Main Menu

Crash coincidence

Some things are just too weird. Yesterday I was involved in a collision; a truck hit me in the rear. There were no injuries. Here’s a photo:

Photo showing collision damage to left rear of auto

Dr. Conspiracy auto damage

 

I’ve been on the phone with my insurance company, which conveniently happens to be the company insuring the other vehicle. This certainly wouldn’t be anything to write about on this blog except that after I got off the phone with my insurance company and finally on the blog, what should I find but this comment:

image

Yes folks,  it’s true, not an April Fool aftershock. Orly Taitz was also hit in the rear by a truck yesterday. Here’s her own photo [link to Taitz site edited to remove her license plate number and turned right side up]:

Taitz accident photo showing extensive rear end damage

Taitz accident photo

Those are not happy pictures and Taitz got the larger share of damage. The main reason that I posted this article is to point out that coincidences happen.

Now it is true that after my accident, I said to Ms. Conspiracy, “I bet that guy was a birther.” Based on his age and location of residence, he might well have been, but I was joking when I said it, and the idea that he was out to get me never crossed my mind. Commenters on Taitz’ site, however, are more conspiracy minded than I am. Here are some samples (keep in mind that many commenters on Taitz’ site are not sincere):

Jerry G: Was this an accident or was it a planned hit The Obama gang is probably getting desperate.

will: and i have to wonder if this was a deliberate attack on dr orly… someone needs to investigate thia as a criminal act

steve: Dr. Taitz – It’s a jungle out there and Obama’s “King” of the Jungle. Try to be more careful.

Barry Soetoro: Soebarkah is desperate. He killed Fuddy.

Barry Soetoro: BE CAREFUL IN LOS ANGELES!

Breitbart got killed. Then, LA COUNTY Coroner Technician (Michael Cormier) DROPS DEAD from arsenic poisoning, within hours of his office releasing Breitbart Autopsy Report to the public.

Then, Michael Hastings gets car bombed, sending his engine block 150 feet from his car.

Linda: I’m so glad to know that you’re ok, but I’ll bet you will be some kinda sore tomorrow. My first thought was to wonder if this was caused by an Obot. Sounds like it could very well have been that. If so, I hope it can be proved. I couldn’t help wondering if the truck driver had been paid off.

larry: …looks like someone is out for you two…so be careful of your surroundings and keep up the good work

Starlight: Skeptical me, I think this is no accident but when the truck driver is cited, find out who he is and his attitude, more will be revealed. True, CA has lots of unskilled drivers, driving excessive speeds, but …. like Ms. Fuddy’s supposed accident, this one rings untrue.

dr_taitz@yahoo.com: the driver did not hive me his papers, but he did give them to the Highway patrol. I repeatedly asked the CHP officer for the truck driver
s papers, but he refused to give them to me and said that it will be with the report and insurance will get it within 10 days. I never saw an accident where the CHP officer would refuse to give the papers. I got the license of the truck though. They told me that I need to be transported to the emergency room, I refused. Strangely my insurance called and the rep stated that they were told that I was taken to the emergency room with an ambulance, which was not true

will: a case of attempted murder if you can tie this peson to some of the obummer crowd….. PLEASE BE MUCH MORE CAREFULL IN THE FUTURE……….. i have been waiting on something like this to happen

John: We are all thankful to god that you have been able to walk away from this accident, I/we think it’s time that you maybe should consider an armed security personnel to accompany you to and from these public venues. You should not be driving with everything that has been going on lately, especially with the high profile cases that you are involved in. Their has to be someone out there to volunteer their services for Orly, until the heat dies down. I don’t live in California, if I did I would volunteer for it.

Tim: Perhaps a LA private detective will volunteer to look into the truck driver and find out if there is anything “unusual” about his background. I am glad that you are essentially ok. You are a national treaure and are 180 degrees positive compared to the national disgrace called mainstream media. More accurately they should be called mainstream traitors and fools.

Linda: The more I learn about this accident, the more suspicious I become. I am stunned that the cop refused to give you the driver’s identifying information. That is unheard of! I’m alSO really glad that you didn’t need an ambulance – otherwise, you might have gotten ‘arrhythmia’ like Fuddy. I lost count of how many people Obama and his thugs have killed, but it’s a very high number.

