pag salpok ng taxi sa suv, sino may mali?

[jodsalva]

Dapat kasi defensive driving hindi garapalan sa kalsada,

[ekfinder]

If this happened in the U.S. mali yung SUV. Right of way nang taxi yung lane, SUV should yeild.I have noticed when driving in the US babangain ka talaga kung pumasok ka at right of way nung pinasukang lane. The issue is not the speed kung nag yeild muna yung SUV sa right of way then non of these could happen. I guess talgang ganyan sa dito sa atin sino nakabanga siya ang may kasalanan. Try for example if the SUV is merging from a side street to the hi way talgang mabilis cars dun, cars would not yeild to merging or right turning vehicles it should be the other way around. Thats my opinion.

[slvrsrfr2301]

both may mali

suv:

bat gumitna sya?
at siguro pinasok nya kahit may paparating

taxi:

obvious mabilis sya
di pa nya binigay (a thing that i dont understand with puv drivers, nakita mo nang pasok na di mo pa ibigay hahapitin mo pa o di ka man lang mag brake...)

a bit ot pero tibay nug suv ah....

[wei]

Its hard to say since di ko alam kung naka green light ba yung sa side ng taxi o walang traffic lights dyan? But nagtataka lang ako sa taxi kung bakit di nalang sya nag menor o switched to the other lane slowly para iwasan yung SUV. Sa bansa natin, insisting on your right of way all the time while driving is a recipe for disaster, especially sa mga motorcycle riders na mukhang ang alam lang ay paandarin yung motor at walang alam sa road rules. defensive driving dapat.

[yebo]

Its hard to say since di ko alam kung naka green light ba yung sa side ng taxi o walang traffic lights dyan? But nagtataka lang ako sa taxi kung bakit di nalang sya nag menor o switched to the other lane slowly para iwasan yung SUV. Sa bansa natin, insisting on your right of way all the time while driving is a recipe for disaster, especially sa mga motorcycle riders na mukhang ang alam lang ay paandarin yung motor at walang alam sa road rules. defensive driving dapat.

eto pa isa o. sige nga try mo umiwas kahit 60kph lang takbo mo. volunteer na ako, ako yung mag-u-u-turn at ikaw ang sa taxi. pero imbes na suv e bulldozer dala ko. tignan natin kung magtaka ka pa.

[Noel Salisipan]

.....
.....
....
OT na pala ito, case close na!
(bayad ang taxi, pero kasalanan ni SUV.-grin-)

[ZENMasterTYL]

taxi ang mali, may chance pa dapat syang umiwas kung di sya mabilis. and yes, dapat defensive driving lang ang pairalin

[OTEP]

Apir! *sabay kagat labi*

[jrn29]

for me pareho sila may kasalan, yung SUV alanganin liko , yung taxi naman eh sobrang bilis dapat kapag may nakikita na kanto mag memenor o mag mamabagal man lang siya , peru buti nalang hindi tumakbo yung SUV

[fanboi]

for me pareho sila may kasalan, yung SUV alanganin liko , yung taxi naman eh sobrang bilis dapat kapag may nakikita na kanto mag memenor o mag mamabagal man lang siya , peru buti nalang hindi tumakbo yung SUV

Tama ka sir pareho nga silang may sala. Kasi kung di sana sila dumaan sa edsa e di sana walang banggaan na nangyari. Kung nag stay na lang sila sa mga bahay nila malamang wala sila sa kalye.

[glenn manikis]

we can see that the taxi had the last clear chance to avoid the accident... which i think was the basis for the conclusion for the filing of the chargers against the taxi driver....

then mabilis pa yung taxi.... dyan naman po pumapasok ang proximate cause of the accident....
kung hindi sana mabilis ang taxi (violation din yung mabilis considered reckless po yan). hindi sana nangyari ang accidente....

at hindi lang basta mabilis yung taxi pero siya pa din lang ang ppwedeng umiwas sa pagkakataon na iyon....

hindi naman kasi purkit nasa right of way ka ikaw na ang laging tama....
sa batas po kasi natin the Right of the Person ENDS when Abuse Begins.....

kaya sa bangaan wag AABUSO at siguraduhin po natin na tayo ang laging nasa harap (para yung kabangaan po natin lagi ang may last clear chance to avoid the collision)..... he.he.. another illegal advice.....

[yebo]

kaya sa bangaan wag AABUSO at siguraduhin po natin na tayo ang laging nasa harap (para yung kabangaan po natin lagi ang may last clear chance to avoid the collision)..... he.he.. another illegal advice.....

mali attorney, kasi may kaso ako na ako ang behind (ng 2 feet) pero had right of way. nabangga ko yung kotse, aminado ako dun, pero siya yung nag-merge. i did not pay 1 single centavo. hinahabol pa siya ngayon ng insurance nya.

