The guy still seemed to be going forward while honking to me. I think he did rear end him.
|
|
|
The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread
- Thread starter Boots
- Start date
The guy still seemed to be going forward while honking to me. I think he did rear end him.
Nope, he stops before that and well before contact.
Look at his rims. Looks like they're rolling backwards to me.
Channel Intro. Guess it's like a movie trailer?
Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
lol I like that
Nissan (probably) had time to stop, but went through light anyway. Left turning vehicle is obviously at fault. The scary part about the video is there's another vehicle turning left after the one that was hit.
[video=youtube;NpnPzhhZlYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpnPzhhZlYs&feature=youtu.be[/video]
[video=youtube;NpnPzhhZlYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpnPzhhZlYs&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
Is this one yours matthew, or just one you found?
I wonder if the camera owner shared this video with the white car driver to secure his case. That light turned yellow when the white car was fairly close to the intersection, and was still yellow when the SUV decided to complete the left.
That is a killer move for us motorcyclists... someone could have easily died there.
I wonder if the camera owner shared this video with the white car driver to secure his case. That light turned yellow when the white car was fairly close to the intersection, and was still yellow when the SUV decided to complete the left.
That is a killer move for us motorcyclists... someone could have easily died there.
Law says you gotta stop for amber light if able in a safe and controlled manner, but look at the video. Zero attempt to stop while car beside easily stops in time. He even accelerates towards the amber. I'd say it's 50/50, because the left-turner did a one of those 'fail to yields' or 'turn not in safety' turns. lol. I'd also charge the Audi for the same fail to stop amber. lol.
Sorry if this seems too pedantic, but the right of way never changes, and it follows the rules set out in the law. What you are describing is a conflict as a result of someone's failure to observe the right of way, in which case as you said the more vulnerable road user is the one who needs to ensure that a collision doesn't occur, even if that means ceding the way to the larger vehicle.
This follows exactly my personal rules for road use. I observe the following concerns in order of priority:
1- Safety (mine first, then others)
2- Right of way according to the law
3- Whatever the hell suits me best (including courtesy to others)
4- All the other rules of the road.
So in this instance the right of way (level 2) was disputed, which caused a conflict and elevated the situation to pure safety considerations (level 1). And in that situation the more vulnerable user (jogger) backed off, as he should.
Sorry, but that's just not realistic. Ask anybody anything these days and they instantly take it as a challenge to their personal choices and get extremely defensive, sometimes abusive. Cops generally more so. You can't just go and ask simply people questions anymore.
Yeah from the condensation out of his tailpipe I'd guess he gunned it to get through the yellow. Don't think the court could use that against him though, probably still find 100% fault with left turning driver.
|
|
|
|
|