James P Jr  Bettes: She got Silkwooded. Luckily, she survived, unlike Karen Silkwood.

ron: Orly, I read your reply about the insurance company calling. If you had gone with the ambulance what could have happened on the way to the hospital or at the hospital. I know, just speculation. Sounds like the story had already been written.

David: I hope this just turns out to be a stupid accident and nothing more. But the awkwardness of the situation makes me think it may have not been accidental. I’m glad you are ok.

Glasnost: They were waiting for you at the ER with the Brietbart treatment.

Print Friendly

67 Responses to Crash coincidence

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2014 at 9:23 am #

    I’m going to be distracted for a while. A guy hit my car last night and I’m doing the rounds with Insurance, repair and car rental. No injuries except MS C. bruised an elbow.

    I could have walked to the police station faster than it took the police to arrive. Where’s the Posse when you need it?

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG April 3, 2014 at 9:24 am #

    Saw on Orly’s site, that her car got totaled. I don’t doubt for a second that the accident was wholly her fault. She made it out unscathed, not that I’d be terribly upset at her showing up in the Obit pages mind you.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2014 at 9:31 am #

    OK, this is weird. What are the chances that Orly and I would be involved in an auto collision on the same day?

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Saw on Orly’s site, that her car got totaled. I don’t doubt for a second that the accident was wholly her fault. She made it out unscathed, not that I’d be terribly upset at her showing up in the Obit pages mind you.

  4. avatar
    Reality Check April 3, 2014 at 9:35 am #

    Glad you and and Mrs. C. were not seriously injured. Give our best to Mrs. C. Yes, that was weird that you and Orly got hit the same day. There was something in the ether going on. My GPS and wireless keyboard both died yesterday but now are working.

  5. avatar
    Jim April 3, 2014 at 10:53 am #

    Amazing how the birthers can make almost anything into an “Obama Operation” in their feeble minds,

    Unless…Doc, did you check and see if the driver in Orly’s accident is the same driver as in your accident? All the way across country…on the same day? OH NO!!! The President’s trying to shut down BOTH SIDES of the birther conspiracy and wipe all of us away!!! RUN, HIDE, SAVE YOURSELVES!!!

  6. avatar
    gorefan April 3, 2014 at 11:09 am #

    Were there any scuba divers at either accident scene?

  7. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG April 3, 2014 at 11:23 am #

    Of course the cavity creeps think its some kind of conspiracy. If Orly complained about not being regular, they’d call it an Obot plot to keep her in the can, so she can’t file any more lawsuits. In the truck driver’s defense, he was that Firefighter from Ren and Stimpy, and he mistook Orly for a Circus midget.

  8. avatar
    Nancy R Owens (@nancyrowens) April 3, 2014 at 11:35 am #

    OMG! I so glad to hear that you are alright, Doc! I knew about Orly last night when that photo of her car hit the internet. I’m not so sure she’s OK based on what I see here.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2014 at 11:44 am #

    Not at my scene, and I would have noticed.

    gorefan: Were there any scuba divers at either accident scene?

  10. avatar
    American Mzungu April 3, 2014 at 12:19 pm #

    Hmmmm. Maybe we are not looking at all the possibilities that you were the object of a deliberate collision.

    A RED car.

    A PRIUS.

    A POLITICAL bumper sticker. :)

    (I’m glad no one was hurt.)

  11. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 3, 2014 at 12:24 pm #

    Glad you and your wife are okay.

    It is fascinating to see how quickly the birther knees jerk towards a conspiracy. John’s (our john?) suggestion that she needs “armed security personnel” is precious.

    BTW…..I have a recollection that some insurance companies wave the deductible (or used to) if they insure both parties.

    “Let’s be careful out there.”

    Sgt. Phil Esterhaus, Hill Street Blues 1981

  12. avatar
    sef April 3, 2014 at 12:31 pm #

    Doc, the pic if your “accident” must be photoshopped. It’s not upside-down like the Lexus pic.

    Seriously, Doc, glad you & Mrs. C are OK.

