Was just involved in a car accident. Need some advice.

[KRZY403]

So I'm travelling down Glenmore Trail East just about to enter the deerfoot trail north ramp and a buick stops right in front of me causing me to rear end the vehicle. I believe that the driver is at fault because she didn't yield and came to a complete stop because of a van that was stopped in the middle of the road.

Here's a diagram
http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww300/anbu387/caraccident_zps68209d37.jpg

She then begins to drive away and we stop in a parking lot to look at the damage. We don't see any damage to her bumper but there's a couple scuffs on mine. She tells me that she prob wouldn't do anything about it but its her dad's vehicle and is registered to him, so we exchange our information and she drives away.

It's my first accident and I'm a bit shaken up. I'm at home now wondering if I did everything right or if there was something that I forgot. (like call the cops...)

Your advice is appreciated.

edit: the van came to a stop then drove away right after the accident so neither of us was able to grab the plate number. The picture above shows 2 lanes but there should only be one.

[syritis]

she ran the yield and is at fault as long as you can prove she pulled out in front of you and was not there the whole time.

grab a witness's info whenever possible.

[Mar]

If you were in the right lane you're required to take Deerfoot south, only the left lane goes to Deerfoot north.
Also I've never seen anyone get out of rear ending someone, it's almost always your fault.

[KRZY403]

Sorry I forgot to mention the roads in the picture should be just ONE lane. My bad. I can't prove that she just pulled out of nowhere. It was just me and my gf in the car. I'm sure there were witnesses but no one even stopped for us. They all just drove past as we pulled to the right. I'm kinda worried she might pull something on me and call the cops and tell them a different story.

[r2.ha]

From previous experiences as far as I know just like "Mar" said if you rear end anyone it comes down to like always your fault. From your story anyways from what I can tell and if you tell the police the same thing, they probably gonna say that why didn't you slow down anyways if there was a van stop in the middle of the road. Accident could have been avoided even if the other car didn't yield and cut infront of you.

[M.alex]

you'd be 100% at fault.

[KRZY403]

Originally posted by Mar
Also I've never seen anyone get out of rear ending someone, it's almost always your fault.

Ya that's what I'm thinking. SHitty for me then I guess. I just hope she doesn't decide to go any further with this seeing that no damage was done to her car.

[Kloubek]

While I understand that the person in the rear is almost always considered at fault, I've often wondered how it works out if someone cuts in front of you like this. How are you possibly expected to stop in time if someone pulls in front of you when they are only a few meters away?

(Not sure how much time the OP actually had to slow down or stop, but the same idea applies)

[JordanAndrew]

Originally posted by Kloubek
While I understand that the person in the rear is almost always considered at fault, I've often wondered how it works out if someone cuts in front of you like this. How are you possibly expected to stop in time if someone pulls in front of you when they are only a few meters away?

(Not sure how much time the OP actually had to slow down or stop, but the same idea applies)

I was actually in the similar situation not too long ago when a driver decided to make a right turn in front of me as I was approaching a green light and I ended up rear ending the fucker. Witnesses would definitely help, otherwise a nice dashcam would have really helped me out in that situation. Now I'm out $500 out of my deductible since I was deemed at fault.. fucking stupid driver. As soon as I can afford a dash cam, I'm gonna buy one and install it ASAP. I've had enough of this bullshit drivers out there.

[dj_rice]

Doesn't matter what shes doing, you rear ended her. Your at 100% fault.

[Tik-Tok]

According to you guys then... If someone blew a red light, did a 270* spin, and ended up in front of you in your lane, It would be your fault for hitting them?

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Kloubek
While I understand that the person in the rear is almost always considered at fault, I've often wondered how it works out if someone cuts in front of you like this. How are you possibly expected to stop in time if someone pulls in front of you when they are only a few meters away?

(Not sure how much time the OP actually had to slow down or stop, but the same idea applies)

Witness is the only way. People need to put more emphasis on this when your in an accident, try and flag people down if you have to.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
According to you guys then... If someone blew a red light, did a 270* spin, and ended up in front of you in your lane, It would be your fault for hitting them?

Most likely, assuming he had stopped spinning. It's "insurance" not "fair". Usually the cost of payout is less than the cost of arguing about it, and it all works out in the wash eventually.

Hell, even with a dash cam, if I roll back into you, I bet it's your fault. Because I'm allowed to roll, and you're supposed to give 1-1.5 car lengths - who does that?

