Rear-ended someone, what should I do now?

[shankqiu]

Very icy/slipery road. The car in front of me stopped suddenly. I was 3-4 car length away, braked hard, ABS kicked in. I steering to the left and hit on the passanger side..

I'm at fault.

Both of the 2 drivers are with TD MM.

So, when I report to TD, will my insurance go up a lot?

I'm with them for 3yrs, no accident, but had a stop sign ticket in May 2012.

Do I qualify the first accident forgiveness?

Thanks!

[aris]

Talk to your insurance company...

[r4mi5awi]

Talk to your Insuance company...

+1. This is the wrong forum for insurance advice so please do as stated. If you want a professional opinion, CloudPump may help with how to proceed.

[Fack_Dude]

Your facked. Fix car, sell car, and buy yourself a bus pass.

[S.F.W.]

How bad is the damage to both cars ? If the repairs are affordable, try to settle privately.

[Zotaga]

You should've argued that the guy in front of you threw his car into reverse and backed into you unexpectedly. If there were no witnesses, it would be a he-said, she-said lol.

[shankqiu]

You should've argued that the guy in front of you threw his car into reverse and backed into you unexpectedly. If there were no witnesses, it would be a he-said, she-said lol.

but i didn't tell the police so...

[shankqiu]

one thing i forget to mention is that

the front car was trying to run a yellow light and stopped outside the stop line!

[Zotaga]

Ok.. so I got the story..

You were driving along minding your own business when up ahead, you saw the light changing.. as a responsible driver, you began to slow down so you could come to a complete stop. There was a car infront of you who was going pretty fast and was about to run the yellow when it all of a sudden came to a stop over the line. Since the car was in the intersection, the guy threw his car into reverse and front ended you after you already stopped.


one thing i forget to mention is that

the front car was trying to run a yellow light and stopped outside the stop line!

[Jackal]

I don't think you should use the words "I am at fault." or any of its derivatives. Just explain exactly what happened. Who knows the person in front of you might feel it's not your fault because he/she stopped so suddenly.
Another way would be as SFW mentioned.

[Zotaga]

TBH, he's probably going to get nailed with the at-fault because he wasn't driving to the conditions of the road.

There are a few things that the insurance would want to know..

1) How fast were you going and what was the speed limit in the area?
2) Were you equipped with winter tires?
3) What were the road conditions like?

If he had all-seasons and was going 50 in a 50 with crappy roads.. he'd be nailed for the at-fault.. he can't even defend that..

You also have to take into account that if the guy infront of him slammed on his brakes and didn't go right through the intersection, he/she wasn't going that fast.. if buddy slid 3-4 car lengths.. he must've been going too fast for the conditions.


I don't think you should use the words "I am at fault." or any of its derivatives. Just explain exactly what happened. Who knows the person in front of you might feel it's not your fault because he/she stopped so suddenly.
Another way would be as SFW mentioned.

[shankqiu]

Thanks everyone for your replies!

I filed an insurance claim. The other driver is actually very understandable.

My passenger was so scared at the moment, I was scared, too. I checked the side mirror first. I was trying to stop and realize it was not possible because of the slippery road and then steered to left. I guess my brain was not so clear at that moment to make a correct reaction. I certainly will drive very very very carefully from now on!

It is a big lesson for myself. Fortunately, no one was injured.

Thanks everyone!

[SKyactivmanny]

Sorry dude but youre facked period. Whether at fault or not. Well not to be a dick but you're at fault whether you really were or not its just the way it works. If you can find a loop hole then bravo. Best you can do is pay for damages. Taking it to the insurance will get you raped.

[SKyactivmanny]

You also have to take into account that if the guy infront of him slammed on his brakes and didn't go right through the intersection, he/she wasn't going that fast.. if buddy slid 3-4 car lengths.. he must've been going too fast for the conditions.

+1

[CloudPump]

You should've argued that the guy in front of you threw his car into reverse and backed into you unexpectedly. If there were no witnesses, it would be a he-said, she-said lol.

Terrible advice.

If you lie like that, the other driver is just going to subpoena traffic cameras, security cameras, ATM cameras, etc. from the area, prove you lied, and then you're looking at criminal charges for making a false statement to the police and potentially insurance fraud (depending on how far things got).

-Geoff

[CloudPump]

I don't think you should use the words "I am at fault." or any of its derivatives. Just explain exactly what happened. Who knows the person in front of you might feel it's not your fault because he/she stopped so suddenly.
Another way would be as SFW mentioned.

With the Apology Act of 2009, you are allowed to say "I'm sorry" or variations along the way and these statements do not constitute an acceptace of fault or blame.

Additionally, fault is not determined by "sorry" or saying you're at fault, it's determined by FSCO's Fault Determination Rules. Sorry or not, he is at fault when striking another car from behind.

-Geoff

[CloudPump]

Very icy/slipery road. The car in front of me stopped suddenly. I was 3-4 car length away, braked hard, ABS kicked in. I steering to the left and hit on the passanger side..

I'm at fault.

Both of the 2 drivers are with TD MM.

So, when I report to TD, will my insurance go up a lot?

I'm with them for 3yrs, no accident, but had a stop sign ticket in May 2012.

Do I qualify the first accident forgiveness?

Thanks!

Whether you qualify for accident forgivness depends on whether you had an accident waiver on your policy. Most companies will offer a waiver if you are a 6* driver. Some companies require you to be over 25 and a six star driver. Others have even more stringinet rules. Economical Select (formerly "The Waterloo") requires you to have held your license for 10 years and be a 6* before you can get a waiver. Intact insurance requires a 7* or better.

Not all companies offer accident waivers. Wawanesa is an example of a company who does not.

