Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Posted ImageWelcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are features you can't use and images you can't see. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Join our community!




Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Geo Metro Front End SMASHED in by speeding driver; CRASH DATA Support Needed SEE PICS
Topic Started: Sep 20 2010, 11:00 PM (8,467 Views)
Coche Blanco
Member Avatar
Troll Certified

She was in a 99 Jetta.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dmitri
New Member
[ *  * ]
Bad Bent. You keep mentioning a 98' Jetta,including recalls which are specific to 98 Jetta. The car in question is from the 99-2005 generation,not 94-98 generation.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Woodie
Member Avatar


Coche Blanco
Sep 24 2010, 10:10 AM
I've avoided several wrecks with non-100% braking force, and the other driver never heard/saw my tires squeel. Skid marks are not an acceptable means of proof that you braked.





If you have decent tires on a GEN2 Metro, the brakes are not capable of locking them up. Push as hard as you want, break the seat back, doesn't matter.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Woodie
Member Avatar


superduty5.9
Sep 24 2010, 09:38 PM
A guy I used to work with was driving his Ranger. He stopped at a stop light, light turned green so he proceeded to enter intersection. A company work van turned left in front of him. His van hit the left side of the Ranger at the fender bumper area. He pulled out the fender and drove to work. The guy in the van was cited. My buddy called the # the guy gave the cop for insurance and it was a wrong number. It took a week of calls to finally tract down the correct agent. My buddy's estimate for damages was $2100. Agent said he would give him $750 and not a penny more cause the agent said my buddy could have avoided the accident. The state trooper didn't think so but the agent did! :banghead :banghead The agent said he could sue them if he wanted to but legal fees would cost more than what he would get. So my buddy was pissed but took the $750. He got totally F'ed!
This guy got outbluffed. He should have said, "F-you, see you in court, my neck is starting to feel stiff". Would have ended up with $5,000.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ryan
Member Avatar
Ryan

59RamblerWithFins
Sep 24 2010, 12:51 PM
@Cocho Blanco...who wrote:
Quote:
 
You were amendment I was wrong about her car with ABS, I knew that was a 2000ish VW from the looks of it...which has ABS.

Did you mean adamant? IF so, I was "adamant" cause you were not being clear.

@Cocho Blanco...who wrote: "I'm saying she could have braked, and, for all practical purposes, you wouldn't have known. If you watch any of those videos you'll see, all of those cars brake super fast...do you hear a lot of tire squeal or see a lot of skid marks?" ...No, I didn't watch them but... what kind of tires did they have, what kind of road surface, did they apply brakes 100%? Don't bother answering, I'm just being facetious.

@Cocho Blanco...who wrote: "EDIT: You say you've never avoided a situation without brake squeal and skid marks? You also drive old cars with bad tires and bad brakes". ...YOU ARE A VERY MISTAKEN 18 YEAR OLD BOY who is ASSuming things adn who apparently is ALSO having trouble reading or understanding my posts. For that reason, I will not keep repeating myself or explaining things to you. All posts from you will be ignored by myself as I view you as irrelevant. :cheers
This is the second member in less than two weeks who has 'dismissed' Coche. :O
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Bad Bent
Member Avatar
Facetious Educated Donkey

Dmitri
Sep 24 2010, 11:59 PM
Bad Bent. You keep mentioning a 98' Jetta,including recalls which are specific to 98 Jetta. The car in question is from the 99-2005 generation,not 94-98 generation.
Thank you Dmitri, I was going on information posted earlier in the thread. Apparently the police report is wrong and so even if the 89 was transposed to a 98 it is still wrong. :smackface

Car models, year to year changes, colors, accessories, yada, yada, yada, are obviously not my forte, eh. :-/ :lol
Edited by Bad Bent, Sep 25 2010, 10:24 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Coche Blanco
Member Avatar
Troll Certified

Ryan, I don't argue, unless i'm right. That's something my mom taught me...good advice.
Edited by Coche Blanco, Sep 25 2010, 11:00 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
bansheetaz


unless someone has invented a magical "mysteriously appearing" car, all cars come from SOMEWHERE. regardless of what anyone thinks. in court the only thing that matters is what you can prove. the fact is that it will be easier to prove that you had a stop sign then it will be to prove that the other person was speeding. due to your stop sign being there, you had absolutely zero right of way. it doesnt matter at that point how fast anyone on the street is going. it could have been an emergency vehicle. the stop sign means you are only to proceed when it is safe to do so and in this case it was clearly not safe at that time.


