NEED HELP : %50 at fault write off with no collision on insurance

[Mr_A]

Hey guys,

So I did a lot of search and reading on this forum and on the internet but couldn’t find answer to my specific question. I am in a write off situation where I am at %50 at fault and I don’t have collision on my insurance. I’ll appreciate any positive input from you guys… please help me out here.

ACCIDENT:
Last week I got into an accident on Northbound on Mccowan/407. The car in front of me (92 Camry) stopped suddenly to make a right turn in the parking lot and when I hit my brakes, because of the heavy rain my car (Civic 2001) slid for like 50-60 ft and rear-ended the car in front of me. The next moment, the car behind me (Civic 98) rear ended me hard and pushed me further into the car in front of me and my car got on the curb.

Police came on site and put me at fault (which I don’t dispute) but didn’t charge me because of weather conditions. The officer told me that the insurance will determine the percentage of the fault. All 3 drivers exchanged the insurance info and I got the car towed to my house ($280 from my pocket). I suffered some back and neck injuries both nothing really serious that day.

CLAIM:
Now, I called up my insurance company and they started working on it. I did not have the collision on my insurance. I was determined %50 at fault in the front and %0 in the back. They got the car towed to the body shop (their own expense) to do the assessment and the shop quoted more than $9000 (around $6000 for the back and $3000 in the front) for the repairs. Insurance told me that it's a write off. They also told me that they have sent a staff appraiser to do further assessment. Today they told me that the cash value for the car is around $4200 because of condition and around 213000 KMs on it. And because I am at %50 fault, they can offer me $2900 + $200 (goodwill money for me not having a car) total of $3100 something. I tired to negotiate this with him and explained him about the cars selling in similar condition and mileage for around $5000-$6000 but he said that the number won’t change much and I need to hire my own appraiser to do the appraisal and challenge the offer. He kept mentioning that I could have gotten more if I have had the collision and if I was not at fault.

I was quite displeased with the situation and I also didn’t get good response from the adjustor in injury department.

QUESTION:
My question is that as far as I have read up, when it’s a write off situation … fault/no fault doesn’t matter that much coz it affects more on the future premiums. So, can the insurance knock off the price in half for me being at %50 at fault for the front damage? I was at %0 fault for the back damage and because I got rear ended, my car was pushed further and suffered more damage. I need your recommendations:

Should I hire my own appraiser and challenge the offer to get better price … is it worth it and how much is the average price for getting this done?
Should I hire an attorney to do the negotiation with them on car write off and my injuries and I avoid dealing with insurance?
Or should I just take the $3100 and call it a day ?


I just feel like getting robbed here as we pay friggin premiums every month and when it comes to claim, they give you so much hassle and poor customer service. I may lose my battle at the end but I don’t want to give up without a fight. Please provide your input guys. Any advice will be appreciated.

[npinc]

Absolutely take the 3100..

You were following too close for the conditions. Hence why you're 100% at fault from the front. You were speeding, too fast for the conditions. In other words, you were driving like a tool.

The fellow behind you was another wanna be ricer, driving too close. His/her insurance will get dinged for your 50%. Even if you had collision, they'd still hit you for a deductible.

You're not entitled to more, you're actually lucky the guy rear-ended you to get what you did. The car you were driving is absolutely worthless. I believe their assessment was spot on. I'm willing to bet you have a fart pipe on it.. They probably saw it and went "great, another wanna be".

Take the money and run. Seriously. I know I sound cold and callous, but I know how you guys drive those crap piles, thinking it's a racer, and sliding 50/60 feet into the rear of a turning car is completely unacceptable and idiotic.

Whatever your appraiser sets the value at, which I know from experience to be bugger all, you have to split in half. Any gains s/he makes in the quote will simply cover the cost you paid him/her. A lawyer in this is complete stupidity. I doubt you'll find an honest lawyer that will take the case, unless s/he smells a tool and just takes the money to fill out his/her balance sheet. It will cost you way more than the gains just to retain him.