-Geoff

[FoXy]

You also have to take into account that if the guy infront of him slammed on his brakes and didn't go right through the intersection, he/she wasn't going that fast.. if buddy slid 3-4 car lengths.. he must've been going too fast for the conditions.

ding ding ding! We have a winner.

This is what happened. You are at fault. And yes, your insurance is going to go up... how much, well who knows. But you will feel the sting, thats for sure.

[Zotaga]

Terrible advice.

If you lie like that, the other driver is just going to subpoena traffic cameras, security cameras, ATM cameras, etc. from the area, prove you lied, and then you're looking at criminal charges for making a false statement to the police and potentially insurance fraud (depending on how far things got).

-Geoff

It wasn't serious advice :/ Just threw out an option. We live in a tainted world, it wouldn't surprise me if someone used that excuse.. As for a subpoena, no one would waste their time on that for a fender bender lol. This isn't CSI.. And what if there are no cameras to view? It would be a waste of time and money. That's why you always call the police when there is an accident. Then witnesses would eliminate the he-said, she-said.

[geobur]

Very icy/slipery road. The car in front of me stopped suddenly. I was 3-4 car length away, braked hard, ABS kicked in. I steering to the left and hit on the passanger side..

I'm at fault.

Both of the 2 drivers are with TD MM.

So, when I report to TD, will my insurance go up a lot?

I'm with them for 3yrs, no accident, but had a stop sign ticket in May 2012.

Do I qualify the first accident forgiveness?

Thanks!

Sorry I am confused you steered to the left and hit them on their passenger side? Or you hit them with your passenger side?

regardless unless you have 1st accident forgiveness yes your insurance will go up...probably not all that much so I wouldn't worry too much.


It wasn't serious advice :/ Just threw out an option. We live in a tainted world, it wouldn't surprise me if someone used that excuse.. As for a subpoena, no one would waste their time on that for a fender bender lol. This isn't CSI.. And what if there are no cameras to view? It would be a waste of time and money. That's why you always call the police when there is an accident. Then witnesses would eliminate the he-said, she-said.

also regardless of if other corrupt people might do it, or if Police would "waste their time" or not...it is wrong and shouldn't be considered as an option at all, serious or not...the reason we pay so God-damn much for insurance is because dishonest people try claiming for injury when not injured or all sorts of other scams...(and rather than try to prove otherwise it is cheaper for the insurance company to just settle)

people like this are why I have a front & back dash cam...I would love for someone to try some shit like this on me.

[CloudPump]

It wasn't serious advice :/ Just threw out an option. We live in a tainted world, it wouldn't surprise me if someone used that excuse.. As for a subpoena, no one would waste their time on that for a fender bender lol. This isn't CSI.. And what if there are no cameras to view? It would be a waste of time and money. That's why you always call the police when there is an accident. Then witnesses would eliminate the he-said, she-said.

A subpoena does not have a cost associated with it.

I can't speak for you, but if someone tried lying to me/insurance/the police about this situation and I was facing paying thousands of additional dollars a year over the next 6 years (this could add up to easily $10,000-$15,000 over that period of time depending on age/waivers/other factors), I would definitely take the small amount of time and effort to get those security cameras and prove you wrong and watch you get a criminal conviction/probation/jail time.

Short story: to save $10,000 and send someone else to jail, yes, I would take a day off work.

Over and above all that, I think you should look into vehicle Event Data Recorders. I'm unfamiliar with Mazda's application of this, but GM vehicles now record the speed, steering angle, direction, gear, etc. of the previous 15 seconds before sensors register an accident. This data can be used without your permission in court against you to dispute your version of events in an accident.

Here's a list of case law involving EDR's used for (or against) people for purposes of accident investigation.

http://www.harristechnical.com/cdr5.htm

As for "no one will investigate"... Let me tell you, insurance companies will investigate the shit out of anything if they can deny a claim or prove fraud. I work in this industry and I get to see it happen.

If you get into an accident and the insurance company suspects something fishy, they'll get your credit card receipts to find out where you're buying gas to prove you provided a false address to save money on insurance, this is just one of the simple tactics they use to deny your claim.

-Geoff

[midnightfxgt]

^^^ Zogata ownage. I love it :)

[Jackal]

Cloudpump always owns this topic. It's his business and expertise.

[midnightfxgt]

Cloudpump always owns this topic. It's his business and expertise.

Agreed.

[CloudPump]

I'm not trying to "own" or come off harsh, I just don't want people to think they can game the insurance company. There are serious consequences to what many might feel are actions that "aren't that bad". I'd hate to see someone really screw up by trying to beat the system.

-Geoff

[midnightfxgt]

I'm not trying to "own" or come off harsh, I just don't want people to think they can game the insurance company. There are serious consequences to what many might feel are actions that "aren't that bad". I'd hate to see someone really screw up by trying to beat the system.

-Geoff

I like your posts. People often post halftruths/opinions as fact, and you set it straight. Kudos :)

[FoXy]

At least you have correct information, its much more useful that a bunch of ppl just speculating but who dont work in the industry. Extremely handy to have.

[Kiewan]

I like your posts. People often post halftruths/opinions as fact, and you set it straight. Kudos :)

Work with your adjuster/ broker first. Thats why they're there. +1 CloudPump has awesome advice as well.
Good luck

[Stathakos]

Your facked. Fix car, sell car, and buy yourself a bus pass.

Ditto

Ahahaha, cloudpump is the man

[Egyptshun]

As I am studying court cases, one thing I learned as a truth is don't mess with insurance companies. Their resources, creativity, and relentlessness is a (usually) undisputed and immobilizing force. They just don't quit.

