I Need Your Help. I want to Sue someone.

[Bread and Faxes]

Ok so. Last friday I got in a car accident. I was held at fault. Here's the story and what I wanna do about it.

Ok, so I went on a date with my girlfriend LeeAnn on Friday. We went to eat and then we went and saw Superbad (Awesome movie by the way) but anyway, we got done our date and her best friend called her and said that her friends sister wanted to go to the hospital because she had a migraine. So I went and picked her up and was taking her to the hospital. When I was only like 2 minutes away I was making a Left turn across the highway and was struck by some woman in her Pontiac G6. I had a solid green light and I yielded to traffic like I should have. I had clearance so I proceeded to cross the highway. She then slammed into me. That part of the highway was 35 mph. She was EASILY 150 Yards away, way more than enough time for me to cross. She must have been speeding. She T-boned me and caused my passengers side window to smash against my girlfriends face causing her to have to get 25 stitches in her face. The other passenger had some minor bruising and was ok overall. But my girlfriend suffered the worst and still is. But when the woman got out of her car all she could complain about was her new car that got wrecked. She didn't check to make sure we were ok. Some guy came over from the nearest gas station and came and checked on her. SHE WASN'T HURT AT ALL, REMEMBER THIS. No one came to check on this. I called the cops and got an ambulance because she was bleeding very badly.


I want to see if there is anything I can get on her, Enough to sue. She has caused alot of pain for me and definatly for my girlfriend. She had no regard to the people hurt and thought about herself. The cop also gave me gave me a $150 ticket for failing to yield at turn before turning left. I think thats bullshit. Is there ANY way I can do something?

I am in such a tight spot. I got fired on thursday from my job and got in an accident and wrecked my car on Friday. I am left with nothing, not to mention my girlfriend is in a **** load of pain.

Oh and just so you know I am only 17 so that may change some things.

[Smokey D]

Talk to a lawyer, not to an internet forum.

[Bread and Faxes]

I don't wanna do that just yet. I wanna see if there is any shot in hell I could even contemplate doing this

[Dr Hooch]

Did you photograph the scene after the crash

Did you accept fault on the scene

are you looking to sue because you want to make money or to make a point

Are you lieing to yourself about yeilding at a turn across the traffic

Did the woman definately run a red light or was it her right of way

is there CCTV there

do you have hospital fees to pay for your girlfriend

can you afford a lawyer

all would be pretty useful info here

[StrangeVision]

If you're actually serious about this, talk to a lawyer. I mean, it sounds to me like she had the right-of-way and you got in her way. Maybe you thought you had enough time, but you didn't. There's really no way you can prove she was speeding, and if your only premise is your word and the fact that girlfriend is hurting, your not going to go very far. You may think it's "bullpoop," but I don't really think you have too much to go off of. The other woman didn't have to check on you, wither.

[Surtr]

Did you photograph the scene after the crash

Did you accept fault on the scene

are you looking to sue because you want to make money or to make a point

Are you lieing to yourself about yeilding at a turn across the traffic

Did the woman definately run a red light or was it her right of way

is there CCTV there

do you have hospital fees to pay for your girlfriend

can you afford a lawyer

all would be pretty useful info here

This.

I'm sorry man, but to be honest, you've got not a whole lot to go off of. I know that sucks a lot, but it's the truth.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't wanna do that just yet. I wanna see if there is any shot in hell I could even contemplate doing this

A lawyer would know this far better than most here.

I can't see why she wouldn't be liable for damages caused though.

Odds are if you ask a law firm then they'll give you free advice on the case and maybe offer to proceed on your behalf for a fee.

[pedro durruti]

Sue that girl for wanting to go to the hospital over a migraine. I'm not too fond of sueing people, and she should definitely cover the medical plus auto bill. But she does sound like a reckless person who does not care for other humans that much if she is complaining about her car when blood flows..

[Akira]

A lawyer would know this far better than most here.

I can't see why she wouldn't be liable for damages caused though.

Odds are if you ask a law firm then they'll give you free advice on the case and maybe offer to proceed on your behalf for a fee.

Because his word is the only thing that says he was in the right of way? If he had had clearance to safely turn and still got hit, then she would have had to put the pedal to the metal after he started turning, which I find unlikely.
The fact is that she had the right of way, and he should learn to look before he turns.

[Permanent Solution]

If you don't have video footage showing clearly she was speeding you have no case at all.

If you have that you'll still need a good lawyer to win.

There's no law against being a heinous bitch unfortunately.

[PerpetualBurn]

Because his word is the only thing that says he was in the right of way?

It would be daft of me to start speculating about anything to do with it. He was there and we weren't. His story lacks a lot of detail. If she had insurance, then he may be able to claim off that depending on circumstance.

He should consult legal advice from someone qualified.

If you don't have video footage showing clearly she was speeding you have no case at all.

If you have that you'll still need a good lawyer to win.

Not really. If she were speeding then he could make claims off her insurance.

[Akira]

It would be daft of me to start speculating about anything to do with it. He was there and we weren't. His story lacks a lot of detail. If she had insurance, then he may be able to claim off that depending on circumstance.

He should consult legal advice from someone qualified.



Not really. If she were speeding then he could make claims off her insurance.

But without video, he has no way to prove she was speeding.

[PerpetualBurn]

I have no idea what he has.


Reading it again, I notice this

The cop also gave me gave me a $150 ticket for failing to yield at turn before turning left.

I'm going to guess that if the cops gave him a ticket for what he did then she isn't to blame.

[Permanent Solution]

Cops will give a ticket in that situation to the person who was hit almost every time because based on the evidence at hand that's the right call.

Unfortunately if he goes to court, him being ticketed as at fault will play heavily on any claims he makes so without good evidence to support his claim she was speeding he's not going to get anything by suing. Without a good lawyer, that is.

[The Stig]

Ok so. Last friday I got in a car accident. I was held at fault. Here's the story and what I wanna do about it.

Ok, so I went on a date with my girlfriend LeeAnn on Friday. We went to eat and then we went and saw Superbad (Awesome movie by the way) but anyway, we got done our date and her best friend called her and said that her friends sister wanted to go to the hospital because she had a migraine. So I went and picked her up and was taking her to the hospital. When I was only like 2 minutes away I was making a Left turn across the highway and was struck by some woman in her Pontiac G6. I had a solid green light and I yielded to traffic like I should have. I had clearance so I proceeded to cross the highway. She then slammed into me. That part of the highway was 35 mph. She was EASILY 150 Yards away, way more than enough time for me to cross. She must have been speeding. She T-boned me and caused my passengers side window to smash against my girlfriends face causing her to have to get 25 stitches in her face. The other passenger had some minor bruising and was ok overall. But my girlfriend suffered the worst and still is. But when the woman got out of her car all she could complain about was her new car that got wrecked. She didn't check to make sure we were ok. Some guy came over from the nearest gas station and came and checked on her. SHE WASN'T HURT AT ALL, REMEMBER THIS. No one came to check on this. I called the cops and got an ambulance because she was bleeding very badly.


I want to see if there is anything I can get on her, Enough to sue. She has caused alot of pain for me and definatly for my girlfriend. She had no regard to the people hurt and thought about herself. The cop also gave me gave me a $150 ticket for failing to yield at turn before turning left. I think thats bullshit. Is there ANY way I can do something?

