traffic discussions

[FishingMOM]

So not to take over the thread where someone else little buddy is in hospital.
You guys are asking why shouldn't you be held liable for hitting the car in front when your rear ended.

1. You didn't leave enough space
2. You didn't have control

When I was taught to drive I learned that you should see cement between your hood and their back wheels. This has served me well as I was hit at a high rate of speed by someone who was distracted I didn't hit the guy in front of me. I got pushed, but had room to move.

[coreya3212]

And if you can see cement, and your are rear needed into someone, does insurance still blame you?

You have bought into the excuses that insurance companies use when the reality is, they want as many deductibles collected as possible....they agree to do this as a industry to peel more cash from the public. All the folks who speak of being raked over by oil companies should really focus on the biggest scam in our society, insurance companies.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

And if you can see cement, and your are rear needed into someone, does insurance still blame you?

You have bought into the excuses that insurance companies use when the reality is, they want as many deductibles collected as possible....they agree to do this as a industry to peel more cash from the public. All the folks who speak of being raked over by oil companies should really focus on the biggest scam in our society, insurance companies.

^^^ this.....and that extra 4' of space will mean squat in most cases, because some dolt in a Prius will think you're leaving him room to get in...

[propliner]

Even 20 feet of space means nothing when someone slams into you from behind at 70 km/h.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

And if you can see cement, and your are rear needed into someone, does insurance still blame you?



You have bought into the excuses that insurance companies use when the reality is, they want as many deductibles collected as possible....they agree to do this as a industry to peel more cash from the public. All the folks who speak of being raked over by oil companies should really focus on the biggest scam in our society, insurance companies.

???????

I'm sure most people that have received a payout compensation from an insurance policy would disagree with you.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

???????

I'm sure most people that have received a payout compensation from an insurance policy would disagree with you.

???????
I am sure most people that have been denied a legit claim and have had to scrape and claw and fight to get compensation/payout from an insurance policy would agree with me.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

???????

I am sure most people that have been denied a legit claim and have had to scrape and claw and fight to get compensation/payout from an insurance policy would agree with me.

I was referring to the fact you claimed it to be the biggest scam.

Maybe if people weren't trying to fraudulently obtain compensation from insurance companies they wouldn't be so difficult to deal with

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

I was referring to the fact you claimed it to be the biggest scam.

Maybe if people weren't trying to fraudulently obtain compensation from insurance companies they wouldn't be so difficult to deal with

They don't need to be so difficult to deal with for legitimate claims though. I swear that they strategize frustrating legitimate claimants with enough red tape to immobilize Godzilla as a method of making them give up in frustration (thus increasing profits!). What amounts to going through hell for the claimant is a performance bonus for the insurance staffer! What is truly obnoxious is that the money for their bonus came from the claimants premiums....

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

They don't need to be so difficult to deal with for legitimate claims though. I swear that they strategize frustrating legitimate claimants with enough red tape to immobilize Godzilla as a method of making them give up in frustration (thus increasing profits!). What amounts to going through hell for the claimant is a performance bonus for the insurance staffer! What is truly obnoxious is that the money for their bonus came from the claimants premiums....

Yeah it can be difficult to get compensated even with legit clams
Absolutely

But maybe it wouldn't be
If it wasn't for the fraudulent ones.

I wouldn't claim them to be the biggest scam going though

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

Yeah it can be difficult to get compensated even with legit clams
Absolutely

But maybe it wouldn't be
If it wasn't for the fraudulent ones.