[CloudPump]

As I am studying court cases, one thing I learned as a truth is don't mess with insurance companies. Their resources, creativity, and relentlessness is a (usually) undisputed and immobilizing force. They just don't quit.

Quite true.

As a part of my job I'm requried to complete a number of hours of continuing education courses each year. Most of these are terribly dull, but the ones I enjoy the most are the fraud prevention ones. They always have excellent stories of an attempted fraud and how the company caught them.

-Geoff

[Como]

Been there similar situation.
Sorry but you're at fault. I got nailed for 'following too close' and because I was only one charged, the accident was my fault. Road conditions aren't necessarily an issue as 'everyone' is to drive according to conditions. You unfortunately didn't leave yourself enough room to stop
Sucks
Even if person in front of you SLAMS brakes on. If you hit him, it's considered your fault.

[CloudPump]

Been there similar situation.
Sorry but you're at fault. I got nailed for 'following too close' and because I was only one charged, the accident was my fault. Road conditions aren't necessarily an issue as 'everyone' is to drive according to conditions. You unfortunately didn't leave yourself enough room to stop
Sucks
Even if person in front of you SLAMS brakes on. If you hit him, it's considered your fault.

To clarify, the "following too close" doesn't have anything to do with your insurance company finding you at fault.

A common misconception is that the policy assign fault to an accident. When policy say you're at fault (or not at fault) they are exercising their opinion that your actions were in some way negligent or contrary to the HTA (or CCC in some cases). This doesn't make your accident at fault to your insurance company.

Fault by your insurance company is determined by FSCO's Fault Determination Rules. You can google this and it will bring you to a series of pictures of the different ways cars can collide, and who is assigned fault in each scenario.

A common example of police no-fault and insurance fault (I get this one all the time): Often I will have clients tell me they had a not-at-fault accident (or simply say the police officer said I'm not at fault) for this scenario; they hit a patch of black ice and slid into a ditch/tree/pole/you name it. Now the cop that showed up said "hey, it's not your fault, you hit some ice, bad luck!" and didn't issue a ticket. Your insurance company will always find you at fault for this claim.

-Geoff

[Jackal]

I'm not trying to "own" or come off harsh, I just don't want people to think they can game the insurance company. There are serious consequences to what many might feel are actions that "aren't that bad". I'd hate to see someone really screw up by trying to beat the system.

-Geoff

Whether or not you're trying to own this topic you are.
I knew you'd find a way to be contentious even when someone is complimenting you. Lol.

[Zotaga]

You're assuming there are security camera's at every corner.. depending on where the fender bender is, there could be NO SECURITY CAMERA'S to subpoena.

And yes, insurance companies do investigate but when it comes down to a he-said, she-said.. they would be hard pressed to prove anything. If the "EDR's" were prevalent, then they would be used in every accident investigation.. but are they.. no.. I don't know of a single person who's had their cars data viewed after colliding with someone else.. the two parties would usually argue whose fault it was and the cop would determine the blame based off their stories and the witness testimonials. But say you had no witnesses, no camera's, and no "EDR's".. then it would come down to a he-said, she-said fight which you cannot conclusively prove who was at fault unless you are presumptuous and just blame the driver that was in the back because that's easier.

You might work in the industry but not everything is clear cut, black and white.. there are always grey areas..

In regards to your gas statement.. that wouldn't be a valid reason to deny a claim. Let's say I only tank up at Pioneer because I really like their gas.. but the only gas station is on the other side of town.. if I always tank up there, that doesn't mean I moved to that side of town.. for the insurance company to suggest that, it would show ignorance and that insurance company would get itself into a lawsuit over a claim, tarnish it's reputation (social media, word of mouth spreads), and lose clients. If insurance companies are hell bent on committing business suicide, then that's the way to do it. When I shopped around for my insurance, I looked at the reviews.. if the company had bad reviews, I went with someone else.. and I told my family and friends who to avoid.

Welcome to the 21st Century..


A subpoena does not have a cost associated with it.

I can't speak for you, but if someone tried lying to me/insurance/the police about this situation and I was facing paying thousands of additional dollars a year over the next 6 years (this could add up to easily $10,000-$15,000 over that period of time depending on age/waivers/other factors), I would definitely take the small amount of time and effort to get those security cameras and prove you wrong and watch you get a criminal conviction/probation/jail time.

Short story: to save $10,000 and send someone else to jail, yes, I would take a day off work.

Over and above all that, I think you should look into vehicle Event Data Recorders. I'm unfamiliar with Mazda's application of this, but GM vehicles now record the speed, steering angle, direction, gear, etc. of the previous 15 seconds before sensors register an accident. This data can be used without your permission in court against you to dispute your version of events in an accident.

Here's a list of case law involving EDR's used for (or against) people for purposes of accident investigation.

http://www.harristechnical.com/cdr5.htm

As for "no one will investigate"... Let me tell you, insurance companies will investigate the shit out of anything if they can deny a claim or prove fraud. I work in this industry and I get to see it happen.

If you get into an accident and the insurance company suspects something fishy, they'll get your credit card receipts to find out where you're buying gas to prove you provided a false address to save money on insurance, this is just one of the simple tactics they use to deny your claim.

-Geoff

[Zotaga]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjj-1L6qeOc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGYuChFuH6w

[CloudPump]

You're assuming there are security camera's at every corner.. depending on where the fender bender is, there could be NO SECURITY CAMERA'S to subpoena.

And yes, insurance companies do investigate but when it comes down to a he-said, she-said.. they would be hard pressed to prove anything. If the "EDR's" were prevalent, then they would be used in every accident investigation.. but are they.. no.. I don't know of a single person who's had their cars data viewed after colliding with someone else.. the two parties would usually argue whose fault it was and the cop would determine the blame based off their stories and the witness testimonials. But say you had no witnesses, no camera's, and no "EDR's".. then it would come down to a he-said, she-said fight which you cannot conclusively prove who was at fault unless you are presumptuous and just blame the driver that was in the back because that's easier.

