Stolen truck chase ends in fiery crash

Pretty graphic video recorded by Channel 2 helicopter

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...losion_8132009

When you see the video, you'll see a truck being pursued by the cops. A red mini van makes a left turn in front of the speeding truck, hitting it, and sending it pinwheeling into another truck, a power pole before bursting into flames.

The driver of the stolen truck was car-b-qued.

By my eyes, it looks like the mini van caused the crash. If for no other reason than when the cops have their lights on, you pull over to the right curb; regardless if the lights are behind or in front of you.

I looked at it several times. Even though the truck was being pursued and was speeding, it did have the green light. The van definitely made a left turn in front of the truck. I wonder whether there will be any repurcussions for the van driver?

What is deceiving is the rate of speed the Truck was traveling. From the perspective of the helicopter it looks as though the truck is loafing along at 35 MPH, when in actuality he was probably doing at least twice that. It is hard to determine the rate of speed from the LH turn lane of an approaching car. The mini van driver probably assumed the truck was going a normal speed when he executed his turn. I would be surprised if any charges were laid against him. Or perhaps he was trying to assist the officers in ending the chase, which if he admitted such a thing I could see some culpability on the van driver's part for the stolen truck driver's death. But could he not argue that he was in fact potentially saving lives further down Michigan Ave from a lawless speeding car thief willing to do what ever it takes to not get arrested?

It almost seems like the minivan deliberately hit the truck, like he was trying to HELP the police. I haven't seen the minivan driver yet on the news to hear their story, but it is a little odd that they turned right in front of the truck when its obvious that you would either stop, or get to the other side when you see the police coming. Or maybe they thought they could make the light even though the truck was coming so fast - but didn't they see/hear the police? It's all just weird and disturbing.

Any word yet on the truck driver?

I'm sure the van driver had trouble judging the speed of the oncoming truck. It is difficult determining speed of something coming at you, especially if that speed is out of the ordinary.

While the van driver was heading east, into the morning sun, so I'll bet ya that played a major role in the accident; however, that's why you pull over to the right when the bubble tops are flashing. From the other witnesses the truck was being pursued by Taylor, Detroit and State Police ... that's a lot of blue and red lights to miss...even if they were backlit by the low in the sky morning sun.

Just another crazy folk stealing cars to make a quick buck, but the fiery crash put himself into hell!

It wouldn't surprise me if the family of the deceased driver files a lawsuit against DPD or the minivan driver. With the state of the economy nowadays, I'm sure lawyers were watching the coverage with glee...

Another note, the minivan driver should be cited for failure to yield for right-of-way and an emergency vehicle.

You guys are totally over-analyzing the van driver. She's just doing the friggin' I-don't-give-a-shit left turn into traffic. I see this all the time. She's probably on the phone and not paying any attention. Or if she is, she's playing chicken with the oncoming car, just to fuck with it. Truck driver made a mistake; the proper thing to do is to veer way to the left of the car and give a sustained honk while you drive past for doppler effect. ;)

The driver of the van was a woman, so I'd hardly think she was helping out the police in pursuit. She had some injuries that weren't life threatening Like another poster said, she just mis-judged the speed of the on-coming truck. The driver of the truck was dead at the scene.

One less thief on the streets.

I was watching the weather and traffic report on Channel 2 this morning as the chase was in progress. I thought that they were spending too much time on the chase, so I switched over to Channel 4.

The traffic report was already in progress. The traffic reporter said something about the chase. As she was going on to the problems on other roads you could hear staff off camera go into a bunch of commotion. So 4 cut to their live helicopter shot. A couple of police officers were ran over to the burning car with fire extinguishers. With all of fuel that spilled, they didn't do much good. You knew it wasn't going to end nicely for the driver.

The HOV diamonds made it easy to recognize the chase was going down Michigan Ave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

The driver of the van was a woman, so I'd hardly think she was helping out the police in pursuit.

---

As a result of recent crackdown on the local ho's business... women just aren't being very helpful at all to the cops these days. oy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nikki Pooh

It wouldn't surprise me if the family of the deceased driver files a lawsuit against DPD or the minivan driver. With the state of the economy nowadays, I'm sure lawyers were watching the coverage with glee...

