[quote]If a kid is walking against a green it's cool for someone to plow him over? <hr></blockquote>
nope, but then pedestrians always have the right of way, even against the light.
bikes have the right of way over cars, and pedestrians over bikes.
when it comes to two cars though, you have to look at what they're doing. the car going straight has the right of way, the car turning does not.
any accident involving the car turning left is always the turning car's fault.
when you say the driver of the truck is obligated to miss the other car, that's wrong. he isn't.
he's obligated to stay in his lane. period. if the driver of the truck swerves to miss the turning car and hits someone else, that's his fault. he should stay in his lane, where he has the right to be, and plow into the other car if necessary. (from a legal standpoint)
if he tried to miss the car and hits someone else, he's screwed.
i worked for a few years as a paralegal where they did a wide variety of prosecutions for this kind of crap. the truck was doing what it was supposed to, the car was wrong. anything else the truck could have done (short of slamming on the brakes) would open the driver up to legal liablity for any other accidents they could have caused.
I think what we definately need is more information.
1. Was it a divided or undivided highway?
2. Posted speed limit..what was it? 45 or 55mph?
3. Is there a curve or an incline?
All of those make a huge impact (no pun intended) on the scene.
[quote]Just then a white truck comes through the light going the opposite way and hits the tan car.
<hr></blockquote>
This sounds like the driver of tan car wasn't paying attention, because unless there is an incline or curve right there, cars don't just "suddenly" appear! Obviously if she had properly checked the intersection, she would have seen this white truck coming down the roadway and waited.
[quote]This takes place at a stoplight on a 4 lane street, 2 lanes going north and 2 going south<hr></blockquote>
No turn lane?
[quote]The light turns yellow. The tan car has to get out of the lane, so they turn left.
<hr></blockquote>
Why was it in the lane? What state is this in?
[quote]The tan car had turned just in front of the white truck, but had to get out of the lane.
<hr></blockquote>
Admission of guilt right there...first you say that the white truck just appeared out of nowhere..then you say that.
Or perhaps I misunderstood and you are saying why she pulled out in front of the truck? So the answer would be that it just appeared..very X-fileish. Again, driver inattention.
[quote]the cop blamed her<hr></blockquote>
He didn't blame her, he just took the facts down and listed her as Car #1, which is what I would have done too. The police officer doesn't pass out judgement at the scene..I mean, he can say what he wants, but only a judge can pass judgement.
Grover,
I now charge you with the responsibility of finding out the law in Texas about turning against traffic...can you enter the intersection before the opposing lane of traffic is cleared?
I know Texas is filled with ****ed up drivers, but surely they do have some laws!!
The car was hit in the back. The truck had damage to the front right.
1) The car was mostly passed by.
2) The truck swerved to avoid.
If there was a curve right before the light it was bad road layout and it's mostly the tan car's fault (though the truck should've been going at a speed to where he could stop if he needed to going around a curve if it was there).
If it was relatively straight for a while before the intersection the truck didn't slow down or stop enough to avoid the collision.
If your only responsiblity is to stay in your lane, what about a stalled car? Someone who had to stop while making a left due to an obstruction or pedestrian?
It's not so concrete, that's why both are responsible for parts of it, not 100% either way.
We need more detail, I probably overshot giving 75% blame to the truck and 25% to the car.
I can't see a situation where it would be "Tan Car's fault, 100%, end of story."
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)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I also average 30,000 miles a year.
My work van odometer passed 300,000 last month.
Yes, two of my accidents were mostly my fault.
And I guess you could say that I am an unlucky person. Or you could say that I am foolish and when put in the situation of this thread I would have stayed in my lane and hit the tan car as it crossed in front of me.
P.S. In many states accidents with a bicycle is no different then with a vehicle. The bike is required to follow all of the states vehicle codes. I know someone that was charged with vehicular homocide when they ran over a little girl in the street while riding a bike recklessly.
The car was hit in the back. The truck had damage to the front right.
1) The car was mostly passed by.
2) The truck swerved to avoid.<hr></blockquote>
This you do not know for sure (about #1&2)
He did say the car had damage on the side and back..not just back.
[quote]
If there was a curve right before the light it was bad road layout and it's mostly the tan car's fault (though the truck should've been going at a speed to where he could stop if he needed to going around a curve if it was there).<hr></blockquote>
I agree with this...
[quote]
If it was relatively straight for a while before the intersection the truck didn't slow down or stop enough to avoid the collision.<hr></blockquote>
You are basing this on if the truck had seen the car and if the car didn't zip in front of the truck, which could have happened!
