If Crash In Poor Weather Do You Pay The Bill?

[dantwomey]

A recent news article from my local newspaper states that the police in my area want a new law so if you're driving agressively in poor weather and have an accident you pay the bill. It sounds like a good idea but our politicians and police for that matter have along history of completely screwing up good ideas. Here's the article,

 

TORONTO - The head of the Ontario Provincial Police says drivers who crash in bad weather because of their own negligence should have to pay the bill. Commissioner Julian Fantino will propose absolute liability legislation today under the Highway Traffic Act to hold irresponsible drivers accountable. This essentially means making drivers pay for accidents in which they were driving aggressively in poor weather, not insurance companies Fantino says at least 40 per cent of crashes are caused because people are going too fast in poor conditions and not paying attention. He says his proposal targets people "who could care less" about how they are driving when the roads are bad.

Fantino says his proposal mirrors laws currently on the books in almost every state in the U.S.

 

You see at the end of this article they imply that almost every U.S. state has such a law. Is there such a law in your state and how does it work?

 

Regards,

Dan

[black00chev]

Well Im not sure my situation will help but I totaled my truck because of black ice and they marked the accident as my fault, but I paid the $500 premium and they sent me a check for full retail value of the truck. If it was fixable I believe it wouldve been the same, $500 premium and they rest insurence wouldve taken care of. They did take away one of my discounts though, but my rates did not go up.

[F1SSS]

I think the idea in principle is good, and I love to race cars in the snow for fun.

However, being a passenger in a car accident Jan. 3rd 2002 and having permanent injuries for life its very hard to see this actually working. I dont see how they will be able to tell how if it was aggressive driving or just sheer stupidity on the driver. For instance, my ex-friend said he was changing radio stations when he lost control (which is bs, it was sheer stupidity. Hes crashed into 4 telly polls, talk about a tree hugger). The cops believed the radio station story as it is common among car accidents. I couldnt believe my ears when they believed him. At least they made him pay for the telly poll.

Sorry for the rant just bringing up my opinion on something that I have first hand expierance in and have very strong feelings on. If they cant control their vehicle, slam them with the fee to fix stuff.

 

Just like black00chev in his accident, they said it was his fault and it was black ice. Hard to find the true cause unless there speed demoning it.

[zippy]

For the most part even if it's ice, it's the drivers fault with only a few exceptions. I've seen people blame ice on the road so many times and yet it was always on a fairly well traveled road. So if all of those other cars went over that same spot of ice and didn't crash, it's still the ice's fault that you did? I have once driven on a road that was almost too slippery to walk on and it was black ice. I still made it to the end of the road to where I was going and turned right back around and drove over that slippery crap again. If I'd crashed and caused damaged I'd have been responsible. When you drive on any roads you take the chance that what you're driving on may be slippery. In Michigan if you alone hit something from weather conditions or other you get the ticket unless you get a very forgiving officer.

[misterp]

Regardless of who is paying for the damage - if you're negligent, you should be cited. And yes that from the career speeder, there's a difference between getting on your way and behaving in a totally irresponsible fashion.

 

But the legal issue and the financial issue are separate, and depending on the state you live in and its laws will spell-out exactly who pays. No-fault used to be common years ago, but I don't think even in the socialist republic of Kalifornia they have that on the books anymore. On the whole I think no-fault is a passing idea, I wouldn't be surprised if Canadians follow the rest of the world and drop the no-fault laws.

 

Mr. P.

[zippy]

Michigan is a no-fault state and yet if you get the ticket it just makes it un-officially your fault.

[BOB47]

Michigan is a no-fault state and yet if you get the ticket it just makes it un-officially your fault.

 

Usually the way it works here is that if it's determined to be your fault, you have to pay your deductible. If not, then your deductible is covered by your insurance. So, "fault" is still decided by the officer on the scene. Only real difference that I'm aware of is that in other places you have to wait for the other guys insurance to pay for your vehicle if they are at fault. Assuming they have insurance. Here, your own insurance pays regardless of who's at fault.

[FireRescueSS]

First, I had an accident due to black ice, and so was delcared it wasn't my fault, and the insurance paid for it in full, there is a topic on this, if you care to search for it. Did roughly $5,000 in damage.

 

Second, I believe it is stupid to make people pay for what is really an accident due to poor weather. They can tell if you are using excessive speed prior to losing control... example, destroying 4 telephone/utility poles, shows you were going to fast for the coniditons.

 

Third, I believe they are referring to a state of emergency. Locally, there are 3 levels of the Snow Emergency. Level 3, all roads are closed, except for emergency vehicles. The public can be arrested for driving durring this level. If you crash, while the roads are closed, you will foot the bill, and should.

[F1SSS]

destroying 4 telephone/utility poles, shows you were going to fast for the coniditons.

 

Ya I agree 110 percent.

He broke the 4 telephone polls on 4 different occassions (I needed to clear that up, my bad). I was horrified to see the poll cracked in half just from going 45mph, speed limit was 40. Even in the worst conditions if you go the proper speed, you can make it safely just like zippy explained.

 

Off topic, I learned that fire and ambulance people are extremely quick on reponses to calls.

Edited December 23, 2008 by 03maSSS (see edit history)

[black00chev]

My case was totally dumb luck... Black ice on a curved hill where the speed limit was 55mph. I was traveling 50mph in my old truck which had the 4.10 rear and 33" tires. My truck downshifted since it was lugging up the hill and that downshift was enough to break the tires loose and it started sliding sideways on me and went nose first into the center barrier. It was deemed my fault of course but I wasnt cited for it since it was due to inclimate weather.

 

They also had a few other incedents in the same location so that may have helped the situation.

[waltsum3]

I like it here in WV, had a 1995 S-10 about a year old rolled it over into middle of a creek. Was told to call a tow truck and stop at the state police post to pick up a accident report and fill it out ( MY SELF ) and turn it back in. Had just moved down from MI and thouht this was mighty strang myself. But no questions where asked by anyone.

[brobradh77]

IMO if it can be proven you were driving recklessly by any means you should be responsible...I know here in my city of you take out a sign,light poll, etc.. you are responsible to pay for the replacement.

 

I feel everyone when they leave in their vehicle know the weather/road conditions..and if its been icy the speed limit signs and normal driving habits mean chit...you know you have to drive accordingly..We are warned when the conditions are favorable for ice,black ice, etc...so we know to be on the defensive. IMO no excuse

Edited December 22, 2008 by brobradh77 (see edit history)