As to the OP - if the car had really pulled out with no warning, he would have hit her on the front quarter, the side, or the rear quarter. The fact she made it all the way in (and was able to stop for the stopped truck) before he hit her makes me think he was going too quick to stop properly anyway. I wager even if she tells the exact truth he's going to get dinged for it anyway.

[GTS4tw]

Wow, lots and lots of false information. Rear ending someone does not make it 100% your fault, it depends on the accident, angles, and witnesses. If she lies and says that she was sitting there all along you would have to find a witness to the fact that she went through the yield or you could be wrongly found at fault. If she is honest about what happened then she will be found at fault. The rear end myth came about because most of the time when you rear end someone it is due to them stopping suddenly and if you hit them you were following too close. However I know of 2 people who have rear ended someone and the other person was found at fault, so don't lose hope. As others have said, for the future, best witness is a dash cam.

[speedog]

K, biggest problem here is that there is no "yield" in that area - this Google Streetview (http://maps.google.com/?ll=50.989172,-114.027421&spn=0.004653,0.013078&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=50.989223,-114.027712&panoid=z57xRTCI45LlcoWuSgEVFg&cbp=12,283.42,,0,24.66) shows how things work there.

OP would have had to move over one lane to the right to get onto the NB Deerfoot ramp and if OP rear ended the Buick there, then the OP would be at fault. If the Buick had already moved over into the next left lane to proceed westbound on Glenmore and the OP rear ended the Buick there, then the OP would be at fault.

The only way for the Buick to be at fault would be if the Buick made an unsafe lane change into the first straight through WB Glenmore lane and even then, the OP still has a responsibility to be aware of and properly respond to the traffic conditions around him/her.

[bulaian]

Originally posted by speedog
K, biggest problem here is that there is no "yield" in that area - this Google Streetview (http://maps.google.com/?ll=50.989172,-114.027421&spn=0.004653,0.013078&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=50.989223,-114.027712&panoid=z57xRTCI45LlcoWuSgEVFg&cbp=12,283.42,,0,24.66) shows how things work there.

OP would have had to move over one lane to the right to get onto the NB Deerfoot ramp and if OP rear ended the Buick there, then the OP would be at fault. If the Buick had already moved over into the next left lane to proceed westbound on Glenmore and the OP rear ended the Buick there, then the OP would be at fault.

The only way for the Buick to be at fault would be if the Buick made an unsafe lane change into the first straight through WB Glenmore lane and even then, the OP still has a responsibility to be aware of and properly respond to the traffic conditions around him/her.

that's not even the right place. OP says he was ON Glenmore heading east then exiting to the Deerfoot North Ramp.


Your streetview pic is Heritage Drive, going to Glenmore heading WEST

[bulaian]

OP was where this big truck is... the car that hit him was coming from the offramp of Deerfoot heading south, to get onto Glenmore heading east. There are 2 clear Yield signs there.

http://i.imgur.com/QjgtT.jpg

[speedog]

Well, big brain fart here - serves me right for posting before my morning coffee. Even then, if the Buick was in the lane to go east bound on Glenmore, the OP would've most likely been at fault. Never the less, that area on EB Glenmore is a shit show at the best of times - has to be a nightmare for transport truck drivers. Eventually the completion of the next major Deerfoot project should alleviate this mess - link (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/glen-m1.pdf) to PDF of proposed plan.

[Zero102]

Originally posted by Khyron

Hell, even with a dash cam, if I roll back into you, I bet it's your fault. Because I'm allowed to roll, and you're supposed to give 1-1.5 car lengths - who does that?



I'm calling bs on that one unless you can provide a source. As far as I know it is your responsibility to keep control of your car and that means not rolling backward at all.

Also, for the OP, unless she admits to popping out right in front of you or you had a witness you are stuck. All she has to say is that she had enough room to pull out in front of you and you will probably get stuck with the blame here.

[CanmoreOrLess]

Moving too fast for road conditions and not paying enough attention. You're at fault even though the van was the cause in this chain. The lady you rear ended was also not paying the proper amount of attention as the van was jamming her lane and she should have stopped before entering your lane. Perhaps she could not see the van as it was under the overpass in the shade? You on the other hand were able to see the entire roadway unfold and should have been proactive rather than reactive. Scan scan....

Bad area of the road for sure, could happen to anyone. I always move to the far left lane (if there is one) in these situations as one never knows if Mr. Yield is indeed going to yield. You had no choice but to stop, which you did kind of in a rear ended sort of way.