after studying the drawing and seeing all the cars in the center lane and the limited visibility to the right side oncoming traffic due to those cars... im not sure why you would have been trying to cross that kind of traffic anyway. too much action going on at the time. a safer way would have been to turn right off the stop sign and gone to the next lighted intersection to head the direction you wanted to go.

bottom line is if everyone drove like everyone else was going to kill them. (which they are). there would be farther fewer accidents. we should all put down our cell phones, coffee, cigarettes, donuts, makeup, pets, and get back to the full time job at hand which is getting where you want to go without dying.

having said that... i hate to see metro get smashed and im glad noone was hurt. good luck in court.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
geogonfa
Member Avatar


First: I'm glad your okay, and that no one was hurt :thumb . After reading this post I just have a few personal observations :news ,
I really think the metro can be saved, so if you can keep it,
try to do so. Maybe sell it as a parts car.
As for the police being the way they are, remember they are just corporate highwaymen, they don't care about your opinion, just whether
they can cite someone. they are not experts, but they do not expect you to argue with them, they are always right (in their own minds), never wrong.
But, on the other hand , even from what was presented, you still can't prove it was not your fault ( not saying it was mind you ),
just can't prove it.
As for ABS brakes leaving skid marks, it all depends on a lot of variables,
having worked with E.M.S. I've seen a lot of accidents, some with no skid marks unless the vehicle in question skidded sideways or the axle bent on impact, even after witnesses said they heard the squealing before the impact.
As for the citation, if the officer wrote miss information on the citation ( 89 VW vs. 98 VW) then it is fightable in their court, which might at least keep it off your driving record. Remember, in the corporate courts you are "guilty" until proven innocent, or by you proving their incompetence.
The best thing to do... file a complaint about the intersection in question listing as many accidents and dates as possible in the County Court of records, and send a notarized copy to your congressman, this will make the county/state have to respond to the traffic problems presented.
As for myself, I would never have attempted to cross the road in that
situation, sorry.
"Metros,we are the speed bumps on this great highway called life".
Online Profile Goto Top
 
59RamblerWithFins
New Member
[ *  * ]
Okay people, I started this thread asking for help in assessing the amount of speed it took to cause the damage that was done to my car. Some of you began posting that it was my fault and to let it rest. I didn't mind however I did try to let everyone know that I didn't think so, that I've found information otherwise, (See post #17, #23) Still, I kept getting comments.

The two witnesses will testify how far into the road I was before being hit. This is key information for MY side. The witnesses, like some of you other folks believe that I am in the wrong BECAUSE I entered the lane. I know otherwise. In Pennsylvania I would still be okay if I was in the road LESS than 50%. I believe I was 100% in the road but at the very least 75% into the road and NOT less than that. I DID look to my left to the immediate vicinity and saw no cars. If I had looked a lot further I would have seen the red VW but I would still have pulled out cause she would have been NO WHERE NEAR me IF she were going the speed limit!!! Again, according to Pennsylvania law I did nothihng wrong. I thank you for ALL of your postings...it made me REALLY, REALLY research EVERYTHING and I've found a boat load of information that I can use against the boro and the police station and in my defense. I am not saying this facetiously, I am honestly saying this with gratitude. Let's not fight, or argue, that's not what I'm here for. I truly do appreciate MOST all of your comments with the exception of a couple of flamers. People that have issues and want to speak and behave in a hostile/jerk type manner...well, if they want to pick on me that's fine...at least the dog is getting a "brake" from getting kicked! I also know that MOST all of your comments were coming from what you thought was right or the law...however...different states, different laws.

My biggest reason for wanting to prove MOST if not just partial innocence was because the local boro government was not enforcing the law on this stretch of road and I was put in in a precarious situation in which I, and others, have been in car accidents. Why did I turn left in such a hairy situation? I guess cause that's what I thought I was expected to do. I mean, the road has a left turn lane. Seeing alllll those people lined up erroneously gave me the indication that they were in the right ( I mean really, how can over 40 cars be lined up in the center lane and it's not illegal or enforced by the cops?) I also thought, okay, this is what I'm presented with...I will sit here and WAIT till the opportune moment presents itself, it did and WHAM this woman hit me from out of no where. It is her fault if she illegally reduced that safe distance by speeding, which is a violation of the law, and failed to yield to me when I was properly in the intersection. That's the law in the state of Pennsylvania and several other states. It's also the law in British Columbia.

