Hitting someone does not necessarily mean you have broken a law. It is quite conceivable that you could hit another car and have the other driver be at fault. In that case, you have broken no law.
No, either of those would involve additional circumstances other than merely: “you drive through the green light and hit someone”.
I suspect that Sam Stone has quit also.
Actually, I worked until the wee hours of the morning, and now I’m heading back to work.
I don’t think there’s much point in continuing this thread, though. We’ll just have to disagree.
It depends on whether you see the quoted statement as a complete description of the incident or a generic description of the incident. I was going generic, because I don’t think the statement is specific enough to define fault on its own.
By now, though, we’re not at odds conceptually, we’re just parsing 9 words differently, and trying to set a meaning for them the other doesn’t agree with, and there’s no point in arguing that.
You’d change lanes in an intersection?
In all cases? Slower speeds are not neccessarily more fuel efficient. And ‘saves little time’ is meaningless, especially while the distance is not stipulated.
Ah, but what was the original statement I was referring to?
“If you drive through the green light and hit someone you’ve still broken the law, as green means ‘proceed IF SAFE’.”
This is a statement of the form: “If A then B”
If A - “you drive through the green light and hit someone”
Then B - “you’ve [still] broken the law”
Saying “If A then B” is another way of saying that A necessitates B.
What I am saying is that A being true does not necessarily mean that B is true. Whether some other condition happens to exist that makes B true is immaterial.
If you *knowingly and willfuly *hit another vehicle, despite having the right of way, you could be charged with various crimes up to Vehicular Homicide.
In other words, if cars are gridlocked in the intersection, the fact that the light turns green for you does not give you the right to deliberately plow into them like the Deathmobile from Animal House.
True, if you have any reasonable excuse-like you could show that you realy couldn’t see them until it was too late and you tried to stop- then hell yes, that Green Light gets you a lot of leeway.
Now, if you are saying that by the exact wording of “Originally Posted by Cryptoderk
*If you drive through the green light and hit someone you’ve still broken the law, as green means “proceed IF SAFE”.”
Well we could invent scenarios all day - I suppose if I drove through a green light and tossed a hand grenade out the window of my car, I’d be guilty of a crime, but since nothing of the sort was mentioned, what I was asking was what crime you have committed merely by virtue of the fact that you drove through a green light and hit someone. I see no indication that anything was “presupposed”. Since you and Cheesesteak have both dived in on my relatively straightforward question to Cryptoderk, it raises the question of exactly who is being pedantic and hijacking the thread.
The obvious example, which happens quite frequently, is when someone goes through an intersection on a green but hits a pedestrian who hadn’t cleared the intersection.
But what if all sight lines were clear and you were absolutely sure that there was no pedestrians there?
If you’re crossing the street on a red light and you get hit by a car, it’s your fault, not the driver’s.
Not nessesarily so- *if *the driver can avoid the collision. Drivers are not allowed to go ahead and deliberately run over pedestrians just because the driver has a green light.
Do you actually want an answer/debate on this, or do you just want to bust Cryptoderk’s chops about framing his statement is a way open to possible misinterpretation? I think by now you must know what we are talking about, eh? **Drivers- no matter that they have the right of way- must attempt to avoid a collision. Failure to do so- even if you have the right of way- is illegal.
**
Several of us have answered your “question” to Cryptoderk, which is what GD is all about. You really don’t get to demand a “one on one” with another poster- the rest of us have paid our nickel and we get to post stuff too.
Can we get back to the OP now?
Fuck no. Listen: If I drive into an intersection on a green light, and am perhaps not as attentive as I could be, and hit another car that is illegally in the intersection, which law have I broken? Let’s leave out the strawmen about “attempted murder” and such nonsense. Assuming I’m not attempting to murder anyone, what law have I broken? Either answer the question, or shut up. Speaking of “you don’t get to demand” - You don’t get to argue with me and then claim I’m not allowed to respond.
This is not some semantic hijack - I’m saying that there’s no per-se law against hitting someone. You may not like it, and it may not seem fair to you, but there are many, many situations where you actually aren’t going to be cited even if you could have avoided hitting someone. If you disagree, then cite the statute that proves me wrong.
How about NJ statue 39-4-96 or 39-4-97?
OK, **Cheesesteak **, thanks for the cite. It seems to me that, in your opinion, if a person drives through a green light and hits someone, the collision proves that they were driving “carelessly, or without due caution and circumspection”.
In contrast, lowbrass seems to feel, and I do too, that the collision - in and of itself - is not sufficient to prove this point. Accidents do happen. Additional evidence would be needed to prove that the driver was being careless.
For example, if it can be shown that the person was in the intersection for quite a while, and was visible to the driver for quite a while, and the driver collided anyway, that would demonstrate careless/reckless driving. But if it can be shown that the person had darted out into the intersection suddenly, without giving the driver time to react, then it seems to me that the collision would not be ample evidence of carelessness. And even if the driver did have time to react, there are many reasons why he might not have reacted, without actually being careless or reckless.
When I was in high school, many years ago, the football coach was teaching a drivers ed class. One student said that “In California, the pedestrian always has the right of way.” The coach said, “Well, in Virginia, he doesn’t. But, even with the right of way, you aren’t allowed to hit him.”
Of course, that was before he went on to fame as the white coach in “Remember the Titans.”
Tris
I’d say that’s more Cryptoderk’s opinion, which he won’t be back to defend…
I don’t think this accurately represents lowbrass’s opinion. Take the quote I used from his last post, the situation is that he is admittedly not being attentive and hit another car that is illegally in the intersection. Not a car that darted into the intersection, a car that is in the intersection. He doesn’t seem to think he’s broken a law here. I would take that to mean that he believes that his right of way and the other car being in an illegal position means he is not at fault if there is an accident.
My position is that the green light just means you don’t have to stop. You may proceed through the intersection, but under all of the same rules as any stretch of road.
CA VC 23103 (a). 23104(a), 23105 (a), 22526 (a), 21950 (a)(c)(d), 21971, and so forth. Like I said- if you knowingly and wilfully get into a collision, you have broken the law, despite whatever right of way you may have.
There is a large difference between “could have avoided hitting someone” and knowlingly and willfully hitting someone. And the same difference between “perhaps not as attentive as I could be” and deliberatly hitting someone. As Keeve said “For example, if it can be shown that the person was in the intersection for quite a while, and was visible to the driver for quite a while, and the driver collided anyway, that would demonstrate careless/reckless driving.”
Of course having the right of way is something that is pretty damn good protection, unless the other guy can prove you “did it on purpose”.
As I was sitting at my desk at work, two guys were talking nearby about their speeding tickets and ways to avoid them. They were complaining about speed traps, discussing what color of car is more likely to get stopped, how many mph you could go over and not get a ticket, how many tickets you could have and not lose your licence,etc. They went on and on.
I interjected that in my whole life, I’ve only been pulled over once, and got a warning for 5mph over the limit.
After much more discussion, one of the guys looked at me and asked, “So what’s your secret? How do you get out of speeding tickets?”
I said, " I don’t speed. Cops usually leave me alone."
“Oh”