I am in such a tight spot. I got fired on thursday from my job and got in an accident and wrecked my car on Friday. I am left with nothing, not to mention my girlfriend is in a **** load of pain.

Oh and just so you know I am only 17 so that may change some things.

Are you going to sue yourself for causing the accident? From your description, it was your fault. You should probably have waited and seen how fast the woman was traveling. And the police should have been able to tell if she was sppeding as much as you say she was. You are supposed to yield to traffic for a reason. I'm pretty sure your inexperience led to it. No, I don't think you can sue.

[Krabsworth]

jeez if she was so far away how did you not get out the way you are at fault bud

[Kage]

Unfortunately, the requirement to yield for a left turn pretty much negates any case you have. The only thing a lawyer could do for you is to possibly lower your fine and/or get the ticket removed from your record, but I doubt they could spin it so that it's the other person's fault.

[Iscaryot]

you should have yielded

there's this handy little thing called defensive driving in which you never assume that any other driver is looking out for you so you in turn are looking out for every other driver

you should have waited and let her go and if you miss the light you miss the light the bitch only had a migraine i'm sure she would have rather have had that than injuries due to a car accident

[Chu]

She had a migraine and wanted to go to the hospital?

[Iscaryot]

women are weak

[The_Berzerker]

Sounds your in the stink our young friend, without any evidence or proof that she was speeding your going to have to shoulder the charges

[GreyHam]

you should have yielded

there's this handy little thing called defensive driving in which you never assume that any other driver is looking out for you so you in turn are looking out for every other driver

you should have waited and let her go and if you miss the light you miss the light the bitch only had a migraine i'm sure she would have rather have had that than injuries due to a car accident

this

sorry mate but...even if its your right of way, if someones cannoning towards you you dont pop out in front of them expecting them to stop

[Akira]

Quite frankly, you should thank whatever deity you may or may not worship that the other woman wasn't hurt, because if she had been she probably would have sued you and won.

[GreyHam]

Quite frankly, you should thank whatever deity you may or may not worship that the other woman wasn't hurt, because if she had been she probably would have sued you and won.

isnt that what insurance is there for?

[Smokey D]

Not all insurance policies will cover you if you're the one at fault.

[GreyHam]

really? i understood it as if your third party of TPFT then if your at fault, the other person can claim off your insurance but your stuffed for your own repairs, whereas comprehensive means that whatever happens your you can claim

or is that just the UK#

or am i just wrong

but what i meant was, why would she need to sue if her expenses were covered by insurance?

or, again, am i ignorant about how things work in the US?

[Dr Hooch]

In the US you sue somebody because they always want somebody to blame

[Pastorius]

i blame rock music

[Reaganista]

if she hit you it's her fault
you should never accept blame in that situation

[The Stig]

But if someone turns in front of you and you have no time to slow down, you are not at fault.

T/S is S.O.L.

[StrangeVision]

i blame rock music

Kids and their loud music.:mad:

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Did you photograph the scene after the crash

Did you accept fault on the scene

are you looking to sue because you want to make money or to make a point

Are you lieing to yourself about yeilding at a turn across the traffic

Did the woman definately run a red light or was it her right of way

is there CCTV there

do you have hospital fees to pay for your girlfriend

can you afford a lawyer

all would be pretty useful info here


Ok man here's the deal,
I'm am currently on my way to law school and I'm letting you know from my perspective that the questions above are all good questions, but from what it seems you have to be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that she was in the wrong. What it seems like to me is that you did fail to yeild and due to her also have a green light, she too had the right away.

So the bottom line is no, sadly there's nothing you can do and I do wish you the best.

:thumb:

[Reaganista]

But if someone turns in front of you and you have no time to slow down, you are not at fault.
ya as long as you don't hit them

[Akira]

really? i understood it as if your third party of TPFT then if your at fault, the other person can claim off your insurance but your stuffed for your own repairs, whereas comprehensive means that whatever happens your you can claim

or is that just the UK#

or am i just wrong

but what i meant was, why would she need to sue if her expenses were covered by insurance?

or, again, am i ignorant about how things work in the US?

If she was hurt and had medical expenses on top of car repairs, she could have damn well sued him. As it is, the threadstarter's insurance is going to pretty much skyrocket.

[Kage]

ya as long as you don't hit them

No, because there is a law that says you must yield to oncoming traffic if you are taking a left turn. If you fail to yield and a collision results, the person who failed to give the proper right of way is at fault (ie, the left turner).

[Reaganista]

there's a law that says you have to be in control of your vehicle

[Kage]

Ok...?

The only law that has proven to have been broken in the threadstarter's situation is that he failed to yield the right of way for a left turn. There is no proof that the other car was out of control, speeding, or had any chance of stopping or getting out of the way.

EDIT: Or, rather, the only law that CAN be proven when it goes to court is...

[StrangeVision]

The TS didn't have the right of way and got hit. That's all that happened, a poor judgment call on the part of the TS. There is no evidence that the hitting car was speeding, other than the TS's opinion, which is skewed because he is stuck with the only ticket. Bad judgment calls and mistakes don't mean you shouldn't be at fault.

[GreyHam]

there's a law that says you have to be in control of your vehicle

so just pulling out of junctions and expecting other cars to stop is the system now is it...

[spitfirejunky]

If you didn't call an insurance agent on the scene, then there isn't much for a case.

[LittlePound]

I'm not sure if it'd be worth suing seeing as you were faulted...it'd probably just cost you that much more. I was in a car accident that also wasn't my fault but i was faulted. Me and this other guy were coming from opposite directions both turning onto the same two lane street. I had a red, so i stopped, checked the intersection and turned right, he was speeding but had a green arrow so he took the turn. Since he was speeding he came over into my lane and hit me but i was faulted becuase i had the red light and "failed to yield". It was a bunch of crap, nobody was hurt luckily but i can relate to bad traffic calls.

[Chu]

I was in a car accident, I was able to sue, and I won.

[The Stig]

I'm not sure if it'd be worth suing seeing as you were faulted...it'd probably just cost you that much more. I was in a car accident that also wasn't my fault but i was faulted. Me and this other guy were coming from opposite directions both turning onto the same two lane street. I had a red, so i stopped, checked the intersection and turned right, he was speeding but had a green arrow so he took the turn. Since he was speeding he came over into my lane and hit me but i was faulted becuase i had the red light and "failed to yield". It was a bunch of crap, nobody was hurt luckily but i can relate to bad traffic calls.

If he was close enough to hit you when he had a protected green, you went too soon.

[Reaganista]

Ok...?

The only law that has proven to have been broken in the threadstarter's situation is that he failed to yield the right of way for a left turn. There is no proof that the other car was out of control
except of course for the part where she was unable to control her vehicle and hit another car

[The Stig]

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about Tway. There's a difference between swerving into someone in another lane and having some dumb kid turn in front of you too quickly for you to be able to properly react.

[Akira]

Tway's a troll, don't even bother.

[The Stig]

I know. I try to avoid it, but God he pisses me off.

[Reaganista]

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about Tway. There's a difference between swerving into someone in another lane and having some dumb kid turn in front of you too quickly for you to be able to properly react.
ya there's a difference
but both are entirely your fault

[The Stig]

Not by virtue of not being in control of your car.

