Welp, Took It In the Rear Today [NSFW - Language]

[KANNINA 2.0]

Yellow lights are real short in Tucson, AZ. I slowed for the yellow at the upcoming intersection. Light was red a good 6 car lengths out.

Douchenozzle behind me fully intended to run it. He ran after he hit me, and I chased him down. Mostly because he had a temp tag and I couldn't get close enough to read it.

He finally pulled over in a residential neighborhood about 3 miles later while I was chatting with the 911 operator vectoring the Sheriff's department to our location. Once he was cooperative and producing insurance (amazingly, he had valid insurance), called off the LEOs.

He actually started giving me lip for slowing down at the yellow, and said it was still yellow when I stopped (MFer please). He said he sped up when he saw the yellow and expected me to go through it. He was gonna follow me through.

Total BS. You can see he had moved into the lane to the left of me which was clear until the knucklehead in the adjacent turn lane drifted in front of him and started the whole chain of events. If he had gone through the intersection like he intended, the red would have been stale for a good 3 or 4 seconds when he did. He probably would have hit someone too.

I said "Look dude, I'm not gonna debate who shoulda done what. The light was red, you were behind me, it was up to you to maintain enough control to not hit me. Then you did hit me. Then you ran. BTW, dashcams front and back." He STFU immediately.

Car was obviously a recent purchase, and had already been in an accident by the look of the passenger side front fender. None of that black is from my vehicle.



I didn't know anything was developing until I felt the impact. His PS mirror slapped the left rear quarter of my truck, and his RF quarter just glanced the bodywork.

I know it's a bit cliché, but looks like it'll buff out. Had he been 6 inches or more to the right, would've been a totally different story. He was speeding and accelerating when he hit me.

 

[Dashmellow]

Yeah, it could have been much worse!

Glad you are ok and glad you caught up to him.

Did your dash cam capture any sort of readable rear plate number?

 

[KANNINA 2.0]

Yeah, it could have been much worse!

Glad you are ok and glad you caught up to him.

Did your dash cam capture any sort of readable rear plate number?

Not until much later. The font on the temp tags is very small and he was moving way too fast to catch anything legible in the moment.

 

[Dashmellow]

Not until much later. The font on the temp tags is very small and he was moving way too fast to catch anything legible in the moment.

View attachment 59031

Wow! Those ARE small ! Temporary tags in Vermont have full size letters and numbers (beefier than normal, actually) and they are RED. They are designed for high visibility.

EDIT: Standard Vermont license plates are green with white letters and numbers.

 

[HonestReview]

Yellow lights are real short in Tucson, AZ. I slowed for the yellow at the upcoming intersection. Light was red a good 6 car lengths out.

Douchenozzle behind me fully intended to run it. He ran after he hit me, and I chased him down. Mostly because he had a temp tag and I couldn't get close enough to read it.

He finally pulled over in a residential neighborhood about 3 miles later while I was chatting with the 911 operator vectoring the Sheriff's department to our location. Once he was cooperative and producing insurance (amazingly, he had valid insurance), called off the LEOs.

He actually started giving me lip for slowing down at the yellow, and said it was still yellow when I stopped (MFer please). He said he sped up when he saw the yellow and expected me to go through it. He was gonna follow me through.

Total BS. You can see he had moved into the lane to the left of me which was clear until the knucklehead in the adjacent turn lane drifted in front of him and started the whole chain of events. If he had gone through the intersection like he intended, the red would have been stale for a good 3 or 4 seconds when he did. He probably would have hit someone too.

I said "Look dude, I'm not gonna debate who shoulda done what. The light was red, you were behind me, it was up to you to maintain enough control to not hit me. Then you did hit me. Then you ran. BTW, dashcams front and back." He STFU immediately.

Car was obviously a recent purchase, and had already been in an accident by the look of the passenger side front fender. None of that black is from my vehicle.

View attachment 59030

I didn't know anything was developing until I felt the impact. His PS mirror slapped the left rear quarter of my truck, and his RF quarter just glanced the bodywork.

I know it's a bit cliché, but looks like it'll buff out. Had he been 6 inches or more to the right, would've been a totally different story. He was speeding and accelerating when he hit me.

Correct me if I am wrong, but he literally tried to swerve between two cars, got sandwiched, and then hit your car while attempting to make the light. In turn, Taking off, and then fleeing the scene of an accident. I don't think you chasing him down "absolves him" of hit and run. He had no intention of stopping. I would have let the police show up and cite him for attempting to flee the scene of an accident. As your video makes very clear he wasn't going to stop had not you chased him down.

