Traffic Question. Green Light, Turning Right vs Opposite Turning Left.

[Zenmervolt]

If your description is accurate, there's no way that's your fault. I would have hired a lawyer.

If his description is accurate, he should have been cited for fleeing the scene of an accident.

The problem with his story is that, if what he says is correct, then he basically made the stupidest possible decision when he left the scene to get drunk. He forfeited his opportunity to explain his side of the accident to the officer at the scene and he ended up letting the other driver set the stage entirely. He didn't bother to check witnesses or anything, he simply fled the scene to get drunk. That's not exactly high on the list of ways to get the police to believe your side of the story.

ZV

 

[RockinZ28]

I did give a statement. I didn't flee. After they towed my car away I went to the bar.

The other guy lied in his statement. He parked his car after the accident in the driveway of the shopping center, and told the cops he didn't move it, that's where it was after the crash. So probably looked to them I hit his rear as he was entering the driveway.

I knew I was fucked when the first words out of his mouth were, "I was just off the base to....". This was right by Camp Pendleton, cops worship military there. I was too broke to hire a lawyer back then, not that it would have mattered with the police report, judge isn't going to believe me over them.

 

[Zenmervolt]

You'll forgive me if I'm not inclined to fully believe a man whose way of dealing with being in a car accident is getting so drunk that he got arrested for it.

ZV

 

[RockinZ28]

Well I had been out of work for over a year, and went through all my savings. The 12 months prior to that had been the worst of my life and the car was the only thing I had left. I had nothing after the accident and getting shitfaced seemed like a mandate.
Truth matters not in this country anymore, everyone wants money for doing nothing. Heck my dad clipped a car with his side mirror trying to squeeze by and broke their tail light. Woman sued for back injuries and medical treatment and won.

 

[DivideBYZero]

This is fucking COMMON SENSE. IF I am making a left turn because I signaled and it was deemed reasonably safe, and you peel out traveling at 85mph, but going straight, and you HIT ME, YOU ARE AT FAULT.

If I am mid-turn and you hit me, YOU ARE AT FAULT.

If I decide to fucking park in the middle of the road, YOU ARE AT FAULT.

The bolded parts are not common sense, they are moronic.

If you are mid turn, and you made that turn without checking it was safe to do so, you are at fault. If you suddenly park in the middle of an intersection and get hit, you are at fault.

 

[EightySix Four]

The bolded parts are not common sense, they are moronic.

If you are mid turn, and you made that turn without checking it was safe to do so, you are at fault. If you suddenly park in the middle of an intersection and get hit, you are at fault.

If he parks in the middle of the lane he'll get cited for failure to avoid a collision as well.

 

[shortylickens]

I think its scary so many people dont know America has these things called states. In those states, they set up laws.

The OPs issue could have been solved much faster if he had told us what state this was in his first post.

Also, just based on what he said: If he was going right on a green, he almost certainly had the right of way. If the opposing dude was making a left, it was not a controlled left (or shouldnt be if the signals were working properly) and he damn well knows he's supposed to yield to straights and rights on the other side.

 

[slag]

It says right there, making a left turn you must yield until vehicles aren't close enough to pose a hazard, and make your turn when reasonably safe.

The guy that turned in front of me was neither. You can't just throw your turn signal on and expect vehicles to yield to you.

You must be one of the freeway drivers that turn their signal on to change lanes and just start coming over without looking and expect people to yield cause your light is on.

Damn straight. The act of me turning my blinker on is me signaling to you my intent to merge or change lanes. I'm not asking permission to do so, I'm informing you that I will be doing so and that you should vacate the place immediately or risk getting your ass run over. Its a turn signal indicator and I am indicating my intention to you.





ok ok, so I don't really feel this way, but it sure would be fun to think this is the case.

 

[MJinZ]

The bolded parts are not common sense, they are moronic.

If you are mid turn, and you made that turn without checking it was safe to do so, you are at fault. If you suddenly park in the middle of an intersection and get hit, you are at fault.

WRONG.

If there is something wrong with the car, you can be stopped in the middle of the lane, and ANYONE THAT HITS YOU IS AT FAULT FOR NOT STOPPING TO AVOID A STATIONARY OBJECT.

