NoPistonsHere

I really hate tire Debris , since my 8 was basically attacked by one.
and then to add salt to the wound my insurance company has no one to find at fault, so they wanna say that I am at fault. $1200 in damages. They want me to file an SR1 to make their conclusion legit, but its not $1200 in damages it is $631, because they wanna add in the labor cost ($600) in there. Thats some BS, How about this, I get the parts and put it on my self. There no need for SR1, and then I send back that $792 claims check to my insurance (USAA, Emily Chadwick[Bleaaach]) The thing that pisses me of is in the report it talks about hitting an object and then towards the end it finishes with other vehicle 0% at fault, but I am at 100% at fault, but are we not talking about tire tread??? read for yourselves and tell me what you think I should do? I am seriously thinking about dropping them and going with another insurance. I pay $689 for 6 months 2 cars one with full coverage (RX8) one with liability (1979 RX7).

truemagellen

say it just flew off a truck when the tire blew and you tried to avoid it...**** them and lie

truemagellen

ummm I didn't say that

NoPistonsHere

another letter they also sent
and the enemy tire tread not sure if it is retread, but the owner of this should of pulled it out of the freeway so I say that 80% the owner and 20% city since they did not clean it up also

truemagellen

insurance companies have kept premiums high by lobbying lawmakers to keep speed limits low and so people naturally violate them...then blame drivers...

Geico Insurance (**** their damn annoying gecko commercials) owns the company that designed the technology for the Laser Gun speed acquisition devices.

Ok end of rant proceed with the lying

NoPistonsHere

Pictures of the damages bent control arm front air dam damage(getting blue Front upgrade at least)

parts $631
Body Labor $327
Mechanical Labor $270

so if I fix myself no need for an SR1 right???

NoPistonsHere

pic of damages

The Claims lady recorded the conversation on the phone.
If I return the check and tell them to drop the report, will my premiums still go up??? I tried calling the Beaach claims lady but conveniantly closed on the week ends and I have 10 days to fill out the SR1 and the encounter with the tire tread happened on the 1st of august.
I feel the damade is not more then $750, so why fill out a SR1. Is it to cover the insurance and to justify this as an accident, because it is not a accident with another car and these letters are making it out to be an accident with another car.

Speed-ER doc

Unfortunately, you ARE responsible for avoiding objects in front of you, so you ARE responsible. Those retreads are hard to avoid, especially when they are flying in the air after being hit by another vehicle or when they first come undone from the tire. I agree they should be illegal, but they currently are not.

My understanding is that a claim is a claim, whether it is for $50 or $50,000, the insurance company treats them the same, so I do not think doing the work yourself would matter. If you were worried ab out your insurance going up, you shouldn't have made a claim at all. Small claims (relative term, I know) you just have to eat.

Sorry for your bad luck, but some bad luck you can create for yourself by following too close, going too fast, etc.

NoPistonsHere

Well I didn't have much choice dodge tread and hit another car.
Then have a collision with another car, and then even more money lost.

75 in a 70 is not too fast
and 3 car lengths is not too close
I merged into the the tread, if made sudden correction could of lost control of car or hit another car.

has anyone actually read the letter as statted above (start of Thread) talk about other driver not at fault. The other driver should of been responsable to take his *hit out of the road, need advice on that. Not on Luck of the draw.

jonnyb

do you think you could put those pics in your sig next to each other instead of in one column? its a pain having to scroll past it.

ScudRunner

Weird...when this happened to me (truck changed lanes to lane i was in, blew a tire right in front of me, then immediately put on the brakes and switched lanes back so i had nowhere to go but over his retread or off the road), the insurance company called it a "no fault" accident...no fault for anyone...ripped my appearance package air dam nearly completely off...total was $900 for new part, paint, labor, etc...all i had to pay was deductible, and no increase in premiums...

NoPistonsHere

was it USAA insurance??
Thats what I have
so much for support for us millitary!!!
Thinking of going with another insurance company.

ScudRunner

mine was USAA, and they took great care of me...always have...

Speed-ER doc

Not trying to be a jerk, but following by 3 car lengths at 75 MPH is

WAY

too close. It should be about 8 car lengths I believe. At the proper following distance, you have time to slow down, swerve slightly, and miss the object.

As I said, sometimes what appears to be bad luck is actually bad driving.

NoPistonsHere

ok, maybe in Texas. In california 3 is all you can get at times. I was going around (not Following) an escalade. Big SUV=cant see to far ahead of it. Check blind spot, change lanes to late to avoid cause it finally comes into view could of swerved out, but hitting it and swerving away could have lost control of the car and smashed into other cars.

