my zed under repair

[Smokin]

Good you're admitting your mistake and seem to have learned your lesson. You never stated just what you blew on the breathalyzer so.......

I always opt for being the designated driver-a point reinforced when I was hit head-on and my car totaled about 8 years ago.

Anyway, glad you're ok and be safe in the future.

 

[daveg]

As others have said you're brave for posting that - but at least you have learnt your lesson without injury to anyone.

 

[mystik]

why hide in shame from the world? i think i can admit a fault or two a few times in my life!

i totally understand the sentiments others feel about drinking and driving. ironically...i agree with them, as well. a little bit of defense on my part, though.. i was perfectly coherent and the accident was caused by the other car that was coming in the opposite direction. i was minding my own business driving home. i went to jail simply because i was over the legal limit. that is TOTALLY understandable. it's the law.. i know. but what caused the other vehicle to swerve into my lane?

in any case, i got myself a good lawyer that has already been able to let me keep my license and is "discovering" legal action to take against the other party, who happens to be at fault for the accident. i basically have two separate issues on the table now. the state of california going after me for a possible DUI, and then a battle between insurance companies trying to get the other to pay out.

anyways, i'm sure this will will :fuelfire:

here's a link to the aftermath of my zed

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9qNPgKFhks[/youtube]

ENJOY*


for those that can't make it work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9qNPgKFhks

 

[cj10jeeper]

Mystic - there's a lot of damage there. I doubt that will see the light of day again by the time you add up bonnet, bumper cover, wing, headlight, grilles, various suspension parts, wheel, vast amount of underneath and internal trim, aribag, etc. On a prefacelift I'd guess that will outweight value.

Perfectly 'coherent' and 'overlimit' don't sit together as good companions :thumbsdown: Who knows if sober you could have reacted, avoided the car, etc. I'm certainly not going to lecture as one who's done stupid things.

You might want to remove your other you tube video showing you driving at 120mph on the freeway a month back. Not very supportive evidence :!:

 

[mystik]

cj10jeeper,

done & done!


the insurance adjuster guy straight up told me that the car is a total loss (US$18,000+ in damages). i will get paid out and i will have to go buy another bmw.

i'm in-between an m3 or another z4. we'll seeee.

as for the lectures.. ty.

if it ain't from my friends or family, it's coming from my lawyer, too!

and yes, you are right, coherent and overlimit dont sit well together. but in this situation, and with the legal issues involved now, the simple fact that i was supposedly "under the influence" doesn't really mean anything now. the state of california is going to take me court, try and convict me, and take my money, time, and license. my lawyer will defend me from getting ass-raped from the fucked up judicial system that plagues the united states.

as for the the other car, i don't care if i could have seen them coming or not. i was legally in my lane at the proper speed limit. they broke the law the instant they crossed that limit onto my lane. if it wasn't for their mistake, i would have made it home safe and sound. it's usually the "drunk" people causing accidents. why is it that the sober ones had to do it?

like i said, the drinking.. california will take care of that. as for the car accident that occurred, i sure as hell AM NOT GOING to pay a single dime for THEIR mistake.

*and, honestly, just because the government can say what is legal and is not, does not mean an individual cannot function. everyone has different tolerances and physiology, so everyone reacts different.


this brings to light the whole "legalise weed" situation. just because the government says it's bad.. is it really?


i hate to :fuelfire: and stir up the pot..

 

[mmm-five]

here's a link to the aftermath of my zed
[youtube]z9qNPgKFhks[/youtube]

You need to remove all the http:// junk before the '=' to use the Youtube tag.

The only reason I can see why the insurance company may apportion some blame to you, is that had you not been 'ever so slightly' intoxicated then you 'may' have more alert and noticed this other car behaving in a strange manner at some time before the collision and 'might' have been able to avoid the accident in the first place.

The accident is obviously not your fault, but could it have been avoided/mitigated if you'd been completely sober? And I'm not claiming to know the answer to that, as I don't know at what point any benefit of the alcohol disappears and becomes a hindrance to observation skills & reaction times.

