A baby died after an (off duty) officer crashed his Corvette at 94 mph, investigators say. He won’t face charges.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm pretty sure the AI would have just thought that they had the right-of-way so 'fuck-it'.

So glad that "right of way", assuming that you are visible enough to know someone is even there to claim it at the speeds you are going, has the ability to stop 1086100 Newtons force coming at you in the form of 3600 lbs of metal.

In legal terms, it seems to some that the legal right-of-way a car should be ceded is proportional to their velocity, regardless of how much in excess that velocity is relative to the speed limit. So if a car is going 100 mph in a 50 mph zone, you are legally required to provide around 1/4 of a mile of space between the oncoming, recklessly driven vehicle.

 

[TSwizzle]

I'm pretty sure the AI would have just thought that they had the right-of-way so 'fuck-it'.

Dunno, wouldn't proper AI be doing the posted speed limit in the first place ?

 

[Politesse]

I'm pretty sure the AI would have just thought that they had the right-of-way so 'fuck-it'.

So glad that "right of way", assuming that you are visible enough to know someone is even there to claim it at the speeds you are going, has the ability to stop 1086100 Newtons force coming at you in the form of 3600 lbs of metal.

In legal terms, it seems to some that the legal right-of-way a car should be ceded is proportional to their velocity, regardless of how much in excess that velocity is relative to the speed limit. So if a car is going 100 mph in a 50 mph zone, you are legally required to provide around 1/4 of a mile of space between the oncoming, recklessly driven vehicle.

You are not legally required to accommodate other people's reckless driving, no. It's prudent, but you have no legal liability for another person's dangerous behavior.

I guess if I got side-swiped by a drunk driver on the freeway, you'd be telling me it's my fault for not giving them more space when I noticed they were drunk?

 

[TSwizzle]

You are not legally required to accommodate other people's reckless driving, no. It's prudent, but you have no legal liability for another person's dangerous behavior.

Not quite true. In California, if someone does turn in front of you, you must yield to them, you can't just drive into them. You could be held liable for the "accident".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In legal terms, it seems to some that the legal right-of-way a car should be ceded is proportional to their velocity, regardless of how much in excess that velocity is relative to the speed limit. So if a car is going 100 mph in a 50 mph zone, you are legally required to provide around 1/4 of a mile of space between the oncoming, recklessly driven vehicle.

You are not legally required to accommodate other people's reckless driving, no. It's prudent, but you have no legal liability for another person's dangerous behavior.

I guess if I got side-swiped by a drunk driver on the freeway, you'd be telling me it's my fault for not giving them more space when I noticed they were drunk?

If the the drunk driver is a police officer, then yes.

 

[Politesse]

You are not legally required to accommodate other people's reckless driving, no. It's prudent, but you have no legal liability for another person's dangerous behavior.

Not quite true. In California, if someone does turn in front of you, you must yield to them, you can't just drive into them. You could be held liable for the "accident".

What is your source of information on that? We're a "At-Fault" state, so blame is usually determined proportionally by insurers. And the person breaking the law most egregiously is going to get the lion's share of that as well. But when it comes to legality, you are not liable for the other driver's actions, only your own. If you're doing something that is normally safe and legal, and are rammed by someone you didn't see coming because they were driving unsafely, you can't get a ticket for what they did. For instance, I once got a ticket for turning right on an intersection marked "no right turn on red" due to low visibility coming out of a nearby tunnel (I was a new driver and didn't see the sign). Had I actually hit someone as they came out of the tunnel, you're arguing that instead of me getting a ticket, they should have gotten the ticket for failing to give me enough leeway as I rammed them from the side, obviously the most important cause of the accident. That's absurd, however convenient that alternative reality might have been for 16-year old me.

There is no excuse, ever, for driving at 95 MPH. That's a full 30 miles an hour over the statewide maximum speed limit. That people are trying to justify this at all is absurd.

 

[TSwizzle]

What is your source of information on that?

CA CVC 21801.

There is no excuse, ever, for driving at 95 MPH. That's a full 30 miles an hour over the statewide maximum speed limit. That people are trying to justify this at all is absurd.

I am not aware of anyone justifying driving at 95mph so I don't know who that is aimed at.

 

[Politesse]

What is your source of information on that?

CA CVC 21801.

There is no excuse, ever, for driving at 95 MPH. That's a full 30 miles an hour over the statewide maximum speed limit. That people are trying to justify this at all is absurd.

I am not aware of anyone justifying driving at 95mph so I don't know who that is aimed at.

21801.
(a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a), and having given a signal when and as required by this code, may turn left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of vehicles approaching the intersection or the entrance to the property or alley from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way to the turning vehicle.

This statute says nothing about being responsible for someone else's speed; in fact, it specifically denotes "with reasonable safety". It is doubtful that the driver in question was even able to see the oncoming Corvette before she began her turn, let alone able to determine that he was going twice the expected speed. Most of us do not drive around with speed guns to clock incoming vehicles. Are you saying we should be held liable for hypothetical scenarios in which everyone is doubly exceeding what you would reasonably expect them to be going?