I'm surprised he had insurance, too. Way he was driving, you'd think he had everything to gain by "running".

Glad the accident was minor, although you're still going to need a new front bumper and quarter panel - Assuming those are creases and dents and not simply the reflection of the lighting.

 

[Dashmellow]

With the hit and run and the fact that it was all captured on video I certainly wouldn't have called off the cops. Like I said earlier, this could have ended WAY more badly than it did. The guy deserved to be prosecuted for reckless endangerment and leaving the scene.

 

[HonestReview]

With the hit and run and the fact that it was all captured on video I certainly wouldn't have called off the cops. Like I said earlier, this could have ended WAY more badly than it did. The guy deserved to be prosecuted for reckless endangerment and leaving the scene.

Never too late to file a police report and submit the video I imagine. Considering it just happened yesterday. Although I see no mention of you suggesting he do either before my post. None the less, I would have this idiot prosecuted. Instead of apologizing, @KANNINA 2.0 said he became a combative dickhead after being chased down and confronted. Strike #2 on why I wouldn't let this go. Strike #3 is he could have killed someone and did not care.

 

[Dashmellow]

Although I see no mention of you suggesting he do either before my post.

So, now you want to take credit for my comment that the guy deserved to be prosecuted for reckless endangerment and leaving the scene? I was stating the obvious. And when exactly did you mention the crime of reckless endangerment?

Good Lord! You make anything and everything said on this forum all about you!

 

[HonestReview]

So, now you want to take credit for my comment that the guy deserved to be prosecuted for reckless endangerment and leaving the scene? I was stating the obvious. And when exactly did you mention the crime of reckless endangerment?

Newsflash. The Police and local prosecutor don't base their charges off what some "pseudo internet lawyer" professes to be the law. You aren't stating the obvious, you're stating your opinion, which is so often thrown around as fact.

What Op needs to do is speak to police. Do a police report and give police the video. And I am sure his local prosecutor will then look at facts and decide based on laws in Arizona, what charges are necessary, if any. Hit and Run is likely I am sure because the guy didn't stop. Anything else is a "guess" at best. So what he "deserves" is nothing but your conjecture.

Good Lord! You make anything and everything said on this forum all about you!

Not about me at all here. But a lot of conjecture on your part!

 

[Dashmellow]

Stating the obvious.......​

A.R.S. § 13-1201 Defined​

ARS 13-1201 provides the definition for the crime of endangerment in Arizona. The law states,

“A person commits endangerment by recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.”
Endangerment that involves “substantial risk of imminent death” is a class 6 felony. If the endangerment only involves a “substantial risk of physical injury,” the crime is classified as a class 1 misdemeanor.

“Recklessness” is when a person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that an act will cause some harm. The risk must be of such a nature that the disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct of a reasonable person.

Criminal charges can be brought under this statute even if the endangerment does not actually lead to a physical injury. All that matters is that there is a risk of death or injury.

Further, in the State of Arizona, endangerment could get charged as a dangerous offense if the defendant used a dangerous instrument (such as a motor vehicle) in the course of the crime.

Vehicular endangerment is a form of reckless endangerment where an offender creates a risk of death or injury while operating a motor vehicle.

 

[Dashmellow]

Not about me at all here.

Classic!

 

[Kremmen]

 

[HonestReview]

Stating the obvious.......​

A.R.S. § 13-1201 Defined​

ARS 13-1201 provides the definition for the crime of endangerment in Arizona. The law states,

“A person commits endangerment by recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.”
Endangerment that involves “substantial risk of imminent death” is a class 6 felony. If the endangerment only involves a “substantial risk of physical injury,” the crime is classified as a class 1 misdemeanor.

“Recklessness” is when a person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that an act will cause some harm. The risk must be of such a nature that the disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct of a reasonable person.

Criminal charges can be brought under this statute even if the endangerment does not actually lead to a physical injury. All that matters is that there is a risk of death or injury.

Further, in the State of Arizona, endangerment could get charged as a dangerous offense if the defendant used a dangerous instrument (such as a motor vehicle) in the course of the crime.

Vehicular endangerment is a form of reckless endangerment where an offender creates a risk of death or injury while operating a motor vehicle.

Wow you can google Arizona Statue (what I presume to be their criminal code). So this now makes you an "Internet Lawyer" by trade. I'll tell you what. OP (@KANNINA 2.0) go file a police report and give them the video. I'm sure the Police in Arizona will chat with the prosecutor there and decide what charges, if any to file.

I'm pretty certain they're not going to contact @Dashmellow for his "Internet Legal Opinion" and advice. Because unlike @Dashmellow, I presume the prosecutors in Arizona are actual lawyers.

 

[Dashmellow]

Wow you can google Arizona Statue (what I presume to be their criminal code). So this now makes you an "Internet Lawyer" by trade. I'll tell you what. OP (@KANNINA 2.0) go file a police report and give them the video. I'm sure the Police in Arizona will chat with the prosecutor there and decide what charges, if any to file.

I'm pretty certain their not going to contact @Dashmellow for his "Internet Legal Opinion" and advice. Because unlike @Dashmellow, I presume the prosecutor is an actual lawyer.

It's very simple my friend .These laws are very similar across the country; nearly identical actually. Looking up any US state statute on reckless endangerment would provide essentially the same result. What we witness in the video is reckless endangerment every which way to Sunday. Some may label it "vehicular endangerment". As for whether he would ultimately be charged with that crime is up to a prosecutor to decide, but they certainly don't need me to explain the law to them even if I am familar with it. I happen to be familiar with this statute because I experienced it personally and the perpetrator was prosecuted for it. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

 

[HonestReview]

It's very simple my friend .These laws are very similar across the country; nearly identical actually. Looking up any US state statute on reckless endangerment would provide essentially the same result. What we witness in the video is reckless endangerment every which way to Sunday. Some may label it "vehicular endangerment". As for whether he would ultimately be charged with that crime is up to a prosecutor to decide, but they certainly don't need me to explain the law to them even if I am familar with it. I happen to be familiar with this statute because I experinced it personally and the perpetrator was prosecuted for it. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

Except it's not a duck or a goose. Watch the video again. That black car merges illegally from a turn only lane with a solid white line. So the white car while speeding, could argue he swerved to miss hitting the black car. Doesn't give him an excuse for driving like a jerk, hitting OP, and running. But it could very well be argued that black car was at partial or full fault for causing the accident.

Again, your own experience doesn't make you a lawyer. Googling statues doesn't make you a lawyer. Just because this "Happened to You", doesn't mean X prosecutor in X locale agrees with "Some Guy on the Internet" who says so. But we're beating a dead horse because we know whatever is said here, you'll always be right.

 

[KANNINA 2.0]

Well, I won't be pursuing this any further, as there's no need at this point.

The other driver wasn't being "combative," I didn't say that. He was "giving me lip" (my words). Which is to say that he started offering unsolicited explanations of how and why this wasn't really his fault, he was a victim of circumstances, thought I was gonna run the yellow, etc., etc. He wasn't belligerent or threatening, nor did I feel threatened. If I had, the situation would likely have ended with the cops showing up to me sitting on this guy's head.

As it was, I was already at a dead stop. I looked over my shoulder after he hit me, and as far as I could tell, he hadn't hit anybody else. I paused at the light long enough to see if he was gonna pull over, and when he didn't, only then did I (carefully) light out after him. Ordinarily, I'd just read his plate number out loud for the cam to record and get close enough to get it on video, then broken off the chase. Don't know who's in that car or how many, and certainly don't need him dragging me to a gang stash house and into his buddies waiting to ambush me. The writing on the temp plate was just so small that I couldn't get it for sure.

Calling off the LEOs wasn't my decision, it was theirs. I was on the phone giving the 911 operator the play-by-play the whole way until he stopped, and stayed on the line with her until it was obvious that he was no threat.

She'd asked me already if anyone else was hit or hurt, and I told her no, as far as I could tell, and gave her the details of where and how the accident happened. She asked if he was being cooperative after pulling over, and I told her it looked like he was (he was just walking around the car looking at stuff, not making any threatening moves). She stayed on the line for a bit while I talked to him just in case. My cam was running the whole time.

