The Glade 4.0

This is the part you are misunderstanding, in the case of stop-sign controlled intersections. A vehicle that has not yet reached the stop sign does not constitute a "vehicle so close as to constitute an immediate hazard" because that vehicle is still obligated to come to a complete stop. Stop signs are not optional and have nothing to do with right of way; one must stop at them even if no other vehicle is present at all. If a vehicle is turning left and is already within the intersection, there is always time to clear the intersection by the time the opposing driver comes to a complete stop and accelerates again.

Now, it might be a good idea to let them go ahead if you're an unreasonably slow person about making your left turns (i.e. tractor trailer, old person, Mexican... etc. and yes, they turn REALLY slow and like to stare at green lights for 5 seconds before proceeding.. but I digress) or if you think they're likely to run the stop sign because A) you don't want to wreck and get hurt and B) if it comes down to your word against theirs that they actually did stop at the sign, again, it's a lot easier to prove that you turned left than that they didn't stop - the left turn is shown by the evidence of the wreck.

Even that isn't always the case, however. If the vehicle turning left is unusually large and cumbersome, or the vehicle struck was struck near the rear portions, its pretty easy for me to prove the vehicle going straight either blew the stop sign or intentionally ran into the vehicle going left (which in the case of tractor trailers would not be surprising; there are billboards down here advertising lawyers who will get you "a check" for 18-wheeler wrecks). Every driver must always exercise due care to avoid accidents, so if someone is turning left in an unreasonably slow manner, or is driving a large cumbersome vehicle, that does not mean one can run into them without fault after making a complete stop.

Whether that was the case will be apparent from the location of impact; near the front of the vehicle turning left indicates that the vehicle turning left did so in front of the other vehicle who could not react; near the rear of the vehicle turning left indicates that the driver going straight either failed to stop at the stop sign or was not paying attention and proceeded straight when the other driver was already well into the turn and could have been easily avoided.



While this is correct, technically, it addresses the narrow case of when 2 drivers arrive more or less simultaneously. Remember that a driver at a stop sign has not yet entered the intersection, and it is reasonable for drivers to assume that other drivers will obey traffic control devices. If 2 drivers going opposite directions arrive at the same time, both may enter the intersection safely, but if one wants to turn left then they should not physically commence the turn until the other vehicle is clear. If the vehicle going straight is not yet stopped at the stop sign when the other vehicle enters the intersection, the vehicle turning left should proceed through smoothly, and the vehicle going straight must hold their stop until the intersection is clear. In this case, it doesn't matter "who entered the intersection first" because the vehicle at the stop sign has no business entering the intersection at all until the other one is clear. That's the purpose of stopping at a stop sign; to ensure that one may proceed safely.



Strictly speaking, you are correct. The "alternation rule" is not written down and is not an actual rule. The "alteration rule" is the result of all the other rules regarding stops and left turns interacting with each other to (theoretically)allow safe and orderly procession.


No. Both of these are incorrect. B has already made his stop, and entered the intersection, while A has not yet made a stop. Because he must make a stop and then proceed again when the intersection is clear he does not "constitute an immediate hazard" no matter how physically close he is to the intersection. A does not need to complete his turn before B completes his stop because B is obligated to stop, and the purpose of the stop is to ensure the intersection is clear; A is within the intersection whereas B is not until he passes the stop line.

The stop is not a mere formality one must observe (nor, for that matter, is any other traffic rule). In all case, drivers must exercise due care before proceeding. If another driver is already in the intersection and turning left, the driver coming to the stop must hold their stop and not proceed until the other driver is clear. Again, consider the 18-wheeler. Due to the size and amount of time this vehicle needs to turn, it would be nearly impossible to turn at intersections not controlled by traffic lights during even moderately busy times. Traffic laws reflect this.

The act of the left turn is to be done as one complete action; one does not pull into the intersection then stop to wait for other traffic to pass at an intersection controlled by a stop sign. This is done either at A) uncontrolled intersections where oncoming traffic does NOT stop at all, or B) when at a green light without a protected left turn, so that at least one vehicle may turn left each cycle.