I'm sorry for those that thought otherwise...I hold no grudge...as I hope you do not either. I'm not here to argue...I just wanted advice on if the accident looked like it was over 35mph as some of you have probably seen wrecked Geos. I will take my photographs to body shops to get their professional opinions as one member gave me this idea :-)

THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION I FOUND CAME OFF OF:
Michaels and Smolak's attorneys' link:
http://www.michaels-smolak.com/lawyer-attorney-1501449.html
Quote: "When should I call a lawyer?
If there is an issue of negligent road design or maintenance, you may need to file notice of claim against the government agency responsible for the roadway within 90 days." End Quote

INFORMATION BELOW WAS COPIED FROM FREEADVICE.COM: http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/auto/car-accident-claim-fault.htm"Proportional
Quote: "The states that have adopted proportional comparative fault bar recovery if you are more than 51% at fault for the accident. In other words, you cannot file a liability claim and lawsuit against the other driver’s negligence if you were more than 51% at fault. For example, Dennis hit Teri’s car while driving in excess of 25 miles per hour over the speed limit while Teri was attempting to cross the road. Even though Teri was partially at fault for not waiting until the road was completely clear before crossing, the insurance company allocated fault to Dennis at 60% due to his excessive speed. Even though Dennis suffered a broken arm from the accident, he is not entitled to recover for his injury due to the fact that he was more than 51% at fault for the accident. States: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming."End Quote

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/liability-stop-signs-speeding-fault
Quote: In the latter case, if you stopped and yielded to on-coming traffic, and then proceeded with due care, you are not at fault when another car was being driven too fast for the conditions and failed to yield to your vehicle already in the intersection. Just because you have a stop sign doesn't mean you have to wait for anyone coming from a safe distance. It is their fault if they have illegally reduced that safe distance by speeding, which is a violation of the law for that reason, and failed to yield to you properly in the intersection.End Quote

From the law offices of Judy Greenwood P.C.
http://www.greenwoodlawoffice.com/article-car-accidents-proving-fault.php
Quote: "Left-Turn Accidents
A car making a left turn is almost always liable for a collision with a car coming straight in the other direction. Exceptions to this near-automatic rule are rare and difficult to prove, but they can occur if:
•The car going straight was going well over the speed limit.
•The car going straight went through a red light.
•The left-turning car began its turn when it was safe, but something unexpected made it slow down or stop. This is an extremely difficult exception to use because a basic rule of the road says a car making a left turn must wait until it can safely complete the turn before moving in front of oncoming traffic."End Quote

The following info was written by Attorney Matt Babcock from The Babcock Law Firm, LLC:
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=18802
Quote: "If there is damage on the front-end of one car and on the front-right side of the other, a left-turn accident has occurred. Exceptions to the “no fault” provision of a left-turn car accident include when the car traveling straight was traveling way over the speed limit or ran a red light."End Quote

Minnesota law:
Subdivision 1. Right of Way when Approaching an Intersection
(d) The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which the driver might otherwise have hereunder.
Subdivision 3. Right of Way at Through Highway and at Stop Sign
(b) The driver of a vehicle shall likewise stop in obedience to a stop sign, as required herein, at an intersection where a stop sign is erected at one or more entrances thereto although not a part of a through highway, and shall proceed cautiously, yielding to vehicles not so obliged to stop which are within the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, but may then proceed.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/car-accident-fault-and-getting-what-youre-owed-03356.html

So with all that said...I just found what I'm looking for and I will go through it tomorrow looking for the section that pertains to me ;-) PA CODE & STATUTES


@Dmitri who wrote under post #89: "Rambler. As evident from your thinking the car was a 89, and many other things you have said, you simply do not understand the subject of the discussion beyond what you subjectively feel to be correct. Cars,or physics of collision are simply not your strong point.

...I posted a picture of the red VW, Woodie brought to my attention under comment #69 on page #5, that "That's more like a 99 Jetta, 89's were quite square." I then posted on the very same page, under comment #73: "Ah! The police report has it as a 1989 which is what I was going by. Thanks for "explaining" the difference Woodie." This was stated 14 posts before you jumped in. :D

I was going by the police report. "All" cars and "all" collisions are not my strong point, that is correct. As for not understanding the subject of the discussion beyond what I subjectively feel to be correct... :news you are wrong (as I just proved with the links above) and I think the same of you as evidenced by your jumping in and making statements about my posts without fully reading all the posts in their entirety and are just making assumptions which are incorrect and/or out of line. Expressing your opinion CIVILLY is one thing...expressing your opinion in a derogatory manner AND being WRONG...well :banana

@Ryan who wrote: "This is the second member in less than two weeks who has 'dismissed' Coche. " Thank you for pointing that out. I'm trying to hold a friendly unobjective conversation, weighing both pro and con and I'm getting a few posts from people who aren't reading posts and/or don't know how to hold a civil conversation without being condescending. I guess it makes them feel better in some inferior way. These two people in specific are being ignored at this point. B-)

