In an accident. Front end fugged up.
02-10-2002, 04:25 PM
#1
In an accident. Front end fugged up.
Well, the specifics are very confusing, so confusing in fact that it took myself and the two other drivers involved a long time to make the cop understand what happened. Basically this accord caused the accident by driving like a maniac, but he didn't actually touch anyone. Just sent the 3 of us swerving and sliding into each other. I hit a blazer and a yukon, my car having the most damage by far. I'll need a new hood, headlights, front bumper, and front 1/4 panels. The impacts were light impacts, the car drives fine and the alignment, frame, steering, suspension and all are just fine. Simply cosmetic damage.
The accord took off and then came back a few minutes later, but then ran off again. We got his license plate though, so he will be charged with leaving the scene of an accident at least. Time to start lookin for a CF hood, 97+ headlights, 97+ front bumper. At least my diamond cut clears are fine, and everyone involved was just fine physically but emotionally shaken up.
The accord took off and then came back a few minutes later, but then ran off again. We got his license plate though, so he will be charged with leaving the scene of an accident at least. Time to start lookin for a CF hood, 97+ headlights, 97+ front bumper. At least my diamond cut clears are fine, and everyone involved was just fine physically but emotionally shaken up.
02-10-2002, 04:56 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,883
Re: In an accident. Front end fugged up.
Originally posted by Nealoc187
Well, the specifics are very confusing, so confusing in fact that it took myself and the two other drivers involved a long time to make the cop understand what happened. Basically this accord caused the accident by driving like a maniac, but he didn't actually touch anyone. Just sent the 3 of us swerving and sliding into each other. I hit a blazer and a yukon, my car having the most damage by far. I'll need a new hood, headlights, front bumper, and front 1/4 panels. The impacts were light impacts, the car drives fine and the alignment, frame, steering, suspension and all are just fine. Simply cosmetic damage.
The accord took off and then came back a few minutes later, but then ran off again. We got his license plate though, so he will be charged with leaving the scene of an accident at least. Time to start lookin for a CF hood, 97+ headlights, 97+ front bumper. At least my diamond cut clears are fine, and everyone involved was just fine physically but emotionally shaken up.
Well, the specifics are very confusing, so confusing in fact that it took myself and the two other drivers involved a long time to make the cop understand what happened. Basically this accord caused the accident by driving like a maniac, but he didn't actually touch anyone. Just sent the 3 of us swerving and sliding into each other. I hit a blazer and a yukon, my car having the most damage by far. I'll need a new hood, headlights, front bumper, and front 1/4 panels. The impacts were light impacts, the car drives fine and the alignment, frame, steering, suspension and all are just fine. Simply cosmetic damage.
The accord took off and then came back a few minutes later, but then ran off again. We got his license plate though, so he will be charged with leaving the scene of an accident at least. Time to start lookin for a CF hood, 97+ headlights, 97+ front bumper. At least my diamond cut clears are fine, and everyone involved was just fine physically but emotionally shaken up.
02-10-2002, 05:39 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 347
Re: Re: In an accident. Front end fugged up.
Originally posted by Frank Fontaine
If he didn't make any contact, was he even involved in the accident? If he didn't touch anyone, how could he send 3 other vehicles sliding and swerving into each other? Must be some kinda Kobe Bryant or something......MVP
If he didn't make any contact, was he even involved in the accident? If he didn't touch anyone, how could he send 3 other vehicles sliding and swerving into each other? Must be some kinda Kobe Bryant or something......MVP
, but good thing you only have cosmetic damage man and that no one got hurt. I wonder why did he come back if he ran away in the first place, just to run away AGAIN?