[StrangeVision]

I'm not sure if it'd be worth suing seeing as you were faulted...it'd probably just cost you that much more. I was in a car accident that also wasn't my fault but i was faulted. Me and this other guy were coming from opposite directions both turning onto the same two lane street. I had a red, so i stopped, checked the intersection and turned right, he was speeding but had a green arrow so he took the turn. Since he was speeding he came over into my lane and hit me but i was faulted becuase i had the red light and "failed to yield". It was a bunch of crap, nobody was hurt luckily but i can relate to bad traffic calls.

Let's recap: You had a red light, he had a green light. He hit you while taking the right of way...hmm. I wonder why you were found to be at fault. Again, poor decision making by the person who doesn't have the right of way that leads to that person getting hit by someone with the right of way does not equal fault to the person WITH the right of way.

LittlePound is at fault, the TS is at fault, that's it.

[Iscaryot]

lol littlepound

"i violated the right of way and turned right on a red but that jerk with the green light was wrong to hit me :mad:"

[Reaganista]

Not by virtue of not being in control of your car.
if you were in control of your car (i.e. not comitting reckless driving) you'd be able to stop in time

[Smokey D]

Blind corners say you're wrong.

And also, if a person has stopped, given you right of way and then moves into your path when you can no longer reasonably stop (bearing in mind the distance traveled between putting on the breaks actually stopping can be significant) you aren't at fault.

[Iscaryot]

if you were in control of your car (i.e. not comitting reckless driving) you'd be able to stop in time

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/43810/article.html

Although we at Edmunds.com spend a lot of time writing about rpm, torque, 0-to-60-mph acceleration, etc., nothing is more important than your car's ability to stop itself. Knowing something about braking distances (how much ground a vehicle covers before it can fully stop) can make for safer and more enjoyable driving.

Let's start with the basics. A vehicle traveling at 60 mph covers 88 feet per second. But stopping that vehicle takes over 4.5 seconds and covers a distance of 271 feet. Why? Because there's more involved in braking than the actual time your brakes are applied to the wheels (called "effective braking"). In particular, "perception time" and "reaction time" add considerable distance to stopping your car.

Perception time is the three-quarters of a second it takes for you to realize that you need to brake. Reaction time is the three-quarters of a second it takes to move your foot to the brake pedal. When you combine perception and reaction time, a full 132 feet will pass before your car even begins to slow down from 60 mph. So from the time you perceive a braking situation until the time your car comes to a complete stop, a total of 4.6 seconds elapses. During that time your car travels — it bears repeating — a total of more than 270 feet. That's almost the length of a football field. Of course, the faster you go, the more time and distance it takes to stop.

There are other factors as well, such as road conditions. When weather is bad, your braking distance grows exponentially. On wet pavement, total braking time increases from 4.6 seconds to 6.1 seconds, and total braking distance shoots up from 271 feet to 333 feet. And it gets worse. In snowy conditions, even with snow tires, total stopping time jumps to 10.6 seconds and 533 feet. As a basis of comparison, this is roughly the same distance — actually, a little further — as the same vehicle coming to a complete stop from 90 mph on dry pavement, an effective doubling of the braking distance. Let us repeat that: a 100-percent increase.

So what do we do with all these numbers? There's nothing we can do about the weather or about road surfaces, but we can do something about the way we drive. Arming ourselves with knowledge can prevent the loss of property and human life.

First, if you drive a truck or SUV, be especially cognizant of your speed in bad weather. Sitting higher off the road than everyone else only means you'll have a better view of the passing countryside as you slam sideways into a snowbank.

Second, remember this law: That which makes you go won't make you stop. If you drive a four-wheeler, you're not immune to the laws of physics, in fact you're a bit more susceptible (if for no other reason than your overconfidence). Whether you drive an Escort or an Excursion, it doesn't matter. In fact, the heavier weight of a truck or SUV means it will take much longer to come to a stop, given its greater momentum. Repeat: four-wheel drive does not help you stop. We're tired of seeing you folks spun around on the side of the road facing the wrong way. Slow down before you hurt somebody.

Third, remember to keep a "space cushion" around your vehicle at all times — ahead, to the sides and behind your car. This can be difficult to accomplish, especially in heavy traffic where everyone is darting in and out. How close is too close when it comes to following the car ahead of you? There's a handy "3-second rule." When the vehicle ahead of you passes a certain point, such as a sign, count "one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two, one-thousand-three." This takes about 3 seconds. If you pass that certain point before you finish counting, you are following too closely. We suggest a 4-second (or more) cushion in inclement weather.

Fourth, the tires you choose and their condition are another important, yet often overlooked, factor. See our articles, "Tire Safety: Don't Ignore the Rubber on the Road" and "Tires: Traffic Safety Tips" for all the details on tire selection and maintenance.

There are a few other factors that affect braking distances. As stated before, the heavier your vehicle is, the longer it will take to stop. Bear that in mind when you shop for a car or when you load it up. Also, the looser the road surface (gravel, dirt, mud), the harder it is to stop.

Finally, we strongly recommend that buyers choose a car equipped with antilock brakes (ABS), which, with few exceptions, help decrease braking distances on any road surface and in any weather. Whenever a driver slams on the brakes (and it's happened to everyone), the tires have the potential to lock up, sending you skidding. In a skid, tires have little traction, you lose steering control and braking distance is greatly increased. Antilock braking systems are designed to prevent tire lockup by automatically and rapidly "pumping" the brakes, potentially decreasing braking distances in extreme situations.

Of course, in order to get the most out of ABS in emergency braking situations, you have to know how to use it. And really, it couldn't be easier; you just stomp on the pedal. Some drivers are inclined to ease up on the brake pedal when they feel the vibration (and hear the noise) of the ABS doing its work, but it's important to maintain constant, controlled pressure. Aware that people often don't supply enough braking pressure, many manufacturers now supplement their antilock systems with "brake assist," which senses panic braking situations and automatically provides full power braking to shorten the stopping distance.

Many new cars come with antilock brakes as standard equipment, but you must often purchase them as an option on low- to moderately priced cars. And on some models, you may have to step up to a higher trim level to get ABS. Regardless, antilock brakes are a worthwhile feature and we highly recommend that you spend the extra money to get them.

What about disc brakes? Do they make a difference? Today we usually find four-wheel-disc brakes as standard equipment on most midpriced coupes, sedans, wagons and SUVs. Many economy vehicles and pickup trucks, however, continue to utilize a front-disc/rear-drum brake setup, which in most cases provides adequate performance for the general consumer. Nevertheless, vehicles with four-wheel discs usually deliver shorter stopping distances and are less susceptible to fade (loss of braking performance due to heat).

Whether you're reacting to sudden slowdowns on the highway or to a child darting into the street, nothing is more important than safe, well-maintained brakes (and the tires that work with them). Have them inspected according to the maintenance schedule in the owner's manual, and don't wait to have them checked out if you notice a pedal vibration or excessive noise when braking. That squeal you hear is probably telling you something — something that would be cheaper to fix now rather than later.

Additionally, being aware of all the variables — your proximity to other vehicles, weather conditions, road surface — will help you judge proper speed and give you time to react to whatever comes your way.

