PDA

View Full Version : can type of tires make a diff in stoppage time>



dwprog
12-20-2006, 07:51 PM
i was in an accident, the other driver was sighted for failure to yeild while turning left. i left skid marks beofre hitting a fence to avoid the crash. the insurance company is telling me they need to find out how fast i was going from the skid marks. when the police investigated, they just measured the tracks. they didnt even look at my tires or take not even one picture of the accident. so i was wondering if that for some reason they say i was speeding, is there a way to fight it? i have a cheaper tire, the harder rubber. and im pretty sure that the softer rubber would stop faster. i just want to protect my ass because this girl needs to pay for the damages. please help me with information is possible. thanks a lot :sneak:

extremeskillz
12-20-2006, 07:57 PM
yes, but only when the tires start to show wear is when you start seeing stopping issues. For the most part you get what you pay for when it comes to tires. Godd luck with the accident.

Dan3312
12-20-2006, 08:02 PM
Just to comment on the above, typicaly if it's bare pavement you don't need to worry about your tires being worn down unless you're to the threads.

extremeskillz
12-20-2006, 08:14 PM
^ I agree, the pavement is also an issue.

Slider
12-20-2006, 08:29 PM
Yes they can. From 50 miles per hour in the dry I would say you could stop 20 feet sooner with good tires compared to cheap tires. Just a guesstimate though, since the tire tests I read involve a car with ABS.

A stickier tire would've also left shorter skidmarks since it can deliver more stopping power before it reaches its limit unlike for example a harder cheap tire. So your tires might lock up at full braking at 35mph until you stop, while a stickier tire might lock up at 25mph until you stop.

If they say you were speeding, find out how they calculate that. Since the pavement surface has a lot to do with it too.

COLDAX
12-20-2006, 08:48 PM
Just go get a copy of the accident report from the police to find out what they are saying.

hobbie2k
12-21-2006, 02:45 PM
Okay, the skid marks are already there, so you can't change the length now. So, you want the police to know that you have a very hard tire. In addition, you may want to find out what the temp was (colder temps make tires even harder).

However, I do wonder just how much difference there will be between the different tires when you're at full lock. They'll probably just give an estimate +/- 5mph or something like that. They probably just want to be sure you weren't going 100. So if I may ask, were you speeding?

balagast
12-21-2006, 04:35 PM
Well, the skid mark lengths will definately be affected by the type of tire. The only real way its affected though is when your tires actually start to skid. While a good tire has a much higher static coefficient of friction (this relates to the amount of force before your tires slide), the kinetic friction coefficients will not vary very much between good and bad tires.

tankd0g
12-21-2006, 05:06 PM
I've never agreed with this method of speed determination. The only way it would be accurate is if you locked the brakes from the time you hit them and you came to a complete stop without hitting anything.

Fuelish
12-21-2006, 06:53 PM
I've never agreed with this method of speed determination. The only way it would be accurate is if you locked the brakes from the time you hit them and you came to a complete stop without hitting anything.Agreed, and that would still only be a marginally ballpark figure, as tire compounds/road surface/individual vehicle interactions complicate that estimate greatly.....granted, if someone left several hundred feet of skids, they were likely speeding ;) But I feel the same way as to using skids as a "speed determination" ....hell, to be accurate, they'd have to test every possible tire/vehicle combo - ain't gonna happen, and skid-mark "speed" determinations will never be terribly accurate ........ as to the op, your first course of action is to obtain the police report and proceed from there. Good luck :cool:

T-spoon
12-22-2006, 06:35 PM
Frankly it should all be a moot point. If you'd had 500lbs of cocaine in the car, and the other person still failed to yield, the cause of teh accident was not the cocaine's presence. I think it's beyond ridiculous that people try to talk about speeding in an accident where the cause was not speed, but failure to yield. Having the world drive at 5mph is a stupid substitute for actually knowing how to drive.

tankd0g
12-22-2006, 06:43 PM
*However, if you do get in an accident with 500lbs. of cocaine in the car. Keep driving :)