02-10-2002, 06:40 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 684
Sorry to hear that...
not to make you feel worse, but you're probably not going to get anything from him, his defense will be "I didnt do anything, my car is not damaged, the guy in the maxima tried to turn into me and I swerved and then he sverved and hit three cars. I came back again to see what happened, when I found out no one was injured I left because I was in a hurry go get home.".
basically, don't start dreaming about the "CF Hood, and 97+ headlights" just yet buddy. Unless you want your insurance company to pay for those things and have your premium go through the roof. good luck.
not to make you feel worse, but you're probably not going to get anything from him, his defense will be "I didnt do anything, my car is not damaged, the guy in the maxima tried to turn into me and I swerved and then he sverved and hit three cars. I came back again to see what happened, when I found out no one was injured I left because I was in a hurry go get home.".
basically, don't start dreaming about the "CF Hood, and 97+ headlights" just yet buddy. Unless you want your insurance company to pay for those things and have your premium go through the roof. good luck.
02-10-2002, 06:58 PM
#8
Michigan is a no fault state. Each party involved in an accident pays their own deductible. I'll have to pay $500, but all damage above and beyond that is paid for by the insurance company. And because the insured, not the insurance company, chooses where to get the work done, I will be able to go to any number of body work professionals and replace the damaged parts with whatever parts I choose, whether those be parts from another year car, aftermarket parts, etc.
The guy driving the accord was not the owner of it, it was registered to a lady. As told by the officer, either the owner of the car (a woman) will get charged with leaving the scene of an accident, or she will have to say who WAS driving the car, in which case he will be charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
To clear up what happened a bit, the accord swerved around the tahoe, who was making a right turn, sending the blazer into oncoming traffic. I went to miss the yukon, and then got sandwitched by both of them. I clipped the yukon, and the blazer came into my lane and hit me, sending me into a 180.
The guy driving the accord was not the owner of it, it was registered to a lady. As told by the officer, either the owner of the car (a woman) will get charged with leaving the scene of an accident, or she will have to say who WAS driving the car, in which case he will be charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
To clear up what happened a bit, the accord swerved around the tahoe, who was making a right turn, sending the blazer into oncoming traffic. I went to miss the yukon, and then got sandwitched by both of them. I clipped the yukon, and the blazer came into my lane and hit me, sending me into a 180.
02-11-2002, 06:08 AM
#9
Man that sucks. I feel for you. Nothing worse than an accident caused by someone else but they got off. In the NY area, you come across alot of near misses, people braking for no reason with clear traffic ahead. I get ****ed just thinking that someone else's stupidity was just about going to cost me.
DW
DW
02-11-2002, 10:47 AM
#12
I dont see him getting charged though 
I mean simlpy he can say that he was not involved so how is he responsible? may be i am wrong but there is no way possible to charge him for runaway SINCE his car is not involved
I mean simlpy he can say that he was not involved so how is he responsible? may be i am wrong but there is no way possible to charge him for runaway SINCE his car is not involved
02-11-2002, 04:27 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,883
Originally posted by ereet
That's like saying if I drive down the wrong side of the highway and cause 50 accidents, but don't get it -- I'm not at fault
That's like saying if I drive down the wrong side of the highway and cause 50 accidents, but don't get it -- I'm not at fault
The other part is the NO FAULT bit. My understanding is that that relates to liability, not comp, not collision. As I understand it there are about 13 states that do this bogus NO FAULT thing. It's intended to rid the courts of pain and incidental lawsuits etc. I know because I have to pay extra if I want the right to sue for pain and suffering in PA. If no fault covers comp and collision then everyone would have only liability and when there is an accident, hey, NO FAULT.
It's just my .02, I don't see how someone who made no contact whatsover with 3 other vehicles "left the scene." My buddy was driving on the Schuylkill and a car that was gonna merge from a stop at South St. decided not to. When he stopped the person behind rear-ended him as did the person behind that person. We kept driving to City Line Ave. as we were late for a hockey game. We did not leave the scene of an accident, those 3 people had an accident, not us. It was none of our business what they did
02-11-2002, 04:54 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,151
The Accord guy will get in trouble for causing the accident. This girl I used to know caused an accident on I-55 and didnt even know she did it. The people involved got her license plate number and the Illinois State Police showed up at her house. I cant remember what happened, but I think she had to go to court and recieved a ticket.