@Superduty5.9...Thanks for the compliment on the Rambler. Just ordered a new gas tank. Am putting in a fuel pump myself in a week (have Motors Manuel, so I will do what I can understand...as a gurl). Going to drain and flush all fluids and push some buttons (push button transmission) and tada! Well, I hope tada! lol She's been sitting for a while but she should have no issues. I just don't want any gunk or stuff mucking things up. This is going to be my all time favorite car. Killer stereo system would be nice but I'm going to settle for something decent. Now, if I can only find the damn keys to the car! lol Needed to get into the trunk last week and the keys aren't where they should be! Grrrr. I'll bet they're in one of my coat pockets! lol

@Bad Bent...Thank you ever so kindly for all your comments and even more so for taking the time to compose "Part II." under post #90. Wow, you're like a rocket scientist! lol (I'm joking, but wow, that was brilliant)! I will be using that in my presentation in my defense! THANK YOU!

@Horn12007 who wrote: "None of us saw the car at all until a slight moment before contact. after we thought about it, itwas getting close to dark and they didn't have the lights on, but honestly it was our fault."
...Depending on WHICH STATE your friend had the accident in...if he had an attorney representing him he might have won his case. Read the following:
Quoted from : FreeAdvice.com
http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/auto/car-accident-claim-fault.htm
Quote: "What is Comparative or Contributory Negligence?
For example, say Luther and Martin were involved in an accident. Luther hit Martin’s car while making a left turn onto a 2-lane street at night. Luther didn't’t see Martin’s car because even though it was night time (and a dark one at that), Martin was not driving with his headlights on. Under a pure contributory negligence theory, Martin could not recover damages for his injuries because he was partially at fault for the accident. Sound pretty harsh? Actually, some states still follow this rule (Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia). "End Quote
@Geogonfa...The Geo is on Craigslist...sniffle...as a parts car. You made several good points. Thank you for your comments :thumb
Edited by 59RamblerWithFins, Sep 26 2010, 02:45 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Coche Blanco
Member Avatar
Troll Certified

Well this was fun.

Unless PA law is just bassackwards, there's no way you stand a chance. At BEST you're looking at both drivers being at fault...I honestly hope they show you at fault and you have to pay to fix the VW...that will make my day.
Edited by Coche Blanco, Sep 26 2010, 12:39 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Bad Bent
Member Avatar
Facetious Educated Donkey

Bad Bent
Sep 24 2010, 11:48 PM
Part II.
Let's assume, a Geo Metro leaves a dead stop (cautiously) and crosses a 8.5 foot wide roadway. How long would it take? At 6 mph it would take one (1) second. Let's say it takes 4 seconds if the Geo is being VERY careful and watching for traffic from the right that might be turning into the space created for you to turn left through. Three is more realistic, eh (release clutch (2), add gas (1), . If the Red VW is traveling at the speed limit, it would be 205 feet back at the start point. At 20'/car (2005 Land Rover is 190", Toyota Sienna 201" or 16.75') that places it 10 cars back. The Geo is 13.5' long.

If 60-0 mph is 151 feet then 35-0 is 88 feet, let's settle on 90 to stop. So if it takes 1 or 2 seconds to see the Geo it can stop in time. Even 3 seconds (200-150=50) and it will still hit the Geo. but under braking it would take longer than 1 second to cover 90 feet as the speed is diminishing.

From the moment of impact backwards, the Geo has been in the intersection 4 seconds and the VW had 200 feet to stop from 35 mph which would take 90 feet, in a straight line. If the Geo was 2 seconds, half way, into the intersection the Red VW had 100 feet to stop and only needed 90. And slowing from 100 feet or 5 cars back would take longer than 2 seconds as the speed was diminishing.
Update: according to www.motortrend.com/1999_volkswagen_jetta/specs the stopping distance of a 1999 Jetta is 130 feet.

