Who would be at fault in this accident?

[Izzo]

Okay, bear with me here. There is a light at an intersection that looks like this --| (intersection looks like that, not the light). For ease of reference up and down will be north and south of course. There are 4 northbound (NB)lanes. 2 of them go straight and 2 turn left. The left turn lanes have dashed lines to show which lanes to turn into.

There are THREE westbound lanes. The left hand turn lanes lead into the southernmost westbound lanes. So the setup is sort of like this (as you can tell, I am not an artist due to my total lack of artistic skill:
__________________|South | North 1 | North 2 |

_______ Lane 3 (WB)_|South | North 1 | North 2 |

____Lane 2 (WB)____ |South | North 1 | North 2 |

____Lane 1 (WB)____|South | North 1 | North 2 |


So North 1 turns into WB lane 1 and North 2 turns into WB lane 2 as dictated by dashed lines on the pavement. The northbound lanes are given the green light and green arrow. They are the only lanes with the right of way. All others are stopped (except for the eastbound lanes turning into the Southbound lanes [not shown]).

Now let's say that a driver in turning into lane 2 takes a wider turn and goes into lane 3. Meanwhile, a southbound driver with the red light makes a right turn on red (which is legal in Michigan) into lane 3. If these two cars collide, then who is at fault? This almost happened to me yesterday. Maybe I'll divulge the info of which car I was at a later time

edit: bear with me on the drawing....I'll fix it

 

[fonzinator]

I would say the driver turning right on red is at fault. It is their responsibility to make sure the intersection is clear before turning.

 

[Tom]

Well, the northbound driver is supposed to stay in his lane as the dotted lines show,

but the southbound driver is only supposed to turn right on red when the way is clear, so even though the other person wasn't supposed to change lanes the southbound person doesn't have the right of way.

So I woul say it's a judgement call and it probably would matter who hit who.

 

[huesmann]

If you turn right on red you're supposed to come to a complete stop before making the turn. You're also not to proceed until the intersection is clear.

Whomever did a right on red is at fault for striking anyone turning with a green light, no matter which lane they were in.

 

[huesmann]

Stupid double posts.

 

[NesuD]

They are both equally at fault because they both made improper turns int the 3rd lane.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: NesuD
They are both equally at fault because they both made improper turns int the 3rd lane.

Except the right on red car would probably get the ticket and would be found responsible for damages. I bet you were turning right.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: fonzinator
I would say the driver turning right on red is at fault. It is their responsibility to make sure the intersection is clear before turning.

Yep, Must WAIT until the intersection is clear before turning.

 

[wake]

Whoever hits the other guys bumper is at fault!
But the person making the left turn could be driving around roadkill or something thats sitting in the 2nd lane, he shouldn't have to worry about the car making a right turn from a red light.

 

[Izzo]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: NesuD
They are both equally at fault because they both made improper turns int the 3rd lane.

Except the right on red car would probably get the ticket and would be found responsible for damages. I bet you were turning right.

Actually, I was turning left. I couldn't believe it when I saw the other guy turning into me. I altered my path of course so we wouldn't hit. The reason I wanted in lane 3 is because it is a busy road and I would be taking a right turn within a couple of miles. Plus I had a green light. I shouldn't have to worry about that lane being blocked by the cars turning right. I also like being in that lane because it is the slow lane. Eventually the road will become a 70 mph expressway but the area in question is 50 mph limit. Yet people still go 70-75 on the road. I have no problem with that, but I'd rather not have the hassle of another speeding ticket. So I just stick to the slow lane.

 

[skarydrunkguy]

Michigan is a friggin no fault state, so nobody is at fault. You could be (like I was) waiting to make a left turn into a business on a fairly busy 4 lane road (2 north, 2 south) when some crackhead who isn't paying attention plows into your assend at 50MPH. It is blatantly obvious who is at fault, but in Michigan, it doesn't friggin matter one lick. Damn Michigan.

BTW, the right on red guy is at fault. When turning right on a red light, you treat the light like a stop sign. So, if there were a stop sign there, he wouldn't have pulled out into oncoming traffic. Therefor, it, although it doesn't matter, is the right-on-red-guys fault.

People that do things like that should have their licenses revoked permanently. Those ahzholes are the reason I've wrecked 4 cars in the last 8 months, and I can't afford another one.

 

[Torghn]

I would ticket both of them. South bound gets a failer to yeild. North bound gets improper lane change.

 

[Izzo]

Originally posted by: skarydrunkguy


People that do things like that should have their licenses revoked permanently. Those ahzholes are the reason I've wrecked 4 cars in the last 8 months, and I can't afford another one.

There's a lot of people out there that shouldn't be allowed to drive. I was waiting at an intersection at a red light, waiting to turn left. I had my blinker on. The guy across from (oncoming lane) was sitting at the intersection too with no blinker on. So when the light turns green, I wait for him to go through the intersection. He doesn't. He just slowly nudges out. I'm trying to figure out what the hell he's doing then it dons on me. I scream something to the effect of "you mutherfff... use your damn blinker." Before I finish the sentence, sure enough, he turns on his left blinker. So I make my turn and go along my merry way. People that act like they are in their own little world should not be allowed to drive.

