How fast can you "gun it" while turning and maintain your turning radius?
There isn't much speed to be gained through a turn like that. It's not like she could've gone from 15mph to 80mph while turning in the same radius, I'd like to see a car that can do that (that would be painted tan, no less!).
There's no way the truck didn't see the tan car coming and "I have the right of way!" is no defense when you doing do everything you can to avoid a collision.
Basic physics tells us it's (mostly) the truck's fault.
If you are driving in your lane and a car crosses in front of you, how do you have time to react?
Obviously, in this case, the tan car thought that the truck should have stopped and turned left in front of the on-coming traffic putting herself in an unsafe situation. I am assuming that the truck didn't run the red light BTW.
I just don't see the logic in your arguement saying that if you cut in front of on-coming cars and they hit you in the rear of the car it's the fault of the car that was the lane appropriate for that car.
Yes but the car is moving across the path of the oncoming vehicle. It is possible that the car juts into view at the last moment, and it can't really be proved conclusively. If she had any momentuum approaching the turn, or if she stated to creep away from the turm, neither would leave tracks (from acceleration) yet in the first she might not be visible to the oncoming car untill the last moment and in the latter the oncoming car more likely had an opportunity to see her.
Whether she got hit in the front or the rear is then a functionof how much sped she had and how quickly she cut across as much as it could be a question of how much time the oncoming vehicle had to see her.
There are witnesses, but they'll be distracted and conflicting each other. The tan car says she was waiting, the oncoming driver likely says she jutted out in front. He says it was green, she says it was yellow changing to red, etc etc... You can't really prove either, so the guy who has to yield is guilty because that's all we really know for sure.
But I think there's something in it for your instincts about the behavior of oncoming cars.
BTW, my interest in motorcycles makes me very weary of intersections. From what I've read most motorcyclists (in serious accidents) get creamed by left turning vehicles. It's not like being in a car, obviously. Cars will turn left right in front of you or into the side of you. It's like they don't see you or it doesn't register consciously 'cause the shape is not familiar. Always slow down at least until yopu can see the driver's eyes. You really don't knoe what the heck they may be looking at, and you can't assume they've seen you untill you make eye contact. My own limited experience tells me that being on a bike is like being invisible at intersections. While it's safer to move a little faster than the flow of traffic (on the highway/roadway) it's definitely better to slow down when you see anyone parked in that left turn lane.
That, and big rigs and lane changes. Car or bike. Never pass a big rig as you approach a potential off ramp, or multiple forks in the road. They will pull across at the last minute if they don't see you. You should always get out of their blindspots as quickly as possible, but when you approach these situations, don't even enter.
A co-worker of mine had the front driver's side quarter of his car crunched by a dump-truck changing lanes to catch a ramp. He was fine, but the car was not. On a bike it would have been a different, much more painful, story.
There's no way the truck didn't see the tan car coming and "I have the right of way!" is no defense when you doing do everything you can to avoid a collision.
How do you know the truck didn't pull to the left to avoid hitting the car, but couldn't do it in time, hence, hitting the back of the car. What part of the truck was dented? The whole front or the right front side? That would be evidence that the truck did try to avoid the tan car, but couldn't. How do we know it wasn't rainy and the truck couldn't slam on the brakes? Or there wasn't some obstruction of view of one or both of the cars? Too many unanswered questions, but even disregarding those, the truck has right of way.
A weak visualization (oncoming car put in nearest lane to make my point less effective):
[quote]It is possible that the car juts into view at the last moment, and it can't really be proved conclusively.<hr></blockquote>
Since the tan car is out in the intersection and the yellow car is oncoming, there is no way in hell the oncoming car didn't see the car turning left.
[quote]If she had any momentuum approaching the turn, or if she stated to creep away from the turm, neither would leave tracks (from acceleration) yet in the first she might not be visible to the oncoming car untill the last moment and in the latter the oncoming car more likely had an opportunity to see her.<hr></blockquote>
I can't see a situation where an oncoming car wouldn't be able to see a car turning left at a yellow. The only way was if there was a car between them and that car would have to be involved in the accident as well.
The oncoming car saw the tan car, there's no doubting that. Unless she has Wonder Woman's invisible tan car, there's no way.
