Car Accident

[xtrader101]

I had an accident and the car is badly damaged. I lose control due to slippery road. The car was towed in a body shop and the mechanic told me that the front tires were installed incorrectly because my tires were directional. The left front tire should be in the right front and vice versa. I did not install the tires but a reputable shop in Calgary.

Do I need to call the shop that installed my tires or just go for my insurance? This is my first time to have an accident.

Additional info: The accident happened in BC and my car is now in Vancouver.

Thanks.

[kevie88]

Unless the tire failed I'd say you're pretty much on your own in this case.

[Muji]

Name the shop.

[Zewind]

Call Your Insurance company - advise them of the tires.


I personally would not call the Shop because they will just deny any wrong doing. You wont be able to get 100% off but it could help.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Zewind
Call Your Insurance company - advise them of the tires.


I personally would not call the Shop because they will just deny any wrong doing. You wont be able to get 100% off but it could help.

I would call the shop to let them know one of their employee's is an idiot, but as said, they may just deny it all, and you wouldn;t be able to prove anything.

[rage2]

Walmart and Canadian Tire are notorious for installing directional tires backwards. With that being said, running a directional tire backwards has very little effect on performance, even in rain/snow. If anything, it'll just wear more.

Even if it was proven that the tires were installed backwards, that's not the cause of your accident, and the shop would be 0% responsible.

There's tons of articles out there on directional tires being run backwards. I think tire rack even did a back to back test on some tires. I used to run my directional tires backwards at the track all the time to maximize life.

edit - found the Tire Rack wet test.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=188&

Dry Track Proper mount - 29.387s
Dry Track Reverse mount - 29.465s (0.3% difference)

Wet Track Proper mount - 30.373s
Wet Track Reverse mount - 30.387s (0.05% difference)

The difference is so small that it could be the wind blowing slightly different, or the driver in the test missing a corner a little. Pretty much the same. It's always been a myth that directional tires can't be run backwards. There's way too much liability for tire manufactures to come up with a tire that's undrivable when it's backwards. The lawsuits would be insane.

[bastardchild]

Blaming the shop for the accident is pretty retarded. Maybe if your tire fell off it would be a different story...

[94boosted]

Originally posted by rage2


There's tons of articles out there on directional tires being run backwards. I think tire rack even did a back to back test on some tires. I used to run my directional tires backwards at the track all the time to maximize life.

edit - found the Tire Rack wet test.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=188&

Dry Track Proper mount - 29.387s
Dry Track Reverse mount - 29.465s (0.3% difference)

Wet Track Proper mount - 30.373s
Wet Track Reverse mount - 30.387s (0.05% difference)


Wow that was an interesting read.....the more you know

[Muji]

Were they winter tires? If not, you were so screwed as soon as you hit the ice, no matter the tire tread direction. If they were winter tires/ice tires, still a bit screwed in the right situation, studs might have made the day but we will never know. So many variables, we do know with the proper tire you might have stood a chance.

[Muji]

rage2 laying facts on us, I ought to print that report off and win a few $$$$ in bets on a Friday night in the bar. rage2 gets his 20% as per the norm?

[Kloubek]

Thanks for the info Rage. Very interesting.

Funny how the OP implies that is the reason he had an accident....

[sr20s14zenki]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Thanks for the info Rage. Very interesting.

Funny how the OP implies that is the reason he had an accident....

Op is just looking for a way out :D . Dishonesty is not the way out op, take your lumps and accept the accident was caused by your negligence. You were obviously travelling at too fast of a speed for the conditions, or lack driver skill to get out of a skid, either way, you are at fault.



:closed::D

[xtrader101]

Thanks for all the replies guys.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Thanks for the info Rage. Very interesting.

Funny how the OP implies that is the reason he had an accident....

that is today's generation, always looking to transfer the blame, and never accept responsibility.

Now, where is my scape goat...

[kevie88]

Originally posted by spikers


that is today's generation, always looking to transfer the blame, and never accept responsibility.

Now, where is my scape goat...

It couldn't have been MY fault!

[CUG]

Props to C-Dave in that other thread for owning it. He needs props for that.

[Disoblige]

Chances of the shop taking fault for this is the same as the likelihood of rage2 fending off a traffic ticket with charts and facts.

:rofl:

[J-hop]

Originally posted by rage2
Walmart and Canadian Tire are notorious for installing directional tires backwards. With that being said, running a directional tire backwards has very little effect on performance, even in rain/snow. If anything, it'll just wear more.

Even if it was proven that the tires were installed backwards, that's not the cause of your accident, and the shop would be 0% responsible.

