Automotive

Highway accident, who's at fault?

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 8th, 2017 11:59 am
Tags:
Deal Addict
Mar 16, 2010
2031 posts
575 upvotes
m4r 1k8
tebore wrote: Just so I get this right:
So park in live lane.
Go to "Stealth mode". Cross fingers and chant big money big money big money like on Wheel of Fortune?
Profit?
dont act all surprised you live in brampton theres the crossing the stop sign too as that is a simple suggestion just like functioning headlights the brampton drivers ed cariculum was leaked a few weeks back ... maybe where OP got his lessons
Temp. Banned
Jun 18, 2008
5095 posts
4664 upvotes
Montreal
tebore wrote: Actually one thing I noticed between the Matrix and Vibe was on the Vibe You couldn't disable the auto lights and I believe autolights were on all trims where as on the Matrix Auto lights were only on the XR and higher trims and the stalk had a "Off" setting. At least on the first gen it was this way. On the second gen Matrix you still had the Off setting but autolights were on all trims IIRC.


First gen yes, there was some control. That's why I posted 09+. I've driven several versions of all 3 cars and all had the same switch. No control at night, you can't turn them off as soon it's dark. There's the hack where you cut a blue wire that disables the auto system and you then get manual control.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
58648 posts
24637 upvotes
tebore wrote: Actually one thing I noticed between the Matrix and Vibe was on the Vibe You couldn't disable the auto lights and I believe autolights were on all trims where as on the Matrix Auto lights were only on the XR and higher trims and the stalk had a "Off" setting. At least on the first gen it was this way. On the second gen Matrix you still had the Off setting but autolights were on all trims IIRC.



Just so I get this right:
So park in live lane.
Go to "Stealth mode". Cross fingers and chant big money big money big money like on Wheel of Fortune?
Profit?
I was thinking about insurance fraud too but didn't get to post that.

Who would be an idiot to knowingly stop on a live lane and not leave tail lights or flashers on?

If the corolla and accord were full, might be insurance fraud, especially if they didn't call 911 (who wouldn't if a child fell of a car at highway speed and how do they retrace back to pick him up?). So they guy steps on his brake when it was all too late? Some smells fishy.

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2007/08/13/w ... e-highway/

Good luck OP and don't rull out fraudulent intent.
Deal Addict
Jun 14, 2008
4567 posts
3509 upvotes
Montreal
At this stage doesn't matter if it's incompetence or fraud, since OP cannot prove the lights were off he's screwed regardless.
Member
User avatar
Dec 9, 2008
435 posts
98 upvotes
Toronto
kneevase wrote: The more you write, the more that I get the sense that you are an incompetent driver.

Your headlights should illuminate a distance of about 200 feet on low beams and even farther for high beams. You shouldn't even be driving 100 km/h if you cannot see 300 feet in front of you (using your headlights, the light from headlights of other cars on the road, and possibly streetlights). You were on the 401, which is a multi-lane highway, and you needed to see an unlit stationary hazard on the road and then either stop before hitting it or change lanes to avoid it. If you were paying attention and driving at a safe speed, you should have had no trouble avoiding that collision.
Well I was reading a study by traffic engineers and you numbers are off. Avg low beam illuminates 170 feet. Even at 200 feet, at speed limit of 100 km/h, is not sufficient to fully brake. Unless you are traveling at 70km/h, but then you are risking hit from behind below traffic speed. Interestingly they make same conclusion regarding parking on live lane at night.
Sr. Member
Feb 19, 2012
904 posts
600 upvotes
Woodbridge
Honestly, I can't see how the OP can get out of this one. Without some sort of video evidence the Insurance Bureau is going to find him at fault. If the OP's car and the Corolla are both write-offs the impact must have been pretty significant. At the end of the day I can understand why the OP is trying to get out of this but I can't see it happening. Moreover, as someone who was recently rear-ended on the 400 I can't say I feel a lot of sympathy for the OP. I've been sore for months because someone barrelled into the back of my car and totalled it. When you're in an accident you need to assume some responsibility.
Deal Guru
Feb 9, 2006
13378 posts
8308 upvotes
Brampton
greybrick wrote: Honestly, I can't see how the OP can get out of this one. Without some sort of video evidence the Insurance Bureau is going to find him at fault. If the OP's car and the Corolla are both write-offs the impact must have been pretty significant. At the end of the day I can understand why the OP is trying to get out of this but I can't see it happening. Moreover, as someone who was recently rear-ended on the 400 I can't say I feel a lot of sympathy for the OP. I've been sore for months because someone barrelled into the back of my car and totalled it. When you're in an accident you need to assume some responsibility.
That's tough man. Hope you're ok.
I know people who had the same happen on the 400. It's a dangerous road north of Maple (That Blackcreek section ain't great either). Some parts have very poor visibility, little to no shoulder and a huge amount of trucks.
These days people are don't look very far down the road when they drive anymore. It's split attention between their phones and not smashing up the car directly infront of them.
Deal Addict
Feb 26, 2008
1821 posts
1285 upvotes
elkhaze wrote: Well I was reading a study by traffic engineers and you numbers are off. Avg low beam illuminates 170 feet. Even at 200 feet, at speed limit of 100 km/h, is not sufficient to fully brake. Unless you are traveling at 70km/h, but then you are risking hit from behind below traffic speed. Interestingly they make same conclusion regarding parking on live lane at night.

