000 mandatory accident-reporting threshold, then in theory, not reporting the accident is illegal right? Then even if there is a written note (contract) with a promise to pay for the damages if nothing is reported, aren't contracts created on the premise of illegal things null in court? I remember the example used in Law class very clearly: "It's like a crack dealer signing a contract to offer his goods at a certain price. Just try to sue him for charging more!" I guess that's the risk you run if your neighbour is a scumbag.

[peterm15]

Ya. Let's not believe everything we see on tv. Here is some actual proof that crumple zones do what they are designed to do, reducing FATALITIES in accidents.

http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/mvas_e.htm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp3322-2009-1173.htm


Driver ownership has Increased and so has the number of accidents. BUT fatalities have decreased.


I would also like to point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with his neighbor hitting his car. Nor does accident repair.

What has caused an increase in cost of repair is simple. Cost of labour.

In 1979 my mother made $1.79/hr. which is ALOT less then today. Minimum is over 6 times that amount today.

[Lockdown]

Please excuse my half-baked logic here - I'm operating on very little sleep.

If the damage caused by the accident is proving to be more expensive than the $1000 mandatory accident-reporting threshold, then in theory, not reporting the accident is illegal right? Then even if there is a written note (contract) with a promise to pay for the damages if nothing is reported, aren't contracts created on the premise of illegal things null in court? I remember the example used in Law class very clearly: "It's like a crack dealer signing a contract to offer his goods at a certain price. Just try to sue him for charging more!" I guess that's the risk you run if your neighbour is a scumbag.

My neighbour told me his crack dealer said the same thing to him "try and sue me"

Off topic
There was a case similar on World's Dumbest Criminals where a guy gave some money to his dealer for drugs, he called the police when he didn't receive said drugs, the police promptly picked him and his dealer upz, d'oh

[Sebi]

Quick update... the quote I got to replace the door with a "second hand - first class" one, paint, fix the front door was close to $3K; so I'll go with the insurance, I don't think the guy's insurance will increase by this much!

Thanks everyone for the replies!

[leungalv]

Not a Chance! There is definately a much larger percentage of crappy drivers nowadays, unquestionably. Half the morons out there nowadays couldn't drive 'properly' if their lifes depended on it...trust me on this.

When it comes to vehicle deaths; I viewed a documentary a while back on the subject and the statistics showed a higher death to accident ratio back in the day, and more deaths period. Reason being, sure you were driving a tank, but so was the other guy. Problem was no one wore seatbelts, and so you have two tanks hit eachother and neither one 'gives' an inch, people would be thrown around like ragdolls. I can remember reading, back then, about shitloads of accidents where the passengers were ejected thru the windshields!. Even when they brought in the seatbelt laws, many people died simply because of internal injuries from the belts. Think about it, if the car doesn't give and stops dead at 60 mph, the human body then must give at a rate of 60 mph, hense the internal damage. Crumple zones have basically eliminated the chance of this now. So maybe these cars are more expensive to repair, but atleast you have a far better chance of walking away from an accident alive or not crippled...Pretty fair trade-off I'd say.

_3

I fully believe everything I see in documentaries, especially ones made my Michael Moore because they are wholly unbiased without an ulterior agenda. I further contend that FOX News is the definitive source for professionalism and accurate news reporting :chuckle


Please excuse my half-baked logic here - I'm operating on very little sleep.

If the damage caused by the accident is proving to be more expensive than the $1000 mandatory accident-reporting threshold, then in theory, not reporting the accident is illegal right? Then even if there is a written note (contract) with a promise to pay for the damages if nothing is reported, aren't contracts created on the premise of illegal things null in court? I remember the example used in Law class very clearly: "It's like a crack dealer signing a contract to offer his goods at a certain price. Just try to sue him for charging more!" I guess that's the risk you run if your neighbour is a scumbag.

Yes you are correct ... the principle is from Cope v. Rowlands (1836), 150 E.R. 707, 710. :):)

[leungalv]

Quick update... the quote I got to replace the door with a "second hand - first class" one, paint, fix the front door was close to $3K; so I'll go with the insurance, I don't think the guy's insurance will increase by this much!