  13. avatar
    Rickey April 3, 2014 at 12:40 pm #

    CarlOrcas:

    BTW…..I have a recollection that some insurance companies wave the deductible (or used to) if they insure both parties.

    That is generally the case, although it may vary from state to state.

  14. avatar
    Rickey April 3, 2014 at 12:42 pm #

    What imbeciles the birthers are. If you wanted to main someone in a car accident, the last method you would use is a rear-end collision. You’d want to plow directly into the driver’s door.

  15. avatar
    Curious George April 3, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

    Glad you’re okay. This is far too coincidental. There must be a connection for both events to have happened on the same day. Drones must have been involved and directed by sinister forces to cause confusion among the Birthers and anti-Birthers. We’re there any feathers found at the accident scenes? I can think of one likely suspect who was the mastermind behind these events.

  16. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 3, 2014 at 12:53 pm #

    Curious George:
    Glad you’re okay. This is far too coincidental.There must be a connection for both events to have happened on the same day.Drones must have been involved and directed by sinister forces to cause confusion among the Birthers and anti-Birthers.We’re there any feathers found at the accident scenes? I can think of one likely suspect who was the mastermind behind these events.

    Notice that both cars suffered the most damage on their left rear corners.

    One accident happens on the left coast, the other on the right coast!

    Signs? Coincidences?

    We report, you decide.

  17. avatar
    Fred Flintstone April 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm #

    Watch out. She’ll be filing multimillion dollar lawsuits against the driver, who im am sure is already digging into his background to see if they have a link to the POTUS. From the look of the impact she was hit on the far left (ironic) and that indicates either she drifted into another lane or the driver did. I’ve been in a car wreck, but if you’re hit from the rear the impact goes to the entire chassis, not just one side.

  18. avatar
    Fred Flintstone April 3, 2014 at 1:25 pm #

    By the way, for somebody who is working pro bono out her own funds, makes you wonder where she got the cash to drive a late model luxury car….

  19. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 3, 2014 at 1:30 pm #

    Fred Flintstone:
    By the way, for somebody who is working pro bono out her own funds, makes you wonder where she got the cash to drive a late model luxury car….

    Her husband.

  20. avatar
    sef April 3, 2014 at 1:32 pm #

    It’s a good think Orly didn’t make it to that meeting. That would have been next door to Brenda Leigh Johnson’s old office.

  21. avatar
    Yoda April 3, 2014 at 1:45 pm #

    Wait til we see the “doc was involved in an accident on the same day as Orly to throw us off the track and make Orly’s “accident” look more real” posts that will hit the bitther pages.

    Glad you are ok.

  22. avatar
    Publius April 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm #

    Glad no-one (including Orly) seems to have been really hurt.

    As for it being Orly’s fault, obviously not. She was rear-ended.

    As for the rest…

    To a conspiracy theorist, everything adverse that happens is part of the conspiracy.

  23. avatar
    Benji Franklin April 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not at my scene, and I would have noticed.

    That only clears Mike Nelson (S.H.) of suspicion for your collision. Was the other vehicle really a truck? – or could it have been a submarine wearing a truck mask?

    I’m trying to eliminate Nancy Owens as a suspect. But not in the sense that Nancy Owens claims to eliminate everyone I suspect.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm #

    In this case, the claim is being processed against the other guy’s policy, which means I will have no out-of-pocket cost. If I had processed it against my policy, there would have been a $1000 deductible plus 20% of the rental car.

    CarlOrcas: BTW…..I have a recollection that some insurance companies wave the deductible (or used to) if they insure both parties.

  25. avatar
    Benji Franklin April 3, 2014 at 3:17 pm #

    If I was the adjuster, I would ask Orly to see pictures of her car taken BEFORE the accident to ascertain how much of the damage apparent in the post-accident photo, is due to today’s accident, and how much of the damage might have been already present because Orly Taitz IS a train wreck!

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2014 at 3:18 pm #

    If I view Orly’s page on my iPhone, the image is right side up, but from my Windows desktop it’s upside down. These rotation flags, implemented differently on different devices, drive me batty.

    sef: Doc, the pic if your “accident” must be photoshopped. It’s not upside-down like the Lexus pic.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2014 at 3:20 pm #

    It was a small truck, but maybe a mini-submarine? Still a long way from south Florida.

