Street Racing Gone Wrong

[V8 Beast]

I was wrong on my speed guestimate. I was judging the speed based on my car not thinking that I'm over 200whp above stock and changed my shift points. With minimal mods, and the shift from 2 - 3, the car would have topped out around 95 before letting out of it. The number of down shifts shows that he is braking so my new mph guestimate is 65mph at the point of the crash. If the car is stock or braking harder then guessed it will be less than that.

[TTQ B4U]

Actually I'm pretty sure that Vic was guilty of failure to yield to oncomming traffic. You can't just pull into traffic and expect it to stop. That IS illegal. So, no, the Vic was not going about a "very legal act."

 

No, actually he's not likely going to be found guilty of failure to yield. Most states will look at both common law and statutory law. Typically the driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed forfeits any right-of-way which the driver might otherwise have.

 

So in other words, the racing vehicles by their own actions no longer have the right of way. Ohio has plenty of case law on this too, so if this happens here, don't expect to see the Vic to be found guilty. He could be sighted by an officer, but that citation won't likely stick. Any decent lawyer would easily get the Vic cleared and damages awarded to them.

 

If the two racing vehicles really wanted to push that argument, they would have to file a separate case as the accident report alone won't stand up in court. It will be denied admittance as hearsay by the Vic's lawyer as just because it claims failure to yield doesn't by law mean the Vic's driver has to accept that liability. According to my wife, their lawyer wouldn't likely pursue that second failure to yield case as they wouldn't likely win. Especially with a video tape and likelihood of witnesses.

 

Racing vehicles in this case were the cause of it all and got what they deserved.

Edited December 11, 2010 by TTQ B4U

[Mallard]

Devil's advocate here, but: If not expecting cars to be travelling at a certain speed is grounds to dismiss blame, then why can't I park on the highway and say I didn't expect people to be going 65?

 

It doesn't matter what you EXPECT. Accidents happen because things you don't expect occur. That's what your eyes and ears are for. The Vic wasn't paying attention and left his car in the way of moving traffic.

 

This is a good example why we need actual TESTS for people who drive. In 2007 (latest CDC stats I can find) 12,000+ people were killed by handguns, and 42,000+ were killed by vehicles. However we give anyone with a heartbeat a license to drive.

 

 

The point being made is that the accident occurred because THREE people, not two, were idiots.

The problem with this argument you're trying to make is that 65 is the speed limit on the freeway, and typically anything under 45 mph is illegal. So, when driving on the freeway the expectation is the traffic around you will be going a certain speed. So your example of parking on the freeway is actually most similar to the guys racing, because it increases the closing speeds of the people around you, which gives them less time to see you and react.

 

When you are sitting at a corner, trying to turn across 3 lanes of traffic, your eyes are scanning the oncoming traffic looking for an opening large enough for you to pass through. As you sit there and wait, your brain begins to assume certain closing rates of the oncoming cars, until you can see it for enough time that you can accurately judge a large difference in speed. The Vic driver was looking through traffic, which obscured his view of the racers. They came into view as he started turning, and partway through the turn he realized they were traveling much faster than all thr other cars that have already passed, and he stopped. He only had fractions of a second to judge the speed of those cars, he didn't have the visibility to see them coming all the way down the road.

 

Had the Vic pulled out in front of traffic that was going the speed limit (or closer to it) the accident would have been much less severe, if it happened at all. The slower closing speeds would give more time for both (or all 3) drivers to react and potentially avoid a collision. Speed was the cause of this accident, and racing was the cause of the speed.

[Draco-REX]

Back. Took a nap too.

 

No, actually he's not likely going to be found guilty of failure to yield. Most states will look at both common law and statutory law. Typically the driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed forfeits any right-of-way which the driver might otherwise have.

 

So in other words, the racing vehicles by their own actions no longer have the right of way. Ohio has plenty of case law on this too, so if this happens here, don't expect to see the Vic to be found guilty. He could be sighted by an officer, but that citation won't likely stick. Any decent lawyer would easily get the Vic cleared and damages awarded to them.

 

If the two racing vehicles really wanted to push that argument, they would have to file a separate case as the accident report alone won't stand up in court. It will be denied admittance as hearsay by the Vic's lawyer as just because it claims failure to yield doesn't by law mean the Vic's driver has to accept that liability. According to my wife, their lawyer wouldn't likely pursue that second failure to yield case as they wouldn't likely win. Especially with a video tape and likelihood of witnesses.

 

Racing vehicles in this case were the cause of it all and got what they deserved.

 

The problem with this argument you're trying to make is that 65 is the speed limit on the freeway, and typically anything under 45 mph is illegal. So, when driving on the freeway the expectation is the traffic around you will be going a certain speed. So your example of parking on the freeway is actually most similar to the guys racing, because it increases the closing speeds of the people around you, which gives them less time to see you and react.

 

When you are sitting at a corner, trying to turn across 3 lanes of traffic, your eyes are scanning the oncoming traffic looking for an opening large enough for you to pass through. As you sit there and wait, your brain begins to assume certain closing rates of the oncoming cars, until you can see it for enough time that you can accurately judge a large difference in speed. The Vic driver was looking through traffic, which obscured his view of the racers. They came into view as he started turning, and partway through the turn he realized they were traveling much faster than all thr other cars that have already passed, and he stopped. He only had fractions of a second to judge the speed of those cars, he didn't have the visibility to see them coming all the way down the road.

 

Had the Vic pulled out in front of traffic that was going the speed limit (or closer to it) the accident would have been much less severe, if it happened at all. The slower closing speeds would give more time for both (or all 3) drivers to react and potentially avoid a collision. Speed was the cause of this accident, and racing was the cause of the speed.

Doesn't matter if the Vic is in the right legally. Bottom line is, his car is toast. That's a fact.

 

If he had been better at judging the approaching rate of the cars, he wouldn't have been in the accident.

 

If he had left enough room for those cars to slip through, he wouldn't have been in the accident.

 

Three drivers were in that accident. Not one, not two. THREE.

[TTQ B4U]

Doesn't matter if the Vic is in the right legally. Bottom line is, his car is toast. That's a fact.

 

Car is toast but the bottom line is that he was in the right and the street racers were in the wrong.

 

If he had been better at judging the approaching rate of the cars, he wouldn't have been in the accident.

 

and if his car had a force field like ships in Star Trek, he wouldn't have been in the accident.

 

If he had left enough room for those cars to slip through, he wouldn't have been in the accident.

 

If those guys would have just driven like normal caring individuals with a sense of intelligence, he wouldn't have been in the accident.

 

Three drivers were in that accident. Not one, not two. THREE.

 

On that note I do agree.

[V8 Beast]

Car is toast but the bottom line is that he was in the right and the street racers were in the wrong.

 

He/she wasnt in the wrong.. but he/she wasnt in the right either. The vic driver was car deep in the gray area.

[BrianZ06]

Saying this with out taking sides, my grandfather who is 87 and just bought a new cts sport make me very nervous. He drives so slow and pull out slow onto roads. Little scary to say the least.