POLL: whos at fault in this accident, drawing included

[Joker81]

This happened to me with 3 other people in my car. The woman driving the other car even honked her horn at me as if I had done something wrong staying in my lane. I hadn't sped up nor slowed down. She didn't even have her blinker on. The big problem is that people don't use their blinker or turn them on as they are turning into another lane.
If I see someone's blinker on I will slow down to let them in. People need to give more then 1 second for the people around them get them ready to move over.

Good rule. Put your blinker on for 5 seconds before moving over.

 

[kenshorin]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Swerving is bad. I keep an eye on what's around me so that I CAN if I HAVE to, but even before that, I make sure I'm not in anyone's blind spot so that this kind of thing doesn't happen.

Yeah swerving is definitely bad, but sometimes (like in my case) you do it as just a reaction, not enough time to really think "should I swerve". Sucks in either case.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

I'd rather hit the person and have it be obviously their fault than clock someone else and have it be mine.

- M4H

 

[Turkish]

You gotta be a dumbass to ask such a question.

B

 

[Lyfer]

B, Duh!

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Joker81
This happened to me with 3 other people in my car. The woman driving the other car even honked her horn at me as if I had done something wrong staying in my lane. I hadn't sped up nor slowed down. She didn't even have her blinker on. The big problem is that people don't use their blinker or turn them on as they are turning into another lane.
If I see someone's blinker on I will slow down to let them in. People need to give more then 1 second for the people around them get them ready to move over.

Good rule. Put your blinker on for 5 seconds before moving over.

The thing is that I ACTUALLY do that, but no one else does If you do that I applaud you.

I would be lying if I said that I don't almost get hit in this fashion everyday


All thes DIPSH!TS DO NOT USE THEIR FING TURN SIGNALS!!!:|:|:|


I am usually driving as if it were a chess game, as do a LOT of people. I anticipate emergency manuvers, but alas, I am human, and cannot do it 100% of the time, because I sometimes want to ENJOY driving

as if that is still possible. As for what I do, if they are RIGHT NEXT TO ME, as is the case usually every other day, I brake a little as to not get rear-ended, and lay on the horn like a bitch. Then they have the NEVRE to fing flick me off or honk. :|

I can preach on the subject, but it is utterly useless to anyone besides the pimple-faced kid who reads this stuff with good intentions; no one is reading.

Arguments can be made for each side, but in GENERAL, Car A is at fault. He was changing lanes, and therefore had to RECOGNIZE and RESPECT other drivers possibly in that lane. IT is your RESPONSIBLITY to pay attention, but you should not be PUNISHED for the lack of responsibility on the part of other drivers.

In the end, PAY attention so any accidents aren't your fault, and if you get hit, go deep

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Xiety
You gotta be a dumbass to ask such a question.

B

And an even dumber ass to answer wrong:

Originally posted by: MystikMango
Driver A is at fault. Drivers should always be aware of what is in front of them.

Briver B can always argue that he looked, signaled and changed lanes, and that you were driving at a higher rate of speed.

 

[przero]

What's a "blind spot"?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: przero
What's a "blind spot"?

There is a section, aroundwhere your gas hole is(3/4) down the car, where stock RW and side mirrors are uselss. In those cases you must turn your head to effectively gauge wheather or not there is a car there

 

[Joker81]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: przero
What's a "blind spot"?

There is a section, aroundwhere your gas hole is(3/4) down the car, where stock RW and side mirrors are uselss. In those cases you must turn your head to effectively gauge wheather or not there is a car there

This made me laugh haha.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Xiety
You gotta be a dumbass to ask such a question.

B

And an even dumber ass to answer wrong:

Originally posted by: MystikMango
Driver A is at fault. Drivers should always be aware of what is in front of them.

Briver B can always argue that he looked, signaled and changed lanes, and that you were driving at a higher rate of speed.

Then we are talking about who has the better lawyer here.

i was actually pointing out who was at fault; not what the judge found it to be, as that is somewhat dependant on a lawyers presentation.


The precedent you set through your statment is that recklessness,

reck·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rkls)
adj.

1.
1. Heedless or careless.
2. Headstrong; rash.
2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences: a reckless driver.

,
is acceptable practice.

In affirming that both drivers are being reckless, using parts of your definition and my own, it would seem obvious, with nottable exception, that Driver A would be at fault due to a greater amount of wreckless. The law does, by no means, authorize you to be reckless, so both cars are technically at fault, with exception, so the lesser of two evil wins.


B Bitch!

j/k'ing with that last part

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Joker81

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: przero
What's a "blind spot"?

There is a section, aroundwhere your gas hole is(3/4) down the car, where stock RW and side mirrors are uselss. In those cases you must turn your head to effectively gauge wheather or not there is a car there

This made me laugh haha.

I know I was "WTF...what is that 'thing' called? Gas pump..no....pump hole...ummm cap..no."

Finally settled where it is I did

Quite ambiguous, but it did the job

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: przero
What's a "blind spot"?

For the love of god, please tell me you're too young to drive.

- M4H

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: przero
What's a "blind spot"?

For the love of god, please tell me you're too young to drive.