Not only do I increasingly get the sense that you might be an incompetent driver, you seem to also have a reading challenge.

I told you very clearly that you should not even be driving 100 km/h unless you can see 300 feet. You can use your own headlights, the light from headlights of other cars on the road, and possibly light from the streetlights if you are on a highway with streetlights, but if you can't see 300 feet then you are at serious risk of not stopping in time in a typical car if the road is blocked for any reason. If you are in a less trafficked rural area at night you should use your high beams when there are no oncoming cars to extend your range of vision to 300+ feet. You have no business driving 100 km/h using low beams if they are your only source of light because, on most cars, they are only good for about 200 feet (or, in your case, 170 feet :facepalm: ). But, in the urban section of the 401 there is normally plenty of light from the streetlights and from vehicles in adjacent lanes so there should be no trouble seeing the 300+ feet that would enable you to stop.

You still haven't told us where this collision happened or explained why you were unable to change lanes or move to the shoulder in your 170 feet of headlight distance.
Member
User avatar
Dec 9, 2008
435 posts
98 upvotes
Toronto
kneevase wrote: Not only do I increasingly get the sense that you might be an incompetent driver, you seem to also have a reading challenge.

I told you very clearly that you should not even be driving 100 km/h unless you can see 300 feet. You can use your own headlights, the light from headlights of other cars on the road, and possibly light from the streetlights if you are on a highway with streetlights, but if you can't see 300 feet then you are at serious risk of not stopping in time in a typical car if the road is blocked for any reason. If you are in a less trafficked rural area at night you should use your high beams when there are no oncoming cars to extend your range of vision to 300+ feet. You have no business driving 100 km/h using low beams if they are your only source of light because, on most cars, they are only good for about 200 feet (or, in your case, 170 feet :facepalm: ). But, in the urban section of the 401 there is normally plenty of light from the streetlights and from vehicles in adjacent lanes so there should be no trouble seeing the 300+ feet that would enable you to stop.

You still haven't told us where this collision happened or explained why you were unable to change lanes or move to the shoulder in your 170 feet of headlight distance.
I am getting the sense you know the rules well. My argument is different, and I hope you have some math competence. You need to apply simple physics math to understand that speed limit at night does not give you enough distance to a complete stop on a parked vehicle, and I understand what you are saying, but the more you talk the more I sense you are not well rounded. No one will reduce their speed on a flowing highway, unless you risk getting hit from behind, but at same time you risk to hit a parked car on live lane (you need to apply math here ;))

Tell me how much time you have before you reach 170 feet to 300 feet at the speed limit.
Deal Addict
Feb 26, 2008
1821 posts
1285 upvotes
elkhaze wrote: I am getting the sense you know the rules well. My argument is different, and I hope you have some math competence. You need to apply simple physics math to understand that speed limit at night does not give you enough distance to a complete stop on a parked vehicle, and I understand what you are saying, but the more you talk the more I sense you are not well rounded. No one will reduce their speed on a flowing highway, unless you risk getting hit from behind, but at same time you risk to hit a parked car on live lane (you need to apply math here ;))

Tell me how much time you have before you reach 170 feet to 300 feet at the speed limit.

