A bad encounter with a Toyota.

[RigsLS]

So much bad advice.

Halogens? Wut. That's a huge downgrade, plus now he needs both sides.

HIDs in a halogen housing? Doing it wrong.

It was only recommended as an in-a-pinch solution with intention of correcting later.

you got 1500-1900$ to throw around on a HID OEM lamp ?

 

[RigsLS]

... She should have stopped to find out why the car was stopped, then proceeded carefully around the stopped car while being prepared to stop. For all she knew the stopped car was stopped for a ball with a kid about to come charging across the road....

Can you imagine ? and now to learn that it was a solid yellow line she crossed.

If she was in the other lane going around stopped cars and she plowed down a kid there wouldn't be much of a need to figure who is/was at fault.

It be just straight to jail, lady until the courts have time to discuss it with your representative.

I'm still leaning towards the her at fault for just blowing passed stopped traffic and slamming into objects out of her own lane, as the approaching motorist, she is responsible for making a safe pass if she was even allowed to be in the other lane.

If the u-turning vehicle was, let say making a left turn, crossing onto the other lane, u-turn or not, he is the leading traffic and while one vehicle had already stopped for this motorist to make his maneuver, a third vehicle on a two lane road, rather then yield, decides the other lane looks faster and does not bother to yield to oncoming traffic in the lane she had put herself in.

She was meant to yield to all traffic ahead of her going forward in her direction.
traffic had stopped. a car was clearly yielding for another motorist.
She put herself into oncoming traffic and failed to yield either that oncoming traffic or any other traffic that is already in front of her which would have had the right of way, turning or u-turn or going straight, doesn't matter. she was to yield to up ahead leading traffic.

The fact that both parties put them selves in the opposite lane is where they real trouble now is.

Really she was in a Fn hurry and needed to get there first, she went into oncoming lanes to avoid yielding to leading traffic, there was already one care stopped ahead yielding.

she blew around and could have very well ran down a kid like Telco suggested.


I say: Off with her head !!! <-- joking.

 

[RigsLS]

Keep in mind, at least were we are from the rule book states that basically a double yellow is used when it is likely to be unsafe to pass, such as going around a blind curve. Single yellow lines are where it also may be unsafe, such as approaching an intersection or on parts of a 2-lane road, etc. They're guidelines only, basically telling you that it might be unsafe to pass in that area.

It's not illegal to cross a solid yellow line.

 

[LS4me]

If the u-turning vehicle was, let say making a left turn, crossing onto the other lane, u-turn or not, he is the leading traffic and while one vehicle had already stopped for this motorist to make his maneuver, a third vehicle on a two lane road, rather then yield, decides the other lane looks faster and does not bother to yield to oncoming traffic in the lane she had put herself in.

Depends on the state's vehicle code. I know in The People's Republik of California it is TECHNICALLY rarely, if ever, LEGAL to make a left turn, as the left (or U-turn for that matter) must yield to ALL opposing "hazardous" traffic (V C Section 21801). Should I blow a red light and prang someone making a left with a green arrow I'm only technically guilty of running a red. Here, the left turn must ALWAYS yield to oncoming traffic. Notice no provision for a left turn green? In my example I'm sure the insurance company would hold me liable as I ran the red, but with a good lawyer I'm sure he could argue that the left turner failed to yield to traffic "close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement". Define "close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement". Is that 100'? 200'? Half a mile? Judgement calls are vague at best.

Funny how the law works.....

 

[Greycloud]

I wonder did you get a statement on the other car that was waiting for the parking spot what did that driver say.

Nope, the car that was waiting for my parking spot bailed almost immediately. One moment he was there, the next he was completely gone.

 

[LS4me]

Nope, the car that was waiting for my parking spot bailed almost immediately. One moment he was there, the next he was completely gone.

He probably suffered from Toyota's unintended acceleration problem! Couldn't help himself!

 

[RigsLS]

Nope, the car that was waiting for my parking spot bailed almost immediately. One moment he was there, the next he was completely gone.

No insurance, suspended license, invalid plate, arrest warrant or drug runner.

Pick any of the above, he didn't want any part of it, he gone ! (as Ms. Kay would say.)