T-spoon
12-22-2006, 06:44 PM
*However, if you do get in an accident with 500lbs. of cocaine in the car. Keep driving :)

Heh, well I mean, your ass should go to jail, but not for causing the accident ;)

davmac
12-22-2006, 07:48 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about your skid marks, etc. Some states always assign a portion of fault for an accident to all parties. No fault states / insurance in its purest form requires the owners insurance to pay regardless of who caused the accident. It is far more likely that the way your state and insurance works will determine who pays and how much.
Estimating speed from skid marks is just that - an estimate. However, if the estimate minus margin of error due to all the wonderful complicating factors of real life conditions already suggested by these posts is still greater than the speed limit then you might have something to worry about. I would be really surprised if you got a speeding ticket, but it is possible you will share some portion of the fault for this accident.

hobbie2k
12-22-2006, 11:37 PM
Frankly it should all be a moot point. If you'd had 500lbs of cocaine in the car, and the other person still failed to yield, the cause of teh accident was not the cocaine's presence. I think it's beyond ridiculous that people try to talk about speeding in an accident where the cause was not speed, but failure to yield. Having the world drive at 5mph is a stupid substitute for actually knowing how to drive.

True, to a point. However, if you're driving excessively fast (ie, faster than people would reasonably expect) you shouldn't be surprised when people "fail to yield". A safe yield when you're doing 50 is an unsafe one when you're doing 80...but the other driver doesn't know you're doing 80.

T-spoon
12-26-2006, 02:21 PM
True, to a point. However, if you're driving excessively fast (ie, faster than people would reasonably expect) you shouldn't be surprised when people "fail to yield". A safe yield when you're doing 50 is an unsafe one when you're doing 80...but the other driver doesn't know you're doing 80.

Honestly unless it's a blind curve, the person pulling out needs to be able to judge speed and distance. If you didn't look long enough to estimate how fast the person would be where you're pulling out, you didn't safely assess the situation before pulling out. If I see someone hauling ass, I don't pull out in front of them, and if I do, I do it FAST and get in a different lane if possible, and if I can't do that safely, I wait. It's pretty easy actually.

hobbie2k
12-27-2006, 06:48 PM
Honestly unless it's a blind curve, the person pulling out needs to be able to judge speed and distance. If you didn't look long enough to estimate how fast the person would be where you're pulling out, you didn't safely assess the situation before pulling out. If I see someone hauling ass, I don't pull out in front of them, and if I do, I do it FAST and get in a different lane if possible, and if I can't do that safely, I wait. It's pretty easy actually.

I didn't say it would be his fault for speed, I said you shouldn't be surprised if people do pull out in front of you when you're speeding. How many people do safely assess the situation before pulling out? By travelling at speeds other drivers would expect, you are minimizing the chance that their assessment will be wrong. A lot of accidents happen because the driver's assumptions were wrong, by doing what they assume you will, you can avoid those accidents.

T-spoon
12-27-2006, 06:54 PM
I didn't say it would be his fault for speed, I said you shouldn't be surprised if people do pull out in front of you when you're speeding. How many people do safely assess the situation before pulling out? By travelling at speeds other drivers would expect, you are minimizing the chance that their assessment will be wrong. A lot of accidents happen because the driver's assumptions were wrong, by doing what they assume you will, you can avoid those accidents.

I understand that, but I'm drawing a hard line about it because due to that mindset I've had some cars destroyed and been in a ton of near misses. There's no logical substitute for paying attention. If every driver were attentive and knew how to do basic things like figure out a simple 4 way stop, speed limits would not be necessary, just warnings that particular areas are dangerous, like the suggested speed yellow signs on corners. One of the big reasons people DON'T pay attention and don't learn is becuase it's expected for people to accomodate them, and one of those accomodations is driving at speeds where if someone ignores lanes, stop signs, turn signals, etc. etc. then MAYBE a serious accident can be avoided. That's very wrong, and it bothers me enough to point out that even talking about the speed he was going in this case is pointless if visability was good, weather was clear and it wasn't a blind curve or something.