The entire point of right of way laws in the US are because of the lazyness of the DMVs, they wont put dedicated lights for everything, instead they try to make up rules for it like "if X then Y" and expect you to follow it to the letter, and if you happen to do Y and the wrong time and a collision happens then its all your fault no matter what.
A while back I turned left at a small intersection when my light was green and I'm casually driving through, at least 3/4 of the way through, and bam some fuck face hits the top right corner of my car.
Insurance says its my fault because "he had the right of way"
Even though the distance he had to travel to hit me based on where I was when it happened was a fraction of the total distance I had already travelled, which means that I didn't cut him off, he wasn't paying attention and just took off and bam.
If they had a dedicated light with an arrow sign, or more lanes, or something, then none of it would have happened.
Instead he fucked up and because of "right of way" he is immune to any consequences, unless the judge somehow sides with me.
Everything about this post screams 'it was my fault but I'm not going to admit it'
>>16945869
If you travelled 80 feet (or whatever distance, just pay attention to the ratio) and have 20 feet to go to exit the intersection, and some guy travels 20 feet and hits you, it's his fault.
If he had been looking directly in front of him he would have seen me turning and not hit me.
>>16945869
Also if you go by right of way laws then technically as soon as your light turns green, as long as you aren't turning, then you are free to slam on the accelerator and not even look in front of you, look at the floor or something, if you hit anyone
OOPS I HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY ITS YOUR FAULT
Doesn't matter if a family of 4 is dead, you had right of way
See how stupid the law is?
So you didn't have time to turn, still tried to, and now now your pissed you got cliped by the dude who had a green light? If your turning at an intersection you need to be the one paying attention, people just going forward aren't. Deal with your well deserved ticket.
They exist because laws don't quibble over every possible set of circumstances. You're trying to differentiate your case, with distances of 20 and 80 feet, from cases where the distances might be 2 and 8 feet. Rather than setting such specific standards which can rarely (if ever) be accurately measured after the fact, we use a universal system. Whether it's 2 feet or 200, the legal manner by which the situation should be resolved is the same.
However
>then its all your fault no matter what
is also wrong in many places which explicitly spell out a duty to avoid collision when prudent. Now people can and often do lie about prudence, but the expectation still stands. I don't know why you got pinned with 100% fault but it's good for you to know in the future. One day you might be tempted to hit someone when you had the right of way, except your obvious contribution to the accident could be caught on camera and you'll once again have to accept part of the fault.
If I'm understanding what happened correctly, he DID have the right of way and you didn't check whether someone was coming from his direction before turning. They're right, you were in the wrong.
>>16945916
I was already at least half way through before he started driving
>>16945921
The laws are way too broad, either they need to be narrowed or destroyed
>>16945928
I was most of the way through, it wasn't as if he was already coming straight and I was doing the same and then out of nowhere I turned and he didn't have enough time to react, I was already making a wide arc to the left and he pulled out from his white line and hit me.
He must have been on his phone or wasn't looking in front of him or something.
It's his fault.
Fuck right of way laws.
>>16945928
I think OP's point is that having entered the intersection already, the approaching car would have had ample time to yield given the distances involved. He's proposing that common sense trumps right of way. A sensible driver would have slowed to avoid collision rather than being encouraged to assert right of way.
>>16945945
exactly this
>>16945941
>either they need to be narrowed
I just explained why they can't be narrowed.
>or destroyed
That's certainly an option. My gut feeling is that it would lead to a ton of accidents though. You JUST ran into someone (well I guess he ran into you) whose brain is so small that he thought it better to risk life and limb in an accident than touch his brake pedal. He's not the only person like that in the world. Every day you went out driving without traffic laws (many of which are necessarily broad) you'd encounter dozens of people like that who have similar feelings about red lights, turns, etc. You'd get into a collision every week.
>>16945945
If OP was turning and didn't judge correctly whether there was enough time to complete the turn before the other car passed through the intersection, then it is his fault. Sure, the other car should have stopped and is to blame for the accident and any damage, but OP was still at fault for the incident happening in the first place. He set it up.
>>16945953
Do you really think he did it on purpose?
I feel like it was accidental, due to him not paying attention until it was too late
Also when it happened I kicked my door open and yelled at him cursing him out and pointing at him, I wanted to beat the shit out of him but I knew the cops would be there soon so I just kept it verbal and when I started to hear the sirens I stopped
Fuck him
Also the court thing got delated until sometime in April so who knows maybe when I tell the judge all this he will side with me
>>16945958
Faggot I already said
He was stationary when I started moving
I must have been half way through when he started moving
I was 3/4 through or more when he hit me
>>16945966
If he was stationary then you still had to give way to him, you retard.
>>16945971
Fuck you and fuck your shitty laws.
He's lucky I care more about dodging jail then fucking him up.
>>16945972
They're not my laws. Chances are, I don't even live in the same country as you, and I still understand the road rules better than you do
>>16945958
>If OP was turning and didn't judge correctly
It's OP's fault even if he did judge correctly. That's because the approaching driver had the right of way. What OP is saying is that his judgment here matters, because if he DID judge correctly then the approaching driver--acting reasonably--would not have hit him. If we take OP at his word, that driver had only to take reasonable action to avoid collision. That's no different than needing to ease up a bit on the highway when another vehicle merges in front of you. While you indeed have right of way in holding your lane, accommodations like that are reasonable expectations we face as drivers to keep things safe on the road. However OP is saying that the existence of right of way encourages people to be assertive about it at the expect of such reasonable accommodation. In other words he's saying that people could not only drive sensibly but in fact would drive MORE sensibly if they weren't beholden to this invented concept.
