Traffic question

[skimomma]

Help settle a dispute.

 

Say you are on a non-divided state highway with two lanes in both directions.  The highway snakes through lots of small/medium-sized towns so traffic slows, the road might have curves/turns, and the road essentially narrows since there are no shoulders in town, just parking and sidewalks.  There is a lot of thru-traffic on these roads and therefore a lot of semi-trucks, logging trucks, and other large vehicles.  On the curvy parts of these roads, the large vehicles cannot make the turns without taking up both same-direction lanes.  Cars generally know to hang back or get ahead of trucks before a curve.  The more experienced truck drivers will start to force their way to straddle the two lanes well before the curves so cars cannot accidentally end up next to them.

 

Who is at fault if a car does end up next to a truck on a curve and is hit, the driver of the car or truck?

[SparklyUnicorn]

The truck. 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Or more the truck driver.  Trucks don't generally drive themselves.

 

 

[Annie G]

If the truck requires both lanes and the car was already beside him, the truck should slow down to let the car get ahead before the curve.  But if the car sped up going into the curve intentionally to get ahead, well, that seems to be partially the car's fault. 

 

I'm having a tough time, though...are you talking about a curve or a turn? I've never seen a truck need two lanes for a curve but definitely for a turn. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I assume that the truck driver can manage to stay in one lane, but would have to slow down a lot.  So that is what he/she must do.  Might be annoying to him and everyone else, but that's more important than potentially killing someone.  I've seen truck drivers make hairpin turns so I am pretty sure they can manage staying in their lane. 

[JustEm]

Truck driver. The reality is he could only use one lane on the curves by slowing down but chooses not to.

[TechWife]

The truck driver. If he can't manage to stay in one lane, he needs to find another job. Skilled drivers don't need to take two lanes on a curve or turn. They drive trucks through the mountains and in cities all the time. 

[skimomma]

Truck driver. The reality is he could only use one lane on the curves by slowing down but chooses not to.

 

The speed limit is 25mph and the trucks are generally going well under that.  The "curves" in question are 90 degrees and it is actually impossible for some (most, actually) trucks to take those and stay in their lane.  The particular stretch of road I am thinking of has two 90 degree turns, one right, one left, within a 200 foot stretch of road.  There is no shoulder and due to heavy snowfall, the road is often even narrower because of plow mounds.  There are a few other examples of this situation in my area.  Everyone seems to know what to do and I have not seen or heard of a collision in this situation.  The "dispute" came up when a group of us were discussing driver-less cars and how they would "read" what we all thought was the car driver's responsibility to allow the truck to have both lanes.  After discussion, we wondered if it really was the car driver's responsibility or the truck driver's.  

 

So for discussion's sake, assume that the trucks indeed cannot navigate the curves without using both lanes....even if you think that is crazy or impossible.

[Dmmetler]

I did my driver's ed behind the wheel class in a mountainous region with tight curves, and the rule of thumb was to give trucks and farm machinery space-you can decelerate and get behind them far more easily than they can, and they often cannot easily make those turns in one lane.  In some cases, we're talking roads where the lanes are narrow enough that even a big SUV or full sized van has no wiggle room before falling out of their lane, and where it can be a little nervewracking to pass a car going the other way because it's so tight, even in smaller vehicles. This was also an area where it was taught to beep your horn before entering blind curves-and if you heard someone else's horn-especially a truck's air horn, to pause and wait before entering. The fact is, if the truck needs a lane plus a bit, and there's no shoulder and nothing but a guardrail keeping you from going down the mountain, it doesn't matter if you're in the "Right" to not wait for the truck-waiting can save your life.  I've noticed that I yield far more readily than my city-raised DH.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by dmmetler

[SparklyUnicorn]

The speed limit is 25mph and the trucks are generally going well under that.  The "curves" in question are 90 degrees and it is actually impossible for some (most, actually) trucks to take those and stay in their lane.  The particular stretch of road I am thinking of has two 90 degree turns, one right, one left, within a 200 foot stretch of road.  There is no shoulder and due to heavy snowfall, the road is often even narrower because of plow mounds.  There are a few other examples of this situation in my area.  Everyone seems to know what to do and I have not seen or heard of a collision in this situation.  The "dispute" came up when a group of us were discussing driver-less cars and how they would "read" what we all thought was the car driver's responsibility to allow the truck to have both lanes.  After discussion, we wondered if it really was the car driver's responsibility or the truck driver's.  