It also makes it clear that once the left-hand turner has begun their turn, it is incumbent on the oncoming vehicles to yield right of way to the turning vehicle. Something which would have been physically impossible at the speed the officer was traveling at, which is why the posted speed limit was not 95 MPH. And if you think about for even half a second, you'd realize that section must have been designed to cover exactly the kind of situation we have been describing, as if the law meant what you have interpreted it to mean (that the turner must have a psychic ability to know exactly how long they need, even when the circumstances are made very unusual by a reckless driver) then would never occur, as the oncoming traffic would always have time to proceed without braking or changing direction. But the law realizes the possibility of a misjudgment on the part of the turning driver, and clarifies that as long as they were behaving reasonably in the first place, they have the right of way once their turn begins even if they are accidentally inconveniencing another driver. This is entirely explicit in the law. Given that you are capable of citing the law but not apparently patient enough to read and critically consider its implications, I am glad I will never be sitting in front of you in traffic court!

Especially since you seem to be ignorant of the very basic facts of this case after participating in an entire thread at this point. Yes, the other driver - the one you are trying to portray as not at fault - was traveling at 94 MPH when the incident occurred.

 

[TSwizzle]

Are you saying we should be held liable for hypothetical scenarios in which everyone is doubly exceeding what you would reasonably expect them to be going?

No. I'm addressing this inaccurate statement of yours;

You are not legally required to accommodate other people's reckless driving, no. It's prudent, but you have no legal liability for another person's dangerous behavior.

And pointing out it's not as clear cut as you seem to think, that is all. In California anyway.

Yes, the other driver - the one you are trying to portray as not at fault - was traveling at 94 MPH when the incident occurred.

I never said 94mph driver wasn't at fault. Of course they were at fault.

 

[Politesse]

No. I'm addressing this inaccurate statement of yours;



And pointing out it's not as clear cut as you seem to think, that is all. In California anyway.

Yes, the other driver - the one you are trying to portray as not at fault - was traveling at 94 MPH when the incident occurred.

I never said 94mph driver wasn't at fault. Of course they were at fault.

I see you have chosen to ignore the content of both the legal statute you cited, as well as now the content of my post, and are simply reiterating your now-disproven point.

I feel it is also relevant to note that this incident did not, in fact, occur in California.

Louisiana's regulations concerning the same situation are a lot more vague, which may be why the prosecutors thought it reasonable to consider charges.

 

[TSwizzle]

I see you have chosen to ignore the content of both the legal statute you cited, as well as now the content of my post, and are simply reiterating your now-disproven point.

No, I don't think you have "disproven" my point.

You are not legally required to accommodate other people's reckless driving, no. It's prudent, but you have no legal liability for another person's dangerous behavior.

I tell you what, put it to the test. Next time someone does a left turn in front of you when they don't really have enough time, go ahead and ram them, don't brake, just plow into them. Explain to the attending police that "Hey man, I had right of way so I didn't slow down."

I feel it is also relevant to note that this incident did not, in fact, occur in California.

Indeed but I would expect similar type provisions in other states.

 

[Rhea]

TSwizzle, I think you have some professional experience in law? What’s you take on the statue Politesse quoted? Why wouldn’t the section b proptect the SUV in this case and result in a violation for the Corvette? What would the argument be?

 

[TSwizzle]

TSwizzle, I think you have some professional experience in law? What’s you take on the statue Politesse quoted? Why wouldn’t the section b proptect the SUV in this case and result in a violation for the Corvette? What would the argument be?

No experience in law, experience in traffic accidents ! It's a bit of a derail, all I was trying to point out that Politesse's belief "You are not legally required to accommodate other people's reckless driving" is not strictly true, certainly here in California and other places, the UK for example. Whether it is applicable in this incident or not I don't know, I doubt it. Seems pretty clear that someone driving at 94mph will be held mostly if not entirely to blame.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why? I've entered a light traffic stream doing a bit over 80 before--you just need a humongous gap to do it with.

You CANNOT ethically expect the other people in a traffic stream, when entering it at 95MPH, to react to your irresponsible speed. It doesn't matter who they are, once you are past 30 over you are taking responsibility for all that happens.

No--I meant the traffic stream was doing over 80. I was beside it and needed to rejoin it. (I had pulled over while driving on the interstate.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And then we take the physics involved with slowing down and avoiding accidents. Speed limits don't exist because Big Brother wants to control people. They exist because of physics and the ability of people to control their cars.

Hell, even if it were an automated car that got a signal that the SUV was turning at a football field of distance (hell, two football fields!) I have my doubts as to how fast an AI could stop from 95 to 0 without flipping the car or losing the road. That's a fuckton of momentum.

It's just plain irresponsible to approach an intersection at those speeds

Of course it's wrong, and it certainly contributed to the severity of the accident. However, that doesn't change the fact that pulling out without ensuring it's clear is also wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm pretty sure the AI would have just thought that they had the right-of-way so 'fuck-it'.