[Reaganista]

Blind corners say you're wrong.
i can certainly see how you could be hit by somebody else without a chance to react if they came from a blind corner but i can't possibly see how they could be able to get in front of you and you not being able to stop
unless you were driving recklessly
And also, if a person has stopped, given you right of way and then moves into your path when you can no longer reasonably stop (bearing in mind the distance traveled between putting on the breaks actually stopping can be significant) you aren't at fault.
as long as you don't hit them

Let's start with the basics. A vehicle traveling at 60 mph covers 88 feet per second.
and this has what to do with roads with traffic lights

[The Stig]

No Jared. You are not in control of your car physics is so it's your fault if some dumbass kid cuts in front of you and you hit him geeze.

i can certainly see how you could be hit by somebody else without a chance to react if they came from a blind corner but i can't possibly see how they could be able to get in front of you and you not being able to stop
unless you were driving recklessly

It's not that hard. I am going straight through the intersection on the highway at 60 MPH. When I am 150 feet from the intersection, some dumbass kid pulls out in front of me because he is talking on the phone/not paying attention/just plain stupid. I hit him because even when driving carefully, it is physically impossible to stop in time given the mechanical limits of my car and limits of perception/reaction. How much thicker can you be besides just trying to piss everyone off?

[Smokey D]

i can certainly see how you could be hit by somebody else without a chance to react if they came from a blind corner but i can't possibly see how they could be able to get in front of you and you not being able to stop
unless you were driving recklessly

Get in front of you? You mean like t-boning them? Maybe not. But you can still hit them before stopping.

as long as you don't hit them

No, even if you do. See above.

[Reaganista]

Get in front of you? You mean like t-boning them? Maybe not. But you can still hit them before stopping.
well of course you can
No, even if you do. See above.
i see it yet am unaffected

[Smokey D]

well of course you can

From a blind corner, where neither they see you nor you see them?


i see it yet am unaffected

Because you're trolling.

[Reaganista]

From a blind corner, where neither they see you nor you see them?
yeah that's what you said
Because you're trolling.
because nobody should be doing 60 mph anywhere near a traffic light

[GreyHam]

you might as well argue with an egg...seriously...just dont

[StrangeVision]

It's not that hard. I am going straight through the intersection on the highway at 60 MPH. When I am 150 feet from the intersection, some dumbass kid pulls out in front of me because he is talking on the phone/not paying attention/just plain stupid. I hit him because even when driving carefully, it is physically impossible to stop in time given the mechanical limits of my car and limits of perception/reaction. How much thicker can you be besides just trying to piss everyone off?

You're driving recklessly. :rolleyes:

[Smokey D]

because nobody should be doing 60 mph anywhere near a traffic light

Not the only place where something liek this could occur.

yeah that's what you said

So what you're saying is that people should be able to stop for people they do not know are there and have no reasonable way of knowing they are there until they move into view 2 seconds before the crash happens?

[The Stig]

because nobody should be doing 60 mph anywhere near a traffic light

There are a lot of state highways here where the limit is 65 MPH. Are we now supposed to slam on the brakes and get our asses rear-ended by the other moron teen who has been tailgating us for the last fifteen miles so we can satisfy some Tway fantasy world traffic stipulation?

[Reaganista]

There are a lot of state highways here where the limit is 65 MPH. Are we now supposed to slam on the brakes and get our asses rear-ended by the other moron teen who has been tailgating us for the last fifteen miles so we can satisfy some Tway fantasy world traffic stipulation?
umm no you're supposed to not speed on roads that actually have traffic lights
Not the only place where something liek this could occur
something like turning left at a light?
where else does that occur

So what you're saying is that people should be able to stop for people they do not know are there and have no reasonable way of knowing they are there until they move into view 2 seconds before the crash happens?
well i said they shouldn't hit them

[The Stig]

umm no you're supposed to not speed on roads that actually have traffic lights


Many roads with speed limits of up to and sometimes surpassing 65 MPH have traffic lights. You said that nobody should be going anywhere near 60 MPH at a traffic light. Speeding is going over the posted speed limit. But some posted speed limits are above your magical stipulation. In fact, you can take it further and see that someone who slows down to 60 (assuming there isn't someone following too closely for this to be safe) at a traffic light on a road is actually being a safe and responsible (the opposite of reckless, essentially) driver by doing so. In this case, you are not speeding, and are actually driving well under the posted speed limit. This comment quoted essentially becomes one giant non sequiter.

I usually try to avoid attacking the person, but if you're going to be such a troll about things, at least follow some sort of logical argument instead of suffering from diarrhea of the keyboard. Geeze.

[Smokey D]

umm no you're supposed to not speed on roads that actually have traffic lights

Highways have traffic lights on them.

But that's not the point, because you can have these sorts of events on roads without traffic lights.

something like turning left at a light?
where else does that occur

Turning left with no light.

well i said they shouldn't hit them

How?

[Reaganista]

Many roads with speed limits of up to and sometimes surpassing 65 MPH have traffic lights
i dispute this assertion
i've never seen one
and that sounds like the craziest thing i've ever heard people drive like idiots around traffic lights

Turning left with no light.
well that's vaguely similar but still no excuse to randomly crash into people
How?
by being in control of their vehicle

[Smokey D]

well that's vaguely similar but still no excuse to randomly crash into people

The person who crashes is not always the one at fault...


by being in control of their vehicle

Even though they can't see the other person?

[The Stig]

i dispute this assertion
i've never seen one
and that sounds like the craziest thing i've ever heard people drive like idiots around traffic lights

State Highway 316, which stretches for 39 (I think; I may be slightly off here) miles across Gwinnett, Barrow, Oconee, and Athens-Clarke Counties, Georgia. Approximately half the section in Gwinnett, all of Barrow, and part of Oconee Counties have a posted speed limit of 65 MPH. There are traffic lights scattered actross the entire length of the highway from Lawrenceville (Between its western terminus at Interstate 85 and Lawrenceville it is actually limited access with posted limits of 45 MPH and 55 MPH) to Athens.

The fallacy you're looking for is an argument from personal incredulity, I think.

[Permanent Solution]

i dispute this assertion
i've never seen one
and that sounds like the craziest thing i've ever heard people drive like idiots around traffic lights

the fact that you've never seen traffic lights in a 65 zone is immaterial to the fact that they do exist, and thus far itt you seem to be the only one unaware that they do exist.

[Reaganista]

The person who crashes is not always the one at fault...
yeah i guess they could have to swerve to avoid a pedestrian or maybe they were shot while driving or something i saw that in a movie
Even though they can't see the other person?
ya you're supposed to be in control of your vehicle even if you have every reason to believe that you're the only person driving within a five mile radius
State Highway 316, which stretches for 39 (I think; I may be slightly off here) miles across Gwinnett, Barrow, Oconee, and Athens-Clarke Counties, Georgia. Approximately half the section in Gwinnett, all of Barrow, and part of Oconee Counties have a posted speed limit of 65 MPH. There are traffic lights scattered actross the entire length of the highway from Lawrenceville (Between its western terminus at Interstate 85 and Lawrenceville it is actually limited access with posted limits of 45 MPH and 55 MPH) to Athens.

