The official "Ask a cop/deputy anything!" thread

[Sedan_Clan]

Here is another school zone with consistent delineation. You would still need to stop in both directions.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by packet

Thank you.
If I'm deciphering it correctly, E. Temple Av (bottom pic) has the median?

Exactly. Drivers traveling eastbound would not have to stop for a bus that is stopped westbound.

[paquet]

Thank you for explaining!

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by packet

Thank you for explaining!

Any time. There is a lot of nuance in the vehicle code.

[paquet]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Any time. There is a lot of nuance in the vehicle code.

I was just re-reading this a few times until it finally sank in:

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Subsection (a) is where your school zones will be. Remember I asked a follow-up question to better understand what he was asking (…and what he meant by "divided"; the vehicle code's definition and a person's definition likely/usually differ). A divided roadway and a divided highway are two different things, and division usually refers to some sort of median or defined delineation. Most school zones have no delineation for opposing directions of travel and generally have no medians (…hence the reason for the vehicle code). If there's potential that a child could run into your path of travel, you need to stop. Thanks for playing though!

"A divided roadway and a divided highway are two different things, and division usually refers to some sort of median or defined delineation."

fuck every duck, that's a lot of specific stuff

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by packet

I was just re-reading this a few times until it finally sank in:

"A divided roadway and a divided highway are two different things, and division usually refers to some sort of median or defined delineation."

fuck every duck, that's a lot of specific stuff

Funny story…..


….Today I responded to a two-vehicle traffic collision where the driver of one vehicle merged into the lane inhabited by the driver of another. I'll save the boring details, but the driver who merged into the lane was sooooooo confident that because he used a turn signal, that provided him the right-of-way and the other driver should've yielded. Using my body worn camera I recorded the statement of all parties and a "witness" who also was eager to tell his story presuming the merging party was in the right. Side note: I think the witness wasn't truly there at the time of the collision and was a friend of the at-fault party trying to pad the story. In any case, the party who was overly confident was shocked when I told him, "Look, if I write this report I will be placing you at fault. It was your responsibility to merge into the other lane safely and only when it was prudent to do so. The other driver had dominion over his lane and he was not required to yield to you." The look on his face was worth two In & Out double-doubles. He replied, "Ehhhh, I don't need the report. I'll take my chances with the insurance."

[Fly320s]

That idea that the driver entering the roadway has the right of way has somehow become common. I see that all of the time around here.

[paquet]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Funny story…..


….Today I responded to a two-vehicle traffic collision where the driver of one vehicle merged into the lane inhabited by the driver of another. I'll save the boring details, but the driver who merged into the lane was sooooooo confident that because he used a turn signal, that provided him the right-of-way and the other driver should've yielded. Using my body worn camera I recorded the statement of all parties and a "witness" who also was eager to tell his story presuming the merging party was in the right. Side note: I think the witness wasn't truly there at the time of the collision and was a friend of the at-fault party trying to pad the story. In any case, the party who was overly confident was shocked when I told him, "Look, if I write this report I will be placing you at fault. It was your responsibility to merge into the other lane safely and only when it was prudent to do so. The other driver had dominion over his lane and he was not required to yield to you." The look on his face was worth two In & Out double-doubles. He replied, "Ehhhh, I don't need the report. I'll take my chances with the insurance."

that is taking dumb to a new level - common sense says there's somebody already there.
Sucks for the guy in the lane who got hit by that nutsack.
i'm surprised he didn't take the report - wouldn't he need that for any kind of insurance interaction?

In & Out double-doubles, eh? Just looked it up - that combo does sound really good.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by packet

that is taking dumb to a new level - common sense says there's somebody already there.
Sucks for the guy in the lane who got hit by that nutsack.
i'm surprised he didn't take the report - wouldn't he need that for any kind of insurance interaction?

In & Out double-doubles, eh? Just looked it up - that combo does sound really good.

You don't need a police report to file an insurance claim on a non-injury traffic collision despite what an insurance company will tell you. California only requires an exchange of information under those circumstances. He didn't take the report because placing him at fault would've resulted in a potential point on his license and increased insurance rates are always the result of an at-fault collision. Without my report he has a 50/50 shot of a favorable decision or at least a 50% fault decision. I should've just written the report though.

[paquet]

Got you - thank you for explaining. You're up late, chief.