    Benji Franklin: or could it have been a submarine wearing a truck mask?

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    Somehow this license plate seems relevant:

  29. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 3, 2014 at 3:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In this case, the claim is being processed against the other guy’s policy, which means I will have no out-of-pocket cost. If I had processed it against my policy, there would have been a $1000 deductible plus 20% of the rental car.

    Out of morbid curiosity I’d be interested in knowing what the cost is on your repair….if you get to see it. I’ve been amazed at some friend’s repair bills in recent years.

  30. avatar
    Thinker April 3, 2014 at 3:47 pm #

    Given how willing Taitz is to believe ridiculous things and draw conclusions that are unsupported by evidence and see meaningful relationships in spurious connections, I’m sure that she will find that the person who hit her has a meaningful ‘obot’ connection. And by ‘meaningful’ I mean visited Hawaii once, or has a cousin who was a missionary in Kenya in the ’70s, or donated to a Democratic candidate, or (gasp) has a Connecticut Social Security number.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2014 at 3:53 pm #

    I’ll let you know if I find out. In this case the insurance company will pay the body shop directly because it’s on their recommended list. My guess is $2500. They will have to replace the left tail light assembly, the bumper shell and and do body work on the quarter panel. I don’t know if I’ll get new tire rims or if they can polish the scrapes off.

    CarlOrcas: Out of morbid curiosity I’d be interested in knowing what the cost is on your repair….if you get to see it. I’ve been amazed at some friend’s repair bills in recent years.

  32. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG April 3, 2014 at 4:19 pm #

    Thinker:
    Given how willing Taitz is to believe ridiculous things and draw conclusions that are unsupported by evidence and see meaningful relationships in spurious connections, I’m sure that she will find that the person who hit her has a meaningful ‘obot’ connection. And by ‘meaningful’ I mean visited Hawaii once, or has a cousin who was a missionary in Kenya in the ’70s, or donated to a Democratic candidate, or (gasp) has a Connecticut Social Security number.

    Better yet! He’s from Connecticut, and has a Hawaiian SSN.

  33. avatar
    Joey April 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm #

    Fred Flintstone:
    By the way, for somebody who is working pro bono out her own funds, makes you wonder where she got the cash to drive a late model luxury car….

    Orly’s Orange County, CA. home is appraised at multi-millions of dollars. Her husband is wealthy and evidently, Orly has made lots of money practicing dentistry.

  34. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 3, 2014 at 4:33 pm #

    Joey: Orly’s Orange County, CA. home is appraised at multi-millions of dollars. Her husband is wealthy and evidently, Orly has made lots of money practicing dentistry.

    Money, other than possibly having too much of it, is not Orly’s biggest problem.

  35. avatar
    Joey April 3, 2014 at 6:43 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Money, other than possibly having too much of it, is not Orly’s biggest problem.

    I was just explaining to Fred Flintstone why Orly drives a Lexus. I believe that I read somewhere that she also has a Tesla.

  36. avatar
    bgansel9 April 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm #

    Joey: I was just explaining to Fred Flintstone why Orly drives a Lexus. I believe that I read somewhere that she also has a Tesla.

    Birther donations have been good to Orly.

  37. avatar
    bgansel9 April 3, 2014 at 7:36 pm #

    Publius: As for it being Orly’s fault, obviously not. She was rear-ended.

    I realize that the explanation for someone driving into the back of a vehicle (or plowing in the case of Orly’s car) means that the one who hit the rear is at fault, but I have been in circumstances myself (25 years ago) where a woman ahead of me at a red light started to accelerate when the light turned green and promptly slammed on her brakes. I rear-ended her, but honestly, I don’t think it was my fault. She started to go and stopped, and I was under the impression she was not going to stop.

  38. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 3, 2014 at 7:52 pm #

    I don’t know about other states, but in Michigan we have what is known as the “basic speed law” which says that you are responsible for allowing enough space to stop before hitting anyone in front of you. In any state with a similar law, you would have been at fault in the accident regardless of any additional circumstances.

    bgansel9: I realize that the explanation for someone driving into the back of a vehicle (or plowing in the case of Orly’s car) means that the one who hit the rear is at fault, but I have been in circumstances myself (25 years ago) where a woman ahead of me at a red light started to accelerate when the light turned green and promptly slammed on her brakes. I rear-ended her, but honestly, I don’t think it was my fault. She started to go and stopped, and I was under the impression she was not going to stop.

