Crazy frs driver

[FRSBRZGT86FAN]

Originally Posted by Cole

Doesn't change the fact that the FRS had the right of way.

Interesting, although in a legal sense I doubt anything will happen to either drivers though neither stopped

[FRSBRZGT86FAN]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96377

Just spent some time reading through that thread omg I'm speechless

[Ammunition]

The Hummer probably didn't even check the U turn lane before turning. That being said, had the individual in the FR-S not disabled their traction control and been speeding, that could have been a very elegantly executed turn where both vehicles could have proceeded at the same time, safely.

I don't think the Hummer was "in the right", but I also think it's a bit ridiculous that people in that position often can't turn because most people can't follow the basic rules of turning into the closest lane, or maintaining theirs while doing so when it is a normal-size road, and you aren't driving a larger vehicle that is difficult to maneuver. So many people take up two lanes to execute a turn, or switch lanes while doing so without signaling for no apparent reason (don't need to take the next exit, or turn down an upcoming street).

I apologize for the rant - there are a lot of bad drivers around here. That, and situations such as the one in the video is probably the reason U turning is illegal here in Oregon lol

[Packofcrows]

Originally Posted by Rampage

Just goes to show that 200HP is too much for some FR-S drivers to handle.

But I want a turbo!!!


...yeah hahah it is. It's too much for me already as well. Been taking my 102hp pickup to work lately. Need to ease down.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by Cole

What are you talking about? The FRS had the right of way. Regardless of whether the Hummer was stopped legally, it doesn't matter, as the FRS didn't have a stop sign. (Assuming of course the U-turn was legal there)

If the u-turner wasn't at fault, there would be a huge problem because there would be literally nothing stopping someone from intentionally causing a collision by performing a u-turn against someone turning right at a stop sign and the person turning right could do literally nothing to stop it and would still be at fault.

Most states and provinces stipulate that the u-turner is responsible for ensuring the u-turn is safe to complete which it clearly wasn't if a collision occurred. This is pretty cut and dry.

Even in places where there isn't such a stipulation, fault will usually still fall to the u-turner for failing to yield right of way to the right turner. This is because the u-turner DOES have a yield sign (the yellow and black stripes bar) which is the same as a stop sign for the purposes of right of way, just that coming to a complete stop isn't required.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

If the u-turner wasn't at fault, there would be a huge problem because there would be literally nothing stopping someone from intentionally causing a collision by performing a u-turn against someone turning right at a stop sign and the person turning right could do literally nothing to stop it and would still be at fault.

Most states and provinces stipulate that the u-turner is responsible for ensuring the u-turn is safe to complete which it clearly wasn't if a collision occurred. This is pretty cut and dry.

Even in places where there isn't such a stipulation, fault will usually still fall to the u-turner for failing to yield right of way to the right turner. This is because the u-turner DOES have a yield sign (the yellow and black stripes bar) which is the same as a stop sign for the purposes of right of way, just that coming to a complete stop isn't required.

That's most certainly not equivalent to a yield sign, it's a road hazard sign. If you do not have a stop sign at an intersection, you definitely have the right of way, so long as the manoeuvre you're making is LEGAL. The U-turn being safe to complete really only applies to traffic on the road you're travelling. As long as the signage is in your favour, buddy at the stop sign needs to wait for you to complete your u-turn as the right of way is lawfully yours.

Funny how a lot of drivers (especially those from the GTA do not understand the rules of the road, or being courteous while driving, which goes hand in hand with driving safely

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by Cole

That's most certainly not equivalent to a yield sign, it's a road hazard sign. If you do not have a stop sign at an intersection, you definitely have the right of way, so long as the manoeuvre you're making is LEGAL. The U-turn being safe to complete really only applies to traffic on the road you're travelling. As long as the signage is in your favour, buddy at the stop sign needs to wait for you to complete your u-turn as the right of way is lawfully yours.

Funny how a lot of drivers (especially those from the GTA do not understand the rules of the road, or being courteous while driving, which goes hand in hand with driving safely

Ya no.

https://www.insurancehotline.com/at-fault-rules/

Points of interest are sections 5 and 19.

5. "If automobile “B” turns left into the path of automobile “A”, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident."

There is no stipulation for if Automobile A is turning right or going straight or if there is a stop sign or not. Automobile B is at fault.

19. "The driver of automobile “A” is 100 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is not at fault for an incident that occurs,

when automobile “A” is backing up;
when automobile “A” is making a U-turn; or
when the driver of, or a passenger in, automobile “A” opens the automobile door or leaves the door open."

Explicitly states the vehicle making the u-turn is at fault if there is a collision.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

Ya no.

https://www.insurancehotline.com/at-fault-rules/

Explicitly states the vehicle making the u-turn is at fault if there is a collision.

From your own source:

7.3 If the incident occurs when automobile “B” is entering a road from a private road or a driveway and automobile “A” is passing the private road or driveway and, if there are no traffic signals or signs, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.

13.2 If automobile “A” enters the intersection before automobile “B”, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.

This is not cut and dry, lots of variables we can't see.

Edit: Watching the video again I believe both the FRS and Hummer are stopped at that intersection waiting for cars to pass from the very first frame of the video.

If citations were to be handed out imo 86 gets nailed for reckless driving, Hummer gets nailed for some small careless driving or unsafe merge/lane change.

