Kubota RTV and CAR Accident.

[aczlan]

Any body with 20/200 vision has no buisness being on the road in anything that has a motor.

Anybody with vision that cannot be corrected to at least 20/200 is legally blind. That the 20/200 refers to is that they see something 20 feet like someone with "normal vision" would see it at 200 feet. My uncorrected vision is worse than that (20/200 generally requires a prescription of -2 to -2.5, my glasses and contacts are -8.00) but my CORRECTED vision is about 20/20. There is no way I would drive without my glasses. It is unsafe for myself and everyone else on the road.

LD1, what is your bothers corrected vision? Is 20/200 the best he can get, or it is better when he has glasses/contacts on?

Aaron Z

 

[riptides]

1*But what I do know is 20/200 vision is not legal for driving any motorized vehicle on the highway.
Makes no difference what type of vehicle or what it's purpose is for.

You need to read up on states laws then for people with visual impairments. Perhaps if you do some research on what the options are if one fails the standard driving eye exam. The magic words are "corrected vision" and "Special exceptions". Go do some more reading or perhaps visit your states DMV site.

 

[David_Kb7uns]

The Kubota insurance that I had for tractors and RTV expressly say they will not cover on road use. Have had people driving tractors to town here to go shopping because they have no license and police have stopped them and told them incorrect use of farm equipment. If it quacks and smell like a duck it must be one. The RTV is being used as a car by an unlicensed driver (around here you need a license for off property off road vehicle use).

David Kb7uns

 

[Low Bucket]

(Maybe the blinker was on,) maybe not. Bottom line is one person was legally on the highway the other was not, so who is to blame?

Now the kid admits the signal was on.- If you read that part?

His brother was legal to be driving the RTV on the highway according to the state law in Ohio, and he had insurance.- So he has just as much right as anyone else.- If it was against Ohio laws, then the officer would have told his brother to stay off the road!

The kid was to blame.- He seen the signal light on, but passed anyway and caused the accident.- Case Closed!

personal insurance ON THE RTV, NOT LIABILITY!

You need to reread.- His brother had insurance, and it's paying half.

Sure did, but who is to say when that young man had to be at school? Just because the school opens dos not mean all students have to be there at that time.

Education is very important in my home.

If the kid wants a good education.-Then he better be on time, but he needs to give himself more time to get there without speeding and causing an accident.

How do you know what time he needed to be there?

From what I've read.-He was in a big hurry, so he must have been late.

The HS kid said his blinker ""was not on"" when he started to pass legally. One driver said yes blinker was on the other said it was not. The officer did say it was on after the accident, that proves nothing{he could have flipped the switch during or even after finishing the turn}.

Now we know the signal light was on- Because the KID said it was on.- But the kid was late for school and in a big hurry.-The KID also didn't want to call the law- Wonder why?

I know guys that don't act drunk{when drinking} and know they can not safely operate a motor vehicle, maybe they should get dirt bikes?

You have mentioned drinking and driving several times in this thread, and it doesn't have anything to do with it.

I must be missing something here!
NO LICENCE
POOR VISION
NOT LEGAL ACCORDING TO STATE LAW AS FOR THE USE OF THE VIECHLE

OP said he checked the law very carefully, and could find no problems, yet it took me 3 min to find the Ohio laws that says it's not legal.
I guess in WV you don't follow the laws,(AND why are you so intent on crucifying the KID.)

Typing in 'all caps' is yelling.

His brother was legal to be on the road.-He had insurance, and the officer never told him it was illegal.-The officer never mentioned it.- It's in this thread.- His brother is also going to keep driving the RTV to work.

OP posted the state laws for Ohio.- It may not be legal where you live.

I know the laws in WV and I obey them.- If you don't know, we have the Hatfield-McCoy trail system here.- I can ride my ATV or UTV off the trail system and ride the state road to another entry to the trail system.- But, You are required to have insurance.- If I'm not riding the Hatfield-McCoy trail system, I can still ride on the state road any where in my county, as long as I have insurance.

To answer your question about the KID.- The KID seen the signal light, but passed anyway because he was late for school.- He also passed 150YDS from a stop sign.

If the kid would have let the person make his left turn, then 'we' wouldn't be discussing this.- So the kid caused the accident, because the guy had his signal light on, but the officer is also at fault, because he didn't do a complete investigation.- The KID also didn't want to call the law.

As an update, grange finished their investigation and deemed both drivers equally at fault. The kids ins is going to pay half and **grange will pay half.**


I agree that the officer should have investigated it more. When the accident first happened, some of the workers at the school came out and offered to call the police. At first the {other kid didnt want to,} he just wanted to be on his way. Bottom line is, {he was in a hurry.} The accident happend 15min before he needed to be at his school which was 35min away. To top it off, he passed only about 150yds from a stop sign.

(*The kid admited seeing the signal,*) which would indicate that he was still behind the rtv, and yet no skid marks as if to try to stop.


Bottom line is, that the kubota is fixed, the insurance is handling the other car, and he is going to continue to do just what he has been doing.

I hope your brother stays safe while driving to work.

It's a shame he had to go through this, and the officer should have done a better investigation.- Could be a new officer?