  39. avatar
    Keith April 3, 2014 at 9:46 pm #

    Benji Franklin: That only clears Mike Nelson (S.H.) of suspicion for your collision.

    Airplane! was on TV in Australia at approximately the same time as the collisions – so he’s got an alibi.

  40. avatar
    bgansel9 April 3, 2014 at 10:16 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I don’t know about other states, but in Michigan we have what is known as the “basic speed law” which says that you are responsible for allowing enough space to stop before hitting anyone in front of you. In any state with a similar law, you would have been at fault in the accident regardless of any additional circumstances.

    What speed? We hadn’t even gotten through the intersection. How far back do you stop behind a vehicle at an intersection, 5 lengths? 10? LOL

  41. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 3, 2014 at 10:43 pm #

    The law says that if you hit someone from behind, you were going too fast, regardless of how fast you were going. In your case, you accelerated beyond the speed at which you had a safe stopping distance. The other driver did something stupid and had to suffer the consequences (the accident), but, legally speaking, she would not be at fault under this type of law (unless her braking was illegal for some reason). In any case, your liability may not have depended on whether or not she was at fault as well.

    Regarding Orly, it seems reasonable to assume that she (like Doc) wasn’t responsible for being rear-ended, but she should be held to account for any stupid and baseless accusations she makes as a result.

    bgansel9: What speed? We hadn’t even gotten through the intersection.

  42. avatar
    bgansel9 April 3, 2014 at 11:42 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I realize that the explanation for someone driving into the back of a vehicle (or plowing in the case of Orly’s car) means that the one who hit the rear is at fault

    Yes, and that is why I stated “I realize that the explanation for someone driving into the back of a vehicle (or plowing in the case of Orly’s car) means that the one who hit the rear is at fault…”

    I am just saying that when someone is stopped behind another vehicle at an intersection and the driver in front begins accelerating after the light turns green and slams on their brakes two second later, it shouldn’t be, in my opinion.

  43. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2014 at 12:00 am #

    I understand your point, but I’m not sure the law should reflect your opinion. Do you know why the woman slammed on her brakes? If she were braking to avoid hitting something, shouldn’t you be responsible for failing to do the same? Since it is certainly possible that she could have had a valid reason for stopping, don’t you share at least some measure of blame even if she didn’t have a good reason?

    bgansel9: Yes, and that is why I stated “I realize that the explanation for someone driving into the back of a vehicle (or plowing in the case of Orly’s car) means that the one who hit the rear is at fault…”

    I am just stating that when someone is stopped behind another vehicle at an intersection and the driver in front begins accelerating after the light turns green and slams on their brakes two second later, it shouldn’t be, in my opinion.

  44. avatar
    Keith April 4, 2014 at 3:31 am #

    Slartibartfast: The law says that if you hit someone from behind, you were going too fast, regardless of how fast you were going.

    When I was driving in Arizona, any accident involving the front of one car and the back of another car striking each other was the fault of the car in back. The sole exception was if you could prove that the car in front was backing up.

    That said, when Tucson bought an traffic modeler program to help configure the traffic signal timings, we had to do some minor surgery on it to modify the reaction time parameters (this was back in the steam engine computer days, obvious stuff like this was often hard to change; we had to make a constant into a runtime parameter). It appears that Tucson drivers had about half the reaction time of the average American driver. That means that there would have been a lot of opportunity for rear end collisions due to misjudged or sudden stops. Somehow we all lived though, and I don’t think there was significantly more rearenders than anywhere else.

    (don’t get me started on that ugly tunnel of lights on Broadway)

  45. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) April 4, 2014 at 4:36 am #

    In 50 years, people are going to say “These were the first shots fired in Civil War II where we fought back the usurpation by the black dark oppressor”. ;-)

    Glad you’re OK, Doc. It’s fun to think you and Orly are quantum entangled, but not if the result looks like this. (And no, I don’t wish physical harm for Orly, either.)

