question about accident

[Zigner]

Curious, did you actually SEE him weaving in and out of lanes prior to the accident? Did anyone else see it? Were there any witnesses that spoke with the police at the scene? Or are you assuming he was driving recklessly just because he hit you?

I suspect that the hyperbole is just because the OP is just getting frustrated that we don't share his desire for revenge.

 

[tranquility]

If fault were really an issue, I'd be more interested in the skid marks left by the OPs vehicle. From the damage, I suspect his car was pushed to the side a bit. Where that skid started would be a good indication of where everyone was when contact occurred.

HighwayMan's report would probably have some mention of them. Joe first cop at the scene, maybe not; especially if it was late in the shift. But, it probably wouldn't matter anyway if everyone were insured.

I do know that cops love arresting drivers who are under the influence when they cause an accident. Except for dealing with true criminality like murderers, robbers or baby rapists, few things make them tingle more. If the other driver had signs he was impaired, it was investigated.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

1 - Why is this guy driving legally when he is admittedly impaired?

Every injured person, person eating, listening to the radio, talking on a phone is impaired. You need more than that to go anywhere.

2- Is it standard procedure for police to decide to give an alcohol test based on the way their breath smells?

Nope, it is standard practice for them to only give alcohol tests to those they consider using alcohol.

3- Suppose he hit me because he was impaired from drugs / medication; texting; or talking on a phone? Is there anyway of knowing this was the case after the police have left the accident scene?

Suppose he didn't. The costs to research these issues for every vehicle collision would be astronomical. It is only feasible when building a case for manslaughter etc...

The truth is, visual collision damage only tells so much of a story. The story in this case could be he swerved and hit you or you swerved and hit him. Based on the information given by the other driver, police did not feel he was sufficiently impaired by his disability for it to reflect on this accident. They are trained to do these things. If you wish to hire a lawyer to subpoena all the records involved, expect to pay out thousands in legal fees/expenses. Had you obtained pictures of the actual collision site, complete with tire marks and debris, the lane location of the collision point could likely have been established with certainty. "Highway Guy" probably has a pretty good driving record. He spends most of his days driving up and down the interstate on patrol. Next time you see a car with red and blue lights going down the interstate, you might be looking at "Highway Guy".

 

[landlord51]

I suspect that the hyperbole is just because the OP is just getting frustrated that we don't share his desire for revenge.

Even if it's not my blood-thirsty desire for revenge, I'm still okay with any thoughtful insight. An anonymous poster on a forum and you know EVERYTHING about me, though, right?


Now then.

Curious, did you actually SEE him weaving in and out of lanes prior to the accident? Did anyone else see it? Were there any witnesses that spoke with the police at the scene? Or are you assuming he was driving recklessly just because he hit you?

No. . . and yes to the last one.

tranquility
If fault were really an issue, I'd be more interested in the skid marks left by the OPs vehicle. From the damage, I suspect his car was pushed to the side a bit. Where that skid started would be a good indication of where everyone was when contact occurred.

HighwayMan's report would probably have some mention of them. Joe first cop at the scene, maybe not; especially if it was late in the shift. But, it probably wouldn't matter anyway if everyone were insured.

I do know that cops love arresting drivers who are under the influence when they cause an accident. Except for dealing with true criminality like murderers, robbers or baby rapists, few things make them tingle more. If the other driver had signs he was impaired, it was investigated.

I didn't look at the skid marks - it was a highway and cars were moving fast on it. I suppose I could go back there. My car was pushed a bit - it was big impact and I felt loss of control - but I never really lost control - again - I was HIT from the side - the dent is below my handle, driver side front.

Regarding the "impairment" - the cop said to me that 'his disability explains why he seems 'off'" - one must suspect (I suppose someone like me who doesn't deal with this everyday) that his 'disability' caused this accident and why he was mentally off (the guy was walking around fine so no physical disability). Of course I have questions about his - anyone would.

Suppose he didn't. The costs to research these issues for every vehicle collision would be astronomical. It is only feasible when building a case for manslaughter etc...

Okay - this is the answer I was looking for - they don't systematically investigate these things unless there's a fatality or serious injury. I understand - thank you.

Had you obtained pictures of the actual collision site, complete with tire marks and debris, the lane location of the collision point could likely have been established with certainty.

No. I can drive back over there to the exact location and see if there are tire marks - no debris was generated in this accident.

"Highway Guy" probably has a pretty good driving record. He spends most of his days driving up and down the interstate on patrol. Next time you see a car with red and blue lights going down the interstate, you might be looking at "Highway Guy".

I don't really care about Highway Guy - he doesn't scare me. I don't think your joke works too good either.

 

[ecmst12]

Going back to the exact location won't help much now, even if you can figure out which tire tracks were yours. The cars are no longer there in the positions they were in at the time of the accident, so the only thing you could document now is a bunch of road, which won't prove anything.

Stop obsessing and let the insurance companies do their jobs. Seriously, you're not helping anything.