Van runs red, gets t-boned by S2000. Should he have stopped?

[BandW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny01_mvJyjA

I'm interested in your opinions. I know that in Alberta one is legally required to stop at a yellow light, provided that it is safe to do so.

At exactly 0:10 in the video, the light turns yellow well before the S2000 has entered the intersection.

My question is: do you think that the S2000 could have safely stopped?

[03ozwhip]

Doesn't even matter, the straight away has the right away. The guy turning is at fault because he didn't safely make the turn, I've seen this first hand personally.

[BandW]

Originally posted by 03ozwhip
Doesn't even matter, the straight away has the right away. The guy turning is at fault because he didn't safely make the turn, I've seen this first hand personally.

Well there is no question that the van ran a red light (going straight as well).

I'm mainly interested in what you guys think from the perspective of sheer accident avoidance, not necessarily who is at fault.

[ga16i]

Yes, I think the S2000 could have safely stopped. Looked fairly bright and sunny and the passenger side mirror didn't show anyone behind.

Once committed to running that yellow though, I don't think I could've done any better avoiding that collision, the van came up pretty quick.

[HiTempguy1]

"Look ahead". Im not saying it could have been avoided, but he wasnt paying attention to his surroundings.

He definitely could have stopped for the yellow, but then he'd have to be worried about another asshole not paying attention behind him rearending him.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

He definitely could have stopped for the yellow, but then he'd have to be worried about another asshole not paying attention behind him rearending him.

Exactly this. A S2000 could definitely have stopped, but many other types of vehicles could not have stopped safely (including whatever may have been behind him).

[The_Rural_Juror]

Can someone clarify the yellow light rule? I understand it as proceed with caution - as in the driver is expected to safely exit the intersection before the upcoming red. So the driver would have to take into account the size of the intersection.

In contrast to the driver is legally expected to stop if safe to do so.

[taemo]

sure the red s2000 could have stopped but really be honest, how many wouldn't have tried beating that yellow light anyway?


the question is why that van wasn't slowing down or even stopped considering it was red on their side?

[blairtruck]

women driver of van didnt even look or notice the car was at her door if you do frame by frame.
eyes straight ahead. blue blocker sunglasses on. not a care in the world. including red lights.

[eglove]

Light was still yellow at the time of impact - you can see it right above the rear view mirror. Definitely the vans fault. She was booking it in a hurry

RIP S2K

[Go4Long]

this is the problem...it's like when someone turns in front of a bike and people blame the bike for not being seen, it doesn't matter, the law doesn't say turn when safe to do so unless you didn't see them, then fuck em.

The van should have stopped, the S2000 was legally in the right, any other debate is just trying to shift the blame away from a stupid soccer mom running a red.

[rob the knob]

Originally posted by Go4Long
this is the problem...it's like when someone turns in front of a bike and people blame the bike for not being seen, it doesn't matter, the law doesn't say turn when safe to do so unless you didn't see them, then fuck em.

The van should have stopped, the S2000 was legally in the right, any other debate is just trying to shift the blame away from a stupid soccer mom running a red.

screw law sometimes. dead is dead. guy in sports car is ok this time. maybe other time he is dead. yes, lady is legally wrong. but if you can avoid accident and not be dead, this is good. guy should have been able to see van, tap brake to slow, and not crash boom bang dead.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Go4Long
The van should have stopped, the S2000 was legally in the right, any other debate is just trying to shift the blame away from a stupid soccer mom running a red.

Yup. The light might as well have been green from the Van's point of view, the fact it was yellow has nothing to do with this collision.

[pheoxs]

I wish more people in life would understand that just because something isn't your fault doesn't mean it isn't your responsibility.

The Van is at fault and will take the insurance hit but the s2k is still responsible as he could have easily stopped for that light.

[C_Dave45]

Van clearly went through the red light. The light for the S2000 was still yellow.


But as for the yellow light law....a yellow means "the driver shall stop unless it is unsafe to do so". That's why when waiting at a green light to turn left, you must enter your car INTO the intersection, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear. When light turns yellow, you can legally finish your turn. If you sit BEHIND the intersection stop line, waiting for the yellow...you are technically not allowed to enter that intersection once the light turns yellow, you have to wait for the next green light.


