bristolflyer
Posts: 2103
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:35 am

Traffic Law Question

Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:52 pm

Good people of a.net land (especially our resident police officers)....

Suppose you're in a side road waiting for a gap in the traffic to pull out onto the main road. You're waiting there and you see a car coming along the main road (on your left in a right-driving country or on the right in a left-driving country) who is slowing down and indicating to pull into the side road, so you therefore think that it's safe to pull out. However he has a last minute change of mind and turns off his indicator and accelerates - but too late, he hits you.

Who is at fault? You for pulling out in the traffic or him for indicating incorrectly?
Fortune favours the brave
 
LGWspeedbird
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:29 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:57 pm

Oooo tough one I would say that he was at fault as he used mis leading signals and should have seen you there and slowed down, as they should have been slowing down to go round the corner.

just my  twocents 
upcoming flights LHR-LAX-HNL-SFO-LHR
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:03 am

Both, but probably not in a 50/50 way.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7798
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:04 am

Quoting BristolFlyer (Thread starter):
Who is at fault?

Your fault for pulling out in front of him. Yes it's edgy.. but that would be the law. You need to wait until he enters his turn before you pull out
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:04 am

IIRC you HAVE to presume the indicator is malfunctioning. You'll get nailed for failure to yeild. I always wait until they are commited to the turn (already turning) before I presume they are going to act as advertised.
This space intentionally left blank
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:16 am

The thing which would swing it would be if you were signalling or not - if you were signalling to pull out, at least by the UK highway code he's legally obliged to slow down and let you out as you have right of way - just like on a motorway sliproad, if you weren't signalling then he had right of way all along, misleading signals or not and it's your fault.
I get around this situation by not signalling, waiting for my gap and then signal as I accelerate like a bat out of hell... I hate nothing more than hesitant drivers.
Resident TechOps Troll
 
strasserb
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:46 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:31 am

Have a look at this:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insuran...in_article_id=410312&in_page_id=35
and watch out while driving.
 bigthumbsup 
Still, even in the most arid desert is an airport somewhere ...
 
Jamie757
Posts: 838
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:47 am

Quoting BristolFlyer (Thread starter):
Who is at fault? You for pulling out in the traffic or him for indicating incorrectly?

Never rely on other people do the right thing, wait for other people to physically turn in. The person pulling out in front of the other would be at fault here.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 5):
if you were signalling to pull out, at least by the UK highway code he's legally obliged to slow down and let you out as you have right of way

No he isn't, he's on the major road, major road has priority.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 5):
just like on a motorway sliproad,

Again, traffic on the motorway has priority here, if you can't find a gap, you need to wait at the end of the sliproad until one opens up.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 5):
if you weren't signalling then he had right of way all along

Signalling doesn't give anybody priority, it simply informs people of your intentions.

Just curious Wingscrubber, do you drive here in the UK?

Rgds.
"I feel like a turkey who's just caught Bernard Matthews grinning at him!"
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8538
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:49 am

Let's assume there is no car accident fraud involved, the guy approaches (in a right driving country) with his blinkers indicating that he makes a right turn into the side street where you intend to pull out, making a right turn into the main street.

If he decides at the last moment to accelerate and drive on, you need one or two witnesses. If they confirm the other guys intention, you are on the save side. Without, it's your fault because you will be unable to prove that he set blinkers to the right.
powered by Eierlikör
 
FlyVirgin744
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 1999 8:35 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:02 am

In the US, generally if someone rear ends you it is almost always their fault. However. since you weren't on the road yet you must give way to traffic on the road, whether his indicator is on or not. If I was the officer I probably would fault you in the accident (I'm not an officer but I do work in traffic). You simply cannot depend on people especially in this situation.

There was a situation here in Florida a while ago when people were cutting off cars then hitting their breaks so that the car they cut off would strike them. Like I said earlier, if you rear end someone it is almost always your fault here. These guys kept suing and collecting money using the same vehicle over and over again. Finally law enforcement caught on and got these guys for fraud.
Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:31 am

This cannot be answered completely, as the judge must always look on all circumstances. But the general rule is that you must wait, and thus it is your fault, at least in Germany.