 

[kenstrac]

Now the kid admits the signal was on.- If you read that part?

His brother was legal to be driving the RTV on the highway according to the state law in Ohio, and he had insurance.- So he has just as much right as anyone else.- If it was against Ohio laws, then the officer would have told his brother to stay off the road!

The kid was to blame.- He seen the signal light on, but passed anyway and caused the accident.- Case Closed!
Better open it up again

The part that I need advice on is that they sited my brother. The other driver claimed my brother signaled too late but knowing my brother he always signals way too soon. The cop based the sitation on 3 reasons

1. He said that with the flashers on, when you turn the signals on it is very difficult to see the signal.

You need to reread.- His brother had insurance, and it's paying half.




Education is very important in my home.

If the kid wants a good education.-Then he better be on time, but he needs to give himself more time to get there without speeding and causing an accident.

How do you know what time he needed to be there?


From what I've read.-He was in a big hurry, so he must have been late.

NOT IN THE FIRST POST

Now we know the signal light was on- Because the KID said it was on.- But the kid was late for school and in a big hurry.-The KID also didn't want to call the law- Wonder why?

He put it on to late

You have mentioned drinking and driving several times in this thread, and it doesn't have anything to do with it.

Typing in 'all caps' is yelling.

You don't understand anything in lower caps!

His brother was legal to be on the road.-He had insurance, and the officer never told him it was illegal.-The officer never mentioned it.- It's in this thread.- His brother is also going to keep driving the RTV to work.

Background info:
We live in Ohio. He is legally blind and has been riding a under 50cc moped two miles to his work for the last several years as he can never get a license due to his vision.
OP posted the state laws for Ohio.- It may not be legal where you live.

I posted the state laws for OHIO

I know the laws in WV and I obey them.- If you don't know, we have the Hatfield-McCoy trail system here.- I can ride my ATV or UTV off the trail system and ride the state road to another entry to the trail system.- But, You are required to have insurance.- If I'm not riding the Hatfield-McCoy trail system, I can still ride on the state road any where in my county, as long as I have insurance.

To answer your question about the KID.- The KID seen the signal light, but passed anyway because he was late for school.- He also passed 150YDS from a stop sign.

If the kid would have let the person make his left turn, then 'we' wouldn't be discussing this.- So the kid caused the accident, because the guy had his signal light on, but the officer is also at fault, because he didn't do a complete investigation.- The KID also didn't want to call the law.



I hope your brother stays safe while driving to work.

It's a shame he had to go through this, and the officer should have done a better investigation.- Could be a new officer?

From the first post the story has changed to favor the OP's brother.

WOULD YOU LIKE A LEGALLY BLIND PERSON BE ON THE ROAD WITH YOUR WIFE OR KIDS.
The only thing legal here is his blindness.

 

[Big Bri]

From the first post the story has changed to favor the OP's brother.

WOULD YOU LIKE A LEGALLY BLIND PERSON BE ON THE ROAD WITH YOUR WIFE OR KIDS.
The only thing legal here is his blindness.

That is the best thing stated in this whole thead!

 

[kyspartan]

Well as an insurance agent...but not a traffic accident expert get professional advice.

Don't assume the officer was correct on any point. Hope my link to Ohio driver training book helps. http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/hsy7607.pdf

A quick look of their drivers book (in more than one area) gives me reason to believe the other driver is at best partly liable. Also look for max speeds at schools where it sounds like this happened.

To me it seems you and your brother are not trying to do anything wrong as he made effort to be legal to begin with.

But the main thing is no one was hurt and don't loose sight of that.

Do let me add, anything you are turning left you should check for driving passing regardless of what you are driving for there are nuts out there.

this is the best advice, i am visually impaired also, if were me i would pay to get the car fixed and start looking for some kind ins to cover that

 

[LBrown59]

The Kubota insurance that I had for tractors and RTV expressly say they will not cover on road use. Have had people driving tractors to town here to go shopping because they have no license and police have stopped them and told them incorrect use of farm equipment. If it quacks and smell like a duck it must be one. The RTV is being used as a car by an unlicensed driver (around here you need a license for off property off road vehicle use).

David Kb7uns

From the first post the story has changed to favor the OP's brother.

WOULD YOU LIKE A LEGALLY BLIND PERSON BE ON THE ROAD WITH YOUR WIFE OR KIDS.
*The only thing legal here is his blindness.

* Good one

 

[LBrown59]

this is the best advice, i am visually impaired also, if were me i would pay to get the car fixed and
1*start looking for some kind ins to cover that

1*It's going to be hard if not impossible to get any insurer to insure him for liability when he is legally blind.

The magic words are 2."corrected vision" and "Special exceptions".

2*The problem is he is unwilling to persue the correctd vision route.

 

[20 20]

From the first post the story has changed to favor the OP's brother.

WOULD YOU LIKE A LEGALLY BLIND PERSON BE ON THE ROAD WITH YOUR WIFE OR KIDS.
The only thing legal here is his blindness.

Low Bucket; what's your opinion on this statement? How would you feel with a blind person "driving" on the road with your wife and kids??? If they{wife and kids} were in a hurry and hit by a blind person which side of the argument would you be on?



Kenstrac; very well put, I agree.