hwybear wrote:

Squishy wrote:

I was lucky that it was a single-vehicle crash and I could learn from that experience.

Bang on Squishy!!!

Rather than denial, making excuses and blaming anything else other than the person who has their hands on the wheel and foot on the pedal!

You accepted responsibility for your actions, gained experience and learned from it.

I feel "LUV" in the room................

Jerazo wrote:

Guess I need to sit and ask him exactly what happened step by step.. Being 18 hard to get alot of dialog from him for the details of when he turned the wheel, was it hydroplane or slide he does not know what the difference is.. Maybe he slid at 20km as he was slowing into the turn and when the tires turned they lost traction.. I dunno.. I will get a paralegal to represent him on this.

Thanks.

Sitting down is an excellent idea. Maybe have him draw a little sketch for you. Then maybe ask once he gives you a speed of "X", ask what if you would have went speed "y", what would the result be? Was he answering on a phone? eating? radio adjusting? friends in vehicle? late to get somewhere? All little items that could distract a inexperienced person more than others? More less, you have to get him to know some error was made and what can he do to improve in the future (so you are turning the negative into the positive by the end)

do check you tires on your vehicle....tread bar indicators, uneven wear, tire pressure.

A paralegal is a good idea, as "careless driving" is "high stakes" (i think) in the minds of insurance companies.

Just too bad he panicked and left cause it all could have been dealt with, without a charge. He is paying for the repair and the lady of the other vehicle is writting a letter on my sons behalf to say that he was not driving in a careless manner.. Hope that the judge can take it into consideration when the time comes.

My son felt bad and spoke the lady to apologize as well.

A favourable witness statement can go a long way to help fight this charge.

Also, here's a question - why was there such a deep pool of water? Sounds like someone in the city is not doing their job right.

There was lots of water 30' or more approaching the intersection, the drain was clogging with leaves and guess it was flooding the area..

That makes more sense. Leafs ruining the day.

Not a fan?

I'm growing a TML losing beard for 2 weeks now

racer wrote:

I'm growing a TML losing beard for 2 weeks now

here is your future....

hwybear wrote:

racer wrote:

I'm growing a TML losing beard for 2 weeks now

here is your future....

Hmm, most people said i'd look like this

Quite frankly, the season ends in April, and by that time...

Well, hey, they now have a 4 point lead on the top prospect

What's the difference between the Leafs defence and a pylon?

The pylon is orange and probably plays better hockey.

How do you keep leafs off of your lawn?

Put a hockey net on it.

Why did the dodgeball player retire?

He was afraid Brian Burke was going to offer him a contract as a Leafs goalie.

Why doesn't Hamilton have an NHL team?

Because then Toronto would want one.

Sorry... couldn't resist.

Back to the topic at hand...

Jerazo wrote:

Guess I need to sit and ask him exactly what happened step by step.. Being 18 hard to get alot of dialog from him for the details of when he turned the wheel, was it hydroplane or slide he does not know what the difference is.. Maybe he slid at 20km as he was slowing into the turn and when the tires turned they lost traction.. I dunno.. I will get a paralegal to represent him on this.

As hwybear was saying, probably a good idea. The last time I lost control of a car like that was when I was... 18. Trying to merge onto the Ottawa River Parkway in a snowstorm, I took the curve too fast, skidded, went off the roadway and ended up marooned on top of a concrete median between the merge lane and the road. First car that came by... was the RCMP. Cop got out, walked up to me, asked if I was okay, we managed to get the car dislodged and back on the road, then he asked me: "So what did you learn from this?" After a lecture about driving appropriately for the road conditions, he went on his way. It stuck. I haven't gone off the road since. Maybe this could be a similar life lesson for your son?

Paralegal will be well worth the money. The most likely outcome is that they will get the charge reduced to improper turn or right turn - not in safety, but either way, that's a lot less serious than careless driving. They might be able to get "not guilty," but don't get your hopes up for that.

