Speed Kills Your Pocketbook

[sprjus4]

^ So I should have to pay more in insurance because someone ran a stop sign and crashed into my side?

No, and that isn't what I said.

I was referring to SafeSpeeder's comments that no party should be "blamed" .

[SectorZ]

Or...people could just be civil and not automatically resort to blaming each other for an accident, and just accept that accidents happen, and move on. Finding someone to blame for an automobile accident accomplishes nothing. People assume the risk when driving on a public road, including myself, and people shouldn't be pressing charges after an accident, unless one of the drivers was committing a very serious infraction such as being drunk or knowingly driving with a defective car..etc, not just because of speed.

So, when our insurance companies figure out who pays for the damages, fault doesn't matter?

The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.

Please go to Michigan someday and see how ridiculous, expensive, and patently unfair no-fault insurance is.

Drivers rarely sue each other. I adjusted thousands of injury claims and saw dozens go to suit. None went to trial.

[JayhawkCO]

The misconception is that speed is a main factor in the severity of an accident, after the accident occurs but is not necessarily the cause of the accident, like the media likes you to believe. As shown in the original videos, even braking distance calculations for old cars are grossly exaggerated.

You say "not necessarily the cause", but you have to agree that having less time to react surely results in more accidents than having more time to react.

Chris

[JayhawkCO]

The misconception is that speed is a main factor in the severity of an accident, after the accident occurs but is not necessarily the cause of the accident, like the media likes you to believe. As shown in the original videos, even braking distance calculations for old cars are grossly exaggerated.

You say "not necessarily the cause", but you have to agree that having less time to react surely results in more accidents than having more time to react.

Chris

Yes, but the question is what are you having to react to? If it is someone's idiotic driving you have to react to, why should you take the penalty?

The simple answer is: because had you been following the rules set forth, you would have had time to react to their idiocy.  If nothing else, both of you share in the culpability at that point then.

Chris

[vdeane]

The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.

In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved.  Who pays what amount?  That depends on how much blame goes to each person.  The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault.  Speed is a part of such a determination.

Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."

I would think it would be far simpler if one just paid for the damage to one's own vehicle with their insurance.  Let the other party pay for the damage to their vehicle with their insurance.  That strikes me as so much simpler than having to assign blame and then have one party try to collect money from the other party's insurance.  I would think it would also reduce the time it takes to clear the road after a crash, since then the police wouldn't have to worry about assigning blame.

[hotdogPi]

The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.

In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved.  Who pays what amount?  That depends on how much blame goes to each person.  The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault.  Speed is a part of such a determination.

Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."

I would think it would be far simpler if one just paid for the damage to one's own vehicle with their insurance.  Let the other party pay for the damage to their vehicle with their insurance.  That strikes me as so much simpler than having to assign blame and then have one party try to collect money from the other party's insurance.  I would think it would also reduce the time it takes to clear the road after a crash, since then the police wouldn't have to worry about assigning blame.

That means that the person not at fault is no better off than the person at fault. This might be unpopular, but the person at fault shouldn't even be covered.

[Plutonic Panda]

The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.

In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved.  Who pays what amount?  That depends on how much blame goes to each person.  The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault.  Speed is a part of such a determination.

Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."

I would think it would be far simpler if one just paid for the damage to one's own vehicle with their insurance.  Let the other party pay for the damage to their vehicle with their insurance.  That strikes me as so much simpler than having to assign blame and then have one party try to collect money from the other party's insurance.  I would think it would also reduce the time it takes to clear the road after a crash, since then the police wouldn't have to worry about assigning blame.

I've often thought about this too. But the police don't place do they? The insurance companies do? I've read before but not sure how true it is that in Japan you automatically at fault for a certain percentage of the costs from a car accident because you simply being the road contributed to being in a wreck.

The reason I've thought it could potentially be a good idea to remove The Who is a fault aspect is to discourage fraud which infuriates me. A it should be a law that all new cars come with manufacturers dash cam and frankly it should be a law to have dash cams in general. The amount of blatant insurance fraud is alarming and often those caught get a slap on the wrist.

[kphoger]

But the police don't place do they? The insurance companies do?