But if he indicates that he is going to the right, I would probably guess that the judge would split it.

In Germany, we have something called Mitverschulden, �254 BGB, which means that if both are at fault, they share the damage... So this in reality is something where the judge has a rather big discretion.

Law is not medicine or physics, there is (almost) never a single answer for a problem, as you can always see it both sides.

Another example I have in mind was one guy who was having green light, and who was turning left at a crossing. Suddenly he stopped, without visible reason, and the car behind him crashed into him. Normally, the rule is clear, if you crash into someone, it is your fault. But in this case the judge held that the car driver from the 2nd car didn't have to expect a sudden stop of the car in front, so he didn't have to pay anything, the car which stopped had to pay everything.

Or like we say in German, before courts and on the oceans, we are in the hands of god...
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:14 am

Quoting BristolFlyer (Thread starter):
Who is at fault? You for pulling out in the traffic

That's your answer.

You'll get faulted, and then your insurance company and the other party's insurance company will fight it out based on the scenario above where the other party indicated a turn but failed to do so.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ryangooner
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 4:56 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:08 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
your insurance company and the other party's insurance company will fight it out based on the scenario above where the other party indicated a turn but failed to do so.

This is the likely scenario above.

Taking the letter of the law though in the UK and only if you could prove the intentions of the guy who indicated and failed to turn he could be guilty of careless and inconsiderate driving.

that being said, never pull out until you see the car fully slow and the wheels actually turn in...

One for the insurance companies i think!

Ryan
ooh to ooh to be ooh to be a gooner!
 
Go3Team
Posts: 3156
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:19 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:53 am

Always wait for the turn. I've been saved plenty of times by waiting because, either: The person wasn't sure it was the correct road, or they just happened to leave their blinker on. Its always better to be safe, rather than sorry.
Yay Pudding!
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:12 am

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 5):
by the UK highway code he's legally obliged to slow down and let you out as you have right of way

 no 

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 7):
The person pulling out in front of the other would be at fault here.

 checkmark 

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 7):
Again, traffic on the motorway has priority here, if you can't find a gap, you need to wait at the end of the sliproad until one opens up.

Which, in my experience, a lot of people don't know!

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 7):
Signalling doesn't give anybody priority, it simply informs people of your intentions.

 checkmark 

If there's a collision, there'll be plenty of evidence for it but there might not be a lot of evidence for who was signalling what.

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 7):
Just curious Wingscrubber, do you drive here in the UK?

It has to be said... good question.  Smile

Personally, I don't so much wait for the other person to actually make the turn but I do wait until they've slowed down enough to be able to avoid me if they don't make the turn.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:13 pm

The highway driver has the right of way. Since the "yield sign" is in your merge lane, it is your job to monitor the traffic and when absolutely sure it's clear to merge, you may do so. It would, of course, be courteous of the highway driver to allow you to merge since they had a change of mind as to their intentions. Legally though I believe the highway driver would be held as being in the right.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:20 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 3):
Your fault for pulling out in front of him. Yes it's edgy.. but that would be the law. You need to wait until he enters his turn before you pull out

You would be suprised how many people don't realize that their signals are on and plently of times I have waited and they haven't turned. I personally think it should be 50/50 but that is the way it is and I wait until they begin their turn.

Another move that is similar is when you are in the intersection waiting to turn left and the light changes to yellow and you make the turn because you don't want to be responsible for running a red, however there is a guy that decided to run the yellow and you hit each other, who's at fault and who should be. (Hint ANC is in a bad mood behind you and will book you for running a red is you wait for the small delay when all the lights are red Big grin)

Yet another one that I can think of is when you turn right on a red in a multi-lane street and the right lane is clear how ever there is some one in the left lane and decides to change lanes over an intersection which is illegal but also is the guy turning right at fault because he failed to yeild and also an illegal move.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
ANITIX87
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:30 pm

Very random contribution to this thread.

I use my analysis of the situation. By logic, if he signals he should turn, but not everyone does. My uncle was on a motorcycle and this happened to him, only he came out of it missing 6 toes combined on his two feet. He was the one waiting to pull out, and the car signaled and did not turn, hitting him and crushing his leg against his bike. The leg broke in 7 places, and the toes just came right off. Ever since then, I've been extra careful about it. I don't quite know what the law is, but I try to avoid doing something that might get me killed, haha.

TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:43 pm

Well, you pretty much answered your own question. The approaching driver is on the main road and you are on the side road. Assuming there is no traffic control device (stop sign, traffic light, etc...) controlling the flow of the vehicle on the main or the "thru" road, he/she has the right of way and you must yield to them. He/she having their turn indicator on doesn't negate their right of way. By you pulling into their legal path of travel, you've neglected to yield to them. Sorry, you're 100% at fault.

Edit: I should also say that the point of impact plays a strong role in determining who's at fault. But, from your description, it sounds like you thought the on-coming driver was going to make the turn and pulled out in front of him which puts the point of impact in the thru lanes of the main road. If that's the case....yes, you're definitely at fault.

[Edited 2006-08-20 06:58:42]
 
FlyUSCG
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:29 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:42 pm

Well like everyone said, if there is no seperate turn lane then yes, it is your fault. HOWEVER... if there is a special turn lane (ie: "right lane must turn right") and he goes in there but then ends up going straight, it is HIS fault.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 10):
But in this case the judge held that the car driver from the 2nd car didn't have to expect a sudden stop of the car in front, so he didn't have to pay anything, the car which stopped had to pay everything.

I dont think that flies here in the U.S.. Just becuase your driving in the fast lane on the freeway doesn't mean that cars can't randomly slam on their brakes (legit reason or not). It's YOUR responsibilty to keep a safe distance so that IF that happens, you have enough time to stop. That judges ruling basically gives a green light to draft the car in front of you on the freeway. Afterall, there is no reason for them to stop so you dont need to keep a safe distance.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 16):
Yet another one that I can think of is when you turn right on a red in a multi-lane street and the right lane is clear how ever there is some one in the left lane and decides to change lanes over an intersection which is illegal but also is the guy turning right at fault because he failed to yeild and also an illegal move.

Well remember, it's not a "yield". You MUST stop before you make that right turn on the red. Even though no one does it, that is the law, it is a red light afterall. So... there are two outcomes to that scenario (both assuming the guy illegally changes lanes in the intersection): 1)you come to a complete stop, then begin your turn and he hits you... HIS fault or: 2)you dont come to a complete stop and he hits you... your BOTH at fault.
Go Trojans! Fight On!
 
wukka
Posts: 884
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:00 pm

As Ted said earlier, here in most states you would be cited for a "failure to yeild", regardless of the other driver having their indicator on or not.

Side note; my personal favorite is my citation from years ago for "improper backing without safety". I guess it's all in the wording... it sounds like I was supposed to have a flagger and some cones in the street before I put it in reverse.
We can agree to disagree.
 
tu204
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:39 pm

If it is a real scenario, did you notice that he already had some damage to the front of his vehicle? Maybe he wanted some free repairs?  Wink
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:19 pm

Quoting FlyVirgin744 (Reply 9):
There was a situation here in Florida a while ago when people were cutting off cars then hitting their breaks so that the car they cut off would strike them.

The old "swoop and squat" described to a T. In non-fraud cases, the trailing driver should be cited for following at unsafe distance as it is their responsibility to maintain a safe following distance. In cities where light rail operates in street, there may also be locality specific restrictions. Here in Tucson, the street railway I work with runs along the turn lane of a three lane street (one lane each way and the emergency lane). During operating hours, the streetcar has default right of way in the emergency lane in whichever direction it happens to be operating. At intersections, right of way is determined by the order in which the vehicles arrive. The tricky part for our operators is that at one four way stop, the street railway makes a 90 degree turn, returning from a passing track in the right lane to the center/emergency lane within the cross street's left turn lane zone. If the streetcar makes a stop at the intersection before other left turning traffic, it has the right of way over the traffic turning left. If the lane is occupied before the streetcar begins it's right turn, the operator will allow the traffic to clear the lane by completing their left turns. If lane is clear, the streetcar makes the turn as usual. If a car then approaches or attempts to enter the left turn lane, that vehicle will have to vacate the turn lane and allow the streetcar to complete the turn and clear the intersection.

