My Model 3 Got Wrecked Today :(

[whitex]

Will you say that when she causes the next accident ?

I will say the government decided to prioritize law enforcement elsewhere (murders, rapes, robberies maybe?). I provided all the information to the police in a silver platter (name, plates, video, pictures, witness testimony). It is not my job to enforce laws or catch criminals. If anyone wants to change that, go vote, get involved in the political process.

 

[SageBrush]

I provided all the information to the police in a silver platter (name, plates, video, pictures, witness testimony).

Well done. Perhaps all that was missing was her location.

It is not my job to enforce laws or catch criminals.

Myopic. Good citizenry is not legislated , codified in law, or well paid.

 

[goEVs]

I've heard this is a reason that many drunk drivers live while their victims may end up dying or having more serious injuries - because the victims are all aware they're about to be slammed head-on, and the drunk driver is unaware. But I have no sources.

Thanks for asking the question. My massage therapist (LMT) told me that. I don't have the research studies to support the claim. I guess going with the flow/direction of the movement/force in a relaxing mode does sound less impactful than in an uptight mode. It's like "flowing" rather than "fighting" when going through challenging life situations.

 

[Candleflame]

Sure could - and doesn’t take much income to owe 15k these days

its not about that. he is essentially claiming the taxbreak twice for one car.

 

[TT97]

its not about that. he is essentially claiming the taxbreak twice for one car.

Why one car? They will need to buy a new car (with a different VIN).

 

[MorrisonHiker]

its not about that. he is essentially claiming the taxbreak twice for one car.

They would claim it once on the totaled car and then again on a new car. Since both would be purchased in the same year, they could take the tax credit twice in one year.

 

[MikeQ]

I have a feeling though that the number of death from street racing is a lot lower than drunk driving. I know I personally narrowly escaped a very serious injury when a drunk driver slammed into my own car that was parked and totaled it (i had left a few minutes prior thankfully). I never encountered any issues with street racers.

I am not necessarily discounting what you are saying.. I just want you to remind you that we can do some very very stupid things when we are drunk such as driving in a straight line in a wide lane and suddenly decide to steer into one of the parked vehicles. That’s something that never really came into my mind until that accident.

Also avoiding the fast lane except when driving fast (or just use it for passing) is a good way to avoid/minimize street racers...

I'm in no way saying that drunk driving is okay. I'm saying that at least a drunk person has a reason for their impaired judgement. Street racers are doing what they are doing with their mental faculties fully operational. They should both go to jail. The street racer should get a cell with an extra friendly cellmate.

 

[jddssc121]

I came for all the internet lawyers. I was not disappointed.

 

[jddssc121]

Then as many of these as possible and the addition of monthly high risk insurance, which on average in Washington State is $2122 per month.

Those $'s quoted on the linked page are annual costs, not monthly. You honestly think the average high risk driver in WA state pays $24K/year for insurance?

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Those $'s quoted on the linked page are annual costs, not monthly. You honestly think the average high risk driver in WA state pays $24K/year for insurance?

You are correct - that seemed high - I pay about that for 7 cars here in VA every six months (inclusive of two Teslas).

 

[Reid]

I view it as assault with a deadly weapon. Some spoon time in jail with Bubba for a couple months should resolve the behavior.

Good luck with that. Ask all the slain pedestrians/cyclists/motorcyclists who have been hit by cars. Slap on the wrist, usually, and that's for a death. Not for bumps and bruises (no offense to OP).

In our state anything 20 MPH over the speed limit is automatic reckless driving and a 4 day stay in jail and additionally combination of several of these charges give the officer arrest authority.

I searched for '20' in your post and didn't find anything to support your assertion.

It's been awhile since I lived in WA, but when I did, I regularly heard the exact same thing that anything over 20mph over the limit was automatic negligent, yet I've gotten tickets that show that is false.

In fact, *any* speed over the limit is prima facie evidence of reckless or negligent, IIRC, but that doesn't mean the LEO has to cite you for it.