Except that this actually isn't correct; you are being fooled by the term "so close as to constitute an immediate hazard". That's quite understandable, as the intuitive assumption is that it refers to physical distance, when it actually refers to distance in time. Because of the legal obligation to come to a complete stop, and not proceed until the way is clear, there is always time to turn left if you arrive at the intersection first.

Now, by first I mean "clearly so" not "my wheels technically stopped rolling 2 seconds before his". There will always be marginal cases, but in those cases, pretty much everything you said would be correct because we cannot establish who exactly was there first without impartial witnesses.

Texasa traffic control devices



Once you are stopped at an intersection, if someone else is proceeding in front of you either by crossing your path or turning left in front of you, you may not start again until they have cleared.

Texas traffic definitions



The obligation to stop necessarily includes the obligation not to start movement again when a collision would clearly result. The traffic laws do not allow people to cause accidents on the basis that they observed a formality, as due care is always expected.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Bah. The rules of the highway are clear.

If you give Jackie a fraction of a second delay, then she'll get right-of-way, because of your indecisive ***.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No, I understand that, but:


Not always, even if you aren't a slow driver. But I think we're talking about slightly different things:


Ah, but this is exactly the situation I was talking about. Sorry if that was unclear. If you have enough time to make it through the intersection completely before the oncoming vehicle completes their stop, then you do have right-of-way.

Where things get confusing is when the left-turn vehicle arrives shortly, but unambiguously first. Most people think that they have the right-of-way to turn left ahead of the oncoming vehicle in this situation, but legally speaking they actually don't. Practically speaking, most drivers will expect you to go ahead and turn left ahead of them in this situation, and not doing so will probably just anger and confuse them. I'm not saying you shouldn't go ahead and turn -- 99 times out of 100 in this situation, I would too -- but keep a "weather eye" on the oncoming vehicle. If they don't yield to you, and there's an collision, the law is not on your side because you technically shouldn't have been turning in front of them.

The only thing we seem to be disagreeing about is this:


That's an oversimplification.
Observing the stop sign only requires you to come to a complete stop. Right of way is a separate issue that follows from 304.351 4(a), not from the stop sign statues which are off in some other section. I didn't quote those because they weren't really relevant. The language of 304.351 4(a) is quite specific. When proceeding from a complete stop at a stop sign, you only have to hold your stop for vehicles that are already in the intersection from the other roadway.

Well, we're mixing states again. But that aside, read that statute again. It's a "pronged" definition - (A) defines what "stop" or "stopping" means when those things are required. (B) defines what it means when it is prohibited. A stop sign falls under (A): Stop means stop. Right-of-way is something else altogether. You had it right the first time:




Philosophically, yes. But the way traffic laws are structured, there are a couple situation where it is unfortunately very easy to cause an accident that will place the other guy at fault, even when they are the stricken vehicle. If you strike someone who is making a left turn or proceeding from yield sign, it's treated as prima facie evidence that they are at fault. In TX this is literally codified in 545.153(d):

The left turn code is a little softer, but it still gets handled about the same way since it's a broad statue for all left turns:

I mean, yeah, the law doesn't give you a license to ram people who are violating the traffic rules, but good luck proving that. The prima facie evidence puts you at an automatic disadvantage to begin with, on top of which proving something intangible like deliberation is a lot harder than proving a tangible fact like direction and location. It's like T-boning someone who ran a red light. If you do it deliberately, that's not okay, but it's an uphill battle to prove that it wasn't really an accident.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but in reality you will face no uphill battle at all.

First, "philosophically, yes". The fact that there are ways to get away with breaking the law doesn't mean that's how the law works. It means there's a limit to the practicality of enforcing it.

Now, as to ramming people and getting away with it - good luck with THAT. If you actually do that, first, do it without witnesses.

Second, assuming there are none, why would anyone do that? To get a financial settlement? Ok, then you're going to need to hit them pretty hard, which means either blowing the stop sign or accelerating suddenly from it. A normal fender-bender isn't going to get you any money.

In either case, the force of the impact and possibly skid marks from accelerating are going to indicate that this wasn't simply a matter of failure to yield right-of-way.