You might work in the industry but not everything is clear cut, black and white.. there are always grey areas..

In regards to your gas statement.. that wouldn't be a valid reason to deny a claim. Let's say I only tank up at Pioneer because I really like their gas.. but the only gas station is on the other side of town.. if I always tank up there, that doesn't mean I moved to that side of town.. for the insurance company to suggest that, it would show ignorance and that insurance company would get itself into a lawsuit over a claim, tarnish it's reputation (social media, word of mouth spreads), and lose clients. If insurance companies are hell bent on committing business suicide, then that's the way to do it. When I shopped around for my insurance, I looked at the reviews.. if the company had bad reviews, I went with someone else.. and I told my family and friends who to avoid.

Welcome to the 21st Century..

Regarding the insurance company pulling your gas receipts, I'm not suggesting it might happen and a claim might be denied. I'm saying it does happen and claims have been denied. Not solely based upon this, but it was one link in the chain.

If you live across town from the gas station, no, it's not suggestive.

However: Client A set up a policy with me a few years ago (and at a different brokerage). Client A claimed to live in Sudbury. Months later, Client A was involved in a serious accident with a pedestrian in Toronto. Client A claimed that she happened to be in Toronto visiting an uncle that day. The insurance company investigated and noticed she bought ALL her gas in Etobicoke. Client A still maintained she lived in Sudbury. The insurnace company investigated further and found she manages a retail store in the Eaton Centre. Client A still maintained she lives in Sudbury but commutes to Toronto every day. (4.5hours each way every day!) Client A's claim was denied and she was charged.

Of course there aren't security cameras at every corner. If you live in Toronto, it's likely there are though. Cameras aren't the only factors here, I'm merely using them as an example.

He-said she-said doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to accidents. Cop-said doesn't matter either. As previously posted, Police do not determine fault. As previously posted, you admitting fault does not determine fault. Fault is determined by FSCO.

Here's the Link

http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

Those pictures are what determines fault. The word "police" appears in there once.

EDRs are quite prevalent, as mentioned the worlds largest auto manufacturer has them in every vehicle they build and they're not the only ones. EDRs don't necessarily get called into court all that often as they aren't needed all that often. Let's say 10% of people lie about what happened in an accident. Of those 10% of accidents, statistically 40% of accidents are single vehicle. That leaves you with 6 accidents out of 100 where people who are lying can blame the other driver. Now of those remaining 6 accidents, how many of those have 0 witnesses, 0 cameras around and are in any way believable to the point that an investigation could occur?
Miniscule. THEN of those claims people would have to fight the determination of fault against them. Even smaller.

You might not know a single person who's had an EDR looked at after a claim, but I'm hoping you don't encounter hundreds upon hundreds of claims a year like I do.

-Geoff

[Zotaga]

If Client A had a Sudbury address on file and all his/her insurance papers were sent to that address, then that address would be valid would it not..

What if Client A had two homes? Lived in each home 50% of the time.. 50% in Toronto, 50% in Sudbury.. then would Client A still be denied? The only mistake I see here is that Client A said he/she commutes each day.

So say someone was leaving a private driveway onto a 4 lane road (2 lanes each way).. the person was turning right.. a car was coming but was in the far lane so you were safe to make the turn.. but then that person sees you are about to turn right and decides to change lanes right infront of you.. would you get nailed for that or would they for an unsafe lane change?


Regarding the insurance company pulling your gas receipts, I'm not suggesting it might happen and a claim might be denied. I'm saying it does happen and claims have been denied. Not solely based upon this, but it was one link in the chain.

If you live across town from the gas station, no, it's not suggestive.

However: Client A set up a policy with me a few years ago (and at a different brokerage). Client A claimed to live in Sudbury. Months later, Client A was involved in a serious accident with a pedestrian in Toronto. Client A claimed that she happened to be in Toronto visiting an uncle that day. The insurance company investigated and noticed she bought ALL her gas in Etobicoke. Client A still maintained she lived in Sudbury. The insurnace company investigated further and found she manages a retail store in the Eaton Centre. Client A still maintained she lives in Sudbury but commutes to Toronto every day. (4.5hours each way every day!) Client A's claim was denied and she was charged.

Of course there aren't security cameras at every corner. If you live in Toronto, it's likely there are though. Cameras aren't the only factors here, I'm merely using them as an example.

He-said she-said doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to accidents. Cop-said doesn't matter either. As previously posted, Police do not determine fault. As previously posted, you admitting fault does not determine fault. Fault is determined by FSCO.

Here's the Link

http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

Those pictures are what determines fault. The word "police" appears in there once.

EDRs are quite prevalent, as mentioned the worlds largest auto manufacturer has them in every vehicle they build and they're not the only ones. EDRs don't necessarily get called into court all that often as they aren't needed all that often. Let's say 10% of people lie about what happened in an accident. Of those 10% of accidents, statistically 40% of accidents are single vehicle. That leaves you with 6 accidents out of 100 where people who are lying can blame the other driver. Now of those remaining 6 accidents, how many of those have 0 witnesses, 0 cameras around and are in any way believable to the point that an investigation could occur?
Miniscule. THEN of those claims people would have to fight the determination of fault against them. Even smaller.

You might not know a single person who's had an EDR looked at after a claim, but I'm hoping you don't encounter hundreds upon hundreds of claims a year like I do.

