4 ms·

I'm not seeing a huge difference between that and the state of vehicle laws in my home state (Michigan). Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Reg

by roc 16y ago

I'm not seeing a huge difference between that and the state of vehicle laws in my home state (Michigan). Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does, you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency. I have a friend who actually did get a ticket for hitting a car that ran a red light. Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.

run4yourlives 16y ago
Red light accidents are tricky and each one is assessed on its particulars. Usually, regardless of the other vehicle's actions, if you are judged to be able to avoid an accident, and you don't, you are being careless, hence at fault. A lot of jurisdictions have "no-fault" legislation however that gets in the way with regards to insurance.
detst 16y ago
> Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does [...] That's not true. Recently, I was a passenger in a car that stopped very quickly and made a turn into a restaurant. We were hit from behind and the driver of our car received a ticket because it was an erratic, unsafe maneuver. > you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency It's possible to do this and still hit the car in front of you. I hit someone in front of me trying to make an illegal U-turn. I tried to avoid it but still hit them. They received a ticket. > Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend. I don't know the specifics but your friend probably got the ticket because it was determined by the cop after hearing both sides of the story that it was reasonable for him to see the other car coming. He may have been determined at fault in the context traffic laws but not in terms of who pays for it because Michigan is a no-fault insurance state. I don't see how this is anything like Michigan.

by roc 16y ago

run4yourlives 16y ago

Red light accidents are tricky and each one is assessed on its particulars. Usually, regardless of the other vehicle's actions, if you are judged to be able to avoid an accident, and you don't, you are being careless, hence at fault. A lot of jurisdictions have "no-fault" legislation however that gets in the way with regards to insurance.

detst 16y ago

> Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does [...] That's not true. Recently, I was a passenger in a car that stopped very quickly and made a turn into a restaurant. We were hit from behind and the driver of our car received a ticket because it was an erratic, unsafe maneuver. > you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency It's possible to do this and still hit the car in front of you. I hit someone in front of me trying to make an illegal U-turn. I tried to avoid it but still hit them. They received a ticket. > Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend. I don't know the specifics but your friend probably got the ticket because it was determined by the cop after hearing both sides of the story that it was reasonable for him to see the other car coming. He may have been determined at fault in the context traffic laws but not in terms of who pays for it because Michigan is a no-fault insurance state. I don't see how this is anything like Michigan.