Yes, I'm finally getting around to posting photos from
Tuesday night's
hit-and-run. Here's my car (all of these photos link to Flickr
pages with larger sizes available):
The photo I took before my test-drive (not included here, because the
daylight photos came out so much better) has the broken-off part of
the wheel cover up and the remaining part down -- so it looks like
the upper half of my wheel got smacked at least as hard as my fender.
So the handling
problems I observed are really unsurprising. I'm nearly certain
that the alignment is out; I just have to hope that there's nothing
more serious than that as well (folks have suggested lost wheel weights
or a bent wheel -- if that means a bent rim, then I'm
figuring those probably aren't any more serious than needing a
front end alignment). I was told informally by the person I spoke
to at my insurance company that on a seventeen year old car, if there's
any suspension or steering damage, the car will be totalled. Which
was what I had already guessed. It just doesn't take very much to
total a car this old, no matter how nicely it ran beforehand.
( Damage to other cars... )
Finally, here's the car that did all this damage. Around the time I
finished talking to the police, I heard that the car had been located
not far away. So when I took my test drive to evaluate the damage to
my car, I stopped there to take some photos. That was where I found out
that the car had been taken by the (if I'm remembering the relationships
and who was who correctly) owner's daughter's boyfriend. I overheard
the police saying something about how it "wasn't stolen" because the
ignition was intact (someone later clarified that as the distinction
between "theft" and "unauthorized use" of a vehicle ... lawyer friends,
have I understood that correctly?); the owner was calling it stolen,
saying that the boyfriend had swiped the keys; I heard that in the
driver's statement to the police he claimed to have been given
permission to borrow the car (but, uh, what else would you expect
him to say about that[**]?). I'm waiting to hear from the owner's
insurance company whether they're going to cover the damage to my
car and my neighbours' cars, or treat it as a stolen-car situation
and kick it all back to be covered as uninsured-motorist claims.
As you can see, it was the driver's side doors, not the front bumper,
that slammed into the Miata. So the driver must have somehow gotten it
moving at an impressive speed up Lombard St. sideways. We
didn't hear a skid before the thump, and the road didn't seem that
wet when we were standing around waiting for the police (and the remaining
ice was on the sidewalks and in the eastbound parking lane, not in the
travel lanes or behind the Miata), but it was raining and the street was
at least a little wet. I've no idea how fast the car had to have been
moving.
( more damage to the striking car, including bullet holes ... )
A thought expressed several times that night: it's a wonder he
didn't kill anybody. It's lucky nobody was hurt.
Looking for a silver lining to all this: I got to meet more of my
neighbours and got email addresses for a couple of them. And, well,
I got a story to tell (not that my life has any shortage of those!).
[*] Our best guess as to how the broken glass wound up inside the
Miata is this: while the crumple zones fore and aft were crumpling,
the passenger compartment probably flexed and then sprung back. It
probably flexed enough to make a gap between the convertible roof and
the tops of the windows, through which the broken glass flying from
the other car entered. After the impact, when everything that was
going to rebound had rebounded, the passenger compartment was again
closed up as it had been before, but with glass from the other car
inside. Does ayone who know more about automobile crashes care to
comment on how likely this hypothesis sounds?
[**] For that matter, what could you expect the owner to say,
assuming she knows how her insurance works, other than that the
car was stolen? Although I've got a pretty strong gut feeling as
to whether the (unlicensed, IIRC) driver had permission to use
the car, I'll play it safe and just describe this as a "he-said-she-said"
situation until the police and/or the courts and/or the insurance
company figure it out with more certainty.