Who was in the wrong?

>what is one way street???

dunno senpai, you tell me.

Is red switching lanes? (which a lot more likely for the way drawn)If yes,
>blue at fault
Is red going into the parking lot? If yes,
>red at fault

If it's a one way then why are the lanes divided by yellow lines?

A lane change has the right of way over a full turn. Blue car.

Is this a one way two lane street?
Red shouldn't be turning from the far lane but has right of way over the blue car
If they strike blue is really who fucked up but red will get hammered anyway for failure to observe and stop

Red has the right of way if that's a stop sign for blue. If it is one way, red is a fuck.

No stop sign and it is a shit show, i probably would let red go either way.

fuck kinda parking lot has one lane only

this

What is going on here?
Is the red car changing lanes or trying to get into the parking lot?
Why doesn't the parking lot have an entry and exit?

Are you genuinely this retarded?
>Not considering that it may be in a country that drives on the left side of the road
>Backing into the parking lot
>One Way Street WITH FUCKING DIVIDERS

I hope you neanderthals take the bus

Are you in a Left hand drive country or a right hand drive country?

>>Not considering that it may be in a country that drives on the left side of the road
>he himself doesn't consider that it mayb be in a country where dashed yellow line is not dividing current but simply indicates lanes and it still can be one way street

back to the bus with you then

Blue car.
Obviously yellow dotted means two lane with passing allowed in oncoming lane if clear.
Red car is assumed to be passing something, either way he is allowed in opposing lane.
Red car is on the bigger road.
Red car is returning to the proper travel lane.
Blue car is leaving a complex and on the "smaller" road and must yield.
Assuming US traffic laws.

Red. Why is he driving directly into blue?

One way streets have white dividing lines

What the fuck is this road design? You have a two-lane one-way road with right turns into driveways out of the left lane?
>right of way
not a real right or concept.

Tell that to any court when you hit a pedestrian.

the red car..
who the fuck turns off to the right from the right hand side of a two lane 1 way road?

>one way streets can't have lanes

Nice reading comprehension

One way streets are divided by white lines you fucking idiot

please tell me this is from malcom in the middle

>Who was in the wrong?
OP deliberately withheld important info that should have been available. First of all, before any question can be answered, the dictionary must be acknowledge so that everyone is using the same dictionary.

First, both red and blue are civilian cars. OP has not indicated they are bicycles or that either is an emergency vehicle or an undercover car with flashing lights and siren. Therefore, both cars are civilian passenger cars.

There are no road signs indicated, thus no road signage instructions are allowed. After all, it is possible for a road to have signs such as "No Left Turns for the next 1/4 mile" as I've seen such.

Road markings are dashed yellow lines. This obvious to both the red and blue cars and to the audience. Dashed yellow means it is a two-way road (not one way) and that passing is allowed.

Red car is driving forward in the left lane. Thus USA laws do not apply as the example is not in the USA or similar country. It obviously is not reversing into the parking lot driveway because OP has not indicated this highly exceptional erratic situation.

OP has not indicated either car is speeding or illegal (fleeing from bank robbery). Thus, the red car is legally driving, so it has the turn signal. The red car is also in the only legal lane for traffic in the eastbound direction due to the road markings.

Up to this point, there are no judgement calls because all items are expressly indicated. Because the red car is in the only legal lane for eastbound traffic, that means the blue car is driving in the wrong lane. The blue car also did not yield to the red car which has right of way.

Judgement call: The blue car is legally corrrect because Dear Leader was the passenger in that car along with Dennis Rodman on a North Korean road.

>Who was in the wrong?
OP deliberately withheld important info that should have been available. First of all, before any question can be answered, the dictionary must be acknowledge so that everyone is using the same dictionary.

First, both red and blue are civilian cars. OP has not indicated they are bicycles or that either is an emergency vehicle or an undercover car with flashing lights and siren. Therefore, both cars are civilian passenger cars.

There are no road signs indicated, thus no road signage instructions are allowed. After all, it is possible for a road to have signs such as "No Left Turns for the next 1/4 mile" as I've seen such.

Road markings are dashed yellow lines. This obvious to both the red and blue cars and to the audience. Dashed yellow means it is a two-way road (not one way) and that passing is allowed.

Red car is driving forward in the left lane. Thus USA laws do not apply as the example is not in the USA or similar country. It obviously is not reversing into the parking lot driveway because OP has not indicated this highly exceptional erratic situation.

OP has not indicated either car is speeding or illegal (fleeing from bank robbery). Thus, the red car is legally driving, so it has the turn signal. The red car is also in the only legal lane for traffic in the eastbound direction due to the road markings.

Up to this point, there are no judgement calls because all items are expressly indicated. Because the red car is in the only legal lane for eastbound traffic, that means the blue car is driving in the wrong lane. The blue car also did not yield to the red car which has right of way.