The fallacy you're looking for is an argument from personal incredulity, I think.
the fact that you've never seen traffic lights in a 65 zone is immaterial to the fact that they do exist, and thus far itt you seem to be the only one unaware that they do exist.
I don't believe you
and even if these lies are true then they are really stupidly designed roads and people should know to excercise extreme caution around such monuments to idiocy

[Iscaryot]

tway doesn't leave the house much he just sits on here and argues all day

[GreyHam]

i have never seen nelson mandela

therefore, i refute it thus

[Iscaryot]

i've never seen a white guy dunk a basketball anyone who says this happens is a liar blah blah blah

[Reaganista]

tway's mostly just glad he doesn't drive anywhere where there's people stupid enough to put a yellow light in front of traffic going 70+ mph

[The Stig]

65 MPH isn't 70+ dude.

[Iscaryot]

tway's mostly just glad he doesn't drive anywhere where there's people stupid enough to put a yellow light in front of traffic going 70+ mph

*65mph

highways cross through towns and intersect with main roads street lights are a requirement and actually improve safety not detract from it

[Reaganista]

are you prepared to argue that people do not routinely do 5+ mph over the speed limit
highways cross through towns and intersect with main roads street lights are a requirement and actually improve safety not detract from it
i dont see how having a highway intersect with main street, hillybillyville is at all safe

[GreyHam]

it is the way tway drives...

but, yknow, hes always in control of the vehicle...

[The Stig]

I don't believe in towns therefore they do not exist.

Tway -- You're sidetracking. People obviously break the speed limit. But my argument dealt with people driving at the speed limit. Don't change stipulations and premises halfway through to distort them to mean what you want them to mean.

[Iscaryot]

are you prepared to argue that people do not routinely do 5+ mph over the speed limit

not in a monitored speed zone where there are cops armed with radar they don't

[Iscaryot]

i dont see how having a highway intersect with main street, hillybillyville is at all safe

it's an economic benefit to route a highway through towns that can benefit from commuter commerce

are you actually arguing that crosswalks are death traps

[Reaganista]

not in a monitored speed zone where there are cops armed with radar no
lol it's funny that people think i'm not being serious when others say stuff like this
it's an economic benefit to route a highway through towns that can benefit from commuter commerce

have you ever heard of exit ramps

are you actually arguing that crosswalks are death traps
well yeah a lot of people do die crossing the street but what's that got to do with building a highway where ye olde general store used to be

[Iscaryot]

what's funny about that besides the fact that it refutes your 3rd grade logic

[Reaganista]

a few things are funny about it but it really doesn't matter because even if everybody is doing the speed limit it's still completely idiotic to put a yellow light in front of traffic going 65mph

[Iscaryot]

it doesn't matter because you're just trolling and grasping at straws to hold ground

the light offers enough time to recognize the change and slow your vehicle accordingly

those too close to stop have time to clear the intersection and those far enough away have time to apply their brakes and stop

every once in a while you see someone stop a little too far forward but the walk signal does not change until all the vehicles in front have stopped so i don't see any problem in the placement of traffic lights on highways at all

there have been maybe two accidents here in the past ten years at these intersections and neither was fatal

[Reaganista]

the problem is yellow lights make people freak out
especially people who are convinced that cops are watching them

[Iscaryot]

some people don't understand how to interpret a yellow light sure but that doesn't mean we should abolish traffic lights in high speed areas rather we should add a light color if anything to offer more of a reaction time buffer

[Reaganista]

ome people don't understand how to interpret a yellow light sure but that doesn't mean we should abolish traffic lights in high speed areas
yes it does

[Iscaryot]

unless you can statistically support the idea that traffic lights on highways lead to an increase in traffic collisions in all applicable areas i don't think you're at liberty to make that call

[Reaganista]

i dont need statistics ive logically explained how it's stupid

[Iscaryot]

so now we're redefining logic

this thread is a testament to the ages

[Permanent Solution]

I have bookmarked this thread for the next time I'm feeling sad and need a good laugh.

[Dr Hooch]

Laugh?

This thread makes me cry, deep deep inside.

[GreyHam]

Laugh?

This thread makes me cry, deep deep inside.

ditto. really, really ditto

[TheBigMachine]

Laugh?

This thread makes me cry, deep deep inside.

You speak the truth.

[Akira]

I would just like to add something to this. The woman who hit him obviously saw him fairly soon tried to stop. Had this women just been being reckless or whatever and not been paying attention, this guy's girlfriend would be dead, and the woman could be too.
Going at highway speeds, it takes a while to slow down enough that you could hit someone turning in front of you and have the worst injuries only involve some stitches.

[Jharaski]

What. I see nothing stupid about putting a light on a highway. Just don't stick it right in front of an on ramp. Plenty of Jersey roads are 55 mph (ok so it's not 60 or 65) with lights everywhere and even with out atrocious driving habits, people don't crash because of it. They crash because they do stupid things like going 100 down route 1 with 18-wheelers all around them.

It IS kinda pointless to put at light there though, because a proper design would have the road go UNDER the highway, with on ramps available to get onto it. But that doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous to have lights on highways.

[Jharaski]

I would just like to add something to this. The woman who hit him obviously saw him fairly soon tried to stop. Had this women just been being reckless or whatever and not been paying attention, this guy's girlfriend would be dead, and the woman could be too.
Going at highway speeds, it takes a while to slow down enough that you could hit someone turning in front of you and have the worst injuries only involve some stitches.

I dunno about that. Side impacts aren't always deadly. I wonder what the TS was driving. (if it's something like a Neon or Cavalier, the woman couldn't have been going more than 10, tbh)

[beso negro]

I was inches close from getting into an accident with a ambulance yesterday. I guess it would have been my fault but idk.

Roundabouts don't make sense to me :p

[Dr Hooch]

Well when the directions say "go right at the roundabout" you shouldn't take that too literally

(it just occured to me that this is only the case in the UK, but you cackhanded drivers can mirror it)

[Jharaski]

wtf. roundabout? what a ****ing stupid sounding word. Jersey just calls them circles. I was so surprised to hear that this like the only place that does that.

[The Stig]

i dont need statistics ive logically explained how i'm stupid

Fixed.

You lost aother argument. Conceed for once.

[StrangeVision]

wtf. roundabout? what a ****ing stupid sounding word. Jersey just calls them circles. I was so surprised to hear that this like the only place that does that.

You live in the armpit of the country, that's why.

[Pastorius]

Isn't there only 1 roundabout in America? Something stupid like that.

[StrangeVision]

Isn't there only 1 roundabout in America? Something stupid like that.

umm...no.

[Berner]

Holy piss Tway is retarded.

[The Stig]

Isn't there only 1 roundabout in America? Something stupid like that.

There is one in my apartment complex and another at a Wal-Mart near where I live.

[jeffro]

You didn't yeild to traffic, thats why you got hit. And even if she was speeding(which would be extremely difficult to do), you were both equally in the wrong.

[Reaganista]

ya but she hit him
so now we're redefining logic
no
Fixed.