I'm surprised the other person (who got hit) didn't want a report either

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Exactly. Drivers traveling eastbound would not have to stop for a bus that is stopped westbound.

Be advised that NY State law requires drivers to stop in both directions under this same scenario.....

[ramman434]

Y'all should see the traffic here in S. FL. Everyone feels entitled to merge into a lane whenever they want, but they don't bother using a turn signal to do so

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Exactly. Drivers traveling eastbound would not have to stop for a bus that is stopped westbound.

That was EXCTLY the situation with the missing actual school. Just a divided road (Temple) that I was driving East. Bus was on the West-bound side. All us East stopped anyways.

And regarding the flashers/corners: Not just MY neighborhood, I see it a lot everywhere. There is a significant spot at my corner, since there is a liquor store that cashes checks. Friday afternoon when everyone got paid, it's a mess. No parking spots, so just stop in the road, put on flashers, run inside to cash check. The safety issue on a narrow residential at a corner.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by packet

Got you - thank you for explaining. You're up late, chief.

I'm surprised the other person (who got hit) didn't want a report either

I worked until 6am (..my regular 10 hours plus 6 hours of O.T.). I'm freakin' tired, but it's day 2 of 4. The end of the week can't/won't come soon enough. Lol!

Originally Posted by UncleWede

That was EXCTLY the situation with the missing actual school. Just a divided road (Temple) that I was driving East. Bus was on the West-bound side. All us East stopped anyways.

Drivers just don't understand when they need to stop and when they don't. It's the same thing with regards to law enforcement or EMS/Fire rolling code. People will yield to the right when they don't need to (…e.g….enforcement vehicle/EMS/Fire rolling code westbound on a road with a partition wall or raised concrete center median and eastbound traffic will yield right).

[rwheels]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I worked until 6am (..my regular 10 hours plus 6 hours of O.T.). I'm freakin' tired, but it's day 2 of 4. The end of the week can't/won't come soon enough. Lol!





Drivers just don't understand when they need to stop and when they don't. It's the same thing with regards to law enforcement or EMS/Fire rolling code. People will yield to the right when they don't need to (…e.g….enforcement vehicle/EMS/Fire rolling code westbound on a road with a partition wall or raised concrete center median and eastbound traffic will yield right).

Is this the same as an island; hence a divided road?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by rwheels

Is this the same as an island; hence a divided road?

That is considered a divided roadway with a solid double-yellow line center median.

[rwheels]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

That is considered a divided roadway with a solid double-yellow line center median.

Therefore cars would have to yield to emergency vehicles, school buses, etc. on the opposing side, correct?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by rwheels

Therefore cars would have to yield to emergency vehicles, school buses, etc. on the opposing side, correct?

Yes! That would be correct.

[rwheels]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Yes! That would be correct.

Thank you very much for clarifying. I always had my doubts on this.

[IllSic_Design]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Funny story…..


….Today I responded to a two-vehicle traffic collision where the driver of one vehicle merged into the lane inhabited by the driver of another. I'll save the boring details, but the driver who merged into the lane was sooooooo confident that because he used a turn signal, that provided him the right-of-way and the other driver should've yielded. Using my body worn camera I recorded the statement of all parties and a "witness" who also was eager to tell his story presuming the merging party was in the right. Side note: I think the witness wasn't truly there at the time of the collision and was a friend of the at-fault party trying to pad the story. In any case, the party who was overly confident was shocked when I told him, "Look, if I write this report I will be placing you at fault. It was your responsibility to merge into the other lane safely and only when it was prudent to do so. The other driver had dominion over his lane and he was not required to yield to you." The look on his face was worth two In & Out double-doubles. He replied, "Ehhhh, I don't need the report. I'll take my chances with the insurance."

this is my biggest pet peeve! People seem to think nowadays that just because they put their blinker on that they can just move into the lane whenever they want and I need to slow down or let them in. I'm not sure how people came to believe this, but I see it atleast 5-10 times a day on my commute and its VERY frustrating. Especially when they are trying to move over/cut you off and going WAY slower than traffic in that lane.

[UncleWede]

Case in point when I came home today. Driver and passenger both in vehicle, looking down a driveway presumably waiting on a friend. The black car making everyone go around

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Case in point when I came home today. Driver and passenger both in vehicle, looking down a driveway presumably waiting on a friend. The black car making everyone go around

I would've honked.