User Controls
Wrecking car for insurance?
-
2018-08-15 at 10:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by cupocheer mms – Read my damn initial post, again. If its clarity is still beyond your understanding let me know and I will educate you.
Originally posted by cupocheer Jelly,
You would be the driver AT FAULT, dear.
The actual traffic offense is "failure to control vehicle", "following too closely", or some such, in any state.
Originally posted by jellybeans887 I think you guys misread my post, I'm going to slam my brakes on at a yellow light and have someone hit me. I'm not doing the hitting. If you rear end someone you're following too closely anyway.
Originally posted by cupocheer Jelly,
You would be the driver AT FAULT, dear.
The actual traffic offense is "failure to control vehicle", "following too closely", or some such, in any state.
Rear-End Collisions. If someone hits you from behind, it is virtually never your fault, regardless of why you stopped. A basic rule of the road requires a vehicle to be able to stop safely if traffic is stopped ahead of it. If it cannot stop safely, the driver is not driving as safely as the person in front.
Yes, please clarify. -
2018-08-15 at 10:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Rear-End Collisions. If someone hits you from behind, it is virtually never your fault, regardless of why you stopped. A basic rule of the road requires a vehicle to be able to stop safely if traffic is stopped ahead of it. If it cannot stop safely, the driver is not driving as safely as the person in front.
Yes, please clarify.
Doesn't the US have that whole thing where the cars that hit you sue you, and you sue the cars in front of you, and vice versa?
If you have a confederate who can slam on in front of you and then drive off then you have a solid excuse for stopping, and a solid excuse for suing those behind you. -
2018-08-15 at 11:57 PM UTC^You can aue anyone for anything. The judge makes the decision.
I hope OP isn't posting on his regular IP. This type of crime would be federal. -
2018-08-16 at 12:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by cupocheer Jelly,
You would be the driver AT FAULT, dear.
The actual traffic offense is "failure to control vehicle", "following too closely", or some such, in any state.
And now that law enforcement checks internet for postings to determine "intent" you will be found guilty of attempted insurance fraud.
Translation:
-
2018-08-16 at 3:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by cupocheer Jelly,
'
*1*You would be the driver AT FAULT, dear.
(Independent statement.)
*2*The actual traffic offense is "failure to control vehicle", "following too closely", or some such, in any state.
(Explanatory Statement)
*3*And now that law enforcement checks internet for postings to determine "intent" you will be found guilty of attempted insurance fraud.
(Development from police and/or insurance/accident investigation.)
I never said Jelly was, or wasnt, involved in a rear-end collision - you (or both of you - Assumed I had mis-read Jelly's initial post and subtlely ACCUSED me of being incorrect.
You (or both of you) tied all my statements together as a reply by me concerning Jellys intended auto accident when I was only mentioning to Jelly that he would be the AT FAULT driver in an insurance fraud.
Have a good evening. I don't always choose to clarify so count yourselves lucky in this regard. (If you are too stupid to understand what I post don't be even more stupid by challenging me on what I mean.when I post what you can't comprehend.) -
2018-08-16 at 3:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by cupocheer '
Have a good evening. I don't always choose to clarify so count yourselves lucky in this regard. (If you are too stupid to understand what I post don't be even more stupid by challenging me on what I mean.when I post what you can't comprehend.)
Lol. You worded that fucking retardedly, and regardless no, insurance companies aren't gonna magically find your NiS handle when investigating a claim. Please die? -
2018-08-16 at 7:38 PM UTC