 

So for discussion's sake, assume that the trucks indeed cannot navigate the curves without using both lanes....even if you think that is crazy or impossible.

 

Assuming it is true that it is impossible, maybe trucks should not even be allowed there.

[Dmmetler]

Assuming it is true that it is impossible, maybe trucks should not even be allowed there.

 

And how do you propose food and supplies get to the communities that happen to have such roads? Normally there are truck routes where possible (you don't find such turns on interstates, for example), but people do live in rural areas.

[JustEm]

Driver less cars make decisions based on proximity to other cars. So if the truck is driving incorrectly in the programs mind then it will keep a safe distance. It will likely slow down to let the truck pass because it is likely programmes to drive defensively. Speeding passed and dangerous driver isn't defensive driving.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Generally the truck driver will be at fault.  "Everyone else knows to hang back" isn't a valid defense if an accident does occur.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And how do you propose food and supplies get to the communities that happen to have such roads? Normally there are truck routes where possible (you don't find such turns on interstates, for example), but people do live in rural areas.

 

By using smaller or trucks or using flag trucks that warn oncoming traffic that the trucks will be going into the other lane.

[SparklyUnicorn]

And how do you propose food and supplies get to the communities that happen to have such roads? Normally there are truck routes where possible (you don't find such turns on interstates, for example), but people do live in rural areas.

 

Yeah I know.  I frankly just don't believe that the truck can't stay in the lane.  Yes, it might mean the truck has to drive like a snail, but I find a hard time believing it cannot be done.

There are usually other routes too.  If there absolutely is not and accidents like this are happening left and right then maybe something needs to be done.

 

I'm not saying the car driver did the safest thing, but gee I would not have assumed a truck was going to end up in the lane I'm in.  I avoid driving near a truck like the plague, but sometimes it just happens briefly.

[Carrie12345]

And how do you propose food and supplies get to the communities that happen to have such roads? Normally there are truck routes where possible (you don't find such turns on interstates, for example), but people do live in rural areas.

 

There are lots of roads near me that ban tractor trailers.  We have enough regular automobile accidents as it is!

[SparklyUnicorn]

There are lots of roads near me that ban tractor trailers.  We have enough regular automobile accidents as it is!

 

Same here.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I live in a city with heavy traffic in some parts.  There are very sharp turns.  I have seen truck drivers make the tightest turns.  I mean the sorts of turns I've seen car drivers who have tiny cars screw up.  It can be done by a skilled driver and yes they have to go very slowly sometimes.  Better to have to go slowly than kill people. 

 

 

[Lady Marmalade]

The state of Wisconsin JUST passed a law in the last few weeks that now allows truck drivers to take up multiple lanes in times of need.  Just this week I watched a truck pull into a roundabout and immediately straddle a white line and take up both lanes going around.  DH says it is especially useful for roundabouts and making sharp turns.  In the instance you describe, under the new laws here the car driver would be at fault. 

[zoobie]

Truck. The trucking company needs to use equipment that is able to navigate the roads or send a flag car with the larger truck. If the car has never been there before, he has no way of foreseeing the truck can't maintain its lane around the next curve. I've seen trucks intentionally take up two lanes (drive on top of dashed lane divider) for a sharp curve. They shouldn't be ticketed for that.

Edited April 28, 2016 by zoobie

[SparklyUnicorn]

The state of Wisconsin JUST passed a law in the last few weeks that now allows truck drivers to take up multiple lanes in times of need.  Just this week I watched a truck pull into a roundabout and immediately straddle a white line and take up both lanes going around.  DH says it is especially useful for roundabouts and making sharp turns.  In the instance you describe, under the new laws here the car driver would be at fault. 

