# Traffic law question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 4, 2008, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194 "2008-02-04T07:55:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![blinkingblinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea5d25/32.png) [@blinkingblinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blinkingblinking)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/1 "2008-02-04T07:55:21Z")
(I know traffic law differs around the world). Vehicle A and Vehicle B come to an intersection. A has right of way. A waves B to go ahead first. Is B breaking the law? Let’ say A waves B to go ahead first. B hesitates. Then A decides to go. They collide. They take it to court. Who would win? ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/2 "2008-02-04T08:24:59Z")
There is no such thing as having the right of way. The law only describes who must yield right of way. In your second example, they would be stupid for hitting each other, but the person more at fault would most likely be the person that had the greatest opportunity and/or last chance to avoid the accident. It may or may not be the person who was supposed to yield the right of way. ---
**Author:** ![blinkingblinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea5d25/32.png) [@blinkingblinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blinkingblinking)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/3 "2008-02-04T11:37:32Z")
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger] There is no such thing as having the right of way. [/QUOTE] There is in Australia unless I am much mistaken ---
**Author:** ![Flipshod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f19dbf/32.png) [@Flipshod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flipshod)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/4 "2008-02-04T14:54:54Z")
It would depend on the controlling traffic device. Say, if A has a green light, she can’t “wave” anyone through a red light. If she did, B gets the ticket for failure to yield. At a four-way stop sign (where although there are official rules, drivers are expected to work it out on their own), it’s more complicated. Of course, no one has the right to hit someone who is already in the intersection if they can yield. The dangerousness of waving people out into “empty” lanes is so great that the waving itself can be ticketable under general unsafe driving statutes (though ticketing is rare–I live in the southern US in a small town where there is entirely too much “courtesy” driving). So while technically, the “wave” has no legal significance as to B’s actions, it might cause a sympathetic judge to toss A’s case out. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/5 "2008-02-04T18:03:08Z")
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking] There is in Australia unless I am much mistaken [/QUOTE] So if somebody in Australia enters into your lane when you have the right of way, it’s ok to just smash into them without attempting to avoid the collision? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/6 "2008-02-04T18:45:19Z")
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger] So if somebody in Australia enters into your lane when you have the right of way, it’s ok to just smash into them without attempting to avoid the collision? :eek: [/QUOTE] IANAL, Australian or otherwise, but I see no inconsistency with a system of laws that states “Above all else, don’t deliberately smash into anything; beyond that, proceed as follows.” Also, if the law specifies when right-of-way should be yielded, how can you claim that there is no such thing? You can’t yield something you don’t have, and you certainly can’t have something that doesn’t exist to begin with. If you’re saying that there’s no such thing as _absolute_ right of way – as in, you never have the right to ram into other vehicles at will – then I can see where you’re coming from, but that doesn’t preclude the lesser kind, which is what I’ve always assumed the term to mean. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting something from your posts? ETA: I have no idea what the answer to your question is, **blinkingblinking** , but perhaps this debate will at least keep your thread on top until someone with useful knowledge arrives. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/7 "2008-02-04T19:52:24Z")
1. > [@](#): > > 257.53 “Right-of-way” defined. > > Sec. 53. > > “Right-of-way” means the privilege of the immediate use of the highway. > History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 1. > [@](#): > > 257.20 “Highway or street” defined. > > Sec. 20. > > “Highway or street” means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. > [@](#): > > 257.649 Right-of-way; rules; violation as civil infraction. > > 1. Sec. 649. > > **(1) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway.** > > (2) When 2 vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right. > > (3) The right of way rules declared in subsections (1) and (2) are modified at through highways and otherwise as stated in this chapter. > > (4) The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign, in obedience to the sign, shall slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and shall yield the right of way to a vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver would be moving across or within the intersection. However, if required for safety to stop, the driver shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if there is not a crosswalk, at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is not a crosswalk or a clearly marked stop line, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway. > > (5) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit a right of way which the driver might otherwise have under this section. > > (6) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, the driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is not a crosswalk shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; or