Right.  An officer might fill out a police report, and the insurance companies will take that into consideration, but the police aren't deciding who is at fault unless there's a ticket to be written.

Heck, the last time I had a fender bender, COVID-19 restrictions meant that police officers weren't even being dispatched to the scene of an accident unless there was an injury.  The other party and I came into my house (the accident was in the street right outside), sat down at my home computer, texted each other pictures, and filled out our own police report online.

A it should be a law that all new cars come with manufacturers dash cam and frankly it should be a law to have dash cams in general. The amount of blatant insurance fraud is alarming and often those caught get a slap on the wrist.

Yeah, no invasion of privacy there.

[Plutonic Panda]

But the police don't place do they? The insurance companies do?

Right.  An officer might fill out a police report, and the insurance companies will take that into consideration, but the police aren't deciding who is at fault unless there's a ticket to be written.

Heck, the last time I had a fender bender, COVID-19 restrictions meant that police officers weren't even being dispatched to the scene of an accident unless there was an injury.  The other party and I came into my house (the accident was in the street right outside), sat down at my home computer, texted each other pictures, and filled out our own police report online.

A it should be a law that all new cars come with manufacturers dash cam and frankly it should be a law to have dash cams in general. The amount of blatant insurance fraud is alarming and often those caught get a slap on the wrist.

Yeah, no invasion of privacy there.

How is that an invasion of privacy?

[kphoger]

How is that an invasion of privacy?

A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive?  OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.

[Max Rockatansky]

How is that an invasion of privacy?

A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive?  OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.

I can't imagine such hypothetical legislation would get a ton of political support.  Besides, I know speaking for myself I don't want my actions behind the wheel constantly recorded. 

[Plutonic Panda]

How is that an invasion of privacy?

A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive?  OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.

I can't imagine such hypothetical legislation would get a ton of political support.  Besides, I know speaking for myself I don't want my actions behind the wheel constantly recorded.

The only person who has access to the footage is you. Besides there are options to turn it off. Tesla's have this ability. I believe it would be beneficial and not invade people's privacy at all. I have a dash cam and don't consider it an invasion of privacy.

[Max Rockatansky]

How is that an invasion of privacy?

A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive?  OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.

I can't imagine such hypothetical legislation would get a ton of political support.  Besides, I know speaking for myself I don't want my actions behind the wheel constantly recorded.

The only person who has access to the footage is you. Besides there are options to turn it off. Tesla's have this ability. I believe it would be beneficial and not invade people's privacy at all. I have a dash cam and don't consider it an invasion of privacy.

But that's just it, I don't want everything I do recorded.  Tesla-like options don't necessarily appeal to me nor in a blanket form in a consumer base.  I work in surveillance already, I don't want anymore of life monitored than already is.  There is a huge difference between something like this being "optional equipment"  versus "mandatory."   Even if I was the only one with access to video it can still be subpoenaed and used. 

[Plutonic Panda]

How is that an invasion of privacy?

A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive?  OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.

I can't imagine such hypothetical legislation would get a ton of political support.  Besides, I know speaking for myself I don't want my actions behind the wheel constantly recorded.

The only person who has access to the footage is you. Besides there are options to turn it off. Tesla's have this ability. I believe it would be beneficial and not invade people's privacy at all. I have a dash cam and don't consider it an invasion of privacy.

But that's just it, I don't want everything I do recorded.  Tesla-like options don't necessarily appeal to me nor in a blanket form in a consumer base.  I work in surveillance already, I don't want anymore of life monitored than already is.  There is a huge difference between something like this being "optional equipment"  versus "mandatory."   Even if I was the only one with access to video it can still be subpoenaed and used.

I see your point but there can be an option to disable it entirely so no footage is taken at all. I figure more people than not would have it on. I had someone back into me at a drive thru once and said I rear ended them. Cops believe them and said that on the report. When the adjuster came I showed my dash cam and it was settled then and there. That person was never charged with fraud though maybe he really thought I rear ended him who knows

[jeffandnicole]

The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.

In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved.  Who pays what amount?  That depends on how much blame goes to each person.  The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault.  Speed is a part of such a determination.

Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."

I would think it would be far simpler if one just paid for the damage to one's own vehicle with their insurance.  Let the other party pay for the damage to their vehicle with their insurance.  That strikes me as so much simpler than having to assign blame and then have one party try to collect money from the other party's insurance.  I would think it would also reduce the time it takes to clear the road after a crash, since then the police wouldn't have to worry about assigning blame.

I've often thought about this too. But the police don't place do they? The insurance companies do? I've read before but not sure how true it is that in Japan you automatically at fault for a certain percentage of the costs from a car accident because you simply being the road contributed to being in a wreck.

The reason I've thought it could potentially be a good idea to remove The Who is a fault aspect is to discourage fraud which infuriates me. A it should be a law that all new cars come with manufacturers dash cam and frankly it should be a law to have dash cams in general. The amount of blatant insurance fraud is alarming and often those caught get a slap on the wrist.

Fender benders shouldn't even be paid for by insurance, if you can afford an automobile, you can afford to live with a harmless dent or two. Also, they shouldn't block the road, if there's barely any damage, you can both pull off to the side. I always lean on the horn when passing morons who do that. I once followed another driver who was leading me to a destination successfully despite being totally unfamiliar with the area. So they can definitely follow each other 50 feet to the side of the road and chat. In fact if someone rear ended my softly, I would just wave them on, cars are for transportation and thrills, not for looks. And anyone who thinks that would be "leaving the scene of an accident" is like calling a parent who takes their own kid after a custody dispute a "kidnapping" LOL

Today's term of a "fender bender" is different than that of a few decades ago.  Then, there were metal bumpers, and if two cars hit, the fender bent a little, but didn't really break, and didn't affect anything else in the car.  In today's cars, a bumper hit can set off air bags, destroy sensors, and affect a number of car components.  The car is still movable, but you're best to get it off the road, get a police report if possible, and contact your insurance company, because the car could very well be totaled.

[vdeane]

Forgot to mention, but the idea of one's own insurance paying for one's own damage also protects in the case that the other motorist is uninsured or under-insured.

Regarding the dash cam idea, it reminds me of a Black Mirror episode where people were legally required to give insurance adjusters a full view of their memories.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm very surprised how many are so opposed to mandated dash cams. I just don't see how they invade your privacy. I wonder how many here against it have "smart"  phones and wonder why when they talk about needing to get cat litter on the way start getting pet related advertisements lol. I can't think of the last time have been to someone's house that didn't have a camera network, smart TV(with camera), voice assistant device(like Echo etc), or any other device that records and listens. The difference is with the dash cam idea is it could save you thousands.

I figure we're going to that anyways. I believe GM is going to have a feature that won't let you shift your car unless you're seatbelt is buckled though it will be optional.

[Occidental Tourist]

Just happened upon this thread.  Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.

Have fun.

[JayhawkCO]

The misconception is that speed is a main factor in the severity of an accident, after the accident occurs but is not necessarily the cause of the accident, like the media likes you to believe. As shown in the original videos, even braking distance calculations for old cars are grossly exaggerated.

You say "not necessarily the cause", but you have to agree that having less time to react surely results in more accidents than having more time to react.

Chris

Yes, but the question is what are you having to react to? If it is someone's idiotic driving you have to react to, why should you take the penalty?

The simple answer is: because had you been following the rules set forth, you would have had time to react to their idiocy.  If nothing else, both of you share in the culpability at that point then.

Chris

You didn't answer the question, what are we having to react to? I explained how not being able to react in tile to someone's idiot driving usually has nothing to do with speed. Again, just because one or both vehicles were going faster than the speed limit, it doesn't mean that was the main reason they crashed.

If you ever rear end anyone, doesn't matter what they were doing, you're going to be at fault, and I agree with it.  Either you were too close to start with or you were going too fast to be able to stop. 

As for the other types of idiocy that could cause an accident, I'm not saying it's always the speeder's fault, but they're going to be at least partially culpable a majority of the time.  If they could have avoided the accident had they been going the speed limit, but chose not to be, they're just as culpable as someone who pulled out in front of them.