As for the dashcam discussion (meant to quote it earlier), I don't think a dashcam would have mattered because fault will not be in dispute here. IMO, the dashcam is a tool that solves a very very narrow problem.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

I live in VA - Va. Senate passes bill updating reckless driving law

WASHINGTON — Drivers caught traveling 11 mph faster than the speed limit on parts of Interstate 95, among other Virginia highways, would no longer come with the threat of jail time under a bill passed by the state Senate Tuesday.

Under current law, any speeding violation over 80 mph automatically becomes a reckless driving charge, a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine, even if the posted speed limit is 70 mph.


The change, proposed again by Sen. David Suetterlein of the Roanoke area, would raise the automatic reckless driving threshold to 85 mph. It would remain reckless driving to travel 20 mph or more over any speed limit that is lower than 70 mph.


Although the Senate has supported similar bills since the legislature approved the 70 mph speed limits in 2010, such measures have died in the House.

The Senate voted 23-16 in favor of the bill in a vote that did not track along party lines.

“I hope the House now sees the wisdom of it,” Suetterlein said.

Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, whose district includes portions of Interstate 81, argued that the reckless driving penalties keep many people from driving faster than 80 mph, which keeps highways safer.

“When there’s a problem on Interstate 81, somebody dies a fiery death,” Obenshain said. “It is not a panacea, but it saves lives.”

Fairfax Sen. Scott Surovell, a lawyer who has represented drivers facing reckless driving charges, said the penalties that would remain — fines and points on a driver’s license — could still serve as a deterrent.

“I don’t believe that the fact that this is reckless driving versus speeding deters anybody from driving 80 versus 85,” Surovell said. “The people that come to me that are charged with reckless driving often have no clue they can go to jail for driving 81 mph on a road in Virginia. In most other states, this is not the kind of thing you can go to jail for.”

Sen. Dick Black, R-Loudoun County, called the threat of jail time for traveling 11 mph over a speed limit “fundamentally unfair.”

 

[Candleflame]

They would claim it once on the totaled car and then again on a new car. Since both would be purchased in the same year, they could take the tax credit twice in one year.

the difference is that the insuranc would reimburse him the tax as well. i.e. if he payed 35k for his Model 3 he would get 35k back from the insurance too. it might work but it is slightly shady (not that the insurance business is anything but shady anyway)

 

[MorrisonHiker]

the difference is that the insuranc would reimburse him the tax as well. i.e. if he payed 35k for his Model 3 he would get 35k back from the insurance too. it might work but it is slightly shady (not that the insurance business is anything but shady anyway)

Maybe so but he would only be claiming the tax credit once per car.

 

[Ulmo]

I've always wondered how a Model S would handle an accident like this with the child seats in the rear...

There are examples of the children dying in just such accidents. Model S puts a lot of effort to avoid that, but it happens. Middle seats would be better.

 

[Ulmo]

I know that road very well. One day saw a car in the mirror going at least 90 there, followed a ways-back by State patrol. Obviously I kept out of the way. I got off on Mercer Island and saw he had been caught.; nice. Have seen a few races on I-90 and obviously stay out of the way and out of fast lane. I drove 65 in HOV on occasion around there. However If I see someone flying in the HOV lane i will normally get out the way.

Even on a less picky note, going into an S-curve with many exits is not a safe place to continue a straight-oriented race. I don't like people who race on public roads, but sometimes one of the people is an aggressor and the other is just trying to get away, and obviously it's hard to know which is which. (In the case of a Camero & a BMW, it's less likely that either was trying to just get away (generally BMWs tend to be butt heads and Cameros are showoffs).) But it's not acceptable to anyone logical that they entered the blind curve at a speed too fast to react to the objects in the blind curve. I wouldn't be at all surprised if drugs were involved. Even in the unlikely event one of those two were trying to get away from the other, one poster said the straight bridge section is long, so they had plenty of opportunity to slow down and let the stupid aggressor pass. The fact they didn't try that before the S curve tells me they were both stupid aggressors.

