Even if you make the best effort you can to take care of the guy you hit, because you were driving the car, you are automatically at fault. He'll take whatever your insurance company is willing to give, and then he can still sue you for more if he wants.
No, it doesn't. In most states, cars must yield to pedestrians regardless of where the pedestrian is. 95% of the time, the driver is automatically at fault. The other 5% being when someone is provably trying to get hit by a car so they can collect insurance and lawsuit money. (Which is a large part of the reason why Russian drivers all have dashcams that give us hilarious footage which we snip up into dank memes.)
I recently ran into an old lady and I can confirm this is true. even if it's their fault for being off their meds and diving in the street, it gets reported to your insurance and your rates go up a lot.
Not automatically. Usually the driver is at fault, but for example, if the pedestrian is intoxicated then usually they get pinned with the fines and stuff.
I don't think people are driving away because they are afraid of being sued or having insurance premiums go up. If you hit someone in the middle of the road it means they were jaywalking. In terms of the law, you're not in the wrong, so why drive off and risk being charged with hit and run?
Where do you live? Because in most parts of the USA, regardless of what the pedestrian was doing, if you hit them in a car, you are legally at fault. And people drive away to avoid being sued all the time.
sometimes they do unfortunately. then you have people like in this story. articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/08/news/mn-31784
woman hits a homeless man and he gets stuck in the windshield. somehow makes it home with no on seeing and leaves him in the garage for a few days until he finally died.
i think a movie was made from this story.
"keep me at 0 guys and you win"
He's said this on multiple posts. He's past the point of wanting red thumbs, he's doing it because its pissing everyone off.
Everything he posts there's a response with a ******** of thumbs. A couple of days ago some dude actually got 600+ thumbs for his reply, I'm pretty sure he's referencing that comment. If people keep him at zero they should also keep the replies at zero, but people are thumb whores so that's not going to happen. If it's possible you should set his comment to always hidden, without actually having to click the button.
I do ignore him to a degree, he posted borderline loli and I therefore don't trust him enough to hide all. . But for ***** sake, thumbing him down is not ignoring him.
keeping him at zero really IS the only way to get rid of him and all the trolls who are being inspired by him.
Actually the best way is to thumb him down AND not ******* REPLY TO THEM (not directing this to you btw). I keep saying this: *********** are not the problem, thumbwhores who reply to them are.
So the best way to not give someone what they want is to give them what they want? He wants red thumbs not replies. The best way to get rid of him is to hit HIDE ALL and DO NOT DO ANY ******* THING TO HIM. No thumb down. Don't try to keep him at 0. Just see that there is a post that you can't see because you already hit hide all. Then move on. Because ignoring means ignoring, not paying enough attention to thumb him down. Not paying enough attention to comment. BUT IGNORE HIM.
you have a point but the thing is, most users like me sort comments by highest rated. Literally the ONLY reason I see troll comments is because thumbwhore users reply and other idiots thumb up those replies. The negative thumbs help ensure that, on newest contents where everyone is at 0 thumbs, given that the troll comment has no replies, it will remain on the very bottom of the page.
But I do agree that leaving at 0 can be a good idea, given that idiot users dont reply to it