Chris

[Plutonic Panda]

If you ever rear end anyone, doesn't matter what they were doing, you're going to be at fault, and I agree with it.  Either you were too close to start with or you were going too fast to be able to stop.

I'm pretty sure that's not true at all. You're telling me every case of someone being rear ended the person who rear ended the other car was found at fault? I highly doubt that. You seem to have some idealistic fantasy about how everyone should drive like there's an endgame in mind. There isn't. Speeding is fun and gets you to where you want to be quicker which a simple mathematical equation can prove regardless of your "he sped past me and ended up at the same light as me miles down the road"  anecdote.

But if you're going to defend speed limits by saying we need to abide by them so we can react to other drivers errors and traffic violations well that's just ridiculous. With that point why not just ban cars entirely so there isn't a bad driver to react to? And that all goes back to you having some idealistic scenario of how your drive will be.

Sorry man but it's no different than someone getting pissed at others for abiding by the speed limit on a two lane or jerk on this forum who likes to lay on his horn at drivers who mistakenly stop at a right turn when they don't need to. Stay in the right lane unless you're passing. Let others go 100+ if that makes them happy and let the LEOs deal with it. Road warrior mentality is the worst offenders by any stretch and speed limits should be mandated to the 85th percentile except on interstates where rural sections shouldn't have a limit at all, IMO.

[JayhawkCO]

If you ever rear end anyone, doesn't matter what they were doing, you're going to be at fault, and I agree with it.  Either you were too close to start with or you were going too fast to be able to stop.

I'm pretty sure that's not true at all. You're telling me every case of someone being rear ended the person who rear ended the other car was found at fault? I highly doubt that.

See links such as this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-fault-automatic-rear-end-car-accident-case.html.  Basically you're going to be at fault unless you can prove that the other person was reversing, stopped to make a turn on a dime and didn't actually do so, has broken brake lights (good luck proving that after you've crushed them), or got a flat tire and didn't pull off with hazards.  Otherwise, the person who did the rear-ending will likely be found negligent.

You seem to have some idealistic fantasy about how everyone should drive like there's an endgame in mind. There isn't. Speeding is fun and gets you to where you want to be quicker which a simple mathematical equation can prove regardless of your "he sped past me and ended up at the same light as me miles down the road"  anecdote.

You make an awful lot of assumptions about how I view driving.  Shocker, I don't always drive the speed limit.  That said, there is an endgame in mind when I drive -- to get to where I want to go without damaging my car or others'.  Seems simple enough. It's one thing to only advocate for higher speed limits, as many others do on this forum (myself included when it comes to certain states), but some seem to want to be the fastest guy on the road to prove something.  All it proves is that you're more risk averse than others and (IMO) inconsiderate of others and the law itself.

But if you're going to defend speed limits by saying we need to abide by them so we can react to other drivers errors and traffic violations well that's just ridiculous. With that point why not just ban cars entirely so there isn't a bad driver to react to? And that all goes back to you having some idealistic scenario of how your drive will be.

Wheeeeeeeeee, look at that slippery slope.  It's just simple math.  If you're going x speed and have enough time to react to some impediment in your travel and you just barely are able to avoid it, then driving x+20 means you won't be able to avoid it.  I'm not saying the various transportation authorities have the speed limits 100% dialed in to make sure those are the right numbers for x, but you get my point.

Sorry man but it's no different than someone getting pissed at others for abiding by the speed limit on a two lane or jerk on this forum who likes to lay on his horn at drivers who mistakenly stop at a right turn when they don't need to. Stay in the right lane unless you're passing. Let others go 100+ if that makes them happy and let the LEOs deal with it. Road warrior mentality is the worst offenders by any stretch and speed limits should be mandated to the 85th percentile except on interstates where rural sections shouldn't have a limit at all, IMO.

Those people you mention are also jerks on the road.  My advice to everyone is to not be a jerk.  Personally, I'm not going to be the one stopping people going 100 mph.  But I'm supportive of big tickets when you're going over 30mph above the posted speed limits, especially when there's other traffic around.  It's negligent driving with a far higher probability of injuring yourself or others.  Again, because this will be slippery sloped when quoted I'm sure, I'm not saying every time you drive 100mph that you're going to get into an accident.  But I am saying that the probably scales up non-linearly as would the resultant damage/potential for injury if an accident were to occur.

