BristolFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2308 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Good people of a.net land (especially our resident police officers)....
Suppose you're in a side road waiting for a gap in the traffic to pull out onto the main road. You're waiting there and you see a car coming along the main road (on your left in a right-driving country or on the right in a left-driving country) who is slowing down and indicating to pull into the side road, so you therefore think that it's safe to pull out. However he has a last minute change of mind and turns off his indicator and accelerates - but too late, he hits you.
Who is at fault? You for pulling out in the traffic or him for indicating incorrectly?
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1423 times:
IIRC you HAVE to presume the indicator is malfunctioning. You'll get nailed for failure to yeild. I always wait until they are commited to the turn (already turning) before I presume they are going to act as advertised.
Wingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
The thing which would swing it would be if you were signalling or not - if you were signalling to pull out, at least by the UK highway code he's legally obliged to slow down and let you out as you have right of way - just like on a motorway sliproad, if you weren't signalling then he had right of way all along, misleading signals or not and it's your fault.
I get around this situation by not signalling, waiting for my gap and then signal as I accelerate like a bat out of hell... I hate nothing more than hesitant drivers.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9656 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1389 times:
Let's assume there is no car accident fraud involved, the guy approaches (in a right driving country) with his blinkers indicating that he makes a right turn into the side street where you intend to pull out, making a right turn into the main street.
If he decides at the last moment to accelerate and drive on, you need one or two witnesses. If they confirm the other guys intention, you are on the save side. Without, it's your fault because you will be unable to prove that he set blinkers to the right.
E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
FlyVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
In the US, generally if someone rear ends you it is almost always their fault. However. since you weren't on the road yet you must give way to traffic on the road, whether his indicator is on or not. If I was the officer I probably would fault you in the accident (I'm not an officer but I do work in traffic). You simply cannot depend on people especially in this situation.
There was a situation here in Florida a while ago when people were cutting off cars then hitting their breaks so that the car they cut off would strike them. Like I said earlier, if you rear end someone it is almost always your fault here. These guys kept suing and collecting money using the same vehicle over and over again. Finally law enforcement caught on and got these guys for fraud.
Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3677 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
This cannot be answered completely, as the judge must always look on all circumstances. But the general rule is that you must wait, and thus it is your fault, at least in Germany.
But if he indicates that he is going to the right, I would probably guess that the judge would split it.
In Germany, we have something called Mitverschulden, ï¿½254 BGB, which means that if both are at fault, they share the damage... So this in reality is something where the judge has a rather big discretion.
Law is not medicine or physics, there is (almost) never a single answer for a problem, as you can always see it both sides.
Another example I have in mind was one guy who was having green light, and who was turning left at a crossing. Suddenly he stopped, without visible reason, and the car behind him crashed into him. Normally, the rule is clear, if you crash into someone, it is your fault. But in this case the judge held that the car driver from the 2nd car didn't have to expect a sudden stop of the car in front, so he didn't have to pay anything, the car which stopped had to pay everything.
Or like we say in German, before courts and on the oceans, we are in the hands of god...
Go3Team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
Always wait for the turn. I've been saved plenty of times by waiting because, either: The person wasn't sure it was the correct road, or they just happened to leave their blinker on. Its always better to be safe, rather than sorry.
MD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
The highway driver has the right of way. Since the "yield sign" is in your merge lane, it is your job to monitor the traffic and when absolutely sure it's clear to merge, you may do so. It would, of course, be courteous of the highway driver to allow you to merge since they had a change of mind as to their intentions. Legally though I believe the highway driver would be held as being in the right.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 3): Your fault for pulling out in front of him. Yes it's edgy.. but that would be the law. You need to wait until he enters his turn before you pull out
You would be suprised how many people don't realize that their signals are on and plently of times I have waited and they haven't turned. I personally think it should be 50/50 but that is the way it is and I wait until they begin their turn.
Another move that is similar is when you are in the intersection waiting to turn left and the light changes to yellow and you make the turn because you don't want to be responsible for running a red, however there is a guy that decided to run the yellow and you hit each other, who's at fault and who should be. (Hint ANC is in a bad mood behind you and will book you for running a red is you wait for the small delay when all the lights are red )
Yet another one that I can think of is when you turn right on a red in a multi-lane street and the right lane is clear how ever there is some one in the left lane and decides to change lanes over an intersection which is illegal but also is the guy turning right at fault because he failed to yeild and also an illegal move.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1244 times:
Very random contribution to this thread.
I use my analysis of the situation. By logic, if he signals he should turn, but not everyone does. My uncle was on a motorcycle and this happened to him, only he came out of it missing 6 toes combined on his two feet. He was the one waiting to pull out, and the car signaled and did not turn, hitting him and crushing his leg against his bike. The leg broke in 7 places, and the toes just came right off. Ever since then, I've been extra careful about it. I don't quite know what the law is, but I try to avoid doing something that might get me killed, haha.