 

Strikes me as a very dangerous and ridiculous law.  In a situation where a truck driver can do so safely (for example it is very obvious to all the drivers around) then that seems fine.  But giving blanket permission to do this basically could have the result of absolving them from any accident irregardless of their recklessness. 

[skimomma]

There are lots of roads near me that ban tractor trailers.  We have enough regular automobile accidents as it is!

 

I won't go too far into the specifics because I realize how ridiculous it sounds to people who do not live here.  

 

Just assume that the trucks must travel on this stretch of road and that they cannot make the turn without entering the other lane.    It is the local default that the car drivers do what they have to to stay out of the way because no one cares who is "right" when you have just been squished by a logging truck.  But it is sounding like it the legally the responsibility of the truck driver to do what they have to to approach a curve without possibility of a collision.  They do usually squeeze out the other lane before the actual curve by straddling the two lanes if a car (or cars) is not proactively backing off or zipping ahead to clear the lane.

 

There are other completely ridiculous driving situations in my area that most people would never believe but that are "routine" here.  This is not even close to the most ridiculous.

[TammyS]

And how do you propose food and supplies get to the communities that happen to have such roads? Normally there are truck routes where possible (you don't find such turns on interstates, for example), but people do live in rural areas.

 

Smaller trucks. 

 

I understand the problem.  I live in an extremely rural area (the closest small town is 12 miles away), on a road that is basically a lane and a half, and cars yield for each other all the time here.  My dad drove trucks for almost 50 years, and he would say the same thing - smaller trucks.  You don't send big rigs onto a thru-highway where they can't operate in their lane.  It's unfair to cars and trucks, and someone will eventually get killed.

[skimomma]

The state of Wisconsin JUST passed a law in the last few weeks that now allows truck drivers to take up multiple lanes in times of need.  Just this week I watched a truck pull into a roundabout and immediately straddle a white line and take up both lanes going around.  DH says it is especially useful for roundabouts and making sharp turns.  In the instance you describe, under the new laws here the car driver would be at fault. 

 

Ah.  That is very interesting!  I do have to wonder if we have a similar law in the books.  I don't remember it from driver's ed but at that time I lived where this was never an issue.  Off to look.....

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well and think about the fact that NYC is a hellish place to drive through and yet there probably are tons of trucks that need to get in and out of there.  They manage in tight spaces all the time.

 

It's a matter of (too many) people's attitude in general of selfishness, lack of patience, and disregard for the traffic rules that they seem to think are only friendly recommendations.

 

 

[The Governess]

It may be that the fault is placed with the road design. If it's too narrow for two allowable-sized vehicles to safely maneuver through the turns side by side and stay in their lanes, the lanes should be merged into one lane before the turns start so more room is available, and then split back into two lanes once the turns are done. I've driven on many roads that are designed this way.

[TammyS]

Legally speaking, the truck driver would be at fault.  If this road is as bad as you say, the trucking companies should use shorter trailers, maybe pups or even box trucks if necessary.  But they will be legally held responsible if they cause an accident.

 

Of course, we are all ultimately responsible for our own lives, and car drivers should understand the reality that they will lose against a big rig and just stay the heck out of his way and out of his blindspots.  All the rightness and big $$ settlements in the world will be of no comfort to your family when you're dead.

[skimomma]

It may be that the fault is placed with the road design. If it's too narrow for two allowable-sized vehicles to safely maneuver through the turns side by side and stay in their lanes, the lanes should be merged into one lane before the turns start so more room is available, and then split back into two lanes once the turns are done. I've driven on many roads that are designed this way.

 

This is for sure the real issue.  The issue with this road is brought to the state every single year by the towns it travels through.  It is a state highway so the town cannot do anything about how many lanes or the rules of what kind of vehicles can travel on them.  For many reasons, the state really does not consider this issue a priority and it will likely not be resolves anytime soon.  So we are left to manage it using the actual traffic laws and everyone's desire to not die.