53(1) When, at an intersection, a yellow light is shown by a traffic
control signal at the same time as or following the showing of a
green light, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the intersection and facing the yellow light shall stop the vehicle before entering
(a) the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection,
or
(b) if there is not any marked crosswalk, the intersection, unless the stopping of that vehicle cannot be made in safety.

[ZenOps]

Blame the construction of the intersection? And then both drivers get claims.

Like Rand Paul says about the US dollar being backed by "Used Car Loans, Bad Home Loans, Distressed Assets And Derivatives"

Magic 8 ball says: Everyone will see a lot more accidents soon.

[speedog]

Back to the original question, "Could have the S2000 could have safely stopped?"

I'd say that the S2000 driver could've safely stopped and certainly one can't use the excuse that he couldn't because someone was too close behind him because his RH mirror doesn't show any vehicle even being remotely close to his rear.

Now if the S2000 driver was doing 30 mph, he would've been covering 44 feet per second and it appears he had at least 3 seconds from when the light went yellow to when he through the crosswalk which equates to 132 feet travelled from when the light turned yellow. Now considering a S2000 can do a 60-0 mph stop in under 120 feet, I would surmise that the S2000 driver had more than enough time at the speed he was going to easily safely stop for that yellow light.

Please note that this an old grumpy man just responding in a very grumpy fashion to the OP's original question.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by speedog
Back to the original question, "Could have the S2000 could have safely stopped?"

I'd say that the S2000 driver could've safely stopped and certainly one can't use the excuse that he couldn't because someone was too close behind him because his RH mirror doesn't show any vehicle even being remotely close to his rear.

Now if the S2000 driver was doing 30 mph, he would've been covering 44 feet per second and it appears he had at least 3 seconds from when the light went yellow to when he through the crosswalk which equates to 132 feet travelled from when the light turned yellow. Now considering a S2000 can do a 60-0 mph stop in under 120 feet, I would surmise that the S2000 driver had more than enough time at the speed he was going to easily safely stop for that yellow light.

Please note that this an old grumpy man just responding in a very grumpy fashion to the OP's original question.
^ Bang on. I'd say in the OP....it could easily be found 50/50 fault.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by C_Dave45

^ Bang on. I'd say in the OP....it could easily be found 50/50 fault.

Not even remotely correct. Could have stopped is a relative thought, so is should have stopped. the one thing that is certain is that the van had a red light, meaning they MUST stop. The van is 100% at fault regardless of any emotional or theoretical argument.

[CanmoreOrLess]

The light was still yellow for the Honda. I've no idea what the van was doing (texting, BJ, nose picking?), she'd still have a red light and as such at fault. The van was going through the red light no matter the colour. Van 100% at fault. Good on the Honda driver for having a dash cam, otherwise plenty of finger pointing later on in court.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Go4Long


Not even remotely correct. Could have stopped is a relative thought, so is should have stopped. the one thing that is certain is that the van had a red light, meaning they MUST stop. The van is 100% at fault regardless of any emotional or theoretical argument.
lol...so in your opinion you are 100% correct, and the case is solved.
whew...thanks for clearing that up. Might want to give the insurance companies a phone call and tell them to not bother investigating said accident.

Btw....I was involved in an IDENTICAL accident years ago. Insurance companies and the courts decided on 50/50....where were you when I needed you.
:rolleyes:

[Go4Long]

"Years ago" could mean anything. Did you have dash cam footage to prove that the light was still yellow when you entered the intersection, or was it just you saying it was yellow and the other driver saying that it was green for them?

In this case, clear cut evidence shows that the van runs a light that can only have been showing red.

It's not he said/she said.

It's he proved. That's it.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Go4Long


Not even remotely correct. Could have stopped is a relative thought, so is should have stopped. the one thing that is certain is that the van had a red light, meaning they MUST stop. The van is 100% at fault regardless of any emotional or theoretical argument.

This. There's no question the van is 100% at fault here.

[Z_Fan]

I think it's disgusting that it is even remotely possible to find the driver of the S2000 guilty of anything...he doesn't even appear to be speeding.