I understand everything that you're saying and I don't think either of us are debating the facts of what happened. I'm just trying to flesh out OP's idea because it develops the idea of fault and blame to something more than law.
>>16945978
*at the expense of such reasonable accommodation
>>16945959
No, I think he did it because he's stupid. Stupidity isn't malicious. It is, however, potentially very dangerous.
>>16945975
Common sense > shitty half assed right of way laws written by bureaucratic DMV workers
If the other driver had looked in front of him it wouldn't have happened.
>>16945978
You understand it perfectly.
Legally yeah I fucked up, but just because something is a law doesn't mean it makes any sense at all.
>>16945982
I don't understand, what is your complaint? Who are you mad at? The other driver, the laws in general, or yourself? Is this really just a case of 'I fucked up and I don't want to accept the blame'?
>>16945988
I'm mad that some jackass hit me due to his own stupidity and that I had minor damage to my car, I missed a meeting I was meant to go to, and if the judge doesn't think the way this guy does >>16945978 then I will have increased insurance costs.
The law is wrong in this case.
>>16945990
The law is the law. The judge doesn't get to choose whether or not to apply the law, it's their job to apply the law. The judge isn't the one you should be mad at. You are the one you should be mad at.
>>16945999
Do you or do you not agree that the law is retarded?
>>16945990
>>16945999
Which again gets us back to what I said at the end of:
>>16945921
Right of way is often not limited to which car gets priority in a certain road configuration. In many municipalities it also includes provisions like "...as long as it is safe to proceed" and "...provided the intersection is clear." The precise details of how the situation played out are up for debate--which is why I personally own a dashcam--but the judge wouldn't disregard the law to consider something more than "green means go, you lose good day sir." All of that is also a separate question about whether reconsideration of right of way would have helped avoid this entire situation in the first place.
Come to think of it I have no idea what any of this has to do with advice. I guess my advice is to insist that some of the fault be pinned on the other driver for not taking prudent steps to avoid a collision.
>>16946005
It doesn't matter what I think, it is what it is.
>>16946010
It really depends on what the law is like where OP lives. Where I live, there's been a lot of stuff going around about people being shit drivers, so OP wouldn't be likely to get away with it. It might be different where he lives, who knows?
>>16946011
Guess he'll have to wait and see. For what it's worth, though, I still think it was worthwhile to consider the argument against right of way. Personally I still feel in favor of it as I think that it does more good than harm, but I respect the arguments.
I'll leave behind this pic as I head out, from a hypothetical tombstone.
If you had a green light to turn left then you did have the right a way. If it was green from the approach, entering, midway, and leaving the intersection than you had the right a way. If the light was green but a sign says "YIELD for cars on the opposite side of road before turning" then you fucked up and did not have the right a way.
Right a way is a a law because of trivial situations. Two people reach a stop sign at the same time, heading in opposite directions. One driver wants to turn left crossing the other cars path. If both drivers reached the intersection and stop sign at the same time then who goes first? Hence right a way law.
No i disagree with you entirely. Right a way laws are in place to help dumb and easily confused drivers.
>>16946010
I don't understand what your saying in this post
>>16946011
Its always stuff like this that makes me laugh when people complain about something wrong being legal, because people always harp on about "the law", so its amusing when CEO's use the law to ruin people or cops charge people money from speed traps or other things like that.
Either you recognize that a law is only worth how it turns out in practice, or you blindly accept all laws.
So I guess your one of the "I love big brother" types then.
I don't have anymore time to talk about this, I gotta go to an appointment, and I will definitely try to get the judge to agree to partial blame for both of us as >>16946010 said.
Even though it was all his fault.
Later people.
>>16946020
Yeah, I don't think I've ever had a problem with the rules as they stand. They're simple and I don't really think there's any better alternative. Obviously the other car should have used common sense too, but OP still broke the rules, and that's what he's being charged with. Unfortunately for him, not using common sense is not against the law.
>>16946005
If there were no right of way laws, people (like you) would just go whenever they felt like it, leading to even more accidents. Shit, half of the accidents that happen are from people who don't understand right of way laws that either sit there when they're supposed to go, or go when it's not their turn (you). I don't know about you, but I don't need the roads to be any more chaotic or filled with idiot drivers than it already is. The other guy was an idiot for not paying attention, you're an idiot for going when you weren't supposed to, so you can be pissed that he doesn't share the blame, but not that you are taking part of it, because you fucked up just as much as he did. So suck it up and don't drive like an idiot from now on.
>>16945877
>Also if you go by right of way laws then technically as soon as your light turns green, as long as you aren't turning, then you are free to slam on the accelerator and not even look in front of you, look at the floor or something, if you hit anyone
Um, generally speaking, that's not how it works. Laws like these don't generally say who has the right of way; they only state who must yield it. If someone fails to yield the right of way when they have to, that's an infraction in its own right. But it doesn't absolve you from your own responsibilities as a driver.
If you rear-end someone in a situation where they were supposed to yield right of way to you, then they're still on the hook for failure to yield right-of-way, but the accident is still your fault.
Also, why do these laws exist? Partly because they provide the legal framework in which lights can work. Partly because putting dedicated lights everywhere is a Very Bad Idea. Amd partly because lights can fail -for example, when the power goes out longer than and backup power sources can stand- and there needs to be some kind of law in place to govern those situations.
In other words, study the damn book. The written test is just not that hard.