-Geoff

[sube]

The moral of the story here is don't attempt to scam an insurance company to begin with. If a company suspects a fraudulent claim they will do whatever it takes to dispute it.
The amount of the claim makes no difference, it has to be seen that fraudulent claims will be contested, otherwise they will be setting a precedent. Also if you rear end another vehicle you are automatically deemed at fault.

In the end a large number of scams do get by, IE: body-shops inflating prices in order to give customers a break on deductibles. We all finish paying for this in the form of higher premiums.

Pat.

[Zotaga]

Body shops are usually in bed with the insurance agents and you pay the higher costs in the long run.. it's ironic that people scam the insurance companies while the insurance companies scam you..

It's a never ending cycle where everyone loses.


The moral of the story here is don't attempt to scam an insurance company to begin with. If a company suspects a fraudulent claim they will do whatever it takes to dispute it.
The amount of the claim makes no difference, it has to be seen that fraudulent claims will be contested, otherwise they will be setting a precedent. Also if you rear end another vehicle you are automatically deemed at fault.

In the end a large number of scams do get by, IE: body-shops inflating prices in order to give customers a break on deductibles. We all finish paying for this in the form of higher premiums.

Pat.

[peterm15]

Insurance companies have to cover their asses. ALL of them.

I have learned my lesson to NOT deal directly with insurance in my line of work. They either take 6mnths to pay, decicde to make up their own prices for work completed or dont pay the hst.

This constitutes for inflated prices if they treat the body shop industry the same.

[Stathakos]

Zotaga's hoping for a cookie by the end of this one.

[Zotaga]

For Lynch, in rains Skittles.. for Zotaga, it rains chocolate chip cookies.. and then the world goes round and round and all is good.


Zotaga's hoping for a cookie by the end of this one.

[CloudPump]

If Client A had a Sudbury address on file and all his/her insurance papers were sent to that address, then that address would be valid would it not..

What if Client A had two homes? Lived in each home 50% of the time.. 50% in Toronto, 50% in Sudbury.. then would Client A still be denied? The only mistake I see here is that Client A said he/she commutes each day.

So say someone was leaving a private driveway onto a 4 lane road (2 lanes each way).. the person was turning right.. a car was coming but was in the far lane so you were safe to make the turn.. but then that person sees you are about to turn right and decides to change lanes right infront of you.. would you get nailed for that or would they for an unsafe lane change?

Your insurance must be rated out of your primary address. You can't get a post office box in Petawawa and have your insurance rated out of that area when you live Toronto, this is called fraud (I actually get email blasts from insurance companies with the latest "popular" post office boxes so I can keep an eye out for them).

Insurance rates are largely determined by where you live, so by misrepresenting your address you can lower your insurance premium. Client A had a grandmother who lived in Sudbury and was using her address to save money on insurance. If Client A legitmately owned two properties, one in Sudbury and one in Toronto and split the time 50/50 between them, Client A would be required to declare one of them as a primary address. Believe me that if Client A got into an accident in this situation, there would be an investigation, if Client A declared Sudbury her primary address, yet 90% of her gas, groceries, etc. were purchased in Toronto... well you can see where this is going. Insurance companies employ teams of investigators whose job is to prove you're lying, they're not assigned to every case, or to most cases, but they exist and if something is wrong, it'll be looked into.

In your example, the car leaving the private driveway would be 100% at fault. If the other vehicle received a ticket for whatever... improper lane change, etc. it does not matter.

There are four tickets that can change the outcome of fault determination:

1) Impaired driving
2) Alcohol in blood greater than .08mg
3) Failure to provide breath sample
4) Speeding 16km/h or more

Now the first three are Serious/Criminal, the last is a minor violation. Just because one of these tickets has been given to the other driver DOES NOT mean that fault is reversed, it simply means that the courts will determine fault (still not the police).

Example:

Drunk guy passes out in his parked car. You hit said parked car. Police come, drunk guy will not give a breath sample. You will still be found 100% at fault and he will still get a failure to provide breath sample ticket.

-Geoff

[midnightfxgt]

I have a family member who is part of the Special Investigations at State Farm.... its crazy! The things that people try to pull are ruthless, and the lengths the insurance company will go, and the means at their disposal is intense.

[FoXy]

:pop Im gettin ma learn on here!

[Zotaga]

Your insurance must be rated out of your primary address. You can't get a post office box in Petawawa and have your insurance rated out of that area when you live Toronto, this is called fraud (I actually get email blasts from insurance companies with the latest "popular" post office boxes so I can keep an eye out for them).

Insurance rates are largely determined by where you live, so by misrepresenting your address you can lower your insurance premium. Client A had a grandmother who lived in Sudbury and was using her address to save money on insurance. If Client A legitmately owned two properties, one in Sudbury and one in Toronto and split the time 50/50 between them, Client A would be required to declare one of them as a primary address. Believe me that if Client A got into an accident in this situation, there would be an investigation, if Client A declared Sudbury her primary address, yet 90% of her gas, groceries, etc. were purchased in Toronto... well you can see where this is going. Insurance companies employ teams of investigators whose job is to prove you're lying, they're not assigned to every case, or to most cases, but they exist and if something is wrong, it'll be looked into.

In your example, the car leaving the private driveway would be 100% at fault. If the other vehicle received a ticket for whatever... improper lane change, etc. it does not matter.

There are four tickets that can change the outcome of fault determination:

1) Impaired driving
2) Alcohol in blood greater than .08mg
3) Failure to provide breath sample
4) Speeding 16km/h or more

Now the first three are Serious/Criminal, the last is a minor violation. Just because one of these tickets has been given to the other driver DOES NOT mean that fault is reversed, it simply means that the courts will determine fault (still not the police).

Example:

Drunk guy passes out in his parked car. You hit said parked car. Police come, drunk guy will not give a breath sample. You will still be found 100% at fault and he will still get a failure to provide breath sample ticket.