To me, this is cut and dry 100% the fault of the fucking idiot who ran a RED LIGHT and was totally driving with out any care or attention.

S2000 driver wasn't trying to beat a light. He didn't floor it to just barely skinny through a yellow. In my book it is very questionable if he even could have stopped - in fact, given a normal reaction time of lets say 0.5 seconds he's basically 1.0 second until he is fully inside the intersection. Doubt he's stopping safely if at all before the stop line.

Someone said *THREE SECONDS* which is inaccurate for sure. I've timed this multiple times with a stopwatch, and each time I was 1.48 seconds, 1.46 seconds and 1.50 seconds from time the light turns yellow until he appears to enter the intersection. it's then approximately .35 seconds until the impact. The impact is about 1.75 or maybe 1.8 seconds after the light turns yellow.

I don't think there is a single person here who would even have considered stopping at that light actually.

Why in the fuck are people wanting to shift the blame away from the fucking moron who ran the red light? I don't get it.

The driver of the S2000 did what every single driver does every single day. He wasn't even trying to really rush a yellow - and a LOT of drivers do that every single day. No, he was going through a light that looks to me like he had virtually zero chance to safely stop at. This is very common.

Now, the idiot running the red light isn't something you do every day now is it? Do you guys honestly expect that we should all just be able to ignore traffic lights and fucking blaze through intersections, cause accidents, maybe kill some people, and then we can say, well, their light just turned yellow! Like she even fucking knew the color of ANY of the lights at that intersection.

No stupid driver is stupid. 100% at fault.

Maybe the S2000 driver should sue whomever put up the barrier on the right there 100% blocking all the traffic that he'd maybe have been able to see a bit earlier if the barrier wasn't there. Looks like a concrete wall with fencing at the top. Totally blocks the view of traffic inbound from the direction the van was coming from...this essentially removed any real chance at early detection of the idiot in the van.

Just saying...

Everyone should sue everyone ! Yeah !

[Go4Long]

^this...so much of this.

[HiTempguy1]

I hope no one got the impression that I think the s2000 driver is at fault. My point was he COULD have avoided the accident IF he had been paying attention. Its that whole "you can be right... dead right" kind of thing.

Regardless of whether or not he is at fault, the s2000 driver could have avoided the accident, which is probably the best outcome IMO.

[CanmoreOrLess]

I wonder if the fact the Honda was in the intersection during a yellow light somehow puts him with some of the blame? Also, the Honda accelerates and shifts gears just before hitting the intersection, if it matters. I'd have done exactly as the Honda driver did, fear of being rear ended, clear intersection, etc. I'm not saying what I do is 100% correct by the law of road... I'd get nailed for a window tint as well.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Kloubek]

I figure the S2000 could have stopped, but who really cares. The fact is that the accident was caused by the van running the red, and they should be at fault.

imo.

[speedog]

So typical Beyond - in a heated debate that is completely unrelated to the original question asked.

Christ, now the grumpy old man must have a weird timing issue on his computer because he seems to clearly see the yellow light at 10 seconds on youTube's timer and the impact at almost 14 seconds, certainly there seems to be at least 3 seconds per youTube's timer - shit, gonna have to dig out a stopwatch just for shits and giggles.

That said and to go off topic, the van driver did most likely run a red light and the S2000 driver didn't appear to have a good sight line of what was coming down the roadway where the van was coming from. But this old grumpy man will remain steadfast in his answer that the S2000 driver could've safely stopped as this grumpy old man is only going to go by youTube's timer which is probably quite accurate unless of course this grumpy old man's computer is in some sort of weird time-warp reality that is skewing youTube's timer. Plausible I guess - anyhow, got to go make my grocery list and get the week's worth of supplies for the family. I'll wave my fist in old grumpy man fashion at the double parkers at Superstore just to keep up the facade for those who need it here on Beyond - hell, I'll wave my fist at the clouds at the same time.
:)

[M.alex]

Originally posted by blairtruck
women driver of van didnt even look or notice the car was at her door if you do frame by frame.
eyes straight ahead. blue blocker sunglasses on. not a care in the world. including red lights.

scary, we should be able to revoke people's licenses for shit like that

http://puu.sh/fCUJ9/2c357d63be.jpg


anybody who thinks he could have stopped is crazy. By the time the van enters his line of sight there's going to be a second of shock ... perception, action, reaction ... I doubt anybody here would have been able to stop

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by M.alex
anybody who thinks he could have stopped is crazy. By the time the van enters his line of sight there's going to be a second of shock ... perception, action, reaction ... I doubt anybody here would have been able to stop

I don't think there's anyone in this thread that has said the S2000 could have stopped in time once the van entered the intersection, they're wondering if he could have stopped for the yellow light in the first place.