[quote]Whether she got hit in the front or the rear is then a functionof how much sped she had and how quickly she cut across as much as it could be a question of how much time the oncoming vehicle had to see her.<hr></blockquote>
Look at the above graphic, you can't accellerate that much without changing your trajectory. And even if she accellerated into the turn the oncoming car had ample time to react and avoid the collision, there is no "suddenly popping up" in this case, no way.
[quote]You can't really prove either, so the guy who has to yield is guilty because that's all we really know for sure.<hr></blockquote>
You avoid the collision if you have the opportunity, the oncoming car had that opportunity and didn't take it.
IF she just darted out in front and he didn't have a chance to hit his brakes the wreck would have to be a giant mess and there would be no question. It sounds like the oncoming car said "**** no you aren't going in front of me" and either maintained his speed or sped up.
[quote]Always slow down at least until yopu can see the driver's eyes.<hr></blockquote>
Exactly, all these people out here driving have a big sense of entitlement and it's dangerous. "I NEED to turn left NOW!" vs. "No way you turn in front of me!"
torifile:
Good questions about the rain and such, but we have to assume normal conditions since we have no detail.
[quote]The whole front or the right front side? That would be evidence that the truck did try to avoid the tan car, but couldn't.<hr></blockquote>
The truck could see the tan car coming, the truck could've avoided the collision unless he contends that the car waited for him to get closer on purpose.
More info is needed, of course, but the fact that the tan car was hit in the back indicates negligence on the truck's part to not stop when it was obvious the car was turning.
This "Oh I have the right of way!" attitude all over the place here drivers will try to scare other drivers by speeding up to assert their dominance. It's no justification for not avoiding the collision.
In this scenario, I don't understand the concept of "light was yellow, so the tan car NEEDED to turn." In driver's ed, I was taught that you don't turn left unless it's safe to turn, even if that means you end up in the middle of the intersection when it's red. If the truck entered on yellow, then the tan car should have yielded right-of-way to it.
Oh, I was also taught to go a third of the way into the intersection when turning left, and this was Illinois.
[Edit: another rule-of-thumb I learned about right-of-way: "If a car has to do something to avoid you, you didn't yield the right of way."]
1) The car making the turn should always give thr right of way to the car going straight.
2) The car making the turn was stopped while the car going straight was in motion.
Including the fact that the light was yellow when the white truck entered the intersection, this is not enough to put blame on the driver of the truck. It is not illegal to enter an intersection when the light is yellow.
-----
Torifile, it is not illegal to creep into the intersection to make a left turn in this state (California) at least.
<strong>In this scenario, I don't understand the concept of "light was yellow, so the tan car NEEDED to turn." In driver's ed, I was taught that you don't turn left unless it's safe to turn, even if that means you end up in the middle of the intersection when it's red. If the truck entered on yellow, then the tan car should have yielded right-of-way to it.
Oh, I was also taught to go a third of the way into the intersection when turning left, and this was Illinois.
[Edit: another rule-of-thumb I learned about right-of-way: "If a car has to do something to avoid you, you didn't yield the right of way."]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Cars run yellow lights all the time here. Cars also run red lights all the time in SF. If I was in the tan car I would have looked to see if the truck was at least slowing down as it apprached the intersection. Even if it was, a lot of people brake at first, then realize they can run the yellow and slam on the accelerator.
I routinely wait for all the cars to pass even if I have to make the left turn after the light has turned red. I'm in the intersection already, cross traffic won't accelerate that fast...I'll have plenty of time to make the turn before the cross traffic even starts moving. Most intersections here have about 1 second of buffer time where all directions face red lights.
So if you run a red light and I hit you, it's my fault 'cause I should have seen you and avoided you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you are driving towards me and I'm not driving towards you, then yeah.
They both should've avoided it, but the truck had ample time to react to avoid the collision and didn't. Just slow down and wait to half-second it would take the car to get past (since the tan car was hit in the back).
A friend of mine's wife was recently involved in a similar accident and that's how the insurance company and police determined the "fault".
there are plenty of situations where yoy might not see. Think of all the possible permutations, not just what is claimed by one poster.
Slap a dedicated left turn lane on that thing, or don't, but put a nice line of car's waiting to go left on the left oncoming lane. Now the truck approaching the intersection wouldn't neccessarily see a left turning tan car unless it was across the line of sight drawn from the driver of the truck to the highest point of the frontmost car waiting to turn left. Not to mention the further obscuring due to moving traffic, it might be heavy, you don't know.
