athlon omega

iTrader: (4)

WoW. Give the man a break people. He already indicated he wasn't at fault. How would you guys have felt if you experienced this and received the same treatment? Would you be siding with the other driver who just wrecked your hard earned new ride? Heck no! Especially if you know full well that she admitted by her intentions that she was in the wrong. Many women can't drive, especially with trucks and suvs. Did this ever occur to you devil's advocates? I pray it goes well with you. Don't lose any sleep over it. Your insurance company will keep you updated. The most important thing is that nobody was seriously injured. The most likely "injury" she may or may not have received is a cervical neck sprain, easily relieved with over the counter aleve and neck muscle stretches. Moreover, for her to really collect on personal injury, she would have to have her injuries documented by a physician AND be in physical therapy for three to 4 months to show "maximum medical improvement" or insurance will cry foul. I'm specializing in neurology, currently an internal medicine doctor this year. Unfortunately, I've had a fair share of accidents due to the carelessness and drunkenness of others and know a bit about how these things work.

bk2k3max

Thanks for the vote of confidence Bro. I wasn't able to get my car today because when they looked at the suspension the Tie Rod is damaged and Nissan has them on backorder to be in stock by the 2nd week of January.

The only option for me now is that the repair shop has asked my insurance co if they can go ahead and order an entire front suspension assembly (which are already in stock) but will obviously cost more.

USAA has agreed to pay for the entire assembly for my convenience of getting my car back ASAP and the part should be at the shop by no later than Friday, so more than likely next Saturday I will be rolling again.

Thanks guys for all your support, even the guys who played the devil's advocate; your comments are welcome as well even if I do not agree with them because they help to bring a fresh prospectus that I might not have considered.
God bless you all.

Nizzan

In most States, the operation of a motor vehicle on the shoulder (Breakdown lane) of any roadway is a violation.
One cannot be held at fault because he/she failed to consider someone might violate the Law by driving in a breakdown lane. A driver cannot be liable for the actions of another who is driving on a part of the road not laned for traffic.
As for the officer; instead of claiming discrimination you should be screaming "negligence in conducting an investigation", "Negligence in training" and "Negligence in supervision". You have an expectation that a Police officer assigned to investigate your crash and make a determination of fault is properly trained in accident investigation, and properly supervised so that a report with an erroneous conclusion cannot be submitted.
These types of crashes are common. The fault almost always is assigned to the driver who is operating his/her vehicle on the shoulder of a highway. What if said Officer had a car stopped on the shoulder, would he be at fault if a car being driven on the shoulder smacked into him? Nope, because you cannot drive on the shoulder or in a breakdown lane even if it looks like a lane.

*This is just my opinion and my expertise in these matters are attributed to my constant sleeping at a Holiday Inn Express!!

CT Maxima

The purpose of this post is not to outsmart the referenced post. It is not possible to upstage a person who has slept at a Holiday Inn Express.

Nor is my intent cause more enmity with the OP. He seems like an OK dude.

The venue for this accident was the great State of Texas. The link below is to the Texas law that governs driving on the shoulder.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/transpor...45.058.00.html

It seems that it is legal to drive on the shoulder in Texas.

Therefore, it is possible for the cops to assign blame to the OP. With the authority of the above law, it is clear that this placement of blame was not bias related. This is my only point. I feel sorry for the whacked Max and the hassles the OP must go through to make it right.

Nizzan

I just read the Texas Law you posted.
Could you highlight the part that makes it legal to drive on the shoulder? The way I read it was the other driver was using the shoulder as a driving lane in order to get into position to make a right turn. If she was decelerating to make a right turn I presume she was about to enter the intersection, if that's the case she was going too fast for the conditions.

I am not trying to "outsmart" anyone. What I posted is my opinion only and if it makes sense that's great if not.......OH well.

And don't knock a Holiday Inn Express!!! Two Months ago I woke up a Brain surgeon and three months ago I had a terrible nightmare and woke up the owner of a Chrysler Crossfire.
Now, that is a freaking nightmare..........

CT Maxima

It seems that the truck was using the shoulder lane to make a right hand turn. She entered the lane 300 feet from the intersection to undercut the standing traffic in the driving lane. Did she violate the law by entering the shoulder so early. Perhaps. But the OP cut across two lanes of standing traffic and entered the shoulder lane without looking. Since a car can be driven legally in the shoulder lane and presumably seek to make a right turn into the same private driveway the OP was targeting, the OP has a duty to watch for shoulder lane traffic.

The OP can be assigned blame for not looking before entering the shoulder lane. The women can be assigned blame for not being aware of a "gap" in the traffic in the driving lane where a good looking Max can pop through.

bk2k3max

You know, I've continually and repeatedly tried to be nice to you and to tell you over and over again THAT I DID LOOK TO SEE IF THERE WAS ONCOMING TRAFFIC and that SHE HIT ME, I DID NOT HIT HER.

