PSA: If you witness an accident...please at least stop and give your info

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: JohnCU
what the fuck good are traffic lights then?

They are the equivlent of the signs in grocery store checkout lanes that mark "Express" lanes. They REGULATE the traffic. Only the DRIVERS can be certain that a situation is safe. Traffic lights can't force cars to stop, they can't prevent accidents and they can't be trusted blindly.

So we should stop for green lights now?

Where do you get your info, or are you just talking out of your ass?

You can try and insult me all you want, but clearly the problem is you misinterpreting things, but as the OP and other posters have shown, I'm not talking out of my ass.

Let's break it down for the people who have comprehension problems:

- Traffic lights regulate traffic
- Traffic lights DON'T have the ability to provide safety
- Traffic lights DON'T have the prevent drivers from running red lights
- Drivers make mistakes. Some are intentional, some are not.
- You should never trust that other drivers will do exactly what they should be doing... this is reffered to as "Defensive Driving"
- Because of this, drivers must STILL be cautious when entering an intersection and crossing traffic.

I don't think anyone disputes that all of that is true. It doesn't add up to any fault on the OP's part for the accident. And it doesn't add up to failure to yield. The car that ran the red light failed to yield the right of way, not the OP. If the OP was not turning but rather crossing perpendicularly and got hit by the same red light runner, would you still think it was his fault? Same situation really. He had green, she had red, he crossed her path and she hit him.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Tweak155
Pretty sure you making the turn have to yield even if your arrow is green. You would get failure to yield, she would get failure to yield + running a red light.

Yup.

My dear mother got cited for this in early 2007 when some prick ran a red light while she was halfway into her left turn and SHE got cited, HE got NOTHING.

Why would the guy have gotten nothing... was that an error/oversight on the police side? That seems to be saying that you can get out of a ticket for running a red light if you know there is another driver present who will fail to yield to you.

Apparently the cop decided that the guy didn't run a red light (even if he really did), so Injury's mother's story has no relevance here.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tweak155
Pretty sure you making the turn have to yield even if your arrow is green. You would get failure to yield, she would get failure to yield + running a red light.

To whom must he yield? If he has a green arrow, that means that no one has any business crossing his path. There is no one to yield to. It's the whole point of the green arrow.

QFT.

Tweak, you are confused. Green arrow mean the turn is protected, and cars in that lane have right of way.

Didn't pay attention during Driver's Ed, did you?
One can ONLY enter another lane of travel when it is safe to do so. REGARDLESS of another car's illegal actions.
The TELL in this case is where he was hit. Had it been more along the side, instead of, in his words, "practically a head on", the cop would have had to shift his attention to the car that went through the light.

wrong. my ex got hit on the passenger side quarter panel, tore the front wheel (of a 4X4 suburban) pretty much off, bounced off that and slid down the runners. despite the fact that she (the red light runner, not my ex) had her phone in her lap, and was in the middle of a call, my ex was still 100% at fault. the cop didnt change focus just because the other car ran a red, he kept the focus on my ex because she didnt yield to oncoming traffic


edited for clarity.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Tweak155
Pretty sure you making the turn have to yield even if your arrow is green. You would get failure to yield, she would get failure to yield + running a red light.

Yup.

My dear mother got cited for this in early 2007 when some prick ran a red light while she was halfway into her left turn and SHE got cited, HE got NOTHING.

Why would the guy have gotten nothing... was that an error/oversight on the police side? That seems to be saying that you can get out of a ticket for running a red light if you know there is another driver present who will fail to yield to you.

Apparently the cop decided that the guy didn't run a red light (even if he really did), so Injury's mother's story has no relevance here.

No, it was because the cop considered it totally irrelevant what color the light was in the scenario, the guy ADMITTED to running the red and the cop said he can't charge him for anything unless he (a third party) witnessed it. He agreed that it was dumb but said that since there was a wreck he can't turn a blind eye to who he has to cite under the laws.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't think anyone disputes that all of that is true. It doesn't add up to any fault on the OP's part for the accident. And it doesn't add up to failure to yield. The car that ran the red light failed to yield the right of way, not the OP.

