Causing An Accident, Knowing That You Were Correct

[sexualbanana]

I was reading the traffic circle blog just now and it reminded me of something I saw at the McKenzie traffic circle a few months back.

I'm in the left lane (lets call it Lane 1). In front of me is vehicle A1 (vehicle A in lane 1). To his right is vehicle B2 (I think you can understand the naming convention). We both enter the traffic circle at the same point. We pass the first exit. They both remain in the traffic circle. But when the second exit came, A1 had to exit while it looked like B2 wanted to continue in the circle. Fortunately, B2 was sitting just a little bit farther back so that when A1 had to make his exit, there was no collision. However B2 honked and acted irate because in his mind, A1 had just cut him off.

So here's my question, assuming I'm A1:
If B2 had actually been further up, say in my blind spot, and I knew he was there, but continue to make my exit anyways. Thus causing a collision between the two of us; who would be at fault? I know I have the right of way, but I also know that I have to do what I can to avoid these types of collisions.

[93VR6]

It would be B2's fault, but if you're A1 you better stick to the story that you never saw him there.

[DayGlow]

Under the TSA intent doesn't come into play. The charges are strict liability, meaning the guilty mind, mens rea, doesn't come into play. ie the cop doesn't have to prove you intended to speed, just that you did speed. Criminal charges you have to have the act and intent. Combine that with the cop's inability to read your mind, you should be fine in that situation.

On the civil side, I have no idea and that's where insurance deal with matters. I do know that I have heard the advice that it's better to have a collision with another car vs avoiding that collision and crashing on your own. ie someone is about to sideswipe you, it's better to have them hit you than to swerve and go off the road and crashing your car. That way insurance will have someone to blame other than you.

But in the end I like my car too much to intentially damage it, and I think most people feel that way too.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Under the TSA intent doesn't come into play. The charges are strict liability, meaning the guilty mind, mens rea, doesn't come into play. ie the cop doesn't have to prove you intended to speed, just that you did speed. Criminal charges you have to have the act and intent. Combine that with the cop's inability to read your mind, you should be fine in that situation.

On the civil side, I have no idea and that's where insurance deal with matters. I do know that I have heard the advice that it's better to have a collision with another car vs avoiding that collision and crashing on your own. ie someone is about to sideswipe you, it's better to have them hit you than to swerve and go off the road and crashing your car. That way insurance will have someone to blame other than you.

But in the end I like my car too much to intentially damage it, and I think most people feel that way too.

Good to know.

Just out of curiousity though, is it the same if I barrel into a car that hasn't cleared the intersection yet?

[DayGlow]

you know, I have never had to deal with that situation so I don't really know. Are we saying a car turning left that is hung on a red and clears? Sometimes I wouldn't charge anyone at the scene and get advice from Crown Council or a traffic expert before I proceeded.

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by DayGlow
you know, I have never had to deal with that situation so I don't really know. Are we saying a car turning left that is hung on a red and clears? Sometimes I wouldn't charge anyone at the scene and get advice from Crown Council or a traffic expert before I proceeded.

At least you're honest

i always think about doing it when people really take a late turn or are just stupid haha.. never would though, why give yourself the headache, literally haha..

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by DayGlow
you know, I have never had to deal with that situation so I don't really know. Are we saying a car turning left that is hung on a red and clears? Sometimes I wouldn't charge anyone at the scene and get advice from Crown Council or a traffic expert before I proceeded.

Basically. Like say you (not a cop, though because that's just not fair) are trying to turn left at an intersection but for some reason can't. At that point, I am approaching the intersection perpendicular to you when my light turns green, and I barrel into you because I'm stupid and/or blind.

[DayGlow]

Well you are allowed to clear the interesection once you enter it on a left turn so they would have right of way. Now what charging section, etc that would be under, I'm not sure and would have to do some digging through the TSA and other documents to find it.

Here found it in the Use Of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulations:

52(1) When, at an intersection, a green light alone is shown by a traffic control signal, a person driving a vehicle that is facing the green light

(a) may drive the vehicle straight through the intersection, or

(b) may drive the vehicle into the intersection and on entering the intersection turn the vehicle left or right, subject to any sign or signal prohibiting a left or right turn, or both, or designating that the turning movement is permitted,

but shall yield the right of way

(c) to any pedestrians that are lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time that the green light is shown, and

(d) to any other vehicles that are lawfully within the intersection at the time that the green light is shown.

Now I don't know if there is a charging section here or a careless driving charge would be used, etc.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Well you are allowed to clear the interesection once you enter it on a left turn so they would have right of way. Now what charging section, etc that would be under, I'm not sure and would have to do some digging through the TSA and other documents to find it.

