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.
The navy blue Jeep created a road hazard and violated traffic laws in the process.. you don't stop in the lane of travel, that should be common sense (which might be asking much of the typical American motorist). The driver of the white truck was inattentive.. he'll get cited, and rightfully so. The driver of the navy blue Jeep basically got away with it.
How? The OP said almost a complete stop, as if it was going to turn in to a lot. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't drive into a lot at speed, do you? Especially if you're unsure of where an address is located?
The person that created the road hazard was the black SUV following the Jeep, followed by the guy in the white truck. Neither were paying attention, nor leaving enough space. If the OP could tell us if the Jeep had a signal on, it would cement who was at fault.
With the information given, I say the only ones on the ball were the Tan car and the OP.
How? The OP said almost a complete stop, as if it was going to turn in to a lot. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't drive into a lot at speed, do you? Especially if you're unsure of where an address is located?
But it didn't turn at that point, and the OP didn't mention a turn signal. That's creating a road hazard. Nor did he mention whether the Jeep had been sitting there for any duration or if it had suddenly slammed on the brakes trying to figure out whether or not to turn, nor did the OP mention if left turns were to be made from the left lane or if there was a turn lane... nor did he clarify when he said "three lane road" whether it was three in that direction of travel, or whether it was two lane in one direction and one in the opposite.
Doesn't matter that I don't turn into a parking lot at speed - I've never caused a wreck doing it, whether turning into parking lots, or turning off of a public roadway (whether your run-of-the-mill state highway or Interstate highway) into a construction access.
Now, please tell me how the tan car is culpable in any of this? The tan car neither wrecked nor caused the wreck, so I'm dying to hear your explanation of that one. Unless the tan car prevented the white SUV from changing lanes to avoid the wreck (which the OP didn't specify), then your conclusion about their fault is utter crap.
Basically you just said we have next to no information to go on. So I guess your conclusion is utter crap too, huh?
I said it would help if the OP said if there was a signal.
I KNOW the Jeep didn't turn at that point, but it DID turn shortly afterwards, which tell me they were LOOKING for an address.
Where did I place any blame on the driver of the tan vehicle? Jesus Christ, I said he and the OP were the only ones paying attention.
"On the ball"
ie: alert and efficient or effective; indicating intelligence or ability.
35 MPH posted speed is typical for roads without a center left turn lane. If a broken yellow was present, that jeep could remain stopped as long as necessary to safely complete the left turn.
Completely legal to turn across a double-yellow into a private driveway as well, at least here in California may vary from state to state although I assume that's UTC.
The navy blue Jeep created a road hazard and violated traffic laws in the process.. you don't stop in the lane of travel, that should be common sense (which might be asking much of the typical American motorist). The driver of the white truck was inattentive.. he'll get cited, and rightfully so. The driver of the navy blue Jeep basically got away with it.
The driver in the blue jeep may have violated a traffic law, but he wasn't a participant or factor in the accident. It's also impossible to know the circumstances as there are plenty of times when it is perfectly legal to stop in a lane when turning. The driver of the white truck not only violated traffic law, but was the cause of the accident.
I misread the "on the ball" comment as "holding the ball", although I would disagree about the tan car being "on the ball" if they needed to swerve in order to avoid colliding, but, all the same, the tan car doesn't appear culpable.
We're both making conclusions based on limited information and calling it as best as we can. As is, ours happen to not coincide. Either of us could be right, or we both could be wrong. That's why they do on-scene investigations when the police arrive.
The simple fact is that neither of us can say definitively what the end result is. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way now.
I came to my conclusion of the navy blue Jeep having a share of the fault based on the OP giving the impression that the black vehicle stopped suddenly, as if reacting to something unexpected... something like, say, a vehicle in front of them stopping suddenly and unexpectedly. Maybe that's the case, or maybe the driver of the black vehicle was texting and didn't look up until it was too late. I tend to think the former, but I won't dismiss the latter.
As much as I appreciate your concern, I'm quite capable of determining an appropriate bedtime on my own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
The driver in the blue jeep may have violated a traffic law, but he wasn't a participant or factor in the accident. The driver of the white truck not only violated traffic law, but was the cause of the accident.
How do you figure? If the accident wouldn't have happened had the traffic law not been violated, then that vehicle was very much a factor and participant.
I misread the "on the ball" comment as "holding the ball", although I would disagree about the tan car being "on the ball" if they needed to swerve in order to avoid colliding, but, all the same, the tan car doesn't appear culpable.
We're both making conclusions based on limited information and calling it as best as we can. As is, ours happen to not coincide. Either of us could be right, or we both could be wrong. That's why they do on-scene investigations when the police arrive.
The simple fact is that neither of us can say definitively what the end result is. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way now.
I came to my conclusion of the navy blue Jeep having a share of the fault based on the OP giving the impression that the black vehicle stopped suddenly, as if reacting to something unexpected... something like, say, a vehicle in front of them stopping suddenly and unexpectedly. Maybe that's the case, or maybe the driver of the black vehicle was texting and didn't look up until it was too late. I tend to think the former, but I won't dismiss the latter. As much as I appreciate your concern, I'm quite capable of determining an appropriate bedtime on my own.
I misread the "on the ball" comment as "holding the ball", although I would disagree about the tan car being "on the ball" if they needed to swerve in order to avoid colliding, but, all the same, the tan car doesn't appear culpable.
We're both making conclusions based on limited information and calling it as best as we can. As is, ours happen to not coincide. Either of us could be right, or we both could be wrong. That's why they do on-scene investigations when the police arrive.
The simple fact is that neither of us can say definitively what the end result is. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way now.
I came to my conclusion of the navy blue Jeep having a share of the fault based on the OP giving the impression that the black vehicle stopped suddenly, as if reacting to something unexpected... something like, say, a vehicle in front of them stopping suddenly and unexpectedly. Maybe that's the case, or maybe the driver of the black vehicle was texting and didn't look up until it was too late. I tend to think the former, but I won't dismiss the latter.
As much as I appreciate your concern, I'm quite capable of determining an appropriate bedtime on my own.
How do you figure? If the accident wouldn't have happened had the traffic law not been violated, then that vehicle was very much a factor and participant.
The keep simply slowed down. This happens when someone is turning it there is traffic. The driver who caused the accident was not attentive to cars in front of him or driving too close. This carelessness caused him to hit the vehicle in front of him.
Now if the Jeep was changing lanes and carelessly switched into a lane without leaving enough room, then it would have been the Jeeps fault. But that wasn't the case.
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.