02-11-2002, 09:07 PM
#16
I'm wondering what part is not clear about this? The accord cut off the blazer and sent it into oncoming traffic, in that respect, he is the root cause of the accident. Whether they ever find out who the guy is, who knows. If you witness an accident, you are supposed to stay and give your account of what happened. He did not do this, and being that he is the root cause of all this (if he had not cut off the blazer so dangerously and sent it into oncoming traffic, the accident would not have occurred). So, he 1) caused the accident, and 2) left the scene of the accident. Whether or not the car was damaged is not the issue, it certainly wasn't a hit and run, but he certainly WAS the cause of the accident. There are the 3 of us (the drivers involved) and numerous other witnesses to corroborate this. I just hope they find the a-hole.
02-11-2002, 09:22 PM
#17
This was just emailed to me by a close friend of mine. This is the law according to the state of michigan.
Cut and pasted from her email:
Well, I just had to jump in for the record...The following is a link to a site explaining a little more in depth, the terms "leaving the scene of an accident." Conveniently enough, it was extracted from a Q and A site belonging to the Battle Creek, MI court system. In short, it states that if you believe you may have been the cause of an accident it is your responsibility as a driver to "immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident and (shall) remain there until he has fulfilled the requirements of section 619." Or hang out til the cops show up and have all information necessary to file a report. This can also apply to vehicles who merely witnessed the accident. Now, as Neal stated, the driver did return. BUT...it was 10-15 AFTER the accident. So his return to the scene credits the fact that he was aware of the accident. Now here's an interesting thought. Why would it take him so long to flip a ***** and return? Maybe he had something in the car that he did not want found should the police, for whatever reason, want to search. (Illegal substances, unregistered firearm) He wanted to ditch it. Maybe he felt guilty 3 miles down the road. For whatever reason, based on the coinciding statements given by the 3 drivers involved, he can be implicated in the accident. That's for a court to decide. But it is a strong possibility that he could be found at least partially responsible for the accident regardless of the fact that there was no damage done to his car. And it is very likely that he could be charged with leaving the scene as a witness, if nothing else, given the fact that he returned.
http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/quest094.htm
-Christy Ann
Cut and pasted from her email:
Well, I just had to jump in for the record...The following is a link to a site explaining a little more in depth, the terms "leaving the scene of an accident." Conveniently enough, it was extracted from a Q and A site belonging to the Battle Creek, MI court system. In short, it states that if you believe you may have been the cause of an accident it is your responsibility as a driver to "immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident and (shall) remain there until he has fulfilled the requirements of section 619." Or hang out til the cops show up and have all information necessary to file a report. This can also apply to vehicles who merely witnessed the accident. Now, as Neal stated, the driver did return. BUT...it was 10-15 AFTER the accident. So his return to the scene credits the fact that he was aware of the accident. Now here's an interesting thought. Why would it take him so long to flip a ***** and return? Maybe he had something in the car that he did not want found should the police, for whatever reason, want to search. (Illegal substances, unregistered firearm) He wanted to ditch it. Maybe he felt guilty 3 miles down the road. For whatever reason, based on the coinciding statements given by the 3 drivers involved, he can be implicated in the accident. That's for a court to decide. But it is a strong possibility that he could be found at least partially responsible for the accident regardless of the fact that there was no damage done to his car. And it is very likely that he could be charged with leaving the scene as a witness, if nothing else, given the fact that he returned.
http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/quest094.htm
-Christy Ann
02-12-2002, 06:31 AM
#19
I'm not Nealoc, but I just gotta say . . .what?
Picture this:
You are driving along, minding your own business. Tere's another car near you, btu of no concern, travelling in the same direction. Down the street you see headlights approaching. They keep getting bigger, and much faster. Then at one point you realize that the car is heading straight for you . . .real fast. Your only options are to hit the car head on, or swerve and hit the car which was behind you but is now next to you. What do you do? You know there's only 1 answer to this. Instinct is bound to take over and make you swerve out of the way. While you swerve, you hit the car right next to you.
Now, is that accident your fault? Or is the guy who was heading right for you responsible, who got away with absolutely no damage? Understandibly, it's hard to prove that the guy who got away is at fault, but he is the one at fault.