That "prima facia" law specifically says "prima facia" because the law recognizes that there will be cases where it isn't true; the law is referring to the most common case, which is your typical fender bender from not signalling; again the intent is not to allow people to evade tickets from accidents when they carelessly (either by not paying attention or not signalling) a left turn by simply denying what happened and creating a "your word against mine" in the court room - the nature of the accident assigns blame.

However, all circumstances must be accounted for, and if the severity of the accident indicates that it wasn't one of those case, prima facia will fall by the wayside very rapidly.

This is how accident reconstructors make a living - in some cases, 6 figures.

You're trying to apply the words of the law without applying their intent, and you aren't considering the full range of possible scenarios in doing so. That's the mark of inexperience.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I know someone who once got her license suspended from intentionally ramming cars. I wouldn't recommend it.

Only suspended? I hope at least the suspension followed a good beating.

Presumably also involving a conviction for vehicular assault.

I'm surprised to hear you advocating beating women. Perhaps the police should start beating people who commit certain crimes? Would that be to your liking?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, but you should be beaten for not picking up on an obvious exaggeration.

Don't bite off more than you can chew.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As for stop signs, they are nothing more than recommended suggestions when on private property (like a large store's parking lot). If it's not a public road (or entering onto one), folks can ignore them all they wish, including right in front of a cop.

Who told me this? A cop, after I attempted (but failed) to avoid hitting another car along a thoroughfare in front of a large store chain.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

In an ironic twist, I apparently was one of those people who "don't know how to drive" the other night. In a minivan, no less.

We came off the freeway after a Christmas party (two beers over four hours), and I came up to the stop light, checked left, and made a right on red. Looking in my rear-view mirror, I notice there's someone one my bumper. Now, where the hell did he come from? I'm fairly certain there was no one coming when I made the turn.

He was mad; pulled around us, pulled back in front of us ... and then realized that the lane we were in was a left-turn only lane at the next light. So he pulls back into the middle lane. Light changes, he glares back at me, I ignore him.

The only thing I can figure out is that he was coming up really fast (too fast), which is why I may not have seen him. The other thing is that his car had seen an accident or two, giving the dented bumper. So I figure it wasn't really mu fault, he's obviously a shitty driver.

But it bugged me for a while, trying to figure out how I didn't see him, and where he came from.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

This sort of thing happens every once in a while. He may have been in another lane, and merged over into the right lane just as you were pulling into it or something.

One thing that drives me nuts is other people's seeming inability to anticipate where I might make a mistake.

For example, you're a pedestrian, and you're walking on the right side of the road to an intersection that has a guy waiting to turn right. Don't walk out in the road, even if you get a green light. He's probably looking left, and when he's clear, he's probably going to start moving as he looks forward again.

Don't pull out into an acceleration lane and stop. Guy behind you might be looking over his left shoulder to check traffic and accelerate into you. If you don't have enough room to fully accelerate into traffic, wait at the intersection until you do - not halfway down the accel lane.

If there's three lanes, and an open lane in the middle, check the lane next to it before merging into the open lane. Someone else might be doing the same.

Don't pull up right behind someone waiting for a light or at a stop sign if you're on a hill. Give them some room to roll back if they have a manual.

Don't inch forward toward the main drag at a stop sign if you aren't clear. You may scare the **** out of the guy on the main drag, even though you had no intention of pulling out.

Yeah, so true. Most people have no ability to think 15 seconds ahead apparently. When riding my bike in traffic, I can usually tell what someone's going to do before they do. Or at least, before they signal their intention (if in fact they do).

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

Gender doesn't predict stupid - If stupid hurt, there would be less of it.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Too many people drive like they expect everyone around them to do what they are supposed to do. Give people room to F up. Anticipate what people are going to do. If you push it to the point where perfection is needed from other drivers, you'll get in an accident. It won't be your fault, but you're still in an accident.

And when you do F up, wave /apologize, or take the bird like a man.

State of Texas, State of Missouri. That's the only part of this I'm going to inline.

At this point, your whole argument has devolved into, "I know the law doesn't say this, but somehow it's what the law really means!" Nope. I am not going down this road.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.