Right of way? Wrong-o, I think.
October 12, 2009 10:05 PM Subscribe
The Arizona drivers license manual states that the law does not specify who has the right-of-way; it only specifies who must yield. What is the legal significance of this?
Pretty much everyone I've heard talk about traffic situations talks about right-of-way, and I think in those terms too. If I see a pedestrian in a crosswalk, I think "hey, they've got right-of-way. I'd better stop." So while I know I must yield, I still think about right-of-way. But if they included this in the manual, someone must think it's pretty important. Why?
Pretty much everyone I've heard talk about traffic situations talks about right-of-way, and I think in those terms too. If I see a pedestrian in a crosswalk, I think "hey, they've got right-of-way. I'd better stop." So while I know I must yield, I still think about right-of-way. But if they included this in the manual, someone must think it's pretty important. Why?
After a bingle, you don't congratulate the person with right of way, you penalise the person who failed to give way - so why point out who has the priority? The important thing is who is obliged to look out.
The same distinction is made in Victoria, Australia. No-one has right of way, but some people must give way.
posted by pompomtom at 10:23 PM on October 12, 2009
The same distinction is made in Victoria, Australia. No-one has right of way, but some people must give way.
posted by pompomtom at 10:23 PM on October 12, 2009
IANAL:
Sounds like they're specifically saying you don't have the right of way; what you have is the law on your side stating that the other person must yield to you.
This means you don't automatically have the right to smash into them should they (for whatever reason) fail to yield to you.
If it is a right you get to do it regardless* of what else is going on, and that could (and I guess does in all sorts of other fields) lead to all manner of accidents. If you don't have a right then you have some responsibility to be aware of other things on the road, rather than acting obliviously and this should impact not only the safety of hopefully everyone, but also in the court system when accidents occur.
*: Without getting into a big discussion over rights
posted by Suspicious Ninja at 10:34 PM on October 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sounds like they're specifically saying you don't have the right of way; what you have is the law on your side stating that the other person must yield to you.
This means you don't automatically have the right to smash into them should they (for whatever reason) fail to yield to you.
If it is a right you get to do it regardless* of what else is going on, and that could (and I guess does in all sorts of other fields) lead to all manner of accidents. If you don't have a right then you have some responsibility to be aware of other things on the road, rather than acting obliviously and this should impact not only the safety of hopefully everyone, but also in the court system when accidents occur.
*: Without getting into a big discussion over rights
posted by Suspicious Ninja at 10:34 PM on October 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
What I was told in driver's ed (CA, mid 1980's) was that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way, even when they're jaywalking
posted by brujita at 10:56 PM on October 12, 2009
posted by brujita at 10:56 PM on October 12, 2009
I'm guessing they found that too many people were taking "right-of-way" to mean they didn't have to pay attention to what they were doing, or act predictably so that others could avoid them. In maritime "rules of the road" they don't really use right-of-way in meeting situations either. There's a "give way" vessel and a "stand on" vessel. Even though the stand on vessel has priority, its still responsible to maintain course and speed so the give way vessel can maneuver safely.
So they reframed it as a positive statement to you, the driver, what your responsibility is. Which is always a good policy anyway. Don't tell people what NOT to do, tell them what they SHOULD do.
posted by ctmf at 11:17 PM on October 12, 2009
So they reframed it as a positive statement to you, the driver, what your responsibility is. Which is always a good policy anyway. Don't tell people what NOT to do, tell them what they SHOULD do.
posted by ctmf at 11:17 PM on October 12, 2009
It means you are prevented from using it as a defense.
You can be charged for failing to yield the right of way. In most states, that is a separate infraction.
If you are charged with some other infraction, you cannot get out of it by saying that you had the right of way.
posted by megatherium at 4:51 AM on October 13, 2009
You can be charged for failing to yield the right of way. In most states, that is a separate infraction.
If you are charged with some other infraction, you cannot get out of it by saying that you had the right of way.
posted by megatherium at 4:51 AM on October 13, 2009
Generally too many people get caught up in thinking who has the right of way in a black and white sort of way. This actually can be dangerous in that it prevents them from thinking in terms of yielding when it might be more beneficial. Obviously you never want to hit a pedestrian whether they are in the right or the wrong. If you fail to yield to a pedestrian even if you have the right of way there is something seriously wrong with you. The same goes with any other traffic situation. Would it solve anything to have an accident when you are in the right instead of yielding?
