[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

Originally Posted by C586

So if they where a licensed driver the wreck wouldn't have happened. That's retarded. I had driven with a suspended license before and was unaware of that fact because I mailed a plea in a Podunk town and they never got it and suspended me with notification. So somebody rear ends me and its my fault?? That's ridiculous. I'm a better driver than these stupid teenagers on cell phones all the time. They just need to be more strict in general and more difficult to be able to drive.

no that is not want I said. .

unlicensed driver means they should not be driving, period.

so if they are driving and have an accident they should be at fault, because since they are not supposed to be driving the accident would not have occured.

People are usually unlicensed for a reason:

1. under age
2. illegal
3. suspended



a 14 year old kid joy riding in his dads car, no permit, no license, slams on his brakes to avoid something in the road and is rear ended..

This would not have happened if he wasn't driving, since he has no license, he should never have been in the car, the car would never have been there, and he would never have slammed on the brakes causing someone to rear end him, while it is possible another vehicle "may have" done the same thing, if it was a licensed driver things proceed as normal, being he was there and unlicensed, he caused the accident, as he was not supposed to be there in the first place.

Same thought process with an illegal, or someone on a suspended license.

Sorry if it bugs you, but IMO any unlicensed driver should automatically be at fault for any accident they are involved in.

For the most part it has no affect on them, as they are unlicensed, so most likely also uninsured, the effect however is that MY rates don't go up and I don't get a DMV point because some idiot with no license does something stupid and causes an accident to which because of moronic laws I am found at fault for, but if the dumb ass without the license had not been there in the first place the accident would not have occurred.

Typically accidents with unlicensed drivers involve some sort of moronic move on their part that creates a situation that should not have been created, illegal left or u turns, darting out of driveways, turning right from the left lane or left from the right lane, or a many other idiot moves that cause other drivers to be at fault for their stupidity.. while these things happen with licensed drivers as well, typically each party is responsible for themselves, with unlicensed drivers the licensed driver and his insurance has to take 100% of the responsibility for the repairs and injuries, therefore they should not be at fault, because as already stated, if the unlicensed driver wasn't driving in the first place, chances are the incident would never have occurred.

If you don't have a license, you should not be driving a car, if you do you are a liability to every other driver on the road.

[C586]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

no that is not want I said. .

unlicensed driver means they should not be driving, period.

so if they are driving and have an accident they should be at fault, because since they are not supposed to be driving the accident would not have occured.

People are usually unlicensed for a reason:

1. under age
2. illegal
3. suspended



a 14 year old kid joy riding in his dads car, no permit, no license, slams on his brakes to avoid something in the road and is rear ended..

This would not have happened if he wasn't driving, since he has no license, he should never have been in the car, the car would never have been there, and he would never have slammed on the brakes causing someone to rear end him, while it is possible another vehicle "may have" done the same thing, if it was a licensed driver things proceed as normal, being he was there and unlicensed, he caused the accident, as he was not supposed to be there in the first place.

Same thought process with an illegal, or someone on a suspended license.

Sorry if it bugs you, but IMO any unlicensed driver should automatically be at fault for any accident they are involved in.

For the most part it has no affect on them, as they are unlicensed, so most likely also uninsured, the effect however is that MY rates don't go up and I don't get a DMV point because some idiot with no license does something stupid and causes an accident to which because of moronic laws I am found at fault for, but if the dumb ass without the license had not been there in the first place the accident would not have occurred.

Typically accidents with unlicensed drivers involve some sort of moronic move on their part that creates a situation that should not have been created, illegal left or u turns, darting out of driveways, turning right from the left lane or left from the right lane, or a many other idiot moves that cause other drivers to be at fault for their stupidity.. while these things happen with licensed drivers as well, typically each party is responsible for themselves, with unlicensed drivers the licensed driver and his insurance has to take 100% of the responsibility for the repairs and injuries, therefore they should not be at fault, because as already stated, if the unlicensed driver wasn't driving in the first place, chances are the incident would never have occurred.

If you don't have a license, you should not be driving a car, if you do you are a liability to every other driver on the road.

Your scenario is dumb. If somebody is rear ended the person in the back is at fault. Plain and simple. I'm not saying a guy without a license should drive but damn. What if you get a ticket and for one reason or another you get suspended and aren't aware of that fact. You then get into a wreck that wasn't your fault and somebody is seriously injured?? It now becomes your fault?? Based on some paperwork over what truly happened?? Somebody needs some common sense I think.

