都是Case by case的，具体情况具体分析。ICBC是懒，而且反正是垄断。真上了庭情况就可以不一样，尤其要开到南面去的话，好像严重超速本身就要入罪了。
写道:
Some other laws that often come into play in left turn cases include each driver’s obligation to keep a proper look out, drive with due care and attention, not to exceed the speed limit, driving appropriately for the weather conditions and not to enter an intersection at a red light.
In some cases the Court will find one party 100% at fault and in other cases both parties will be found to be at fault and the Court will apportion a percentage of liability to each driver.
In a case where the light was yellow and the driver heading straight was at least 140 feet from the intersection when the light turned yellow, the driver turning left saw the other vehicle but reasonably believed it had enough time to stop, the Court found the driver heading straight to be 100% at fault (see Lam v. Cumming 2002 BCSC 1413).
In another case where the Court found the driver turning left to be at fault for not yielding the right of way to the driver heading straight, the Court also found the driver heading straight to be at fault for excessive speeding. In that case the Court apportioned 65% fault to the driver turning left and 35% fault to the driver heading straight (see Cavezza Estate v. Seifred 2009 BCSC 447).
In a similar case the Court found the driver turning left to be 80% at fault and the driver heading straight, but slightly over the speed limit on a yellow light to be 20% at fault (see Slaughter v. Sluys 2008 BCSC 1012).
In a situation where the evidence established that the light had turned red before the driver heading straight entered the intersection, the straight through driver was found to be 100% at fault (see Frankson v. Myre 2008 BCSC 795).
In a case where the collision occurred at the same moment as the traffic light turned red, the Court divided liability equally (see Tejani (Guardian ad litem of) v. Greenan 2001 BCSC 803).
分享到微信
一条龙 说道: 无题
2018-06-22 15:43:36
BC测量师 说道: 无题
2018-06-22 15:53:59
一条龙 说道: 无题
2018-06-22 15:54:39
一条龙 说道: 无题
2018-06-22 15:56:32
慎独 说道: 无题
2018-06-22 16:33:07
这样就圆满了
一条龙 说道: RE:
2018-06-22 16:37:21
这样就圆满了
错，4 Way就有得争吵了。简单的话，单向stop sign。有钱的话，建跨越式天桥。
路人行 说道: Re: 建议修改法例
2018-06-22 17:16:13
放肆桀骜 说道: 无题
2018-06-22 18:27:06
都是Case by case的，具体情况具体分析。ICBC是懒，而且反正是垄断。真上了庭情况就可以不一样，尤其要开到南面去的话，好像严重超速本身就要入罪了。
In some cases the Court will find one party 100% at fault and in other cases both parties will be found to be at fault and the Court will apportion a percentage of liability to each driver.
In a case where the light was yellow and the driver heading straight was at least 140 feet from the intersection when the light turned yellow, the driver turning left saw the other vehicle but reasonably believed it had enough time to stop, the Court found the driver heading straight to be 100% at fault (see Lam v. Cumming 2002 BCSC 1413).
In another case where the Court found the driver turning left to be at fault for not yielding the right of way to the driver heading straight, the Court also found the driver heading straight to be at fault for excessive speeding. In that case the Court apportioned 65% fault to the driver turning left and 35% fault to the driver heading straight (see Cavezza Estate v. Seifred 2009 BCSC 447).
In a similar case the Court found the driver turning left to be 80% at fault and the driver heading straight, but slightly over the speed limit on a yellow light to be 20% at fault (see Slaughter v. Sluys 2008 BCSC 1012).
In a situation where the evidence established that the light had turned red before the driver heading straight entered the intersection, the straight through driver was found to be 100% at fault (see Frankson v. Myre 2008 BCSC 795).
In a case where the collision occurred at the same moment as the traffic light turned red, the Court divided liability equally (see Tejani (Guardian ad litem of) v. Greenan 2001 BCSC 803).