If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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? Ask Washington Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge. (It helps if you win a chug-a-lug contest beforehand, though.) > |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
It's amusing to read the frightened and moralistic replies to your
troll-like, yet answerable questions. Let's look at them with a dispassionate, legal eye. > 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? I assume you mean "intentionally" hit his car. Probably not. There's bound to be some sort of overarching statute in your state's code that says that drivers have to take reasonable precautions to avoid accidents. > 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? Define "OK".. it might be considered insurance fraud if they could show you intentionally did it. It might also be a tort and it might be illegal if they could show you intentionally did it. Are you saying you divulge to the cops that you intentionally did these things? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
> 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? Again, what do you mean by "OK"? Is it legal? Probably not, because again, you are intentionally putting others at risk and there's bound to be some vehicle code addressing that. Insurance-wise, depending on traffic, the acts of the other driver who hit you, etc., it would be anywhere from a small percentage your fault to 100% your fault. >Because if it's not OK for you to hit my car > (according to you), I can do whatever the hell I want. Not necessarily for the above reasons. Also, if you sit there pinning my car in or preventing me from moving intentionally, that could be considered 'false imprisonment.' > More realistically, how would the courts decide or insurance companies > settle in the above scenario - that's what determines "right" and "wrong". See above. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:28:36 -0800, Universal Soldier wrote:
> C.H. wrote: > >> Fortunately not ('failure to avoid an accident', insurance fraud, possibly >> manslaughter). > > So, by your logic, it's perfectly OK for the driver of the second car (left > to right) to stand there and wait for the third car to pass? It is legal. It is very unfriendly and uncooperative, but legal. Also, this guy at least does not damage anything, least of all intentionally. > If he gets hit by the first car, it's the first car's driver's 'failure > to avoid an accident' ? Yes. Colliding with a car, that is standing still, always is the fault of the moving car (you are required to adjust your speed to conditions, meaning you have to be able to stop within the > So we can all start driving like car #2 ? Say, are you really an asshole big enough to intentionally block people just because you can? I fortunately am not, so I am not driving like #2 even if it technically was legal. > I should have qualified what I mean by "legal". By legal I mean when the > accident is not judged to be my fault. If you hit a car that is standing still, it is your fault. Even more so if they can prove you did it intentionally. > If car #1 collides with car #2, blocking its way, whose fault will the > accident be (assuming no one was speeding, the weather and visibility > are great) If the guy was already standing there and you just hit him, because you are asshole enough to intentionally hit people, it is your fault. If the car is pulling out in front of you and you have enough room to brake and just don't, it still is at least partly your fault. What you need is psychological counceling and anger management. Anger, ego trips and intentional crashing have no place in traffic. Go back to playing with bumper cars at the fair until you grow enough of a conscience and responsibility to safely drive a car. Chris |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:18:26 -0800, DCI wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:13:50 -0800, "C.H." > > wrote: > >>Now I realize that you are very likely an excessively stupid troll, but on >>the off chance that you are not a troll but indeed as stupid as you try to >>come across he Imagine you made a mistake and someone else just t-boned >>you intentionally and killed you, would you still think 'it was ok'? >> > Chris, if he's dead, he can't think. That would be ok with me, unfortunately I think he probably is not dead enough to not drive a car. On the other hand, ideally he would meet some assclown like himself and both would cancel each other out :-) Chris |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Universal Soldier wrote:
> 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". 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? nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> 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. >> > > > But how can the state prove you chose to NOT prevent the crash? The > other driver had no business pulling in front of you and he's to blame. > You just say sumping like "hey - i tried to stop but there wasn't > time." > Oh look, the two trolls have found each other. Maybe it's true love at last. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 the car moved in your way less than your braking distance in front of you. As a driver you are _required_ to adjust your speed so you can stop when you see a motionless obstacle. And even you say you could stop, you just don't want to because you have anger and greed issues. > It's utterly stupid even. No. > Can I get a second opinion on this? Awwwww, poor baby cannot crash into others intentionally ... Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vintage Cars Get Hot with Makeovers | Grover C. McCoury III | Ford Mustang | 2 | December 5th 04 05:13 AM |
European Cars Least Reliable | Richard Schulman | VW water cooled | 3 | November 11th 04 10:41 AM |