Southern Motorists & Police Officers

GhostDoggy

Senior member
Dec 9, 2005
208
0
0
Person driving down the road spots someone in their driveway putting their vehicle into reverse and begin to back out of the driveway slowly. Common sense of the person driving down the road already expected complimentary common sense of the driveway motorist and not have their right of way jeopardized.

Final moment shows the person in the driveway had no common sense, doesn't yield to traffic on the road, doesn't even look to see if traffic is there, and admits this to the police officer on the scene. End result is an accident.

Vehicle already in the road and in transit actually attempted to steer out of the path of the driveway motorist, but the driveway motorist crossed both lanes of the road, colliding with a vehicle already traveling down the road.

Police officer on scene blames the motorist that already was on the road, and doesn't cite the driveway motorist for failing to yield. This officer believes that all motorists on public roads are required to yield to all vehciles not on the road. To further complicate the scene, the driveway motorist's insurance carrier refuses to pay for damages, and conveniently the police officer does a no-show for the court appearance.

I can learn a lot from a dummy (ahem, police officer): If I wish to wreck my car, I will simply back out of my driveway without looking, and conveniently when a much bigger vehicle is traveling down the road.
 

jalaram

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
12,920
2
81
1. OP was driving down the road.
2. Idiot in driveway backs out onto road without looking and hits OP
3. Officer blames OP saying OP should've yielded.
4. OP's insurance won't pay for damages
5. Officer is no show at court.
6. OP leaves out what the court ruled.
7. OP comes to ATOT and writes cryptic post in a 3rd-party pov.
8. Citrix is confused.
8a. [edit] dabuddha is too.
9. jalaram wastes time writing this.
 

BobDaMenkey

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2005
3,057
2
0
That's really crappy. Cop is totally wrong. You don't have to yield to someone in any form of a driveway, it is their responsability to yeild to traffic. Sux2bu.
 

Demon-Xanth

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
20,551
2
81
Originally posted by: jalaram
1. OP was driving down the road.
2. Idiot in driveway backs out onto road without looking and hits OP
3. Officer blames OP saying OP should've yielded.
4. OP's insurance won't pay for damages
5. Officer is no show at court.
6. OP leaves out what the court ruled.
7. OP comes to ATOT and writes cryptic post in a 3rd-party pov.
8. Citrix is confused.
8a. [edit] dabuddha is too.
9. jalaram wastes time writing this.
9a. jalaram wastes his time updating because of dabuddha

Fixed.
 

Oscar1613

Golden Member
Jan 31, 2001
1,424
0
0
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Originally posted by: jalaram
1. OP was driving down the road.
2. Idiot in driveway backs out onto road without looking and hits OP
3. Officer blames OP saying OP should've yielded.
4. Idiot in driveway's insurance won't pay for damages
5. Officer is no show at court.
6. OP leaves out what the court ruled.
7. OP comes to ATOT and writes cryptic post in a 3rd-party pov.
8. Citrix is confused.
8a. [edit] dabuddha is too.
9. jalaram wastes time writing this.
9a. jalaram wastes his time updating because of dabuddha

Fixed.

fixed x2
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
OP must make a living writing spam mail that resembles English from a distance but is actually incoherent gibberish...


BTW-- what does this have to do with southern motorists?

That particular police officer apparently is a dumbass when it comes to the law, though.

Not unless you failed to mention some other aspect of the story...
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Originally posted by: jalaram
1. OP was driving down the road.
2. Idiot in driveway backs out onto road without looking and hits OP
3. Officer blames OP saying OP should've yielded.
4. OP's insurance won't pay for damages
5. Officer is no show at court.
6. OP leaves out what the court ruled.
7. OP comes to ATOT and writes cryptic post in a 3rd-party pov.
8. Citrix is confused.
8a. [edit] dabuddha is too.
9. jalaram wastes time writing this.
9a. jalaram wastes his time updating because of dabuddha

Fixed.

LOL :laugh:
 

ValkyrieofHouston

Golden Member
Sep 26, 2005
1,736
0
0
Originally posted by: Raduque
You're a senior member and don't know what "OP" means?


LOL...

Well, I guess someones gonna have to look up the driving law then... maybe they have it backwards here in Texas just like everything else! ;)
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
85
91
Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey
That's really crappy. Cop is totally wrong. You don't have to yield to someone in any form of a driveway, it is their responsability to yeild to traffic. Sux2bu.

So true. If the car is coming from a private driveway onto a public road, all the responsibility of yielding falls on the driver on the private driveway. The car on the public road could have been doing twice the speed limit and it will still have been the other drivers fault.

I just went through this. A lady was leaving mcdonalds and pulled out in front of me while I was traveling on a public street. She claimed I was speeding and her insurance tried to play hardball. Once I mentioned the public road/private drive thing they all shut up and gave me what I wanted.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston
Originally posted by: Raduque
You're a senior member and don't know what "OP" means?


LOL...

Well, I guess someones gonna have to look up the driving law then... maybe they have it backwards here in Texas just like everything else! ;)

No Texas has it correct.
§ 545.155. VEHICLE ENTERING HIGHWAY FROM PRIVATE ROAD OR
DRIVEWAY. An operator about to enter or cross a highway from an
alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the
right-of-way to a vehicle approaching on the highway to be entered.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 545

I can't imagine how the OP could lose this case in court IF it happened as he reported.
 

BlueFlamme

Senior member
Nov 3, 2005
565
0
0
OP probably failed to mention something like there was a large SUV with tinted windows parked on the street beside the driveway blocking all views down the street.

Just because you can see what someone is doing does not mean they can see everything you can see. I used to drive a Lincoln Continental and backing out when wedged between two vans is a daunting task, you have to slowly backout until your rear is sticking out a foot, pause, repeat until you can finally see. However, until you can see you have to believe that oncoming traffic will yield.

Not sure if that is what happened here, but OP lacks enough details for us to jump on his bandwagon. Sucks that the cop didn't show, but if he had given you a speeding ticket then you would be feeling the opposite.
 

ValkyrieofHouston

Golden Member
Sep 26, 2005
1,736
0
0
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston
Originally posted by: Raduque
You're a senior member and don't know what "OP" means?


LOL...

Well, I guess someones gonna have to look up the driving law then... maybe they have it backwards here in Texas just like everything else! ;)

No Texas has it correct.
§ 545.155. VEHICLE ENTERING HIGHWAY FROM PRIVATE ROAD OR
DRIVEWAY. An operator about to enter or cross a highway from an
alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the
right-of-way to a vehicle approaching on the highway to be entered.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 545

I can't imagine how the OP could lose this case in court IF it happened as he reported.


Thank you Linflas, I put that out there so that someone like you would look it up! Much appreciated...! ;)