Judgement call: The blue car is legally corrrect because Dear Leader was the passenger in that car along with Dennis Rodman on a North Korean road.

>Tell that to any court when you hit a pedestrian.
I'm a practicing personal injury lawyer. I can assure you that there is no such thing as "the right of way." Pedestrian cases, like all other kinds of MVA cases, are routinely decided on the merits on other grounds. Whether someone was violating a traffic ordinance or not is just one fact in the record.
Don't feel bad about this, as this is a common misconception among the general public.

Just adding: I haven't practiced in every state, so there might be some out there where this is not the case, but it's quite generally true.

>I'm a practicing personal injury lawyer. I can assure you that there is no such thing as "the right of way."

I have to agree with you because I was a witness in a case where the traffic light was red for the opposing traffic about 2 seconds for the opposing traffic This was at night so the colors of traffic lights for other roads can be easily seen.. I was in the multilane road that had the green light. I and the lady next to me were already in the intersection. Other cars were in the interseciton too.

The car running the red light came in at high speed and did not yield "the right of way" to us. As you said, there is no such thing as the right of way. The rich guy that ran the light took it to court and got away with it. He was not held responsible nor did he get charged with running the red light. At the scene, he told the police officer the light was green for him. That was in opposition to everyone else's testimony that the light was green for those in the other roadway.

It was a case of the rich guy winning because the judge was on his side.

I forgot to add that the rich guy hit another car in the "T-bone" position. He was not the one hit. He hit the lady's car that was next to me.

Rich powerful people do live in another world and have a different set of laws apply to them. They don't always get away with it, but in this case, he was not found at fault.

why are both cars going the same direction on opposite sides of the road if one of thems not going the wrong way you re-re

It's probably because OP made the thread carelessly and with the minumum investment of time. As a result, he posted the example without any text description or description of the situation.

In my viewpoint, the blue car is at fault because it jumped the parking lot curb and is now driving across the sidewalk onto the roadway. The red car saw that and got road rage and is now driving at the blue car in order to collide with it. I believe this story fits within the description of the situation that OP provided.

Entering always has right of way

>drawing white lines on a white background
>arguing online
>ishygddt

>drawing white lines on a white background
OP would have used white lines on a dark background if he wanted white. But OP put in dashed yellow lines. That makes that a 2 lane road with traffic in both directions.

There's no argument. OP put down dashed yellow lines. There's no way OP can be mistaken in the color choice of road markings between yellow and white because that is just too basic an item to not know the difference between white and yellow.

Whoever designed this shitty parking lot with one entry/exit.

Why can't op use a fucking fill tool like everyone else who ever fucked around with MSpaint as a kid? The 3 fucking seconds it would have taken to make the image and what it portrays more clear would have rectified a lot of issues cropping up in this thread.

You all fell for his bait.

>Who was in the wrong?
As long as there is no collision, Blue has done two wrong things. If there is a collision, it becomes a judgement call by the police officer (or judge if challenged) because Red might have avoided hitting Blue and therefore should have allowed Blue to continue making the illegal turn.

>sit at red light
>light turns green
>nobody has the right of way since nothing has happened
>wait patiently for right of way
>nobody has the right of way since nothing has happened
>wait patiently for right of way
>nobody has the right of way since nothing has happened
>wait patiently for right of way
>...

red is more in the wrong

obviously the blue because he's driving over the fucking grass like a madman

Red, since he's driving on the wrong fucking side of the road

This is legally correct. Driveways are not treated as intersections under any Highway Code that I'm aware of. Even then changing lanes through intersections is legal in many places in which case it is again 100% liability on the person turning. They have to wait until traffic is completely clear before turning out and they're fucked if it never lulls.

Probably a method of traffic control. They'd have entered probably from a light controlled intersection and the driveways are for leaving only to stop everyone from slowing down and holding up traffic in the travelling lane. It's still smarter (and most Driver's Ed courses will tell you) if possible to drive back to the lights where you came in at so you can have a right of way when they go green.

You are legally allowed to run people over who are in/crossing the street illegally in many white first-world countries, notwithstanding other traffic laws that is. The only reason I don't plough through every jaywalker I can is because I have a life and don't wanna deal with it.

(You)

This could also be the case. In some places you're legally required to "yield to all traffic in the intersection, whether they are there legally or illegally, before proceeding,". Hitting the blue car could also be some kind of criminal charge for the red car such as Dangerous Driving, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, etc. even if the blue car was also breaking the law

>Who was in the wrong?
OP.

For drawing a shitty diagram and not providing sufficient information.

Left side driving is valid. OP didn't say it was wrong, so that driver must be driving normally.

>Is this a one way two lane street?
It can't be one way because the international dividing color for street markings is yellow. OP marked the street for two-way traffic by using a dashed yellow line.

>Entering always has right of way
Since there is no marked driveway at that location it cannot be inferred there is a right of way entrance.