Here found it in the Use Of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulations:

52(1) When, at an intersection, a green light alone is shown by a traffic control signal, a person driving a vehicle that is facing the green light

(a) may drive the vehicle straight through the intersection, or

(b) may drive the vehicle into the intersection and on entering the intersection turn the vehicle left or right, subject to any sign or signal prohibiting a left or right turn, or both, or designating that the turning movement is permitted,

but shall yield the right of way

(c) to any pedestrians that are lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time that the green light is shown, and

(d) to any other vehicles that are lawfully within the intersection at the time that the green light is shown.

Now I don't know if there is a charging section here or a careless driving charge would be used, etc.

Well all that really matters is that despite having the green light, you are entitled to be in the intersection since you had entered when it was legal. So in that case, I would be jackass. The careless or reckless driving thing would just be an extra. The duty falls on me to wait for you to clear the intersection before proceeding through.

[GoChris]

I've had the thought of intentionally taking an exit at that traffic circle knowing someone in the right lane will plow into me. Good to know I can do that.

A big to the retards that honk thinking they got cut off when they are in fact in the wrong. Happens all too often.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Under the TSA intent doesn't come into play. The charges are strict liability, meaning the guilty mind, mens rea, doesn't come into play. ie the cop doesn't have to prove you intended to speed, just that you did speed. Criminal charges you have to have the act and intent. Combine that with the cop's inability to read your mind, you should be fine in that situation.

But could you be charged for not checking for traffic (mirror, shoulder check), even though you have the right of way?

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


But could you be charged for not checking for traffic (mirror, shoulder check), even though you have the right of way?

Not sure if you can be 'charged' but the courts do recognize the doctrine of substantial entry. Under that doctrine, when a vehicle has substantially entered or completed entry into an intersection and the person with a right of way does not attempt to avoid the collision, the driver with the right of way can be found at-fault. At least in the world of personal injury, plaintiffs prevail all the time with this argument and normally get 25-75% of the typical recovery for a not-at-fault collision.

Simply, if someone has almost fully entered their driveway or finished a left turn and you barrel into their rear end because you are a douchebag/non-attentive/speeding, you may be found at-fault.

[DayGlow]

Like I said civil law is a completely different beast.

[DarkDream]

Shouldn't B2 be inside the circle with you??

I thought if your going into a traffcie circle you are suppose to go to the inside lane and not the outside lane to get to your exit.

If i understand correctly its b2 fault.

[dandia89]

Originally posted by DarkDream
Shouldn't B2 be inside the circle with you??

I thought if your going into a traffcie circle you are suppose to go to the inside lane and not the outside lane to get to your exit.

If i understand correctly its b2 fault.

i think it's clear b2 is at fault here, but the problem the op is having is that even though b2 is at fault, was a1 capable of avoiding this collsion, and if a1 was capable why didn't he attempt to avoid it.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by dandia89

i think it's clear b2 is at fault here, but the problem the op is having is that even though b2 is at fault, was a1 capable of avoiding this collsion, and if a1 was capable why didn't he attempt to avoid it.

The question isn't why A1 didn't attempt to avoid it, the question was would A1 get charged for purposefully fucking over B2, and letting B2 hit him because B2 wasn't lawfully driving the traffic circle.

[Chris Ng]

I try and avoid the mckenzie traffic circle as much as I can, usually opting to take 22x instead to get home.. not because I'm afraid of the circle, but because of the rage i feel everytime I see someone abuse it.. While there are a few people who end up staying in the outside lane out of pure ignorance of how a traffic circle works, the majority of people who ride the outside lane are people just the impatient people who don't feel they should have to wait in the line to enter the circle.. The city could put an end to this quite easily by placing some concrete barriers on the outside lanes.. wouldn't cost too much and it wouldn't impede the flow of traffic at all.. If you are on the outside lane, it will just force you to take the next exit like you are supposed to.. if for whatever reason you decide to try and ride the outside lane and get stuck at the barrier, then you'll be the one honked at for your own ignorance for being in the wrong lane...


» Click image for larger version

[psycoticclown]

^^That is actually a pretty good idea. Cars shouldn't be there anyways

[DuPont]

I thought you could drive the outside lane all the way around, as long as you yield to the inside lane at every exit?

The barricade blocks are a good idea just because there are way too many idiots with DLs.

[IRL]

Originally posted by DuPont
I thought you could drive the outside lane all the way around, as long as you yield to the inside lane at every exit?

The barricade blocks are a good idea just because there are way

This is true...however I live in the area and the percentage of outside lane riders that do this/know this has to be less than 5%.