 

[Az_Rael]

the difference is that the insuranc would reimburse him the tax as well. i.e. if he payed 35k for his Model 3 he would get 35k back from the insurance too. it might work but it is slightly shady (not that the insurance business is anything but shady anyway)

He would only get that much back if he had new car replacement on his policy. Normally the insurance reimburses you for actual cash value, so as soon as you drive that Model 3 off the lot, it instantly depreciates some amount. They reimburse the depreciated amount (and only reimbusrse the sales tax/registration on that depreciated amount). Now, the 3 at this moment may not depreciate much (or any) due to the waiting list, but that is only a temporary situation.

I don’t think it is shady at all to claim two tax credits in one year based on a wreck. If you buy two cars in one year, you can take two tax credits. The OP intended to buy the cars for himself, not for resale, which is all the IRS requires. If the IRS thought differently, the program would be set up differently. For example, in CA, you have to own the car 30 months to keep the state rebate. They require reimbursement if the car is sold or otherwise transferred earlier than that.

 

[ChadS]

There are examples of the children dying in just such accidents. Model S puts a lot of effort to avoid that, but it happens. Middle seats would be better.

True, but there are examples of children dying in every seating position. No seat is perfectly safe, you want to use the ones with the fewest injuries and deaths when you have a choice of placement.

The center of the second row is no doubt the best spot. But the rear-facing seats are likely as safe as the second-row outboard seats - perhaps even better, though it seems close (at least from research I did when my kids were small, though that was a while ago). Less because of vehicle structure and more because accidents that hit the rear of the car tend to have far lower speed differentials.

(Obviously there are exceptions, but to calculate relative safety you have to consider all accidents).

 

[bhzmark]

I don’t think it is shady at all to claim two tax credits in one year based on a wreck.

[EDIT TO ADD: THIS IS WRONG -- SEE CORRECTION BELOW]

I think if the car is totaled and you keep it in your garage as a novelty item, so long as it is still powered by electricity (?) and then also buy a new one, you can keep the first credit and also get a second tax credit.

But if you transfer the totaled car to the insurance company, or is designee, as is likely, you probably have a recapture event under the rules and you have add back in the old credit, but then deduct it right back out with the new credit if you buy a new car leaving you with net one credit either within the same year or over different years.

26 CFR 1.30-1 - Definition of qualified electric vehicle and recapture of credit for qualified electric vehicle.

(2)Recapture event -

(i)In general. A recapture event occurs if, within 3 full years from the date a qualified electric vehicle is placed in service, the vehicle ceases to be a qualified electric vehicle. A vehicle ceases to be a qualified electric vehicle if -

(A) The vehicle is modified so that it is no longer primarily powered by electricity;

(B) The vehicle is used in a manner described in section 50(b); or

(C) The taxpayer receiving the credit under section 30 sells or disposes of the vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used in a manner described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.

 

[mblakele]

I think if the car is totaled and you keep it in your garage as a novelty item, so long as it is still powered by electricity (?) and then also buy a new one, you can keep the first credit and also get a second tax credit.

But if you transfer the totaled car to the insurance company, or is designee, as is likely, you probably have a recapture event under the rules and you have add back in the old credit, but then deduct it right back out with the new credit if you buy a new car leaving you with net one credit either within the same year or over different years.

26 CFR 1.30-1 - Definition of qualified electric vehicle and recapture of credit for qualified electric vehicle.

(2)Recapture event -

(i)In general. A recapture event occurs if, within 3 full years from the date a qualified electric vehicle is placed in service, the vehicle ceases to be a qualified electric vehicle. A vehicle ceases to be a qualified electric vehicle if -

(A) The vehicle is modified so that it is no longer primarily powered by electricity;

(B) The vehicle is used in a manner described in section 50(b); or

(C) The taxpayer receiving the credit under section 30 sells or disposes of the vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used in a manner described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.

Aren't you ignoring the "and knows or has reason to know..." part?

Anyway if we keep reading:

(ii)Exception for disposition. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this section, a sale or other disposition (including a disposition by reason of an accident or other casualty) of a qualified electric vehicle is not a recapture event.​

This is not legal or tax advice. But the way I read it, transferring a totaled EV to insurance will not trigger recapture. Parted out? Not a problem. Even if someone buys it at auction and drops an ICE into it, the taxpayer doesn't know that and has no reason to know that.