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

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?

Willravel · 10-08-2009, 10:53 PM

Ageism has existed for a very, very long time. It's not political, though, it's sociological and psychological. From a cognitive perspective, it's not dissimilar from racial or gender stereotyping. The difference is that it's much more socially accepted.

Younger people have less experience, everyone knows this, but experience does not necessarily mean one is right. That less experience means one is incorrect or less trustworthy is a fallacy which leads to a stereotype. I'm sure that car insurance companies or police can present verifiable studies about how younger people are in accidents more often, but that does not prove your personal guilt.

scout · 10-09-2009, 02:30 AM

HaHa I blame Bush and the conservatives!!! just kidding ..

On a more serious note when I was younger I was involved in an accident and got railroaded much the same way. I contested to the officer investigating and he just started writing tickets, he personally knew the old lady's husband that smashed into me judging by the banter between the two. He wrote me tickets that didn't even make sense. I almost lost my job over it all as I was in a company van. Fortunately for me the owners of the company I worked for knew me well enough to believe me and knew I wouldn't lie to cover my ass. It still cost me several hundred dollars in tickets. The upside is now I'm that I'm almost 46 years old some of that good will is coming back my way!!

jewels · 10-09-2009, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm sure that car insurance companies or police can present verifiable studies about how younger people are in accidents more often, but that does not prove your personal guilt.

If you know you did nothing wrong, fight it. The cop's assessment can only be based on what he saw.

Derwood · 10-09-2009, 04:11 AM

was the car that hit you coming from the opposite direction or behind you? were you fully in your own lane, or were you overlapping the other lane?

Cimarron29414 · 10-09-2009, 04:55 AM

You were in the opposing traffic's lane, so you are partically at fault. You can not enter that lane or remain in that lane if the way is not clear. However, the other driver bears responsibility for not slowing for current conditions (other traffic stopped in the road.) It will work to your benefit that you were ticketed. If you are found innocent in court, then your rates will not go up. It's better (from an insurance perspective) to be charged and acquitted than not to be charged at all.

ratbastid · 10-09-2009, 05:03 AM

I got in a fender-bender in my first month as a licensed driver, at age 16. I was on the right-hand lane of a four-lane street. Somebody in the left lane stopped to let an oncoming car turn left into a driveway, which he did without noticing me coming in the right lane. He pulled into my lane, saw me coming, and stopped. I put all my weight on the brakes and was probably only going 5 mph when I hit him, but it was enough.

The cop took our statements. The other driver--a 40 year old guy--was trying to say that he wasn't at fault, it was the fault of the now-missing left lane guy who stopped for his left turn and waved him across. Cop found him at fault, sent us on our way.

Fotzlid · 10-09-2009, 05:28 AM

Ok. So you were making a 3 point turn on an empty rural road and another vehicle stopped to let you finish the turn when a 3rd vehicle hit the front of your car and claimed they didn't see your headlights because of the angle of your car.
Is that correct?

A couple of the first things I would do would be to get a copy of the police report and then file a counter claim with your insurance against the person that hit you.

kutulu · 10-09-2009, 10:36 AM

From what little I understand, the cops' interpretation of the events isn't the actual determination. The insurance companies will determine who is at fault. I doubt they will find you 100% at fault but you might be partially at fault because you were in the other lane.

Have you photographed the scene? Where was the impact? Are there skid marks anywhere that show the other guy even tried to stop?

Skitto · 10-10-2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

was the car that hit you coming from the opposite direction or behind you? were you fully in your own lane, or were you overlapping the other lane?

This is what happened:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

Ok. So you were making a 3 point turn on an empty rural road and another vehicle stopped to let you finish the turn when a 3rd vehicle hit the front of your car and claimed they didn't see your headlights because of the angle of your car.
Is that correct?

Correct: There was evidence that my car was parked far enough out that my tires were in the gravel, and that the oncoming car didn't notice me at all (the skid marks are perfectly in the middle of the lane, same direction start to finish.)

Photographic evidence was taken by police, my father and I separately (videos too)

To perfectly clarify: my car was off the road, out of the lane except for the front bumper, the car waiting for me to come out was facing the way of the oncoming car, and both her headlights and the light from mine shining on the road and on that lady's SUV should have been a big sign to stop or go around.

My opinion of the driver is that he was drunk and good at hiding it, since my dad has seen him multiple times at bars, almost whenever he's been to a certain bar in town (which is a rare occasion anyway) so it's likely that this man was a regular, and well practiced at hiding his drunkenness.

Fotzlid · 10-10-2009, 09:00 PM

The insurance companies will assign fault on this one. I honestly don't see how they could find you at fault based on what you've told us. I don't see how the driver that hit you can claim he couldn't see you with the SUV not only pointing his way, but also illuminating your vehicle.

Skitto · 10-13-2009, 08:21 PM

Yeah, so the sheriff came by today to issue my citation (goddamn and blast it), a "careless driving" ticket. Not so serious, but I'm still gonna contest it, there is still no foundation to ticket me. The cars were too far off by the time I had gotten off the road for me to have been "careless".

And he also said that it would be up to the insurers. I wouldn't put anything past those bullshitters.

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.

10-09-2009, 02:30 AM	#3 (permalink)
scout Psycho	HaHa I blame Bush and the conservatives!!! just kidding .. On a more serious note when I was younger I was involved in an accident and got railroaded much the same way. I contested to the officer investigating and he just started writing tickets, he personally knew the old lady's husband that smashed into me judging by the banter between the two. He wrote me tickets that didn't even make sense. I almost lost my job over it all as I was in a company van. Fortunately for me the owners of the company I worked for knew me well enough to believe me and knew I wouldn't lie to cover my ass. It still cost me several hundred dollars in tickets. The upside is now I'm that I'm almost 46 years old some of that good will is coming back my way!! __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

10-09-2009, 04:55 AM	#6 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	You were in the opposing traffic's lane, so you are partically at fault. You can not enter that lane or remain in that lane if the way is not clear. However, the other driver bears responsibility for not slowing for current conditions (other traffic stopped in the road.) It will work to your benefit that you were ticketed. If you are found innocent in court, then your rates will not go up. It's better (from an insurance perspective) to be charged and acquitted than not to be charged at all. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-13-2009, 08:21 PM	#12 (permalink)
Skitto Crazy Location: Westernmost Continental U.S.	Yeah, so the sheriff came by today to issue my citation (goddamn and blast it), a "careless driving" ticket. Not so serious, but I'm still gonna contest it, there is still no foundation to ticket me. The cars were too far off by the time I had gotten off the road for me to have been "careless". And he also said that it would be up to the insurers. I wouldn't put anything past those bullshitters. __________________ Yeah, well, you're just that awesome, I guess. It's not like I guessed so anyways.

10-08-2009, 10:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ageism has existed for a very, very long time. It's not political, though, it's sociological and psychological. From a cognitive perspective, it's not dissimilar from racial or gender stereotyping. The difference is that it's much more socially accepted. Younger people have less experience, everyone knows this, but experience does not necessarily mean one is right. That less experience means one is incorrect or less trustworthy is a fallacy which leads to a stereotype. I'm sure that car insurance companies or police can present verifiable studies about how younger people are in accidents more often, but that does not prove your personal guilt.

10-09-2009, 04:11 AM	#5 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	was the car that hit you coming from the opposite direction or behind you? were you fully in your own lane, or were you overlapping the other lane?

10-09-2009, 05:03 AM	#7 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I got in a fender-bender in my first month as a licensed driver, at age 16. I was on the right-hand lane of a four-lane street. Somebody in the left lane stopped to let an oncoming car turn left into a driveway, which he did without noticing me coming in the right lane. He pulled into my lane, saw me coming, and stopped. I put all my weight on the brakes and was probably only going 5 mph when I hit him, but it was enough. The cop took our statements. The other driver--a 40 year old guy--was trying to say that he wasn't at fault, it was the fault of the now-missing left lane guy who stopped for his left turn and waved him across. Cop found him at fault, sent us on our way.

10-09-2009, 05:28 AM	#8 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	Ok. So you were making a 3 point turn on an empty rural road and another vehicle stopped to let you finish the turn when a 3rd vehicle hit the front of your car and claimed they didn't see your headlights because of the angle of your car. Is that correct? A couple of the first things I would do would be to get a copy of the police report and then file a counter claim with your insurance against the person that hit you.

10-09-2009, 10:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	From what little I understand, the cops' interpretation of the events isn't the actual determination. The insurance companies will determine who is at fault. I doubt they will find you 100% at fault but you might be partially at fault because you were in the other lane. Have you photographed the scene? Where was the impact? Are there skid marks anywhere that show the other guy even tried to stop?

10-10-2009, 09:00 PM	#11 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	The insurance companies will assign fault on this one. I honestly don't see how they could find you at fault based on what you've told us. I don't see how the driver that hit you can claim he couldn't see you with the SUV not only pointing his way, but also illuminating your vehicle.