Edit 2: If anything, the sideswipe sections from your link are most applicable and mostly assign a 25/75 or 50/50 fault percentage.

@Ammunition I would love to see you do a u-turn within the space of 2 lanes and a 1 foot wide island, I know I can't without spinning the tires.

[Lynxis]

Because I love arguing on the internet (yes I probably am retarded) I linked the video to a legal assistant friend and got some opinions so I'm going to put a few nails in this coffin.

Now I have to admit my misunderstanding because realistically, right of way won't ever play into this. She confirmed that U-turners are almost always found at fault in an accident because they are the ones making the more dangerous maneuver so they take on the liability. See section 19 above. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances but these are usually either moving to avoid another vehicle or something was obstructing their view that was out of their control. From what we can see, neither of these are the case here but this would be up to the cops investigation to determine.

Now she did say that a cop might consider this a split fault scenario if the Hummer ran the stop sign but it's still likely the u-turning FRS would be at fault for failing to look/check. Also, as long as the Hummer stopped, it's unlikely the cop will find them at fault because it will be easy to explain that the FRS driver looked like he was just turning left and a reasonable cop probably won't assign fault.

Just wanted to touch on Legal vs. Insurance fault. Yes, legal and insurance fault ARE different things. You may not be at fault legally but if the insurance company believes you could have done something to prevent the accident, they may still find you at fault for insurance purposes but it never works the other way around. If you are found at fault legally, the insurance companies will trust that judgement 100%.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

If the u-turner wasn't at fault, there would be a huge problem because there would be literally nothing stopping someone from intentionally causing a collision by performing a u-turn against someone turning right at a stop sign and the person turning right could do literally nothing to stop it and would still be at fault.

Most states and provinces stipulate that the u-turner is responsible for ensuring the u-turn is safe to complete which it clearly wasn't if a collision occurred. This is pretty cut and dry.

Even in places where there isn't such a stipulation, fault will usually still fall to the u-turner for failing to yield right of way to the right turner. This is because the u-turner DOES have a yield sign (the yellow and black stripes bar) which is the same as a stop sign for the purposes of right of way, just that coming to a complete stop isn't required.

Wrong.

Good Question: Who has the right of way in a u-turn?.

"The driver making a right on red must yield to a driver making a U-turn."

That also applies to stop signs. The Hummer was at the stop sign. The FR-S was in a left turn lane with no signage. The FR-S had the right of way. The Hummer failed to yield the right of way.

And it's that way in most states. Here's a thread where cops set you straight on the concept. Here's another news story quoting another cop to set you straight. And yet another. Here's the same explanation on a Florida police department website. Here's an article quoting a North Carolina DOT official saying the same thing. And here's one from Texas.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Wrong.

Good Question: Who has the right of way in a u-turn?.

"The driver making a right on red must yield to a driver making a U-turn."

That also applies to stop signs. The Hummer was at the stop sign. The FR-S was in a left turn lane with no signage. The FR-S had the right of way. The Hummer failed to yield the right of way.

And it's that way in most states. Here's a thread where cops set you straight on the concept. Here's another news story quoting another cop to set you straight. And yet another. Here's the same explanation on a Florida police department website. Here's an article quoting a North Carolina DOT official saying the same thing. And here's one from Texas.

Maybe I need to eat crow about this. Either the rules are different here or she doesn't know either but she was clear the majority of u-turn collosions fall on the u-turner. I sent her a message with those links and asked her to check with the lawyer she works for tomorrow.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

Maybe I need to eat crow about this. Either the rules are different here or she doesn't know either but she was clear the majority of u-turn collosions fall on the u-turner. I sent her a message with those links and asked her to check with the lawyer she works for tomorrow.

She probably doesn't understand the question. The majority of u-turn collisions would fall on the u-turner, because in the majority of crashes, the u-turner is going to be colliding with oncoming traffic that has the right of way. That doesn't mean the u-turner will always be at fault. The problem here is we're not talking about oncoming traffic, but the minority of situations where a vehicle is stopped at a stop sign on the other side of the road and pulls out without looking.

[Ammunition]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

@Ammunition I would love to see you do a u-turn within the space of 2 lanes and a 1 foot wide island, I know I can't without spinning the tires.

I'm not saying that it's always possible, but I felt that it looked liked the FR-S honestly did a good job of it aside from the fact that he clearly didn't have any traction control on or was speeding excessively; TBH I think he did a very good job correcting and thankfully there wasn't an accident. I also don't think that the Hummer was in the right in that they went when they did - I'm just stating that ideally these situations shouldn't be a debate of who had right of way or who didn't, because the fact is that there was enough room for both cars to maneuver safely as they needed even in the worst case scenario (which was displayed in the video). I personally would have yielded in that situation, and as I stated I felt that the driver in the Hummer likely didn't even consider the potential of someone making a U turn when he was judging his turn.

I also stated that U turns aren't legal here, so yes this is speaking from a manner of basic road principles to maintain your lane, turn into the closest lane, not speeding like a maniac, etc; obviously additional caution will need to be applied when necessary as driving is a dynamic situaiton - that is sort of beside the point I was getting at which I admitted to being a rant.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Ammunition

I'm not saying that it's always possible,

I'm saying the turning radius of the 86 makes it impossible without sliding the tires, give it a shot next time nobody is looking. There's a few 2 lane roads nearby where I have maybe 6" to spare from hitting the curb on the far right when making a u-turn.