NoPistonsHere

ok, it turns out that I dont have to fill out an SR1. And they are going to work with me on this. Just have to send a disagrement letter. Funny how my claims rep is convenianlty out of the offince all day today 8/9/04.

Nubo

You are contradicting yourself. You say 3 car lengths is not too close. On the other hand this distance did not give you sufficient time to see and avoid the debris. If being able to avoid debris isn't your definition, how would you define safe following distance?

brothervoodoo

What ever happened to the 3 second rule... :p Yeah, 3 car lengths at 75 won't give you time to react to anything...

truemagellen

(mod edit:personal attacks removed. State your opinion politely, or not at all.)this was not his fault by principle...so if the insurance companies aren't playing fair (even if they aren't playing fair legally) you have to play dirty...make sure you make it clear what you want and talk to the head of the company...flip out...say you'll right an article in the paper...fight and you will win, period.

I got a speeding ticket for going 35mph over the speed limit...I lied through my teeth...confused the **** out of the prosecuter and ticket never made it to my record, no suspended license (like I was supposed to have for over a month)

You have to beat the system...you are an individual fighting an uphill battle against a giant beauracracy of get as much money out of the consumer as possible...(mod edit: Personal attacks removed. This is your first warning. )

Speed-ER doc

I quoted this for posterity. I didn't think personal attacks were allowed. Enjoy your ban. (edit: thanks, Elara)

Thanks to brothervoodoo and nubo for agreeing with me. Of course it's obvious that one is responsible for avoiding objects in front of your car. The driver's ed manuals don't teach car lengths anymore because they are too hard to estimate, but a two to three second following distance is the norm whatever state you are in. Safe driving habits are not state-specific.

If he can get his insurance to pay, more power to him. It still was his fault.

truemagellen

I do not feel bad about posting my comments...I also like how you put symbols in place of my comments as if they were all swear words...

Listen I just want make sure this guy is fairly treated for the damage that was incurred to his car...you were not supportive at all in his efforts instead just telling him to give up...(mods this isn't a personal attack I am constructively critizing his comments...have you read what this guy writes in the lounge? sheesh...he hates me cause I am against Bush)

I say...don't give up and don't give in to his insurance company

Genom

Sadly, I think most will agree, that 40 feet distance at 75 is too close. Case in point, he was unable to avoid the tread. Down here in SoFla we have I75 that has a lot of that stuff on it, yet I somehow seem to manage avoid hitting it. He needed at least 300. I understand traffic and all that, but your the one that decides whats gonna happen.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/tai/tai.htm

He is at fault IMO. For $600 parts I woulda just eaten it and done it myself.

Speed-ER doc

Don't feel bad, you'll be "Bai Bai" soon anyway with your attitude. Why do you think your disagreement with my political views gives you the right to call me names? I don't hate you, I pity you.

Consensus is......I was right. Deal with it.

NoPistonsHere

Don't worry I will fight it with a formal letter. I will post the out come of all this.

"ErDoc is going to check his blind spot one day and find a tire tread flying at him, and he will be at fault, cause his insurance company knows he is a Kerry supporter".

Nubo

I'm all for fairness. I don't know the details of his insurance policy.

I was pointing out an issue aside from the insurance question, and that is safe following distance. I found it surprising that, even after this incident, the driver still holds the belief that 3 car lengths is a sufficient distance at 75 miles per hour. My interest is in the driver's safety and I hope that if he thinks about it he'll realize that he has already proven to himself that 3 car lengths is not enough at that speed.

Regardless of legal/insurance issues, a you owe it to yourself, your passengers, and the motorists around you to be able to maintain control of your vehicle. Road hazards are a fact of life. I agree with the assertion that retreads are dangerous because of their tendency to delaminate and leave large pieces of tread on the roadway. However, you need to be able to identify and avoid obstacles regardless of whether it's a tire tread, a dead animal, large pothole, sudden accident, etc. Following at 0.5 seconds behind is inconsistent with this need.

The urge to follow too closely is deeply ingrained in a large percentage of drivers. So much so that the daily rash of collisions on our freeways fails to make the problem clear. Most drivers really don't grasp the implications of hurtling along at over 100 feet per second. They have a deep-seated urge to fill every available space with cars, which leads to the very traffic jams that so infuriate them to begin with.

See: http://www.amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html