Failure to yield the right of way ??

[phreakwars]

In the following image you will see the position of 2 key vehicles.

 

.

 

Vehicle A is backing out, the arrow indicates the direction of travel.

 

Vehicle A stops to allow vehicle B to pass through.

 

Vehicle B swerves to avoid running into vehicle C which is parked on the side of the road.

 

Should A be ticketed for failure to yield the right of way ?

.

.

[snafu]

That's almost like the parked car opens the door and the incoming car hits it. The car backing up (A) can't see the other car. The other car (B) is obligated to yeld.

 

edit: your diagram wasn't showing when I answered this so I made an assumption. If car © is in the path of (B) then I'm still right. (B) needs to stop. Also what is (A) doing backing up into a lane? Was he parallel parked?

[eddo]

if A was stopped before being hit, how can it be his fault?

[phreakwars]

Failure to yield would mean that A hadn't stopped, if A was stopped, then A has indeed YIELDED. If A was backing, and saw the approaching B vehicle. And then proceeded to stop to allow B passage. B has an obligation to maintain his right of center position unless making a signal that he was IN FACT going to make a lane change, which B did not do.

 

A rebuttal to this was a comment like :

 

when you are backing out that you have to yield to oncoming traffic, no matter which lane they are in. You have to remember that the oncoming vehicle has the right to change lanes at any time, so long as he is not in an intersection.

.

.

[eddo]

Originally Posted by rebutal

when you are backing out that you have to yield to oncoming traffic, no matter which lane they are in. You have to remember that the oncoming vehicle has the right to change lanes at any time, so long as he is not in an intersection.

 

This is true, but the oncoming vehicle does not have the right to hit a stationary object. or if he does, let me know. All I need in one pedestrian to stop in front of me....

[phreakwars]

Also what is (A) doing backing up into a lane? Was he parallel parked?

A is backing out from a drive way, with the intention of traveling the same direction as B. If A had crossed the center and they had hit, A would be at fault, but skid marks show breaking from vehicle B starting at the center line extending right. Indicating that the REAR of vehicle B was in fact left of center.

 

Damage to vehicle B was a bumper end, damage to A was to the tail light assembly and rear quarter panel extending about 2 feet out from the rear.

.

.

[tiredofwhiners]

But Phreak I'd say A was in a hurry, and was backing out into the wrong lane? But still feel B should not of just swerved in other lane....I say NO FAULT each pay for there own.

[phreakwars]

A isn't hurrying if he is stopped. He is being courtious and allowing passing drivers through. Had A crossed over, he would be guilty.

.

.

[snafu]

But Phreak I'd say A was in a hurry, and was backing out into the wrong lane? But still feel B should not of just swerved in other lane....I say NO FAULT each pay for there own.

 

I can see the scenario. I have to back out of my driveway every day. I have a snow burm that cuts my visibility. There have been times when I pull out a car will be behind me waiting for me to pull out. They saw me and yielded. And there have been cars coming ahead of me and stop also. I back out across the one lane to get into the lane were the car behind is.

[phreakwars]

THE LAWS DEFINED:

 

Section 60-6,149

Vehicle entering roadway from private road or driveway; yield right-of-way.

 

The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, driveway, private road, or building shall stop such vehicle immediately before driving onto a sidewalk and shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching on any sidewalk. Before entering the highway, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on such highway.

 

The driver of a vehicle entering an alley, building, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching on any sidewalk.

 

Section 60-624

Highway, defined.

 

Highway shall mean the entire width between the boundary limits of any street, road, avenue, boulevard, or way which is publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

 

Section 60-656

Roadway, defined.

 

Roadway shall mean that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. If a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term roadway shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively.

 

And in case anyone was wondering, yes this was an accident I was involved in. I was driver A.

 

The opinions of my local board say I was in the wrong.

 

http://www.columbustelegram.com/shared-content/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=586

.

.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Dang PW... Those guys are harsh! I'm still not sure, how you can be 'not yeilded' if you are stopped, on your side of the line no less... I'm not sure they're seeing where you are coming from.

[ImWithStupid]

Dang PW... Those guys are harsh! I'm still not sure, how you can be 'not yeilded' if you are stopped, on your side of the line no less... I'm not sure they're seeing where you are coming from.

 

Unfortunately, like I showed Phreak on the other board according to Nebraska Law.

 

Section 60-6,149

Vehicle entering roadway from private road or driveway; yield right-of-way.

 

The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, driveway, private road, or building shall stop such vehicle immediately before driving onto a sidewalk and shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching on any sidewalk. Before entering the highway, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on such highway.

 

The driver of a vehicle entering an alley, building, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching on any sidewalk.

 

This means you can't back onto the road until it is clear from both directions.

 

Now as to who is at fault that will be decided by the insurance companies.

[phreakwars]

It's actually almost a trick question when you think about it. You automatically think to yourself, hey, I'm in the lane I'm supposed to be in, how can this be ??

 

A pro could use this law to their advantage, if planned well enough, to get insurance money.

 

We have all done it... look to the left, see nothing, look to the right, see nothing, start to back out, and as the angle of your car is changing, your extended view changes, and you see another car or group of cars, you stop to let them go by, because you had plenty of time to react and know they are there. But if the guy in the right lane crosses over and hits you, your still in the wrong, even though you had made legal moves and took the precautions as you saw them.

 

The insurance company is ultimately the one who decides, but by definition, you are guilty.

 

Crazy shit, huh ?? An unsuspecting driver could be the victim of an insurance scam, literally, behind their backs, all because of a law.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Yea, it wasn't until I looked up the law to see what it said specifically that I changed my mind as to who to vote for at fault. I would have thought that the person who crossed the center line would have been at fault also.

 

Live and learn, I guess.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

If the law shows that Phreak, if all the he told us is exactly how it happened, is in the wrong... I call a big fat bullshit. That's fucked up... He was COMPLETELY within the law, pulling out of his driveway, and someone swerved to HIT HIM, and he is still the one at fault? Somehow, that seems fucked up... Explain how that's right... I'd say, time for a new law.

[eddo]

If the law shows that Phreak, if all the he told us is exactly how it happened, is in the wrong... I call a big fat bullshit. That's fucked up... He was COMPLETELY within the law, pulling out of his driveway, and someone swerved to HIT HIM, and he is still the one at fault? Somehow, that seems fucked up... Explain how that's right... I'd say, time for a new law.

I agree with R&E

[phreakwars]

I agree too, but from having been in this situation. I guess "FAILURE TO YIELD" should be amended to mean within line of site. But I could see where DEFINING line of site would be difficult.

 

That could complicate things.

 

[YOUTUBE]pXOamcQUawc[/YOUTUBE]

.

.

[hugo]

I'm sorry. If you are exiting from a private drive into a public road any accident is your fault. Just imagine you are passing someone on a 2 lane highway and some dumbfuck suddenly pulls out in front of you.

[Mack the Knife]

What Phreak has failed to mention is that he wasn't really pulling out of a driveway but rather doing a victory cookie after winning a drag race duel with the Pizzahut driver. The Sax's Pizza driver still hasn't cross the finish line yet and I'm still fucking hungry.