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
Itsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
Well, you pretty much answered your own question. The approaching driver is on the main road and you are on the side road. Assuming there is no traffic control device (stop sign, traffic light, etc...) controlling the flow of the vehicle on the main or the "thru" road, he/she has the right of way and you must yield to them. He/she having their turn indicator on doesn't negate their right of way. By you pulling into their legal path of travel, you've neglected to yield to them. Sorry, you're 100% at fault.
Edit: I should also say that the point of impact plays a strong role in determining who's at fault. But, from your description, it sounds like you thought the on-coming driver was going to make the turn and pulled out in front of him which puts the point of impact in the thru lanes of the main road. If that's the case....yes, you're definitely at fault.
FlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1212 times:
Well like everyone said, if there is no seperate turn lane then yes, it is your fault. HOWEVER... if there is a special turn lane (ie: "right lane must turn right") and he goes in there but then ends up going straight, it is HIS fault.
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 10): But in this case the judge held that the car driver from the 2nd car didn't have to expect a sudden stop of the car in front, so he didn't have to pay anything, the car which stopped had to pay everything.
I dont think that flies here in the U.S.. Just becuase your driving in the fast lane on the freeway doesn't mean that cars can't randomly slam on their brakes (legit reason or not). It's YOUR responsibilty to keep a safe distance so that IF that happens, you have enough time to stop. That judges ruling basically gives a green light to draft the car in front of you on the freeway. Afterall, there is no reason for them to stop so you dont need to keep a safe distance.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 16): Yet another one that I can think of is when you turn right on a red in a multi-lane street and the right lane is clear how ever there is some one in the left lane and decides to change lanes over an intersection which is illegal but also is the guy turning right at fault because he failed to yeild and also an illegal move.
Well remember, it's not a "yield". You MUST stop before you make that right turn on the red. Even though no one does it, that is the law, it is a red light afterall. So... there are two outcomes to that scenario (both assuming the guy illegally changes lanes in the intersection): 1)you come to a complete stop, then begin your turn and he hits you... HIS fault or: 2)you dont come to a complete stop and he hits you... your BOTH at fault.
Wukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1208 times:
As Ted said earlier, here in most states you would be cited for a "failure to yeild", regardless of the other driver having their indicator on or not.
Side note; my personal favorite is my citation from years ago for "improper backing without safety". I guess it's all in the wording... it sounds like I was supposed to have a flagger and some cones in the street before I put it in reverse.
57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2556 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
Quoting FlyVirgin744 (Reply 9): There was a situation here in Florida a while ago when people were cutting off cars then hitting their breaks so that the car they cut off would strike them.
The old "swoop and squat" described to a T. In non-fraud cases, the trailing driver should be cited for following at unsafe distance as it is their responsibility to maintain a safe following distance. In cities where light rail operates in street, there may also be locality specific restrictions. Here in Tucson, the street railway I work with runs along the turn lane of a three lane street (one lane each way and the emergency lane). During operating hours, the streetcar has default right of way in the emergency lane in whichever direction it happens to be operating. At intersections, right of way is determined by the order in which the vehicles arrive. The tricky part for our operators is that at one four way stop, the street railway makes a 90 degree turn, returning from a passing track in the right lane to the center/emergency lane within the cross street's left turn lane zone. If the streetcar makes a stop at the intersection before other left turning traffic, it has the right of way over the traffic turning left. If the lane is occupied before the streetcar begins it's right turn, the operator will allow the traffic to clear the lane by completing their left turns. If lane is clear, the streetcar makes the turn as usual. If a car then approaches or attempts to enter the left turn lane, that vehicle will have to vacate the turn lane and allow the streetcar to complete the turn and clear the intersection.
Some cities like San Francisco and Dallas have sections where streetcars run against the flow of traffic on streets due to railway operating requirements. Those streets are equipped with traffic signals indicating the approach of the streetcar and instruct motor traffic to give way. At our intersections on the street railway, we have signs warning traffic of street railway operations-specifically bicycles and motorcycles. At the major intersections, there are lighted signs as well as the regulation ones. We've had a few collisions but fortunately we have a police department that understands what streetcars can and can't do. We can't brake as fast as a bus and certainly can't swerve to avoid a collision. "Guess what bud, you're getting cited for the collision because you made an illegal/unsafe turn in front of the streetcar. The streetcar operator has ten witnesses who say that he was operating the car in a safe, responsible manner and you were the one that caused the collision."
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
Itsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 19): Just becuase your driving in the fast lane on the freeway doesn't mean that cars can't randomly slam on their brakes (legit reason or not).
Actually, there is a traffic law that forbids "improper breaking". It's been on the books for quite some time and it's my understanding it was designed to curb road rage style driving (touching your brakes when you feel someone is tailgating) as well as other situations such as suddenly applying your breaks when your radar detector activates or when you see a police car. So, should a rear end collision occur and it is determined there was no lawful reason for driver #1 to brake, he can be cited and could will be found partially at fault.