HELP! Got in an accident, car's a write off :(

[torqdork]

Originally Posted by stonenewt

Am I being stupid here but I can't see a difference between the moderate overlap? However they introduce a small overlap criteria which the FR-S shows adequate in

Right, something changed but don't know if it's just the term for the test or more likely the actual test criteria.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by torqdork

Right, something changed but don't know if it's just the term for the test or more likely the actual test criteria.

The test criteria changes almost as often as the weather. These tests are not just based on U.S. requirements but (usually) on the highest standard used by any country that imports the vehicle.
So if last years test required an impact speed of 60MPH +/- 1MPH and Lower Slavovia decides this year they want 60MPH +/- .8MPH then the whole test numbers can change.
Since these cars are sold in many countries it is not strange the criteria changes.
Overly simplified I know but you get what I mean?

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by sechs

Hope you're lucky enough to never have to deal with the after math of other drivers doing something completely unexpected.

Yes, I hope none of us will have to deal with someone unexpectedly making an illegal turn in front of us.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Yes, I hope none of us will have to deal with someone unexpectedly making an illegal turn in front of us.

Or be making a turn when somebody blows through a light!

[sechs]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Yes, I hope none of us will have to deal with someone unexpectedly making an illegal turn in front of us.

It's mind blowing how you and that other guy are so convinced I'm at fault based on your assumptions without even giving the benefit of doubt.

Accusing myself and others of wrong doing and being bad drivers without evidence is incredibly arrogant and self righteous.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by sechs

It's mind blowing how you and that other guy are so convinced I'm at fault based on your assumptions without even giving the benefit of doubt.

Accusing myself and others of wrong doing and being bad drivers without evidence is incredibly arrogant and self righteous.

Welcome to the forum! Arrogance and self rightness rule here.
Unfortunately the way you presented the evidence it does appear that you changed your story so they have a point.
But... at the same time, after the first person made the statement the rest of the following comments are not really required and just become a form of flaming.
Mind you I can not plead innocence myself as there are some topics that get under my skin and I comment when there really is nothing to be gained but starting an argument.
Best bet (as hard as it is to do) is to ignore the posts that bother you as the more you fight back the worse it can get.

[G-awesome]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Or be making a turn when somebody blows through a light!

too late for my and my former brz. :/ :P

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by G-awesome

too late for my and my former brz. :/ :P

They make more every day (for now at any rate) and only one of you.
Sure if you are found at fault it will cost you but you can get a new one.
Easy to say when it isn't my car or cash I guess!

[Jegan_V]

Originally Posted by sechs

Yeah, was making the left on to the ramp leading to hwy 7.

Ahh...I can see that there's a possible issue as those coming the opposite direction can also go up the ramp or decide to cross the intersection. Unfortunately its unlikely you'll be able to prove your case against the charge, your best hope is plead for forgiveness with the prosecutor, its worth a shot. Worse case scenario there's no change and the charge stands, best case scenario the charge is tossed out. No point hiring a traffic lawyer as you're without witnesses(no surprise in Richmond Hill, I know from experience). When its your word versus the cop, you're destined to lose.

Had you said Yonge, you can definitively fight off the ticket and possibly reverse the outcome due to the way the lights are set up.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by Jegan_V

When its your word versus the cop, you're destined to lose.

Not applicable in Canadian jurisprudence unless the cop witnessed the accident, and was able to clarify for the judge which driver was the farthest from the intersection when the A.T.S changed to amber etc.

If it was travelling at the speed limit of about 45 feet per second, and was about 150 ft. away from the intersection when changed to amber, the car turning left across its path would not be convicted, the other car would - D.A.T.S. amber.

These classic collisions were not liked by our J.P.'s. They often resulted in both drivers charged and J.P.'s hated that, so they dismissed both charges.

Anyway - all one has to do is to introduce reasonable doubt with your version and the other drivers versions contradicting (that is not evidence with 2 good liars).
Your defence is that the other driver was far enough away to stop safely but ran the light instead.

Due to the nature of the nature of the collision, it is worthwhile fighting in traffic court and besides, certain sections of the HTA are designed for certain situations, and since the GTA traffic cops were abolished (except symbolically) cops OFTEN lay the wrong charge and the case gets tossed.





CERBERUS

[KNS]

The above mentioned ring-shaped B pillar in the extrication article... Pretty cool.

Does anyone know if that was incorporated into the FRS/BRZ? Not sure when the article was written. Didn't Toyota do more of the body design on the car?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by KNS

The above mentioned ring-shaped B pillar in the extrication article... Pretty cool.

Does anyone know if that was incorporated into the FRS/BRZ? Not sure when the article was written. Didn't Toyota do more of the body design on the car?

May not be exactly like that but will be very similar.

[Jegan_V]

Originally Posted by RFB

Not applicable in Canadian jurisprudence unless the cop witnessed the accident, and was able to clarify for the judge which driver was the farthest from the intersection when the A.T.S changed to amber etc.

If it was travelling at the speed limit of about 45 feet per second, and was about 150 ft. away from the intersection when changed to amber, the car turning left across its path would not be convicted, the other car would - D.A.T.S. amber.

These classic collisions were not liked by our J.P.'s. They often resulted in both drivers charged and J.P.'s hated that, so they dismissed both charges.

Anyway - all one has to do is to introduce reasonable doubt with your version and the other drivers versions contradicting (that is not evidence with 2 good liars).
Your defence is that the other driver was far enough away to stop safely but ran the light instead.

Due to the nature of the nature of the collision, it is worthwhile fighting in traffic court and besides, certain sections of the HTA are designed for certain situations, and since the GTA traffic cops were abolished (except symbolically) cops OFTEN lay the wrong charge and the case gets tossed.





CERBERUS

If that's the case, that's really good news for the OP. GTA cops have gotten a lot better at ensuring their tickets don't get tossed out which is why I assumed they wouldn't do such things unless they believed that to be the case. Good to know.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by KNS

The above mentioned ring-shaped B pillar in the extrication article... Pretty cool.

Does anyone know if that was incorporated into the FRS/BRZ? Not sure when the article was written. Didn't Toyota do more of the body design on the car?

Yeah the BRZ/FR-S have a next-generation ring of safety.

Next-generation Ring-Shaped Reinforcement Frame

The pursuit of high degrees of safety and sports driving performance has led to the next generation of this class-leading design that links together the roof, door beams, side pillars and floor. More robust than ever, the design now incorporates 53% high-tensile strength steel for superior crashworthiness without adding unnecessary weight and creates a 360-degree barrier of protection by diverting impact energy away from the cabin.