You really are a tedious sort. This is your stopping distance at 100 km/h for a typical car:

http://www.brakingdistances.com/100Kph

For those who elect not to follow the link, it's 254 feet. Given this, IMO you are completely irresponsible to drive 100 km/h if you cannot see AT LEAST 300 feet. That requires either high-beams or low beams plus some other source of light (like street lights or the light from other cars).

OP, you are increasingly striking me as a menace on the road because you continually deny your own culpability in which you hit a car from behind in a very basic driving situation. Go back and take some more courses if that's required (and, BTW, you would not win in a math contest against me).
Member
User avatar
Dec 9, 2008
435 posts
98 upvotes
Toronto
kneevase wrote: You really are a tedious sort. This is your stopping distance at 100 km/h for a typical car:

http://www.brakingdistances.com/100Kph

For those who elect not to follow the link, it's 254 feet. Given this, IMO you are completely irresponsible to drive 100 km/h if you cannot see AT LEAST 300 feet. That requires either high-beams or low beams plus some other source of light (like street lights or the light from other cars).

OP, you are increasingly striking me as a menace on the road because you continually deny your own culpability in which you hit a car from behind in a very basic driving situation. Go back and take some more courses if that's required (and, BTW, you would not win in a math contest against me).
That was not my question, you need to improve your reading and comprehension skills and take some night English courses ;) Glad you are good at math, at least you are indirectly admitting low beam is not sufficient for stopping at highway speeds.
Deal Expert
Jan 15, 2006
21392 posts
23735 upvotes
Richmond Hill
elkhaze wrote: That was not my question, you need to improve your reading and comprehension skills and take some night courses ;) Glad you are good at math, at least you are indirectly admitting low beam is not sufficient light for stopping at highway speeds.
What's with all the arguing? You suck at driving, period.
Sr. Member
Feb 19, 2012
904 posts
600 upvotes
Woodbridge
I can't fathom a circumstance where your insurance company is going to forgive you for your error. You were driving without sufficient forward visibility and you struck a stationary object. There really isn't anything else to be said.
Deal Addict
Feb 26, 2008
1821 posts
1285 upvotes
elkhaze wrote: That was not my question, you need to improve your reading and comprehension skills and take some night English courses ;) Glad you are good at math, at least you are indirectly admitting low beam is not sufficient for stopping at highway speeds.

I'm saying that if you were driving 100 km/h and you could not see 300 feet, you were irresponsible. I hope to Christ that if you were driving on the 401 with only your low beams that you were at least driving in the GTA where there are streetlights to help you see far enough. The GTA is a goddamned disaster because there are virtually no standards for people to be given drivers permits. You should count yourself as lucky to have not killed somebody.

You are unbelievable.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 31, 2008
13011 posts
3095 upvotes
Toronto
tebore wrote: That's tough man. Hope you're ok.
I know people who had the same happen on the 400. It's a dangerous road north of Maple (That Blackcreek section ain't great either). Some parts have very poor visibility, little to no shoulder and a huge amount of trucks.
These days people are don't look very far down the road when they drive anymore. It's split attention between their phones and not smashing up the car directly infront of them.
And in general, people follow way too close at high speeds. Sure, I do that sometimes, usually at the DVP when it's rammed and it tends to slowdown in waves, but I'm always on high alert and in a defensive, awareness mode. People in general seem to have no concept of spacing at higher speeds, or defensive readiness. They just assume their car's magnificent breaks is good enough so it allows them to day dream or drive with that '1000' yard stare assuming their constant velocity will be maintained on a track like they are a train. An impossibility that they might have to actually stop on the highway. Just check out videos of those drivers who have no concept of slowing down plowing into a multi crash sites.

Top