Is it legal to hit other cars on the road?

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:39:27 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Universal Soldier wrote:
>
>> More realistically, how would the courts decide or insurance companies
>> settle in the above scenario - that's what determines "right" and "wrong".
>
> If you need an insurance company to be your moral compass, you really
> ought to reevaluate your worldview.

This guy is plain stupid, I don't think he has a view of anything other
than his beer bottle.

> And I thought you were the troll that was always ranting about the atheists?

He is ranting about atheists and wants to commit two deadly sins? (wrath
and greed)

Chris

C.H. wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:58:14 -0800, Universal Soldier wrote:
>
>> C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> Colliding with a car, that is standing still, *always* is the fault of
>>> the moving car (emphasis added)
>>
>> This can't possibly be right.
>
> It is - *unless*...

No longer *always* ? I knew you were a poseur.

Nate Nagel wrote:

> If you need an insurance company to be your moral compass, you really
> ought to reevaluate your worldview.
>
> And I thought you were the troll that was always ranting about the
> atheists?

Above, are you implying it's characteristic of the atheists to not have
morals?

I personally don't share your bigoted opinion. If I had any doubts about
their cause, they have recently been removed.

Universal Soldier > wrote in
:

> Dan Ganek wrote:
>
>> Universal Soldier wrote:
>>> If I have the right of way, like on an X intersection with a minor
>>> road, where the minor road has stop signs, mine does not. If someone
>>> is making a left turn from the minor road onto my road, but his
>>> movement is blocked by cars in front of him. Is it legal for me to
>>> hit his car?
>>>
>>> Suppose I could stop, but I'm angry that they are blocking my way and
>>> I think the insurance settlement might be more than my car's market
>>> value. Is it OK for me to just keep going and take my right of way,
>>> even though I could stop to prevent the collision?
>>
>> Are you serious? Of course it's not legal. Even in MA it's illegal.
>> You have a legal responsibility to prevent an accident under all
>> conditions.
>>
>> /dan
>
> Let's say I'm making a left turn from a minor road, and you are coming
> from my left. Normally, I would wait until the road is clear for me to
> make the left turn. But by your logic, it's OK to drive into the middle
> of the road, blocking you, stand there, until there is a gap in the
> traffic coming from my right, and move only then? Because if it's not
> OK for you to hit my car (according to you), I can do whatever the hell
> I want.
>
> More realistically, how would the courts decide or insurance companies
> settle in the above scenario - that's what determines "right" and
> "wrong".
>

Often, in very heavy traffic, the only way out of a side road to cross the
traffic is to wait until the first half of the road is clear and then block
it. When traffic does come on that side of the road they _do_not_ have
right of way over the blocking vehicle, because by then it is not (or at
least not completely) in the side road.

Universal Soldier > wrote in
:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>> Colliding with a car, that is standing still, *always* is the fault of
>> the moving car (emphasis added)
>
> This can't possibly be right. It's utterly stupid even. Can I get a
> second opinion on this?
>

Sure. He's correct. Certainly at least if the stationary vehicle was
stationary before you came into view and wasn't hidden close to a curve or
obstruction, i.e. if you have time after seeing it in which to take
eveasive action, then you _must_ do so. It could be sideways or on the
wrong side of the road and it would still be your fault if you hit it.

Universal Soldier > wrote in
:

> Falky foo wrote:
>
>> Define "OK".. it might be considered insurance fraud if they could
>> show you intentionally did it.
>
> By "OK" I mean the accident, should it happen, will not be judged my
> fault, therefore, if it saves me some time, and I know the other
> drivers are also aware the accident will be judged their fault, this
> might be the thing to do.
>
> ***************|*******|*
> ***************|*******|*
> ***************|*******|*****************
> ***************|*******|*****************
> ===============*-- ****=================*
> ************************||3|<************
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**
> ***********>|1||***_*****************************
> ==============*****2*--=================*
> **************|****_***|
> **************|********|*
> **************|********|**************************
> **************|********|*
> **************|********|*
>
>
>
> This is not a troll. The reason I'm asking is that
>
> a) type 2 drivers are frequent around here, especially in LA
>
> b) on rec.autos.driving, we've had some people (like Scott en Aztlan)
> bragging about how they, being in the position of driver #1, scared the
> hell out of driver #2 by going straight at them at full speed and
> swerving at the last moment.