This is similar to Nealoc's situation.
From what you said, if I applied that thinking to the above scenario it looks like you would stay in your lane on the correct side of the road, and crash head on into the car who is on the wrong side of the road, heading right at you. No problem. You are right, but you'll probably be dead, too. At least you stayed in your lane, right?
DW
Picture this:
You are driving along, minding your own business. Tere's another car near you, btu of no concern, travelling in the same direction. Down the street you see headlights approaching. They keep getting bigger, and much faster. Then at one point you realize that the car is heading straight for you . . .real fast. Your only options are to hit the car head on, or swerve and hit the car which was behind you but is now next to you. What do you do? You know there's only 1 answer to this. Instinct is bound to take over and make you swerve out of the way. While you swerve, you hit the car right next to you.
Now, is that accident your fault? Or is the guy who was heading right for you responsible, who got away with absolutely no damage? Understandibly, it's hard to prove that the guy who got away is at fault, but he is the one at fault.
This is similar to Nealoc's situation.
From what you said, if I applied that thinking to the above scenario it looks like you would stay in your lane on the correct side of the road, and crash head on into the car who is on the wrong side of the road, heading right at you. No problem. You are right, but you'll probably be dead, too. At least you stayed in your lane, right?
DW
Originally posted by Frank Fontaine
Not really. And from what was described it doesn't sound like the Honda driver was responsible. I mean with all due respect, it's like something out of a comic book--one guy swoops down, saves the girl while 3 other villains try to stop him and crash into each other and are rendered unconscious. It's fishy why one person is unscathed while 3 others are in a heap. Aren't those other 3 the ones who are responsible for an accident? It's like you drive by a corner where a woman is nude sunbathing (a real example) and you have an accident. Is the woman responsible because you failed to exercise control over your vehicle?
The other part is the NO FAULT bit. My understanding is that that relates to liability, not comp, not collision. As I understand it there are about 13 states that do this bogus NO FAULT thing. It's intended to rid the courts of pain and incidental lawsuits etc. I know because I have to pay extra if I want the right to sue for pain and suffering in PA. If no fault covers comp and collision then everyone would have only liability and when there is an accident, hey, NO FAULT.
It's just my .02, I don't see how someone who made no contact whatsover with 3 other vehicles "left the scene." My buddy was driving on the Schuylkill and a car that was gonna merge from a stop at South St. decided not to. When he stopped the person behind rear-ended him as did the person behind that person. We kept driving to City Line Ave. as we were late for a hockey game. We did not leave the scene of an accident, those 3 people had an accident, not us. It was none of our business what they did
Not really. And from what was described it doesn't sound like the Honda driver was responsible. I mean with all due respect, it's like something out of a comic book--one guy swoops down, saves the girl while 3 other villains try to stop him and crash into each other and are rendered unconscious. It's fishy why one person is unscathed while 3 others are in a heap. Aren't those other 3 the ones who are responsible for an accident? It's like you drive by a corner where a woman is nude sunbathing (a real example) and you have an accident. Is the woman responsible because you failed to exercise control over your vehicle?
The other part is the NO FAULT bit. My understanding is that that relates to liability, not comp, not collision. As I understand it there are about 13 states that do this bogus NO FAULT thing. It's intended to rid the courts of pain and incidental lawsuits etc. I know because I have to pay extra if I want the right to sue for pain and suffering in PA. If no fault covers comp and collision then everyone would have only liability and when there is an accident, hey, NO FAULT.