I wouldn't claim them to be the biggest scam going though

I would. At least so far as legitimate businesses go (we'll exclude illegitimate snake-oil sales and investment fraud, Bernie Madoff, etc). The insurance industry were pretty much first through the gate in lobbying government to make their industry mandatory, how many would opt to have it if the government didn't make it law? If everyone had kept the money they've paid into insurance they'd be able to afford that auto body repair or new siding, or pay off the house early. Sure some would be out of pocket in big losses such as house fires, but as a whole society would have more money of their own to invest as they see fit. Those profits the insurance industry posts every year don't come out of thin air.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

I would. At least so far as legitimate businesses go (we'll exclude illegitimate snake-oil sales and investment fraud, Bernie Madoff, etc). The insurance industry were pretty much first through the gate in lobbying government to make their industry mandatory, how many would opt to have it if the government didn't make it law? If everyone had kept the money they've paid into insurance they'd be able to afford that auto body repair or new siding, or pay off the house early. Sure some would be out of pocket in big losses such as house fires, but as a whole society would have more money of their own to invest as they see fit. Those profits the insurance industry posts every year don't come out of thin air.

If people paid thousands of dollars a year on their insurance

I pay less than 1K a year on vehicle insurance.

Most vehicle repairs are thousands of dollars these days

My deductible is a couple hundred.

If repair shops were more honest it wouldn't be a problem

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by FishingMOM

So not to take over the thread where someone else little buddy is in hospital.
You guys are asking why shouldn't you be held liable for hitting the car in front when your rear ended.

1. You didn't leave enough space
2. You didn't have control

When I was taught to drive I learned that you should see cement between your hood and their back wheels. This has served me well as I was hit at a high rate of speed by someone who was distracted I didn't hit the guy in front of me. I got pushed, but had room to move.

Years ago 3 of us (occupants in my car)were stopped at a horrific accident, we we're topped about 20 cars from the accident, traffic was stopped in both directions, police, ambulances and fire trucks were on scene, without warning we were rear ended by a vehicle driving our large sedan into the car ahead of us, we pushed 5 more vehicles into the next car ahead of us, the impact was so severe the rear window from my car was blown out and 150 feet to the rear of my car , intact in the ditch,

The two occupants of the car that rear ended us were killed in the impact , later it was determined the both of them were extremely impaired by alcohol ,

3 vehicles ahead of us were totalled from the impact, 2 others severely damaged,

The front seat of my car was torn from the frame/body of the car by the impact
and was in the rear seat after the collision,

If you can see someway I would be liable ( or anyone else being the person hit by a rear end collision ) for the damage to the vehicles ahead if me ? ,,

Then you have a special challenge with forming a logical thought,,,,,

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by hal53

^^^ this.....and that extra 4' of space will mean squat in most cases, because some dolt in a Prius will think you're leaving him room to get in...

Hate it, when I'm going down the QE2 at 115K, maintaining a minimal safe distance, and some idiot decides he wants in there. That and people tend to travel in clusters, tailgating. One slippery spot on the highway and you get a pileup. Accident on H 27 the other night. 4 or 5 inch. of hail on the highway and somebody wasn't driving according to conditions, guess what happened ?

Grizz

[masalma]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Hate it, when I'm going down the QE2 at 115K, maintaining a minimal safe distance, and some idiot decides he wants in there. That and people tend to travel in clusters, tailgating. One slippery spot on the highway and you get a pileup. Accident on H 27 the other night. 4 or 5 inch. of hail on the highway and somebody wasn't driving according to conditions, guess what happened ?

Grizz

But the big truck with 6 inch lift and big cloud of diesel smoke can get through anything. I am sure the 15 LED light bars on the front will help too.

Something like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoy0_pUyZ8o

[FishingMOM]

Originally Posted by propliner

Even 20 feet of space means nothing when someone slams into you from behind at 70 km/h.

The guy who hit me was doing 80+. I had 10 feet but I didn't hit the guy in front of me. His car was a written off as he went under my car.
So I don't buy it that you need 70 feet.

[elkdump]

Especially when travelling roads in Alberta , if you leave 50 feet between your front bumper and the guy ahead of you ?? Then immediately 2 or 3 A-Holes will pass you and cramp between you and the guy ahead of you , if you yield to these morons, you would soon be farther back ,

than from where you started your trip from,,,