    Still interesting Orly is flaunting her $55,000+ Lexus in front of her minions.

  46. avatar
    RanTalbott April 4, 2014 at 5:10 am #

    bgansel9: How far back do you stop behind a vehicle at an intersection, 5 lengths? 10?

    It’s not a question of how far back you stop: it’s how quickly you accelerate.

    You’re supposed to lag your accel behind that of the car in front of you so that, as your speed increases, so does the distance between you, leaving you enough time to stop.

    Most people don’t do that, especially in city traffic, and wind up following too closely. They usually don’t get hurt by it, because there usually isn’t some circumstance that requires a sudden stop. But, as you discovered, sometimes there is, and the risk you took comes back to bite you.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2014 at 7:53 am #

    And in the case of one of my collisions. I was stopped and someone rear-ended me and knocked me into the car in front.

    Slartibartfast: The law says that if you hit someone from behind, you were going too fast, regardless of how fast you were going. In your case, you accelerated beyond the speed at which you had a safe stopping distance.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2014 at 8:07 am #

    I’d want to be one car length back anyway in case someone hits me from behind (and I have been hit from behind when stopped and knocked into the car in front of me). The term is “defensive driving” and in my mind it means avoiding situations where someone else could cause an accident.

    bgansel9: What speed? We hadn’t even gotten through the intersection. How far back do you stop behind a vehicle at an intersection, 5 lengths? 10? LOL

  49. avatar
    bgansel9 April 4, 2014 at 10:10 am #

    Slartibartfast: I understand your point, but I’m not sure the law should reflect your opinion. Do you know why the woman slammed on her brakes? If she were braking to avoid hitting something, shouldn’t you be responsible for failing to do the same? Since it is certainly possible that she could have had a valid reason for stopping, don’t you share at least some measure of blame even if she didn’t have a good reason?

    There was nothing in front of her and she was uninsured. I can’t say why she slammed on her brakes. I was a car length back, but, did not expect her to slam on her brakes and I had just started accelerating. As I said this was about 25 years ago. I think the fact that she acted in a way that is not normal in that situation (ie: slamming on brakes two seconds after accelerating) should have been taken into account. The state law in the state where this occurred at that time (Florida, late 80′s) was that anyone who hits a vehicle from behind is at fault.

  50. avatar
    bgansel9 April 4, 2014 at 10:18 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’d want to be one car length back anyway in case someone hits me from behind (and I have been hit from behind when stopped and knocked into the car in front of me). The term is “defensive driving” and in my mind it means avoiding situations where someone else could cause an accident.

    Doc, I’m a very good driver and have had only one accident since that time (someone plowed into the side of my vehicle about 15 months ago when I was on the road and they were entering the road from a driveway). I am a defensive driver. What I am saying is that one does not expect that the vehicle in front of them at a red light will slam on the brakes after starting to accelerate. As I just told Slartibartfest above, there was nothing in the intersection when this woman did this and she was uninsured. She also left the scene of the accident after she told me she was uninsured. She refused to give me her name. She was hispanic (probably Cuban) and I suspect she was a maid for one of the rich people in the area where I lived (they tended to employ Cuban maids) and was probably worried about losing her job and possibly being deported.

  51. avatar
    bgansel9 April 4, 2014 at 10:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The term is “defensive driving” and in my mind it means avoiding situations where someone else could cause an accident

    I have been in many situations where accidents could have occurred and didn’t. I think if you were in the situation I was in, you may not have reacted in time either. There was literally no time to react.

  52. avatar
    Bonsall Obot April 4, 2014 at 10:37 am #

    bgansel9: There was literally no time to react.

    Because, from your description, you eliminated the reaction time you should have allowed.

    It is absolutely unnecessary to accelerate the moment the driver in front of you does. It is absolutely unnecessary to accelerate at the same rate as the driver in front of you.

    Had you waited two seconds from the time the driver in front of you began to accelerate before you began to do so, and then accelerated at a slightly lower rate than the driver in front of you, so that the space between you gradually increased as you both continued to accelerate, you would have had time to react to the other driver’s behavior, inexplicable as it may have been. This is your obligation as the following driver, and as a defensive driver. Your choice not to do so means you were not driving defensively, in this instance.

