BMW = Break My Windows, or eine kleine schadenfreude

[RandMcnally]

@mhendo

I live in California, and i never realized that this was how the system worked.

Can i just say that this is a fucking retarded way to apportion fault, at least in the specific example you give. How the fuck can the person making the left turn in front of oncoming traffic be excused from 30% of the fault if he was able to clear two out of three lanes?

The law says that a person turning left across traffic is supposed to yield to oncoming traffic. If you make a left and the oncoming traffic hits you, then you have not, by definition, yielded. I’d be willing to apportion some blame to the oncoming driver if it could be proved that she was exceeding the speed limit, or something similar, but otherwise the fault should be 100 percent with the person making the turn.

In fact, the system you describe can actually result in penalilzing the oncoming driver for her own skill and reflexes. If she can’t step on the brakes quickly enough, and plows right into the middle of the oncoming car, then the person making the left turn will probably be 100 percent at fault. But if she hits the brakes, and even manages to swerve to the left a bit, in order to hit the rear quarter pane, resulting in a less serious and less dangerous accident, she has to eat 30 percent of the blame? That is complete bullshit.

The person who made the left turn was able to make it past 2 and 3/4 lanes of traffic without getting hit. Why, then, was the driver in lane 3 of 3 not able to avoid the left turning vehicle? If they were going the proper speed limit and paying attention to the road then they should have seen the vehicle turning left with enough time to stop.

You are correct that the CA vehicle code says that the person making the left has to yield to traffic. But it also says: (b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a), and having given a signal when and as required by this code, may turn left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of vehicles approaching the intersection or the entrance to the property or alley from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way to the turning vehicle.

Liability changes had the person going straight was in lane 1 or 2, or the point of impact is on the left turning’s fender or on the straight vehicle’s driver side, but because the loss, in this example, occurred in lane 3 of 3, and the impact was to the passenger 1/4, I’d put majority liability on the driver going straight.
Liability isn’t as cut and dry as people assume. I hear, “He rear-ended me! He’s automatically at fault!” That isn’t always the case.

[mhendo]

@RandMcnally

You are correct that the CA vehicle code says that the person making the left has to yield to traffic.

It says more than that. It says:

21801. (a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or
       to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or
       private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all
       vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close
       enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning
       movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the
       approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with
       reasonable safety.

Emphasis mine.

In my opinion, if someone hits you as you make a left turn, then that person was, by definition, “close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement,” and you have therefore failed to properly yield.

Whoever wrote 21801 (b) was a retard. The two sections, taken together, basically say “Left turns are supposed to yield, but if you’re irresponsible enough not to yield, then some of the blame gets transferred to the oncoming driver.” Awesome.

[Ponch8]

[Walter Sobchak] You see what happens? You see what happens? (smash) You see what happens? This is what happens when you park in front of a fire hydrant! (smash smash) This is what happens!

[Quartz]

@RandMcnally

Iaaie and I think we would pay out on that. His deductible would apply. My question is would this be considered at fault? I’d assume so, but this is something I want to follow-up.

A friend once related to me that a friend of his was once parked on a steep hill when the handbrake failed. The FOAF was in the car at the time and the car rolled backwards downhill and crashed into another car. The second car was illegally parked. The FOAF was prosecuted and successfully defended himself by saying that he was getting his car under control and would have managed it were it not for the illegally parked car.

[wolfman]

@running_coach

Actually, the first option is “Chop gaping holes in the doors/bodywork” but there wasn’t time at this particular fire.

They also like to “ease” the car out of the way with their bumper at 15 miles an hour, if someone is stupid enough to park in front of a hydrant with the rest of that side of the road clear.

[Leo_Bloom]

@Ponch8

[Walter Sobchak] You see what happens? You see what happens? (smash) You see what happens? This is what happens when you park in front of a fire hydrant! (smash smash) This is what happens!

[j666]

@running_coach

Actually, the first option is “Chop gaping holes in the doors/bodywork” but there wasn’t time at this particular fire.

I submit that chopping gaping holes is a subset of breaking.

But fire fighters do love their doors, and they love them in small pieces.

The spouse’s tenant had an apartment fire once, and the responders kicked out the door frame. Of an unlocked door. After the fire had been put out.

[Kenm]

I wonder whether they had a whooping car alarm to deal with on top of everything else.

Maybe not, since once the windows were smashed they could open the hood and rip out the horn and/or alarm wires or disconnect the battery.

Or better yet, rip the hood apart with the Jaws of Life.

[DiosaBellissima]

@Mahaloth

I’m sure he can afford to have it repaired.
.

Let me preface this by saying: yeah, the owner of this car is a dipshit and a jerk who parked illegally and got what they deserved. That said. . .

Are you serious with that quoted bit right now? I’m sorry, how expensive do you think a 3 series sedan is? Keep in mind that the 3 series is an entry level BMW. Ok, do you have your guesses? Ready?

ABMW 3 Series Sedan is a $32k car.

Now, I don’t know where you’re at in your life and I’m not going to make any predictions, but I think for most folks, a $32,000 car is a nice car. . . but not exactly a Bentley being driven by Scrooge McDuck. FFS. . . the posters on this board sometimes. . .