06-25-2003, 09:12 AM
Or haven't you read all my posts? In that event, there's a good chance she would be at fault IF SHE HIT HIM. If she didn't, which she did NOT, he would still be at fault. And, even if she did hit him, there's still a CHANCE that he would be found at least partially at fault.
The rules are simple: left-hand turns do NOT get the right of way until ALL other vehicles have cleared their path. Even then, if someone is approaching, unless you can complete the turn in time enough so that the approaching car does not even have to slow down (yes, that is the legal line - if a car has to slow down in order for you to complete a turn, you cut them off; pretty strict, huh?), you will still not have the right of way.
Whether it is enforced like that or not is dependent on the officer. However, regardless of how it is ENFORCED, that is how it is WRITTEN. But that's the problem - not everyone upholds the laws to the same standards, which creates the confusion we've been discussing in this entire thread.
Bottom line - he didn't have the right of way. Simple as that, nothing can be argued about it. When it comes to traffic cases, right-of-way is generally the arbiter of the law. If you didn't have the right of way, you pretty much don't have a case in your favor.
The rules are simple: left-hand turns do NOT get the right of way until ALL other vehicles have cleared their path. Even then, if someone is approaching, unless you can complete the turn in time enough so that the approaching car does not even have to slow down (yes, that is the legal line - if a car has to slow down in order for you to complete a turn, you cut them off; pretty strict, huh?), you will still not have the right of way.
Whether it is enforced like that or not is dependent on the officer. However, regardless of how it is ENFORCED, that is how it is WRITTEN. But that's the problem - not everyone upholds the laws to the same standards, which creates the confusion we've been discussing in this entire thread.
Bottom line - he didn't have the right of way. Simple as that, nothing can be argued about it. When it comes to traffic cases, right-of-way is generally the arbiter of the law. If you didn't have the right of way, you pretty much don't have a case in your favor.
Roland *The Gunslinger*