I'm not sure what part of that you do not understand, it should be clear from the video that my car was struck from the side. The law also states that if one is intent on making a turn that they should be DECELARATING (which she was not) and it also says that she SHOULD TURN ON THE TURN SIGNAL 100FT FROM THE INTENDED TURN which she never used.

Furthermore she told the Police Officer and me SEVERAL TIMES I MIGHT ADD, that her intent was to TURN ON MCCOLL ROAD, not at the Gas Station. Evident to this fact that you somehow didn't read was IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT is the further evidence on my car the damage done due to the speed she was traveling which was estimated at 30mph. The last time I checked no one in their right mind makes a turn into a Gas Station at nowhere near 30 MPH. (Somehow, you can't seem to fathom that but I guess all of us don't drive like SpeedRacer).

I did my duty to watch for traffic, her car struck mine when the FRONT TIRES OF MY CAR WAS ALREADY UPON THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY (another fact you seem to continually not comprehend) and her car hit mine, not me hitting her. DUH!!

You continually try to say that I DID NOT LOOK, I did and I had 3 other people in the car with me who was also looking but somehow in your blind rage to defend yourself you continually/conveniently overlook this fact.

It doesn't matter to me personally if you see it her way or mine because my insurance co backs me 100% and what you said here doesn't mean that she'll get anything from anyone.

Just do me a favor and stop saying that I didn't look, ok buddy.

Can I please recommend that you be the Lawyer who defends her in court?
Have a nice day

CT Maxima

You had better prepare your story better if you ever get to trial. Opposing counsel’s expert witness will tear you apart.

I have in the past been in your shoes and made a left hand turn through two rows of standing traffic. If I am blinded such that I cannot see the traffic in the shoulder lane, I pause to take a good look. If I see a truck coming down the shoulder lane, I let it pass. The fact that you got whacked on the RHS with your front wheels on the PD just confirms that you did not look. The expert at trial will eviscerate you on this.

Texas law allows the women to travel in the shoulder lane. If you saw her coming, it is impossible for you to ascertain that she had intentions to turn at the corner of McColl. This is only established after the impact. So, absent the assessment of whether she is legal or not, you must assume she is legal and yield the right of way.

But you claim you saw her, crossed anyway and were surprised by the whack. Tell me, what jury in this country would believe this story? You simply did not look.

Let’s champion your side of the story. You claim that you and 3 other people in the car looked down the shoulder lane. This quartet of eyes saw no danger and signaled go. But the truck was travelling so fast that it was on the Max in no time. The expert witness will calculate the time you entered the shoulder lane to the time of whack. And from this, figure out how far away the truck was when you entered the shoulder lane. Do you see what I am doing? Do you get the point yet?

m_turner_02

iTrader: (3)

Try looking at it from this angle though...the maxima creeps out and looks right to check on any traffic, and sees none. At this point, he proceeds to slowly enter the gas station, from the time he looked away and proceeded forward the lady in the truck zoomed out from behind the stopped traffic and hit him in the side of his max. Is it not possible that the op DID look and see nobody traveling in the shoulder, and right after he turned away the truck appeared from behind traffic...

CT Maxima

The facts of this case are that the women entered the shoulder lane 300 feet before the corner. She impacted the Maxima at the PD which was 225 feet before the corner. Suppose the OP looked and saw nothing and proceeded to enter the PD. Simultaneous with him entering the shoulder lane, the truck pulls out of traffic and enters the shoulder lane. She should have seen the Maxima. Nevertheless, she proceeds to accelerate to 30 mph and whacks the Max. She has 75 feet to do something and she chooses to accelerate her vehicle and cause an accident. Do you believe this happened? More likely, the Max appeared suddenly in her lane and she had no time to react.

bk2k3max

How about more likely she appeared in the shoulder?? As it continually escapes you that MY FRONT WHEELS WERE ALREADY ONTO THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY AND SHE HIT ME!!!

Now, if I had been the one who ran into her car/truck thus thereby damaging the front of my car (which has no damage) then I could clearly understand your need to continually play the devil's advocate but that isn't the case here.

I fail to see how you continually/constantly try to be the devil's advocate and seemingly try to direct fault towards me.

The facts of the case are what they are whether you see it as my fault or not my insurance company feels that she caused the accident and that's all that matters to me.

Right now, her insurance has to take care of her damages and medical bills and my insurance has to take care of my car until the Judge makes a ruling on this accident.

Thanks for all your input, as I said before, I welcome both sides even if they aren't as obvious to some as they are to others.
Merry Christmas

CT Maxima

I have not ignored this fact. How does this conclusively prove that she was at fault?