[ab_initio]

we can see that the taxi had the last clear chance to avoid the accident... which i think was the basis for the conclusion for the filing of the chargers against the taxi driver....

then mabilis pa yung taxi.... dyan naman po pumapasok ang proximate cause of the accident....
kung hindi sana mabilis ang taxi (violation din yung mabilis considered reckless po yan). hindi sana nangyari ang accidente....

at hindi lang basta mabilis yung taxi pero siya pa din lang ang ppwedeng umiwas sa pagkakataon na iyon....

hindi naman kasi purkit nasa right of way ka ikaw na ang laging tama....
sa batas po kasi natin the Right of the Person ENDS when Abuse Begins.....

kaya sa bangaan wag AABUSO at siguraduhin po natin na tayo ang laging nasa harap (para yung kabangaan po natin lagi ang may last clear chance to avoid the collision)..... he.he.. another illegal advice.....

I believe the last clear chance doctrine (LCCD) here cannot be applied considering that it is a reckless imprudence case, criminal in nature. The doctrine can only be applied when we determine the civil liability of the taxi driver, independent of the criminal case. The two cases have different quantum of proof and the taxi driver's criminal liability is determined not solely by the doctrine of last clear chance but on whether or not he violated the traffic laws. Although we do not know if the civil aspect is to be separately instituted or in the absence thereof, it is impliedly instituted with the crim case.

Sec. 44, R.A. 4136 provides:

Section 44. Signals on starting, stopping or turning. -

(a) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement, shall give a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn, and whenever the operation of any other vehicle approaching or following may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicles of the intention to make such movement.

(b) The signal herein required shall be given by means of extending the hand and arm beyond the left side of the vehicle, or by an approved mechanical or electrical signal device.

This, the Supreme Court interpreted the law in this wise:

This means that before a driver turns from a direct line, in this case to the left, the driver must first see to it that there are no approaching vehicles and, if there are, to make the turn only if it can be made in safety, or at the very least give a signal that is plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle.

Based on the law quoted above, it was the SUV driver who made a turn so recklessly, hence, no criminal liability would lie against the taxi driver.

If we talk about the civil liability of the taxi driver, LCCD is inapplicable because under the last clear chance, the oncoming vehicle must have sufficient opportunity to see the negligence of the SUV. There is no such opportunity. Taking that into consideration and in conjunction with the SUV's recklessness, the doctrine applicable would, at best, be that of contributory negligence.

Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, although as a rule, the SUV cannot recover any from the taxi driver, the court may determine whether or not there is ground to mitigate the taxi driver's liability or absolve him.

[Balikpinoy]

mabilis ang taxi? owwsss! but remember what bayani fernando said when he was mmda chair, edsa is a highway and 100kph is the maximum speed there.

mali ang suv kung sa right of way ang usapan. 2 things: 1st, edsa is the major road and vehicles on the major road ALWAYS has right of way as against vehicles coming from a minor road in case there is no stop sign or stop light. 2nd, the taxi has the green light. may stop light dun e, mabilis siya so ibig sabihin green light siya. 3rd, yung suv sa middle lane ang pasok nya, dapat leftmost lane siya. parang sa U-turn slot yan, dapat dun siya sa lane na innermost papasok WHEN IT IS FREE TO DO SO. pag may padating dapat maghintay siya.

kung sasabihin nyo na suv has right of way kasi nauuna siya, e di parang jeepney driver reasoning na din - nauna ang bumper mo so right of way ka na pwede na sumingit at bahala na yung sumusunod at katabi mo(kahit 6 inches lang nauna bumper mo sa iba) na magpreno at umiwas sa iyo. so ganun ba, utak jeepney driver na ba tayo, unahan lang ng bumper?

sorry ha kung masakit.

Thumbs Up!

[Noel Salisipan]

"Right of way"!
Clear na para sa taxi yung right of way.

Collision, may laban ang taxi dahil sa gilid tinamaan.

Right hand rule, sa taxi pa rin dahil nasa kaliwa nya yung SUV.

Speed limit, kung may evidence na more than the limit yung taxi pwedeng yun lang ang kaso nya, the rest sa SUV na.

[HondaWay]

wow! reading some of your posts here makes me afraid of driving in manila again! your concept of right of way is way off!!!

RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE AHEAD, IT IS A MATTER OF WHO OWNS THE LANE. a car that is merging in traffic has no right of way even if that car is ahead by so many meters. the vehicle that is in that lane, no matter how many meters behind it is, has the right of way over the car that is merging. same with cars entering from another road. no matter how big the distance may be between the intersection and the oncoming car on the road where the other car is merging, the car that is already in that road has right of way over the car that is entering. kaya nga if you are entering a road you are required to stop for oncoming traffic and YIELD. e sinasabi nyo kung sino pa yung nasa edsa at diretso ang takbo e yun pa ang walang right of way at yung suv na pumasok at nag-left turn ang may right of way. maling-mali naman mga tsong!

nakakatakot naman kayo! you need to go back to driving school and review your road rules!