You drove a piece of junk, you wrote it off because you were stupid. Those old clunkers only hold value because similar Fast-and-the-Furious wannabes fight over them. That doesn't mean they hold any value on the open market.

So yeah. Take it and run, then enjoy the increased premiums later on, because no matter what they're dinging you....and hard (unless you have accident forgiveness).

Next time save the hot rodding for the track. ;)

[i6s1]

I just feel like getting robbed here as we pay friggin premiums every month and when it comes to claim, they give you so much hassle and poor customer service.

We pay these premiums because people get into accidents.

I assume that it was raining over the first car as well, so his stopping distance was roughly impaired to the same degree as yours. I think you're very lucky to have only 50% responsibility. If it was BC, you would probably be 75% responsible if the other driver admitted to not signaling.

Just because you can see cars on craigslist for 5-6k, doesn't mean that they sell for that much. Only the best deals sell, and they usually sell below asking price, and people usually do some minor work or a detailing job on them before they sell them.

$3100 is probably a fair amount for what you've described.

If you're not happy with it, then change your insurance company. When you picked your current company, you probably shopped based on price. You may pay more with a different company, but you get what you pay for.

[ThePointblank]

Yeah, your car unfortunately isn't worth much from looking at Black Book appraisals... if your car is in tip top shape and has low mileage, it will net you $4,500-5,600, while a vehicle in your condition and mileage will only net you $3,700-4,600, unless it was a EX model. Another factor to consider is that your mileage per year is higher than average (average is around 19,000km), so I would lean towards the low end of the spectrum. You got the right value.

[thekatt]

Absolutely take the 3100..

You were following too close for the conditions. Hence why you're 100% at fault from the front. You were speeding, too fast for the conditions. In other words, you were driving like a tool.

The fellow behind you was another wanna be ricer, driving too close. His/her insurance will get dinged for your 50%. Even if you had collision, they'd still hit you for a deductible.

You're not entitled to more, you're actually lucky the guy rear-ended you to get what you did. The car you were driving is absolutely worthless. I believe their assessment was spot on. I'm willing to bet you have a fart pipe on it.. They probably saw it and went "great, another wanna be".

Take the money and run. Seriously. I know I sound cold and callous, but I know how you guys drive those crap piles, thinking it's a racer, and sliding 50/60 feet into the rear of a turning car is completely unacceptable and idiotic.

Whatever your appraiser sets the value at, which I know from experience to be bugger all, you have to split in half. Any gains s/he makes in the quote will simply cover the cost you paid him/her. A lawyer in this is complete stupidity. I doubt you'll find an honest lawyer that will take the case, unless s/he smells a tool and just takes the money to fill out his/her balance sheet. It will cost you way more than the gains just to retain him.

You drove a piece of junk, you wrote it off because you were stupid. Those old clunkers only hold value because similar Fast-and-the-Furious wannabes fight over them. That doesn't mean they hold any value on the open market.

So yeah. Take it and run, then enjoy the increased premiums later on, because no matter what they're dinging you....and hard (unless you have accident forgiveness).

Next time save the hot rodding for the track. ;)

Were you not loved as a child? Half of your post is entirely irrelevant and simply an attack on the OP with completely made up ********. 95% of 2001ish civics I see on the road are in fact completely stock. You sound so ignorant. I'm going to help you and repost what you said properly.

You were following too close for the conditions. Hence why you're 100% at fault from the front. You were speeding, too fast for the conditions.

The fellow behind you was driving too close as well. Even if you had collision, they'd still hit you for a deductible.

You're not entitled to more, you're actually lucky the guy rear-ended you to get what you did. I believe their assessment was spot on.

Take the money and run. Seriously.

Whatever your appraiser sets the value at, which I know from experience to be bugger all, you have to split in half. Any gains s/he makes in the quote will simply cover the cost you paid him/her. A lawyer in this is complete stupidity. I doubt you'll find an honest lawyer that will take the case, unless s/he smells a tool and just takes the money to fill out his/her balance sheet. It will cost you way more than the gains just to retain him.