Jerazo wrote:

Just too bad he panicked and left cause it all could have been dealt with, without a charge. He is paying for the repair and the lady of the other vehicle is writting a letter on my sons behalf to say that he was not driving in a careless manner.. Hope that the judge can take it into consideration when the time comes.

My son felt bad and spoke the lady to apologize as well.

Now somebody correct me if I'm wrong but because the officer didn't witness the collision the woman who was hit would have to testify in court in order for the crown to have a case. Otherwise the officer is just presenting hearsay evidence correct? Now what if the woman who was hit "forgot" to show up on the court date? Does the crown actually subpeona her as a witness or is it more of a voluntary thing for her to show up?

Squishy wrote:

Tire pressures should be set to the vehicle recommendation, not the sidewall maximum (this changes if you stray from the original load rating).

Hmmm, when I took a skid control course (part of a plea bargain), the course instructor was very adamant that your tires should be set at their maximum pressure. Otherwise, if you need to swerve to avoid something going at fast enough speeds you run the risk of your tires actually ripping off the rim. He also stated how the "recommended" PSI for your car not only decreases the lifespan of your tires but also has few positive benefits you'll really notice. He also explained during the session that he has served as an expert witness in court on the subject.

Plenderzoosh wrote:

Now somebody correct me if I'm wrong but because the officer didn't witness the collision the woman who was hit would have to testify in court in order for the crown to have a case. Otherwise the officer is just presenting hearsay evidence correct? Now what if the woman who was hit "forgot" to show up on the court date? Does the crown actually subpeona her as a witness or is it more of a voluntary thing for her to show up?.

correction....where to start

If it would go to trial the witness would be given a subpoena, issued by the Crown.

Officer would be able to say driver "X" was operating this vehicle, on this road, and this direction. Would also be able to say that driver "Y" was operating this vehicle, on this road and this direction. Would also be able to give road, weather conditions and damage to vehicles.

The officer just can not say a statement given by either driver....that would then be hearsay!

clear a mud?

Plenderzoosh wrote:

Hmmm, when I took a skid control course (part of a plea bargain), the course instructor was very adamant that your tires should be set at their maximum pressure. Otherwise, if you need to swerve to avoid something going at fast enough speeds you run the risk of your tires actually ripping off the rim. He also stated how the "recommended" PSI for your car not only decreases the lifespan of your tires but also has few positive benefits you'll really notice. He also explained during the session that he has served as an expert witness in court on the subject.

While there is a slight benefit to max pressure tires in the wet (perhaps an extra foot off your stopping distance), it increases your dry stopping distances by a slightly larger amount. The wet benefits are seen because the pressures within the contact patch are now concentrated right down the centre, making it easier to push water out. It also makes it more likely to activate ABS when you hit a pothole while braking because the harsher impact can lift your wheel from the ground. The effects are nowhere near as drastic as what you get when you underinflate, but the effect is still there. The NHTSA deemed it insignificant when recommending TPMS system designs, but I have seen studies clearly show a "sweet spot" for tire pressures that was usually close to the OEM placard. I tried to dig up those studies last month for another post, but I've lost them, sorry. Now it is highly unlikely for a tire to unseat from the rim unless you are under 20 PSI, and it's been a while since I've seen such low pressures recommended. Lifespan is actually less for a tire at max pressure than one at recommended pressure, but you do get better fuel economy. An overinflated tire will wear down the centre of the tread instead of evenly across the contact patch, so your shoulder tread may have 30% life left while the centre is already down to the wear bars. Rolling resistance is decreased as a consequence, which gets you better gas mileage.

A high-performance driver might want max pressure in his tires for a daily driver, but I still think the OEM recommended is safest for the average driver, as well as the most comfortable and less harsh on suspension components.

hwybear wrote:

If it would go to trial the witness would be given a subpoena, issued by the Crown.

Ah okay, wasn't sure if it was a summons or subpoena they would be issued, disregard my suggestion unless the lady who was hit doesn't mind potentially getting into big trouble.