There's tons of articles out there on directional tires being run backwards. I think tire rack even did a back to back test on some tires. I used to run my directional tires backwards at the track all the time to maximize life.

edit - found the Tire Rack wet test.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=188&

Dry Track Proper mount - 29.387s
Dry Track Reverse mount - 29.465s (0.3% difference)

Wet Track Proper mount - 30.373s
Wet Track Reverse mount - 30.387s (0.05% difference)

The difference is so small that it could be the wind blowing slightly different, or the driver in the test missing a corner a little. Pretty much the same. It's always been a myth that directional tires can't be run backwards. There's way too much liability for tire manufactures to come up with a tire that's undrivable when it's backwards. The lawsuits would be insane.


Although there is some validity to your post, they in fact admit their testing parameters may not simulate real world conditions.

The only place where i've found hydroplanning to be an issue is on highways in areas where semi/large truck traffic has caused ruts which pool (sometimes quite deep) with water.

Unless I passed over something, they state their testing parameters were on a track with uniform water coverage. This is a fine test but does not simulate a condition where hydroplaning would be a concern (ie: when there are puddles or standing water as I described above).


Unless I am misinterpreting their statement they state that these tests were not to test hydroplaning resistance but rather if the tread had equal wet traction in either direction.


our track challenges the tire tread compound’s ability to provide wet traction more than the tire tread design’s ability to provide hydroplaning resistance.


I can guarantee that if they induced a hydroplane situation (ie a puddle in a rutted highway), running the directional tire backwards would cause a huge decrease in the hydroplaning resistance of the tire. I don't have to explain to anyone the concept behind water channels and how if you run the tire backwards it will actually channel the water into the center of the tread causing a hydroplane situation.

[rage2]

Originally posted by J-hop
I can guarantee that if they induced a hydroplane situation (ie a puddle in a rutted highway), running the directional tire backwards would cause a huge decrease in the hydroplaning resistance of the tire. I don't have to explain to anyone the concept behind water channels and how if you run the tire backwards it will actually channel the water into the center of the tread causing a hydroplane situation.
Go look at any unidirectional tire's tread patterns that has water channels to help resist hydroplaning. Look how the channels in the middle aim straight forward, and the exit channels aim to the side. The reason for that is if that tire is run backwards, it won't pick up water from the outside and ram it inside the tire like you described. If it did, there would be lawsuits left and right.

Tire manufactures take into consideration the shitty mechanics out there that will install em backwards when designing tires. :)

There will be a drop off in aquaplaning resistance when running backwards, but it'll be more in line with a tire without dedicated water channels. Not gonna be huge.

[tom_9109]

To hold the shop responsible the onus of proof is on you. For a claim of negligence you must prove :

That a duty of care was owed - Yes, they have a duty to do the job correctly and safely.
That that duty was breached - Yes, tires on backwards.
The the damage is a result of the breach - NOT LIKELY. It will be very hard to prove that the cause of the crash is the tires installation.

Your best bet is put an insurance claim in under collision and advise the company of the tire issue. If they feel they can pursue this and recovery they will, if not they won't.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by rage2

Go look at any unidirectional tire's tread patterns that has water channels to help resist hydroplaning. Look how the channels in the middle aim straight forward, and the exit channels aim to the side. The reason for that is if that tire is run backwards, it won't pick up water from the outside and ram it inside the tire like you described. If it did, there would be lawsuits left and right.

Tire manufactures take into consideration the shitty mechanics out there that will install em backwards when designing tires. :)

There will be a drop off in aquaplaning resistance when running backwards, but it'll be more in line with a tire without dedicated water channels. Not gonna be huge.

yes those channels exiting sidways are for pushing the water away from the tire(couldn't have them exiting backwards as that would defeat the purpose of water channels). however if you are to think of a tire mounting backwards, due to the rotation of the tire, only some of the water will exit the sides, the rest will be channeled to the center as the tire rotates around, I will see if I can find a vid clip I saw a while ago that showed this. I didn't state that it would somehow magically take water from the outside of tire and fire it in, as most of the puddles you will drive through the water will be located at the center of the tread (ie middle of a rut where you are driving). This is why you shouldn't run them backwards (don't know why you ever would)

But what I was trying to point out, is that test can be completely misinterpreted because they are NOT looking at hydroplane resistance. Which is odd because that is the title of the article and the point of water channels

in their opening comment they state:
In addition to the accompanying splash scaring the heck out of the driver, hydroplaning typically causes the steering wheel to jerk and the vehicle to abruptly pull towards the puddle

however they do not even follow their description of a hydroplaning situation (ie: hitting a puddle) so although their results are interesting, they mean little nothing in the real world.

[xtrader101]

Ok, the SUV has been totaled per repair shop and the estimate has been submitted to the adjuster. How much do I expect to get? Is VMR, Canadian Black Book retail prices is what I would expect?