So yeah. Take it and run.


I don't drive a civic, actually i don't even think i've ever been in a civic - but what is it about them that brings about these retards on RFD with their pitchforks.

In any case, these other 2 guys "ThePointBlank" and "i6s1" are right. You are actually lucky to be only 50% at fault on the front. In my unprofessional opinion it should have been 100% on the front (and obviously 0% at the back). And with such high mileage on an 8 year car, you are lucky to have gotten so much. I would take the $3100. Good luck! :)

[CaptSmethwick]

A few comments...


Insurance pay-outs in write-off situations never fully compensate you. I am on the receiving end of a 0% at-fault write-off (the other driver was charged) on my 10 month old car and I had full coverage with the depreciation removal endorsement and I'm still out of pocket several thousand dollars. :mad:
$3100 seems more than reasonable for an '01 Civic with that kind of mileage - although it admittedly won't go very far towards getting the OP a replacement that will measure up to the utility of the Civic.
The OP raises an interesting question as to whether or not fault determines how much the insurer should pay out. On the one hand, the fact that the OP had no collision coverage suggests that he shouldn't expect any pay out at all if they accident was his fault. However, if he is only partly at fault, it suggests that there is another driver who is at least partly at fault - in which case, the OP's insurer would at least have another company to go after - but they would likely balk at paying the whole bill given the shared fault. So, I think the default is to direct insurance - the OP's insurer takes care of the OP and eats the bill. It'll give the OP $3100, sell the carnage at a salvage auction for a few hundred and hope get the rest from the OP over future years' policies. It's small dollars for them but they won't be happy about it.

OP: take the money and run.

[Mr_A]

Were you not loved as a child? Half of your post is entirely irrelevant and simply an attack on the OP with completely made up ********. 95% of 2001ish civics I see on the road are in fact completely stock. You sound so ignorant. I'm going to help you and repost what you said properly.




I don't drive a civic, actually i don't even think i've ever been in a civic - but what is it about them that brings about these retards on RFD with their pitchforks.

In any case, these other 2 guys "ThePointBlank" and "i6s1" are right. You are actually lucky to be only 50% at fault on the front. In my unprofessional opinion it should have been 100% on the front (and obviously 0% at the back). And with such high mileage on an 8 year car, you are lucky to have gotten so much. I would take the $3100. Good luck! :)

Thank you for backing me up there buddy. Yes, I don't know why some users here on RFD think that they can judge how people drive and their nature is. I did admit that no matter what were the conditions, my car did slid at the end and I am not denying the fact that I was at %50 fault. Mind you that I do drive really safely but unfortunately, that day when I gently hit my brakes, the tyres locked instantly and I ended up in that situation.


A few comments...


Insurance pay-outs in write-off situations never fully compensate you. I am on the receiving end of a 0% at-fault write-off (the other driver was charged) on my 10 month old car and I had full coverage with the depreciation removal endorsement and I'm still out of pocket several thousand dollars. :mad:
$3100 seems more than reasonable for an '01 Civic with that kind of mileage - although it admittedly won't go very far towards getting the OP a replacement that will measure up to the utility of the Civic.
The OP raises an interesting question as to whether or not fault determines how much the insurer should pay out. On the one hand, the fact that the OP had no collision coverage suggests that he shouldn't expect any pay out at all if they accident was his fault. However, if he is only partly at fault, it suggests that there is another driver who is at least partly at fault - in which case, the OP's insurer would at least have another company to go after - but they would likely balk at paying the whole bill given the shared fault. So, I think the default is to direct insurance - the OP's insurer takes care of the OP and eats the bill. It'll give the OP $3100, sell the carnage at a salvage auction for a few hundred and hope get the rest from the OP over future years' policies. It's small dollars for them but they won't be happy about it.

OP: take the money and run.


Thank you as well for your positive input. I do understand that write-off situations are not always in insured person's favor.