Thanks everyone for the replies!

I think Friendly Autobody can do much much better ... I was quoted I think around $300 to replace the door (genuine part used) including the door, paint, and labour.

[Nick]

by-pass the insurance? that is your back up if he doesn't pay out-of-pocket, this is the main reason to report to the collision centre. the collision centre on Howden is privately owned, they will urge you to call your insurance before you leave but that is your decision. on the other hand, all the tow truck drivers will tell you not to call your insurance. i say, report it within the 24 or 48 hour period to cover your butt, get an estimate, propose it to your neighbour. if he agrees to pay then great, if not, don't be sour about it but tell him you have reported it and you have no choice but to go through with insurance. good luck

[Flagrum_3]

I'll wait for your proof on the first part that is " unquestionably "

Lets deal in facts and facts only please

Being that neither of us was around in the 60s and I am guessing only one of us was around in the 70s neither of us have the first hand knowledge. Shoot some facts though, and lets have at it.

"unquestionably" is italicized why? I want to be sure I have the correct meaning that you are trying to convey

I'm mostly talking from my own experience here, and I have been driving since the early 70s. Facts? Where are you getting your facts? The numbers can be researched, I'm not here to educate.

_3

[Flagrum_3]

Ya. Let's not believe everything we see on tv. Here is some actual proof that crumple zones do what they are designed to do, reducing FATALITIES in accidents.

http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/mvas_e.htm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp3322-2009-1173.htm


Driver ownership has Increased and so has the number of accidents. BUT fatalities have decreased.


I would also like to point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with his neighbor hitting his car. Nor does accident repair.

What has caused an increase in cost of repair is simple. Cost of labour.

In 1979 my mother made $1.79/hr. which is ALOT less then today. Minimum is over 6 times that amount today.

I know your comment may have not been addressed to me, but I don't think anyone argued that crumple-zones do not decrease fatalities, unless I missed something. Your second line just confirms what I was saying, more cars, more accidents, but less fatalities.

But, as for your reasoning of labour being the main cause of high repair costs, your only partly right. The cost of parts has skyrocketted, and because of the crumple-zone design in newer cars, more parts need replacing, compared to the older design, hense creating more work hours per job, and lets not forget the overhead!....Wages have definately not kept up with inflation whatsoever. Before you say I'm wrong, why not check out what the price of a house was in 1979 in T.O., or a litre of fuel, a loaf of bread, or auto insurance and/or especially taxes, lol.

_3

[peterm15]

I know your comment may have not been addressed to me, but I don't think anyone argued that crumple-zones do not decrease fatalities, unless I missed something. Your second line just confirms what I was saying, more cars, more accidents, but less fatalities.

But, as for your reasoning of labour being the main cause of high repair costs, your only partly right. The cost of parts has skyrocketted, and because of the crumple-zone design in newer cars, more parts need replacing, compared to the older design, hense creating more work hours per job, and lets not forget the overhead!....Wages have definately not kept up with inflation whatsoever. Before you say I'm wrong, why not check out what the price of a house was in 1979 in T.O., or a litre of fuel, a loaf of bread, or auto insurance and/or especially taxes, lol.

_3

For sure labour is only one reason. I just wanted to make a quick statement about that without going into a cost comparison between the 70's and today.

And I actually misunderstood you. I thought you were arguing the fact that crumple zones were good thing.

[geobur]

I'll wait for your proof on the first part that is " unquestionably "

Lets deal in facts and facts only please

Being that neither of us was around in the 60s and I am guessing only one of us was around in the 70s neither of us have the first hand knowledge. Shoot some facts though, and lets have at it.