[firebane]

Originally posted by speedog
So typical Beyond - in a heated debate that is completely unrelated to the original question asked.

Christ, now the grumpy old man must have a weird timing issue on his computer because he seems to clearly see the yellow light at 10 seconds on youTube's timer and the impact at almost 14 seconds, certainly there seems to be at least 3 seconds per youTube's timer - shit, gonna have to dig out a stopwatch just for shits and giggles.

That said and to go off topic, the van driver did most likely run a red light and the S2000 driver didn't appear to have a good sight line of what was coming down the roadway where the van was coming from. But this old grumpy man will remain steadfast in his answer that the S2000 driver could've safely stopped as this grumpy old man is only going to go by youTube's timer which is probably quite accurate unless of course this grumpy old man's computer is in some sort of weird time-warp reality that is skewing youTube's timer. Plausible I guess - anyhow, got to go make my grocery list and get the week's worth of supplies for the family. I'll wave my fist in old grumpy man fashion at the double parkers at Superstore just to keep up the facade for those who need it here on Beyond - hell, I'll wave my fist at the clouds at the same time.
:)

Agreed. S2000 SHOULD have stopped and if someone ran into the back of them they were following FAR to close.

[rob the knob]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
I think it's disgusting that it is even remotely possible to find the driver of the S2000 guilty of anything...he doesn't even appear to be speeding.

To me, this is cut and dry 100% the fault of the fucking idiot who ran a RED LIGHT and was totally driving with out any care or attention.

S2000 driver wasn't trying to beat a light. He didn't floor it to just barely skinny through a yellow. In my book it is very questionable if he even could have stopped - in fact, given a normal reaction time of lets say 0.5 seconds he's basically 1.0 second until he is fully inside the intersection. Doubt he's stopping safely if at all before the stop line.

Someone said *THREE SECONDS* which is inaccurate for sure. I've timed this multiple times with a stopwatch, and each time I was 1.48 seconds, 1.46 seconds and 1.50 seconds from time the light turns yellow until he appears to enter the intersection. it's then approximately .35 seconds until the impact. The impact is about 1.75 or maybe 1.8 seconds after the light turns yellow.

I don't think there is a single person here who would even have considered stopping at that light actually.

Why in the fuck are people wanting to shift the blame away from the fucking moron who ran the red light? I don't get it.

The driver of the S2000 did what every single driver does every single day. He wasn't even trying to really rush a yellow - and a LOT of drivers do that every single day. No, he was going through a light that looks to me like he had virtually zero chance to safely stop at. This is very common.

Now, the idiot running the red light isn't something you do every day now is it? Do you guys honestly expect that we should all just be able to ignore traffic lights and fucking blaze through intersections, cause accidents, maybe kill some people, and then we can say, well, their light just turned yellow! Like she even fucking knew the color of ANY of the lights at that intersection.

No stupid driver is stupid. 100% at fault.

Maybe the S2000 driver should sue whomever put up the barrier on the right there 100% blocking all the traffic that he'd maybe have been able to see a bit earlier if the barrier wasn't there. Looks like a concrete wall with fencing at the top. Totally blocks the view of traffic inbound from the direction the van was coming from...this essentially removed any real chance at early detection of the idiot in the van.

Just saying...

Everyone should sue everyone ! Yeah !

pretty simple you are wrong

[01RedDX]

.

[lil*tymer]

Even if his light didn't turn yellow, he was going to get hit because the van was not slowing down for a red light and was going through regardless. The better question is could the van have stopped at it's red light which I'm sure we can all agree that it could have if he was paying attention.