To answer your last point, in my situation ... the Car A is %0 at fault, Car B (me) %50 in front %0 in the back, Car C %100 in front.

What I am trying to ask or understand is that I was %0 at fault in the back and the other car was %100. What I believe is that the insurance company can cover %0 or max %50 repair cost fro front, but they HAVE to cover %100 cost for repairing the back which came about around $6000. Now, I assume that $6000 is the number they HAVE to cover. Then, they look at alternatives to save themselves money ... I have no problem with that. They decide to write off ... I have no problem with that. They asses the value to be around $4500 + tax ... I have no problem with that. But why are they coming back and telling me because I was %50 at fault in the FRONT, they have to knock down the price in half?!?!?!?

As far as I understand, back half of the car is a write off as the reapirs are more than $6000 to them so why are they considering the damage/fault in the FRONT to asses the final write off value ???

[Engi-Nir]

Only comment, 2001 civic with 200,000 clicks...take the $3100 and run ;)

[gdong]

Only comment, 2001 civic with 200,000 clicks...take the $3100 and run ;)

Car is barely broken in.

[alamshahid]

Try to convince the Insurance company to rate you 25% or less for the frontal damage. Reason being as part of the new Ontario reform this type of rating would not increase premiums.

Inforce to the adjuster that this accident would not have occurred if Driver A had not made an improper turn. The sudden lane change or turn by a vehicle caused the accident to occur. Regardless of the distance between you it was their irresponsibility that caused the whole situation.

[npinc]

I may have worded it snarky, but the truth remains.. It's simple physics.

To have a car that light skid 50-60 feet on wet pavement, the velocity was an easy 100 to 120 km/h, far too fast for the conditions. At 50 km/h, a 6000 lb car (almost twice as heavy) will skid about 10 feet. Do the math.

I'm not sympathetic to people that drive like idiots. The closer we get to Christmas, the worse it's getting. We just had someone killed in a car accident up here because someone wasn't driving to the conditions, wiped out six cars and killed someone.

Sorry.

[kenchau]

I would have thought by now that it is CLEAR/OBVIOUS that $3100 is not HALF of the $4200 assessed value. It's well above half. What are you complaining about OP?

[TrevorK]

I would have thought by now that it is CLEAR/OBVIOUS that $3100 is not HALF of the $4200 assessed value. It's well above half. What are you complaining about OP?

+1

Even if you get another appraisal at $6000, wouldn't the adjustor dealing with your claim just say "Fine, $3000 then"?

You are getting more than half of what you even think it's with, it's a fair deal.


If you want more, you should carry collision for these instances where you are at least partially at fault for the accident. If not, you have no business complaining because you choose not to pay for full coverage.

[e1e0n]

He wrongly believes that insurance must pay him _damages_.
This works completely different. They consider:

1) Cost to repair 6K+3K*50% = 6K+1.5K=7.5K
2) Car value = 4.2K

They choose lesser value - so write car off
He is responsible for 25% (0% for rear and 50% front -> (0+50)/2 )
4.2K * 75% =3.15K

I think insurance is right on the money... Take it and be smarter next time.

[Engi-Nir]

Car is barely broken in.

lolllllllll maybe he should use that line with the insurance company....to that they will say, omg, we made a mistake, your car is in perfect working condition, we will close this file, the accident didn't happen ;)

[mok86]

whats the coefficient of friction on wet asphalt north of mcowan and 407? i'd like to see your simple physics calculations please.

I may have worded it snarky, but the truth remains.. It's simple physics.

To have a car that light skid 50-60 feet on wet pavement, the velocity was an easy 100 to 120 km/h, far too fast for the conditions. At 50 km/h, a 6000 lb car (almost twice as heavy) will skid about 10 feet. Do the math.

I'm not sympathetic to people that drive like idiots. The closer we get to Christmas, the worse it's getting. We just had someone killed in a car accident up here because someone wasn't driving to the conditions, wiped out six cars and killed someone.

Sorry.

