• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who'd be at fault in a car crash like this?

J

Jerboy

Banned
When I was driving today it came to my mind that who would be at fault in an accident like this. I'm sure this kind of things happen all the time. Personally I think it's both of their fault, but I'm not sure how much fault I'd put in each party. I think in most states, you're technically supposed to turn into a lane on the innermost arc like shown with a dotted line.

The blue car is on southbound and makes a left on protected green, but does so using a large arc as illustrated in solid black lines.

The orange car on northbound checks for traffic from westside and assumes that left turner would make it into a correct lane and proceeds to make right and two cars "Y" into each other on the right lane.


Sorry about the piss poor diagram. Hopefully it's good enough to show what I'm trying to explain.


I can think of fault on the driver of the blue car for turning into a wrong lane in path of another vehicle and fault on the driver of the red car for inadequate checking before proceeding to take a right on red.

In real situation this can get more complicating than this such as when there are three lanes where left=left turn only, middle=straight and right=right lane only. In such case, when collision occurs at the center lane, I'd guess that they'd be both at fault since they're both technically making into wrong lanes. Perhaps 70% fault on the driver making right turn as even though they're both wrong, the other driver actually had protected green where his right of way is guaranteed.

Is there any state in the USA that considers it legal to cross across lane the way blue car did?
 
As long as the orange car stopped and there wasn't any sign saying 'no right turn on red' then I would say the blue car is totally at fault. It is illegal to turn into the far lane like that.
 
Yeah, the blue car would probably be at fault. If not for turning into the far lane, I also believe that cars turning right have the right of way in these situations.
 
no doubt, the blue car is at fault. I have to go through the exact same junction all the time whenever i go out from my apartment area. Usually, we proceed with caution and sometimes people just stop and wait till the orange car clear.
 
Blue car had a green light to turn left, but the orange car had a red? And the orange car was making a right turn on red?

If so, the orange car is at fault.
 
Yeah, if the blue car had a protected green and the orange car was turing on the red, it would be the orange car's fault. Right turn on red, after stop, when clear (unless prohibitted by a sign). This sort of thing almost always goes to the person who had the green light.

Ryan
 


<< Blue car had a green light to turn left, but the orange car had a red? And the orange car was making a right turn on red?

If so, the orange car is at fault. >>



It is the orange car's fault if they were both making it into a two lane road(one lane per direction), because the protected green gives him right of way. I also hold blue car responsible in this case because I believe turning into outer lane is illegal(I'm not sure if it's illegal in all fifty states).

There is already people with different answers and this is a sign that's an indication of unsureness, saying that I can only give opinions.

My opinion is that they're both at fault assuming that not following the closest arc is illegal. Actually 60% fault at blue car and 40% fault at red car. Blue car is guilty of making illegal turns. Red car is guilty of failing to adequately check for clearness before proceeding, but I gave him 40% at fault instead of half, because it is understandable that he didn't include people making illegal turns into consideration.
 
I'd fault the orange car - on a red you don't proceed until the way is clear, regardless of what you assume the other traffic is going to do. Regardless of how many lanes the blue car crossed, it had a protected green. What if the driver turned into the right lane in preparation for turning off of the roadway into a driveway (shopping center, gas station, etc.) Unless there are markings on the roadway dictating the lane to take while turning (say, there are two lanes turn left with a dotted line separating them).

Regardless of what was in the intersection when the orange car turned, it had a red light and should have yielded. This car assumed incorrectly what other traffic was going to do and caused the accident.

 
The idiot turning into the wrong lane, although the northbound driver is somewaht to blame becuase you should never assume that the other drivers are even remotely competent.
 
maybe a yellow mack truck will speed past the red light and plow into both of them so we have 2 less dumbass drivers to worry about.
 
Last I checked where I live, when making a turn from one lane into two you can turn into any lane you want. Turning from 2 into 3 is a bit more complicated, but the outer lane usually has the choice of which lanes (2 or 3) that it wants. But the orange car is at fault in this case.

If you could ONLY turn into the inner lanes I'd never make it onto the freeway after work because I'd need to make two lane changes in 100' to be able to make the onramp. (2 lanes into 4)

I live in California.
 