You lost aother argument. Conceed for once.
well i guess so i mean you did change my quote and all how can i hope to compete against such a clever person
or not

[The Stig]

ya but she hit him

no

well i guess so i mean you did change my quote and all how can i hope to compete against such a clever person
or not

You can try to compete by thinking logically and not being a general jackass when it comes to common sense things. When you are refuted, you don't actually try to argue a point; you just act stupid and try to piss off anyone you can. Then when you are proved wrong with your changed rules of logic, you regress even farther by stating the other person is lying while you argue from incredulity. I'd put you on ignore, but you're thinking is too funny to waste that way.

[Reaganista]

i dont have to try to think logically
i was not refuted
i said you were lying only because what you were suggesting seemed to be too monumentally stupid to exist
and putting people on ignore is lame

[PerpetualBurn]

Then when you are proved wrong

Asking for statistics is not a disproof.

[beso negro]

Isn't there only 1 roundabout in America? Something stupid like that.

I have only drove around the roundabout in Baltimore. Never seen any others except for insignificant ones in like townhouse neighborhoods.

Like most Americans, I have a hard time with them.

You live in the armpit of the country, that's why.

Jersey is the richest state in the US.

[Akira]

hey guyz i need help

i ran a red lite n sum idiot wuz in da intersexion cuz he had gren n i hit him

cn i suw?

[beso negro]

Yes because by the sound of your details, the guy was clearly not in control of his vehicle. The right of way is determined by who has more control of their vehicle.

[Akira]

sw33t so u tink i cn win???

[The Stig]

He hit you but I don't believe you that red lights exist on roads because that is dangerous.

[Already_Taken]

And speeding would be extremely difficult to do.

[Reaganista]

i speed absolutely everywhere i go

[Jharaski]

Me too. Man 25 is way too slow for residential neighborhoods. One of those roads is the only place I ever went over double the speed limit. In a Dodge Stratus. How I managed to hit 60 before the end of the road, I will never know.

[Already_Taken]

Me too. Man 25 is way too slow for residential neighborhoods. One of those roads is the only place I ever went over double the speed limit. In a Dodge Stratus. How I managed to hit 60 before the end of the road, I will never know.

I speed, but honestly 25 is not too slow for residential, you just don't have kids. Neither do I, but I hate when people speed down my street. Just too many what ifs, and going 35 won't get you to the stop sign at the end of the street much faster, I promise.

And parking lots, too. **** you if you speed in parking lots or residential neighborhoods. Otherwise who cares?

[Reaganista]

i got pulled over doing 46 in a 15 once

[Jharaski]

I speed, but honestly 25 is not too slow for residential, you just don't have kids. Neither do I, but I hate when people speed down my street. Just too many what ifs, and going 35 won't get you to the stop sign at the end of the street much faster, I promise.

And parking lots, too. **** you if you speed in parking lots or residential neighborhoods. Otherwise who cares?

This was at 11:54 and my girlfriend had to be somewhere at noon. 35 won't get you there much faster but 60 will - and as far as I am concerned, it was pretty safe. You could see down almost the entire street that no one was even outside, so I don't see the issue. And with a quiet engine, what the hey.

i got pulled over doing 46 in a 15 once

yeah man one time this guy was going way too slow in the left lane, and the right lane was about to disappear right. and I am catching up to him and I see he's going maybelike 40. and I'm like I wanna go 50, so I pop in the right lane, floor it, pass him at 60, then when I go to slow down there is a****ing cop right there man.

[Already_Taken]

If you feel you can justify speeding through a neighborhood, you are a sick person. When you run over someone's child or dog, they won't like the answer "well my girlfriend has to be somewhere in 6 minutes lolz". I doubt you could see down the entire street and discern that nobody is outside at 60 mph. A quiet engine doesn't make it hurt any less when your car crushes somebody.

You irresponsible ****.

[Reaganista]

i couldn't care less if i run over somebody's dog and kids who play in the street and don't move when there's a car coming deserve to die so no harm really

[Jharaski]

If you feel you can justify speeding through a neighborhood, you are a sick person. When you run over someone's child or dog, they won't like the answer "well my girlfriend has to be somewhere in 6 minutes lolz". I doubt you could see down the entire street and discern that nobody is outside at 60 mph. A quiet engine doesn't make it hurt any less when your car crushes somebody.

You irresponsible ****.

No it was pretty easy to see that absolutely no one was outside, at least near the road. Maybe they were on their front porch which is a good 50-70 feet from the road in my neighborhood. As for the quiet engine, I meant it wasn't going to disturb anyone like it would if I were driving a Camaro.

I am irresponsible when it comes to a lot of things, but driving isn't one of them. I don't normally drive like hell, only when I have somewhere to be and am in the right condition to handle it.

[Reaganista]

I always do 15-40 over regardless of my condition or where I'm going

[GreyHam]

yea but, your a waste of space...

[Reaganista]

a really fast waste of space apparently

[Dr Hooch]

Me too. Man 25 is way too slow for residential neighborhoods. One of those roads is the only place I ever went over double the speed limit. In a Dodge Stratus. How I managed to hit 60 before the end of the road, I will never know.

60 miles per hour? in a road with houses down both sides?

Heck, here it's 30 in those kinds of places and i usually do 20-25 unless there's no cars blocking the side of the road and i can see all the way dowm and even then i only do 30.

Doing 60 in the sorts of places where people's pets and kids are likely to be around is pretty irresponsible really.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

You can't speed where I live. Cops at every god damn corner. I usually go 15-20 mph over the speed limit. But I'm an aggressive driver.

When you drive in the city you have to be or else you will go nowhere. But being aggressive in the suburbs is a problem for me :(

[Jharaski]

Yeah, there were houses on both sides of the road. But then again, every house has at least half an acre, most with 3/4. They're set plenty far from the house.

[CarnageFairy]

Like most Americans, I have a hard time with them.

Speak for yourself.

Anyway I suggest you don't go to Annapolis, there are quite a few traffic circles.


And there is no reason to drive slower than the speed limit. Ever. The worst is when you're on a highway and two or even three assholes (depending on how many lanes) decide to drive the same speed right next to each other. Invariably at the speed limit or 5 under.

****

[Reaganista]

there's no reason to do less than 25 over the speed limit

I hate when some asshole is doing 80 and the guy next to him is like 75 and i have to wait a few seconds until there's a gap barely big enough to squeeze my car in so i can pass and resume doing 95

[Dr Hooch]

Speak for yourself.

Anyway I suggest you don't go to Annapolis, there are quite a few traffic circles.


And there is no reason to drive slower than the speed limit. Ever. The worst is when you're on a highway and two or even three assholes (depending on how many lanes) decide to drive the same speed right next to each other. Invariably at the speed limit or 5 under.

****

Maybe in your country...

In my country there are plenty of situations where going at the speed limit would result in you not staying on the road for very long. Especially when the road is wet (which is usually)

[GreyHam]

country lanes = 60mph limit

also windy, pain in the arse and often single lane with passing places

remember kids, its not a target...

[Dr Hooch]

country lanes = 60mph limit

also windy, pain in the arse and often single lane with passing places

remember kids, its not a target...

absolutely

There's this peiceof road near me called the mile straight for pretty obvious reasons... Derestricted... 90 degree bend at one end of it

I'm not even sure they can be arsed repairing the wall any more

[LittlePound]

Let's recap: You had a red light, he had a green light. He hit you while taking the right of way...hmm. I wonder why you were found to be at fault. Again, poor decision making by the person who doesn't have the right of way that leads to that person getting hit by someone with the right of way does not equal fault to the person WITH the right of way.