[googoo]

Were you not loved as a child? Half of your post is entirely irrelevant and simply an attack on the OP with completely made up ********. 95% of 2001ish civics I see on the road are in fact completely stock. You sound so ignorant. I'm going to help you and repost what you said properly.


Agreed, ripping on the driver because he drive a Civic and was probably driving like an idiot, Yep, why drive the best selling small car in Canada, and all of the people that drive Civics are 18 year olds that "rice" up their rides?? MUst be tons of morons all over(me included, and I'm 41)!

To have a car that light skid 50-60 feet on wet pavement, the velocity was an easy 100 to 120 km/h, far too fast for the conditions. At 50 km/h, a 6000 lb car (almost twice as heavy) will skid about 10 feet. Do the math.

A 3000 pound car will take more than 100 feet on dry pavement at 50KPH, add the fact that it was wet, and the driver didn't signal well in advance( I usually signal between 100 yards at 50KPH to 400 yards at 85-90KPH) means that most people would have had trouble in this situation .... SSooo the OP could have been driving just like the rest of us would have been!

Brent

[mok86]

Agreed, ripping on the driver because he drive a Civic and was probably driving like an idiot, Yep, why drive the best selling small car in Canada, and all of the people that drive Civics are 18 year olds that "rice" up their rides?? MUst be tons of morons all over(me included, and I'm 41)!



A 3000 pound car will take more than 100 feet on dry pavement at 50KPH, add the fact that it was wet, and the driver didn't signal well in advance( I usually signal between 100 yards at 50KPH to 400 yards at 85-90KPH) means that most people would have had trouble in this situation .... SSooo the OP could have been driving just like the rest of us would have been!

Brent

man i was trying to get the guy to show me some simple physics :(
....i think i'm in a grumpy mood today... its the weather outside, so gloomy

[Mr_A]

Ok guys, I think I do undestand now that the insurance is fair on the price. I just wanted some clarification to make sure that I should get whatever I am entitled for.

And please dont bash me for my driving or me trying to make sure that I dont get ripped off. I am sure everybody wants to make sure that they get into as less loss as possible and that's what I am trying to do here.



He is responsible for 25% (0% for rear and 50% front -> (0+50)/2 )



You raise an interesting point. Can I really be determined 25% total at fault ? If yes, then that might help me to avoid future premium hikes. Can anybody confirm this ? I did talk to my adjuster and he keeps telling me that it's only 0%, 50% or 100% ... no 25% in situations like these ?

[jetway1212]

I may have worded it snarky, but the truth remains.. It's simple physics.

To have a car that light skid 50-60 feet on wet pavement, the velocity was an easy 100 to 120 km/h, far too fast for the conditions. At 50 km/h, a 6000 lb car (almost twice as heavy) will skid about 10 feet. Do the math.

I'm not sympathetic to people that drive like idiots. The closer we get to Christmas, the worse it's getting. We just had someone killed in a car accident up here because someone wasn't driving to the conditions, wiped out six cars and killed someone.

Sorry.

Its such a simple physics yet you dont get it. You = Fail.

Go back to HS and get that diploma, then call Everest.... you're sitting on the couch all day anyhow. Make a call that change your life.


LOL

[TripleHelix]

How does a 3000 pound car take 100 feet to stop from 50km/h on dry pavement???

Where did you get that from? Maybe if the driver doesn't want to hurt his brakes, but slam the brakes and I'm pretty sure you will be at a dead stop in less than 30...

[i6s1]

The actual physics don't matter much. What matters is that If the camery slams on his brakes, and the civic slams on his breaks, both cars are on the same pavement and they're going to stop in roughly the same distance. 10 feet or 100 feet, it doesn't matter. Dry pavement or wet, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the following distance was too short for the reaction time by about $3000. Maybe the following distance was fine and the reaction time was increased by a distraction (the exact wrong second for a britney song to come on the radio so you have to change the channel.)