Another note, the minivan driver should be cited for failure to yield for right-of-way and an emergency vehicle.

---

From the Michigan Vehicle Code:

Quote:

---

[[5) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit a right of way which the driver might otherwise have under this section.

---

In other words, for the driver of the truck, too bad, you lose anyway.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-649

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nikki Pooh

Another note, the minivan driver should be cited for failure to yield for right-of-way and an emergency vehicle.

---

thanks for keeping up this site's long and storied tradition of blaming the victim of a crime for any injury.

Stosh, thanks for that research, great info. Didn't know about that.

As a side note, since the stolen vehicle was indeed stolen, will the owner's insurance company be liable for all the damage? Anyone know how that works ... if your car is involved in an accident can you be held liable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nikki Pooh

It wouldn't surprise me if the family of the deceased driver files a lawsuit against DPD

---

Way I read the story, DPD wasn't involved. It was MSP involved in the pursuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

I looked at it several times. Even though the truck was being pursued and was speeding, it did have the green light. The van definitely made a left turn in front of the truck. I wonder whether there will be any repurcussions for the van driver?

---

Both vehicles had the green light. Since there was no left turn light, the driver of the red minivan had the right to turn provided she could do it fast enough. I would suspect like most drivers today she was on her phone and could not gaze the speed of the truck. I don't think she was trying to stop the pursuit. The mistake the dude made was that he swerve right instead of left.

Quote:

---

Another note, the minivan driver should be cited for failure to yield for right-of-way and an emergency vehicle.

---

Not going to happen because they both had the right of way.

7am slider crowd was in for a big surprise if it were not for that pole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mipade

7am slider crowd was in for a big surprise if it were not for that pole.

---

Actually, it was the truck in the driveway that saved the diner. The pole is what killed the thief in the truck.

and the good news is.......Telway wasn't hit.

mmmmmm Telway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

I looked at it several times. Even though the truck was being pursued and was speeding, it did have the green light. The van definitely made a left turn in front of the truck. I wonder whether there will be any repurcussions for the van driver?

---

Both vehicles had ROW, except one was speeding, so the driver being chased is at fault.

FYI, even if no police were present, and there were no witnesses. I've had two friends traveling at the speed limit, and have someone in the other direction make a left turn into them causing an accident. No one received tickets, but both had to pay the insurance deductible.

Better 11-minute tape of the entire chase at http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/20383074/index.html

Thank goodness it didn't take out the Telway!

Looks like one of the tires flew up and gave the sign a good smack though.

Quote:'Not going to happen because they both had the right of way."

Never have the right of way making a left.

Ray, that longer vid is shocking. The thief, an obvious madman, ran countless redlights, drove the wrong way down one way streets, as well as into the path of oncoming vehicles. I lost count at 20 the number of vehicles he almost hit head on.

Lucky that no one died, except the madman. Ray, did you ever have such a situation? If not, how would you have handled what we saw today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote:'Not going to happen because they both had the right of way."

Never have the right of way making a left.

---

I was commented yesterday that today's drivers don't know the rules of the road. There was no left-turning light at that intersection which means the minivan could turn left at anytime during the green light as long as there was no incoming traffic arriving at the intersection at the same time.

Basically, it is a judgment call on if you can make the turn before any incoming traffic arrives before you make the turn. The lady in the van made a wrong judment call but she was in her right to make that turn.

gnome Anyone know how that works ... if your car is involved in an accident can you be held liable?

I don't have No Fault but my insurance guy told me "We just consider it a matter between the cars-not the drivers" So call it The Pixar Approach, unless a criminal clause invalidates it...

Gnome, I was in a few. I can recall three off the top of my head. We tried to box 'em in back then [[1960s), and they guy usually just rammed his way out. The pit maneuver was unknown back then, unless it was applied accidentally.

Whenever I see tape of a chase where a police car gets involved in the contact, my mind flashes back to hours and hours of paperwork.

I remember on one the rear quarter panel of our 61 Dodge Dart got crumpled. As I was about to start all the paper work, one of my Sergeants [[bless him) said, "why don't you just see if you can find an alley garage somewhere to bump it out and spray paint some black on it?" We did just that.