Model: 2004 Honda CRV-EX
Mileage: 118K
Brand new winter tires: Nokian
Maintenance: All scheduled maintenance by Honda dealership I bought the SUV from.

It's hard to get prices for 2004 in Calgary Area. It seems that Honda dealerships in Calgary doesn't have 2004 available in their websites.

Note: For all the comments that I do not take responsibility, i think it is unwarranted, I need to know my options, within the law, to minimize my losses. I do not belong to the new generation, I have my kid and wife in the car and I was driving really carefully being mindful of the road condition.

This shop's business is installing tires all over Canada and they cannot install my tires properly. I am not blaming them 100%, but if the wrong installation would have factored in the accident then I have a good case to complain.

[Rusted Bumper]

Originally posted by xtrader101
Ok, the SUV has been totaled per repair shop and the estimate has been submitted to the adjuster. How much do I expect to get? Is VMR, Canadian Black Book retail prices is what I would expect?

Model: 2004 Honda CRV-EX
Mileage: 118K
Brand new winter tires: Nokian
Maintenance: All scheduled maintenance by Honda dealership I bought the SUV from.

It's hard to get prices for 2004 in Calgary Area. It seems that Honda dealerships in Calgary doesn't have 2004 available in their websites.

You should expect market value. Check auto trader, Kijiji, etc. Your insurance wont care too much about the maintenance. You might get a couple of bucks if you have the receipt for the new tires. Auto trader shows around $12,500 - $13,000.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by xtrader101

Note: For all the comments that I do not take responsibility, i think it is unwarranted, I need to know my options, within the law, to minimize my losses. I do not belong to the new generation, I have my kid and wife in the car and I was driving really carefully being mindful of the road condition.

This shop's business is installing tires all over Canada and they cannot install my tires properly. I am not blaming them 100%, but if the wrong installation would have factored in the accident then I have a good case to complain.

If Rage is right, then the installation had next to no bearing on the accident. And IF that is the case, looking into your "options" makes it appear you're just trying to exit responsibility.

With this said, I too would be questioning the fact they were put on backwards - and whether or not that had a *reasonable* bearing on the accident.

[xtrader101]

Originally posted by Rusted Bumper


You should expect market value. Check auto trader, Kijiji, etc. Your insurance wont care too much about the maintenance. You might get a couple of bucks if you have the receipt for the new tires. Auto trader shows around $12,500 - $13,000.

When negotiating for a settlement, the amount of settlement should include taxes and other fees such as registration?

Thanks for the help.

[ExtraSlow]

Originally posted by xtrader101
When negotiating for a settlement, the amount of settlement should include taxes and other fees such as registration? It includes GST, but that's it. Just had a car written off in November.

[cancer man]

I think his concern is valid.
If there would've been a death i bet you the Authorities would be all over the tire issue.
Not everyone is a guru on tires.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by xtrader101

Note: For all the comments that I do not take responsibility, i think it is unwarranted, I need to know my options, within the law, to minimize my losses. I do not belong to the new generation, I have my kid and wife in the car and I was driving really carefully being mindful of the road condition.

This shop's business is installing tires all over Canada and they cannot install my tires properly. I am not blaming them 100%, but if the wrong installation would have factored in the accident then I have a good case to complain.

It is warranted. Your losses are going to be there regardless. Just because you have a kid and a wife, it does not make you a responsbile adult. If you were
I have my kid and wife in the car and I was driving really carefully being mindful of the road condition , you would never have had the accident in the first place. The fact that you had the accident tell us that you were not paying attention or driving to the road conditions. Now you are looking for a way to pass the buck. Oh, the tires were installed backwards, that is like removing your brakes and strapping a rocket to the back, it's not my fault! even when presented with facts and evidence that it makes such a minute difference, even Becel can't tell the difference.

I can tell you this, If you came in this thread and started off with "I fucked up and smashed into the back of this other car, time to man up and all that. Just wondering if having directional tires installed backwards could have been a contributing factor?", I would not be busting your balls.

but hey, you are not blaming them 100% so with the links and info Rage2 posted, I guess you can blame them 0.05%, the other 99.95% is your fault. :rofl:

as for placing a value on your car, Dealers won't have anything that old on their lot, so you will have to use places like Kijiji and canadatrader.com.

[sneek]

Originally posted by tom_9109
To hold the shop responsible the onus of proof is on you. For a claim of negligence you must prove :

That a duty of care was owed - Yes, they have a duty to do the job correctly and safely.
That that duty was breached - Yes, tires on backwards.
The the damage is a result of the breach - NOT LIKELY. It will be very hard to prove that the cause of the crash is the tires installation.