Also the tan car says she was waiting in the intersection, but who's to say that that's even true, maybe she 'thought' she saw an opening and started the turn without ever really slowing down. Those left turn cars waiting to make the opposite left would obscure the oncoming lanes as much as they would obscure the tan car to oncoming cars. The truck and the car would clearly 'surprise' each other then, and assuming the light wasn't red, it would clearly be the car's fault since it was the car's duty to yield to all potential on-coming traffic.
Whether she was waiting at the intersection or not doesn't remove her fault, it just helps explain how the impact could be at the back of her car. And a decent modern car, even a tan one CAN accelerate fast enough to 'almost' get out of the way, we're talking a car length worth of distance, plenty of shitty cars are fast enough to cover it in a split second.
<strong>there are plenty of situations where yoy might not see.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like what?
There would have to be a physical barrier between the two to obstruct sight, no?
What could that possibly be?
The are two explanations:
The truck wasn't paying attention
The truck said "not in front of me, bitch"
[quote]<strong>Now the truck approaching the intersection wouldn't neccessarily see a left turning tan car unless it was across the line of sight drawn from the driver of the truck to the highest point of the frontmost car waiting to turn left. Not to mention the further obscuring due to moving traffic, it might be heavy, you don't know.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If there was a car to the truck's left to obstruct his view then the car obstructing the truck's view would've hit the tan car while going through the light.
[quote]<strong>Also the tan car says she was waiting in the intersection, but who's to say that that's even true, maybe she 'thought' she saw an opening and started the turn without ever really slowing down. Those left turn cars waiting to make the opposite left would obscure the oncoming lanes as much as they would obscure the tan car to oncoming cars. The truck and the car would clearly 'surprise' each other then, and assuming the light wasn't red, it would clearly be the car's fault since it was the car's duty to yield to all potential on-coming traffic.
[quote][qb]And a decent modern car, even a tan one CAN accelerate fast enough to 'almost' get out of the way, we're talking a car length worth of distance, plenty of shitty cars are fast enough to cover it in a split second.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also, cars can also stop pretty damned fast if they want to. If she was able to get the rear-end of her car in front of the truck the truck had time to stop.
If the car swerved right while slamming on the brakes then that's different, but that's not how the story was set up. Even so, I still think the truck didn't do everything it could to avoid the collision, and since it was driving towards the turning vehicle (whether or not it had the right of way) through a yellow to red it had ample opportunity and didn't.
They're both at fault, but the truck moreso than the car.
if a car isn't supposed to be someplace and it get's nailed, it's their own damn fault.
you don't pull into an intersectionn until it's clear. you don't pull a turn in front of oncoming traffic unless it's clear.
the law is quite clear on that.
on your side of the argument, should the truck have stopped? yeah, to be nice. thing is, people aren't legally required to be nice, they just have to obey the law.
the truck was obeying the law, the car wasn't. car's at fault then. period.
I definately have to agree with this. It was the car's fault. Yes it would have been nice if the truck slammed on its brakes and swerved, but he wouldn't have to do that if the tan car didn't cut in front of him.
dxp4acu's latest post says the right side of the truck was damaged so I would conclude that he did at least try to swerve around the car. You have to be careful when you swerve though as this could be a very crowed intersection. He may have not been able to swerve out of his own lane. People almost always slam on the brakes too when they swerve so I would assume the truck did that too.
Skidmarks at the crime scene would be very helpful.
if a car isn't supposed to be someplace and it get's nailed, it's their own damn fault.
you don't pull into an intersectionn until it's clear. you don't pull a turn in front of oncoming traffic unless it's clear.
the law is quite clear on that.
on your side of the argument, should the truck have stopped? yeah, to be nice. thing is, people aren't legally required to be nice, they just have to obey the law.
the truck was obeying the law, the car wasn't. car's at fault then. period.
Exactly. But who is even to say that the truck didn't try and stop. Trucks weight a LOT more than cars and the ammount of time needed to stop is much much higher than a cars, even at lower speeds.
When you say truck, do you mean a pickup truck (Ford Ranger type, or a commercial type?)
Assuming the truck was obeying the speed limit, the car is 100 percent at fault just because it turned left in front of on-coming traffic when it wasn't safe to do so. And it wasn't safe to do so, obviously, because there was an accident.
The tan car is definitly at fault unless the tan car was a cop.
If the tan car was a cop, you are SOL.