[M.alex]

Originally posted by Khyron


Hell, even with a dash cam, if I roll back into you, I bet it's your fault. Because I'm allowed to roll, and you're supposed to give 1-1.5 car lengths - who does that?


As it should be. All my cars are manuals and it pisses me off to no end when people hug right up your bumper, especially on a hill. If I had a beater manual car I sure as hell would exercise my rollback right and roll into people who hugged up my bumper.

[EG6boi]

I had a similar case like this but in a parking lot. I typed up a statement stating that it was his fault and he ran the yield sign. I got him to sign it and acknowledge it was his fault.

Hope this helps.

[speedog]

Someone really needs to find the statute that says one is allowed to roll back because I'd dare say there is no such law on the books. In fact, I'd dare say that if one was to roll back into another vehicle and cause damage to said vehicle, then you'd be responsible for said damage. When I learned to drive a manual equipped vehicle, I was shown how to use the parking brake in a hill-stop type of situation and on many modern vehicles, there's now that fancy smancy hill-hold feature built right in - even my new automatic equipped car has this hill-hold feature.

[Zero102]

According to this thread http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread/t-192854.html the distance is 1m, not 1.5 car lengths

[speedog]

Originally posted by EG6boi
I had a similar case like this but in a parking lot. I typed up a statement stating that it was his fault and he ran the yield sign. I got him to sign it and acknowledge it was his fault.

Hope this helps.
OP's word against other driver's word and OP's passenger's statement usually won't be taken into account as any witness statements usually have to come from a third (and uninvolved) party which the OP doesn't have either - OP will most likely be at fault here.

[syritis]

OP, another thing you can do is snap a couple pics before moving cars. try to show plate numbers, exact positions and amount of damage.

[Rat Fink]

.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by M.alex


As it should be. All my cars are manuals and it pisses me off to no end when people hug right up your bumper, especially on a hill. If I had a beater manual car I sure as hell would exercise my rollback right and roll into people who hugged up my bumper.

Learn how to drive? :dunno: :poosie:

[KRZY403]

Originally posted by bulaian
OP was where this big truck is... the car that hit him was coming from the offramp of Deerfoot heading south, to get onto Glenmore heading east. There are 2 clear Yield signs there.

http://i.imgur.com/QjgtT.jpg

bulaian is right on the dot. This is exactly where I was when the accident happened. Judging from the responses on here it sounds like it's gonna almost impossible to get out of this one, but I was fortunate that I wasn't speeding because there appears to be no damage on both our cars. Sure there looks like there's a couple scuffs on my bumper, but it's pretty much just some dirt on the 3m, so none of the paint was damaged. I'm still waiting for her to get back to me after she has her dad look at the car.

[revelations]

OP it sounds like the other motorist is at fault... however, without witnesses or th offending party admitting guilt - youre going to be found 50/50 at LEAST - at fault.

[snowcat]

get a camera.

[guessboi]

Here is the Fault Determination Rules for Ontario - sorry I don't have the AB version.

See page 13 section 14(2) for your situation.
(2) If the incident occurs when the driver of automobile “B” fails to obey a stop sign, yield sign or a
similar sign or flares or other signals on the ground, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and
the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.

http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

Please note people DO lie to get away so there is a good chance you can be at fault based on my experience.

[DEATH2000]

Originally posted by Zero102




I'm calling bs on that one unless you can provide a source. As far as I know it is your responsibility to keep control of your car and that means not rolling backward at all.



Have you EVER driven a manual transmission vehicle??



Originally posted by guessboi


Please note people DO lie to get away so there is a good chance you can be at fault based on my experience.
Which is why you should report it to the Police and inform them of the truth/your side of the story before someone lies about it.

Some douchenozzle in an F150 cut me off merging from Glenmore to 14th Ave so i honked at him, and he proceeded to slam on his brakes in an attempt to get me to rear end him. It wouldnt have been as bad had my son who just had abdominal surgery not been in the car with me on his way home from the hospital. People here are fucking assholes.

[rage2]

Originally posted by DEATH2000
Have you EVER driven a manual transmission vehicle??
If you know how to drive manual, you won't roll backwards on ANY incline. There's the e-brake method, and there's the heel toe drop brake+clutch method. Both are effective at zero rollback from a stop on a incline.