 

[RigsLS]

Depends on the state's vehicle code. I know in The People's Republik of California it is TECHNICALLY rarely, if ever, LEGAL to make a left turn, as the left (or U-turn for that matter) must yield to ALL opposing "hazardous" traffic (V C Section 21801). Should I blow a red light and prang someone making a left with a green arrow I'm only technically guilty of running a red. Here, the left turn must ALWAYS yield to oncoming traffic. Notice no provision for a left turn green? In my example I'm sure the insurance company would hold me liable as I ran the red, but with a good lawyer I'm sure he could argue that the left turner failed to yield to traffic "close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement". Define "close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement". Is that 100'? 200'? Half a mile? Judgement calls are vague at best.

Funny how the law works.....

RE: "opposing "hazardous" traffic"

in this case there is/was no opposing traffic, the other oncoming lane was clear, thus the man began his u-turn.
She was obviously the "hazardous traffic" blowing around stopped traffic in the oncoming lane failing to yield to the leading traffic.


It's a very interesting little debate on who may be at fault here, myself I can't really get my head around it other then I strongly feel the lady does not need to be racing around traffic like that. there is such thing as yielding in traffic, specially on a two lane road where traffic in same direction is already stopped.

let's say that LS was a school bus or a kid, still think that lady should just blow around all stopped yielding traffic like a fool ?

it changes one thinking when we replace the u-turning vehicle with a pedestrian or kid chasing a ball onto the street.

Careless to be going around stopped traffic like that on any roadway.

... and let's try and keep in mind, this happened in the province of Quebec, it's a Canadian thing .... sure there will be some differences in laws & rules.

 

[jjcool00]

RE: "opposing "hazardous" traffic"

in this case there is/was no opposing traffic, the other oncoming lane was clear, thus the man began his u-turn.
She was obviously the "hazardous traffic" blowing around stopped traffic in the oncoming lane failing to yield to the leading traffic.


It's a very interesting little debate on who may be at fault here, myself I can't really get my head around it other then I strongly feel the lady does not need to be racing around traffic like that. there is such thing as yielding in traffic, specially on a two lane road where traffic in same direction is already stopped.

let's say that LS was a school bus or a kid, still think that lady should just blow around all stopped yielding traffic like a fool ?

it changes one thinking when we replace the u-turning vehicle with a pedestrian or kid chasing a ball onto the street.

Careless to be going around stopped traffic like that on any roadway.

... and let's try and keep in mind, this happened in the province of Quebec, it's a Canadian thing .... sure there will be some differences in laws & rules.

That was clearly over the 5 sentence maximum...

 

[RigsLS]

I know, I know ... I can't Fn help it man.
I tried the G-RELL invoked 5 count rule but it was ... (misunderstanding)

I'll try harder

 

[joegr]

...
it changes one thinking when we replace the u-turning vehicle with a pedestrian or kid chasing a ball onto the street...

I get the point that you are making, and I agree that she was foolish/careless.

However from a legal standpoint, there are very different restrictions and requirements for pedestrians than for motor vehicles.

 

[LS4me]

RE: "opposing "hazardous" traffic"

in this case there is/was no opposing traffic, the other oncoming lane was clear, thus the man began his u-turn.
She was obviously the "hazardous traffic" blowing around stopped traffic in the oncoming lane failing to yield to the leading traffic.


It's a very interesting little debate on who may be at fault here, myself I can't really get my head around it other then I strongly feel the lady does not need to be racing around traffic like that. there is such thing as yielding in traffic, specially on a two lane road where traffic in same direction is already stopped.

let's say that LS was a school bus or a kid, still think that lady should just blow around all stopped yielding traffic like a fool ?

it changes one thinking when we replace the u-turning vehicle with a pedestrian or kid chasing a ball onto the street.

Careless to be going around stopped traffic like that on any roadway.

... and let's try and keep in mind, this happened in the province of Quebec, it's a Canadian thing .... sure there will be some differences in laws & rules.

I hear 'ya! She had NO business passing a car stopped in her lane when it requires crossing over the yellow line.

The "hazardous" traffic would be the Toy blasting around the stopped car. The question that hasn't been asked is, is it legal to make a U-turn there? I know here it is illegal to make a "Uie" in a business district.

 

[RigsLS]

I pulled a tractor trailer once across a 4 lane roadway, no medium divider completing a U-turn.
Both directions "very" clear. and trust me I can see that from up there.

Had another driver with me, as my passenger, help for the day on a live unload.

Guys starts panicking, telling me "You can't do that!"
I'm like: What you mean I can't do that, I just Fn did, very well I may add!