Getting back to that tape, did'ja notice him going the wrong way up 12th street? Or Rosa Parks, or whatever it's called now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

While the van driver was heading east, into the morning sun, so I'll bet ya that played a major role in the accident; however, that's why you pull over to the right when the bubble tops are flashing. From the other witnesses the truck was being pursued by Taylor, Detroit and State Police ... that's a lot of blue and red lights to miss...even if they were backlit by the low in the sky morning sun.

---

I'm trying to imagine this from the perspective of the van driver. Would he or she have been able to see the flashing police lights if they were behind the truck? Wouldn't the truck have obscured the van driver's view of anything behind said truck?

All these people here arguing whether the driver of the van is liable or not makes me sick. :eek:

Why try to defend a thief who was in the act of committing a crime? It will only strengthen other crooks ambitions to commit crimes in the future.

Sorry he died, but in the end, he was a drain on society and probably would have gone on to commit further crimes. Most likely upon honest, taxpaying citizens.





Plus - The video suggested that the police backed off the chase. So the van driver probably did not see the lights.

Quote: "The lady in the van made a wrong judment call but she was in her right to make that turn."

Not to be argumentative, but look it up, she never at no time had the right of way. When a driver approaches in a left turn lane, they must yield the right of way to oncoming traffic. If she pulls out in front of that driver regardless of her judgment, and causes an accident it will be her fault. The minivan in this case was clearly at fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "The lady in the van made a wrong judment call but she was in her right to make that turn."

Not to be argumentative, but look it up, she never at no time had the right of way. When a driver approaches in a left turn lane, they must yield the right of way to oncoming traffic. If she pulls out in front of that driver regardless of her judgment, and causes an accident it will be her fault. The minivan in this case was clearly at fault.

---

Don't need to look it up. I have a car. I make left turns everyday. Perhaps you should go out and make a left turn like that lady did this morning and you will see why she was in the right to make that turn. All I can tell you is: judgment call.

Flogging a dead horse by now, but, yeah, that van driver was your typical dumbass, I don't care what's going on, I'm taking a call right now, Detroit driver. I don't even see a turn signal -- that's at least a moving violation.

Wow! That happened down the street from my job. Good thing I took the rest of the week off.

Google map route?

People in the area generally do not follow ANY traffic laws.

I've seen speeding, running red lights, no use of turn signals, passing in the center lane, using corner parking lots to circumvent traffic lights. You have to be very careful driving in that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Flogging a dead horse by now, but, yeah, that van driver was your typical dumbass, I don't care what's going on, I'm taking a call right now, Detroit driver. I don't even see a turn signal -- that's at least a moving violation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "The lady in the van made a wrong judment call but she was in her right to make that turn."

Not to be argumentative, but look it up, she never at no time had the right of way. When a driver approaches in a left turn lane, they must yield the right of way to oncoming traffic. If she pulls out in front of that driver regardless of her judgment, and causes an accident it will be her fault. The minivan in this case was clearly at fault.

---

That's what you say, but that's not what the law says in this type of situation.....and probably most situations considering many drivers go faster than the speed limit. Besides, all the other driver [[making the left) has to do is claim you were speeding, and all fault it off. I mentioned that in my previous post, plus I witnessed an accident this past winter of this same sort of thing....no one was ticketed.

Why even bother to bring it up in this thread. The video is proof the driver of the stolen vehicle was being reckless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Not going to happen because they both had the right of way.

---

When an EV is approaching with lights and siren, there is no 'both have the right of way' in a situation like this.

Let's see if I get the route of this chase right from the longer video that Ray posted above.

As the video opens up the van is going west on Michigan somewhere around the Fisher Fwy. [[75), then north on Livernois for awhile, entering southbound onto the Jefferies [[96), exiting at the W. Grand Blvd. exit going south on the service drive, then turning east onto McGraw, where that street ends turning south onto12th St. [[Rosa Parks) and going against the traffic [[which is one-way northbound) all the way down to Michigan, then back onto Michigan westbound until... BOOM right in front of Telway at Martin.