-Geoff

That's a bit ridonkulous. So the person turning right into an open lane would get the at fault for someone being a reckless moron and changing lanes into their path? This would be asking for insurance fraud because then lots of people that are looking to make a quick buck would change lanes last second, hit the car leaving the plaza, and make a claim. For the person leaving the plaza, they cannot reasonably assume that the driver is going to switch lanes. Common sense dictates that if you see someone pulling out, you give them the lane..

[FoXy]

The onus is ALWAYS on you to be looking out. You cant trust what other people are going to do and assume they are going to stay in their lane.

Therefore, still your fault. Better to be safe and wait for a better opportunity. Hence why I never turn right or left when I see ppl trying to turn into the same direction too, you cant trust that they will not immediately sway into the further lane.

There IS no such thing as common sense anymore so don't try to use that analagy.

Courteous and forward thinking drivers are becoming few and far between.

[Zotaga]

The problem with that argument is that you're catering to the bad drivers.. if they would start charging the drivers making unsafe lane changes, slamming on their brakes at intersections, etc.. then people would stop doing it..

You also have to take into account that if you wait too long to make a turn, you are going to start enraging the drivers behind you. You may be patient, but the 3-4 cars behind you may not be.

The traffic act should be changed so that it only charges the drivers that are careless in their decision making.. not charging the drivers that aren't mind readers.


The onus is ALWAYS on you to be looking out. You cant trust what other people are going to do and assume they are going to stay in their lane.

Therefore, still your fault. Better to be safe and wait for a better opportunity. Hence why I never turn right or left when I see ppl trying to turn into the same direction too, you cant trust that they will not immediately sway into the further lane.

There IS no such thing as common sense anymore so don't try to use that analagy.

Courteous and forward thinking drivers are becoming few and far between.

[geobur]

The problem with that argument is that you're catering to the bad drivers.. if they would start charging the drivers making unsafe lane changes, slamming on their brakes at intersections, etc.. then people would stop doing it..

You also have to take into account that if you wait too long to make a turn, you are going to start enraging the drivers behind you. You may be patient, but the 3-4 cars behind you may not be.

The traffic act should be changed so that it only charges the drivers that are careless in their decision making.. not charging the drivers that aren't mind readers.

her point is that you should be using defensive driving tactics at all times...automatically assume everyone else but you on the road is a moron, and assume that they will do something dumb. If you assume that then you can start planning ahead of time the things they could possibly do and watch for it. And have several potential ways to avoid it already planned out. If you are just driving along looking a little ahead in your lane and that is it, accidents will happen.

I am constantly watching drivers in all sorts of lanes even though they may have no direct relation to my driving...because what happens if that guy cuts off that guy? Will he swerve into me? Does that guy look like a hazardous driver? The roads are slippy is that guy coming up fast on my ass going to be able to stop? (have escape routs planned/leave extra room in front of me to pull up)

If you think about what everyone else on the road can do, you will be prepared for what can happen...thus you don't have to worry about the other morons on the road...

Should you have to drive like this? In a perfect world...no everyone would be a good courteous aware driver...now ask yourself if we live in a perfect world free of stupidity?? You now have your answer

[midnightfxgt]

Geobur and Roxy are right... defensive driving is the point.

Sure, You can rhyme off examples, but these are the guidelines that insurance companies follow. Choose to learn from them, because you won't change them when they are against you.

[Zotaga]

I do use defensive driving tactics.. but my point is, being too defensive is going to enrage other drivers.. i.e. the people who drive under the speed limit or right on the speed limit.. they are being defensive drivers.. but it pisses everyone else off.. and it causes more erratic driving from other people which leads to accidents.. so it's a catch-22.. can't be too defensive and can't be too aggressive.. I think the best solution is dash cams.. they should be mandatory.. so if anything happens.. it's all caught on camera and it eliminates this argument completely.


her point is that you should be using defensive driving tactics at all times...automatically assume everyone else but you on the road is a moron, and assume that they will do something dumb. If you assume that then you can start planning ahead of time the things they could possibly do and watch for it. And have several potential ways to avoid it already planned out. If you are just driving along looking a little ahead in your lane and that is it, accidents will happen.

I am constantly watching drivers in all sorts of lanes even though they may have no direct relation to my driving...because what happens if that guy cuts off that guy? Will he swerve into me? Does that guy look like a hazardous driver? The roads are slippy is that guy coming up fast on my ass going to be able to stop? (have escape routs planned/leave extra room in front of me to pull up)

If you think about what everyone else on the road can do, you will be prepared for what can happen...thus you don't have to worry about the other morons on the road...

Should you have to drive like this? In a perfect world...no everyone would be a good courteous aware driver...now ask yourself if we live in a perfect world free of stupidity?? You now have your answer

[Stathakos]

For Lynch, in rains Skittles.. for Zotaga, it rains chocolate chip cookies.. and then the world goes round and round and all is good.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/wtf/what.gif

[geobur]

I do use defensive driving tactics.. but my point is, being too defensive is going to enrage other drivers.. i.e. the people who drive under the speed limit or right on the speed limit.. they are being defensive drivers.. but it pisses everyone else off.. and it causes more erratic driving from other people which leads to accidents.. so it's a catch-22.. can't be too defensive and can't be too aggressive.. I think the best solution is dash cams.. they should be mandatory.. so if anything happens.. it's all caught on camera and it eliminates this argument completely.