 

But, I am sensing the majority opinion is (assuming there is no law like WI) that it is ultimately the truck driver's legal responsibility to do what they have to to navigate the curves without collision rather than the car driver.

 

Therefore a driver-less car would approach the curve without consideration for the truck needing that lane cleared and the truck would have to work around that.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Therefore a driver-less car would approach the curve without consideration for the truck needing that lane cleared and the truck would have to work around that.

 

I don't think I'll ever get on board with this idea.  (of a driver less car).  I would be a wreck sitting in a car that was driving itself!

[SparklyUnicorn]

This is for sure the real issue.  The issue with this road is brought to the state every single year by the towns it travels through.  It is a state highway so the town cannot do anything about how many lanes or the rules of what kind of vehicles can travel on them.  For many reasons, the state really does not consider this issue a priority and it will likely not be resolves anytime soon.  So we are left to manage it using the actual traffic laws and everyone's desire to not die.

 

But, I am sensing the majority opinion is (assuming there is no law like WI) that it is ultimately the truck driver's legal responsibility to do what they have to to navigate the curves without collision rather than the car driver.

 

Therefore a driver-less car would approach the curve without consideration for the truck needing that lane cleared and the truck would have to work around that.

 

Although thinking about this some more.  If someone is designing a driver-less car and deciding what decisions the car should make, they should not always have the car make decisions based on who has the right of way or what the law says.  I often don't take my right of way or do what I have the right to do if I feel as if it would be safer to just yield to the other person (doing what they aren't supposed to be doing). The whole defensive driving thing.  This attitude of "I have the right of way" got my dad in trouble a lot.  He was in several accidents that were never his fault, but often times they probably could have been avoided if he had a better attitude.  I don't need to be right and defend my rights.  I want to be safe and not crack my car up. 

Edited April 28, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[skimomma]

I don't think I'll ever get on board with this idea.  (of a driver less car).  I would be a wreck sitting in a car that was driving itself!

 

Yeah.  Me too.

 

I mentioned that we routinely deal with far more ridiculous driving issues.  This is just one of many things I see as incompatible with driver-less cars.  Like does the driver-less car people know how to program the traffic etiquette when the morning school bus is sliding out of control down the hill?  We all know this happens routinely.  We know where to go and what to look for on an icy morning.  We know that bus is not going to be able to stop at the stop sign.  It cannot almost once a week all winter.  There is no way I'm leaving that decision up to a program.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah.  Me too.

 

I mentioned that we routinely deal with far more ridiculous driving issues.  This is just one of many things I see as incompatible with driver-less cars.  Like does the driver-less car people know how to program the traffic etiquette when the morning school bus is sliding out of control down the hill?  We all know this happens routinely.  We know where to go and what to look for on an icy morning.  We know that bus is not going to be able to stop at the stop sign.  It cannot almost once a week all winter.  There is no way I'm leaving that decision up to a program.

 

Yeah I wonder how they can get a computer/machine to make these nuanced decisions. 

[zoobie]

The state of Wisconsin JUST passed a law in the last few weeks that now allows truck drivers to take up multiple lanes in times of need. Just this week I watched a truck pull into a roundabout and immediately straddle a white line and take up both lanes going around. DH says it is especially useful for roundabouts and making sharp turns. In the instance you describe, under the new laws here the car driver would be at fault.

The law may simply allow trucks to use both lanes when it is safe to do so without fear of getting a failure to maintain lane ticket. The truck can't cross safely into the other lane if there's another car there. He would have to wait until it's empty. I haven't read the law, but allowing the use of both lanes when safe wouldn't shift the liability of unsafe lane usage onto the other car.

[Carol in Cal.]

The truck.

 

The food should be loaded into smaller trucks for that area if the big trucks really can't drive safely there.  That's just a basic common sense precaution.

