This is the first wrecked 2007 I have heard about.

Sad.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/artic...l/67-wreck.txt

Quote in case the link breaks.

Driver wrecks car on test drive

By Gazette News Services
A woman test-driving a 2007 Ford Mustang, along with a car salesman and two others, ended up in the hospital after an accident Sunday afternoon.

The woman, driving a car from Archie Cochrane Ford, was northbound on Zoo Drive around 4:15 p.m. when she passed through the intersection at South Frontage Road and was struck by a 1998 Ford Taurus, according to Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Dell Aman.

A stop sign usually at that intersection was missing when the collision occurred, Aman said.

The four people in the Mustang, which included a salesman from Archie Cochrane, were taken to St. Vincent Healthcare. None of the injuries appeared life-threatening, Aman said. Their conditions were not available Sunday night.

Sarah Ann Mulford, 21, who was driving the Mustang, was cited for failure to yield the right of way, Aman said. The driver of the Taurus was not cited.

Both cars were totaled.


Published on Monday, July 17, 2006.
Last modified on 7/17/2006 at 1:01 am

Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.

 

No stop sign??I smell lawsuit!

 

Another poor innocent car destroyed by human stupidity. No stop sign combined with driver negligance.

 

does she have to pay for car?

 

If she does have to pay for the car, I definitely recommend getting the GAP insurance...

 

I assume that the dealership has insurance; however, because she is at-fault (according to the report, although I disagree), the dealership will probably pursue her for damages.

 

Anytime you test drive a car the buyer has to provide proof of insurance.

 

Already an 07 wreck?

 

well, if anything- this just goes to show how safe the mustang is... i mean it was totalled and no one died- A + safety rating for the mustang!

 

Did the car have the side airbags?

 

if it didn't have side airbags then thats even better for the safety aspect-

 

So wait a minute

The Mustang passed through an intersection--one at which a stop sign SHOULD have been but was NOT at-- and the driver was cited with failure to yield.

That is BS. I'd be fighting that. It doesn't matter if there SHOULD be a stop sign there, the fact was it was NOT there.

 

Have you read the comments on that story? Lots of comments and people arguing the same thing...

 

No stop sign or not, if the other car was coming from the right you have to yield right of way when there are no signs or markings stating otherwise.

You'll notice she was not given a ticket for failure to stop. She was given a ticket for failure to yield.

I'm sure this was the case.

 

While I completely understand what you’re stating I would have to disagree and here is why. There are many intersections that only have stop signs for one direction. I have never seen an intersection with no stop signs and thus completely relying on drivers to yield the right of way to the vehicle on their right. If that were true there should have been a “yield” sign on all 4 roads leading to the intersection.

Now not knowing the complete situation and only going by the story the police were complete idiots to site anyone since, by any logical sense, and I would imagine laws as well, nobody was at fault for anything other then the town or city for not replacing a missing stop sign.

I could be wrong but I have traveled through many states and have never ran into an intersection that had no signs, no stop signs and no yield signs, but rather completely relied on drivers to figure out who should stop and who should continue going.

I think both people involved have great law suits and will win as well as the stupid citation for “failure to yield” being thrown out and if the judge has any ethics at all will not only laugh at the idiot cop who wrote the ticket but put him/her into their place…

Generally with what your stating about “yielding” to the vehicle on the right would apply to a 4 way stop when two or more vehicles arrive at the intersection at the same time.

 

I've been to numerous intersections with absolutely no yield or stop signs. It is a law taught in every state to yield to the vehicle on the right. No matter what. Ignorance of the law is an unacceptable excuse of trying to get out of liability.

She broke the law. She didn't yield, and she totaled two vehicles because of it. Case over.

There does not have to be a yield sign for you to HAVE to yield to the right. Given no signs at all, you MUST yield to the right. PERIOD.

There are no intersections with 4 way yields. Yield based intersections only have signs for the street intersecting another, generally busier or larger street.

I know Montana for one, as well as Arizona and New Mexico, as well as many places in Texas have intersections that have absolutely no signs. These are just places I have encountered this, and is by no means a comprehensive list.


Here are a few quotes for the non believers. Really now, brush up on your driving skills.

Many more I can list. Try Google or take a refresher course at your local DMV.

 

Ok, point made, no reason to get upset. As I said I have never ran into an intersection that had no signs at all. In any case in this incident the other car was not going to stop and as such since it was traveling at what ever rate of speed she may have not seen it as she may have had the intersection had no signs thus requiring ALL drivers to STOP.

The main case is she has an excellent law suit, regardless if an idiot cop gave her a ticket when the cop should have been more worried about the great liability the town or city has on its hands now. Oh well, she may pay a few bucks to the town or city but they will lose that “tax” money when they have to pay her and all the other people involved some big money for the missing stop sign.

Point of the story is the town or city is seriously screwed and completely responsible for the accident…

 

The city is not liable at all. The sign could have just been stolen, 5 minutes could have passed and the accident could have happened.

Or, the person driving the "victimized" car could have stolen the sign and set up an accident in order to collect insurance money and file a lawsuit against the city of the city would have definately been liable.

The fact of the matter is, there are two factors to this accident.

a) The stolen sign, of which, neither party involved in the accident could remedy

b) A failure to yield.

The city will not have to pay anyone. Simple as that. Prolonged neglect has to be proven in a case like this by anyone suing the city. Even then, good luck.

In essence. Look both ways and slow down before entering any intersection, signs or not. That is a very simple remedy.

I'm sick of this Whaa Whaa attitude people have about things that happen to them when they completely neglect obvious ways to avoid them, and then cry that the system is unfair or they are going to sue. She failed as a driver, and as such should pay the price.

 

Yeah, I'll second that. The book I had to read for my Ontario Driving test stated, (and there was a question like this on the test,) that you must NOT enter an intersection unless the way is clear, regardless of who has the right of way. I for one will not drive through an intersection because I have the right of way, but theres a dude driving toward me in the wrong. From what I read in the story, the guy not driving the Mustang technically had the right of way, so the cops were correct.

Having said this, if I were the cops, I probally would have let it fly because of her likely distraught state and what not.

 

Click on the link to the story, and see more opinions from local people. Apparently one of the cars was going 65 mph, whew.