Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - PUB DISCUSSION It's an easy bust! Bust the Kid!

Skitto · 10-08-2009, 10:08 PM

Why is it that whenever a legal incident occurs (meaning when something gets fucked up and it's doubted whose fault it is) that the younger, less experienced party (under 30) is almost instantly assumed guilty?

Statistics are against kids under 25 for car crashes, speeding, drug use before their 30s, and that stuff. But then is it just not an option that people older than that are just better at hiding it?

Sample situation: This is what happened to me: a car crash late at night on a rural backroad. Party of assumed fault misses the driveway they were heading for, makes two points of a three point turn and waits for traffic.

So on this nearly vacant, long flat straight stretch of road, a SUV, in a comical misuse of generosity, stops to let the car out onto the road and while they are trying to shift the car from reverse into first, and while the driver was checking both ways for traffic the entire time, a third car which had looked to be a long ways off, apparently going much faster than the speed limit, hits and scrapes off the front of the car down to the radiator.

He had approx. 250 meters through which he had not seen either car's headlights...

A county sheriff arrives at the scene, assess the damages and the positions of the cars, then just takes the "Hitter"'s word for it, that the car was "angled and he couldn't see the headlights"... and they so easily gave the fault to the younger party, whose tires were off the road, not moving, and was scared and shooken up, and didn't have the wits contest it. Then the damned "polite" lady in the SUV leaves before they get her statement.

Now according to the information given to the insurance company of the hitter, those hit are put at fault by the little bit of doubt as to the car being totaled, withholding the benefit of the doubt from the younger party.

I'm ticked about this, and we're contesting that this was my fault. I am not going to get a ticket for a MOVING violation when I wasn't MOVING, merely 3 inches into the lane. Am I more money to them or do they just assume that I'm an easy bust?

This all sounds biased to me, I am the "victim" of it, but it didn't even seem like it was happening, even now, but my politico sense is tingling like crazy.

Comments?

10-08-2009, 10:08 PM	#1 (permalink)
Skitto Crazy Location: Westernmost Continental U.S.	It's an easy bust! Bust the Kid! Why is it that whenever a legal incident occurs (meaning when something gets fucked up and it's doubted whose fault it is) that the younger, less experienced party (under 30) is almost instantly assumed guilty? Statistics are against kids under 25 for car crashes, speeding, drug use before their 30s, and that stuff. But then is it just not an option that people older than that are just better at hiding it? Sample situation: This is what happened to me: a car crash late at night on a rural backroad. Party of assumed fault misses the driveway they were heading for, makes two points of a three point turn and waits for traffic. So on this nearly vacant, long flat straight stretch of road, a SUV, in a comical misuse of generosity, stops to let the car out onto the road and while they are trying to shift the car from reverse into first, and while the driver was checking both ways for traffic the entire time, a third car which had looked to be a long ways off, apparently going much faster than the speed limit, hits and scrapes off the front of the car down to the radiator. He had approx. 250 meters through which he had not seen either car's headlights... A county sheriff arrives at the scene, assess the damages and the positions of the cars, then just takes the "Hitter"'s word for it, that the car was "angled and he couldn't see the headlights"... and they so easily gave the fault to the younger party, whose tires were off the road, not moving, and was scared and shooken up, and didn't have the wits contest it. Then the damned "polite" lady in the SUV leaves before they get her statement. Now according to the information given to the insurance company of the hitter, those hit are put at fault by the little bit of doubt as to the car being totaled, withholding the benefit of the doubt from the younger party. I'm ticked about this, and we're contesting that this was my fault. I am not going to get a ticket for a MOVING violation when I wasn't MOVING, merely 3 inches into the lane. Am I more money to them or do they just assume that I'm an easy bust? This all sounds biased to me, I am the "victim" of it, but it didn't even seem like it was happening, even now, but my politico sense is tingling like crazy. Comments? __________________ Yeah, well, you're just that awesome, I guess. It's not like I guessed so anyways.