LittlePound is at fault, the TS is at fault, that's it.

First of all, it was a two lane road, if he had turned in his lane and i in mine there would have been no problem, since he was speeding he came over in to my lane. Secondly, he didn't have his blinker on so there was no way for me to know he was turning and he wasn't anywhere near the intersection when i stopped and started my turn. But seeing as he was going about 40 and i was only doing about 5 he caught up quite fast, came over into my lane and hit me. I can't see how it's failure to yield if he didn't signal his turn, didn't stay in his lane and wasn't at the intersection when i was turning.

[Reaganista]

who the hells turns at 5 mph

Maybe in your country...

In my country there are plenty of situations where going at the speed limit would result in you not staying on the road for very long. Especially when the road is wet (which is usually)
it's not our fault that we know how to make roads

[Dr Hooch]

it's not our fault that we know how to make roads

My country had invented roads before they invented the straight line, that's all

[beso negro]

First of all, it was a two lane road, if he had turned in his lane and i in mine there would have been no problem, since he was speeding he came over in to my lane. Secondly, he didn't have his blinker on so there was no way for me to know he was turning and he wasn't anywhere near the intersection when i stopped and started my turn. But seeing as he was going about 40 and i was only doing about 5 he caught up quite fast, came over into my lane and hit me. I can't see how it's failure to yield if he didn't signal his turn, didn't stay in his lane and wasn't at the intersection when i was turning.

i don't think there is a law saying you have to use your turn signal.

[Dr Hooch]

i don't think there is a law saying you have to use your turn signal.

Are you kidding me?

Jesus christ...

Even if it's not the law, it makes it so much more your fault if you don't signal.

[CarnageFairy]

Maybe in your country...

In my country there are plenty of situations where going at the speed limit would result in you not staying on the road for very long. Especially when the road is wet (which is usually)

I was being a bit sarcastic with that post, lolz.

I don't have a problem with going the speed limit on neighborhood roads or narrow roads or any other road on which it is necessary for safety to do the speed limit, however the posted speed is often less than this. There really aren't any situations where going below the limit is necessary, barring mechanical problems or extreme inclimate weather.

I don't know how the roads are over yonder, but there are signs posted on most sharp turns with a recommended speed limit which is less than the legal limit for that road. This recommended speed is almost always lower than it has to be in dry conditions and in wet conditions is still usually a bit low.

In the end it all comes down to knowing how to drive your car, I guess.

Even if it's not the law, it makes it so much more your fault if you don't signal.

Unfortunately this isn't always the case. My mother, for example, was approaching a 3-way intersection a few years ago. she was turning right and had a stop sign. There was an oncoming car who was turning left and did not signal who did not have a stop sign. My mom went right and they went left and got into an accident. Because she had a stop sign my mom was at fault.

[LittlePound]

who the hells turns at 5 mph



'I was making a right on red....that means i was coming out of a complete stop.

[Reaganista]

who the hell comes to a complete stop when they turn on red

My country had invented roads before they invented the straight line, that's all
ya but you can rebuild roads

[Dr Hooch]

ya but you can rebuild roads

why the hell would we do that

you could drive from one end of the country to the other in under 24 hours and still have plenty of time to stop for a civilised lunch

[Reaganista]

well if your roads were straight then you could drive faster

[Dr Hooch]

we have smaller cars to compensate

this is also the story of how our racing circuits have corners

[PerpetualBurn]

Unfortunately this isn't always the case. My mother, for example, was approaching a 3-way intersection a few years ago. she was turning right and had a stop sign. There was an oncoming car who was turning left and did not signal who did not have a stop sign. My mom went right and they went left and got into an accident. Because she had a stop sign my mom was at fault.

Your mother's an idiot.

And to the other discussion, there are plenty of circumstances when you should drive at significantly lower than the speed limit.

[Reaganista]

i cant even think of circumstances where doing anywhere near the speed limit is acceptable, let alone lower

[PerpetualBurn]

Well that would depend on a rather vague use of the term "acceptable".

[Reaganista]

by acceptable i mean "should not be punished by certain and painful death"

[italic zero]

sheet ice?

[Reaganista]

the faster you go the faster you get past it

[Smokey D]

Black ice, a 90 degree corner and a cliff face.

[PerpetualBurn]

And, presumably, if those circumstance had arisen then Wile E Coyote would be waiting with some Acme product.

[CarnageFairy]

Your mother's an idiot.

MY MOTHER WAS A SAINT.

I guess it's customary for you to signal a turn when you are in fact going straight, and vice versa.

Wacky.

[pedro durruti]

Your mother's an idiot.

And to the other discussion, there are plenty of circumstances when you should drive at significantly lower than the speed limit.
Lol maybe in Britain but in America the other driver was the idiot.

[Dr Hooch]

Well it's confusing because you say she was going right but to us if you're going right you give way but it's the wother way round in mirrorland

[pedro durruti]

Hey, MIRRORLAND is like 75% of the world you ****ing communists.

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol maybe in Britain but in America the other driver was the idiot.

She didn't stop at a stop sign.

If Americans don't stop at stop signs then they're idiots.

[Jharaski]

What? There is almost never a reason to come to a full stop, especially when making a right turn. (Except blind corners, or if someone is in fact, actually coming) This could have happened even if she did stop, because she did not know that that asshat was going to turn.

She had the right of way, because the other driver showed intentions of going straight: something that would not have interfered with her turn.

[PerpetualBurn]

No she didn't have right of way.

Because there was a stop sign.

[italic zero]

i think she probably did stop though

[PerpetualBurn]

When a car hit her she did, yes.

[Jharaski]

Whether she stopped or not is irrelevant, because other than TIMING issues (which don't matter anyway, because speeding up could have solved that) she could have still been hit - because the other guy did not declare his intentions of making that turn. Let's say she did stop, and to make up for this little bit of time, he was a few seconds back down the road. Look to the left, all clear. Look straight ahead - no one making a left. Ok I can go, oh crap he DID turn!

edit - right of way doesn't even apply, my bad. without declaring that turn, she was perfectly reasonable in thinking no one was coming.

[PerpetualBurn]

Whether she stopped or not is irrelevant

Not really.

She had a stop sign.

[Jharaski]

That does not matter. (although legally, it technically does) The fact remains that she did not know he was going to turn(placing THE OTHER driver at fault!), and would have had the accident whether she stopped or not. It doesn't matter if she stopped, because she would have still went, just later. Saying that those extra few seconds would have given her time to see he was turning is also irrelevant, because he could have easily arrived just that much time later.

[Dr Hooch]

I can't believe we're discussing whose fault it was when a women drove through a fu'cking stop sign

[Jharaski]

You can't deny the other guy was to blame too, for not ****ing showing he was going to turn.

[PerpetualBurn]

No. Because there's a stop sign. So she shouldn't proceed.

[Jharaski]

Okay let's say she stopped. Then went. The accident still would have likely happened. It's not like she was responsible for waiting for him to pass before making the right, because if he was going straight - which he declared he was - there would have been no issue.

[Dr Hooch]

Are you not taught in america "indicators can break so don't assume someone's turning until they start turning"?