PA law states (assuming my Drivers Ed teacher was right and I am still remembering it correctly from many. many moons ago) that when you turn, you must enter the same lane on the new road as the one you are leaving biased towards the direction of the turn. So if you are turning from a road with a left turn lane (you are in the left most lane) you can only turn into the left most lane of the new road. If you are making the same turn but you are currently on a one lane road, you must still enter that left most lane. If you were making a right hand turn from the same one lane road, you must enter the right most lane. You can however make the lane change immediately provided the way is clear. Thus in the case of the accident, you completed you turn correctly but in entering that far right lane, you made an improper lane change which will probably be what you will be ticketed with.
I had this happen (I was the right-turn car) a few years ago in front of a cop and was run off the road by the left turn guy. The cop checked to see if I was ok before proceeding to pull over said left turn guy. I assumed he got a ticket.
This is probably slightly different in each state.
 
It depends. Which car is more expensive?! If blue is a BMW M class, and orange a Honda Civic ... I'd say that Blue's lawyer would make sure he was "right."
 
Florida. Legally I think the blue car is at fault. Practically, the orange car. While the law states that you should turn into the innermost lane, NO ONE DOES IT! When I am making the right, I always concede to the person making the left because I can see him and I don't know where he'll actually end up.
 
In my opinion forcing a car to choose the inner most lane is impractical in many circumstances, take U turns for instance, forcing the driver to go into the fast lane usually defeats the purpose and requires a near 0 turning radius. Also, where the law states "the same lane", are you in the inner most lane or outer most on a one lane road? Or are you in the middle? (in the case of one lane to three turns). I believe the law states that you can turn on red ONLY when it is safe, and you have to yeild to everyone (including pedestrians, DOH!). Right on red is basically one of those cases where you'll be at fault for any accident that occurs while left on green arrow is virtually immune from fault (unless they head into oncoming traffic or collide with another turn lane in the case of multiple turn lanes).

Typically in multiple turn lane situations california puts lines on the road whenever feasable to divide up which lane must go in which lane, and it's usually the inner most lane has to go to the inner most while the outermost lane has it's choice between the outer lanes (that aren't "in use" by other turn lanes).

The only place where right on red has any immunity to fault is when there is right turn merge lanes (where stright and left turning traffic cannot legally enter them)

...but that's California
 
It would depend on the collision. Whichever car was more 'behind' the other and didn't allow the lane to clear before entering would be at fault. If both were dead even, the blue car would probably be at fault for reasons already mentioned.
 


<< I'd fault the orange car - on a red you don't proceed until the way is clear, regardless of what you assume the other traffic is going to do. Regardless of how many lanes the blue car crossed, it had a protected green. What if the driver turned into the right lane in preparation for turning off of the roadway into a driveway (shopping center, gas station, etc.) Unless there are markings on the roadway dictating the lane to take while turning (say, there are two lanes turn left with a dotted line separating them).

Regardless of what was in the intersection when the orange car turned, it had a red light and should have yielded. This car assumed incorrectly what other traffic was going to do and caused the accident. >>



This is correct, the blue car has RIGHT OF WAY. It doesnt matter if he is in 3 lanes af traffic and driving backwards, he has the green arrow, and therefore has right of way.
 
This is correct, the blue car has RIGHT OF WAY. It doesnt matter if he is in 3 lanes af traffic and driving backwards, he has the green arrow, and therefore has right of way.

I agree with that if there was indeed a green light.

If they both had a green light, like happens in situations like that a lot, then the left turn has to yeild. Opposing traffic has to yeild to oncoming traffic in most circumstances.
 
I think the diagram showed a green arrow for the blue car.


The Police also consider who had " the last chance to avoid the accident." The Orange car is at fault again, since according to the distance traveled, the blue car was in motion first, and the orange car had the last chance to avoid the accident by staying put.
 
I think the diagram showed a green arrow for the blue car. LOL, like I even understood that diagram.

Now that I look at it, and understand your diagram, the orange car is at fault all the way. Red light has to yeild to the green light, always. You can only make a turn from a red light if "it is safe to do so".
 


<< Well.. If you were the Korean's it would be your fault because cutting in front of you doesn't count. >>



wow, that made absolutely no sense, congratulations!
 
OK, lemme lay it out for you guys (this is California law by the way, might be different elsewhere):

Cars turning right MUST turn into the innermost lane. It's the law.

Cars turning left may use either lane, with the exception of intersections where there are double left turn lanes, in which case if you're on the inner lane you have to stay in your lane or you'll hit the guy next to you. The outer guy can use extra lanes if the road is three lanes or more.

Cars turning right on red MUST yield to ALL traffic, including traffic turning left into the same lanes.

If both cars have unprotected green lights, the car turning left MUST yield to the car turning right, just as he would yield to traffic going straight across his path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top