Unfortunately changing the language in the manual without also reinforcing the concept in driver's education will not help to change attitudes. Hopefully Arizona has strong education programs.
posted by JJ86 at 6:20 AM on October 13, 2009
Unfortunately changing the language in the manual without also reinforcing the concept in driver's education will not help to change attitudes. Hopefully Arizona has strong education programs.
posted by JJ86 at 6:20 AM on October 13, 2009
Keep in mind that driver manuals are not the law. Have you read the actual statutes?
posted by djb at 6:49 AM on October 13, 2009
posted by djb at 6:49 AM on October 13, 2009
For another perspective, Virginia muddies their terminology on this. The driver manual explicitly states that "The law does not give the right-of-way to anyone. It only states which driver must yield to another," and then it spends several pages telling you when to "yield the right-of-way."    ??
I found this out when researching what I thought of as right-of-way issues, because there's a tiny but clearly labeled traffic circle on my block, and roughly 0% of other drivers around here yield to drivers in the circle, as they are legally required to do.    /fume
posted by NortonDC at 7:13 AM on October 13, 2009
I found this out when researching what I thought of as right-of-way issues, because there's a tiny but clearly labeled traffic circle on my block, and roughly 0% of other drivers around here yield to drivers in the circle, as they are legally required to do.    /fume
posted by NortonDC at 7:13 AM on October 13, 2009
Given the fact that ADOT feels the need to buy ad time on NPR to tell people not to run over pedestrians, it seems like the answers above are probably on the right track, but now I am curious and shall have to check this out.
I wonder if yield is easier to understand than right-of-way for non-native english speakers (or has different implications when translated or something)?
posted by Feantari at 7:35 AM on October 13, 2009
I wonder if yield is easier to understand than right-of-way for non-native english speakers (or has different implications when translated or something)?
posted by Feantari at 7:35 AM on October 13, 2009
I think the point is that the right to proceed is never given to anybody, but the requirement to stop often is.
posted by oaf at 8:25 AM on October 13, 2009
posted by oaf at 8:25 AM on October 13, 2009
Sounds like 'you can never be sure when you're in the right, but you can be sure when you're in the wrong.'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:51 AM on October 13, 2009
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:51 AM on October 13, 2009
The same approach is used for boating Rules of the Road - all the rules state who must yield. There is a hierarchy of who must yield to who, but the ultimate rule is "all vessels must avoid a collision."
The goal is not to enforce your right to proceed, but rather to avoid collisions, thus the emphasis on yielding. No matter who failed to follow the follow the rules, in the end if you could have avoided the collision and you did not, then the collision is your fault.
posted by jpeacock at 9:36 AM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
The goal is not to enforce your right to proceed, but rather to avoid collisions, thus the emphasis on yielding. No matter who failed to follow the follow the rules, in the end if you could have avoided the collision and you did not, then the collision is your fault.
posted by jpeacock at 9:36 AM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
Best answer: A fairly contrived example that demonstrates the difference (and this difference exists pretty well every where with laws talking exclusively about yielding not right of way): Picture a cardinal four way intersection with yield signs to the north and south. You are heading east approaching this intersection. An A-Train approaches from the north and it appears they'll reach the intersection at about the same time you will. No Problem you think, he has to yield. But he doesn't and you t-bone him. The insurance companies conclude you are 35% at fault and yours raises your rates. This is because despite the fact the truck had to yield you do not have the right of way. You were supposed to notice the truck was not yielding and come to a stop yourself.
posted by Mitheral at 9:59 AM on October 13, 2009
posted by Mitheral at 9:59 AM on October 13, 2009
Response by poster: A lot of interesting answers, but Mithereal's made the most sense, since I've heard of people being held a certain percentage responsible for accidents before.
posted by azpenguin at 12:20 AM on October 14, 2009
posted by azpenguin at 12:20 AM on October 14, 2009
A lot of responses allude to this, but no one puts it quite this way, which I think is accurate and succinct, and which I like to think of as the Golden Rule of Traffic:
One cannot have the right of way; one can only yield the right of way.
posted by j-dawg at 1:52 PM on October 14, 2009
One cannot have the right of way; one can only yield the right of way.
posted by j-dawg at 1:52 PM on October 14, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
I hope you'd stop whether there was a crosswalk or not. Not only would that prove you were a human being, it's correct: a pedestrian always has the right of way, even if jaywalking or dancing in a chicken suit.
But more generally: if one doesn't have the right of way, one must yield to a driver who does. Sounds like two ways of saying the same thing to me. The driving manual is making it clear what you, the driver, must do. They're probably just being more clear.
posted by rokusan at 10:13 PM on October 12, 2009