"unquestionably" is italicized why? I want to be sure I have the correct meaning that you are trying to convey

ya I'm going to have to say I agree with Flagrum too, not from personal experience but speaking from my dad's experience he constantly goes on about how 80% of drivers would NOT have gotten their licences back when he first started driving, he can't believe how bad people are not understanding or following simple rules of the road or rules of courtesy. He is 57 so he was definitely driving in the 70s and there is definitely a higher concentration of bad drivers but just more bad drivers in general.

on an unrelated note...I enjoy how I have partially/accidentally de-railed this thread by making a mostly joking comment about prefering an older car over a new one. (even though I would definitely like to drive an old Muscle car) and then joking about more crappy drivers (although that was less joke and more actual opinion)

[Lockdown]

I'm mostly talking from my own experience here, and I have been driving since the early 70s. Facts? Where are you getting your facts? The numbers can be researched, I'm not here to educate.

_3


Since there is no actual documentation on crappy drivers, lets just agree to disagree and try and get this thread back on topic.

There is a hell of a lot more cars on the road then there were 20 years ago when I started driving and there are far more steps to getting a license.

Shit I got my 365 without reading the handbook, booked my test without having taken a lesson and with a couple of trips around the block from Young Drivers, I was a licensed driver.

I hadn't driven on a 400 series highway before getting my license. It wasn't part of the testing. the biggest part of the road test was parking, parallel, uphill and downhill and then into a spot at the testing facility, not even backing in. The test was under 20 mins. At the time, I am sure you are aware that you could take your 365 test and road test within 24 hours of each other. I hate to wait 3 months because there wee no openings, I was the last year before graduated licensing.

I think graduated licensing has at least taught most a litl more than what I needed to pass my test.

[Flagrum_3]

Since there is no actual documentation on crappy drivers, lets just agree to disagree and try and get this thread back on topic.

There is a hell of a lot more cars on the road then there were 20 years ago when I started driving and there are far more steps to getting a license.

Shit I got my 365 without reading the handbook, booked my test without having taken a lesson and with a couple of trips around the block from Young Drivers, I was a licensed driver.

I hadn't driven on a 400 series highway before getting my license. It wasn't part of the testing. the biggest part of the road test was parking, parallel, uphill and downhill and then into a spot at the testing facility, not even backing in. The test was under 20 mins. At the time, I am sure you are aware that you could take your 365 test and road test within 24 hours of each other. I hate to wait 3 months because there wee no openings, I was the last year before graduated licensing.

I think graduated licensing has at least taught most a litl more than what I needed to pass my test.

I am absolutely sure there is documentation somewhere i.e; Insurance companies. But obviously is not made public for various reasons. I will be polite and agree to disagree, but I sense the fact of my extensive driving experience in and around the GTA seems to be simply irrelevant all of a sudden. I'll also venture to say that the multi-step licensing scheme obviously seems to be a failure, as far too many people who have been licensed since it's inception drive like morons.

Anyways yes back on topic...


_3

[m_bisson]

I'll wait for your proof on the first part that is " unquestionably "

Lets deal in facts and facts only please

Being that neither of us was around in the 60s and I am guessing only one of us was around in the 70s neither of us have the first hand knowledge. Shoot some facts though, and lets have at it.

"unquestionably" is italicized why? I want to be sure I have the correct meaning that you are trying to convey

NewScientist magazine published an article discussing leading causes of death.

Road traffic: a surprise male killer
Overall, two-thirds of the world's population will die from non-infectious diseases, such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. But there are some surprising differences between the biggest killers in men and women.

Globally, the most common cause of female death is AIDS, which claims the lives of 14.4 per cent of women. Cardiovascular diseases account for 10.7 per cent of deaths, while injuries and pregnancy-related conditions are each responsible for 7.5 and 7.3 per cent respectively.

The most significant cause of death in men is cardiovascular disease - responsible for 12.8 per cent of deaths. In joint second place are AIDS and road traffic accidents - each responsible for 10.7 per cent of deaths. Violence is also an important factor, and is behind 5.2 per cent of male deaths. Just 0.5 per cent of women die in road accidents.

While lifestyle factors and disease epidemics represent big challenges, road traffic accidents are highly preventable, says Majid Ezzati at Imperial College London. "There are known policy actions that have large gains."



Full article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628963.600-overeating-now-bigger-global-problem-than-lack-of-food.html