If a person makes a left hand turn into a PD and gets whacked by oncoming traffic who is at fault? The fact that the front wheels of the whacked car is within the boundaries of the PD does not grant immunity from blame.

Suppose you looked before entering the shoulder lane. Did you see the truck? If you saw the truck and decided to cut in front of her, whose fault is it that you got whacked?

Suppose you looked and saw no truck and crossed the lane. As described in an earlier post, the truck would have had to emerge from traffic 75 feet away, accelerate from 0 to 30 mph and crash into you. She would have had to do all this with you in full view. Is this rational? She is carrying three babies with her and willfully put them at risk. Would any jury believe this story?

I believe what is in the police report is that your Maxima appeared suddenly in the view of the truck’s driver. The women had no time to react and plowed into you. The physical evidence supports this contention. Any jury will buy this story. All they have to believe is that you did not look before entering the shoulder lane.

m_turner_02

iTrader: (3)

Just like you, I am trying to bring another point of view into the discussion, but suppose that the driver of the truck was never stopped in traffic, but instead, was approaching a long line of stopped traffic and decided to cut into the shoulder since her turn was only 300ft away. Assuming this possibility, she could have easily been doing more than 30mph and not paying that much attention since it probably seemed like a solid line of cars all the way to the intersection. So, maybe she was doing 35-40mph and whipped it into the emergency lane to avoid traffic, even at 30mph 75 feet is not a lot of time to react to something, so by the time she noticed his maxima, it was too late to stop.


Either way it is a crappy situation, but I am glad to hear that everyone was ok

CT Maxima

If the women was doing 30 mph and whipped into the shoulder lane at full speed, she would have about 5 seconds to react and stop. This presumes the very unlikely confluence of her entering the lane at the same time as the Max. This theory can be corroborated by the skid marks.

I have alway held that both parties are at fault in this accident. Furthermore, neither the on-scene cop or his back office superiors can be faulted for bias, racial or otherwise. This is not a case where the women is clearly at fault but ...wink...wink. we'll fix the facts to make it look different. The facts were recorded accurately.

Bassbreaker

iTrader: (8)

i'm having a hard time visualizing how this went down...lol..don't mind me...heres a visual of the scene...anyone wanna photo shop to show me. Can't really give an opinion without a clear visual

KC2010

iTrader: (1)

I've been ticketed for making a right turn from a shoulder because of the possibility of hitting someone. A situation could of occured just like yours. It was indicated to me by the officer (Texas State Trooper) that the law was pretty clear. No right turns from the shoulder period. It's similar to rear ending someone on a highway. If I rear end someone it's my fault.

I've also put my 2001 Max under a truck. I was going thru a 3 lane intersection, NO left turn only, NO left turn/straight optional lane. The lady turned left right in front of me and I had no where to go but under her truck. It was, of course, found by HER insurance company that she was at fault. She stated she thought she could turn right or left from the center lane. The insurance agent met with me 2 weeks later at the intersection and told me she couldn't get solid story out of the lady.

I feel bad you have to go through so much grief to get it resolved. I'm glad everyone's ok. I hope it's put to rest soon.

Peace

Kev

bk2k3max

Ok, I see your points but understand mine as well:

THERE WERE "NO SKID MARKS" at all!!

This means that she was clearly still accelerating and that my car absorbed the full impact of that truck (both of us were towed away), this also means that she had plenty of time to start slowing down knowing she had entered onto a shoulder lane with the intent of making a turn.

No, she didn't intend to hit me no more than I intended on being hit, the facts of this case are clear as day to my insurance company and that is why they didn't find me at fault.

The case is pretty much like M_turner_02 laid it out, I'm certain that neither my wife would not have told me to proceed (even though i could see it was clear too) had there been any sign of traffic.

The way it has been explained over and over again coupled with the damage done to my car is clear evidence of the fact that she hit me regardless whether or not she had the right to be driving in the lane or not.

Is it ok if someone hits you in your lane of traffic simply because they felt they had the right of way? Or better yet, why not all of us just get in our cars and drive down the shoulder from one end of Texas to the other and as long as we decide to use our Turn Signal 100ft from wherever we intend to turn then we can hit anyone who gets into our path because we have a right to drive in the shoulder and hit anything and anyone we want.

I guess if you were the cop that was to assign blame then the above would've been your theory???

Just asking because though the law doesn't specifically state the above as being allowable it clearly leaves it up to the judge to decide through the eyes of common sense who is at fault and what is or isn't allowable.

Thank God for people with common sense and rationale.
I will win this case regardless of what you think or if you feel we both should've been blamed or not.


Thanks

Mick7

It looks simple enough. She was not driving in a traffic lane when she hit you. If she had been in a driving lane she would have the right of way.

chris2k5

bk2k3max, I totally support you! After looking on Google Maps at the scene, I see that it is totally the other woman's fault.