Look, just because it's hard for you to understand doesn't mean it isn't true. I entirely agree that it's a stupid rule, but it makes sense because you can argue until you are blue in the face that someone ran the red, but unless the officer saw it, he can't say "Yeah, you're lying." So the options here are give both people lie detector tests or just default to citing the person that was crossing traffic.

Whatever you believe, it's not hard to understand that you should approach left turns with caution and that's the entire reason the people turning left are the automatic culprit.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: Andy22

Originally posted by: Insane3D
It's funny I see this thread today...

Good Samaritan story snipped

Nice job man...I wish someone like you had been around Friday night.

All I kept thinking through most of that story was that the 'poor guy' didn't have insurance. That selfish %*&^%@!

Well, in his defense, insurance is not a requirement except in special circumstances in NH (previous DWI). Also, the guy was driving a mid 90's Ford Escort and seemed like he simply might not have been able to afford it.

I think everyone should have insurance, but unfortunately life is not always black and white...

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
It's funny I see this thread today...

{snip}

My good samaritan story (with pollage!!!).

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
What? Take the chance that I'd be inconvenienced? Are you outta your mind? First, your lawyer would probably want a statement...there's a couple of hours out of my life...then the other side's lawyers would probably want to depose me for a statement...a couple more hours wasted...then, if it went to court, that could mean several days out of my life...you expect that from total strangers in this day & age? Not fucking likely...:roll:


I will agree that people SHOULD do this, but don't hold your breath. Occasionally you'll run into a good citizen who believes in doing what's right, but all too often, people are only concerned about doing what's best for themselves...

BTW:

Plaintiffs attorney's statement: < 1 hour (Probably by telephone)
Deposition: <2 hours
Trial testimony: <2 hours (You do not have to sit through the whole trial.)

MotionMan, Esq.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Injury

No, it was because the cop considered it totally irrelevant what color the light was in the scenario, the guy ADMITTED to running the red and the cop said he can't charge him for anything unless he (a third party) witnessed it. He agreed that it was dumb but said that since there was a wreck he can't turn a blind eye to who he has to cite under the laws.

That sounds dubious. He wouldn't take the word of the guy who admitted that he ran a red light, but he would take the word of some guy off the street who says he saw it?

Originally posted by: Injury

Look, just because it's hard for you to understand doesn't mean it isn't true. I entirely agree that it's a stupid rule, but it makes sense because you can argue until you are blue in the face that someone ran the red, but unless the officer saw it, he can't say "Yeah, you're lying." So the options here are give both people lie detector tests or just default to citing the person that was crossing traffic.

Whatever you believe, it's not hard to understand that you should approach left turns with caution and that's the entire reason the people turning left are the automatic culprit.

I'll believe you when you post a law that says it is an offense to fail to yield to a vehicle that is running a red light.

 

[Zedtom]

Just because you have witnesses to an accident is no guarantee the they will cooperate when called upon.

I have posted in these forums before about a collision I had with a driver on his cell phone. He ran a red light and tore off my front bumper. This was witnessed by two on-duty, uniformed police officers in a marked patrol car. They investigated the accident but had no knowledge of the incident when called upon to testify.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't think anyone disputes that all of that is true. It doesn't add up to any fault on the OP's part for the accident. And it doesn't add up to failure to yield. The car that ran the red light failed to yield the right of way, not the OP.

Look, just because it's hard for you to understand doesn't mean it isn't true. I entirely agree that it's a stupid rule, but it makes sense because you can argue until you are blue in the face that someone ran the red, but unless the officer saw it, he can't say "Yeah, you're lying." So the options here are give both people lie detector tests or just default to citing the person that was crossing traffic.

Whatever you believe, it's not hard to understand that you should approach left turns with caution and that's the entire reason the people turning left are the automatic culprit.

The way it works is one could technically run a red light legally if they could not stop in time for it, or were already in the intersection on the change. If you jump the light you could easily hit this person making a legal intersection transit.

At the same time, turning traffic always needs to yield to straight traffic much like having a pedestrian in the crosswalk on your green light.

All in all the laws aren't so cut and dry...one is almost always at fault if they could have prevented getting into the accident to begin with. In this case it seems the turning vehicle should have been able to see the oncoming car and not turn out in front of it.

I am not saying the red light runner is in the right though...but both are probably accountable for a portion of this accident.