One more irritating story. I am turning right on a green light to go east (with my blinker on in a right turn only lane). One car in the oncoming lane is turning left to go eastbound too. He makes a good judgment and makes his left turn in front of me because he has adequate time before I get to the intersection. But the guy behind him must've assumed that that direction had a green arrow (they did not) and starts his left turn left heading right into me. Seemingly the only one aware of the situation, I slam on my brakes and throw up my hands (and maybe a finger too) to avoid an accident. He throws up his hands and gestures that it was my fault. WTF dude. Please die.

 

[Tom]

Put this..

".and throw up my hands "

together with this..

"There's a lot of people out there that shouldn't be allowed to drive."


and you have :light:

 

[dxkj]

both, but more at fault is the guy turning right on red..... you did an improper lane change, should turn into your lane, and then switch.



yeah michigan is hella stupid. if you ram a lambourghini with your POS , then who hurts more

 

[Izzo]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Put this..

".and throw up my hands "

together with this..

"There's a lot of people out there that shouldn't be allowed to drive."


and you have :light:

Huh? I didn't literally throw my hands in the air and relinquish all control of the vehicle. But I did a one armed "what the hell are you doing" shrug.

I learned my lesson and will stay in the proper lane (except if there's a semi next to me. Then I will give him a ton of room and do the illegal lane shift thing--if it's clear). Ah well, it's time for the weekend. I gotta go. Happy driving all.

 

[dullard]

Trust me on this: the person who turned into the wrong lane is ALWAYS at least partially at fault. There are 3 lanes for a reason - so the person going south can turn freely on red. You have one and only one lane to turn in - you should have NEVER considered the 3rd lane as it is meant for people turning on red only. Go to any drivers ed or drivers training course and they'd tell you the same thing. I'm not saying that in some states the person turning on red isn't at fault (since some states allow fault sharing) but the one who turns into a disallowed lane is always fully at fault or partially at fault.

The reasoning for this is to ensure free flowing traffic.

With the exception of speeding, turning in the correct lane is probably the most ignored law.

 

[huesmann]

No, the guy with the green light ALWAYS has right of way over anyone with a red light.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: huesmann
No, the guy with the green light ALWAYS has right of way over anyone with a red light.

He has the right to turn into the proper lane. He doesn't have the right to turn illegally into the incorrect lane. Take this as an example: You turn left (north) onto a road with one lane going south and one lane going north. You are supposed to turn into the lane going north. There is a car sitting a red light (heading south). You turn into the south bound lane (wrong side of the road) and hit that car. Who is at fault? Of course it is you. Yes you had the right of way, but you turned into the wrong lane and hit someone. The story doesn't change if you add one more lane to the picture - or even a dozen more lanes. If there is a lane designated for you to turn into and you don't it is your fault.

I've had more than one friend do the wrong lane change, get in an accident, and they were the ones at fault (they got the ticket, they paid the insurance claim) - not the person turning on red.

 

[huesmann]

You moron, there's a difference between turning into a lane in the right direction and the wrong direction.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: huesmann
You moron, there's a difference between turning into a lane in the right direction and the wrong direction.

Izzo specifically said he turned into the wrong lane. My example was turning into the wrong lane. The direction difference doesn't matter. I used it solely as the most simple example.

How about this as an example (to avoid your complaint). Two single lanes from different roads going in the same direction merge into a new two lane road. there is a solid line separating the lanes at the beginning to designate which lane you are to be in. Each car in each single lane should be able to go full speed in their lane without worry. One car at the merge crosses over the solid line immediately and hits a car. Who is at fault? The one merging onto the incorrect lane. Same exact thing with Izzo's story. Izzo was in a lane which combined with the right turn lane into a new road - Izzo crossed the separating line and nearly got hit.

Or how about this example: Suppose it was a regular intersection with lanes going in all 4 directions and you are going northbound. The cars to your right (westbound) have a green light to go straight (and a red left turn light). You have a green left turn light since it merges into a new lane (but a red forward light since you'd hit the cars coming from your right). You want to turn left and a car going westbound wants to go straight. If you both stay in the approved lane you both go through without problem. But you choose to go across the lane indicators and you hit that westbound car. Same thing, you are at fault.

I understand your concern, since almost everyone breaks the law and turns into the wrong lane. But just since everyone does it doesn't make it legal. If you do something illegal you are at least partially at fault for the accident (especially since the accident wouldn't have occured if you didn't do the illegal movement).

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Izzo

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: NesuD
They are both equally at fault because they both made improper turns int the 3rd lane.

Except the right on red car would probably get the ticket and would be found responsible for damages. I bet you were turning right.

Actually, I was turning left. I couldn't believe it when I saw the other guy turning into me. I altered my path of course so we wouldn't hit. The reason I wanted in lane 3 is because it is a busy road and I would be taking a right turn within a couple of miles. Plus I had a green light. I shouldn't have to worry about that lane being blocked by the cars turning right. I also like being in that lane because it is the slow lane. Eventually the road will become a 70 mph expressway but the area in question is 50 mph limit. Yet people still go 70-75 on the road. I have no problem with that, but I'd rather not have the hassle of another speeding ticket. So I just stick to the slow lane.

Always, always, always turn into your lane, especially when there is any kind of traffic at all.

Ryan