I don't see more than one police car pursuing the pickup anyplace in this video, and always at some considerable distance. So I think it's very likely that the lady in the minivan didn't see or hear the police at all. While it may not be the smartest left turn she ever made, I do think that she probably just misjudged the extreme rate of speed at which the truck was traveling, perhaps in a bit of early morning stupor on her way to get some of that famous Telway coffee. In any event, that guy was on the wrong side of the road or driving against traffic, apparently purposefully, for much of his run, blowing off red lights and stop signs and narrowly missing several other collisions, so it really does seem to be blaming the victim to minutely examine the actions of a citizen who has gotten caught up in a situation like this because of some other person's criminal, heedless, and extremely dangerous behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

I'm trying to imagine this from the perspective of the van driver. Would he or she have been able to see the flashing police lights if they were behind the truck? Wouldn't the truck have obscured the van driver's view of anything behind said truck?

---

How far back was MSP? It's pretty hard NOT to see 2 rotating 6in aircraft landing lights behind a red lens, not to mention hearing a 200watt electronic siren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

When an EV is approaching with lights and siren, there is no 'both have the right of way' in a situation like this.

---

That is absolutely true, but personally I'm working off of the angle that the chase by police was called off [[as the newcast says) You can see for blocks in one moment there are no vehicles in pursuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

When an EV is approaching with lights and siren, there is no 'both have the right of way' in a situation like this.

---

You had to have your say, I suppose. I will let you have the final word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

How far back was MSP? It's pretty hard NOT to see 2 rotating 6in aircraft landing lights behind a red lens, not to mention hearing a 200watt electronic siren.

---

Now, you're just being ridiculous. They were pretty far back if even on the same street

EDIT: after looking at it again, there was a patrol car about 120 feet behind, so yes very likely the driver would have heard and seen sirens. My apologies.

They just showed it on Headline News, and I have to admit it LOOKS like the van driver rammed the pickup. That may not be the case, but that's the appearance.

In most intersection accidents, one of three things happen:

-Turning vehicle gets broadsided.
-Vehicles hit more or less head-on.
-Vehicles try to avoid each other at the last second and hit in glancing blows.

In this one, the van hit the passing truck dead square in the middle, as if it turned deliberately into the truck. Could certainly have been pure bad luck and timing though.

OK, we're seeing some different things here. Some people see the van driver as lucky. Some see her as a hero. I see her as the sort of driver I'm used to dealing with over and over again in Detroit: an idiotic loser too spaced-out to pay attention.

Jeffrey Fieger should get this one. Two maybe three lawsuits:
1. Chevy pickup exploding gastank case again
2. Wrongful death caused by police chase.
3. Some type of death lawsuit agains the lady that turned in front of him.

Honestly how did the lady not see him coming? There was no traffic blocking her view. He got what all criminals deserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Shot

Jeffrey Fieger should get this one. Two maybe three lawsuits:
1. Chevy pickup exploding gastank case again
2. Wrongful death caused by police chase.
3. Some type of death lawsuit agains the lady that turned in front of him.

Honestly how did the lady not see him coming? There was no traffic blocking her view. He got what all criminals deserve.

---

She was probably talking on her cell or she was texting and was not paying attention.

Quote: "Don't need to look it up. I have a car. I make left turns everyday."

If you feel you have the right to pull out in front of people [[You don't) and cause an accident, it will be your fault. I've been in court and heard it straight from a judge. You never have the right of way unless you have a green arrow, and you still must use caution for people making right turns. Call any traffic court and tell them you were involved in an accident making a left turn and see what they tell you. It's your fault for failing to yield. If the car was traveling at a high rate of speed, you'll need witnesses and have to prove it, and it will be your fault until you do so.

Here is the Michigan traffic law:

MCL 257.612:
...
[[a) If the signal exhibits a green indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at that place prohibits either turn. Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.

Back to the accident, this is a case where two idiots crossed paths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Back to the accident, this is a case where two idiots crossed paths.

---

Amen to that sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Don't need to look it up. I have a car. I make left turns everyday."

If you feel you have the right to pull out in front of people [[You don't) and cause an accident, it will be your fault. I've been in court and heard it straight from a judge. You never have the right of way unless you have a green arrow, and you still must use caution for people making right turns. Call any traffic court and tell them you were involved in an accident making a left turn and see what they tell you. It's your fault for failing to yield. If the car was traveling at a high rate of speed, you'll need witnesses and have to prove it, and it will be your fault until you do so.