So glad that "right of way", assuming that you are visible enough to know someone is even there to claim it at the speeds you are going, has the ability to stop 1086100 Newtons force coming at you in the form of 3600 lbs of metal.

In legal terms, it seems to some that the legal right-of-way a car should be ceded is proportional to their velocity, regardless of how much in excess that velocity is relative to the speed limit. So if a car is going 100 mph in a 50 mph zone, you are legally required to provide around 1/4 of a mile of space between the oncoming, recklessly driven vehicle.

Their misbehavior doesn't negate your responsibility. When you enter a traffic stream your obligation is to do so in a fashion that doesn't interfere with other drivers. You don't turn into the lane of that 100 mph lunatic unless you can get up to 100 mph before he's 2 seconds from you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are not legally required to accommodate other people's reckless driving, no. It's prudent, but you have no legal liability for another person's dangerous behavior.

Not quite true. In California, if someone does turn in front of you, you must yield to them, you can't just drive into them. You could be held liable for the "accident".

To a degree I believe that's the law everywhere--you're expected to do what you reasonably can to avoid the accident even if they behaved illegally. Apply that to this case--she is obligated not to turn into the lane even if it could be done safety if he was doing 50.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is your source of information on that? We're a "At-Fault" state, so blame is usually determined proportionally by insurers. And the person breaking the law most egregiously is going to get the lion's share of that as well. But when it comes to legality, you are not liable for the other driver's actions, only your own. If you're doing something that is normally safe and legal, and are rammed by someone you didn't see coming because they were driving unsafely, you can't get a ticket for what they did. For instance, I once got a ticket for turning right on an intersection marked "no right turn on red" due to low visibility coming out of a nearby tunnel (I was a new driver and didn't see the sign). Had I actually hit someone as they came out of the tunnel, you're arguing that instead of me getting a ticket, they should have gotten the ticket for failing to give me enough leeway as I rammed them from the side, obviously the most important cause of the accident. That's absurd, however convenient that alternative reality might have been for 16-year old me.

There is no excuse, ever, for driving at 95 MPH. That's a full 30 miles an hour over the statewide maximum speed limit. That people are trying to justify this at all is absurd.

Nobody's trying to justify it. The issue is as you say, comparative negligence--and I see her sin as bigger than his.

 

[Jarhyn]

What is your source of information on that? We're a "At-Fault" state, so blame is usually determined proportionally by insurers. And the person breaking the law most egregiously is going to get the lion's share of that as well. But when it comes to legality, you are not liable for the other driver's actions, only your own. If you're doing something that is normally safe and legal, and are rammed by someone you didn't see coming because they were driving unsafely, you can't get a ticket for what they did. For instance, I once got a ticket for turning right on an intersection marked "no right turn on red" due to low visibility coming out of a nearby tunnel (I was a new driver and didn't see the sign). Had I actually hit someone as they came out of the tunnel, you're arguing that instead of me getting a ticket, they should have gotten the ticket for failing to give me enough leeway as I rammed them from the side, obviously the most important cause of the accident. That's absurd, however convenient that alternative reality might have been for 16-year old me.

There is no excuse, ever, for driving at 95 MPH. That's a full 30 miles an hour over the statewide maximum speed limit. That people are trying to justify this at all is absurd.

Nobody's trying to justify it. The issue is as you say, comparative negligence--and I see her sin as bigger than his.

Lolno. Negligence stems from bad behavior. It is not bad behavior to turn left when the way is clear. That's when you are supposed to turn left. At 95 miles an hour, the way will look clear to the other driver. It IS bad behavior to go 95 in a 50.

You're deluded.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is your source of information on that? We're a "At-Fault" state, so blame is usually determined proportionally by insurers. And the person breaking the law most egregiously is going to get the lion's share of that as well. But when it comes to legality, you are not liable for the other driver's actions, only your own. If you're doing something that is normally safe and legal, and are rammed by someone you didn't see coming because they were driving unsafely, you can't get a ticket for what they did. For instance, I once got a ticket for turning right on an intersection marked "no right turn on red" due to low visibility coming out of a nearby tunnel (I was a new driver and didn't see the sign). Had I actually hit someone as they came out of the tunnel, you're arguing that instead of me getting a ticket, they should have gotten the ticket for failing to give me enough leeway as I rammed them from the side, obviously the most important cause of the accident. That's absurd, however convenient that alternative reality might have been for 16-year old me.

There is no excuse, ever, for driving at 95 MPH. That's a full 30 miles an hour over the statewide maximum speed limit. That people are trying to justify this at all is absurd.

Nobody's trying to justify it. The issue is as you say, comparative negligence--and I see her sin as bigger than his.

Lolno. Negligence stems from bad behavior. It is not bad behavior to turn left when the way is clear. That's when you are supposed to turn left. At 95 miles an hour, the way will look clear to the other driver. It IS bad behavior to go 95 in a 50.

You're deluded.

The way won't look clear--you'll see the oncoming car. And you certainly shouldn't assume it's doing the speed limit--lots of cars are going faster. Look!