That's probably not illegal, but definitely stupid and childish

>
> c) I've read advice like "drive a tank of a car, and take your right of
> way, and let the other driver suffer financially and physically for his
> stupidity"
>
> d) Because some states have "the right of way" and others don't, I was
> wondering if it was a meaningful concept
>
I'm sure that all states have something equivalent.

If you were driving down the main road and someone pulled out you would
have the right of way, but if they were already in front of you, they would
have the right of way. I don't think the direction their vehicle was facing
would make any difference.

What you show in your diagramme is not actually someone blocking, but just
sticking the nose of their vehicle out. Probably they need to be sticking
out to have sufficient visibility to get out. Assuming that they are not
moving as you approach, you have to treat them like any other stationary
obstacle and drive around them. Ramming is not a legal option.

Universal Soldier > wrote in
:

> Dan Ganek wrote:
>
>> Universal Soldier wrote:
>>> If I have the right of way, like on an X intersection with a minor
>>> road, where the minor road has stop signs, mine does not. If someone
>>> is making a left turn from the minor road onto my road, but his
>>> movement is blocked by cars in front of him. Is it legal for me to
>>> hit his car?
>>>
>>> Suppose I could stop, but I'm angry that they are blocking my way
>>> and I think the insurance settlement might be more than my car's
>>> market value. Is it OK for me to just keep going and take my right
>>> of way, even though I could stop to prevent the collision?
>>
>> Are you serious? Of course it's not legal. Even in MA it's illegal.
>> You have a legal responsibility to prevent an accident under all
>> conditions.
>>
>> /dan
>
> Let's say I'm making a left turn from a minor road, and you are coming
> from my left. Normally, I would wait until the road is clear for me to
> make the left turn. But by your logic, it's OK to drive into the
> middle of the road, blocking you, stand there, until there is a gap in
> the traffic coming from my right, and move only then? Because if it's
> not OK for you to hit my car (according to you), I can do whatever the
> hell I want.
>
> More realistically, how would the courts decide or insurance companies
> settle in the above scenario - that's what determines "right" and
> "wrong".

In your example, if you were hit, you'd be ticketed for making an
improper/illegal left turn, failure to yield, and possibly other
infractions if there are laws covering impeding traffic, etc. The other
driver would be charged with "failure to avoid an accident" or whatever
they call it in your state. If he should have been able to avoid the
accident and hit you intentionally, then he'd likely be found 100% at
fault in the accident. If that wasn't clear or provable, you'd probably
share fault.

In every state I'm familiar with, you have a legal duty to avoid an
accident, even if the other driver is doing something stupid. Also, in
most states, "right of way" is something you can be required to give, but
never something you have an absolute right to have. So, even if the law
requires the other guy to yield, if he doesn't, you must.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:44:02 -0800 Universal Soldier wrote:

> If I have the right of way, like on an X intersection with a minor
> road,
> where the minor road has stop signs, mine does not. If someone is
> making a
> left turn from the minor road onto my road, but his movement is blocked
> by
> cars in front of him. Is it legal for me to hit his car?

> Suppose I could stop, but I'm angry that they are blocking my way and I
> think the insurance settlement might be more than my car's market
> value. Is
> it OK for me to just keep going and take my right of way, even though I
> could stop to prevent the collision?


In the state of Arizona, yes it is legal.
Even if you're legally drunk!
They say that YOU have the right of way approaching any intersection.
Why? Because the turning vehicle crossed your path.

Universal Soldier wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > If you need an insurance company to be your moral compass, you
really
> > ought to reevaluate your worldview.
> >
> > And I thought you were the troll that was always ranting about the
> > atheists?
>
> Above, are you implying it's characteristic of the atheists to not
have
> morals?

No, I'm pointing out the inconsistency of your position that atheists
are somehow "bad" - the obvious inference is that you feel that
atheists don't have a moral compass, when it's clear that you have none
of your own.

>
> I personally don't share your bigoted opinion. If I had any doubts
about
> their cause, they have recently been removed.

I personally could not possibly care less about your opinion of me.

nate

N8N wrote <something dull>


"Ad hominem would imply that there's no basis for the things people are
saying about you. Based on your posts, I don't think that that applies."
-- Nate Nagel, 2005


Are you qualified to talk about stupidity? I think so.