Here is the Michigan traffic law:

MCL 257.612:
...
[[a) If the signal exhibits a green indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at that place prohibits either turn. Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.

Back to the accident, this is a case where two idiots crossed paths.

---

Reprising my earlier post that covered this:

Quote:

---

From the Michigan Vehicle Code:

[[5) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit a right of way which the driver might otherwise have under this section.
In other words, for the driver of the truck, too bad, you lose anyway.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-649

---

And there's plenty of witnesses as to the rate of speed as well. Ask the cops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Don't need to look it up. I have a car. I make left turns everyday."

If you feel you have the right to pull out in front of people [[You don't) and cause an accident, it will be your fault. I've been in court and heard it straight from a judge. You never have the right of way unless you have a green arrow, and you still must use caution for people making right turns. Call any traffic court and tell them you were involved in an accident making a left turn and see what they tell you. It's your fault for failing to yield. If the car was traveling at a high rate of speed, you'll need witnesses and have to prove it, and it will be your fault until you do so.

Here is the Michigan traffic law:

MCL 257.612:
...
[[a) If the signal exhibits a green indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at that place prohibits either turn. Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.

Back to the accident, this is a case where two idiots crossed paths.

---

Newsflash: There was no left-lane turning signal. I can tell some people like yourself don't read previous postings so here is an earlier post from me.

"Both vehicles had the green light. Since there was no left turn light, the driver of the red minivan had the right to turn provided she could do it fast enough. I would suspect like most drivers today she was on her phone and could not gaze the speed of the truck."


Again and please read before you copy and paste traffic law. If there was a left-lane signal light [[green arrow) and the light was blinking red then the driver of the red van could make that turn as long as she don't hit anyone. If it was solid and she made that turn before it turns green, she is wrong...BUT there was NO LEFT-LANE TURNING SIGNAL which means that turning left is all judgment.

What do I mean by judgment? If you are in a left-lane to turn left [[example of this: driving down Grand River to turn left on Outer Drive. No left-lane turn signal)and the light is green you have wait until traffic is clear for you to make the turn. This is all judgment because you have estimate the time for a car to reach the intersection. This is judgment. GOT IT?????

EastsideAl said:

"As the video opens up the van is going west on Michigan somewhere around the Fisher Fwy. [[75), then north on Livernois for awhile, entering southbound onto the Jefferies [[96), exiting at the W. Grand Blvd. exit going south on the service drive, then turning east onto McGraw, where that street ends turning south onto12th St. [[Rosa Parks) and going against the traffic [[which is one-way northbound) all the way down to Michigan, then back onto Michigan westbound until... BOOM right in front of Telway at Martin."

You nailed it, Al. I wasn't sure where that tape started at until your post, and then I was able to GoogleMap it and you're right on the button. That's one of the damndest police chase video's I've ever seen, and I think I've seen 'em all.

I know this happened early AM, but video shows a lot of eight-lane roads and no traffic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Midnite

I know this happened early AM, but video shows a lot of eight-lane roads and no traffic.

---

Someone's new in town...

Was almost late for work watching the chase, I think One Shot got it right in this sue happy society. Good thing no one was killed besides the perp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Midnite

I know this happened early AM, but video shows a lot of eight-lane roads and no traffic.

---

I guess quite a few folks have no job to go to these days.

Has the driver of the van said ANYthing about this yet? And, if she hasn't, then is there any reasonable explanation why she hasn't been talked to by blood-hound media? Was she drunk or stoned? I mean, look at the picture, how can it successfully be argued that she misjudged the approaching pickem' up truck? The video shows that she pulled into her turn very lumbering, in other words - at a slow acceleration. I'm just curious. Until she is heard from, then I'd say that it's totally plausible that she intentionally meant to "ease" into this mad truck driver and maybe be a hero and the cops told her she was stupid as hell and that they'd charge her with drunk and stoned driving if she told this to the media, thereby inspiring others to maybe do the same thing one day. I heard 97.1 this morning say that they were broadcasting the chase as it was happening. And then I turned it. Off.

She didn't "misjudge" anything because she didn't judge anything. That's how people drive in town: Like they're not paying attention at all.

If you watch the video she actually accelerates into the truck, she starts off slow, then realizes the truck is going faster than what she thought, accelerates to get out of its way and by that time the truck is on top of her. She misjudged the speed of the truck, no one turning expects the vehicle on Michigan Ave to be coming toward them at 80+MPH.