A little more detailed stopping distance calculation is at www.ehow.com/calculate-braking-distance..
1. Determine the speed the car is traveling; 35mph or faster?
2. Establish the stopping distance; if it takes 4 seconds to cross the intersection we are still looking at 200 feet.
3. Institute a deceleration rate. This is the rate that applying the brakes slows the vehicle. This rate is typically 20 feet per second.
4.Establish the stopping time; When traveling at 35 mph, which equals 51 feet per second if the deceleration rate is 20 fps, the stopping time equals 51/20 = 2.55 seconds.
5. Ascertain the thinking distance, which is reaction time as it relates to distance. Reaction time can take an average of 2 seconds to set in and realize that there is a problem. The Red VW driver is young so we will give her the benefit of the doubt although she is pictured with a cell phone in her hand.
6. Calculate the total braking distance. This formula is 1/2 the initial velocity in feet per second multiplied by the time required to stop, which is 0.5 x 51 x 2.55 = 65.25. The calculated thinking distance is 2 x 51 = 102. Add the two numbers together. 167.25 feet is the total braking distance. From seeing the Geo to stopping

So it takes a little over 3 seconds to travel that distance. So if the Geo was hit at 4 seconds, then the Geo had ascertained that it was safe to cross the intersection and had released the clutch for 1 second, at which point the Red VW was at the braking point. Being football season, that is 50 yards. or 8 parked cars away.

Why is this important to understand? Any one of us can be in the same position as 59RamblerWithFins. Sure, you should not admit fault or talk to the other driver but proving liability is more than 'you are turning, you are wrong.' That's why they call them mitigating circumstances and it depends on who's better at mitigating. ;) Remember, if the Red VW had been in the center of the lane the Geo would have been t-boned. Why wasn't it? The Red VW had time to swerve to the left and try to avoid the Geo but hit the front end and shove the bumper to the right. So, if the impact was at 30+6 then the Red VW had time to think it could make it in front of the Geo. If Red VW had that much time to react at what point could Red VW have decided not to 'go for it' and thus avoided the collision. By 'go for it' I mean thinking 'OMG, if I hit that car it will hurt' or 'Wow a car is crossing the street I'll be patient and let it cross' and even 'one of these cars in line could cut out and hit me.' :smackface Unless she was one of the cars who cut out of line and was getting back in the space ahead of the black SUV. :whistle
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dmitri
New Member
[ *  * ]
Actually I "jumped in" after having read the whole post. The fact you saw the car in person and it didn't immediately strike you as wrong that it's written in the report as a 89 is a dead giveaway...
Also, you insist on 2 things, "the car came out of nowhere" and "the driver had no control over the car".
First: Cars just don't come out of nowhere, laws of physics.
Second, if you actually had enough time to observe and accurately judge the fact the driver had no control over the car,you've obviously seen it coming.Therefore,the two statements are self-contradictory in your context,and one or both is false.
Also, as you stated in the quote about BC's laws, it clearly sais "proceed with DUE CARE". By the sounds of it, you didn't use due care,thus the quote is moot.
You quote people who's job it is to weasel money out of people by giving them hope at winning.
At best,you may succeed at using letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and achieve lawful injustice.
Truth be told, in my industry, I see people do what you do nearly every day, and the innocent suffer for it. It toasts my noggin.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
superduty5.9
Member Avatar
Metro Defender

Maybe it's just me but I read her posts and looked at her pics and drawings. IT is pretty clear to me. If I were a judge I would rule in your favor.

Cars don't appear out of nowhere. It is an expression. It means when I looked it was not there. When I looked again there it was.

Sure the lady in the red VW had the right of way but that doesn't mean she doesn't have to slow down or stop for obstructions in her path. If Eva was walking and not driving across the street do you guys think it would be ok to hit her then cause she shouldn't have been there to begin with? The VW has the right of way but also must use caution and common sense to avoid an accident. I don't know cause I wasn't there but if the drawing is correct then the VW's way out to avoid an accident would have been to go to the right an avoid the accident all together. It really doesn't matter if she was speeding or not and if she had control she f'ed up!

Eva also sounds like she cares about others and is trying to get her city to change traffic at that intersection to avoid other accident or deaths. She should be commended on this. Like a rail crossing, if after there is x amount of deaths at a particular rail crossing they will put up gates and lights.

These are my own observations and this is the way I see it!!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
bogs
Member Avatar
Duct tape heals all wounds

Quote:
 
Actually I "jumped in" after having read the whole post. The fact you saw the car in person and it didn't immediately strike you as wrong that it's written in the report as a 89 is a dead giveaway...
Actually, you would have to know cars in general and VW cars specifically to know that, even the cop didn't know so I highly doubt thats a "dead give-away" to anything. I don't have to know bullet calibers to know someone was shot when I hear a "bang" and see blood forming on their chest.

Ditto on the "out of nowhere", its an expression and it is used a lot, she doesn't mean literally that the car appeared magically ala David Copperfield.

Aside from all that, she was asking not about the accident, as she points out at least 2 other times in this thread, but for an opinion as to what the damage shows.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Geo Metro Lounge · Next Topic »
Locked Topic