Unprofessional truck driver and getting even

Forget legal right and wrong! Think moral right and wrong. If your kid (or spouse or best friend, or you) are entering the highway, do you want someone to help them out? I may back off or move over if it's safe just to let someone in. I hope someone will do that for me, but don't expect it. We're supposed to be professionals, and know how the non-professionals may behave (which is not always the right way). Be a professional, drive like a professional! We are the best drivers on the road, so we have to excuse the non-pros and make allowances for them. Be the best, and drive the best!

 

That was addressed from the very beginning. This situation requires alot of common sense. However, I do believe it should be told to drivers that do not know that if they do any maneuvers besides maintaining their speed and there was an accident because of what they did they may be held liable. For example, you could find yourself slowing down to let someone in but they're slowing down too and then they panic. I've seen this more times than I'd like to count. For many years I've done local driving with a very large truck and I've had to deal with inexperienced drivers on a daily basis. It's just safer for me, IF I CAN NOT MOVE OVER, to maintain my speed and let them adjust their speed to match the traffic.

I'm may be looking at this different than some of you guys because I do drive in the city. OTR I've never had a problem with vehicles merging onto the highway. You can see what's going to happen far enough away to make your adjustments to avoid any chances of an accident. That's easy. But in the city it's much different. I delivered gasoline the Las Vegas NV. I would bet you have the worse drivers there than anywhere else. Or at least the top 10 anyway. They're either in a hurry to loose their money or their a little drunk because they did. And you're 100% right about being professional drivers and that's exactly what the courts will say.

 

You should try English, your comprehension will improve. Both of my posts referencing merges are correct.

 

Ok sure, believe what you want. The facts are right there so I think my comprehension is fine.

 

This was an interesting discussion right up 'till you decided to cop an attitude, LostNFound.
Do YOU comprehend English?

Apparently the merge laws are different up north than they are down here in the lower 48 states. How hard is that to understand?

Scheese!
We're Americans.
Give us a break.

 

Actually, you haven't provided any facts ... other than poor comprehension.

 

You look at a couple of definitions and because they don't specify the exact wording for right-of-way you think no one must have it. And you think I have a comprehension problem! It's very obvious you couldn't even do a simple search to find what right-of-way means. You're the type that can never admit your wrong so this is a waste of time and no one benefits from it. That's the real shame.

 

Find the quote where I said "no one must have it" (or anything remotely similar). If it'll help you out, Aftershock was kind enough to pull all the posts together.

 

I noticed GasHauler said "you THINK (no one must have it)".
It's hard to read your thoughts, --- and thoughts can't be quoted.

Here in the U.S.A., there's a law called
Last Clear Chance.
That means that although a driver may not be breaking a law, and another driver IS breaking a law, the driver who isn't, and who may have the Last Clear Chance to AVOID an incident, is required by law to do what's necessary, within reason, to avoid said incident.

In other words, two wrongs don't make a right.

It's also illegal to cause another driver to take evasive action(s), like causing another driver to have to climb on the binders to avoid an incident, --- which would include an improper merge into traffic which has the right of way.

If merging traffic has the right of way, it sure would screw up traffic already on the highway and running at speed. It's up to the merging driver to SAFELY blend into existing traffic flow.
To expect existing traffic to adjust their speed to accommodate a poky driver entering the highway would cause major problems.

Following that logic, a driver entering a highway, and winds up driving under a Big truck's trailer, would be in the right, and the Big truck truck driver would be at fault.
Ergo, traffic merging into existing traffic flow YIELDS to existing traffic because existing traffic has the right of way.
As they should.
Which is the easier vehicle to stop --- the one goin' 50 MPH on the on ramp, or the existing traffic, which could be a Big truck, strollin' along at 70 MPH?
And what happens to the vehicle behind the vehicle braking heavily?
And the one behind that?

Even slowing down to allow a poky driver tryin' to enter the flow of traffic can cause problems if the vehicle behind the slowing vehicle decides to pass the slowing vehicle, and pull back in front of that slowing vehicle just in time to meet poky driver tryin' to merge at a slower speed.

WhaM!
How would y'all like to see THAT unfold right in front of y'all?
Chances are pretty good that y'all would collect the two crashed vehicles, especially if y'all were drivin' a Big truck.
Not a pretty picture, is it?

Of course there are circumstances, like short on ramps, that require existing traffic to adjust their speed accordingly and give 'em a break --- or a brake, sometimes. That's a given and I'm thinkin' most professional drivers do that when necessary. But in the event there's an incident, the vehicle entering the highway is generally viewed as being at fault for an unsafe maneuver, and/or causing another driver to take evasive actions.

There's also a law that a driver MUST be in control of their vehicle at ALL TIMES. A crash would indicate they weren't in control at that time. If they were, there'd be no incident.

Common sense helps a LOT.
Safety is NO accident.
Ya reckon.

 

Nah, I'm going to disagree with your interpretation and emphasis. GasHauler was accusing me of posting something I didn't.


You'd probably make a good politician...







if you didn't mind regularly wallowing in the gutter.

I don't dispute your explanation (and I appreciate you posting it).