How do you judge this hypothetical scenario?

Question

Car1 waits to turn left at an intersection. Light turns yellow, car1 starts turning left. A running pedestrian decides to cross street to beat yellow light, so car1 stops turning to let pedestrian thru. At the same time, car2 from oncoming traffic, initially not noticing car1, decided to beat yellow light also.

Car1, seeing that car2 can't stop in time to avoid collision, faces a dillema. If car1 moves to avoid the collision, there's barely enough room to just miss the pedestrian. Should car1 move forward a bit, making sure not to hit the pedestrian and just absorb the impact of collision at the rear end, hope for the smallest impact? What if there's a child in the backseat, is it worth the risk? Or should car1 move to entirely avoid the collision and try to maneuver to avoid hitting pedestrian? What if car1 fails in the maneuver and hits pedestrian? If collision is avoided but pedestrian is struck, should car2 also be liable for the hit?

Answer 1

Car 1 should blare the horn and get out of the way of the car coming at them. The pedestrian has a chance of getting out of the way, or at least jumping onto your hood. Since you were stopped at the light, you can't be going very fast by the time to get to the other side of the intersection, so risk of death ot pedestrian is low.

If you slow up for the pedestrian, too many worse possibilities exist. For one, the driver of car 2 can hit you, and spin your car into the pedestrian. Risk of life to all 3 of you. Or, he could try to maneuver in front of you, unaware there is a pedestrian, and strike and kill the pedestrian.

Bottom line, go for least risky maneuver. If I'm driving slowly, I'll always go for the pedestrian as opposed to someone probably driving quite quikcly to get through that yellow light.

And if it were to actually happen to you, we all know you would do what it takes not to get hit by car 2. Self preservation instinct...

Answer 2

Here in Arizona, Car 1 (turning left) would be fully responsible for all damages to pedestrian and to Car 2. Pedestrian had right of way, as did person coming through intersection. Best thing to do is to check first and wait until you can make the turn safely. If that means waiting for the light to turn red and then waiting for oncoming traffic to stop, then that is what you should do.

Answer 3

Nobody has enough time to think of all of those things in a situation like this.

I'm not even sure what's going on. Are there multiple lanes in either direction? Where was Car 1 when the light turned yellow?

We need to know everything. Otherwise, you're going to get different answers because of a dozen different ideas of what the circumstances were.

Oh, and for the millionth time, people, pedestrians DO NOT always have the right-of-way.

Answer 4

Bottom line is the pedestrian was at fault for trying to beat the yellow and car 2 was doing the same, they are both at fault. Car 1 was just following the law by obeying the lights and could not know if when he or she made the turn they would confronted by 2 other stupid people!

Answer 5

Hmm... That's a freak accident. Ultimately, the human life is priceless. Cars get fixed or replaced, there's no coming back from the dead. Car # 2 is liable for rushing to beat the yellow

Answer 6

As a decide, i'd make an order to serve summons on a third fascinated celebration (it is god). because the papers upon god ought to no longer be served, i'd brush off the action as an abuse of procedure. also, i'd propose the bar proprietor that he must have insured his premises. He became stupid no longer to do this and the regulation does no longer aspect with the stupid human beings!

Answer 7

a.) pedestrian was jay -walking...
b) at a yellow light..either way ... a veichle going straight has the right away of a veichle tuning left into its path..
c) .. the veichle turning left...must wait till traffic ..going straight has stopped...
d) child in the back seat..?. . was the driver distracted enough..
not to be paying enough attention to what was happening around them.

Answer 8

Well, there are a lot of variables that CAN be considered but lets just look at the basics....

Here are some common laws regarding the hypothetical situation....

Number 1... the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way.

Number 2... A vehicle turning left USUALLY has [to yield] the right of way, when being compared to someone trying to drive straight thru the intersection.

Number 3... A yellow light indicates that a red light is imminent, and all vehicles should STOP, if they can safely do so.

If a collision cannot be avoided.. it should be between the vehicles... not a vehicle and a pedestrian. There is less likely hood of any serious injuries between the occupants of the two vehicles, than any vehicle and a pedestrian..... even head on collision. Vehicles are built to protect their occupants.... ESPECIALLY in a 'head-on' scenario as mentioned.

Im sure you will get lots of answers bashing the pedestrian.. one, or both drivers, or all of them.... with this scenario, there is a lot of 'blame' to spread around... It comes down to the fact tho, that the driver is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. PERIOD. This is a common theme in ALL states. And it is a common law of physics... someone INSIDE a vehicle is safer than the person OUTSIDE the vehicle.

The proper "safe" course in this situation .. is that a pedestrian should not have run out into the intersection.... the driver of car1 should not have been trying to 'beat the light', and neither should the driver of car2. (ill just make a note here... the direction, and source of the pedestrian is not stated).