[TripleHelix]

The actual physics don't matter much. What matters is that If the camery slams on his brakes, and the civic slams on his breaks, both cars are on the same pavement and they're going to stop in roughly the same distance. 10 feet or 100 feet, it doesn't matter. Dry pavement or wet, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the following distance was too short for the reaction time by about $3000. Maybe the following distance was fine and the reaction time was increased by a distraction (the exact wrong second for a britney song to come on the radio so you have to change the channel.)

I doubt the camry slammed his brakes to make the turn... Maybe he didnt signal properly, but that doesn't give the other guy an excuse for not paying attention...

[romsan04]

say to them that you will pay for fixing front and let them pay for the back.

I am not sure how can they deny fixing back of your car then you are not at fault for it.

Dont accept what they offered

[alamshahid]

Tell the adjuster to read this:

http://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2009/11/ontarios-proposed-auto-insurance-reforms.html

Under the section "Measures to protect consumers":
* No element of a risk classification system would use past claims for which a driver is 25 per cent or less at-fault.

Based on this there has to be more ratings than 0%, 50%, 100%.

If she argues tell her you'll be in contact with FSCO.

[jeanius]

Absolutely take the 3100..

You were following too close for the conditions. Hence why you're 100% at fault from the front. You were speeding, too fast for the conditions. In other words, you were driving like a tool.

The fellow behind you was another wanna be ricer, driving too close. His/her insurance will get dinged for your 50%. Even if you had collision, they'd still hit you for a deductible.

You're not entitled to more, you're actually lucky the guy rear-ended you to get what you did. The car you were driving is absolutely worthless. I believe their assessment was spot on. I'm willing to bet you have a fart pipe on it.. They probably saw it and went "great, another wanna be".

Take the money and run. Seriously. I know I sound cold and callous, but I know how you guys drive those crap piles, thinking it's a racer, and sliding 50/60 feet into the rear of a turning car is completely unacceptable and idiotic.

Whatever your appraiser sets the value at, which I know from experience to be bugger all, you have to split in half. Any gains s/he makes in the quote will simply cover the cost you paid him/her. A lawyer in this is complete stupidity. I doubt you'll find an honest lawyer that will take the case, unless s/he smells a tool and just takes the money to fill out his/her balance sheet. It will cost you way more than the gains just to retain him.

You drove a piece of junk, you wrote it off because you were stupid. Those old clunkers only hold value because similar Fast-and-the-Furious wannabes fight over them. That doesn't mean they hold any value on the open market.

So yeah. Take it and run, then enjoy the increased premiums later on, because no matter what they're dinging you....and hard (unless you have accident forgiveness).

Next time save the hot rodding for the track. ;)


I'm sorry but you're an idiot......I hope you get into an accident next time it rains or snows and make sure you post up what happend here.....

[TripleHelix]

say to them that you will pay for fixing front and let them pay for the back.

I am not sure how can they deny fixing back of your car then you are not at fault for it.

Dont accept what they offered

It is a write off though...

He was quoted 3k in the front and 6k in the back. Just the damage in the back is more than the 4.2k in damages.

You cant just make the claim on the damage that you were 0% at fault for and not claim the damage that was your fault...

[rems]

Tell the adjuster to read this:

http://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2009/11/ontarios-proposed-auto-insurance-reforms.html

Under the section "Measures to protect consumers":
* No element of a risk classification system would use past claims for which a driver is 25 per cent or less at-fault.

Based on this there has to be more ratings than 0%, 50%, 100%.

If she argues tell her you'll be in contact with FSCO.

that doesnt come into effect until summer of 2010...
in the same link you posted

IMPLEMENTING THE REFORMS


The Minister of Finance intends to implement automobile insurance reforms as part of a regulations package that would become effective in summer 2010, and continue to explore further longer-term measures.


and there are fault determination precentagess other than those numbers you posted...

[romsan04]

It is a write off though...

He was quoted 3k in the front and 6k in the back. Just the damage in the back is more than the 4.2k in damages.