that isn't being defensive...that is being passive or timid...I am a defensive driver, I don't trust anyone else...I don't let people wave me into intersections, I don't let people wave me into oncoming traffic...I don't assume anything other than that everyone else is stupid and not me thus unpredictable (knowing the are unpredictable makes some of what they can do more predictable)

guess how fast I drive? I drive at probably the upper 90% of drivers in terms of speed...sometimes I am the guy that has to drive around the other timid sheep who don't know how to drive. The point is...I try to always be prepared before I do anything and I am still watching all the other drivers...I think you are misunderstanding what the term defensive driving is...(probably because Young Drivers teaches it all wrong)

[Zotaga]

that isn't being defensive...that is being passive or timid...I am a defensive driver, I don't trust anyone else...I don't let people wave me into intersections, I don't let people wave me into oncoming traffic...I don't assume anything other than that everyone else is stupid and not me thus unpredictable (knowing the are unpredictable makes some of what they can do more predictable)

guess how fast I drive? I drive at probably the upper 90% of drivers in terms of speed...sometimes I am the guy that has to drive around the other timid sheep who don't know how to drive. The point is...I try to always be prepared before I do anything and I am still watching all the other drivers...I think you are misunderstanding what the term defensive driving is...(probably because Young Drivers teaches it all wrong)

I never took young drivers.. I am accident free and ticket free because I do many of the same things as you do. I follow the rules of the road and don't speed. I pay attention to everyone on the road which is why all my complaints are about near misses and not accidents. The near misses have all been causes by the other drivers being boneheads and ignoring blind spots or make ludicrous lane changes. A couple years ago, I nearly got rear ended by a speeding car. I checked my mirrors, saw no one. Signaled and started to move over when this riced out car came up behind me in that lane doing 200+ on the slow lane.. I had to swerve back into the middle lane so he doesn't slam on his brakes and rear ends me or loses control and kills someone. He was driving extremely fast and erratically. I didn't see him because he was behind the car I was infront of. I always check my mirrors and blind spot twice to avoid collisions.

[Jackal]

The onus is ALWAYS on you to be looking out. You cant trust what other people are going to do and assume they are going to stay in their lane.

Therefore, still your fault. Better to be safe and wait for a better opportunity. Hence why I never turn right or left when I see ppl trying to turn into the same direction too, you cant trust that they will not immediately sway into the further lane.

There IS no such thing as common sense anymore so don't try to use that analagy.

Courteous and forward thinking drivers are becoming few and far between.
CloudPump
Just curious who would be at fault? If I decide to turn right at a traffic light when the light is red. The guy who has the green light is driving in the farther lane but decides to change into the lane you are turning into and hits your car. Who is at fault?

[midnightfxgt]

that isn't being defensive...that is being passive or timid...I am a defensive driver, I don't trust anyone else...I don't let people wave me into intersections, I don't let people wave me into oncoming traffic...I don't assume anything other than that everyone else is stupid and not me thus unpredictable (knowing the are unpredictable makes some of what they can do more predictable)

guess how fast I drive? I drive at probably the upper 90% of drivers in terms of speed...sometimes I am the guy that has to drive around the other timid sheep who don't know how to drive. The point is...I try to always be prepared before I do anything and I am still watching all the other drivers...I think you are misunderstanding what the term defensive driving is...(probably because Young Drivers teaches it all wrong)

Pfffft. You won't convince him with reason. ;)

[midnightfxgt]

@CloudPump (http://www.torontomazda3.ca/forum/member.php?u=21951)
Just curious who would be at fault? If I decide to turn right at a traffic light when the light is red. The guy who has the green light is driving in the farther lane but decides to change into the lane you are turning into and hits your car. Who is at fault?

My assumption is that you would be at fault. You made an unsafe entry into his lane, while he was proceeding forward.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

CloudPump
Just curious who would be at fault? If I decide to turn right at a traffic light when the light is red. The guy who has the green light is driving in the farther lane but decides to change into the lane you are turning into and hits your car. Who is at fault?

The Fault Determination Rules has been stickied on this forum since 2007 (http://www.torontomazda3.ca/forum/showthread.php?19337-Ontario-Insurance-Fault-Determination-Rules)

the answer is the one turning right on a red is at fault.

[Jackal]

My assumption is that you would be at fault. You made an unsafe entry into his lane, while he was proceeding forward.

The scenario would be that the roads have 2 lanes going both directions or a 4 lane street like most of Yonge St.

[CloudPump]

CloudPump
Just curious who would be at fault? If I decide to turn right at a traffic light when the light is red. The guy who has the green light is driving in the farther lane but decides to change into the lane you are turning into and hits your car. Who is at fault?

Did you make it all the way into the lane and get hit from behind or half way and hit in the front quarter?

-Geoff

[Jackal]

Did you make it all the way into the lane and get hit from behind or half way and hit in the front quarter?

-Geoff

This is all hypothetical but let's say I am completely in the lane and I get hit from behind.

[CloudPump]

This is all hypothetical but let's say I am completely in the lane and I get hit from behind.

You will be found to have 0% fault.

-Geoff

[FoXy]

I know what Zotaga is saying in that ppl changing lanes should be at fault. But this actually happened to me once when I was a lot younger. I was changing lanes, checked my blind spot then started to merge. Someone in the far lane then decided to switch into the lane too. They determined me at fault. But then again. She was like an 80 year old asian lady, and the cop was asian too. I felt discriminated against, but what can you do. I just accepted it and moved on. I had accident forgiveness at the time. This was like 8 or more years ago.

You just cant trust ppl. I am very cautious, but i would still say I am an agressive driver. I speed (not excessively) when I can but always follow the speed limits in residental areas or where there could be children.

Besides, I dont give a shit is some ignorant ass behind me is getting enraged. If I cant go yet then I cant. Get the fudge over it.