Chris

[Max Rockatansky]

Just happened upon this thread.  Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.

Have fun.

FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.

[kphoger]

Besides there are options to turn it off. Tesla's have this ability.

If people are allowed to turn it off, then why make it mandatory in the first place?

You didn't answer the question, what are we having to react to? I explained how not being able to react in tile to someone's idiot driving usually has nothing to do with speed. Again, just because one or both vehicles were going faster than the speed limit, it doesn't mean that was the main reason they crashed.

In that short paragraph, you shifted from "has nothing to do with speed" to "doesn't mean that was the main reason they crashed".  In that shift, you crossed a pretty wide semantic gap, and it betrays the fact that you really do know speed has something to do with it.

Back in 2007 or so, a fellow delivery drive for the company I worked for was involved in a multi-vehicle pileup on the Paducah (KY) I-24 bridge.  His truck wasn't the one that initially caused the first collision, but he couldn't stop in time to avoid the second or third car back.  Right then and there on the bridge, they checked the truck's brake system and discovered that the rear brakes were nonfunctioning, and our company was therefore held more responsible for the pileup than it otherwise would have been.  And that was perfectly appropriate because, if the rear brakes had been functioning properly, then our driver might have had enough time to stop before rear-ending that Corvette.  Speed works the same way:  the faster you're going, the longer it takes you to stop.  Imagine instead that the driver had perfectly good brakes but was going 15 mph faster.  Same results, same culpability.

as long as the money comes to pay, who cares which company pays how much? Maybe both companies should pay equal amounts regardless of the percentage calculations of faulthood.

Then there would be less financial incentive to drive safely.  Your repairs are going to be handled the same no matter what.

Today's term of a "fender bender" is different than that of a few decades ago.  Then, there were metal bumpers, and if two cars hit, the fender bent a little, but didn't really break, and didn't affect anything else in the car.  In today's cars, a bumper hit can set off air bags, destroy sensors, and affect a number of car components.  The car is still movable, but you're best to get it off the road, get a police report if possible, and contact your insurance company, because the car could very well be totaled.

Yes.  Was the integrity of the bumper compromised, thereby putting the vehicle's occupants more at risk?  Did the impact put a small crack in the coolant expansion tank, which will then burst a few months later?  Is your alignment off now?

With all the money insurance companies make, I don't think it would hurt them that much to pay even if it was unfairly charged. It's like a billionaire relentlessly pursuing a court case over someone who stole his wallet, there's no point.

Oh, please.  Just because a person or the company he owns is wealthier than you are, that doesn't mean he's less entitled to it than you are.

But, regarding your analogy, it's actually more like a billionaire not pursuing six million thefts per year.

Only a 12 year old would say this without actually watching the videos. If you drove for even 2 minutes any of the roads where I live you would see in 3 seconds how absurdly and outrageously low the speed limits are.

Only a 12 year old would assume a total stranger hasn't, in fact, already driven plenty in the area you live in.

[Rothman]

Just happened upon this thread.  Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.

Have fun.

FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.

I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive. I knew eventually the trolls would come ranting random BS, I doubt you even watched 30 seconds of the videos, and I bet you frequently find yourself driving 20 mph over the speed limits without realizing it. And those videos don't even do a justice to my points because when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph, not 55-70 in this country. If a 12 year old had made those two videos, I would say he is smarter and more mature than 99% of American Adults.

All hat, no cattle.

[JayhawkCO]

I bet you frequently find yourself driving 20 mph over the speed limits without realizing it. And those videos don't even do a justice to my points because when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph, not 55-70 in this country.

Because I'm a conscientious driver, I can guarantee you that I am never driving 20mph over the limit unless passing and I need to gun it. 

Also, just FYI, mph = km/h ÷ 1.6.  I only post that because you clearly don't understand how to convert speed limits in Canada to mph.



One should know what they're talking about prior to engaging.

Chris