[Pawz4me]

The truck drive would be at fault.

 

Even if there are laws that allow them to take up two lanes in certain circumstances, I feel certain they would be required to do so in a safe manner.  Not by running another vehicle off the road or causing a collision.

[Tap]

While the truck driver may need to use both lanes to navigate the curve, they may only do so if they are not being used by another car at the time.   If there is any obstruction in the other lane, the truck driver would be expect to adjust speed/stop and let the other car pass by, before entering the other lane.  

 

If the car has to accelerate to an speed over the legal speed limit, or go off the marked lines to pass the truck, then they would be in violation of  basic safety rules and due to that, they would most likely be deemed at fault. This would be only because they were driving illegally at the time of the accident.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I won't go too far into the specifics because I realize how ridiculous it sounds to people who do not live here.  

 

Just assume that the trucks must travel on this stretch of road and that they cannot make the turn without entering the other lane.    It is the local default that the car drivers do what they have to to stay out of the way because no one cares who is "right" when you have just been squished by a logging truck.  But it is sounding like it the legally the responsibility of the truck driver to do what they have to to approach a curve without possibility of a collision.  They do usually squeeze out the other lane before the actual curve by straddling the two lanes if a car (or cars) is not proactively backing off or zipping ahead to clear the lane.

 

There are other completely ridiculous driving situations in my area that most people would never believe but that are "routine" here.  This is not even close to the most ridiculous.

 

I understand exactly the situation you are describing, however, fault in accidents is not assigned based on what is "understood" in the region. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

While the truck driver may need to use both lanes to navigate the curve, they may only do so if they are not being used by another car at the time.   If there is any obstruction in the other lane, the truck driver would be expect to adjust speed/stop and let the other car pass by, before entering the other lane.  

 

If the car has to accelerate to an speed over the legal speed limit, or go off the marked lines to pass the truck, then they would be in violation of  basic safety rules and due to that, they would most likely be deemed at fault. This would be only because they were driving illegally at the time of the accident.

 

100% correct.  My guess is the new Wisconsin law mentioned only allows trucks to cross into the other lane when it is safe to do so, and that it is the responsibility of the truck driver to make sure they can do so without causing a collision.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I understand exactly the situation you are describing, however, fault in accidents is not assigned based on what is "understood" in the region. 

 

Yeah I thought this too.  I wouldn't know what the regional custom is.  And whenever in a situation in an area I am familiar with I do not assume everyone else on the road knows this either.

Kinda like this one intersection in the city that is notorious for people running the red light during rush hour traffic.  I mean like 5-6 cars will keep going after the red light.  It happens because it gets so backed up in that spot during certain times that people get frustrated with not being able to move after three lights in a row.  Someone not familiar with this could end up in a bad accident.  That would not take the fault off the people who ran the light though because the point of a red light is to stop!!  I stop.  People don't like it.  Oh well.  They aren't going to buy me a new car or pay my traffic ticket or my higher insurance premiums if I get caught.  They aren't going to pay my therapy bills either when I am the one who caused someone's injury or death. 

[Bluegoat]

This is true of a lot of turns in my city - they are very narrow and the choice is the truck takes up two lanes, or goes well over the curb.  It's just a feature of an older city.

 

I would say though it is most likely the trucks fault.  They have to accomodate for this.  The only exception would be if the truck was already well into the turn or curve and the car darted up from behind.  Which would be a crazy stupid thing to do, but I don't see howthe truck driver could help it.  And no one should shoot into what should clearly be an accident causing situation.

[Bluegoat]

Strikes me as a very dangerous and ridiculous law.  In a situation where a truck driver can do so safely (for example it is very obvious to all the drivers around) then that seems fine.  But giving blanket permission to do this basically could have the result of absolving them from any accident irregardless of their recklessness. 

 

I don't see how.  It just means that everyone has to take into account that in that region, because of the particular landforms or infrastructure, the rules are different.

 

So you give big trucks room.