You cant just make the claim on the damage that you were 0% at fault for and not claim the damage that was your fault...

but you cannot claim something you dont have coverage for

i.e if it was 100% at fault for rearending someone he would take the car and fix it himself. Now since he was rearended too they are obligated to fix his car or provide fair value and not some $$****** amount

[rems]

but you cannot claim something you dont have coverage for

i.e if it was 100% at fault for rearending someone he would take the car and fix it himself. Now since he was rearended too they are obligated to fix his car or provide fair value and not some $$****** amount

Collision coverage is there for when you`re at fault ...
there is coverage for when you`re not at fault (DCPD which is party of the third party liability - which everyone has since it`s mandatory). So the other driver`s DCPD will cover your car if you`re not at fault.

[TripleHelix]

but you cannot claim something you dont have coverage for

i.e if it was 100% at fault for rearending someone he would take the car and fix it himself. Now since he was rearended too they are obligated to fix his car or provide fair value and not some $$****** amount

I see what you're saying, and I forgot that he didnt have collision.

I'm not sure how this will work. At the end of the day he was in an at-fault collision which his insurance company will pay for damage on the other car so I dont know if that comes into it...

[stevelam]

wow 3100 for your 01 civic? i also had a write off when i got in an at fault accident in my 01 civic (it was an SI model though. but everything stock). my insurance company gave me 10 grand for it. this was 2 years ago.

[e1e0n]

You raise an interesting point. Can I really be determined 25% total at fault ? If yes, then that might help me to avoid future premium hikes. Can anybody confirm this ? I did talk to my adjuster and he keeps telling me that it's only 0%, 50% or 100% ... no 25% in situations like these ?

No, most likely it's 2 counts one is 50% and second 0%. Of course it will count as one accident, but insurance will not allow 25% for you.

[googoo]

Reaction time needs to be factored in, say a minimum of 1/2 second, at 50kph you'll have traveled 44 feet, now let's go from there.

Brent

[ThePointblank]

wow 3100 for your 01 civic? i also had a write off when i got in an at fault accident in my 01 civic (it was an SI model though. but everything stock). my insurance company gave me 10 grand for it. this was 2 years ago.

2 years ago, all 2001 Civic's were worth more, and had less mileage.

[npinc]

Reaction time needs to be factored in, say a minimum of 1/2 second, at 50kph you'll have traveled 44 feet, now let's go from there.

Brent

Or we could try our reading comprehension skills:

when I hit my brakes, because of the heavy rain my car (Civic 2001) slid for like 50-60 ft and rear-ended the car in front of me


hehe. :lol:

[jetway1212]

Or we could try our reading comprehension skills:




hehe. :lol:

Just gtfo... you sound more and more douche who doesnt know jack.

[npinc]

Just gtfo... you sound more and more douche who doesnt know jack.

Ok. At 100 km/h (91fps), an average car locking up the brakes on wet pavement will skid approximately 160 ft from the point of locking up the brakes with a drag factor of approx 0.7, which is what this kid did. Locking up the brakes in those conditions, btw, indicates that they have no idea how to drive, as a 1991 Honda doesn't have antilock brakes.

The proper method of stopping in those conditions is pumping the brakes, which would reduce the stopping distance by approximately 10%.

The OP claims 50 to 60 feet. Factoring in the typical understatement, I'm figuring 80 to 90 feet.

In that distance velocity would be less than or equal to 50% of initial velocity, give or take a percentage point or two. Of course that presumes linear deceleration. If deceleration wasn't linear, the initial velocity would be greater.

The driver states head and neck injuries.

In rear end collisions, biomechanical studies have been performed up to 10 mph, showing that the forward momentum moves the seatback into the torso and head, creating a load reduction of up to 60% of the inertial forces. The net effect of this absorption of inertia is that the spine extension and flexion displacements were well within normal limits.

Therefore, it's reasonable to deduce that the vehicle velocity was greater than 10 MPH. $6000 damage on a 1991 Civic is typically rad saddle, etc, bumper, grills, headlights, fenders and possibly hood damage. To sustain that type of damage and injury, a velocity of 50 kmh/30 mph would be about right.