[firebane]

Originally posted by lil*tymer
Even if his light didn't turn yellow, he was going to get hit because the van was not slowing down for a red light and was going through regardless. The better question is could the van have stopped at it's red light which I'm sure we can all agree that it could have if he was paying attention.

The entire situation could have been avoided if one car would have stopped. Maybe that van would have sailed clean through.. but no another Calgarian decided against better judgement to run a light they shouldn't have.

Yellow does not mean go. It means slow down and proceed to stop unless unsafe to do so.

[xnvy]

^Not Calgary, Georgia.

I don't think he could have stopped without some really hard and uncomfortable braking. I probably would have sailed through the light too. Not like the S2000 pinned the throttle to beat the yellow or anything.

[J.M.]

Originally posted by rob the knob


pretty simple you are wrong

shut up please rob

[rob the knob]

Originally posted by J.M.


shut up please rob

it has been explained why the car could have stopped and not hit the van, many times above.

[firebane]

Originally posted by xnvy
^Not Calgary, Georgia.

I don't think he could have stopped without some really hard and uncomfortable braking. I probably would have sailed through the light too. Not like the S2000 pinned the throttle to beat the yellow or anything.

Wherever it is... Its a S2000 not a archaic truck from the 60s. That could easily stop and be perfectly comfortable.. Its called knowing how to drive a vehicle.

[syscal]

Proof that beyonders can argue about anything

[pheoxs]

Only on Beyond... but for the sake of fueling the fire:

I found ~ 4 seconds between yellow light and impact. Assuming 40mph which it's likely a lot less. That's 235 feet to stop. An S2k has a breaking distance from 60mph (much faster) of just 112 feet according to car and driver.

He could have easily stopped and not at a 'uncomfortable rate'

[syscal]

Forgetting whether he should/could stop...there is no way the light was green for the van. So what's the argument? lol

[firebane]

Originally posted by syscal
Forgetting whether he should/could stop...there is no way the light was green for the van. So what's the argument? lol

2 wrongs don't make a right?

[revelations]

Because of the dashcam footage, the insurance company will find the Van guilty.

The police will likely charge the Van driver with proceeding through a red light and MAYBE the S2000 driver for failing to stop for a yellow - based on the time to stop.


HOWEVER, if NO video or witnesses around, and the Van driver did not admit guilt - this would've been 50/50 by the insurance company - GET DASHCAMS PEOPLE!!!

[CanmoreOrLess]

Originally posted by firebane


Agreed. S2000 SHOULD have stopped and if someone ran into the back of them they were following FAR to close.

Drunk cement truck drivers... I ain't stopping in front of those fuckers. I'll take a ticket for the yellow.

[BandW]

Originally posted by syscal
Forgetting whether he should/could stop...there is no way the light was green for the van. So what's the argument? lol

I think this sums it up nicely:


Originally posted by HiTempguy1
I hope no one got the impression that I think the s2000 driver is at fault. My point was he COULD have avoided the accident IF he had been paying attention. Its that whole "you can be right... dead right" kind of thing.

This is similar to the point I was trying to get at. In my opinion, the van is at fault 100% (my opinion carries zero weight, but it is what it is), but like most people, I'd rather not be in an accident at all, even if it isn't my fault and I get a payoff out of it.

I think that I would have stopped at the yellow given the road conditions and the capabilities of the S2000. I was mainly curious if doing so would actually be more unsafe than just sailing through and risking someone running a red. I'm always looking to become a better/safer driver.

[Go4Long]

it's a bizarre argument. If he had stopped would there still have been an accident? no. Was it physically possible for him to stop? yes. Would anyone saying that he could have stopped and not crashed have stopped in the exact same position? fuck no.

It's like saying that he wouldn't have had an accident if he rode his bike instead. Yes, it's technically true, but maybe he's just not a big enough hipster to ride a bike.

[max_boost]

S2000 dude seem way too casual and that's probably because he wasn't fully paying attention. You know what? That happens. I say fault is about 80/20.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by pheoxs
Only on Beyond... but for the sake of fueling the fire:

I found ~ 4 seconds between yellow light and impact. Assuming 40mph which it's likely a lot less. That's 235 feet to stop. An S2k has a breaking distance from 60mph (much faster) of just 112 feet according to car and driver.