As for not pulling into an intersection. I don't know of any US state that doesn't have the following in thier motor vehicle code. Paraphrased [ A motor vehicle can only enter an intersection when it is able to safely traverse same. ] Strangely this applies equally to the turner and the driver going straight. It comes down to who should have seen the other first. For those of you who say that you have to pull into an intersection in order for any cars to turn. You are just screwing yourselves by not having the traffic backup. If there isn't a backup or a lot of accidents then the DoT doesn't have a reason for putting in a traffic control device for turners.
I am not a lawyer, but I have been in over two dozen accidents in 9 different states. Most of them involved an intersection.
If the tan car was a cop, get a good lawyer from the area that knows the local Court.
<strong>I don't know how it is in your state but in NC it's illegal to roll into the intersection prior to turning. You've got to wait at the stop line until you can safely get out of the intersection. So, here at least, it would the tan car's fault because they never should have been in the intersection waiting in the first place. Keep in mind, I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation. Take that for what it's worth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's probably illegal in SC too, but if you don't do that here, you'll never go left. Ever.
Well, with left turns, as I'm sure some folks have told you by now, it's ALWAYS the left-turner's fault. Always. Same can be said for people behind you -- every accident is the fault of the person in the rear.
This whole "the truck didn't have to stop" is garbage, pure and simple. It's his legal obligation avoid the collision, and as was said above, to make sure the intersection was clear before passing through it.
If a kid is walking against a green it's cool for someone to plow him over?
That's using those higher-level thinking skills there!
The truck had more than enough time to avoid the collision, when was the last time someone just BAM turned left in front of you?
"It was Wonder Womans plane, it was invisible then it was in front of me!"
The car was hit in the back, that means the car's motion to turn was obvious and the truck didn't take proper action to stop. You have no universal right to ANYTHING when you're on the road, signals or not.
[quote]I am not a lawyer, but I have been in over two dozen accidents in 9 different states. Most of them involved an intersection.<hr></blockquote>
What?! You have been in at least 25 accidents? Jesus man, take some driving lessons or buy some life insurance (take your pick, depending on whether you caused those accidents, or are just VERY unlucky)
Comments
<strong>
How fast can you "gun it" while turning and maintain your turning radius?
There isn't much speed to be gained through a turn like that. It's not like she could've gone from 15mph to 80mph while turning in the same radius, I'd like to see a car that can do that (that would be painted tan, no less!).
There's no way the truck didn't see the tan car coming and "I have the right of way!" is no defense when you doing do everything you can to avoid a collision.
Basic physics tells us it's (mostly) the truck's fault.
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really don't see your logic, groverat...
If you are driving in your lane and a car crosses in front of you, how do you have time to react?
Obviously, in this case, the tan car thought that the truck should have stopped and turned left in front of the on-coming traffic putting herself in an unsafe situation. I am assuming that the truck didn't run the red light BTW.
I just don't see the logic in your arguement saying that if you cut in front of on-coming cars and they hit you in the rear of the car it's the fault of the car that was the lane appropriate for that car.
Yes but the car is moving across the path of the oncoming vehicle. It is possible that the car juts into view at the last moment, and it can't really be proved conclusively. If she had any momentuum approaching the turn, or if she stated to creep away from the turm, neither would leave tracks (from acceleration) yet in the first she might not be visible to the oncoming car untill the last moment and in the latter the oncoming car more likely had an opportunity to see her.
Whether she got hit in the front or the rear is then a functionof how much sped she had and how quickly she cut across as much as it could be a question of how much time the oncoming vehicle had to see her.
There are witnesses, but they'll be distracted and conflicting each other. The tan car says she was waiting, the oncoming driver likely says she jutted out in front. He says it was green, she says it was yellow changing to red, etc etc... You can't really prove either, so the guy who has to yield is guilty because that's all we really know for sure.
But I think there's something in it for your instincts about the behavior of oncoming cars.
BTW, my interest in motorcycles makes me very weary of intersections. From what I've read most motorcyclists (in serious accidents) get creamed by left turning vehicles. It's not like being in a car, obviously. Cars will turn left right in front of you or into the side of you. It's like they don't see you or it doesn't register consciously 'cause the shape is not familiar. Always slow down at least until yopu can see the driver's eyes. You really don't knoe what the heck they may be looking at, and you can't assume they've seen you untill you make eye contact. My own limited experience tells me that being on a bike is like being invisible at intersections. While it's safer to move a little faster than the flow of traffic (on the highway/roadway) it's definitely better to slow down when you see anyone parked in that left turn lane.