Some cities like San Francisco and Dallas have sections where streetcars run against the flow of traffic on streets due to railway operating requirements. Those streets are equipped with traffic signals indicating the approach of the streetcar and instruct motor traffic to give way. At our intersections on the street railway, we have signs warning traffic of street railway operations-specifically bicycles and motorcycles. At the major intersections, there are lighted signs as well as the regulation ones. We've had a few collisions but fortunately we have a police department that understands what streetcars can and can't do. We can't brake as fast as a bus and certainly can't swerve to avoid a collision. "Guess what bud, you're getting cited for the collision because you made an illegal/unsafe turn in front of the streetcar. The streetcar operator has ten witnesses who say that he was operating the car in a safe, responsible manner and you were the one that caused the collision."
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:29 pm

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 19):
Just becuase your driving in the fast lane on the freeway doesn't mean that cars can't randomly slam on their brakes (legit reason or not).

Actually, there is a traffic law that forbids "improper breaking". It's been on the books for quite some time and it's my understanding it was designed to curb road rage style driving (touching your brakes when you feel someone is tailgating) as well as other situations such as suddenly applying your breaks when your radar detector activates or when you see a police car. So, should a rear end collision occur and it is determined there was no lawful reason for driver #1 to brake, he can be cited and could will be found partially at fault.
 
ryangooner
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 4:56 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:45 pm

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 21):
If it is a real scenario, did you notice that he already had some damage to the front of his vehicle? Maybe he wanted some free repairs?

This is not such a daft presumption! - Which takes me back to my reply earlier, what were the indicating drivers intentions?, probably never find out even if what TU204 wrote above was true...


Ryan
ooh to ooh to be ooh to be a gooner!
 
tu204
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:06 pm

Quoting Ryangooner (Reply 24):
This is not such a daft presumption! - Which takes me back to my reply earlier, what were the indicating drivers intentions?, probably never find out even if what TU204 wrote above was true...

I just know that because I was in a similar albeit more legal scenario 2 weeks ago. I was entering a roundabout (in Russia, the car ON the roundabout must YIELD to the car entering the roundabout) and I was excersing my right to do so when a pickup truck on the roundabout, not yielding to me accelerated and got a piece of my front bumper (which was bent a bit when I bought the car). Needless to say, I exited the car with a smile on my face, having recieved free repairs.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:52 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 23):
So, should a rear end collision occur and it is determined there was no lawful reason for driver #1 to brake, he can be cited and could will be found partially at fault.

True but the key point is that they are only partly responsible. The only scenario I can think of where running into the back of someone might not be your fault at all is if someone you're about to overtake pulls out 5 metres in front of you. If there's a large enough difference in your speeds, you're going to hit them from behind and there isn't time for you to drop back to a safe distance. You'd probably need a witness, though.  Sad

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 25):
in Russia, the car ON the roundabout must YIELD to the car entering the roundabout

Thank you! I knew there were places where that's the case but I had a great deal of difficulty in persuading anyone else in a previous discussion. It's just Not Right!  Smile
 
flymatt2bermud
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:58 am

RE: Traffic Law Question

Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:17 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8):
Let's assume there is no car accident fraud involved, the guy approaches (in a right driving country) with his blinkers indicating that he makes a right turn into the side street where you intend to pull out, making a right turn into the main street.

If he decides at the last moment to accelerate and drive on, you need one or two witnesses. If they confirm the other guys intention, you are on the save side. Without, it's your fault because you will be unable to prove that he set blinkers to the right.

You are exactly right as was the interpretation of Kentucky Motor Vehicle law back in the 1970's. I was driving a school bus and making a right hand turn onto a four lane road. A vehicle approached the intersection turned its right turn signal on and slowed down. I made my wide turn (as you must do for a school bus) onto the four lane and the driver continued straight. The bus left front bumper caught the inside right front wheel well and ripped that brand new Grand Prix apart as if with a can opener.

The driver claimed he did not have his turn signal on, but there were two witnesses (not on my bus) that confirmed my statement. The other driver was given a ticket and I was listed in the number two position on the police report. I won't try to guess what that #2 position means because I've heard too many explanations.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward" Leonardo Da Vinci

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests