Minor collision

I would assume you would have to keep right to turn right into your driveway like that, doing from a lane leading up to a intersection like that you better use your mirrors and wits.
Did the missus share footage / information's ?
In my book the turning car are to blame, though it is also clearly indicating so the other car just looking for problems or at the least wasent been driving by a intelligent person.
 
My wife gave the Prius driver her info, but didn't mention the dashcam. I told her if a rep from the insurance company calls asking for a statement I told her to tell them about the video. It could be that the CR-V driver admitted fault. I think both drivers turned into those driveways to exchange info and probably don't live there.
 
I would assume you would have to keep right to turn right into your driveway like that, doing from a lane leading up to a intersection like that you better use your mirrors and wits.
Did the missus share footage / information's ?
In my book the turning car are to blame, though it is also clearly indicating so the other car just looking for problems or at the least wasent been driving by a intelligent person.
Not sure that is correct, the turning car did have reason to move left first in order to make the sharp turn. I think it is more the fault of the following car which decided to overtake and had responsibility to make sure that the overtake was safe. The turning car should of checked their mirrors, but the overtaking car unexpectedly went into their blind spot at the time the mirrors would have been checked, so I think most of the legal fault is with the overtaking car, certainly the following driver was lacking common sense!
 
yes upon viewing the video several times the turning car start to indicate well in advance and then the car move up on the side i am so going " duuude why are you doing that"
I would say severe lack of common sense.
 
Last edited:
Not sure that is correct, the turning car did have reason to move left first in order to make the sharp turn....
The turning car is 100% at fault. In every jurisdiction I'm familiar with turns must be executed from the lane nearest the direction you're turning unless there are specific lane markings indicating otherwise.

In this case, because it appears the turning car may have been attempting to enter the driveway and it was a sharp turn, it was the turning cars responsibility to slow enough to make the turn instead of 'swinging wide to make it easier. At a minimum I see them being cited for improper lane usage. Nothing more than laziness on the turning drivers part.
 
The turning car is 100% at fault. In every jurisdiction I'm familiar with turns must be executed from the lane nearest the direction you're turning unless there are specific lane markings indicating otherwise.

In this case, because it appears the turning car may have been attempting to enter the driveway and it was a sharp turn, it was the turning cars responsibility to slow enough to make the turn instead of 'swinging wide to make it easier. At a minimum I see them being cited for improper lane usage. Nothing more than laziness on the turning drivers part.
That may well be the case under the local law, it would not be the case here. Of course they should be driving according to their local law and not the law of other countries.

Common sense still applies though :rolleyes:
 
...Common sense still applies though :rolleyes:
'Common sense' does not make an otherwise illegal action legal. If the turning car had been using the proper lane nothing would have transpired.
 
Yes that's also my reasoning to blame turning car, still the other one not too smart.
We Danes have the omni present " mutual consideration" in the traffi code, which you cant say the car passing on the right are displaying.

Here in most cases if you are hit from behind its the other guys fault, but if you are turning right ( and keep right ) then it is up to you to make damn sure you don't do that in front of or on top of a pedestrian or cyclist.
Also turning left on a highway, you have to indicate - slow down and keep your cars L side toward the middle lane striping and be damn sure no one are overtaking you before you make the turn,,,,,,,, though in my book when you are indicating and slowing down, only a idiot would overtake you as that's not considerate at all.
But as the law are written it do look like you are allowed to, witch to me are just idiotic, and thank god no one do it as far as i can tell from decades of driving a car.

Turning L on a highway was how my first car the 1967 Volvo 121 died, it was accelerated from walking pace to 80 km/h in 7 feet or so, and the Volvo did not like that one bit and was 2-3 feet shorter and the steel gas tank was a inch from the pavement.
And every rifle in the boot was broken, so lucky for the friend that owned them that it was all legal.
 
The turning car is 100% at fault. In every jurisdiction I'm familiar with turns must be executed from the lane nearest the direction you're turning unless there are specific lane markings indicating otherwise.

In this case, because it appears the turning car may have been attempting to enter the driveway and it was a sharp turn, it was the turning cars responsibility to slow enough to make the turn instead of 'swinging wide to make it easier. At a minimum I see them being cited for improper lane usage. Nothing more than laziness on the turning drivers part.

Exactly. And that is the law here in SC, where you may turn from the nearest lane only except where multiple marked turn lanes exist at intersections. Vehicles too large to make a proper turn without leaving their lane are normally excused that, but it is still their responsibility to not collide with any other road users when making that turn. You can make NO maneuvers with your vehicle unless it is safe to do so period.

If following I would have handled it differently, but they were in their lane completely and were crashed into by someone who was no longer in that lane so the instigator of the crash is clear. Nowhere does using a turn indicator entitle you to turn, so you can have no expectation that anyone will yield to you just because you indicated. And in this case there was absolutely no need for such a wide turn- that was totally unnecessary.

Phil
 
CR-V. Big shocker. They're the worst.
 
The CR-V its completely on the left lane and when turning crosses a solid white line... end of discussion
 
CR-V. Big shocker. They're the worst.

CR-V, almost forgot about them. We had a string of CR-V accidents on this board at one point :LOL:

I haven't seen cars pull off the road that quickly after an accident before though.
 
At least it is CR-V, cuz the C-HR are designed by a Dane called Stephan Rasmussen and it is in itself crazy so no need for drivers to act negative on it.
 
At least it is CR-V, cuz the C-HR are designed by a Dane called Stephan Rasmussen and it is in itself crazy so no need for drivers to act negative on it.
I think with the global warming problems, these "crazy" energy wasting designs should be banned!

The relationship between the Prius and the hybrid C-HR runs deep. Both use the new GA-C platform which is part of Toyota’s New Global Architecture, and both share an identical hybrid drivetrain. There isn’t even a massive amount of difference in the dimensions of the two cars. Prius is marginally longer and wider, C-HR a bit taller. The Prius is by far the more slippery though. It has a drag coefficient of 0.24 to the C-HR’s 0.33; blame those aforementioned shoulder pads.
 
Back
Top