He debates with me that it was a highway not a roadway, can't do that on a highway!

Whatever! it's all pavement to me, besides I had the four-ways on, it was an emergency maneuver,
we were going in the wrong direction!

I tell ya what, I say to the guy, if we get chased by the 5-0, I simply won't pull over,
we have over 900$ worth of fresh diesel on board, the blinking lights in the mirrors
should go away in about 2 1/2 hours ... it did last time!


~ was there two solid white lines dividing the two separate direction lane highway, Why Yes there was!

~ did I care, No not too much as I deemed it perfectly safe with no traffic in sight.

~ was it an illegal maneuver? I don't know because I didn't get caught so ....


True story ... and I still made driver of the year for that division, Ha!

 

[chocolat1701]

by now you should of heard from the insurance company what have they said so far.

 

[Greycloud]

by now you should of heard from the insurance company what have they said so far.

They're still taking their sweet time.

 

[RigsLS]

lol, they probably watching this thread as they can't easily lay blame either.

 

[Greycloud]

Finally got the call from the insurance company...

Should've seen this coming. Apparently in this lovely province called Quebec, if you're reversing or doing a U-turn and an accident occurs, regardless of circumstances or how the other person is driving, it's always your fault.

So I get to pay 100%. Isn't that just lovely? Anyone got any ideas on where to get a decent used HID (driver-side) headlamp?

 

[M4rk]

It's the same in Ontario.

eBay is your best bet.

 

[Greycloud]

It's the same in Ontario.

Of all the stupid rules... I mean, I get that what I was doing in particular was a bit risky, but then again I was STOPPED and waiting for the road to be clear... and I honked... and she slammed right into me.

There are circumstances where idiots may slam into people reversing or doing a u-turn and they are fully to blame... yet this stupid rule automatically puts all responsibility on the person who happened to be reversing or doing a u-turn. What if a drunk or texting moron slams into you while you're parallel parking? It's ridiculous.

 

[jjcool00]

Of all the stupid rules... I mean, I get that what I was doing in particular was a bit risky, but then again I was STOPPED and waiting for the road to be clear... and I honked... and she slammed right into me.

There are circumstances where idiots may slam into people reversing or doing a u-turn and they are fully to blame... yet this stupid rule automatically puts all responsibility on the person who happened to be reversing or doing a u-turn. What if a drunk or texting moron slams into you while you're parallel parking? It's ridiculous.

In the U.S. if you're drunk you're automatically at fault. So if the driver had been intoxicated and slammed into you it would of been their fault (as far as I know - my law expertise is in Immigration not Motor Vehicles), but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

 

[Greycloud]

In the U.S. if you're drunk you're automatically at fault. So if the driver had been intoxicated and slammed into you it would of been their fault (as far as I know - my law expertise is in Immigration not Motor Vehicles), but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

I went through the documents listing responsibility regarding insurance, and there's no mention of alcohol intoxication. What they do say, however, is that circumstances such as speed, visibility, weather, the state of the road or the presence of pedestrians are not taken into consideration by insurance companies. Based on that, I would think that someone who is driving drunk would be held criminally responsible, but not (necessarily) responsible by the insurance companies. I might be wrong of course, that's just an assumption based on those other circumstances.

 

[jjcool00]

I went through the documents listing responsibility regarding insurance, and there's no mention of alcohol intoxication. What they do say, however, is that circumstances such as speed, visibility, weather, the state of the road or the presence of pedestrians are not taken into consideration by insurance companies. Based on that, I would think that someone who is driving drunk would be held criminally responsible, but not (necessarily) responsible by the insurance companies. I might be wrong of course, that's just an assumption based on those other circumstances.

That sound's about right. The only difference would be IF the case made it to trial.

 

[Greycloud]

Update on the situation with my dear vehicle: got a HID headlight off ebay, 595$, and it both looks okay and works well. 600$ is quite a bit, but it damn well beats the 2200$ price tag on the new ones... I tried installing it today, but found out that the old one's only been able to hold in place because its bearings were broken and the garage put a quick fix with plastic tethers.

The new one couldn't be fixed properly because the damaged fender was in its way by about an inch (which, in hindsight, is undoubtedly what destroyed the bearings on the old one during the crash). So I had to temporarily put back the broken one, while I get a proper fender as well. Looking for that around the junkyards. On the bright side, now I know both how to replace a headlight assembly and that my new one works well.