That, and big rigs and lane changes. Car or bike. Never pass a big rig as you approach a potential off ramp, or multiple forks in the road. They will pull across at the last minute if they don't see you. You should always get out of their blindspots as quickly as possible, but when you approach these situations, don't even enter.
A co-worker of mine had the front driver's side quarter of his car crunched by a dump-truck changing lanes to catch a ramp. He was fine, but the car was not. On a bike it would have been a different, much more painful, story.
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>
There's no way the truck didn't see the tan car coming and "I have the right of way!" is no defense when you doing do everything you can to avoid a collision.
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you know the truck didn't pull to the left to avoid hitting the car, but couldn't do it in time, hence, hitting the back of the car. What part of the truck was dented? The whole front or the right front side? That would be evidence that the truck did try to avoid the tan car, but couldn't. How do we know it wasn't rainy and the truck couldn't slam on the brakes? Or there wasn't some obstruction of view of one or both of the cars? Too many unanswered questions, but even disregarding those, the truck has right of way.
[quote]It is possible that the car juts into view at the last moment, and it can't really be proved conclusively.<hr></blockquote>
Since the tan car is out in the intersection and the yellow car is oncoming, there is no way in hell the oncoming car didn't see the car turning left.
[quote]If she had any momentuum approaching the turn, or if she stated to creep away from the turm, neither would leave tracks (from acceleration) yet in the first she might not be visible to the oncoming car untill the last moment and in the latter the oncoming car more likely had an opportunity to see her.<hr></blockquote>
I can't see a situation where an oncoming car wouldn't be able to see a car turning left at a yellow. The only way was if there was a car between them and that car would have to be involved in the accident as well.
The oncoming car saw the tan car, there's no doubting that. Unless she has Wonder Woman's invisible tan car, there's no way.
[quote]Whether she got hit in the front or the rear is then a functionof how much sped she had and how quickly she cut across as much as it could be a question of how much time the oncoming vehicle had to see her.<hr></blockquote>
Look at the above graphic, you can't accellerate that much without changing your trajectory. And even if she accellerated into the turn the oncoming car had ample time to react and avoid the collision, there is no "suddenly popping up" in this case, no way.
[quote]You can't really prove either, so the guy who has to yield is guilty because that's all we really know for sure.<hr></blockquote>
You avoid the collision if you have the opportunity, the oncoming car had that opportunity and didn't take it.
IF she just darted out in front and he didn't have a chance to hit his brakes the wreck would have to be a giant mess and there would be no question. It sounds like the oncoming car said "**** no you aren't going in front of me" and either maintained his speed or sped up.
[quote]Always slow down at least until yopu can see the driver's eyes.<hr></blockquote>
Exactly, all these people out here driving have a big sense of entitlement and it's dangerous. "I NEED to turn left NOW!" vs. "No way you turn in front of me!"
torifile:
Good questions about the rain and such, but we have to assume normal conditions since we have no detail.
[quote]The whole front or the right front side? That would be evidence that the truck did try to avoid the tan car, but couldn't.<hr></blockquote>
The truck could see the tan car coming, the truck could've avoided the collision unless he contends that the car waited for him to get closer on purpose.
More info is needed, of course, but the fact that the tan car was hit in the back indicates negligence on the truck's part to not stop when it was obvious the car was turning.
This "Oh I have the right of way!" attitude all over the place here drivers will try to scare other drivers by speeding up to assert their dominance. It's no justification for not avoiding the collision.
So if you run a red light and I hit you, it's my fault 'cause I should have seen you and avoided you?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Oh, I was also taught to go a third of the way into the intersection when turning left, and this was Illinois.
[Edit: another rule-of-thumb I learned about right-of-way: "If a car has to do something to avoid you, you didn't yield the right of way."]
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: chromos ]</p>
Ignoring the light situation:
1) The car making the turn should always give thr right of way to the car going straight.
2) The car making the turn was stopped while the car going straight was in motion.
Including the fact that the light was yellow when the white truck entered the intersection, this is not enough to put blame on the driver of the truck. It is not illegal to enter an intersection when the light is yellow.
-----
Torifile, it is not illegal to creep into the intersection to make a left turn in this state (California) at least.