[quote]
If your only responsiblity is to stay in your lane, what about a stalled car?<hr></blockquote>
What about a stalled car? Totally different scenario, one which is another discussion, but basically if your car stalls in the road, it's your responsibility to get it off of the road so it doesn't cause a wreck!
[quote]
Someone who had to stop while making a left due to an obstruction or pedestrian?
<hr></blockquote>
If you have to stop due to obstruction or pedestrian while you were making a left turn, you didn't properly clear the intersection before turning! Next!
[quote]
I probably overshot <hr></blockquote>
Ohh..this is sooo begging a response! LOL Where is Eric? Shanny?? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]
I can't see a situation where it would be "Tan Car's fault, 100%, end of story."<hr></blockquote>
Soemtimes you can be a little thick there, Groverat.
Let me try again
If the cars obstructing the view of the white truck are also waiting to turn left, how would they get hit first by the left turn of the tan car?
People are waiting to go left in BOTH the north and south left turn lanes, get it? Depending on the cars the cars cued up in the opposing left turn (or even just left lanes waiting behind someone who wants to turn) those cars would effectively obscure opposing left turners to both north and south-bound straight through traffic.
But I have to give you credit for the best statement of this thread: I too demand a video! This is just nuts trying to express in type while many hundreds of miles away from each other.
<strong>If the cars obstructing the view of the white truck are also waiting to turn left, how would they get hit first by the left turn of the tan car?[qb]<hr></blockquote>
If the cars on the truck's side were waiting in the intersection to turn left (the only way they could really obstruct his view) how did the tan car magically drive through them to get into its left turn? You know that two cars usually can't turn left at the same time, at least not in an intersection small enough to use the "I couldn't see him coming" excuse.
It would have to be one massive intersection... and even then, the line of sight would've been enough to see.
[quote][qb]Depending on the cars the cars cued up in the opposing left turn (or even just left lanes waiting behind someone who wants to turn) those cars would effectively obscure opposing left turners to both north and south-bound straight through traffic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The queued cars would have to be a 5 deep caravan of 18-wheelers.
I don't think you are taking into account how fast cars can stop when you slam on the brakes.
I don't think you are taking into account how fast cars can stop when you slam on the brakes.<hr></blockquote>
Uh..I don't think you are taking into account how far a car travels after slamming on said brakes..it's all relevant to the speed.
ABS brakes be damned...all they do is prevent the skid. And I bet the truck didn't have them.
So, how far would the truck travel once he slammed on the brakes doing 45mph? 55mph? 65mph? I never took Accident Investigation course, but I do know that it has something to do with drag, tire and brake condition, driver reaction, etc.
You understand the bit about opposing left turns, I hope?
Your sense of speed and distance is all wrong. I don't blame you, sometimes it's hard to visualize unless you're out there. Two or three tall vehicles would be enough to obscure, One cube-van near the front would do it, even an SUV. You don't need any 18 wheelers. And the narrower the raod is, the more obstruction you have since the oncoming truck will been close to the cued vehicles on the left, and the angle will be even tighter. If it's wide and you're way over on the right, the angle is much wider and you will see a left turning car sooner. That's why they tell you to sit in the right lane in driver's ed (though everyone ignores this, In fact I don't see how traffic could move if we didn't use all the lanes all the time, but that's another matter)
Also, I've been in plenty of small intersections: 4 lanes with no dedicated left turn lanes where both opposing left turners can enter and complete their turns at the same time. That's not a massive intersection. Even on two lanes, unless you're at an oddly angled intersection both people can go left at the same time (but then there really isn't a problem with an oncoming vehicle in the right lane.)
We need video, you're right about that, this is like :banghead: <-- can we get a petition going to include this smilie?
The car is the vehicle making a change. It's going from one direction to 90 degrees, crossing lanes of opposing traffic.
Groverat, what if the tan car crashed into the side of the truck as it drove by the intersection? The difference is a matter of milliseconds.
No, this is almost like car cutting off another car while changing lanes. It's the car performing the initial change in motion at fault.
Break it up into sections. What can the truck drive be cited for? Running a yellow? No. Speeding? If he was, sure. Causing an accident? Sure doesn't seem like it.
The car driver has to make sure it's safe to make the turn. It obviously wasn't safe. The driver of the car legally gets the blame.