- M4H

Actually if he didn't have feet, it would indeed be beneficial to society

Imagine hime with his license in a few years

 

[crypticlogin]

"Gee, I want to make a right turn. That must mean I want to stay in the 2nd or even 3rd lane over, then cut across at the last moment. Yes it'd be an emergency manuever but driving further ahead and turning back would just kill me. Cutting off other people, risking an accident, is the safer choice. And besides, I've got liability insurance so it's allllll goooooooood."

- mental thought process of the bastard who cut me off this morning.

Some of these guys need to head back to elementary school and refresh their reading skills. Maybe then, they could sound out and comprehend what that "Right lane for all turns" jumble means.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Xiety
You gotta be a dumbass to ask such a question.

B

And an even dumber ass to answer wrong:

Originally posted by: MystikMango
Driver A is at fault. Drivers should always be aware of what is in front of them.

Briver B can always argue that he looked, signaled and changed lanes, and that you were driving at a higher rate of speed.

:Q

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Xiety
You gotta be a dumbass to ask such a question.

B

And an even dumber ass to answer wrong:

Originally posted by: MystikMango
Driver A is at fault. Drivers should always be aware of what is in front of them.

Briver B can always argue that he looked, signaled and changed lanes, and that you were driving at a higher rate of speed.

:Q

I concur with the above emoticons. Anyone who voted A should immediately proceed, ON FOOT, to the nearest DMV and turn in their license.

- M4H

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Xiety
You gotta be a dumbass to ask such a question.

B

And an even dumber ass to answer wrong:

Originally posted by: MystikMango
Driver A is at fault. Drivers should always be aware of what is in front of them.

Briver B can always argue that he looked, signaled and changed lanes, and that you were driving at a higher rate of speed.

:Q

I guess it is still jsut about the Lawyers:||

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Xiety
You gotta be a dumbass to ask such a question.

B

And an even dumber ass to answer wrong:

Originally posted by: MystikMango
Driver A is at fault. Drivers should always be aware of what is in front of them.

Briver B can always argue that he looked, signaled and changed lanes, and that you were driving at a higher rate of speed.

Then we are talking about who has the better lawyer here.

i was actually pointing out who was at fault; not what the judge found it to be, as that is somewhat dependant on a lawyers presentation.


The precedent you set through your statment is that recklessness,

reck·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rkls)
adj.

1.
1. Heedless or careless.
2. Headstrong; rash.
2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences: a reckless driver.

,
is acceptable practice.

In affirming that both drivers are being reckless, using parts of your definition and my own, it would seem obvious, with nottable exception, that Driver A would be at fault due to a greater amount of wreckless. The law does, by no means, authorize you to be reckless, so both cars are technically at fault, with exception, so the lesser of two evil wins.


B Bitch!

j/k'ing with that last part

No offense, but ....
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

How is it being reckless to be driving straight down the road and have somebody in another lane turn directly into you?

 

[MAME]

B but I've known the law to say it's either both or A (which really sucks when you think about it)

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Xiety
You gotta be a dumbass to ask such a question.

B

And an even dumber ass to answer wrong:

Originally posted by: MystikMango
Driver A is at fault. Drivers should always be aware of what is in front of them.

Briver B can always argue that he looked, signaled and changed lanes, and that you were driving at a higher rate of speed.

Then we are talking about who has the better lawyer here.

i was actually pointing out who was at fault; not what the judge found it to be, as that is somewhat dependant on a lawyers presentation.


The precedent you set through your statment is that recklessness,

reck·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rkls)
adj.

1.
1. Heedless or careless.
2. Headstrong; rash.
2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences: a reckless driver.

,
is acceptable practice.

In affirming that both drivers are being reckless, using parts of your definition and my own, it would seem obvious, with nottable exception, that Driver A would be at fault due to a greater amount of wreckless. The law does, by no means, authorize you to be reckless, so both cars are technically at fault, with exception, so the lesser of two evil wins.


B Bitch!

j/k'ing with that last part

No offense, but ....
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

How is it being reckless to be driving straight down the road and have somebody in another lane turn directly into you?

?

You do realize that my statement was rhetorical, as you pinted it. The other person can always "say....." I just said lawyer for simply.

In most cases it is NOT driver B's fault. You stated that "Drivers should always be aware of what is in front of them," so by that logic a lawyer might reverse that statement to suit his client and shift blame[and responsibility].


basically, my attempt was to back up my statement about how "who has the better lawyer," wins sometimes

A LAWWYER MIGHT STATE:

"Although there are noteable exceptions, in this situation, both Driver's were at fault"

Obiviously we are not burdening ouselves with the responsibilities of setting a precedent in a U.S. court here, so we are free to rely on common sense, which is quite applicable under these circumstances.

COMMON SENSE MIGHT SAY THAT:

Driver A was indeed wreckless, as they were turning into another lane, in which there was a notable probablitly that traffic was moving at a different speed. Therefore it was Driver A's responsibility to adjust their speedaccordingly.

This is just the same common sense that can be applied to "accelerate when changing lanes." Technically it is not law, so as I am not a lawyer, I am not sure of how it holds up in court. That said, accelerating when lane chaning is not a statute, and neither is accepting responsibility for someone else's mistake, but good lawyers are well, GOOD lawyers.