Too bad about your Maxima though. It is SOOO new.

CT Maxima is just an obvious troll/racist/hater who needs to be removed. There is no justification around his ideology that it was your fault.

KCMAXX

iTrader: (22)

Videos a drag but the rest of your photobucket is nice!

CT Maxima

Texas law allows a vehicle to drive in the shoulder lane.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/transpor...45.058.00.html

The OP contends that before crossing the shoulder lane, he and others in his vehicle looked for shoulder lane traffic. Seeing none, the OP proceeded to cross into the private driveway. The truck then entered the shoulder lane at a distance of 75 feet from the PD, failed to stop in time, and consequently whacked the Max.

The other side contends that they were already established in the driving lane and the Max cut across all of a sudden, allowing no time to stop.

If you were on a jury, and heard these competing stories, which one would you believe?

CT Maxima

I suggest that you read through all the posts before you render judgment.

My contention has always been that both sides were at fault. Furthermore, I argued that the OP was wrong in opining that the police officer showed racial bias by wrongfully placed the blame in his lap.

And finally, how do you know that I am not also a person of color and knows first hand what racial bias is and is not?

Mick7

§ 545.058. DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER. (a) An operator
may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled
portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done
safely, but only:
(1) to stop, stand, or park;
(2) to accelerate before entering the main traveled
lane of traffic;
(3) to decelerate before making a right turn;
(4) to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped
on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing
to make a left turn;
(5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;
(6) as permitted or required by an official
traffic-control device; or
(7) to avoid a collision.

A lot of room for interpretation, imo. It will be difficult for either driver to NOT have some fault assigned. Luck of the draw as far as judge or jury, it would appear. If on the jury, I would tend to side with the OP unless something more comes to light. Could end up being no-fault also.

alxdagreat1

Damn dude so sorry about your car!!! Family is good tho can't ask for more

bk2k3max

GO BACK AND READ AND POST WHERE I SAID IT WAS "RACIAL BIAS".

I may have said Bias but in no way did I indicate that it was racially motivated, somebody else suggested it was Racial, not me.

Get your facts straight before you go talking out the side of your mouth again.
You ASSumed I was claiming racial bias because i said there may have been some bias, I didn't say it was RACIAL.

I think justice will be served when this matter goes to court and not on this forum as we obviously only have 1 person (You) who see it as fault on both parties.

Obviously from this debate here it would be a Hung Jury or a Majority Rule with the decision left to the Judge because one person (You) see it as equal blame because common sense is not used.

If you were a person of Common Sense on this issue (not saying you don't have any) but you'd understand that it shouldn't be expected that any driver be allowed to drive on a Shoulder (let's make it clear that it isn't a Lane) for as long as they want as long as they turn on their Signal 100ft from where they intend to turn.

I hope that the Judge isn't as dense as you appear to be regarding the above matter, otherwise in Texas we'd all just get in our cars and drive avoiding traffic on the Shoulder as long as we turn on our signal 100 ft from where we intend to turn.

That's why some people are Judges and others just simply have an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Everybody has one and they all stink.

CT Maxima

The following is a quote from the fifth post of this thread. You are the first and only poster to raise the race issue.

"The cop wrote up the report to make it look as though it was my fault but the drawing he did of the accident scene clearly indicates the lady driving on the shoulder and not willingly to wait her turn in the lane to get to the light and make a right turn.

I'm not sure why the cop is hatin on me but I suspect that it may be racially motivated.

I hate to play or pull the race card but I have no other reason to believe otherwise, I'm a soldier in the Army and I always conduct myself with respect for the safety of others first."

Are you saying that I cannot read?

bk2k3max

Yes, I'am because I clearly said "suspect" and that is different from being a definitive "IS".

So you are reading too much into the post, the bottom line on that issue was that there was no other reason for him to show such bias, so given that no other reasons existed for him to display such negativity towards me it would lead one to only one other "possible" conclusion.

So please stop trying to psychoanalyze this statement because as I said, it wasn't a definite accusation but rather a suggestion in light of the fact that there was no other reason for him to be the way he was with me.

I was polite, caring and non-hostile, most of all I was concerned for the safety of everyone involved more than anything else.

You have yourself a nice day.

Compusmurf

I'm going to close this thread as I'm continually getting complaints on this.

Only 1 person in this thread was there. AFAIK, none of the rest of us are Lawyers, judges, or LEO's.

Unless the lady logs on here and posts her side of the story, unfortunately all we will get is 1 side of the story.

I'm sorry about your Max, I truly am. Its a shame to see any new car get beat up like that. When it's all settled and done thru court, message me, and I'll open up the thread so you can post a final conclusion.

Hope everyone understands.