He could have easily stopped and not at a 'uncomfortable rate'

That's all I was trying to say. Yes the van was at fault for running the red. But the van driver's insurance company could easily argue the S2000 was at fault for running a yellow light.

If you can stop (which obviously evidence shows the car could have) then a yellow light means stop. If you proceed, you will get a ticket (and hence be partly at fault)

If anything, life has taught me NOTHING is 100% and insurance companies will do anything to mitigate blame.

[icky2unk]

Any accident could be preventable if you look in hindsight.

What about that drunk guys in the C63... are you going to analyze how the old couple could have accelerated not so fast and they would have been missed by the car.

Like be real...

People drive with the expectation that other people are paying attention, the reality is a lot of people aren't but you can't drive in anticipation that someone is going to hit you all day long or else you become the issue.

[max_boost]

God forbid I get hit every time I am not driving on the defensive. :nut:

Might as well say buddy should have stayed home that day.

[01RedDX]

.

[max_boost]

Yes for sure. Shitty situation I guess.

[relyt92]

I've gotta say, the S2000 sure doesn't look too bad after the accident.
http://i.imgur.com/qQSRlkq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8xh4gJt.jpg

[BandW]

Originally posted by icky2unk
People drive with the expectation that other people are paying attention, the reality is a lot of people aren't but you can't drive in anticipation that someone is going to hit you all day long or else you become the issue.

There is a difference between being so paranoid that you become a hazard and practicing good defensive driving.

Plus, your assumption that one should drive with the expectation that other people are paying attention when "the reality is that a lot of people aren't" doesn't make any sense.

[beyond_ban]

If i am the driver of the S2000, there is zero percent chance i am stopping at that yellow. Using your cars full braking potential in order to come to a complete stop before the light has even turned red is ridiculous. The van ran a solid red light no matter how you slice it, while the S2000 was just maintaining speed through a fresh yellow. There is a reason you don't get flashed for running a red light in Calgary unless you enter the intersection AFTER the light has turned red.

[btimbit]

Sure, he could have stopped if he slammed on the brakes, but this is 100% the vans fault for running the light.

[ICEBERG]

bvLaTupw-hk

[rob the knob]

guys, he barely tap the van. tags why there is no almost damage to the honda.
split second tap the brake and nothing happen.

maybe airbag

[icky2unk]

Originally posted by BandW


There is a difference between being so paranoid that you become a hazard and practicing good defensive driving.

Plus, your assumption that one should drive with the expectation that other people are paying attention when "the reality is that a lot of people aren't" doesn't make any sense.

No im saying we all know everyone isn't always paying attention but we drive as if they were. I'm not going to hover my brakes every green light I go through because there is a chance someone might be doing something stupid.

[racerocco]

Ok, I'm getting drawn into this argument...

So some math. Assuming the video is not sped up or slowed down, here's what I see..

At 10 seconds the light turns yellow
At 12 seconds the S2000 reaches the stop line.
Speed on the dash shows 30 mph, = 44 ft/s
2 seconds mean 88ft to the stop line

Ideal conditions, IE: Car and Driver stopping test, with warmed up brakes the S2000 CAN stop from 30 mph in 30ft.

Reaction time, a quick search came up with a study, which breaks reactions into three categories: Expected, (.5 sec perception, .2 movement), Unexpected, (1.25, .2) and Surprise (1.5, .3)

So in an expected reaction he would take on average .7 sec, which would equate to 30.8 Ft travelled.

Yes, when the light changed, with an average good reaction time, and warmed up brakes, by piling on in a panic stop the driver could have stopped with 27.2ft to spare.

That said, from what I've read (disclaimer, never driven an s2000, but I have a lot of performance driving seat time) the brakes on the S2000 are a performance pad, which has drawn complaints from owners that cold braking is not good, as well as tires that unless he had been driving hard, would not be as grippy as during a brake test

And finally, when was the last time any of you has done a full on panic stop to avoid entering an intersection because of a yellow light?