COMMON SENSE.

Did the read the paragraph ABOVE stating what the terms of the "Mid-turn" collision were?

 

[ViviTheMage]

You all are wrong with this...this happened to my GF last summer, and it was 50% her fault, and 50% his fault. He had a green, she was taking her left (she had a green, not an arrow, so she was yielding),she figured it was safe, took her left, and they smashed in the intersection (his front end into her front right wheel well)...insurance/cops deemed 50% for both drivers.

IMO it was the other drivers fault, he was on his SECOND rental from getting into 2 previous accidents in the week...that is right, he destroyed his main car, and a rental, and a second rental in about 3 days.

 

[MJinZ]

You all are wrong with this...this happened to my GF last summer, and it was 50% her fault, and 50% his fault. He had a green, she was taking her left (she had a green, not an arrow, so she was yielding),she figured it was safe, took her left, and they smashed in the intersection (his front end into her front right wheel well)...insurance/cops deemed 50% for both drivers.

IMO it was the other drivers fault, he was on his SECOND rental from getting into 2 previous accidents in the week...that is right, he destroyed his main car, and a rental, and a second rental in about 3 days.

Yes, Insurance, like I already said, will assign %fault to each party.

50/50 means both drivers fucked up, NOT that each person only 1/2 fucked up. (The whole fuckup therefore, is split evenly among both drivers).

If only ONE driver was smart enough to yield (the left turning driver in this case should have yielded before smashing into the other guy), the accident would have been avoided.

 

[LTC8K6]

You all are wrong with this...this happened to my GF last summer, and it was 50% her fault, and 50% his fault. He had a green, she was taking her left (she had a green, not an arrow, so she was yielding),she figured it was safe, took her left, and they smashed in the intersection (his front end into her front right wheel well)...insurance/cops deemed 50% for both drivers.

IMO it was the other drivers fault, he was on his SECOND rental from getting into 2 previous accidents in the week...that is right, he destroyed his main car, and a rental, and a second rental in about 3 days.

AFAIK, as stated, that is 100% the GF's fault for turning into oncoming traffic.

The only way this can possibly be construed as 50/50 by the police is if they witnessed it and determined that the other driver could have avoided the accident and didn't. That is, that he had enough time to stop and made no effort to do so.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Yes, Insurance, like I already said, will assign %fault to each party.

50/50 means both drivers fucked up.

If only ONE driver was smart enough to yield (the left turning driver in this case should have yielded before smashing into the other guy), the accident would have been avoided.

Or if the other guy used his brakes ... there weren't even skid marks on his end, haha.

It was a little more off balance with that %55~ him, 45% her or something more specific. There were camera lights, but they never pulled them to see if he/she was really at fault. Her car was totaled out too, so I would have thought they'd pull em.

 

[ViviTheMage]

AFAIK, as stated, that is 100% the GF's fault for turning into oncoming traffic.

The only way this can possibly be construed as 50/50 by the police is if they witnessed it and determined that the other driver could have avoided the accident and didn't. That is, that he had enough time to stop and made no effort to do so.

If you really want the story, I can go into detail, but cliff note wise, he should be at fault, because apparently his light was yellow/red so he sped up to run it, and hers was still green.

I have no idea if his was yellow, or red, but like I said...he did not brake at all. This was his 3rd accident in a few days. I am still surprised they never pulled the camera.

Would have been funny if there was a speedtrap, and it snapped his plate as he ran it and he got mailed the photo of the accident + ticket for running it....at least there is one less PT cruiser on the streets 8) ... and the GF's Yaris held up well.

 

[waffleironhead]

back to the OP...

Were there two lanes to turn into or just one?

 

[NoCreativity]

One situation where left turn trumps right turn is when right turn is made from a non-public roadway (i.e. parking lot) and there is no signage posted to indicate that right turn has right-of-way.

 

[Zenmervolt]

One situation where left turn trumps right turn is when right turn is made from a non-public roadway (i.e. parking lot) and there is no signage posted to indicate that right turn has right-of-way.

This assumes an uncontrolled intersection, which is not the situation described in the OP, so your comment is irrelevant.

ZV