To the extent state attorney's are pre-empted by federal law, I'm sure that the NHTSA could pick up some of the slack.
what other things are you wrong about?
obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, but even when it does happen, it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances.
the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always.
No you. Literally. You need to do that.
>obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason,
Exactly my point.
>it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances.
Hence by bit about redundant obligation and the difference between responsibility and financial liability.
>the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Go anywhere people talk about dashcams and you'll find plenty of testimony to the tune of "had I not had video I'd have been paying for that dumb mfers poor decisions".
The financial liability defaults to the following vehicle. It can always change if there are hard facts that amount to the other guy being more responsible.
ah, there it is. the call of the moron. its how you find each other in nature: each of you drinking Mountain Dew, crying “bullshit” at everything you see.
nature is amazing.
the fault of a single-lane rear end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. Always. if they were following at a safe distance, they would necessarily have had time to stop. that is what it means to follow at a safe distance.
“refrain from personal attacks” no. they earned what i said.
Courts have found that drivers that suddenly stop are sometimes liable instead of the car behind that was not able to stop.
In California, we have CVC 22109, which prohibits coming to an unnecessary stop.
Usually CVC 21703 -- which imposes a duty to not follow another driver when prudent, wins.
But 22109 came about, and courts often choose to weigh it heavily in fault determinations because of a couple primary circumstances:
* Cases where the leading driver deliberately instigated an accident because of road rage or to attempt insurance fraud.
* Cases where the leading driver's car had inoperable brake lights, which impaired reaction time in the trailing vehicle.
In these cases, the leading driver has been given the majority or even all of the fault of the accident.
You seem particularly passionate about this topic having popped up on multiple threads about it, and you're just not correct. The things you're saying about rear-end collisions are usually true, but not the type of things that are always-true absolutes.
You are just plain wrong. Tons of people who thought they were "right" like you have gotten rear ended by doing things like putting on a blinker, slowing for a turn and then at the last second getting back into the travel lane in time to get hit by whoever was behind them. Or they stopped in the travel lane on a blind for some dumb reason and some trucker traveling at/below the speed limit (and with the data logging to prove it, because that's how commercial trucks are these days) comes along and can't stop in time. Or they pulled out in front of other traffic and didn't accelerate appropriately (I hit someone that did this once, they paid).
> Always. if they were following at a safe distance, they would necessarily have had time to stop. that is what it means to follow at a safe distance.
The world doesn't run based on this circular logic.
Insurers are quite reasonable about this sort of thing. They all know that they all win if the more deviant driver pays and winds up with the black mark on their record.
Moreover, while you may very well dodge financial liability because the other guy can't prove it was your fault, the responding officer may very well read between the lines and issue you some sorts of moving violations that you can't dodge with court and will have the same effective net financial result.
>“refrain from personal attacks” no. they earned what i said.
Well since we're going there...
It is really a shame that drivers of your bent don't more often cross paths with someone prone to violent road rage. Society as a whole will benefit if two bad actors wind up off the roads in a "papa loved mamma" sort of way.
what THE HELL do you think "single-lane" means? your example is not a single-lane scenario, is it?
learn to read.
if you slow for a turn, change into a turn lane (if there is one), and have your blinker on, you must follow through and make the turn, even after you realize it is the wrong turn to make. changing lanes then changing back is absolutely nothing like any single-lane situation, which is what I was citing.
"single-lane" is what I said and "single-lane" is what I fucking meant. if anyone is changing lanes, it isn't a single-lane situation anymore, is it?
your reading comprehension and understanding is below that of an elementary school student.
what in the blue fuck have you been smoking to confuse those two situations? holy hell...
Have you ever actually driven on two lane (one in each direction) roads?
Whether you have or haven't I'll have you know the normal way things work is that someone slows for a turn (usually crowding to the right if their vehicle length and nature of the turn permits) the person behind them crowds toward the center line and passes them just as they're turning in. If the person turning aborted without warning at the last second and got into the middle of the lane it would necessitate some serious braking by the following person and maybe cause a rear ending depending on the speed of the road. Nobody is changing lanes during any of this.
Please never drive. You don't understand how the roads actually work in practice.
Moreover, you've been breaking them repeatedly in other contexts recently too. This is not cool, and if you keep it up we are going to have to ban you.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Moreover, you've been breaking them repeatedly in other contexts recently too. This is not cool, and if you keep it up we are going to have to ban you:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34061408
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34061348
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33977864
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Bullshit. You are ~50% at fault. You're just 0% financially liable in the absence of other facts. That is the default case we've concocted over the years to make financial liability easy to pin down.
If you become a road obstruction for no good reason whatever happens after after that is half or more your fault. If you manage to dodge financial liability then you are simply exploiting an edge case of the system to the detriment of everyone else.
The rules of the road are built around redundant obligations so that things don't go south whenever there's a momentary failure by one party. If you obstruct the road for no good reason you are just as at fault for the ensuing accident as someone who wasn't prepared for that obstruction.
Thank god for dashcams....