Accepting responsibility for a crash... discuss!

boilers said:
How about this. My daughter just totaled my car during a teen driving safety course. Following instructions of the driver instructor, she made contact with a curb. On a wet/dry skid pad they had set up close enough to the a landscape/parking curb, that she made contact and the car was determined to be not worth repairing to driving condition. I have two in-car videos of the event. The instructor told her to give it more gas, then bam!
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on who was responsible for safety! If she is still of school age, under the legal driving age then I would expect the instructor or driving school to be responsible.

If she has a driving licence of some sort then it may be difficult to pass responsibility to the instructor, however if it was not on public roads/public skid pan then it may still be reasonable to think the instructor/school was still responsible for safety.

If it was a temporary skid pan set up dangerously then I would be checking that the instructor was suitably/legally qualified to do the task?

Any chance of seeing the video?

Bit surprising there was enough damage to total the car just by hitting a curb, I guess you gave her a suitably worthless car for the job and the car was worth less than a new wheel, tyre and suspension mount!
 
It may take less than you think to total a car. Because today's cars have 'crumple zones' for safety, the chassis strength at suspension mounting points can be heavily damaged by hitting a curb hard or running through a ditch. Car makers can specify just how far something can bend before it's deemed unrepairable even if the body shop can pull it back into place. A side impact can damage a front-wheel-drive transmission adding greatly to repair costs.

Though they're safer and better in many ways, today's cars are not sturdy at all compared to the older ones. They're essentially meant to be disposable like everything else seems to be today :( That's why I like my old vehicles which were meant to last :)

Phil
 
RCPilot said:
...
The best thing you can do to also protect yourself is to make sure you have plenty of coverage so if you do cause a moderator or serious accident, there is enough coverage so it is not worth the time for the plaintiff to try to go after your personal assets. For example, if you own a house worth $700,000 and you have $400,000 in equity in it, and you only have $50,000 in liability coverage, good luck if you cause any moderate injury to anyone where you are at fault or partially at fault. The ER hospital bill alone can be $50,000 for two days in the trauma unit. Even if the injuries are not too bad and the person has a claim that is worth say $150,000 the plaintiff is not going to accept only $50,000 from your insurance company to settle the claim. You better be prepared to take out a loan or cough up $100K out of your pocket. So get enough coverage to protect you for more than you are worth. You may be surprised how little more you have to pay to increase your liability cover by a lot.
Click to expand...
Absolutely the best course of action - and as said it's relatively cheap.

In most states that I'm familiar with the most expensive liability coverage is the state mandated minimum amount - increases are exponentially cheaper as the amount increases. In Michigan the minimum liability coverage is $20,000/$40,000/$10,000 - I choose to carry more than 10 times that and the premium increase is maybe 40% if I remember correctly (it's been a very long time since I priced the minimum coverage so I can't swear to that). I know for sure the increase in liability coverage premium is (or was last time I checked) less than the cost of the comprehensive coverage on my vehicle and has the potential to pay out a lot more.

Something else most people should have but don't is a personal umbrella liability policy - again it's almost dirt cheap versus what you can be held liable for if it's needed. (Mine is $160/year for $1M coverage IIRC.) Most people are insured on their property by their homeowner's/renter's policy and in their vehicle by their auto policy. Outside those two areas you have no liability coverage at all. If, for example, you're in a grocery store and accidentally hit someone with the shopping cart and rupture their Achilles tendon you better have a very large bank account as you are 100% liable for the injury and neither your auto insurance nor homeowner/renter insurance will protect you. There are an infinite number of ways you can cause injury to someone/something where neither policy will come into play - basically anytime you're off your property and out of your car.

A secondary 'benefit' of carrying high liability coverage is the free legal assistance you will get. Say, for example, you're in an 'at fault' accident where someone is injured and suing for $100K. If you're carrying the minimum $20K coverage the insurance company will look at the case and determine they can either write the $20k check (leaving you on the hook for $80K) or fight in court and incur the legal expenses plus the $20K if you lose. If, on the other hand, you have $200K of coverage they're more likely to fight it.
 
SawMaster said:
It may take less than you think to total a car. Because today's cars have 'crumple zones' for safety, the chassis strength at suspension mounting points can be heavily damaged by hitting a curb hard or running through a ditch. Car makers can specify just how far something can bend before it's deemed unrepairable even if the body shop can pull it back into place. A side impact can damage a front-wheel-drive transmission adding greatly to repair costs.

Though they're safer and better in many ways, today's cars are not sturdy at all compared to the older ones. They're essentially meant to be disposable like everything else seems to be today :( That's why I like my old vehicles which were meant to last :)

Phil
Click to expand...

Whilst older vehicles were certainly built to last, I wouldn't really fancy my chances in a collision. There's a great deal on the web showing how the modern car appears to come off worst in a collision with an older car - whilst the passengers in the newer cars fare far better.
Crash from 6:20 onwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kip
sludgeguts said:
...the modern car appears to come off worst in a collision with an older car - whilst the passengers in the newer cars fare far better...
Click to expand...
Engineers work very hard at sacrificing the vehicle to save the occupants. That's one area where monocoque (unibody) construction excels versus body-on-frame designs as it makes it much easier to design in and control 'crumble zones' to absorb the energy before it gets to the passenger compartment.
 