[FoXy]

I was just in an accident over xmas holidays. Lights were all out (due to storm), came to the intersection, stopped, waited my turn, started to go, then got t-boned by some asshat who for some reason didnt even come close to stopping, or slowing down. I didnt see him at all because he was too far from the intersection and there were cars in the way.

He was 100% at fault. Failing to stop.

[distr0]

I was just in an accident over xmas holidays. Lights were all out (due to storm), came to the intersection, stopped, waited my turn, started to go, then got t-boned by some asshat who for some reason didnt even come close to stopping, or slowing down. I didnt see him at all because he was too far from the intersection and there were cars in the way.

He was 100% at fault. Failing to stop.

This is what happens when people don't know what to do when all lights are out (treat like a four-way stop!) and think oh s***, better GO-GO-GO!

[geobur]

I was just in an accident over xmas holidays. Lights were all out (due to storm), came to the intersection, stopped, waited my turn, started to go, then got t-boned by some asshat who for some reason didnt even come close to stopping, or slowing down. I didnt see him at all because he was too far from the intersection and there were cars in the way.

He was 100% at fault. Failing to stop.

OH no...I am glad you are ok...what about your poor sexy car :(

[Jackal]

You will be found to have 0% fault.

-Geoff

Ok. Thanks.

[FoXy]

OH no...I am glad you are ok...what about your poor sexy car :(

No more car for me got written off.

Such is life. People are retarded. ALWAYS cover your own ass

[geobur]

No more car for me got written off.

Such is life. People are retarded. ALWAYS cover your own ass

That really really sucks...I'm sorry to hear that.

[sube]

This is what happens when people don't know what to do when all lights are out (treat like a four-way stop!) and think oh s***, better GO-GO-GO!
Yep if lights are out then it is the same as a four way stop.
I personally hate 4 way stops as most people don't have a clue how to use them either, stop seems to mean to most people maybe I will and then again maybe I won't stop. Besides if you get in an accident at a 4 way unless you have witnesses or a dash cam it becomes a he said she said situation.

Pat.

[CloudPump]

Yep if lights are out then it is the same as a four way stop.
I personally hate 4 way stops as most people don't have a clue how to use them either, stop seems to mean to most people maybe I will and then again maybe I won't stop. Besides if you get in an accident at a 4 way unless you have witnesses or a dash cam it becomes a he said she said situation.

Pat.

I've said it multiple times in this thread.

He-said-she-said is irrelevant to the discussion.

Fault is determined by fault determination rules. Follow the link: http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf go to "accidents in intersections" and pick the scenario that best describes what you're imagining.

-Geoff

[soccerboy1491]

No more car for me got written off.

Such is life. People are retarded. ALWAYS cover your own ass

Damn sorry to hear :( I loved the wrap on your car as well.

[Noisy Crow]

Since we are talking about rules of the road...

I can find nothing about dual-right turns on red. Right turn on red is legal, so I believe that right turn from the the non-curb right turn lane is legal. I also note that some intersections with dual right turn lanes have no-right-turn-on-red signs about both lanes, again indicating the default permission is turning on red is allowed. But the fact that you have to cross over a live lane of traffic to make the turn bumps up against my sense of "stupid things to avoid doing" radar.

[peterm15]

By not allowing right turns from non curb lanes it would make the rules of the road just that much more confusing for the idiotic drivers.

[CelestSpeed3]

They should make insurance cheaper by making driver's licenses harder to get.

[FoXy]

True story, I wonder about the duel right as well. I experience this getting off the highway every day and dont know what is legal and what is not.

[Jackal]

True story, I wonder about the duel right as well. I experience this getting off the highway every day and dont know what is legal and what is not.

I believe the one closest to the curb can turn right but not the farther one. Just from memory of another thread but I could be wrong. Lol. Anyway that's what I do.

[peterm15]

"Section 144(19) of the provincial Highway Traffic Act states that right turns at intersections (and left turns from a one-way street to one-way street) are permissible against a red light where the driver comes to a full stop and proceeds safely without affecting other traffic."

Which means you are alowed BUT if you cause an accident its your fault.

Stole the quote off Google btw.

[sube]

I've said it multiple times in this thread.

He-said-she-said is irrelevant to the discussion.

Fault is determined by fault determination rules. Follow the link: http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf go to "accidents in intersections" and pick the scenario that best describes what you're imagining.

-Geoff

I am speaking of a personal experience here, at a 4 way stop I came to a complete stop in preparation for a left turn. I was first at the intersection and so had the right of way, as i moved out, a driver approached from the left, made a rolling stop through the intersection and we hit corner to corner. There were no witnesses, he claimed I was at fault and obviously he was at fault but it was judged 50/50 at fault. Cost me my deductible.
Pat.

[Kiewan]

This isn't really about the OPs accident anymore is it.....

[peterm15]

This isn't really about the OPs accident anymore is it.....

This isn't the random thread?

[Jackal]

This isn't really about the OPs accident anymore is it.....

We're learning so much doe.

[CloudPump]

I am speaking of a personal experience here, at a 4 way stop I came to a complete stop in preparation for a left turn. I was first at the intersection and so had the right of way, as i moved out, a driver approached from the left, made a rolling stop through the intersection and we hit corner to corner. There were no witnesses, he claimed I was at fault and obviously he was at fault but it was judged 50/50 at fault. Cost me my deductible.
Pat.

If you'd click the link and find your scenario, you'd see that the fault determination rules for your scenario are also 50/50. This was how the fault was determined.

-Geoff

[sube]

If you'd click the link and find your scenario, you'd see that the fault determination rules for your scenario are also 50/50. This was how the fault was determined.

-Geoff
So what you are saying is, even when you do everything right like I did you are still gonna get screwed. This is why I hate 4 way stops.

Pat.