Comments
nope, but then pedestrians always have the right of way, even against the light.
bikes have the right of way over cars, and pedestrians over bikes.
when it comes to two cars though, you have to look at what they're doing. the car going straight has the right of way, the car turning does not.
any accident involving the car turning left is always the turning car's fault.
when you say the driver of the truck is obligated to miss the other car, that's wrong. he isn't.
he's obligated to stay in his lane. period. if the driver of the truck swerves to miss the turning car and hits someone else, that's his fault. he should stay in his lane, where he has the right to be, and plow into the other car if necessary. (from a legal standpoint)
if he tried to miss the car and hits someone else, he's screwed.
i worked for a few years as a paralegal where they did a wide variety of prosecutions for this kind of crap. the truck was doing what it was supposed to, the car was wrong. anything else the truck could have done (short of slamming on the brakes) would open the driver up to legal liablity for any other accidents they could have caused.
tan car is to blame, plain and simple.
1. Was it a divided or undivided highway?
2. Posted speed limit..what was it? 45 or 55mph?
3. Is there a curve or an incline?
All of those make a huge impact (no pun intended) on the scene.
[quote]Just then a white truck comes through the light going the opposite way and hits the tan car.
<hr></blockquote>
This sounds like the driver of tan car wasn't paying attention, because unless there is an incline or curve right there, cars don't just "suddenly" appear! Obviously if she had properly checked the intersection, she would have seen this white truck coming down the roadway and waited.
[quote]This takes place at a stoplight on a 4 lane street, 2 lanes going north and 2 going south<hr></blockquote>
No turn lane?
[quote]The light turns yellow. The tan car has to get out of the lane, so they turn left.
<hr></blockquote>
Why was it in the lane? What state is this in?
[quote]The tan car had turned just in front of the white truck, but had to get out of the lane.
<hr></blockquote>
Admission of guilt right there...first you say that the white truck just appeared out of nowhere..then you say that.
Or perhaps I misunderstood and you are saying why she pulled out in front of the truck? So the answer would be that it just appeared..very X-fileish. Again, driver inattention.
[quote]the cop blamed her<hr></blockquote>
He didn't blame her, he just took the facts down and listed her as Car #1, which is what I would have done too. The police officer doesn't pass out judgement at the scene..I mean, he can say what he wants, but only a judge can pass judgement.
Grover,
I now charge you with the responsibility of finding out the law in Texas about turning against traffic...can you enter the intersection before the opposing lane of traffic is cleared?
I know Texas is filled with ****ed up drivers, but surely they do have some laws!!
*crickets chirping*
Thanks folks, I'll be here all weekend!
--
The car was hit in the back. The truck had damage to the front right.
1) The car was mostly passed by.
2) The truck swerved to avoid.
If there was a curve right before the light it was bad road layout and it's mostly the tan car's fault (though the truck should've been going at a speed to where he could stop if he needed to going around a curve if it was there).
If it was relatively straight for a while before the intersection the truck didn't slow down or stop enough to avoid the collision.
If your only responsiblity is to stay in your lane, what about a stalled car? Someone who had to stop while making a left due to an obstruction or pedestrian?
It's not so concrete, that's why both are responsible for parts of it, not 100% either way.
We need more detail, I probably overshot giving 75% blame to the truck and 25% to the car.
I can't see a situation where it would be "Tan Car's fault, 100%, end of story."
<strong>
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)
I also average 30,000 miles a year.
My work van odometer passed 300,000 last month.
Yes, two of my accidents were mostly my fault.
And I guess you could say that I am an unlucky person. Or you could say that I am foolish and when put in the situation of this thread I would have stayed in my lane and hit the tan car as it crossed in front of me.
P.S. In many states accidents with a bicycle is no different then with a vehicle. The bike is required to follow all of the states vehicle codes. I know someone that was charged with vehicular homocide when they ran over a little girl in the street while riding a bike recklessly.
The car was hit in the back. The truck had damage to the front right.
1) The car was mostly passed by.
2) The truck swerved to avoid.<hr></blockquote>
This you do not know for sure (about #1&2)
He did say the car had damage on the side and back..not just back.
[quote]
If there was a curve right before the light it was bad road layout and it's mostly the tan car's fault (though the truck should've been going at a speed to where he could stop if he needed to going around a curve if it was there).<hr></blockquote>
I agree with this...
[quote]
If it was relatively straight for a while before the intersection the truck didn't slow down or stop enough to avoid the collision.<hr></blockquote>
You are basing this on if the truck had seen the car and if the car didn't zip in front of the truck, which could have happened!