Your best bet is put an insurance claim in under collision and advise the company of the tire issue. If they feel they can pursue this and recovery they will, if not they won't.

Just to fuel this fire, the OP could say that there was contributory negligence (Not sure if that is the correct term anymore). IIRC there is a 1% rule, as long as a party is 1% liable they could (in theory!!!!) be held to pay 100% of the damages should the OP not be able to pay his or her portion of the damages.

[redblack]

The OP is a noob driver and is just looking to lay blame on everyone else but himself.

Only got his license a few months ago
http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=315775

[spikerS]

Originally posted by redblack
The OP is a noob driver and is just looking to lay blame on everyone else but himself.

Only got his license a few months ago
http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=315775

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Masked Bandit]

Assuming the OP has only had his license a short time (which it appears is the case) then this is EXACTLY why new drivers pay higher insurance rates. New drivers have more accidents, plain and simple.

This reversed tire issue isn't going to get the OP anywhere. It reminds me of when clients try to say "Isn't the city / province partly responsible because they didn't salt / sand the road?".

[Cos]

Originally posted by redblack
The OP is a noob driver and is just looking to lay blame on everyone else but himself.

Only got his license a few months ago
http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=315775

errr I thought he was old with a wife and kid :rofl:

[J-hop]

youch, yea sounds like a case of inexperienced driving. OP does your insurance know? did you hit anyone? hopefully not (for either question), you will likely not drive again in the near future if your insurance co. finds out as your rates will be very high (might not be a bad thing).

May I make a suggestion too? I would look into driver training this winter, it will help with insurance and sounds like you might need it. Also not to sound like a huge ass, but I don't know how you got even your learners without knowing the answers to the questions in that thread that has been posted. When I went for my learners I had literally read the book cover to cover almost a dozen times because I wanted my learners so bad. I suggest you re-read this as well, because the answers to those questions should be common sense by the time you go for your drivers!!!

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by redblack
The OP is a noob driver and is just looking to lay blame on everyone else but himself.

Only got his license a few months ago
http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=315775

Nice find. That was the piece of the puzzle that completes the scenario into a full, painted picture.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by xtrader101
Hi,

I have a few questions regarding the class 5 road test (Basic)

1. Can I make a right turn when its red, but safe to do so?

2. What does it mean "failure to stop when leaving a parking lot?"

3. Do I have to have my right signal on when making a parallel parking?

4. Do I need to touch the curve when in downhill parking?

Thanks.
WTF? :rofl:

[xtrader101]

You guys gang up on me because I am a new driver. The accident was also my fault and also with the shop that installed and bought my winter tires as they agreed to pay for my car rental and plane tickets in getting back to Calgary.

As for the insurance, I am waiting from the adjuster.

Happy new Year to all and drive safe.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by xtrader101
You guys gang up on me because I am a new driver. The accident was also my fault and also with the shop that installed and bought my winter tires as they agreed to pay for my car rental and plane tickets in getting back to Calgary.

As for the insurance, I am waiting from the adjuster.

Happy new Year to all and drive safe.

no one ganged up on you, lose the defensive attitude. We all just pointed out to you that having direction tires installed backwards would have little to no effect on your vehicle's handleing characteristics, that you seem to be fighting tooth and nail to prove otherwise.

If this shop is paying for your rental and plane tickets, count yourself lucky. Most would be telling you to pound sand, but it in no way will remove your responsibility from the accident. Your insurnace company will still be paying out on this claim, and unless you have accident forgiveness, which I doubt with only a few months driving experience under your belt, your insurance rates will be going up.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by spikers

If this shop is paying for your rental and plane tickets, count yourself lucky.

:werd: That was quite nice of the shop. Shows they actually cared that they made a mistake.

...and due to that gesture, I would leave the shop alone and deal with this issue yourself.

[gretz]

Originally posted by xtrader101
the shop that installed and bought my winter tires as they agreed to pay for my car rental and plane tickets in getting back to Calgary.



What shop? Seems like a lot for a shop to do in case of your accident...

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by gretz


What shop? Seems like a lot for a shop to do in case of your accident...

Being that I think he mentioned the tires are Nokians it would have to be a Kal Tire?

[xtrader101]

Originally posted by spikers


no one ganged up on you, lose the defensive attitude. We all just pointed out to you that having direction tires installed backwards would have little to no effect on your vehicle's handleing characteristics, that you seem to be fighting tooth and nail to prove otherwise.



I may have worded it differently in my first post. I accept responsibility on the accident. As such I would say that I am 95% responsible; the other 5% would be contributing factors that are not within my control.

All is well, I did not bother to name the shop because it is a reputable shop and I did business with them for quite sometime now and I would like to maintain the professional relationship we built through the years.

Cheers. This is my last post for this thread.