Also the Fire wasn't caused when the truck hit the pole, it started when it hit the other truck in the driveway [[Got to love DVR for stuff like this)

As for the driver good riddance -- he put 1,000's of other people's lives at risk running, my theory with high speed chases is at the end pull them out and put a bullet in their head. They put everyone at risk because they are a dumb***.

Telway was enjoying brisk business during the late-lunch hour, and they are already fixing the pole outside.


All ya gotta do it get on the TeeVee and your city services are rendered! [[although this is likely a county or state maintenance thing, I didn't look too closely at the trucks).


Their sliders are better than White Castle's, by far!


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Midnite

I know this happened early AM, but video shows a lot of eight-lane roads and no traffic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajdet

I guess quite a few folks have no job to go to these days.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj84

As for the driver good riddance -- he put 1,000's of other people's lives at risk running, ...

---

Thousands?

Or dozens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj84 http://detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
As for the driver good riddance -- he put 1,000's of other people's lives at risk running, ...

---

Did you watch the video ? That was only 11 minutes of the total chase from downriver. It certainly wasn't dozens. I'd say at least 1000 +

Glad the classic little Teleway survived unscathed, if that truck would have been closer to the sidewalk, I shudder to think about the loss of human life, and on a much less important scale, one of Detroit's most classic burger joints. That 11 minute video was unbelieveable.... all that distance down 12th Street!

I'm impressed that that streetlight was already being repaired....even though those excellent looking streetlights were erected along Michigan between Wyoming and Livernois less than three years ago, several others have been damaged or demolished in some way, and most haven't been repaired yet.

I do need to say, though, that I was distressed, albeit unsurprised, by the lack of coverage of this incident in the Detroit News. I patronized my favorite downtown paper box this morning with the hope of learning more about this one single event, and found a little quarter page segment which was generally unhelpful in shedding light on any more details. Too bad, really.

This is from the article that gnome linked:

"Witnesses say the woman driving the minivan attempted to make an illegal turn on Martin, but according to police, she is not at fault. The man who died in the crash and was driving the stolen pickup is responsible. Police say because he was speeding, he no longer had the right of way."

Quote: "Police say because he was speeding, he no longer had the right of way.""

Are they implying the minivan had the right of way making a left turn? Are they implying if you're speeding people can legally pull out in front of you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Police say because he was speeding, he no longer had the right of way.""

Are they implying the minivan had the right of way making a left turn? Are they implying if you're speeding people can legally pull out in front of you?

---

Dude, give it up. You are attempting to make lemonade out of oranges.

No wonder people drive like morons around here, they haven't a clue about traffic law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Police say because he was speeding, he no longer had the right of way.""

Are they implying the minivan had the right of way making a left turn? Are they implying if you're speeding people can legally pull out in front of you?

---

Yes. See above posts for more info.

Edit: Never mind, I'll bring it to you.

Reprising my earlier post that covered this:


Quote:
From the Michigan Vehicle Code:

[[5) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit a right of way which the driver might otherwise have under this section.
In other words, for the driver of the truck, too bad, you lose anyway.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-649
And there's plenty of witnesses as to the rate of speed as well. Ask the cops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

No wonder people drive like morons around here, they haven't a clue about traffic law.

---

You know I said the same thing to my neighbor on Wednesday prior to the death of the truck thief.

I just watched the video.

Clearly this was a controlled demolition. Explosives were placed in the light pole. Any evidence to the contrary is a cover-up.

They interviewed the mini-van driver on TV Friday night. I'm pretty convinced that this middle-aged woman with thick glasses saw the truck coming but couldn't tell that it was traveling 3 times the speed limit and believed she had enough time to clear the intersection. As far as her not seeing the Police in pursuit, the oncoming vehicles don't begin to stop nor does the large semi pullover until the evading truck is a good distance past them and they are already moving out of frame. Also the lead cruiser in pursuit doesn't have lights on its roof, assuming its right on the tail of the truck; it would not be easy to see what was coming at you.

"3 times the speed limit"?

That truck doesn't appear to be going much over 50 in that video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stosh

Yes. See above posts for more info.

