3 ms·
I think there is no "car that hit it", it's the other way around - from the article: A spokesperson for the San Francisco Fire Department did not immediately r
by lacker 3y ago
I think there is no "car that hit it", it's the other way around - from the article:
A spokesperson for the San Francisco Fire Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the city emergency vehicle that struck the Cruise car.
So the emergency vehicle drove into the Cruise car. AFAIK even if the emergency vehicle has lights and sirens on, that doesn't necessarily give it the right to drive into other cars.
- trehalose 3y agoNobody has the right to just drive into other cars. Still, society has largely agreed that there are exceptions. For example, if you suddenly swerve in front of a another car and do a "brake check" and successfully cause the car behind you to drive into yours, that is considered a crime in most parts of the world. I don't know how accident liability disputes work in other countries, but in the USA at least, the liability might actually be yours, partially or even fully, despite that the rear driver in a collision is normally considered liable by default. It doesn't mean they had the right to drive into you. It's kind of like their lack of such a right is waived because you prevented them from not exercising it. Similarly, if you ignore an emergency vehicle's ample warning that it's approaching, and you choose to suddenly drive into its path, its driver doesn't have the right to drive into you, but their driving into you is not a right they chose to exercise. The same is true even for non-emergency vehicles. If another car has a green light, and you suddenly run a red light and drive in front of them and they drive into you, the liability might be yours, even though their right-of-way did not give them the right to do that.