At least your mangoes are fine

 

[Z4//MMY]

I dont condone drinking and driving however....

The legal limit is very low in UK and I'm sure in Cali also...

To be over the legal limit doesnt make 1 drunk. It makes 1 not legal to drive.

Tests have proven that using a hands free mobile phone while driving lowers your levels of concentration and ability to react to situations to a greater degree then being "over the legal limit"......

I wonder how many of us use a hands free kit while driving and are therefore potentially as destructive as a drunk driver?

Right now, using a hands free kit is acceptable.... wonder for how long???

 

[cj10jeeper]

Glad you made the you tube edit and I hope the legal battle works out for you.

I had a buddy whos son was at college. Friends dropped a cooler of beer in his car boot unknown (although I doubt that) and he was 1) banned from high school for having it on the premises and 2) done for illegal possession of alchohol by the police. Never touched a drop didd't even know it was there but the US law required a top lawyer, $20,000 and 6 months to get him 'off'. Strange legal set up in the US.

 

[peddy]

did none of you read lacroupade's post!!

Man that is crazy! Really sorry to hear that. I couldn't imagine what it's like!! When did it happen??

 

[mmm-five]

Tests have proven that using a hands free mobile phone while driving lowers your levels of concentration and ability to react to situations to a greater degree then being "over the legal limit"......
I wonder how many of us use a hands free kit while driving and are therefore potentially as destructive as a drunk driver?
Right now, using a hands free kit is acceptable.... wonder for how long???

That's why I set a few rules for myself when I'm on a 'weekend blast' as my driving's bad enough with distractions
1) No passenger
2) No phone (well, it's with me for emergencies but switched off)
3) No music
4) No 'stuff' in the passenger compartment to play with (i.e. camera in the boot so I'm not tempted to use it whilst driving)
5) No drinking the night before (not necessarily due to still being over the limit, but so that you're as clear-headed as possible)

 

[Lucy]

That damage looks very similar to what my Z4 looked like in July last year after a van pulled out on me. My repairs totalled to over £11,000, but I guess with yours being pre-facelift it isn't viable to repair it
Sorry to see that, I cried when I saw mine like it

 

[Smokin]

Well, at least it wasn't totally head-on! It sucks when your car is totaled out-you certainly don't get enough to get another comparable car. BMWs are very good about sacrificing themselves to let us walk away from accidents.

 

[Smokin]

lacroupade, sorry your wife and daughter had to go through that. I hated my car being totaled, but I was glad he ran into ME and not a mother with small children in the car.

 

[TH3R4POR]

I'm amazed the insurance company is paying out, If you're over the limit I'd have thought it would be black and white and that's your cover void.

 

[mmm-five]

I'm amazed the insurance company is paying out, If you're over the limit I'd have thought it would be black and white and that's your cover void.

Depends on the small print in the policy.

For instance, if they simply state that the insurance is invalid if you're drunk, then you'd not be paid out if you were unconscious on your living room floor when your car was stolen.
However, that would probably be deemed an 'unfair condition' in contract law and they'd have to pay out anyway. That's why there are so many pages of small print - they are trying to cover there arses as much as possible by defining everything to the nth level so that there's no 'get out'.

Some insurers exclude 'acts of nature' but will still pay out for a flooded car when a river bursts its banks, or when a mudslide envelopes the car. In theory it's for them to prove it was a 'natural' disaster and not down to human error (e.g. removing/building on flood plains, deforestation on a hillside causing the earth to slip in wet weather, etc.).

Unfortunately some other 'unfair' (to you and me) terms & conditions are allowed and will void/reduce the payout.

 

[TH3R4POR]

For instance, if they simply state that the insurance is invalid if you're drunk, then you'd not be paid out if you were unconscious on your living room floor when your car was stolen.

