Oh, well. Mr. 1strespondermedia Joe is not getting paid by insurance -- not with that video evidence.
I will not be able to sleep tonight as I am so sad for him.
Oh, well. Mr. 1strespondermedia Joe is not getting paid by insurance -- not with that video evidence.
Shades of Lambo in Montana. Those brake lights were visible in plenty of time. If you were, you know, paying attention.
Unfortunately, his insurance WILL pay off. They will also have to pay for damage to the vehicle he hit and any injuries to the passengers. Insurance does pay off, even if the accident is your fault.
Nope. Liability only insurance just covers damage to other's property, not your own. That's the cheapest insurance to get and the minimum required by law. I can't imagine he has comprehensive (or even any at all) that would cover his own damages.noblepa wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:15 am
Unfortunately, his insurance WILL pay off. They will also have to pay for damage to the vehicle he hit and any injuries to the passengers. Insurance does pay off, even if the accident is your fault.
This, of course, assumes that he even HAS insurance.
The insurance company will probably write him a check, and one to the owner of the other vehicle and immediately drop him as a customer.
You're probably right about that. We don't know what kind (if any) of insurance he had. If he DID have comprehensive insurance, which would be required by a lender (unless he owned it free and clear), the fact that the accident is clearly his fault does not let the insurance company off the hook.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:35 amNope. Liability only insurance just covers damage to other's property, not your own. That's the cheapest insurance to get and the minimum required by law. I can't imagine he has comprehensive (or even any at all) that would cover his own damages.noblepa wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:15 am
Unfortunately, his insurance WILL pay off. They will also have to pay for damage to the vehicle he hit and any injuries to the passengers. Insurance does pay off, even if the accident is your fault.
This, of course, assumes that he even HAS insurance.
The insurance company will probably write him a check, and one to the owner of the other vehicle and immediately drop him as a customer.
Lambo's issue was that he got hooked into David Hinkson's magic metal laced water bullshittery, buying into the claim that it cured his diabetes....pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:59 am
Shades of Lambo in Montana. Those brake lights were visible in plenty of time. If you were, you know, paying attention.
This is the first I'm hearing this.Frater I*I wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:53 pmLambo's issue was that he got hooked into David Hinkson's magic metal laced water bullshittery, buying into the claim that it cured his diabetes....pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:59 am
Shades of Lambo in Montana. Those brake lights were visible in plenty of time. If you were, you know, paying attention.
When they got him to the hospital his blood sugar was spiked over 300, well beyond the level for him to blackout...
Reminder: I don't drive. In the video, I could see the vehicle was not moving and would have slowed to a stop. This guy's vehicle never slowed, almost like he wasn't paying attention.
Well, if I were to hear David Lament, I would rather it be either his lament of the death of Johnathan and Saul (sung by an Israeli folk/rock group) - 2 Samuel 1:17-27:
Iirc, Joe said he dropped from comprehensive coverage to liability coverage.noblepa wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:15 am
Unfortunately, his insurance WILL pay off. They will also have to pay for damage to the vehicle he hit and any injuries to the passengers. Insurance does pay off, even if the accident is your fault.
This, of course, assumes that he even HAS insurance.
The insurance company will probably write him a check, and one to the owner of the other vehicle and immediately drop him as a customer.
As for the other driver stopping short: irrelevant. AFAIK, all states have a law that requires a following vehicle to keep what in Ohio is referred to as an "assured clear distance". This means that, no matter what happens, you need to be able to stop before you hit anything in front of you. That means that a rear-ender like that is just about 100 percent the fault of the following vehicle. If you hit him, you, by definition, were not keeping an assured clear distance. He was either guilty of not keeping his distance, or he was driving recklessly. Either way, it is clearly his fault.
He was in a mild fender bender while reading his livestream back in the TPC days.
If he owns the car outright, he will get a check, but only for the blue book value of the car. He lowered the value of his car by driving it to and from the east coast ... twice. He was driving 100-200 miles most days while with TPC and 1776.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 4:21 pm Even if he has comprehensive, they still won't cut him a check. If the vehicle can be repaired the insurance company pays the repair bill directly to the mechanic or body shop that does the work. If the vehicle is totaled the lien holder gets the check.
I took Driver's Education in 10th grade, in 1969 (so 53 years ago), and that was one of the first things we learned. Heck, that was probably true if'n you rear-ended somebody on a horsie.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:17 am ... it seems to be an internationally accepted principle that a driver who piles into the back of another vehicle is assumed to be at fault.
Getting nostalgic for birthers, eh? They seemed to accept their duty to entertain us with their imbecilic fantasies. They were losers, but they didn't accept that, they tried in their inept, clownish way to achieve impossible aims.
Hence the punchline to the old joke about the Catholic Priest accidentally driving into the bumper of the car in front of him and Officer O'Malley, responding to the scene, simply asks "And how fast would you say he was going when he backed into you, Father?"Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:17 amOff TopicOn driving too close: law or not, it seems to be an internationally accepted principle that a driver who piles into the back of another vehicle is assumed to be at fault. I was idly reading a drivers' problem page somewhere in Yurp (Norway?, Denmark?, I don't remember) and many of the questions were about parking fines, shoddy work by mechanics, best vehicle for the buyer's needs, that sort of thing. But in the legal section, every query of the form "the other driver stopped suddenly / was stationary in a position with poor visibility / accelerated then slowed sharply, etc., how do I sue them?" received a reply from the legal eagles along the lines of "you drove into the back of another vehicle, you're at fault, case closed".
If I have to stop anywhere unexpected where an distracted driver might dozily rear-end my car, I keep an eye on my mirror and if I see another vehicle approaching at any speed I jab the foot brake a couple times to flash the little red lights to attract attention. I don't think it has ever seen it averted a collision, but it's so little effort, and it means if something bad will happen I can see it coming.
In places like Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc., the foreigner (especially the Western foreigner) is always at fault, no matter who ran into whoSam the Centipede wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:17 am [On driving too close: law or not, it seems to be an internationally accepted principle that a driver who piles into the back of another vehicle is assumed to be at fault. I was idly reading a drivers' problem page somewhere in Yurp (Norway?, Denmark?, I don't remember) and many of the questions were about parking fines, shoddy work by mechanics, best vehicle for the buyer's needs, that sort of thing. But in the legal section, every query of the form "the other driver stopped suddenly / was stationary in a position with poor visibility / accelerated then slowed sharply, etc., how do I sue them?" received a reply from the legal eagles along the lines of "you drove into the back of another vehicle, you're at fault, case closed".
If I have to stop anywhere unexpected where an distracted driver might dozily rear-end my car, I keep an eye on my mirror and if I see another vehicle approaching at any speed I jab the foot brake a couple times to flash the little red lights to attract attention. I don't think it has ever seen it averted a collision, but it's so little effort, and it means if something bad will happen I can see it coming.
You're getting a little familiar there, ain't ya?
Depends on the company. When I had an accident while getting divorced, the policy was still in both our names so they wrote the check to both of us and she had to sign it before I could deposit it. I paid to get my car fixed myself.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 4:21 pm Even if he has comprehensive, they still won't cut him a check. If the vehicle can be repaired the insurance company pays the repair bill directly to the mechanic or body shop that does the work. If the vehicle is totaled the lien holder gets the check.