<strong>In this scenario, I don't understand the concept of "light was yellow, so the tan car NEEDED to turn." In driver's ed, I was taught that you don't turn left unless it's safe to turn, even if that means you end up in the middle of the intersection when it's red. If the truck entered on yellow, then the tan car should have yielded right-of-way to it.
Oh, I was also taught to go a third of the way into the intersection when turning left, and this was Illinois.
[Edit: another rule-of-thumb I learned about right-of-way: "If a car has to do something to avoid you, you didn't yield the right of way."]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Cars run yellow lights all the time here. Cars also run red lights all the time in SF. If I was in the tan car I would have looked to see if the truck was at least slowing down as it apprached the intersection. Even if it was, a lot of people brake at first, then realize they can run the yellow and slam on the accelerator.
I routinely wait for all the cars to pass even if I have to make the left turn after the light has turned red. I'm in the intersection already, cross traffic won't accelerate that fast...I'll have plenty of time to make the turn before the cross traffic even starts moving. Most intersections here have about 1 second of buffer time where all directions face red lights.
<strong>groverat, have you lost your mind?
So if you run a red light and I hit you, it's my fault 'cause I should have seen you and avoided you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you are driving towards me and I'm not driving towards you, then yeah.
They both should've avoided it, but the truck had ample time to react to avoid the collision and didn't. Just slow down and wait to half-second it would take the car to get past (since the tan car was hit in the back).
A friend of mine's wife was recently involved in a similar accident and that's how the insurance company and police determined the "fault".
(Heh heh heh. It's funny how you all say my girlfriend was in the tan car. )
(So obviously the cops gave the ticket to the white truck.)
Thanks for posting everybody. This has really helped!!!!
(and the truck was in the far lane)
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: dxp4acu ]</p>
there are plenty of situations where yoy might not see. Think of all the possible permutations, not just what is claimed by one poster.
Slap a dedicated left turn lane on that thing, or don't, but put a nice line of car's waiting to go left on the left oncoming lane. Now the truck approaching the intersection wouldn't neccessarily see a left turning tan car unless it was across the line of sight drawn from the driver of the truck to the highest point of the frontmost car waiting to turn left. Not to mention the further obscuring due to moving traffic, it might be heavy, you don't know.
Also the tan car says she was waiting in the intersection, but who's to say that that's even true, maybe she 'thought' she saw an opening and started the turn without ever really slowing down. Those left turn cars waiting to make the opposite left would obscure the oncoming lanes as much as they would obscure the tan car to oncoming cars. The truck and the car would clearly 'surprise' each other then, and assuming the light wasn't red, it would clearly be the car's fault since it was the car's duty to yield to all potential on-coming traffic.
Whether she was waiting at the intersection or not doesn't remove her fault, it just helps explain how the impact could be at the back of her car. And a decent modern car, even a tan one CAN accelerate fast enough to 'almost' get out of the way, we're talking a car length worth of distance, plenty of shitty cars are fast enough to cover it in a split second.
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>there are plenty of situations where yoy might not see.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like what?
There would have to be a physical barrier between the two to obstruct sight, no?
What could that possibly be?
The are two explanations:
The truck wasn't paying attention
The truck said "not in front of me, bitch"
[quote]<strong>Now the truck approaching the intersection wouldn't neccessarily see a left turning tan car unless it was across the line of sight drawn from the driver of the truck to the highest point of the frontmost car waiting to turn left. Not to mention the further obscuring due to moving traffic, it might be heavy, you don't know.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If there was a car to the truck's left to obstruct his view then the car obstructing the truck's view would've hit the tan car while going through the light.
[quote]<strong>Also the tan car says she was waiting in the intersection, but who's to say that that's even true, maybe she 'thought' she saw an opening and started the turn without ever really slowing down. Those left turn cars waiting to make the opposite left would obscure the oncoming lanes as much as they would obscure the tan car to oncoming cars. The truck and the car would clearly 'surprise' each other then, and assuming the light wasn't red, it would clearly be the car's fault since it was the car's duty to yield to all potential on-coming traffic.
[quote][qb]And a decent modern car, even a tan one CAN accelerate fast enough to 'almost' get out of the way, we're talking a car length worth of distance, plenty of shitty cars are fast enough to cover it in a split second.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also, cars can also stop pretty damned fast if they want to. If she was able to get the rear-end of her car in front of the truck the truck had time to stop.