[quote]
If your only responsiblity is to stay in your lane, what about a stalled car?<hr></blockquote>
What about a stalled car? Totally different scenario, one which is another discussion, but basically if your car stalls in the road, it's your responsibility to get it off of the road so it doesn't cause a wreck!
[quote]
Someone who had to stop while making a left due to an obstruction or pedestrian?
<hr></blockquote>
If you have to stop due to obstruction or pedestrian while you were making a left turn, you didn't properly clear the intersection before turning! Next!
[quote]
I probably overshot <hr></blockquote>
Ohh..this is sooo begging a response! LOL
[quote]
I can't see a situation where it would be "Tan Car's fault, 100%, end of story."<hr></blockquote>
I can..and have.
in that case it's your job not to rear end it. if you hit it from behind, then you're in trouble.
if a car stop to avoid a pedestrian, again you have to not rear end it.
both cases you're talking about rear ending another vehicle, in which case it's 100% the rear ender's fault.
Soemtimes you can be a little thick there, Groverat.
Let me try again
If the cars obstructing the view of the white truck are also waiting to turn left, how would they get hit first by the left turn of the tan car?
People are waiting to go left in BOTH the north and south left turn lanes, get it? Depending on the cars the cars cued up in the opposing left turn (or even just left lanes waiting behind someone who wants to turn) those cars would effectively obscure opposing left turners to both north and south-bound straight through traffic.
But I have to give you credit for the best statement of this thread: I too demand a video! This is just nuts trying to express in type while many hundreds of miles away from each other.
<strong>If the cars obstructing the view of the white truck are also waiting to turn left, how would they get hit first by the left turn of the tan car?[qb]<hr></blockquote>
If the cars on the truck's side were waiting in the intersection to turn left (the only way they could really obstruct his view) how did the tan car magically drive through them to get into its left turn? You know that two cars usually can't turn left at the same time, at least not in an intersection small enough to use the "I couldn't see him coming" excuse.
It would have to be one massive intersection... and even then, the line of sight would've been enough to see.
[quote][qb]Depending on the cars the cars cued up in the opposing left turn (or even just left lanes waiting behind someone who wants to turn) those cars would effectively obscure opposing left turners to both north and south-bound straight through traffic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The queued cars would have to be a 5 deep caravan of 18-wheelers.
I don't think you are taking into account how fast cars can stop when you slam on the brakes.
I don't think you are taking into account how fast cars can stop when you slam on the brakes.<hr></blockquote>
Uh..I don't think you are taking into account how far a car travels after slamming on said brakes..it's all relevant to the speed.
ABS brakes be damned...all they do is prevent the skid. And I bet the truck didn't have them.
So, how far would the truck travel once he slammed on the brakes doing 45mph? 55mph? 65mph? I never took Accident Investigation course, but I do know that it has something to do with drag, tire and brake condition, driver reaction, etc.
I assumed this was in the 15-30mph area.
You understand the bit about opposing left turns, I hope?
Your sense of speed and distance is all wrong. I don't blame you, sometimes it's hard to visualize unless you're out there. Two or three tall vehicles would be enough to obscure, One cube-van near the front would do it, even an SUV. You don't need any 18 wheelers. And the narrower the raod is, the more obstruction you have since the oncoming truck will been close to the cued vehicles on the left, and the angle will be even tighter. If it's wide and you're way over on the right, the angle is much wider and you will see a left turning car sooner. That's why they tell you to sit in the right lane in driver's ed (though everyone ignores this, In fact I don't see how traffic could move if we didn't use all the lanes all the time, but that's another matter)
Also, I've been in plenty of small intersections: 4 lanes with no dedicated left turn lanes where both opposing left turners can enter and complete their turns at the same time. That's not a massive intersection. Even on two lanes, unless you're at an oddly angled intersection both people can go left at the same time (but then there really isn't a problem with an oncoming vehicle in the right lane.)
We need video, you're right about that, this is like :banghead: <-- can we get a petition going to include this smilie?
Groverat, what if the tan car crashed into the side of the truck as it drove by the intersection? The difference is a matter of milliseconds.
No, this is almost like car cutting off another car while changing lanes. It's the car performing the initial change in motion at fault.
Break it up into sections. What can the truck drive be cited for? Running a yellow? No. Speeding? If he was, sure. Causing an accident? Sure doesn't seem like it.
The car driver has to make sure it's safe to make the turn. It obviously wasn't safe. The driver of the car legally gets the blame.