My driver was at fault

Forums: Compare Car Insurance, Compare Motor Plan Coverage, Compare Auto
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was a passenger in a car accident. My driver was at fault. Is it possible to sue the driver's insurance. Can I compare car insurance for this?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,013 • Replies: 16

No top replies

@vickykumar,

You'd have to sue the driver. His insurance company didn't run over you or anything like that.

0 Replies

If the subject should ever come up...

The most dangerous activity which young people normally engage in isn't unsafe sex or gang banging or anything like that, it's driving. There's almost nothing you could do with an AK47 which could plausibly do as much damage as running into an oak tree at 80 mph. I mean, you could drop a crate full of AKs on somebody's head from ten or twelve stories up but that's about what it would take.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Classical Physics demonstrates that a 44 mag a foot from the end of the barrel has as much momentum and energy as a Cadillac moving at about 3 mph.

We let our children play in parking lots.

Rap

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Is there any thread on any subject that you will not relate to heavy weapons?

1 Reply

@vickykumar,

At least in New Mexico, there is medical coverage for passengers. My passengers are covered for a total of $5,000.00 medical expense only. The coverage is optional, but your driver may have such a policy, in which case you could have a claim with the insurance company.

In all cases, I believe you are actually suing the driver, with the insurance company actually making the pay out.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Is there any thread on any subject that you will not relate to heavy weapons?

Do u consider AK 47s to be "heavy weapons" ????

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Do u consider AK 47s to be "heavy weapons" ????

This is a reenactment but the real event it is base on give more then enough reasons to call an AK-47 a heavy weapon at least in non-military everyday sense of the term.

I myself would had prefer a BAR but still that is one hell of a lot of firepower.

1 Reply

@vickykumar,

Well, this depends on whether you sustained any injuries or not. You need to have some medical bills in hand too. It would have been better to compare motor plan coverage before taking a plan. Comparing now will not be of any use for you. This is also the reason that experts in the field of insurance recommend their customers to compare auto insurance prior to purchasing one.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

David wrote:

Do u consider AK 47s to be "heavy weapons" ????

BillRM wrote:

This is a reenactment but the real event it is base on give more then enough reasons to call an AK-47 a heavy weapon
at least in non-military everyday sense of the term.

I myself would had prefer a BAR but still that is one hell of a lot of firepower.

I LOVE the BAR.

I think it is a species of perversity to NOT love the BAR,
which is a crew-served weapon; (ammo bearer).

AK 47 is an Individual weapon, like an M 16.

The definition of "heavy weapons" from U.S. Army regulations 320-5 (AR 320-5) is:
Heavy weapons = All weapons such as mortars, howitzers, guns,
heavy machineguns and recoiless rifles which are usually part of infantry equipment.

When I hear: "heavy weapons" my mind goes to the artillery or up.

1 Reply

@raprap,

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6ONThNwmK8

I maintain that an AK cannot duplicate the effect.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

First a BAR can and have been used by one person and does not require a crew and there is no need for an ammo bearer even if the size and weight of the rounds in mass can be a problem but that is part of the trade off between any high power rifle and an assault weapon like the M-16.

The outlaws of the 30s love the BARs and used them in banks robberies and such as personal weapons.

Bonnie of the Bonnie and Clyde gang was a small woman yet her weapon of choice was a BAR the same as her boyfriend.

Now I was not using the term heavy weapon in a military sense of the words as my repeated posts had so stated.

Now back to the subject of suing after a car accidence.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

First a BAR can and have been used by one person and does not require a crew and there is no need for an ammo bearer even if the size and weight of the rounds in mass can be a problem but that is part of the trade off between any high power rifle and an assault weapon like the M-16.

That 's official Army doctrine: thay r supposed to come with an ammo bearer.
Its not MY idea. Of course, its TRUE that 1 guy can use it alone.

BillRM wrote:

The outlaws of the 30s love the BARs and used them in banks robberies and such as personal weapons.

Bonnie of the Bonnie and Clyde gang was a small woman yet her
weapon of choice was a BAR the same as her boyfriend.

Most of them used handguns, sawn off shotguns or Thompson Subs; very few BARs.
Clyde Barrow was approximately the only one that I've heard about (maybe Dillinger).

BillRM wrote:

Now I was not using the term heavy weapon in a military sense of the words as my repeated posts had so stated.

Now back to the subject of suing after a car accidence.

Being that u r a natural Pennsylvania born American,
what is the reason that u say that instead of ACCIDENT ?

I 'm just wondering.

Incidentally, u show GOOD TASTE, as to the BAR !

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I am not now in the mood to do the research however the BAR was indeed a common "heavy" Mid West outlaw" weapon in the 1930s even if the Thompson is seen in movies far more often.

In fact the agents that ended up killing Bonnie and Clyde used at least 6 BARS to do the deed themselves.

The outlaws in the US did not need to worry about marching 20 miles a day with a hundred pounds or so of equipments on their backs.

Beside they mainly used cars so there is zero reason to apply a military policy of having someone else carry the ammo for the weapon.

0 Replies

On the off chance anybody at A2K might actually be thinking about spending real money on a BAR.......

The BAR is interesting but it is very far from a modern semiauto firearm which anybody should want to own other than as a collection piece. It uses the same 30-06 ammo which an M1 uses and the way that ammo has to be loaded for those rifles (so as not to blow them up) it has no more power than a 308, and the 308 is more consistent and accurate.

The switch from 30-06 to 308 after WW-II corresponded to an improvement in smokeless powder which came in around 44.

If you really want something like that to shoot, better choices would be a Springfield Armory M1A1, a FAL rifle, or that new FN FNAR.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

On the off chance anybody at A2K might actually be thinking about spending real money on a BAR.......

The BAR is interesting but it is very far from a modern semiauto firearm which anybody should want to own other than as a collection piece. It uses the same 30-06 ammo which an M1 uses and the way that ammo has to be loaded for those rifles (so as not to blow them up) it has no more power than a 308, and the 308 is more consistent and accurate.

The switch from 30-06 to 308 after WW-II corresponded to an improvement in smokeless powder which came in around 44.

If you really want something like that to shoot, better choices would be a Springfield Armory M1A1, a FAL rifle, or that new FN FNAR.

I LOVE the BAR conceptually,
but I do not own one, nor do I intend to get one.
It 'd only be a collector 's item.

Even sawn down, in barrel and in stock, thay r still too long; unwieldy.
Thay r not suitable for personal defense, nor for home defense.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Of course, if it's a gas operated deal like the m1 & m14, lopping of the barrel is probably not a real good option. At any rate, it didn't fire a varmint cartridge as some of it's (more or less) replacements do.

0 Replies

Forums
» My driver was at fault

Read Question
Reply to All

My driver was at fault

Quick Links

My Account

able2know