[Jharaski]

We're also taught that if something on our car is broken like that, you use your hands to signal. Or if you do not know that it's broken, well, then sucks to be you.

edit - as in you are ALWAYS responsible for your vehicle, and to make sure things work properly.

[PerpetualBurn]

Okay let's say she stopped. Then went. The accident still would have likely happened. It's not like she was responsible for waiting for him to pass before making the right, because if he was going straight - which he declared he was - there would have been no issue.

He didn't declare he was going straight.

He failed to advise her that he was turning.

[Jharaski]

Which is the same as indicating you are going straight.

Though I do wonder, didn't she notice him slow down?

[PerpetualBurn]

No it's not the same thing.

Failure to indicate is not indicating straight on.

Though I do wonder, didn't she notice him slow down?

Probably because she's a moron that ignores road signs.

[Jharaski]

Yes it is. You are required by law,(here anyway) to signal at least 100/30 meters feet before the turn. REQUIRED. So in a legal standpoint, failure to signal is signaling to go straight.

Certainly, she should have stopped, especially if she saw him slowing down for the turn. But she's not entirely to blame. You SHOULD assume every other driver is a dumbass and act accordingly to prepare for any situation, but you aren't required by law to do so. Since they both violated the law, they are both at fault BY LAW. (only you can't prove he didn't signal) Since the other driver's actions could have easily changed the outcome, he is more at fault by technicality. Had he signaled and she turned anyway, she would be COMPLETELY at fault.

edit Also, almost no one comes to a full stop here and rarely does it ever cause an accident. I even got bitched at by my driving instructor for doing so because I was "impeding traffic." So things are probably very different here. Therefor, since we're not from the same area, it's difficult to understand each other here. But can we just say that both drivers failed to be responsible? I am going to dinner, too so no more debating for me.

[PerpetualBurn]

No it's still just failure to indicate.

You're still responsible for your own decisions when driving.

[Jharaski]

Just one more post...

You are responsible to indicate to other drivers when you are going to turn into their path, whether they have a stop sign or not. Because hell, let's say after their stop, they go about their merry way not knowing you will turn... right into their path...

[Dr Hooch]

We're also taught that if something on our car is broken like that, you use your hands to signal. Or if you do not know that it's broken, well, then sucks to be you.

edit - as in you are ALWAYS responsible for your vehicle, and to make sure things work properly.

That's wonderful, but she still hit the bastard.

It's so easy to pull off a slip road on the motorway and leave your indicator on, especially if you're trying to work out which way you're going.

Assume other drivers are idiots.

[Dr Hooch]

Yes it is. You are required by law,(here anyway) to signal at least 100/30 meters feet before the turn. REQUIRED. So in a legal standpoint, failure to signal is signaling to go straight.

Ah. It isn't, over here. It's just highway code.

However over here failing to stop for a stop sign is illegal so :chug:

[PerpetualBurn]

You are responsible to indicate to other drivers when you are going to turn into their path, whether they have a stop sign or not. Because hell, let's say after their stop, they go about their merry way not knowing you will turn... right into their path...

So what you're trying to establish is that if you hypothetically suggest a completely different set of circumstances, then things are different.

Thanks.

[Reaganista]

She didn't stop at a stop sign.

If Americans don't stop at stop signs then they're idiots.
idiots who get where we're going a lot faster than the jackasses who actually stop

[PerpetualBurn]

Well except they crashed.

[Dr Hooch]

idiots who get where we're going a lot faster than the jackasses who actually stop

my god you're stupid

if you want to get to places faster

buy a fuc'king helicopter

or else actually assume that maybe the people in charge of traffic might maybe know a tiny bit more about it than you do

[The Stig]

No someone in control of traffic was hit when a fast person ran a stop sign and thus the people in charge of traffic aren't in control of their vehicles.

[Reaganista]

Well except they crashed.
i never crashed

my god you're stupid

if you want to get to places faster

buy a fuc'king helicopter

or else actually assume that maybe the people in charge of traffic might maybe know a tiny bit more about it than you do
or
continue to disobey traffic laws that have no reason to be obeyed i.e. stop signs, speed limits, red lights, yield signs, lanes, crosswalks, 'no passing zones', and whatever else i cant remember because i disregard it so often

[pedro durruti]

You are insane

[Dr Hooch]

No someone in control of traffic was hit when a fast person ran a stop sign and thus the people in charge of traffic aren't in control of their vehicles.

was talking about his open "rules don't apply to me they're just there to keep the working man down" mindset

[The Stig]

That was just my idea of a possible response of his.

[Dr Hooch]

oic

[CarnageFairy]

lol @ spawned argument

Anyway, yes she did stop at the sign. The stop is at the crest of a hill so he was going a bit slower than normal anyway, and he was a new driver so he didn't signal.

No biggie, really. That Explorer was an old piece anyway. Just trying to iterate that failure to signal isn't enough to put you at fault, LEGALLY.

[GreyHam]

its been said before but it needs to be said again...

defensive driving...

never assume that someone else is a competent driver. anyone here whose been on a motorbike (and anyone whose been hit by a dickhead driver) will know exactly what im talking about

some people are stupid, and unfortunately, unless you want to get in a crash (regardless of whose fault it is, you never want it to happen) you have to be prepared for people to do stupid things like fail to indicate, or speed, or just not notice that your even there

[PerpetualBurn]

The motorbikes destroyed by cars the better.

[GreyHam]

dont be that guy...

but either way, what did the 2 wheeled ones do to upset you so lol

[PerpetualBurn]

Weaving in and out of my blind spot whilst over-taking. Driving down the middle of two lanes of queueing traffic. Generally driving like wankers.

Granted push-bikes are worse than motor, but still. The majority of cyclists drive like wankers.

[GreyHam]

oh true lol

generally though ive found that bikers make better car drivers because theyre so much more aware of whats going on around them

[Bread and Faxes]

sorry to bump a thousand year old thread. But I went to court, and everything got dropped. Charges, tickets and such. The girl is alright, we hate each other but oh well

[McP3000]

sorry to bump a thousand year old thread. But I went to court, and everything got dropped. Charges, tickets and such. The girl is alright, we ate each other but oh well
fixed

[Reaganista]

ok im having trouble imagining a country full of people all stopping at stop signs

[Dr Hooch]

http://www.broadvoice.com/images/accent_images/united_kingdom.gif

we actually need ours because we have lots of blind junctions and stuff

as far as i can gather america is all open plains and traffic lights

[muthafunkabass]

^Matters where you are. Can't move two feet in a city and in the country sides there aren't much lights at all.

[Bread and Faxes]

I live in a rural area, so everyone likes to speed 20mph over the speed limit

[Reaganista]

i live in a city so everyone likes to speed 20mph over the speed limit
but the speed limits are lower usually so it works out

[r1mbaud]

Here are a few suggestions...
Find the witness who came to see if your girlfriend was alright, see what he thinks he saw.

Check if that intersection had a camera, my city has one on every corner to catch redlight runners

Ask a mechanic or someone who is reliable in the forensics of your car and see if it were possible to cause that much damage with her car should she have been going 35mph

i dunno thats what i would check out. whose right and whose
wrong doesnt really concern me, but you should think out of the box for all the possible options

[r1mbaud]

well you already got it apparently.