If the car swerved right while slamming on the brakes then that's different, but that's not how the story was set up. Even so, I still think the truck didn't do everything it could to avoid the collision, and since it was driving towards the turning vehicle (whether or not it had the right of way) through a yellow to red it had ample opportunity and didn't.
They're both at fault, but the truck moreso than the car.
if a car isn't supposed to be someplace and it get's nailed, it's their own damn fault.
you don't pull into an intersectionn until it's clear. you don't pull a turn in front of oncoming traffic unless it's clear.
the law is quite clear on that.
on your side of the argument, should the truck have stopped? yeah, to be nice. thing is, people aren't legally required to be nice, they just have to obey the law.
the truck was obeying the law, the car wasn't. car's at fault then. period.
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
<strong>groverat, are ou on crack?
you don't pull into an intersectionn until it's clear. you don't pull a turn in front of oncoming traffic unless it's clear.
the law is quite clear on that.
the truck was obeying the law, the car wasn't. car's at fault then. period.
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I definately have to agree with this. It was the car's fault. Yes it would have been nice if the truck slammed on its brakes and swerved, but he wouldn't have to do that if the tan car didn't cut in front of him.
dxp4acu's latest post says the right side of the truck was damaged so I would conclude that he did at least try to swerve around the car. You have to be careful when you swerve though as this could be a very crowed intersection. He may have not been able to swerve out of his own lane. People almost always slam on the brakes too when they swerve so I would assume the truck did that too.
Skidmarks at the crime scene would be very helpful.
<strong>groverat, are ou on crack?
if a car isn't supposed to be someplace and it get's nailed, it's their own damn fault.
you don't pull into an intersectionn until it's clear. you don't pull a turn in front of oncoming traffic unless it's clear.
the law is quite clear on that.
on your side of the argument, should the truck have stopped? yeah, to be nice. thing is, people aren't legally required to be nice, they just have to obey the law.
the truck was obeying the law, the car wasn't. car's at fault then. period.
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. But who is even to say that the truck didn't try and stop. Trucks weight a LOT more than cars and the ammount of time needed to stop is much much higher than a cars, even at lower speeds.
When you say truck, do you mean a pickup truck (Ford Ranger type, or a commercial type?)
Assuming the truck was obeying the speed limit, the car is 100 percent at fault just because it turned left in front of on-coming traffic when it wasn't safe to do so. And it wasn't safe to do so, obviously, because there was an accident.
If the tan car was a cop, you are SOL.
As for not pulling into an intersection. I don't know of any US state that doesn't have the following in thier motor vehicle code. Paraphrased [ A motor vehicle can only enter an intersection when it is able to safely traverse same. ] Strangely this applies equally to the turner and the driver going straight. It comes down to who should have seen the other first. For those of you who say that you have to pull into an intersection in order for any cars to turn. You are just screwing yourselves by not having the traffic backup. If there isn't a backup or a lot of accidents then the DoT doesn't have a reason for putting in a traffic control device for turners.
I am not a lawyer, but I have been in over two dozen accidents in 9 different states. Most of them involved an intersection.
If the tan car was a cop, get a good lawyer from the area that knows the local Court.
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>I don't know how it is in your state but in NC it's illegal to roll into the intersection prior to turning. You've got to wait at the stop line until you can safely get out of the intersection. So, here at least, it would the tan car's fault because they never should have been in the intersection waiting in the first place. Keep in mind, I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation. Take that for what it's worth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's probably illegal in SC too, but if you don't do that here, you'll never go left. Ever.
Well, with left turns, as I'm sure some folks have told you by now, it's ALWAYS the left-turner's fault. Always. Same can be said for people behind you -- every accident is the fault of the person in the rear.
This whole "the truck didn't have to stop" is garbage, pure and simple. It's his legal obligation avoid the collision, and as was said above, to make sure the intersection was clear before passing through it.
If a kid is walking against a green it's cool for someone to plow him over?
That's using those higher-level thinking skills there!
The truck had more than enough time to avoid the collision, when was the last time someone just BAM turned left in front of you?
"It was Wonder Womans plane, it was invisible then it was in front of me!"
The car was hit in the back, that means the car's motion to turn was obvious and the truck didn't take proper action to stop. You have no universal right to ANYTHING when you're on the road, signals or not.
Both are liable, the truck moreso.
What?! You have been in at least 25 accidents? Jesus man, take some driving lessons or buy some life insurance (take your pick, depending on whether you caused those accidents, or are just VERY unlucky)