4 ms·

There is another line before. We don't really see the entire intersection.

by avgDev 2y ago

runako 2y ago
Yes, you are correct. That's why I specifically did not address the car's entry into the intersection. Given the red light, is the car in a legal position in the freeze frame?
- avgDev 2y ago
  Yes. I do not understand why this is so misunderstood in the comments. This picture is LEGAL in most US states as long as the car entered the intersection ON A GREEN OR YELLOW light.
  - runako 2y ago
    At least one California law firm disagrees, hence my question: https://www.wccbc.com/red-and-yellow-light-accidents/#:~:text=California's%20yellow%20light%20law%20permits,down%20before%20reaching%20the%20intersection https://www.wccbc.com/red-and-yellow-light-accidents/#:~:tex.... Some quick Googling shows that "it depends on where" appears to be the right answer. New Jersey appears to be a populated jurisdiction where this might not be legal.
    - avgDev 2y ago
      As I said MOST US states. I looked at the link and NO, they DO NOT DISAGREE. Read the language, drivers SPEEDING through a yellow light MAY be found negligent if they cause an injury to someone. "California’s yellow light law permits drivers to enter an intersection during a yellow light. No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red. However, the law encourages drivers to slow down before reaching the intersection. In California, the yellow light law provides that drivers are automatically “warned” by the light turning yellow that the traffic light is about to change to red. This means that a faulty driver cannot avoid responsibility for an accident simply by claiming that they didn’t see the yellow light. It doesn’t matter if they saw it or not. Drivers speeding through a yellow light may be found negligent for not slowing down if their driving caused an accident or injured others."
      - runako 2y ago
        I'm reading this differently than you are: "No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red." But I'm not a lawyer and this is interpreting an interpretation.
        toast0 2y ago
        I agree with your interpretation of that site's text, but I don't believe that text is an accurate interpretation of California law. It would be a violation to cross the stopping line when the light is steady red unless for a turn on red after stopping when that's not prohibited by a sign at the intersection (as in this intersection) or by a red arrow (not all states prohibit turns on red arrow after stopping). But afaik, there's no prohibition of being over the line when the light turns red. Only for crossing while red, or entering without the exit being clear.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
The author is pissed off about the design of the intersection. If you have to litigate bullshit like this, surely you see, well, the intersection is poorly designed. You are also litigating whether or not it's legal. A lot of traditions of California driving are legal and really dangerous. My dude, CVC doesn't even apply in a private parking lot for example, so you can accidentally kill somebody in one and legally face no moving violations. "Legal" is not an interesting criteria at all, it's misleading.
- simiones 2y ago
  On the other hand, whether the driver was legally or illegally passing through the intersection is also irrelevant for safety: the fact is that the video clearly shows that the driver didn't put anyone's lives at risk this time, neither themself, any pedestrians, nor any incoming cars.
- avgDev 2y ago
  My problem is that author doesn't seem to understand the traffic laws and wrongly says cars ran a red light. I'm not interested in his opinion after that. If you are going to put something on the internet about bad design you should make sure you understand it first.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

There is another line before. We don't really see the entire intersection.

by avgDev 2y ago

There is another line before. We don't really see the entire intersection.

Yes, you are correct. That's why I specifically did not address the car's entry into the intersection. Given the red light, is the car in a legal position in the freeze frame?

avgDev 2y ago
Yes. I do not understand why this is so misunderstood in the comments. This picture is LEGAL in most US states as long as the car entered the intersection ON A GREEN OR YELLOW light.
- runako 2y ago
  At least one California law firm disagrees, hence my question: https://www.wccbc.com/red-and-yellow-light-accidents/#:~:text=California's%20yellow%20light%20law%20permits,down%20before%20reaching%20the%20intersection https://www.wccbc.com/red-and-yellow-light-accidents/#:~:tex.... Some quick Googling shows that "it depends on where" appears to be the right answer. New Jersey appears to be a populated jurisdiction where this might not be legal.
  - avgDev 2y ago
    As I said MOST US states. I looked at the link and NO, they DO NOT DISAGREE. Read the language, drivers SPEEDING through a yellow light MAY be found negligent if they cause an injury to someone. "California’s yellow light law permits drivers to enter an intersection during a yellow light. No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red. However, the law encourages drivers to slow down before reaching the intersection. In California, the yellow light law provides that drivers are automatically “warned” by the light turning yellow that the traffic light is about to change to red. This means that a faulty driver cannot avoid responsibility for an accident simply by claiming that they didn’t see the yellow light. It doesn’t matter if they saw it or not. Drivers speeding through a yellow light may be found negligent for not slowing down if their driving caused an accident or injured others."
    - runako 2y ago
      I'm reading this differently than you are: "No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red." But I'm not a lawyer and this is interpreting an interpretation.
      - toast0 2y ago
        I agree with your interpretation of that site's text, but I don't believe that text is an accurate interpretation of California law. It would be a violation to cross the stopping line when the light is steady red unless for a turn on red after stopping when that's not prohibited by a sign at the intersection (as in this intersection) or by a red arrow (not all states prohibit turns on red arrow after stopping). But afaik, there's no prohibition of being over the line when the light turns red. Only for crossing while red, or entering without the exit being clear.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

The author is pissed off about the design of the intersection. If you have to litigate bullshit like this, surely you see, well, the intersection is poorly designed. You are also litigating whether or not it's legal. A lot of traditions of California driving are legal and really dangerous. My dude, CVC doesn't even apply in a private parking lot for example, so you can accidentally kill somebody in one and legally face no moving violations. "Legal" is not an interesting criteria at all, it's misleading.

simiones 2y ago
On the other hand, whether the driver was legally or illegally passing through the intersection is also irrelevant for safety: the fact is that the video clearly shows that the driver didn't put anyone's lives at risk this time, neither themself, any pedestrians, nor any incoming cars.
avgDev 2y ago
My problem is that author doesn't seem to understand the traffic laws and wrongly says cars ran a red light. I'm not interested in his opinion after that. If you are going to put something on the internet about bad design you should make sure you understand it first.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]