 

I've ben in rural areas where big trucks on narrow dirt logging roads are common.  You just know that you have to listen for them and give them the right of way in those places.

[Rebel Yell]

The truck driver. If he can't manage to stay in one lane, he needs to find another job. Skilled drivers don't need to take two lanes on a curve or turn. They drive trucks through the mountains and in cities all the time.

I see these on trucks all the time. It makes sense to me that if a truck needs two lanes to make a turn at an intersection that it would need more space on a part of the road that makes a tight turn.

http://www.accuform.com/safety-label/traffic-safety-labels-LVHR610

[skimomma]

 

 

The food should be loaded into smaller trucks for that area if the big trucks really can't drive safely there.  That's just a basic common sense precaution.

 

Food trucks are only one problem.  Massive logging trucks are the biggest culprits.  While I would love for them to be forced to use smaller trucks, I doubt the logging lobby groups are going to ever allow that.  Logging is one of our biggest industries.

[skimomma]

This is true of a lot of turns in my city - they are very narrow and the choice is the truck takes up two lanes, or goes well over the curb.  It's just a feature of an older city.

 

 

 

Exactly.  These towns' city blocks were built before cars were a remote possibility.  Widening the road would mean tearing down the entire downtown.  And yes, the choice for a truck is take up both lanes or clip the sidewalk.  I vote for making it one lane but that is the state's decision and this fish is so tiny compared to the crumbling road situation in my state that there is no hope it will ever be properly addressed.

[Lady Marmalade]

The law may simply allow trucks to use both lanes when it is safe to do so without fear of getting a failure to maintain lane ticket. The truck can't cross safely into the other lane if there's another car there. He would have to wait until it's empty. I haven't read the law, but allowing the use of both lanes when safe wouldn't shift the liability of unsafe lane usage onto the other car.

 

I haven't read the law myself, DH is the one with the CDL who needs to know it.  :)  But yes, I would assume there is language there about "safe to do so".

 

I think it still puts the responsibility on the car driver though, because one of the basics learned in driver's ed is about that dreaded space next to a tractor-trailer that is known to be their blind spot.  It might appear safe to the truck driver because they can't see that little Prius chuging along in it's blind spot. 

[MistyMountain]

I think it is more the truck drivers fault. There will be drivers who are inexperienced with the area or new drivers who will not know what people in the area do. There might be people who do not realize the truck will be taking up two lanes. A driver should be aware and drive cautiously of course but I think the truck driver has more culpability.

[SKL]

I think legally the truck driver / owner is liable if the truck hit the car.  If the car hit the truck, then the car driver would be liable.

 

I have heard just in the common sense realm that a car driver should hang back when a truck is about to take a turn or a tight-ish curve.  But I was never taught it as a law / rule.  Truth be told, I caught myself not following this advice about a month ago.  :p

Edited April 28, 2016 by SKL

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think legally the truck driver / owner is liable if the truck hit the car.  If the car hit the truck, then the car driver would be liable.

 

Depends, but if the truck driver enters unto the other lane and the car can't avoid him they would not be responsible. (To clarify, the driver of the car would not be responsible.)

Edited April 28, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Tsuga]

Assuming it is true that it is impossible, maybe trucks should not even be allowed there.

Yes. A million times yes.

 

The companies paying the truckers will simply have to find another way to transport those goods.

 

You cannot take up the oncoming lane with no sight of oncoming traffic. Full stop.

 

If this prevents families from getting food, then the municipality and state need to get their stuff together and improve the road.

[Tsuga]

Exactly. These towns' city blocks were built before cars were a remote possibility. Widening the road would mean tearing down the entire downtown. And yes, the choice for a truck is take up both lanes or clip the sidewalk. I vote for making it one lane but that is the state's decision and this fish is so tiny compared to the crumbling road situation in my state that there is no hope it will ever be properly addressed.

If someone dies it might be. They need to re-do the highway elsewhere or simply transport lettuce via train.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Tsuga