if there is not a crosswalk or a clearly marked stop line, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway. After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection from another highway or which is approaching so closely on the highway as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when the driver would be moving across or within the intersection. > > (7) When a vehicle approaches the intersection of a highway from an intersecting highway or street which is intended to be, and is constructed as, a merging highway or street, and is plainly marked at the intersection with appropriate merge signs, the vehicle shall yield right of way to a vehicle so close as to constitute an immediate hazard on the highway about to be entered and shall adjust its speed so as to enable it to merge safely with the through traffic. > > (8) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction. [http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(k3wurp45e0de4w23bpecdk55)](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(k3wurp45e0de4w23bpecdk55)))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-649 1. All of this means. There is a right of way (it’s not a right to crash into anybody, though; it just means that if someone crashes into you, they get the ticket in most cases). Once someone is in the intersection, blocking your path, \*they’ve \* got the right of way. 2. Most of this has more to do with who gets the ticket than it does with the outcome of a civil lawsuit. Under basic tort law, each driver owes to every other driver a duty of reasonable care. It might come out something like this: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007\_app/345498MAJ&invol=4](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007_app/345498MAJ&invol=4) ---
**Author:** ![blinkingblinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea5d25/32.png) [@blinkingblinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blinkingblinking)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/8 "2008-02-04T22:36:43Z")
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger] So if somebody in Australia enters into your lane when you have the right of way, it’s ok to just smash into them without attempting to avoid the collision? :eek: [/QUOTE] Your replies are not useful and seem very stupid. This cannot be a serious question, can it? If you really want my answer- it would be yes. Obviously any sane person would attempt to avoid the collision. But if there was a collision it would be the fault of the person that enters your lane when you have right of way. ---
**Author:** ![Omegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e480ec/32.png) [@Omegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omegaman)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/9 "2008-02-05T00:51:07Z")
When this happens to me I wait until the waving jackass goes. If it even looks like we will arrive at the stop at a close time I will slow down and make sure I stop after them because sure as shit they will take off if you don’t go fast enough. If they continue to wave I continue to wait. If people would just follow the law it would go nice and smooth. That way it will never make it to court. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/10 "2008-02-05T01:20:11Z")
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking] Your replies are not useful and seem very stupid. This cannot be a serious question, can it? If you really want my answer- it would be yes. Obviously any sane person would attempt to avoid the collision. But if there was a collision it would be the fault of the person that enters your lane when you have right of way. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry if your lack of understanding is preventing you from getting my point. If one thinks of absolute right of way, they will say that their answer to my rhetorical question is yes, that you can just smash into people who are, for example, stalled in the middle of _your_ right of way (which is, in fact, wrong). A sane person, as you say, would of course attempt to avoid the collision. In fact, if they had the last chance to avoid the accident but didn’t, they would be just as much as fault as the driver who didn’t yield the right of way. If you still don’t get it, please read **Gfactor** ’s (4) and (5) again. My point that both parties have the responsibility to attempt to avoid the accident, regardless of who has the right of way, articulated by stating that their is no such thing as having, but only a such thing as who must yield, right of way. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/11 "2008-02-05T01:41:17Z")
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger] There is no such thing as having the right of way. [/QUOTE] Well, the rulebook I’m familiar with makes frequent use of the term “right of way”, so I’m not sure what you’re saying. It does have conditions on it though - the main one I can think of off the top of my head being the duty to avoid a collision. My WAG is that a police officer witness to the situation in the OP would ticket both drivers. “Give way unnecessarily” is cause to gain demerit points in an australian driving test, and I’m pretty sure it’s on the rulebooks as a traffic offence for licenced drivers too. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/12 "2008-02-05T01:47:45Z")
[QUOTE=TheLoadedDog] \It does have conditions on it though - the main one I can think of off the top of my head being the duty to avoid a collision.\/QUOTE] My point exactly. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/13 "2008-02-05T04:18:47Z")