So, doing some (very) rough math, either he was driving too fast, most likely in excess of 100 km/h or following too close...in both cases driving too dangerously for the conditions. Therefore, he should consider himself lucky to get his $3100.

[Mr_A]

Ok. At 100 km/h (91fps), an average car locking up the brakes on wet pavement will skid approximately 160 ft from the point of locking up the brakes with a drag factor of approx 0.7, which is what this kid did. Locking up the brakes in those conditions, btw, indicates that they have no idea how to drive, as a 1991 Honda doesn't have antilock brakes.

The proper method of stopping in those conditions is pumping the brakes, which would reduce the stopping distance by approximately 10%.

The OP claims 50 to 60 feet. Factoring in the typical understatement, I'm figuring 80 to 90 feet.

In that distance velocity would be less than or equal to 50% of initial velocity, give or take a percentage point or two. Of course that presumes linear deceleration. If deceleration wasn't linear, the initial velocity would be greater.

The driver states head and neck injuries.

In rear end collisions, biomechanical studies have been performed up to 10 mph, showing that the forward momentum moves the seatback into the torso and head, creating a load reduction of up to 60% of the inertial forces. The net effect of this absorption of inertia is that the spine extension and flexion displacements were well within normal limits.

Therefore, it's reasonable to deduce that the vehicle velocity was greater than 10 MPH. $6000 damage on a 1991 Civic is typically rad saddle, etc, bumper, grills, headlights, fenders and possibly hood damage. To sustain that type of damage and injury, a velocity of 50 kmh/30 mph would be about right.

So, doing some (very) rough math, either he was driving too fast, most likely in excess of 100 km/h or following too close...in both cases driving too dangerously for the conditions. Therefore, he should consider himself lucky to get his $3100.

My friend ... my friend ... it looks like you didn't read the first post completely as my car was not 1991, it was 2001.

Secondly, I forgot to mention that if you (or anybody) are familiar with that area in Markham, you'll notice it's little bit down hill there. so we have to put that factor in too.

Anyhow, stuff happens and no matter what ... I skid and collided and had loss. I also spoke to a local appraiser and explained him the situation and he's also telling me that insurance company is spot on, on calculations. So I'll just eat the loss like a man :)

Now the hunt for a new car begins !!!!

[npinc]

My friend ... my friend ... it looks like you didn't read the first post completely as my car was not 1991, it was 2001.

Secondly, I forgot to mention that if you (or anybody) are familiar with that area in Markham, you'll notice it's little bit down hill there. so we have to put that factor in too.

Anyhow, stuff happens and no matter what ... I skid and collided and had loss. I also spoke to a local appraiser and explained him the situation and he's also telling me that insurance company is spot on, on calculations. So I'll just eat the loss like a man :)

Now the hunt for a new car begins !!!!

Excellent. Really, truly, all that matters is that they look after you to the best of their ability, ie being reasonable with you, and then yes, you move on. Hopefully there was something to be learned there. I did read the post. It was so late last night I was somehow in 1991 mode, although the elements of the post remain true.

Anyways, I'm glad you were able to get confirmation and thus achieve closure on the issue. Good luck in your new car search. :)

[Donomight25]

My friend ... my friend ... it looks like you didn't read the first post completely as my car was not 1991, it was 2001.

Secondly, I forgot to mention that if you (or anybody) are familiar with that area in Markham, you'll notice it's little bit down hill there. so we have to put that factor in too.

Anyhow, stuff happens and no matter what ... I skid and collided and had loss. I also spoke to a local appraiser and explained him the situation and he's also telling me that insurance company is spot on, on calculations. So I'll just eat the loss like a man :)

Now the hunt for a new car begins !!!!

Mr A,

I certainly appreciate someone, when after everything is said and done, who takes responsibility for their % of actions and moves on. Good job not responding to flames and GL with your search.


D