I used to drive manual daily to Eaton Center, and stopping on that exit ramp was a true test of manual driving skills. You're rolling back 1 car length everytime you stop if you don't know how to properly start on a hill in a manual, and you're usually stopping 2-3 times before you get out due to heavy pedestrian traffic.

[lilmira]

Haha, that ramp is brutal, sometimes I just wait at the bottom until it clears up. It could be quite intimidating to a newbie.

[jsn]

Originally posted by GTS4tw
Wow, lots and lots of false information. Rear ending someone does not make it 100% your fault, it depends on the accident, angles, and witnesses. If she lies and says that she was sitting there all along you would have to find a witness to the fact that she went through the yield or you could be wrongly found at fault. If she is honest about what happened then she will be found at fault. The rear end myth came about because most of the time when you rear end someone it is due to them stopping suddenly and if you hit them you were following too close. However I know of 2 people who have rear ended someone and the other person was found at fault, so don't lose hope. As others have said, for the future, best witness is a dash cam.

Not really false information per say. Yes he could prove that it wasn't his fault, but if she lies it's his word against hers. At this point in time it would be pretty damn hard to find any witnesses. Without any witnesses, he'll probably be found at fault. I wasn't there so I don't know all the details but just from reading OP's post, it sounds like he should have had enough time to stop even if she didn't yield. The van was stopped dead in the road, so he should have been slowing down already anyways.

OP, I really hope things work out for you but honestly speaking, if she lies, I think you're SOL.

[Zhariak]

Originally posted by Khyron


Hell, even with a dash cam, if I roll back into you, I bet it's your fault. Because I'm allowed to roll, and you're supposed to give 1-1.5 car lengths - who does that?


Unfortunately that's not the case. If you roll back you'll get slapped with a "failure to control you're vehicle" ticket/fine...

[Zero102]

Originally posted by DEATH2000

Have you EVER driven a manual transmission vehicle??

Yes, every single day. :confused:

I've logged over 400,000km in 7 different manual transmission vehicles I have owned, plus I have driven everything from 55hp 80's shitboxes right up to 40,000kg tractor trailers and never had a problem with rolling backwards. The worst I will roll (considered across all of these vehicle types) is about 10-15cm and that is on medium grade hills. On the steeper hills I just cheat and use the handbrake so I get no roll-back, unless I am driving something with no handbrake, in that case you just need a bit of common sense and not to lose your focus to avoid any measurable roll back.

Also, you got strangely defensive over this, I asked one question and you turned it into an attack against me about something completely different. I was asking for a source about the law, and you responded by insinuating that I cannot start from a stop on a hill in a manual transmission vehicle without rolling backwards, something that is blatantly false :whocares:

For the sake of not hijacking this thread any worse, I submit that the following indicates you cannot allow your vehicle to roll backwards and strike another vehicle, and that if you do so you would be found at fault. Taken from the Alberta Traffic Safety Act:



Division 8
Backing Up
Must be done in safety, etc.
32 A person driving a vehicle shall not back up the vehicle unless
the movement can be made in safety and the movement will not
interfere with other traffic on the highway.

[speedog]

Thread hijacks/derails - isn't that what Beyond's all about?

Hell, this thread went sideways at about the tenth post and I fully expect that there'll be some pics of either STUNNER or squishy in short order - 'tis Beyond's way.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Zero102
Also, you got strangely defensive over this, I asked one question and you turned it into an attack against me about something completely different. I was asking for a source about the law, and you responded by insinuating that I cannot start from a stop on a hill in a manual transmission vehicle without rolling backwards, something that is blatantly false :whocares:


I think he's just raging at the fact that probably 97% of drivers out there completely forget their car has an e-brake unless they are parked. And in your post, all you said was "have you ever driven a car with manual transmission?" What is one to assume aside from the fact that you seem to indicate you have no control of your car if you didn't elaborate? When I drove manual, I was 100% of the time in N with my e-brake engaged whenever I was stopped. Why press on a pedal when it isn't required?

Unfortunately, it seems like most Calgarians don't have a clue how to start on a hill. I also see way too many manual drivers who really have no clue how to properly drive a manual (for example, at this one 45 degree turn by my house, 99% of drivers will clutch in for the turn. WHY?!?!

This also applies to cars with automatics... It seems like just about every driver out there don't realize they have a selection called "N". Many times at a light, I'll stick my car in N and jam the ebrake so I don't have to press the brake pedal. but people I've seen do that shove their car straight to P.

In any case it's pretty mind boggling.. But resume on topic discussion now.