Agree, ito yung nasasaad sa batas trapiko. Nagmemerge yung SUV kaya siya maghihintay na may magbigay sa kanya. Ang malas lang ng taxi driver nasa Pilipinas siya, kahit traffic enforcers mangmang sa batas trapiko dito. Kung sa US, UK, Canada, Singapore, at other mature countries wala nang debate na SUV may kasalanan. Pero since bobo yung traffic enforcers, at narinig nyo naman sa report, kakasuhan daw yung taxi driver ng reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property.

Ang mga bobong enforcers dito ang alam kung sino bumangga siya may kasalanan. Kaya effect eh maraming drivers na mahilig sumingit na alanganin, maipasok lang nguso ng sasakyan nila eh sila na ang nasa right of way. Kapag mag magmaneho mga ito sa ibang bansa nagugulat sila at lagi silang hinuhuli ng traffic cop, mali kasi pagkaalam nila sa batas trapiko. Marami rin kasing driver dito na nagkalicense sa suhol, hindi kabisado yung traffic manual na pinakakabisado for the written exam. Lalo na traffic enforcers, mas bobo mga iyan sa batas trapiko. Kotong ang pinagaaralan ng mga iyan.

Ika nga nila, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Kaya when driving here tapon mo lahat ng common international traffic law na alam mo dahil bobo at di inaaral ng traffic enforcers ang batas trapiko dito. Laging alalay tayo sa preno dahil kapag may mag cut sa iyo, kahit sa highway, at ikaw bumangga ikaw ang ilalagay na at fault ng traffic enforcer.

[stickers]

ano ba turo pag ma u-uturn ka or change lane? di ba make sure its clear bago ka pumasok? did the SUV did that before the uturn? did the suv did that before he changed lane to the middle lane?

If you guys are using that U-turn slot, alam nyo na blind side yung incoming vehicle kasi inclined pataas yung kalsada na yun from Main Avenue to P. Tuazon, at the rate ng speed ni taxi, probably akala ni SUV walang parating, eh kaso harurot si taxi at biglang nagkabulagaan sila. Ayan tuloy nangyari. With regards naman sa paglipat ni SUV sa center lane from the U-turn slot, tingin ko papunta sya ng Araneta Center kaya sa rightmost lane pa talaga ang tungo nya. At fault din talaga yung taxi kasi we are also taught to reduce speed when approaching intersections, plus he has the last chance to avoid the collision.

Agree, ito yung nasasaad sa batas trapiko. Nagmemerge yung SUV kaya siya maghihintay na may magbigay sa kanya. Ang malas lang ng taxi driver nasa Pilipinas siya, kahit traffic enforcers mangmang sa batas trapiko dito. Kung sa US, UK, Canada, Singapore, at other mature countries wala nang debate na SUV may kasalanan. Pero since bobo yung traffic enforcers, at narinig nyo naman sa report, kakasuhan daw yung taxi driver ng reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property.

Ang mga bobong enforcers dito ang alam kung sino bumangga siya may kasalanan. Kaya effect eh maraming drivers na mahilig sumingit na alanganin, maipasok lang nguso ng sasakyan nila eh sila na ang nasa right of way. Kapag mag magmaneho mga ito sa ibang bansa nagugulat sila at lagi silang hinuhuli ng traffic cop, mali kasi pagkaalam nila sa batas trapiko. Marami rin kasing driver dito na nagkalicense sa suhol, hindi kabisado yung traffic manual na pinakakabisado for the written exam. Lalo na traffic enforcers, mas bobo mga iyan sa batas trapiko. Kotong ang pinagaaralan ng mga iyan.

Ika nga nila, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Kaya when driving here tapon mo lahat ng common international traffic law na alam mo dahil bobo at di inaaral ng traffic enforcers ang batas trapiko dito. Laging alalay tayo sa preno dahil kapag may mag cut sa iyo, kahit sa highway, at ikaw bumangga ikaw ang ilalagay na at fault ng traffic enforcer.

Bakit ba kasi walang YIELD at STOP signs dito sa Manila. tignan mo sa Subic maayos ang trapiko kasi alam ng tao kung ano ang rules at enforced ng mahigpit un.

[babynos01]

The LC (parang LC e) didnt even bother to brake while entering EDSA. Actually, nag preno lang siya nung nasa apex na siya ng curve (in which naka labas na nguso niya). The taxi is going fast but none of us know the position of the traffic lights in that area. If red na yung taxi, then it is clearly his fault no matter what. Pero kung hindi pa red, edi yung SUV. Its normal rin to travel edsa at the speed of the taxi. Parang 60 to 70 nga lang takbo niya.

Yung newscaster kampi sa SUV May pera daw e
Pero seriously, we need to view all the possible causes of that event. Hindi pwede judge na mali si taxi kasi mabilis, etc. The same thing goes for the SUV.

[kinyo]

"unsafe merging" vs "speeding at intersection" ... which one is the bigger fault?

[istan]

unsafe merging is the bigger fault.