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger] [QUOTE=TheLoadedDog] \It does have conditions on it though - the main one I can think of off the top of my head being the duty to avoid a collision.\/QUOTE] My point exactly. [/QUOTE] You are being needlessly pedantic. A person is said by law to have the right of way. **Gfactor** ’s citation to the law of Michigan included the precise definition of the term. While it is true that, should two parties approach an intersection, one must “yield” the right to the other, the other person, having had it yielded to them, has the right of way. The one cannot exist without the other. The question, at any given point in time,from a traffic infraction standpoint, is who must yield, and who need not yield. The one who doesn’t yield, has the right of way. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/14 "2008-02-05T05:33:33Z")
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking] Vehicle A and Vehicle B come to an intersection. A has right of way. A waves B to go ahead first. Is B breaking the law? [/QUOTE] This isn’t exactly the same thing, but I have a friend who failed her first driving test for violating another driver’s right of way at an intersection. The other driver did have the right of way but didn’t take advantage of it. Eventually my friend gave up waiting and the driving tester for the DMV immediately flunked her. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/15 "2008-02-05T15:34:03Z")
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking] Your replies are not useful and seem very stupid. This cannot be a serious question, can it? [/QUOTE] **Moderator Note:** Please refrain from insulting other posters. Remember, this is General Questions–not the Pit. **Gfactor** General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/16 "2008-02-05T15:38:14Z")
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking] … Vehicle A and Vehicle B come to an intersection. A has right of way. A waves B to go ahead first. Is B breaking the law? Let’ say A waves B to go ahead first. B hesitates. Then A decides to go. They collide. They take it to court. Who would win? [/QUOTE] In Ohio, in the first situation, if there is no traffic light and B does not create a traffic hazard by accepting A’s invitation, B has not broken the law. In the second situation, both may be ticketed by police, and both may very well be convicted. You must drive at all times with due care in such a manner as not to cause an accident. If A sues B in my court, A would probably lose. A, having invited B to go first, should be reasonably patient and permit B to do so. If B sues A, B would probably win. Much depends on what happened in those last few seconds before the actual collision, though, and - assuming the accident was not captured on tape, or observed by a corroborating witness - how credible each driver is under oath. ---
**Author:** ![blinkingblinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea5d25/32.png) [@blinkingblinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blinkingblinking)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/17 "2008-02-05T20:07:14Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] **Moderator Note:** Please refrain from insulting other posters. Remember, this is General Questions–not the Pit. **Gfactor** General Questions Moderator [/QUOTE] I was saying the replies seem stupid. I was not insulting the person. ---
**Author:** ![blinkingblinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea5d25/32.png) [@blinkingblinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blinkingblinking)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/18 "2008-02-05T20:08:20Z")
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir] In Ohio, in the first situation, if there is no traffic light and B does not create a traffic hazard by accepting A’s invitation, B has not broken the law. In the second situation, both may be ticketed by police, and both may very well be convicted. You must drive at all times with due care in such a manner as not to cause an accident. If A sues B in my court, A would probably lose. A, having invited B to go first, should be reasonably patient and permit B to do so. If B sues A, B would probably win. Much depends on what happened in those last few seconds before the actual collision, though, and - assuming the accident was not captured on tape, or observed by a corroborating witness - how credible each driver is under oath. [/QUOTE] Surely A can just deny that he waved the other person on. Then since A had right of way, B would lose any court case. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/19 "2008-02-05T21:42:02Z")
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking] Surely A can just deny that he waved the other person on. Then since A had right of way, B would lose any court case. [/QUOTE] Answered here: [QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir] Much depends on what happened in those last few seconds before the actual collision, though, and - assuming the accident was not captured on tape, or observed by a corroborating witness - how credible each driver is under oath. [/QUOTE] One driver says there was waving, the other denies it. Neither party’s story will be assumed to be the correct sequence of events. The judge (if it’s a traffic citation issue or a bench trial) or jury (if it isn’t) will have to decide who is telling the truth. What’s more, as **Elendil’s Heir** notes, you can have the right of way and still lose the case. Check out this case, which I cited earlier in the thread: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007\_app/345498MAJ&invol=4](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007_app/345498MAJ&invol=4) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2008, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194/20 "2008-02-05T21:49:30Z")
The right of way concept is apparently called “giving way” under Australian traffic law: [http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/p7.pdf](http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/p7.pdf) Here is a link to the Australian Road Rules page: [http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/roadraustr\_dl1.html](http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/roadraustr_dl1.html) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-law-question/436194.md?page=2)