    I’m sure the other driver’s seemingly inexplicable behavior must have been maddening to you, as evidenced by your frustration with her actions decades later; nevertheless, the accident you describe was eminently avoidable, by you.

    Doc is right.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    I go by the 2-3 second rule for spacing, rather than car lengths. It’s easier to judge and it accounts for speed.

    Bonsall Obot: Because, from your description, you eliminated the reaction time you should have allowed.

  54. avatar
    Bonsall Obot April 4, 2014 at 10:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I go by the 2-3 second rule for spacing, rather than car lengths. It’s easier to judge and it accounts for speed.

    I learned this from The Shell Answer Man before I ever got behind the wheel.

  55. avatar
    sef April 4, 2014 at 11:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I go by the 2-3 second rule for spacing, rather than car lengths. It’s easier to judge and it accounts for speed.

    For those with modern Android phones, you could try the free iOnRoad app. It uses the phone’s camera to alert the driver of being too close or lane wandering. Check with your state’s laws before using it on the dash, however. The paid version can act as a dashcam.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2014 at 11:50 am #

    Well, more damage than was on the surface, and they declared my car “not drivable.” So it’s a Ford Focus for a couple of weeks.

  57. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 4, 2014 at 1:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well, more damage than was on the surface, and they declared my car “not drivable.” So it’s a Ford Focus for a couple of weeks.

    Poor baby. Nobody should be subjected to a Ford Focus after driving a Prius… That’s cruel and unusual punishment! *eyeshift*

    GO PRIUS!

  58. avatar
    RanTalbott April 4, 2014 at 3:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well, more damage than was on the surface, and they declared my car “not drivable.” So it’s a Ford Focus for a couple of weeks.

    Does this work on bigger vehicles, too? There are a couple of trips I’d like to take, but can’t afford because the van gets such lousy gas mileage. If I could get it turned into a Focus, I could go on a nice little driving vacation.

    Of course, with my luck, it’d turn back into a van halfway through, and I’d have to pawn my laptop to get back home…

  59. avatar
    bgansel9 April 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: Because, from your description, you eliminated the reaction time you should have allowed.

    You weren’t there, were you? You don’t even know what place this occurred in. How can you diagnose a situation 25 years ago where you weren’t even a witness? I’ve been driving for over 35 years, in that time I’ve been involved in two accidents. You want to treat me like I’m some farkin’ idiot! I’m not. You can’t diagnose a situation where you weren’t even a witness. The woman in front of me did something completely unexpected, and I’m a very careful driver. For you to make a decision about who was correct makes it sound like you’re some kind of an authority. I can’t tell you how many car lengths behind I was now, because this happened 25 years ago, so even I can’t be a good witness to the accident now, even though I WAS THERE! I can tell you that I don’t tailgate and I’ve never had this kind of a situation happen since that time. I’m sorry I even brought it up now. All I am saying is that the hard and fast rule of the driver behind always being at fault might not be true 100% of the time, although I agree it is usually true. There may be circumstances where that may not be the case.

  60. avatar
    RanTalbott April 4, 2014 at 6:07 pm #

    bgansel9: You want to treat me like I’m some farkin’ idiot!

    That’s because you are:

    Making mistakes makes you “human”.

    Suffering bad results from those mistakes makes you “unlucky”.

    Denying, and refusing to learn from, those mistakes makes you “some farkin’ idiot”.

    You screwed up, just like everyone does, sometimes. Deal with it.

  61. avatar
    Bonsall Obot April 5, 2014 at 1:03 am #

    bgansel9:

    How can you diagnose a situation 25 years ago where you weren’t even a witness?

    Because, as I said, from your description, you were at fault. If the driver in front of you stopped for any reason, expected or not, you were at fault for following too closely, or for going too fast, or for not paying enough attention, or some combination of the three.

    For any given two cars, one following the other, with the front car not moving in reverse, only the driver in the rear can control the distance between the two vehicles. It is therefore incumbent upon the driver in the rear to do so, at all times.

  62. avatar
    JRC April 5, 2014 at 1:27 am #

    Bonsall Obot: Because, as I said, from your description, you were at fault. If the driver in front of you stopped for any reason, expected or not, you were at fault for following too closely, or for going too fast, or for not paying enough attention, or some combination of the three.