[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

Originally Posted by C586

Your scenario is dumb. If somebody is rear ended the person in the back is at fault. Plain and simple. I'm not saying a guy without a license should drive but damn. What if you get a ticket and for one reason or another you get suspended and aren't aware of that fact. You then get into a wreck that wasn't your fault and somebody is seriously injured?? It now becomes your fault?? Based on some paperwork over what truly happened?? Somebody needs some common sense I think.

yeah those that drive with no license need the common sense..

I don't buy the "suspended without being aware" nonsense, your State DMV would have sent you a notice to the effect that your license is suspended.

[C586]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

yeah those that drive with no license need the common sense..

I don't buy the "suspended without being aware" nonsense, your State DMV would have sent you a notice to the effect that your license is suspended.

Actually nys DMV does the suspension. But leaves it up to the specific court to send out the notice. And as I have found out. They openly admit it. And if you get a ticket in a little Podunk speed trap town they say they don't have the resources to send them out all the time. I've been fighting a 71 in a 65 ticket since 04. They wanted to fine me 415 bucks plus 85 dollar surcharge. I'm not paying that nor driving 4 hours each way to fight a dumb ass state trooper for trying to keep his quota. You are very unreasonable and I think slightly crazy.

[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

Originally Posted by C586

Actually nys DMV does the suspension. But leaves it up to the specific court to send out the notice. And as I have found out. They openly admit it. And if you get a ticket in a little Podunk speed trap town they say they don't have the resources to send them out all the time. I've been fighting a 71 in a 65 ticket since 04. They wanted to fine me 415 bucks plus 85 dollar surcharge. I'm not paying that nor driving 4 hours each way to fight a dumb ass state trooper for trying to keep his quota. You are very unreasonable and I think slightly crazy.

wow excuse me? insult people much?

I think the unreasonable, slightly crazy, lack of common sense person, is the guy spending 8 years fighting a $500 ticket issue for someone who apparently was actually speeding; since 71 mph is over the posted 65 mph limit, and I'd be willing to bet he gave you a break and you were going a lot faster because you thought it was a podunk town that couldn't touch you

State Troppers or any police for that matter, don't have quotas it's against the law..

[C586]

I had my cruise set for 67 like I always do. He said I was doing 84 but reduced it cuz he was in a good mood. Your the one that wants somebody held at fault for hitting the brakes and getting rear ended based on some paperwork. Thats insane. And your unreasonable. If you have kids i feel sorry for them. Each scenario should be looked at on its own. Somebody that blatantly drives with no license should be held accountable. But a suspension?? Probably not unless its been a few months or something. I'm not wasting 500 and the insurance premium hike for some jackass with a badge and stupid looking hat.

[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

Originally Posted by C586

I had my cruise set for 67 like I always do. He said I was doing 84 but reduced it cuz he was in a good mood. Your the one that wants somebody held at fault for hitting the brakes and getting rear ended based on some paperwork. Thats insane. And your unreasonable. If you have kids i feel sorry for them. Each scenario should be looked at on its own. Somebody that blatantly drives with no license should be held accountable. But a suspension?? Probably not unless its been a few months or something. I'm not wasting 500 and the insurance premium hike for some jackass with a badge and stupid looking hat.

typical "it's not my fault" attitude. No sense of personal responsibility.. Lash out and name call because someone doesn't agree with you..

I can agree with you to a point about the suspension after spending the past 15 minutes searching and reading some horror stories about how NY handles suspension notifications..

I guess that's one good thing CA has going for it, our DMV sends the notices and is online with our courts, so it's pretty instant, no waiting for someone else to do it.

Courts say you are suspended, data is instantly transferred to the DMV at the State Capitol, and the notice is generated by a computer and mailed. Been that way for years.. I got a Ticket in Las Vegas 20 years ago I never paid and got the notice of suspension from my DMV 10 days after the bench warrant was issued by the State of NV. Had to take the 4 hour drive back to Vegas to correct the matter..

[Scalded Dog]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

no that is not want I said. .

unlicensed driver means they should not be driving, period.

so if they are driving and have an accident they should be at fault, because since they are not supposed to be driving the accident would not have occured.

People are usually unlicensed for a reason:

1. under age
2. illegal
3. suspended



a 14 year old kid joy riding in his dads car, no permit, no license, slams on his brakes to avoid something in the road and is rear ended..

This would not have happened if he wasn't driving, since he has no license, he should never have been in the car, the car would never have been there, and he would never have slammed on the brakes causing someone to rear end him, while it is possible another vehicle "may have" done the same thing, if it was a licensed driver things proceed as normal, being he was there and unlicensed, he caused the accident, as he was not supposed to be there in the first place.

Same thought process with an illegal, or someone on a suspended license.