It's just my .02, I don't see how someone who made no contact whatsover with 3 other vehicles "left the scene." My buddy was driving on the Schuylkill and a car that was gonna merge from a stop at South St. decided not to. When he stopped the person behind rear-ended him as did the person behind that person. We kept driving to City Line Ave. as we were late for a hockey game. We did not leave the scene of an accident, those 3 people had an accident, not us. It was none of our business what they did
02-12-2002, 02:32 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,883
Originally posted by Nealoc187
The following is a link to a site explaining a little more in depth, the terms "leaving the scene of an accident."
http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/quest094.htm
-Christy Ann
The following is a link to a site explaining a little more in depth, the terms "leaving the scene of an accident."
http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/quest094.htm
-Christy Ann
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP2/75PA3744.html
Was the Honda involved? None of us were there. But there was NO damage or contact made which is very suspicious. It was said that 3 people and a cop stood around trying to figure out what happened. Cops don't usually stand around and debate, they take down the facts. Common sense in this case means #3, #2, #1 respectively will not try to recover damages not from the phantom Honda which is the unknown, they will recover from one another in that sequence, that which is known. Recovery does not make everyone whole, it attempts to cover losses in a manner where the circumstances are plausible.
02-12-2002, 03:47 PM
#24
All YOUR grammer belong to me
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,400
Originally posted by LightninSVTGirl
Arm wrestle huh? Sure, as long as it's not your dominant hand, I have a feeling that arm gets quite a workout
Hell with it, let's drag race instead.
CA
Arm wrestle huh? Sure, as long as it's not your dominant hand, I have a feeling that arm gets quite a workout
Hell with it, let's drag race instead.CA
BTW, if you have a '99 then you don't gotta real lightning
02-12-2002, 03:50 PM
#25
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27
She's a 99 in the mid to high 12s with minimal mods...and how you figure it isn't a "real" Lightning is beyond me, but one thing I don't have to worry about that your friend probably will in his "real" Lightning is bent rods at 4000 miles. So I'm perfectly content with my "fake" Lightning. *rolling eyes*
CA
CA
02-12-2002, 03:52 PM
#26
All YOUR grammer belong to me
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,400
Originally posted by LightninSVTGirl
She's a 99 in the mid to high 12s with minimal mods...and how you figure it isn't a "real" Lightning is beyond me, but one thing I don't have to worry about that your friend probably will in his "real" Lightning is bent rods at 4000 miles. So I'm perfectly content with my "fake" Lightning. *rolling eyes*
CA
She's a 99 in the mid to high 12s with minimal mods...and how you figure it isn't a "real" Lightning is beyond me, but one thing I don't have to worry about that your friend probably will in his "real" Lightning is bent rods at 4000 miles. So I'm perfectly content with my "fake" Lightning. *rolling eyes*
CA
How do you figure he'd have bent rods at 4,000 miles ?
Oh, for the rolling eyes, theres a smiley for that "
" Use it baby 
02-12-2002, 03:57 PM
#27
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27
Maybe STOCK he's 40 more HP, but I'm not stock...and it's a common problem with the rods in the 01's. Just like it's a common problem for the dealerships to void warranties on the 01s for minor changes like AFKs and chips. It's also common to see wannabes driving 01s...no offense to your buddy intended. Also, they can't handle any extra torque and they are overspinning the blower and binding...oh, and don't call me "Baby" it gives me the heebs 
CA
CA
02-12-2002, 04:00 PM
#28
If it has a supercharged 5.4L from the factory, its a real Lightning. If it runs low 13s stock, it's a real Lightning. The only thing new lightnings have that her's doesn't is those gay a$$ altezza taillights. She's faster than 99% of the maximas on this board, her lightning is plenty real.
02-12-2002, 04:04 PM
#29
All YOUR grammer belong to me
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,400
Originally posted by LightninSVTGirl
...oh, and don't call me "Baby" it gives me the heebs
CA
...oh, and don't call me "Baby" it gives me the heebs
CA
Nealoc, I know she has a real lightnin', and yes she could whoop our asses. My dream truck is a 2001 SVT F-150. I happen to like the altezzas, if you have seen them in person, I think they look nice! Especially on a black SVT. The wheels on the '01 are also way cooler, and not sure bout this but the intennae is a stubby short black one unlike the 99. Oh yea and the grille on the 01 looks alot better.
Would I take a '99 Lightning over my maxima ? uh, hell yes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
boomerbrian
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
4
11-08-2015 05:10 PM
cash94
5th Generation Classifieds (2000-2003)
0
08-27-2015 08:09 AM