I'm not against vehicle safety at all, but I'll trade a percentage of that for enough chassis robustness to not need major repairs for relatively minor impacts, as that is by far the more common occurrence ;) This is one reason I like my vans- they are trucks with a real frame and they are not easy to heavily damage :D I like getting every bit of value out of my vehicles by keeping them for as long as it remains good economy to do that.

The TATA Nano is a very inexpensive car costing under $2400. The basic Nissan Versa Note is almost $13000. The Nano can't be sold or driven in the US for a lack of safety features and emissions requirements while the Versa Note may be the cheapest new car here. Which car would be of the most benefit to the average American, and why? Is that $10K difference in cost really worth what it brings us? If the airbags deploy on a 10 year old car it's probably a write-off even if the car would otherwise be economically repairable :whistle: You're not allowed a choice or input in the matter, and that is what makes me mad :mad: I'm totally happy with a car that has one front airbag per person, for that is adequate protection against serious injury for the vast majority of crashes. It's not really economically viable to go much further. I'd like to see that extra level of protection become optional. I'd like to see whether new car buyers would choose to spend the exorbitant costs to get that last few percent of safety or whether they would prefer to spend their money otherwise :rolleyes: Bash the OP's curb in the Versa Note and repairs will be well over $2400; bash that curb in a Nano and you just get a new one.

We've built a nation where the Government has become our nanny and is taking all our money in various ways that may not be beneficial to the average person. We're getting ripped off :( When you consider that my 91 model van will likely go another 10 years against the total cost of the 3 new ones it will take to give the same length of service at 10 times the end cost it is clear which way is most economically feasible. The odds are vastly in my favor that I'll never need an airbag or crumple zone to save me because the odds are that I'll never be in that bad of a crash in my entire life. I've already survived a high-seed nearly head-on crash as a passenger in a late 60's Ford with only a seat belt. I'd rather lave that $10K savings times how many new cars I'll have through my driving life to spend in things with a better payback ratio :cool: For what you're forced to spend on car safety that you probably will not use through your lifetime you can pay for half a house :confused: I can buy and drive an insanely fast motorcycle with almost no real crash protection but I can't buy an equally unsafe-to-crash car. Something is very wrong with this picture :eek: I want my choices, not governmental-mandated over-regulation.

End of rant and thanks for listening :p

Phil
 
SawMaster said:
bash that curb in a Nano and you just get a new one.
Click to expand...
The Tata Nano only weighs 695Kg, it would have probably bounced over the curb with the help of the non-low profile tyres without damage, or maybe rolled and suffered a few scratches on the plastic bodywork. They are generally very safe since a crash at top speed is generally survivable unless you run into the back of a stopped car without touching the brakes, but since most cars in India use drum brakes, including the Nano, people never stop suddenly and people always leave more room so high speed impacts are far less likely than in USA.

TATA-NANO-GENX-Price-Inda.jpg

tata-nano-genx-amt21.jpg

(Another one with the manual more efficient than the auto, despite the auto having more speeds.)
 
jokiin said:
something that has been getting a bit of flack here recently also

https://www.realworld.org.au/#results
Click to expand...
Yes, it makes it clear that the manufacturers have been achieving the new standards by increasing amounts of cheating, the best performing car was the oldest from 2004, the worst performing was the latest hybrid.

"• The 2004 model vehicle (recorded mileage greater than 100,000 km) was 7% higher than the official figures on average."

"• The fuel consumption of the plug-in hybrid vehicle was 166% higher than the official figures with a full state of charge, and 337% higher when tested from a low state of charge."

However it doesn't tell me what I want to know - if I buy a new hybrid today to replace my 2005 car, will I actually save any fuel and will the emissions actually be any cleaner? And after you take into account all the emissions resulting from it's manufacture?

These new vehicles may even be illegal:
"Whilst a large number of vehicles exceeded various emissions limits by significant amounts, including at levels above the OBD diagnostic threshold, no vehicles displayed any OBD fault code or had the Malfunction Indicator Lamp illuminated."
 
Nigel said:
if I buy a new hybrid today to replace my 2005 car, will I actually save any fuel and will the emissions actually be any cleaner?
Click to expand...