I asked the 911 operator specifically before I even unlocked the doors and got out of the car what was gonna happen next. Bottom line, if he pulled over and was cooperative in exchanging information, nothing was gonna happen vis-a-vis him running. It was a no-injury fender-bender with an insurance info swap in their eyes. If he had no insurance or if there had been significant damage or injury, they'd send a deputy to make a report and he'd have gotten a citation for running. If I'd just pulled over at the scene and let him go (as in my car wasn't driveable after the hit), nothing they'd be able to do without a plate. He'd get away and my insurance would be on the hook. If I'd broken contact after I had his tag and let him go and he kept running, then they would have issued him a citation and/or a summons (depending on the damage level). Once I told her the other driver was cooperating, damage appeared minor, and there were no injuries, the law was no longer required to engage (from their point of view).

@HonestReview, the other driver wasn't absolved of anything. Whether I like it or not, what I described above is how the law in this locality is going to respond in this day and age. The pic of the front fender above is his car, not mine, and like I said, all that damage didn't come from my vehicle. My paint was just scuffed.

I looked over my vehicle pretty thoroughly at the scene. It was/is apparent that the only damage is scuffed paint. My mechanic will look underneath today just in case. Should he find anything, I have his insurance info and the video.

We were both very lucky. He had a very young teenage girl in the passenger seat. A little further to the right where he would have made full contact with my LR wheel and her life might have been changed forever.

Arizona statutes notwithstanding, call priorities, manning levels, COVID, blame whatever you want, that's how they handle these kinda things right now.

 

[KANNINA 2.0]

Except it's not a duck or a goose. Watch the video again. That black car merges illegally from a turn only lane with a solid white line. So the white car while speeding, could argue he swerved to miss hitting the black car. Doesn't give him an excuse for driving like a jerk, hitting OP, and running. But it could very well be argued that black car was at partial or full fault for causing the accident.

Not giving the idiot in the black car a pass, he was a dumbass and started the chain of events for sure.

The whole situation was a two-for-one idiot driver special for me...

That said, while we're taught--in your country as well as mine--that you don't cross solid lines on the road, here at least, it's not technically illegal.

Traffic code says not to do it, but this has been brought to court here before and there is case law addressing this particular situation. A driver finding himself in a turn lane enclosed by solid lines can leave that lane before entering the intersection--if it is safe to do so--when he realizes that he doesn't need to/want to turn at the intersection. He's only legally obligated to turn if he enters the intersection in that turn lane.

So--technically--crossing the solid line wasn't his mistake, nor was it illegal. Not checking that his way was clear was the problem...

 

[kamkar]

Yellow is the same as red here, so any hint of it and you better be on the middle pedal. ( even if in general Danes understand this as get on the right pedal )

I think you called him, for what he is " DA MOFO " and i know those very well, use to be one myself, and that was like looking in some wierd kind of -20 years time shift mirror.

 

[KANNINA 2.0]

Yellow is the same as red here, so any hint of it and you better be on the middle pedal. ( even if in general Danes understand this as get on the right pedal )

I think you called him, for what he is " DA MOFO " and i know those very well, use to be one myself, and that was like looking in some wierd kind of -20 years time shift mirror.

Law is different here. And even different by state and locality.

In Arizona, if the light is yellow when you enter the intersection, you're legal to carry through, even if it turns red while you're in it.

Personally, I think that's idiotic, as it encourages light runners.

 

[kamkar]

Same here, the police will give you some slack, but i think if it change to red before you are out of the intersection, you will get a fine and 1 of 3 marks on your license.
The Danish traffic code say " if stopping for yellow mean you will endanger others there ( loose control of vehicle ) then you can proceed thru yellow light ", otherwise you must stop.
And so when people see a yellow light they floor it.
And i cant say i too fall into this trap now and then, but i dont think it is as bad now as when i was a DA MOFO.

Fortunately for the people with a skewed attitude, this traffic code are not really enforced, in my birth town the #2 largest here, in the entire municipality there is a yellow light campaign every year, but it is only backed up by police for 8 hours in a couple of intersections.
And really the Danish police are way too understaffed to deal with such "minor" things,,,, but i think even if they was staffed much better, they would not do much in this regard even if it is a well known issue,,,,,, and all of that is just one big embarrassment for the new me.

PS: they have tried red light running cameras,,,,, for about 6 months then the rest of those poor cameras was taken down.

I think they should station a national guard man at every intersection,,,,,, with orders to fire at that kind of people. That should fix the problem.

PPS. in the old days you could just look at the light for pedestrians in the same direction as you, they would get a red light a few seconds before you would get a yellow light, but now intersections are "smart" so they do not work like that.