3 ms·

> certainly all contributed Thought experiment - vehicle A disregards a stop sign and pulls out directly in front of vehicle B* and there is a collision. I do

> certainly all contributed Thought experiment - vehicle A disregards a stop sign and pulls out directly in front of vehicle B* and there is a collision. I don't see how vehicle B "could have prevented or mitigated a situation" other than by not being on that road at that moment. The driver of vehicle A is completely at fault, B is blameless. * spoiler, it's actually not a thought experiment: my mother was in Vehicle B when this happened to her when she was coming to pick me up from school when I was about 10 years old. Having your mother arrive at your school in the back of a police car was a unique experience....

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Other things that possibly could have mitigated the situation: - the intersection designer - maintenance workers that didn't clear visibility obstacles - vehicle safety features, both active and passive et cetera. Your mother wasn't "to blame", but could she have prevented the situation by driving more defensively? Likely.
bluGill 3y ago
If Vehicle B was paying attention they can see vehicle A not slowing down (assuming there is sight lines). The options are then to stop despite having the right away, or take a sharp turn. Vehicle B probably could have been going slower to allow more time for the above (this is one reason why round-abouts are so safe: they force everyone to go slow - which is what the other response was getting at)
thefaux 3y ago
I have been in almost exactly the scenario you described as vehicle A. I came up to an intersection and my view was occluded by a car parked to my right in a no parking zone. There also was a gradual bend in the road a few hundred feet to my right. I looked right, then left and started creeping out. I then saw that there was a car barreling towards me that I couldn't see (because they weren't visible when I first looked right). By the time I saw them I couldn't stop fast enough to prevent being hit. But he barely hit the passenger quarter panel and the skid marks were completely straight which is to say that I was barely in his lane and had come to a complete stop when hit. I did mess up by not creeping slightly slower but the driver who hit me had far better visibility (I checked from that perspective). I am almost certain they were going too fast for the roadway and may not have been fully paying attention. I didn't just blast through. I was creeping out at very low speed. An attentive driver would have seen me and taken evasive action and/or honked. The third party that had illegally parked obstructing my view can and drove off while we were sorting out the wreckage. In my shock, it took weeks before I realized that they had also contributed significantly but I had no proof since they'd just driven away. I was considered fully liable for the crash since I had entered the roadway without the right of way. I accept that I made a small mistake. I understand why the insurance people made that determination. But it still burned to be considered fully at fault considering all the other mistakes (including bad road design) that contributed. I will bet though that driver B in my crash felt that I was completely at fault and might have described it exactly as your mother did her accident. In his case, I think he likely would have been leaving out his role in not paying attention and driving too fast. There can be more nuance even to seemingly cut and dried cases.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Other things that possibly could have mitigated the situation: - the intersection designer - maintenance workers that didn't clear visibility obstacles - vehicle safety features, both active and passive et cetera. Your mother wasn't "to blame", but could she have prevented the situation by driving more defensively? Likely.

bluGill 3y ago

If Vehicle B was paying attention they can see vehicle A not slowing down (assuming there is sight lines). The options are then to stop despite having the right away, or take a sharp turn. Vehicle B probably could have been going slower to allow more time for the above (this is one reason why round-abouts are so safe: they force everyone to go slow - which is what the other response was getting at)

thefaux 3y ago

I have been in almost exactly the scenario you described as vehicle A. I came up to an intersection and my view was occluded by a car parked to my right in a no parking zone. There also was a gradual bend in the road a few hundred feet to my right. I looked right, then left and started creeping out. I then saw that there was a car barreling towards me that I couldn't see (because they weren't visible when I first looked right). By the time I saw them I couldn't stop fast enough to prevent being hit. But he barely hit the passenger quarter panel and the skid marks were completely straight which is to say that I was barely in his lane and had come to a complete stop when hit. I did mess up by not creeping slightly slower but the driver who hit me had far better visibility (I checked from that perspective). I am almost certain they were going too fast for the roadway and may not have been fully paying attention. I didn't just blast through. I was creeping out at very low speed. An attentive driver would have seen me and taken evasive action and/or honked. The third party that had illegally parked obstructing my view can and drove off while we were sorting out the wreckage. In my shock, it took weeks before I realized that they had also contributed significantly but I had no proof since they'd just driven away. I was considered fully liable for the crash since I had entered the roadway without the right of way. I accept that I made a small mistake. I understand why the insurance people made that determination. But it still burned to be considered fully at fault considering all the other mistakes (including bad road design) that contributed. I will bet though that driver B in my crash felt that I was completely at fault and might have described it exactly as your mother did her accident. In his case, I think he likely would have been leaving out his role in not paying attention and driving too fast. There can be more nuance even to seemingly cut and dried cases.