Probably, given the limited information here... the best course of action in a bad situation.. is for driver of car1 to sit still, and allow its vehicle to absorb the impact of the collision from car2.
.
.
.
Additional -- I'll have to admit... this is the first time Ive gotten what appears to be a rather angry response to an answer Ive given here... It did make me take a look at my answer tho... and I see I did make a mistake -- Where I say that the car turning left has the right of way... should have said 'has to yield the right of way' -- Ill be the first to admit, sometimes my thoughts race ahead of my fingers, heheheh.... I do not know of any single state in the USA that GIVES the right of way to other vehicles.... every drivers book I have seen states who MUST YIELD the right of way. I would also like to point out, that I did say there were many things that CAN be considered.... for example.... different states build their roads different ways... SURPRISE! How many folks know what a 'California left turn' is? Not all states use this method of creating traffic lanes that actually go thru the intersection, and have you come back at the intersection from the opposite direction, in effect, making a U-turn, and then follow up your 'left turn direction' with a right turn. Anyone confused yet? lol... I know Ive seen many people trying to turn left, in one of these intersections, where there is a NO LEFT TURN sign clearly posted, right in front of them. However... in this hypothetical scenario... we were NOT told how many lanes, whether there WAS a turn lane, or not, or whether the pedestrian even had a pedestrian crossing light! So... it IS easy to assume that the way it is done in YOUR state is the way that ALL states do it... but its not. Ive lived mainly in the central US... northern to southern states. When I traveled on behalf of my business, I routinely logged in over 1000 miles per week. I have moved often, and changed my driver's license repeatedly -- necessitating the study of the new states laws. Now, I'll be the first to admit, lol, its been some time since I had to get a new state's license...lol
The point Im trying to get across here tho... is that I have personally seen MANY MANY different ways of building intersections. Yet, in this hypothetical situation... we are not given any of those details... NEITHER... are we told WHICH STATE's laws would apply. Obviously, some folks are seeing this scenario with multi-lanes and/or turn lanes... I did not take that approach... I used minimal infrastructure, and typical laws to base my answer. Every state drivers book I have seen has said, basically... if a person is on foot... you as the driver, have the responsibility of not hitting them. The driver is responsible for always operating their vehicle in a safe manner. Michigan, for example, is a 'no-fault' state -- they don't care WHO'S FAULT an accident was -- if YOUR vehicle was not stopped in time to avoid a collision....YOU get the ticket. EVEN IF, the other vehicle, say, stopped short, or even pulled out, in front of you (as in the scenario painted for us, in such broad strokes)...YOU still get the ticket. In Missouri -- its just the opposite...Whoever is deemed the person who 'caused' the accident will get the ticket, or be charged (depending on severity) I hope I am explaining this clearly.

So... different states build their roads differently, and they may have different laws. I did 'preface' my 3 numbered statements with 'Here are some COMMON laws'. "Common" does not mean "universal" -- my apologies for making that unclear.

Lets look at a couple of other things... from the question.. .it appears that the 'Car 1' is already in the intersection -- therefore the oncoming traffic, in my experience, be required to yield to that vehicle. It is ALREADY in the intersection.... IF CAR 2 had already been in the intersection.. then CAR 1 would have had to yield the right of way (Assuming it did not have a directional signal light -- see? another way of looking at the intersection) If car 1 was turning on a 'green left arrow'..... that COULD be another situation in which oncoming traffic would be expected to yield to that vehicle.

How about the "What if there's a child in the backseat....?" -- In Missouri... ALL CHILDREN UNDER 4 feet height, or xx pounds, MUST BE IN AN APPROVED SAFETY SEAT..... so... its not like one can assume the child is just going to be bounced around inside the vehicle... if you have had experience with states that have these mandatory child safety laws.... In Michigan... all children in the backseat are required to wear seatbelts....even teenagers, heheh. In Missouri AND Michigan... there are restrictions on the age of the driver...that is... they must be above a minimum age, must have been driving a minimum amount of time, or there are restrictions... possibly even curfew. Hmmm... speaking of which... was this 'scenario' during the day or evening? Its not stated is it? hmmmmm.....

Here is the bottom line folks... in the scenario we have been painted... not all the variables are spelled out for us... so we all tend to look at it from our own particular perspective...while I try to keep a broader mind on the possible variables ... and try to give multiple perspectives to cover as many of those variables.. I am also prone to 'seeing things' from my own perspective first. I dont think it matters where you live.... the driver of a vehicle is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. In the scenario we have above.... both drivers are apparently trying to 'beat the light' -- I dont know of ANY state, where that is approved.... So who's "at fault" ? Who should be 'blamed' if there IS an accident? Each driver is responsible for their own decisions, and operation of their vehicle. Again... any occupants of a vehicle, are safer in a collision with pedestrians, than the pedestrian. Again.... in MOST cases... people in multiple vehicle collisions, as pictured as a possibility in this scenario...are safer in the vehicles... than that pedestrian. Even if the two vehicles collide.... ALL the occupants (including that child in the safety seat, and seat belt) are MOST LIKELY to come away with little to no injuries, whereas ANY collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian will result in serious injury to the pedestrian.

I really should have added this line... or perhaps.. simply made this line my entire answer -- You need to refer to your own state's driver's manual to determine the best answer for this situation. Hehehe.... Again, I apologize for the mistake I typed regarding the yielding of the right of way, which I have placed in [.], so it will be obvious that, yes, I goofed.

Have a Nice Day

Answer 9

gun it an get the heck out of there. car two would be at fault.