    For any given two cars, one following the other, with the front car not moving in reverse, only the driver in the rear can control the distance between the two vehicles. It is therefore incumbent upon the driver in the rear to do so, at all times.

    What if the vehicle in front of you does not have properly working brake lights. Would that be an exception to the rule? Just curious.

  63. avatar
    Bonsall Obot April 5, 2014 at 1:58 am #

    Good point; I think if you brought it to a judge, it might be a mitigating factor, especially at night, and you came upon the car already in motion. None of that seems to apply to bgansel’s situation as she described it, which is all we have to work with.

    I’m not a lawyer, just a former traffic school instructor and professional driver. (I do not in any way mean to imply that I’m making an argument from authority, since what I’m saying is true regardless of my own experience.) I’ve had more than two accidents; about half were my fault. One was on a freeway off-ramp, and the driver in front of me stopped unexpectedly, and I (barely) hit him from behind because I failed to leave enough room between us. That means it was my fault. I am a very, very good driver (with awards!) who made a mistake. It happens.

  64. avatar
    JRC April 5, 2014 at 2:06 am #

    Bonsall Obot:
    Good point; I think if you brought it to a judge, it might be a mitigating factor, especially at night, and you came upon the car already in motion. None of that seems to apply to bgansel’s situation as she described it, which is all we have to work with.

    I’m not a lawyer, just a former traffic school instructor and professional driver. (I do not in any way mean to imply that I’m making an argument from authority, since what I’m saying is true regardless of my own experience.) I’ve had more than two accidents; about half were my fault. One was on a freeway off-ramp, and the driver in front of me stopped unexpectedly, and I (barely) hit him from behind because I failed to leave enough room between us. That means it was my fault. I am a very, very good driver (with awards!) who made a mistake. It happens.

    All good. I haven’t had a chance to read this whole thread, so I have no clue what was said. I just caught your last post about it being the responsibility of the driver following. I was just curious if that might be an exception, and appreciate your answer.

  65. avatar
    Rickey April 5, 2014 at 3:46 pm #

    Keith: When I was driving in Arizona, any accident involving the front of one car and the back of another car striking each other was the fault of the car in back. The sole exception was if you could prove that the car in front was backing up.

    In most (but not all) states there is a rebuttable presumption that in a rear-end collision the car in back is at fault. There are exceptions. For example, I have seen cases where a pedestrian ran out into the street and a driver swerved into another lane to avoid the pedestrian and struck another car in the rear. That is the “sudden emergency” defense. There also could be mitigating factors, such as the car in front not having working brake lights.

    But generally the car in back is at fault. It gets more complicated when more than two vehicles are involved.

  66. avatar
    RanTalbott April 6, 2014 at 3:39 am #

    JRC: Would that be an exception to the rule?

    No, but I agree with Bonsal it would be a “mitigating factor” (just like being drunk, or talking on your phone, would be an “aggravating factor”).

    As I pointed out to bgansel, pretty much every driver fudges a little, because, if every single driver allowed for every possible contingency, it would make a royal mess of city traffic everywhere.

    But you need to plan for the ones that are “reasonably possible”, which definitely include a driver stopping in mid-intersection because a pedestrian or driver trying to beat the light from the opposing direction failed to do so. You could try to mitigate even that by saying there was no such other person or vehicle in the intersection, and maybe get some mercy.

    If you adamantly insist that you’re completely blameless, though, a judge should say “You’re a farkin’ idiot because you didn’t assess the risks associated with your decision”, and whack you hard to teach you the lesson you should’ve learned before you started operating a potentially-lethal piece of machinery on the public roadways.

  67. avatar
    y_p_w April 6, 2014 at 3:55 pm #

    I’ve been in vehicle collisions before in California. I’ve only exchanged info directly when it was a small one that didn’t involve a lot of damage and would have been under the floor for requiring a collision report.

    After bigger ones, law enforcement came to take a report, and I never got any direct information from any other driver. This included reports from local police and the California Highway Patrol. All the info was available in the collision report, and that’s where the insurance companies got this information that they needed to handle the case.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666