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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is it legal to hit other cars on the road?
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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". Obligatory ASCII art: | | | | | | | | | | =============== ================= 8|||< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >|||8 *_ ============== _ ================= | _ | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:53:01 -0800, Universal Soldier wrote:
> Dan Ganek wrote: > >> 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. >> > 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? No, that would be wrong too. You apparently are a total failure at logic our you would know that A->B does by no means mean B->A. But two wrongs don't make a right, never have, never will. > Because if it's not OK for you to hit my car (according to you), I can > do whatever the hell I want. No, you can't, at least not if you are at least halfway human. > More realistically, how would the courts decide or insurance companies > settle in the above scenario - that's what determines "right" and "wrong". If they could prove (and you would be surprised, what can be proven today) that you intentionally caused the accident, you would go to jail (or prison, depending on whether you 'only' damaged property or killed someone). Chris |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 04:13 AM |
European Cars Least Reliable | Richard Schulman | VW water cooled | 3 | November 11th 04 09:41 AM |