posted
OK this happened some weeks ago, and it has been sorted out, but I was thinking about it today.
I was in the car with my brother and as he was performing a left hand turn onto a blvd a woman in a truck on the opposite side of the road began executing the exact same maneuver thus setting us on a path to collision. My brother honked as she started pulling out but she kept going, my brother honked again and she just kept accelerating. My brother ended up just hitting the brakes as there was no way to avoid her, and we both just braced for the impact.
It was not too bad, we found out later that the driver of the other car was deaf, and my brother insists she was looking down while she was making her left turn which was why she missed our horn.
Anyway the police arrive and have us pull out of the way of traffic, ask my brother, the woman, and me about what happened. In the middle of all this I asked the cop if they were going to issue a citation or assign blame or anything like that as when I was in Washington and got into an accident that was my fault the cop cited me for failing to yield the right of way at the scene.
The cops informed me that the police do not assess blame at all and that that responsibility is purely the prerogative of the insurance companies.
Since then everyone, (no other policemen) I have asked has stated that the cops ALWAYS write up a report stating who they feel was at fault, whether it be one driver or both.
I'm guessing its a safe bet this varies from state to state, but if anyone, (looks over at Dag) knows anything about this sort of thing, I'd really like to know for future reference.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So did they not write a report at all? How else do they expect the insurance company to know who was at fault? Weird...
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No stop sign? one lane or two? In michigan if four cars come to a four-way stop at exactly the same time, all intent on going straight, the north car (the one driving south) has the right of way, followed by the one on his right, until all have gone. (at least this is what my father insists). It is very odd the the officer didn't write any report all though.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Utah has a no-fault insurance scheme, so fault determination in less serious accidents is unnecessary. Avoiding the effort of determining fault is one of the policy goals of no-fault schemes.
Washington does not have such a scheme.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone I know who called the cops on her knife wielding, crazed husband was told that they can't make an arrest on a first call. (Which was a load of crap.) Cops don't always know all the rules, or they may report on them differently depending on what they feel like doing at the time. They are not the final arbiters of justice. They keep the peace as best they can figure out.
Though I do think that in the average domestic dispute, they wonder a bit more "What would I want to happen to me as a guy" and not "What if this lady was my daughter?"
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though I do think that in the average domestic dispute, they wonder a bit more "What would I want to happen to me as a guy" and not "What if this lady was my daughter?"
Unless they are traveling through time to get to the call to when women weren't cops, I don't think that's all that accurate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had police officers write me citations because they apparently have to, then they themselves tell me "go to court for this." Sure enough, when I did they weren't there.
I was once in a car accident when the other person left the scene. I was *still* given a ticket because I was the only one there they could give a ticket to. Went to court, nobody else was there, end of story.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless they are traveling through time to get to the call to when women weren't cops, I don't think that's all that accurate.
Perhaps. How many forces do you know that are 50/50? I think it would be great if there were more female cops, but there aren't. Baltimore does have a lot of female traffic officers, probably 80%. So they probably have a lot of females on paper who don't go on patrols. From what I can tell, it's still a man's world out there. The L.A.P.D. force is 14.4% female.
String: It was not an intersection, we were pulling out of Mcdonalds and she was pulling out of Arbys. From our perspective the Arbys would pass us on our right probably right after the left turn was completed. As it turned out our car was almost completely straightened out in the suicide lane whereas her car was embedded into the front right side of our vehicle.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't that pooka's statement is accurate at all, particularily in the situations I have seen.
That's just my opinion, though.
I know that in MA if there is any physical violence between a male and a female and an arrest is made the man MUST be the one arrested. Even if he didn't commit a crime, and there were witnesses. They can arrest both and bring them in, or just the guy, but never just the women.
Even if she was the one with a knife (second hand experience with this one....I was a witness).
posted
I was told by the DA is was at the time. They might let him go after, but if any person is taken into custody the man MUST be, even if he did nothing but defend himself.
I was told it was formulated that way to protect women, because they are on average physically weaker, and if it came to a physical altercation on average men have the potential to do far more damage to a woman, comparably speaking.
My argument was that it doesn't take a lot of physical prowess to squeeze a trigger, so while that reasoning MAY have been valid 100 years ago, I didn't agree with it at all.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was told by the DA is was at the time. They might let him go after, but if any person is taken into custody the man MUST be, even if he did nothing but defend himself.
Kwea, that might be the policy - probably just in that jurisdiction within Massachusetts - but it's almost certainly not the law. In fact, it's almost certainly unconstitutional.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