Sorry if it bugs you, but IMO any unlicensed driver should automatically be at fault for any accident they are involved in.

For the most part it has no affect on them, as they are unlicensed, so most likely also uninsured, the effect however is that MY rates don't go up and I don't get a DMV point because some idiot with no license does something stupid and causes an accident to which because of moronic laws I am found at fault for, but if the dumb ass without the license had not been there in the first place the accident would not have occurred.

Typically accidents with unlicensed drivers involve some sort of moronic move on their part that creates a situation that should not have been created, illegal left or u turns, darting out of driveways, turning right from the left lane or left from the right lane, or a many other idiot moves that cause other drivers to be at fault for their stupidity.. while these things happen with licensed drivers as well, typically each party is responsible for themselves, with unlicensed drivers the licensed driver and his insurance has to take 100% of the responsibility for the repairs and injuries, therefore they should not be at fault, because as already stated, if the unlicensed driver wasn't driving in the first place, chances are the incident would never have occurred.

If you don't have a license, you should not be driving a car, if you do you are a liability to every other driver on the road.

I agree with you 100% on this, Mr. I. The converse- logic offered by other posters as reasons "why your statement makes no sense" are invalid, as converse- logic cannot be applied here.............................................. .................................................. .......I have known MANY people who have been involved in accidents with unlicensed drivers, as have I. It ends up penalizing the licensed driver, one way or another, regardless of assigned blame, as unlicensed means uninsured (theoretically, it's possible for an unlicensed ddriver to be insured... but REALISTICALLY? No way...).

[Scalded Dog]

AND... regarding rear end accidents ALWAYS being the fault of the rear car? Lame. There are countless exceptions to that. Say you are cruising down the road at 50 MPH. A car flies out of a side road, running the stop sign, pulls in front of YOU at 20 MPH. You will drive into his tail with a 30 MPH difference, which will be a major accident, probably totalling both cars. Just one example of NOT being the fault of the rear car. ............................................ or, you are on the freeway, travelling 65 in the left lane. A jackwad in a laborer's pickup truck with rakes and water jugs and five guys in the cab changes lanes (with no signal, of course... he's got no license, and the top speed on the '76 pick-up truck is 45 smokin' MPH) to get into the left lane (Don't ask me why those guys so desperately want to be in the passing lane, when they are the slowest vehicle on the road). BAM! You ram the guy, because HE got in your way without warning, without time to react................................... There are an infinite number of exceptions to the "rule" that it's "always" the fault of the rear car.

[trewyn15]

She deserves more than 7 years, she killed someone. Give her 40+ years.

[C586]

Originally Posted by Scalded Dog

AND... regarding rear end accidents ALWAYS being the fault of the rear car? Lame. There are countless exceptions to that. Say you are cruising down the road at 50 MPH. A car flies out of a side road, running the stop sign, pulls in front of YOU at 20 MPH. You will drive into his tail with a 30 MPH difference, which will be a major accident, probably totalling both cars. Just one example of NOT being the fault of the rear car. ............................................ or, you are on the freeway, travelling 65 in the left lane. A jackwad in a laborer's pickup truck with rakes and water jugs and five guys in the cab changes lanes (with no signal, of course... he's got no license, and the top speed on the '76 pick-up truck is 45 smokin' MPH) to get into the left lane (Don't ask me why those guys so desperately want to be in the passing lane, when they are the slowest vehicle on the road). BAM! You ram the guy, because HE got in your way without warning, without time to react................................... There are an infinite number of exceptions to the "rule" that it's "always" the fault of the rear car.

I was talking about the scenario Mr. Incredible was giving. I agree with you. I was just her generalizing given the scenario. In NYS you can't get plates and will be pulled over very quickly without insurance or license as the police all have plate scanners. They will know within seconds if the car isn't insured.

[2001ragtop]

I think it will be INTERESTING, if the citizen who chased the drunk driver, faces a CIVIL lawsuit.

The family of the victims should not sue the citizen who gave chase, but I am wondering now if they actually would? They would be basically blaming the drunk AND the citizen together.

But to me the only ones who would sue the person who chased the drunk, is the drunk person who is going to jail.

They will say, because she CHASED her, this led to the death, which led to the drunk person going to jail.

I wonder if that would hold up in court. I might try to keep tabs on this story.

I did read that the person who was critically injured is filing a civil suit against the drunk woman and her husband:
"Now that the criminal trial is resolved, a civil suit filed by Fred Seeman against Locane-Bovenizer and her husband can continue in federal court. The lawsuit had been on hold until the criminal proceedings were finished."

But there is no mention at all of Fred Seeman suing the citizen who followed the drunk.