6 ms·

Okay, so what I can determine from this post - The truck driver does have a right to move into his blind spots if he has taken sufficient precautions to ensure

Okay, so what I can determine from this post - The truck driver does have a right to move into his blind spots if he has taken sufficient precautions to ensure that they are safe. This is completely different from "no right" to move into it. - There is nothing absolving the car with which the truck collides of fault. [In actuality, blind spot collisions tend to be multiple causation with the car stupid enough to hang out in a blind spot sharing fault.] - If you get hit by a truck and die, you're still dead regardless of who's at fault. Which, incidentally, is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. As for your hypothetical shooter, he may not have the right to shoot you, but nobody's going to be stupid enough to tell you that goading him into shooting you is not the wrong thing to do (which is about as far as that analogy is relevant).

Terretta 15y ago
It's extraordinary to me that you continue argue that a vehicle has a "right" to initiate a move out of their lane into a volume of space legally occupied by another vehicle. > The truck driver does have a right to move into his blind spots if he has taken sufficient precautions to ensure that they are safe. On the contrary, if someone is in his blind spot when he moves over, he has, by definition, failed to take "sufficient" precaution. The car not being legally responsible if the truck moves over into the area legally occupied by the car is what absolves it from fault. There's an entire industry of ambulance chasers profiting off the truck driver's absolute fault, and a phonebook size book of underhanded procedures the trucking companies try to use to duck that absolute fault. Unless, of course, the driver crossed under his trailer from the other side, Fast and Furious style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrngnaBWvyM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrngnaBWvyM > If you get hit by a truck and die, you're still dead regardless of who's at fault. Which, incidentally, is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. That statement is correct on its face, and doesn't raise any argument at all.
- masterzora 15y ago
  The car not being legally responsible if the truck moves over into the area legally occupied by the car is what absolves it from fault. But this is not the case. If the car is quickly moving through a blind spot as they should be and the truck hits them, that's one thing. If the car is hanging out in the blind spot longer than is necessary they are also usually found to be partially at fault. You are at least partially responsible for your own unsafe driving, even if it is technically legal. There's an entire industry of ambulance chasers profiting off the truck driver's absolute fault, and a phonebook size book of underhanded procedures the trucking companies try to use to duck that absolute fault. That industry profits off of absolute faults when people are safely regarding the blind spots and the trucks hit them anyway and off of the primary, although not absolute, fault of the truck when the car is not safely regarding the blind spots. It is unfortunately true that there are trucking companies using underhanded procedures and, although I have no clue how many that is, I also know it's not absolutely universal and that ambulance chasers aren't exactly innocent of underhanded procedures themselves. That statement is correct on its face, and doesn't raise any argument at all. Then in what way is hanging out in a truck's blind spot or blocking their trailer's swing out path (which, by the way, often is the fault of cars who move into said path after the truck has initiated its turn) not the wrong place to be, even if the car were 0% at fault?

Terretta 15y ago

It's extraordinary to me that you continue argue that a vehicle has a "right" to initiate a move out of their lane into a volume of space legally occupied by another vehicle. > The truck driver does have a right to move into his blind spots if he has taken sufficient precautions to ensure that they are safe. On the contrary, if someone is in his blind spot when he moves over, he has, by definition, failed to take "sufficient" precaution. The car not being legally responsible if the truck moves over into the area legally occupied by the car is what absolves it from fault. There's an entire industry of ambulance chasers profiting off the truck driver's absolute fault, and a phonebook size book of underhanded procedures the trucking companies try to use to duck that absolute fault. Unless, of course, the driver crossed under his trailer from the other side, Fast and Furious style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrngnaBWvyM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrngnaBWvyM > If you get hit by a truck and die, you're still dead regardless of who's at fault. Which, incidentally, is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. That statement is correct on its face, and doesn't raise any argument at all.

masterzora 15y ago
The car not being legally responsible if the truck moves over into the area legally occupied by the car is what absolves it from fault. But this is not the case. If the car is quickly moving through a blind spot as they should be and the truck hits them, that's one thing. If the car is hanging out in the blind spot longer than is necessary they are also usually found to be partially at fault. You are at least partially responsible for your own unsafe driving, even if it is technically legal. There's an entire industry of ambulance chasers profiting off the truck driver's absolute fault, and a phonebook size book of underhanded procedures the trucking companies try to use to duck that absolute fault. That industry profits off of absolute faults when people are safely regarding the blind spots and the trucks hit them anyway and off of the primary, although not absolute, fault of the truck when the car is not safely regarding the blind spots. It is unfortunately true that there are trucking companies using underhanded procedures and, although I have no clue how many that is, I also know it's not absolutely universal and that ambulance chasers aren't exactly innocent of underhanded procedures themselves. That statement is correct on its face, and doesn't raise any argument at all. Then in what way is hanging out in a truck's blind spot or blocking their trailer's swing out path (which, by the way, often is the fault of cars who move into said path after the truck has initiated its turn) not the wrong place to be, even if the car were 0% at fault?