I think its totally unrealistic for anyone to believe stopping would have been a good idea. Under ideal conditions it could be done, but a full on panic stop is arguably far more dangerous under almost any situation then doing what is legal and expected, which is to continue at a reasonable pace and clearing the intersection before a red light.

My 2 cents, take it or leave it.

[rx7boi]

Bad timing...although there are too many drivers who try to weasel their way through yellows and end up running reds.

That yellow sure stayed yellow for a long time.

[Masked Bandit]

What none of us know is what was going on BEHIND the S2000. It's possible that another vehicle was close behind and when the light went yellow the driver of the S2000 wasn't convinced that the trailing vehicle behind him would be able to stop even if he did. So if you run that scenario 1000 times, do you expect A) to be rearended after a panic stop or B) to be tagged from either side by someone running a red. Chances are if I'm in that exact same situation I do the exact same thing he did. He would have cleared the intersection while the light was still yellow. Defensive driving is all about reducing the chances of being involved in a collision and I'm pretty sure most of us can see that getting rearended after a panic stop is the most likely collision scenario approaching an intersection.

Edit: I didn't really answer the original question, so yes, he COULD have stopped, but I don't see stopping in that situation as reasonable.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
What none of us know is what was going on BEHIND the S2000. It's possible that another vehicle was close behind and when the light went yellow the driver of the S2000 wasn't convinced that the trailing vehicle behind him would be able to stop even if he did.

His side mirror shows no one, but I still don't think he should have stopped. Could have stopped - yes, should have - no.

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by speedog
Christ, now the grumpy old man must have a weird timing issue on his computer because he seems to clearly see the yellow light at 10 seconds on youTube's timer and the impact at almost 14 seconds, certainly there seems to be at least 3 seconds per youTube's timer - shit, gonna have to dig out a
stopwatch just for shits and giggles.:)

My times are inaccurate because my computer is old, the timer I used is shitty and I've old man reaction time. Thanks!

I figure he had about 1.5 seconds from the time he likely recognized the light was yellow until he was entering the intersection. And about 1.5 seconds from entering until impact.

I think he was put in an impossible situation by a driver who wasn't paying any attention whatsoever to the lights. <Assuming it was red! Which it would be if the lights were working.>

The point of this thread is buy a dash cam if you don't have one, right?

[Moonracer]

Van driver clearly went through a red light, they were at speed when they went through even, and didn't even notice the red at all. S2K driver could be charged with not stopping for the yellow which he might have been able to stop for but it looked like he was pretty much at his point of no return. How the insurance companies deal with it in court is another thing. Anyone who puts the blame on the S2K driver is absolutely retarded.

[snowcat]

Originally posted by Go4Long
it's a bizarre argument. If he had stopped would there still have been an accident? no. Was it physically possible for him to stop? yes. Would anyone saying that he could have stopped and not crashed have stopped in the exact same position? fuck no.

It's like saying that he wouldn't have had an accident if he rode his bike instead. Yes, it's technically true, but maybe he's just not a big enough hipster to ride a bike.

He wouldn't have had an accident if he didn't drive.

That game can go for ever.

Van fault 100%. If they didn't run a stale red, no accident. There is no variable on that situation. It was red, unlike the changing lights for s2000

[firebane]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
What none of us know is what was going on BEHIND the S2000. It's possible that another vehicle was close behind and when the light went yellow the driver of the S2000 wasn't convinced that the trailing vehicle behind him would be able to stop even if he did. So if you run that scenario 1000 times, do you expect A) to be rearended after a panic stop or B) to be tagged from either side by someone running a red. Chances are if I'm in that exact same situation I do the exact same thing he did. He would have cleared the intersection while the light was still yellow. Defensive driving is all about reducing the chances of being involved in a collision and I'm pretty sure most of us can see that getting rearended after a panic stop is the most likely collision scenario approaching an intersection.

Edit: I didn't really answer the original question, so yes, he COULD have stopped, but I don't see stopping in that situation as reasonable.

Front end collision or rear end collision.. Which are the lesser of two evils.

If a guy runs into you from behind that person is at fault beacause a) not paying attention b) following too close.

Obviously the S2k driver was damned either way.