I can't answer this directly but I have always remembered something I read in a 66 Ford owner's manual regarding engine size and fuel consumption- No matter the engine (power source) it takes the same amount of fuel (energy) to move a car at a given speed ;) The only difference with an electric or hybrid car is where the power is coming from and in how efficiently it is being applied to moving the car. It takes the same amount of applied energy at the wheels no matter where you source it :D

With directly sourced energy such as petroleum fuels it is easy to make comparisons, but there are hidden losses in plug-in electrics and there are losses in hybrid batteries which will wear and need replacing. It takes energy to make that replacement battery but that is not being figured in with the way we do things now :eek: So in the real world we should be determining total energy consumption over the entire lifespan of the vehicle- not just what energy it consumes straight off the showroom floor. That is the true figure for the car- it doesn't matter that you'll trade it before the batteries die as that is just transferring the loss elsewhere, not eliminating it :rolleyes:

Emissions aside, the IC engine is still by far the most efficient power source for cars that we now have when everything is taken into account. And in figuring vehicle emissions we also need to keep in mind the emissions of the power sources needed to make the vehicles from mining the raw materials to the power consumption of the factory making them to the delivery of the car to the dealership as well as disposal when the vehicle is taken out of service. That's a lot of energy and emissions ain't it? :whistle:

It's hard to imagine a world of 500 years ago where the vast majority of human movement was done by foot. If we truly want a cleaner better world it's a concept we ought to consider again for we can still do a lot of what we need to that way without using up our progeny's world before they get their turn using it. We can make that method viable again but we won't because we want our comfort and convenience over everything else. It's hard to imagine a world 500 years from now where the vast majority of human movement will be done by foot because there will be no other way possible :oops:

Phil



 
SawMaster said:
No matter the engine (power source) it takes the same amount of fuel (energy) to move a car at a given speed ;) The only difference with an electric or hybrid car is where the power is coming from and in how efficiently it is being applied to moving the car. It takes the same amount of applied energy at the wheels no matter where you source it :D
Click to expand...

Back in 66, aerodynamics were not considered important, these days even a Mini is 177 mm taller than my 2005 medium sized hatchback, the extra height is not good for aerodynamic drag, it will require more energy to move it through the air.

SawMaster said:
It's hard to imagine a world of 500 years ago where the vast majority of human movement was done by foot.
Click to expand...
500 years ago, most people never moved outside the boundaries of their village throughout their entire lives, it is not hard to go back somewhere close to that.

SawMaster said:
And in figuring vehicle emissions we also need to keep in mind the emissions of the power sources needed to make the vehicles from mining the raw materials to the power consumption of the factory making them to the delivery of the car to the dealership as well as disposal when the vehicle is taken out of service. That's a lot of energy and emissions ain't it? :whistle:
Click to expand...

Looking at the UK electricity supply right now, we currently have about 37% from emission and waste free sources (eg wind|solar|hydro), this is used by power hungry processes such as smelting aluminium, recycling steel etc. which try to make use of our excess wind power since to them it is cheap power (No carbon tax), so the manufacture of new cars is not as polluting as you might imagine and is steadily getting better.
 
Yes, we're doing better but when you consider the entire picture it is still taking us a lot to move one human around through their lifetime :( England still has many of the good things of the past we've abandoned here such as local stores and jobs within walking distances and a better mass transit system which actually gets used :rolleyes: And on the "emission and waste-free energy" it still takes something to make and maintain those sources. Nothing is totally free or totally clean with no impact on the world we live in- everything matters, not just some things :whistle:

Phil
 
It's easy to forget how briefly we've even had cars. Not even 110 years since the model T Ford came out. Might sound like an eternity to young people, but in terms of human development it's nothing. And the sad thing is they may be on the way out. Sure, electric cars will replace them at first, and they CAN be fast, but I think we all know what the majority of cars in the future are going to be like. We may not even have the option of driving them ourselves. I feel sorry for generations to come who will never know the fun of driving a real car on uncongested roads.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
Denmark are about to set a new world record, this time with the worlds longest high power DC transmission cable going from the west coast of Jutland to just north of London, for a total of 750 Km

This is a 11 Bn project that's getting talked about here at the moment, we Danes are supposed to be 100 % renewable energy by 2050.

I just hope the brits want to buy green power of us the next 40 years after that cable are put in, some actually think this idea will make power prices in Denmark go up.
One thing are for sure the ones that will sign off on this project are not the ones that will have to pay for it.

http://viking-link.com/
 
kamkar1 said:
Denmark are about to set a new world record, this time with the worlds longest high power DC transmission cable going from the west coast of Jutland to just north of London, for a total of 750 Km

This is a 11 Bn project that's getting talked about here at the moment, we Danes are supposed to be 100 % renewable energy by 2050.

I just hope the brits want to buy green power of us the next 40 years after that cable are put in, some actually think this idea will make power prices in Denmark go up.
One thing are for sure the ones that will sign off on this project are not the ones that will have to pay for it.

http://viking-link.com/
Click to expand...
Not sure you should expect to sell us much green power via that link, I imagine that power will travel in both directions and average out to around zero!

The purpose of the cable must be that if there is no wind here then there will probably be plenty of wind in Denmark and when you have no wind we will probably have plenty. You also have the ability to store wind power by sending it up to Norway for pump storage, maybe you will make a profit by transferring our wind power up there and then returning it at a higher price.

Note that offshore from the UK end of the link we have several large wind farms, soon to have a "capacity" of around 15GW, which I suspect is more electricity than Denmark uses? And ten times the capacity of the cable.

As for who pays for it: "Viking link’s final development costs will be co-funded by the European Union." ... with Brexit, maybe it wont be us paying the EU bills :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top