This maybe a crazy shot in the dark but I get the feeling you don't underwrite insurance contracts, but I think you can see my point though. He wasn't unconscious in his living room he was driving about on the streets in his car.

You try going to a UK insurance company with the story from page one and see how much money they give you, I can take an educated guess for you :roll:


My brother lives in Texas nowadays and there seems to be very little stigma attached to drink driving, and more of a 'unlucky, you got caught' mentality. That's not just the younger generation either, older people seem to have the same attitude.

 

[mmm-five]

This maybe a crazy shot in the dark but I get the feeling you don't underwrite insurance contracts, but I think you can see my point though.

Of course I see your point, but how many people don't read the small print and then complain when they don't get paid out.

If I read something in the T&Cs that is unclear I will ask them for clarification in writing so that there's no disupute later on.

A case in point is when my insurance renewal for my M5 came through one year and just below the premium it stated that there was no new T&C leaflet included as the terms were unchanged from last year. However, when I went to inform them of my attendance at a track day they claimed that the policy did not include track day cover, and never had.

It was left to me to show them the T&C document I had which stated that I could attend track days with full insurance cover as long as I informed them at least 24 hours in advance and the track day was run by a ATDO member. I showed them the original policy document & certificate, the T&Cs, and the renewel letter with the 'nothings changed' quote on and they finally relented - unfortunately too late for me to attend the day I'd booked and subsequently spent £150 for a days insurance from MORIS.

The following renewal letter did include new terms & conditions and specifically excluded track days, which wasn't a problem as I'd decided to use another insurer anyway.

My current insurer has just done something similar - except they've sent the renewal letter and said I should re-read their T&Cs because 'some stuff' has changed and it's up to me to check the 45 pages to see what is different to the last one. In this case they've added a clause about recovering '3rd party costs that they are legally obliged to cover but would not normally have paid out on'.

 

[TH3R4POR]

I actually spent a huge amount of time reading my very first insurance contract as it fascinated me, the fact I was only covered for damage resulting from military acts committed by another country/group if my government had already declared a state of war exists with that country/group etc etc.

Keeping that in mind and knowing how deep they go into detail is why I said about the being unconscious in the lounge thing not being true because I am fairly sure it will mention failing an alcohol test. I just can't understand how the insurance policy is still valid despite the guy being found over the drink drive limit, that seems crazy to me.

 

[Z4//MMY]

I think his insurance is paying out as he is in the US.... and the insurance companies there treat drunk driving differently.

Caveat - What I’m about to say does not mean that I condone drunk driving!!!

In the UK over the course of the last 20-30yrs they have managed to make drink driving taboo. The general public now considers drunk driver to be scum of the earth. The insurance policies reflect these attitudes.

In allot of Europe and the US and certainly in the developing world drink driving is something that is sometimes illegal... but not taboo. There have been no television/political campaigns to try and villainies drunk drivers and so people that do it are not considered to be worse than murderers. The insurance policies in these countries reflect this attitude.

Its 1 of those things that gets people to lynch mob up in this country now, however, using a mobile phone while driving is still something you see often....

 

[Smokin]

The US is tightening up quickly, especially since around here, the majority of fatal drunk driving incidents involve illegal aliens. I guess a bit of xenophobia quickens the enforcement.

I remember many years ago my Mother driving me home from university and a drunk driver (at 4 in the afternoon!!!!!!!) hitting us from behind. Unfortunately, we were in a Super Beetle. Fortunately, we weren't hurt too badly. Driver of the other car was passed out behind the wheel. Officer told us he knew the guy and knew he was drunk, but couldn't write him a ticket for DUI. I believe times have changed and the driver can be charged with DUI. DUI now includes not only alcohol but prescription and non-prescription drugs if they affect your ability to drive.

In the US, there is also "no fault" insurance. Not sure if that's what's being used to pay out in this case, but even though mystik was DUI, the other driver was at fault in this case (as best I can tell). If both or neither are at fault, the "no fault" kicks in.