Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have many pet peev's but being too courteous and giving right away is one of them. We have rules for a reason so follow them, don't change them. All it does otherwise is confuse everybody involved. I don't care how frantically one is waving me on. It looks like some will have a heart attack if you don't follow their motions. Oh well. Just do what your supposed to do and go. I'll wait my turn!
A couple of years ago I was in just such an accident on a busy street--cars in TWO lanes stopped and were waving me on to make a left turn, and when I went ahead, a car in the third lane (I couldn't even see that there was a third lane) came zooming through and we collided.
Fortunately no one was hurt. I was deemed 80% at fault for failing to yield right-of-way, and the other driver 20% for driving at an unsafe speed for conditions (all the cars up ahead of her were stopped for a red light).
But I definitely learned my lesson. Don't try to give me the right-of-way when it isn't mine; I don't want it.
Thanks for the real life example. 80/20 is not unreasonable.
I don't take the right of way when offered that way. I'm 100% in charge of when I go or not, but if they want 20% then they can have it.
In many places, it's against traffic laws to give away the right-of-way, to someone who is not entitled to it. I was standing on a curb during rush-hour on a busy 4-lane street this evening. A driver pulled up to a stop sign on the side street next to me, signaling to cross the busy street and turn left into it.
The driver in the outside lane coming from the left, stopped to allow the turning driver to cross in front. The turning driver immediately gunned his car and shot partway across the intersection. But the fast-moving cars on the inside lane, coming from the left, couldn't see the turning car and its driver couldn't see them, because of the cars in the stopped outside lane.
Fortunately, the drivers of the first car coming on the inside and the turning car, both saw each other in time, hit their brakes hard and screeched to a halt. They just barely missed what might have been a serious and injurious collision. If the driver in the right lane had not improperly given the right-of-way to the turning driver, this potential tragedy wouldn't have happened. And if the turning driver had showed more sense and realized that cars might be coming on the inside, it wouldn't have occurred.
It absolutely sticks in my craw when I see people do that. MAJOR, major safety hazard. Should be against the law on roads that are more than one lane in each direction.
Quote:
If someone ever tries to give you the right-of-way like this, you should refuse it. This applies also to pedestrians wanting to cross a four-lane street.
Pedestrians should ONLY be crossing controlled intersections on THEIR green light, not on a red, so no drivers should be "waving" them across the street. Most of the 4-lane intersections in my area are or have been retrofitted with the signals that stop all traffic in all directions (including in right turn lanes) so pedestrians can cross.
Quote:
If an outside lane car stops and motions you to cross, you might be mowed-down by an inside lane car that doesn't see what you're doing and charges past the stopped outside lane car.
We had a pedestrian get killed in exactly that scenario about a mile south of where I work. There were a lot of people commenting on the Facebook news stories saying the the driver in the other lane "should have" also stopped. I've been licensed in NY for almost 23 years and NO WHERE in NYS DMV laws does it say that you "have to" yield the ROW to a pedestrian who is jay walking across a multi-lane road (this road is 4 lanes across where the accident happened) just because the driver in the lane next to you does so. The driver who hit the pedestrian couldn't see the pedestrian until they stepped into the car's path, and then it was too late to stop.
This exact scenario happened in Boston about 20 years ago. Arlington Street (southbound one-way, three travel lanes). Pedestrian jaywalking against the red at T-intersection of Commonwealth Avenue to the path into the Public Garden.
Closest lane to the pedestrian was a commercial driver, who stopped and motioned the pedestrian to cross in front of his van. She then continued across the remaining lanes, and was struck and killed by a driver travelling legally in the inside lane.
Her estate sued the van driver and prevailed, as per the legal standard noted in the OP. The van driver endangered her by signalling her to continue to cross against the right of way.
The pedestrian should have had the prudence to refuse. I cannot understand why so many pedestrians jump to the idea that the person on foot "always" has the ROW, when the laws state differently. I've had people signal me in situations where I recognized a clear possible danger if I proceeded, and I always give them a dirty look and shake my head "no" and signal them to proceed.
This is not really a great example. You’ve put the blame on the wrong driver. The one trying to turn from the side street would have been responsible for the accident. If someone stops for you, that doesn’t take away your responsibility to make sure the turn can be made safely. In other words, one person giving you the right-of-way does not actually give you the right-of-way.
What you have described does happen often so perhaps I am wrong and it is a good example. One I see more is when you wait to turn left and the driver going in the opposite direction, or turning right, stops to let you go first even though they have the right-of-way.
No, I clearly put the blame on all those who were at fault. If a collision had occurred, I would have assigned blame as 60% to the turning driver, 40% to the driver who relinquished the right-of-way and 40% to the driver in the left lane, who came charging through the intersection without exercising caution, when some problem clearly existed, to cause those in the right lane to have completely stopped. That's more than 100%, but there's so much blame in that situation, that just 100% doesn't cover it. It's like if three people commit a crime, then all are held to be fully culpable.
I've actually had to argue with people who have the right-of-way to please take it instead of arbitrarily yielding it to me so that everyone can resume with a predictable and orderly traffic flow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
In addition to the people that wave you thru to an accident I'll add the people whom are backing out at a parking lot and you *think* they see you but they might just be distracted...but they don't move and their back-up lights remain on. If you're going to do that, put your car back in park so we don't have to guess if you just got a call and are going to take us out if we go behind your vehicle.
On a similar note, there's an unspeakably wretched place in Hell for the GM engineer who decided it would be a great idea to have the reverse lights of all things stay on for a couple minutes after someone locks their car with the key fob.
No, I clearly put the blame on all those who were at fault. If a collision had occurred, I would have assigned blame as 60% to the turning driver, 40% to the driver who relinquished the right-of-way and 40% to the driver in the left lane, who came charging through the intersection without exercising caution, when some problem clearly existed, to cause those in the right lane to have completely stopped. That's more than 100%, but there's so much blame in that situation, that just 100% doesn't cover it. It's like if three people commit a crime, then all are held to be fully culpable.
That's fine. We just disagree. I think the turning driver made the decision to go when it was not safe to do so. Whether someone was waving him on or not is irrelevant. He still has to be sure the way is clear. I'm arguing that they should not accept it when someone gives them the right of way, but you're seemingly arguing they should. By assigning them some of the blame you are saying they have some kind of authority to tell the other driver how to drive. The turning driver is the one who was in control of whether to go or not. It's on him to refuse and wait for it to be safe to go.
That's how I see it. You have your opinion and I have mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