Edit: Never mind, I'll bring it to you.

Reprising my earlier post that covered this:


Quote:
From the Michigan Vehicle Code:

[[5) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit a right of way which the driver might otherwise have under this section.
In other words, for the driver of the truck, too bad, you lose anyway.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-649
And there's plenty of witnesses as to the rate of speed as well. Ask the cops.

---

Yes, but there is that little qualifier "under this section". The section refers to the rules at intersections when traffic is coming from "two different highways". The right of way waiver for speeding applies only to that section so it applies only to that instance.

There is another section specifically covering left turns at intersections, that does not contain that speeding exemption [[see below). Nor can I find any language in the code overall that says the speeding exemption covers all right of way issues. If it did, you wouldn't need that "under this section" clause. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that I looked through it and didn't see a universal "too bad if you're speeding" clause.

"257.650 Right-of-way; turning left at intersection; violation as civil infraction.

Sec. 650.
[[1) The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard; but the driver, having so yielded and having given a signal when and as required by this chapter, may make the left turn and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection from the opposite direction shall yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn. At an intersection at which a traffic signal is located, a driver intending to make a left turn shall permit vehicles bound straight through in the opposite direction which are waiting a go signal to pass through the intersection before making the turn.
[[2) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction."

Granted the truck wasn't "waiting", but this section is more applicable than the other referenced section which seems more applicable for intersections with only stop signs.

Why does this matter? Well, I need to know if I'm driving properly. I always wait until I see no traffic coming from the opposite direction, or the light turns red [[at which point the law says it's okay for me to complete my turn), or the traffic is so far back that I can barely see it. I don't even feel safe turning when the light turns yellow, because people run yellow lights all the time.

I feel like the police just told everyone that you can go ahead and turn left if you think you can beat the oncoming traffic. Maybe you should also speed across a train track if you think the train is moving slowly. I think they have caused confusion and it should be clarified. Don't charge her, but at least confirm that you should not make a left until traffic has cleared or stopped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

"3 times the speed limit"?

That truck doesn't appear to be going much over 50 in that video.

---

50 Mph is pretty much the normal speed on Michigan Ave. The farther you are away from an object the slower the angle changes between you and it. The truck clears the distance of 6 light poles in secs. Measure that distance or count the car lengths the police car takes to stop. Figuring the police car realizes the chase is over when he passes the exploding truck. Takes 8+ car lengths to stop. 80-90 mph. Anyone else notice the tire flying off the truck and hitting the police car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

Yes, but there is that little qualifier "under this section". The section refers to the rules at intersections when traffic is coming from "two different highways". The right of way waiver for speeding applies only to that section so it applies only to that instance.

There is another section specifically covering left turns at intersections, that does not contain that speeding exemption [[see below). Nor can I find any language in the code overall that says the speeding exemption covers all right of way issues. If it did, you wouldn't need that "under this section" clause. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that I looked through it and didn't see a universal "too bad if you're speeding" clause.

"257.650 Right-of-way; turning left at intersection; violation as civil infraction.

Sec. 650.
[[1) The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard; but the driver, having so yielded and having given a signal when and as required by this chapter, may make the left turn and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection from the opposite direction shall yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn. At an intersection at which a traffic signal is located, a driver intending to make a left turn shall permit vehicles bound straight through in the opposite direction which are waiting a go signal to pass through the intersection before making the turn.
[[2) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction."

Granted the truck wasn't "waiting", but this section is more applicable than the other referenced section which seems more applicable for intersections with only stop signs.

Why does this matter? Well, I need to know if I'm driving properly. I always wait until I see no traffic coming from the opposite direction, or the light turns red [[at which point the law says it's okay for me to complete my turn), or the traffic is so far back that I can barely see it. I don't even feel safe turning when the light turns yellow, because people run yellow lights all the time.

I feel like the police just told everyone that you can go ahead and turn left if you think you can beat the oncoming traffic. Maybe you should also speed across a train track if you think the train is moving slowly. I think they have caused confusion and it should be clarified. Don't charge her, but at least confirm that you should not make a left until traffic has cleared or stopped.

---

I suppose that you are right, at least in terms of the left turn. It seems as if they've applied this rather broadly. But, they've made their choice.