Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Pics and Videos what happened to .....?

I agree that the most important post so far was the one showing that the guy in the crash could walk away in good health. I would also like to wish Dan the best of luck finding a new car. However, i am disappointed in the maturity level of the person who put the special olympics pic on the board, while the meaning is true the actual wording and picture is in bad taste.
Matt Valentine

Easy answer to this...

Rule #1
When making a U-turn you have to yield the right of way to every single other car on the road.

Therefore he had to pull directly in front of the minivan in order for the minivan to hit him. (otherwise it would have hit him head on in his lane!) Therefore it is solely his fault for the accident.

Not only that, but any court of law will use & see the ticket (and rule #1) as a sign of his negligence in this incident. Which of course is true since he did not follow rule #1...

Also you will note he was hit on the front side. Not the middle or rear of the vehicle. This indicates the minivan had no real time to react and that he had just pulled into the oncoming lane.

The other possiblilty is he pulled directly in front of the minivan and it swerved to miss him and still clipped the front of his car.

Either way you look at this he had to pull right in front of the oncoming traffic! He's actually extremely lucky no one was hurt!

Any questions...

Glad to see the Camaro driver was all right. As was posted earlier in this post and in the original post "Those were mobile homes (RV's)" and they were parked at the track to WATCH THE RACE.

Come again? The minivan should have braked because someone pulled into his lane of traffic...okay I agree with that...He probably should have slowed down but because he didn't(we're assuming) he is automatically at fault? I don't think so.

By that rational, if a person merging onto the interstate decided to pull right into the side of my car, and I didn't brake, I'd be at fault?? Even though they are required to yield??...much like the case of Dan's accident.

No no no, did you actually read my post? I didn't say the minivan driver WAS (or should always be) at fault, I was merely giving examples... In this case to prove that a citation does not automatically prove actual guilt, just guilt according to the law.

IMHO since Dan hasn't said anything about it, I agree with JVT that we'd hear about it if anyone but him was really the cause of the accident.
Just proving a point... :rolleyes:

In this world of infinitely wacky things happening, you seem to be saying there is NO POSSIBLE WAY of Dan gettings hit in that section of his car without it being his fault. Seems like a pretty broad statement to make, don't ya think? Just off the top of my head I can think of two ways this could happen. Yes they are remote but that does not negate the possibility of them...

Just running my own race in these super special olympics...

I don't think I mis-interpreted this part...seems I read it quite accurately. However, I now understand what you're saying better than before. You're just laying down potential scenarios to give a different perspective, right? Its just with the above comment it seemed(to me)that you were trying to defend Dan and lay blame somewhere else. Now I see that is obviously not the case.

Isn't it "Omnipotent", and not Omniscient?"

Ray

omniscent means "all knowing".