Your asessment of this accident:

[Trekker4747]

So I had a minor collision the other day, thankfully no one was hurt but both vehicles did suffer some pretty good damage and I'm still working with the insurance companies to assess fault.

Anyway, I'm leaving a shopping center and I come to a stop at the end of the center's "driveway" to wait for cross-traffic to subside. (This is an uncontrolled intersection.) At the same time a vehicle arrives at the end of the driveway entrance to shopping area he's coming out of and he comes to a stop. I have my signal on to make a left turn and while his vehicle is positioned to make right turn I note no signal. (Though he may have had it on and I just didn't notice due to brightness of the day/position of his car.)

Cross traffic stops, I wait a moment and he doesn't move so I pull out into the intersection and being to make my left turn into the nearest lane to me. (This side of the street at this point is about two lanes wide, both headed south bound, but expands to four lanes at the intersection.) As I complete my turn and begin heading straight I hear/feel a vehicle striking my car and look over and notice the other driver is hitting me, seemingly trying to enter my lane. I'm trapped at this point my a hard median and cannot make any evasive action, he apparently realizes he's struck another vehicle, pulls to the right, over takes me, and pulls over on the side of the median to get out of his vehicle. (I do the same.)

As I approach him we assess that we're okay, as well as the passenger in his car, and he states that he didn't see me.

We contact the police, they come, ask us to pull to the other side of the road, and begin taking statements, etc. I was not cited with any road violations. I am not sure if he was or not.

So, here's where I'm at. I've talked with insurance company to make my statement, and I've got an appointment to talk to mine later today to make a statement to them so both insurance companies can hash out fault. (The police report is not yet available, so I'm not sure if it cites fault on either of us or if they say we push on the fault.)

My argument he is at fault since he "turned wide." Rather than turning into his nearest lane he pulled through it to try and get into "my" lane. According to the state's driver's handbook whenever you make a turn you turn into the lane closest to you and then change lanes when it is safe to do so. As a driver he also has a responsibility to ensure any lane he enters is clear.

I think it's likely he wanted to turn left at the upcoming intersection as was turning wide in order to get into the left-turn lane not far ahead. I'd argue in which case he needs to turn into his lane and then either speed up to over-take me and get in front of me or fall back to get behind me, as opposed to crossing a lane to get into the furthest lane.

I've been anxious the last couple of days on how this will all play out. To the point of medicating myself to be able to relax and sleep. Because my biggest worry is that my car is more damaged than it is worth, meaning it'll need to be totaled out. The collision severely crumpled my front-passenger side fender and damaged the passenger-side wing mirror.

I suppose I can "live" with the fender if I really had to. But the mirror needs to be fixed (it's not broken but not securely mounted to the a-pillar either.) and the damaged to the fender precludes the passenger-side door from opening. I guess I could crumple the fender "back" more to get the door to work but I'm not sure I'm ready to deal with a new car payment just yet. (I know recently I was looking into a new car, but I still need to get some other financial issues worked out before dealing with a new car too much.)

Anyway, here's the diagram:

I'm "1" and he's "2."

 

[Melakon]

If your diagram is accurate, it looks to me like he did an unlawful lane change while making the turn, and if you were already in the intersection completing a turn, he failed to yield.

Disclaimer: I have no background in law enforcement or legal interpretations, and haven't driven a vehicle since 1995.

 

[bbjeg]

^That sounds right.

You had the right of way from the looks of things. I took a class in law but don't hold me to that.

 

[Mary Ann]

Thirded. He should have pulled into the lane nearest him.

 

[Trekker4747]

Yeah, that's how was taught and how interpreted it. I talked to his insurance company to give my statement Tuesday and I talked to mine today. His said they may split-fault in some way, mine said they'll try and fight for him being at fault for exactly the reasons you guys said. He turned wide, going into the far lane rather than the lane closest to him. Which according to state driving laws is illegal.

You change lanes and then speed-up/fall-back as needed to change lanes.

His company did seem to imply that if fault is split he'd get the heavier side of it but, still, I don't think it should be my fault at all. The system is supposed to work so we both can turn at the same time, turning into the lane nearest to us.

 

[Gaseous Anomaly]

The only problem is you had to cross his primary lane of travel rather he was turning or going straight. This would give him the right of way.

 

[bbjeg]

The only problem is you had to cross his primary lane of travel rather he was turning or going straight. This would give him the right of way.

Before he (guy #2) made that turn, he should have came to a complete stop, assess the traffic, and then proceed into the nearest lane. (I wish the street had names because this next part would be easier to explain) As soon as Trekker4747 passed that lane immediately to his left at the start of the turn, he became part of the traffic of the lane he was turning into. Guy #2 should have saw him by that point. The point at where they hit says not only did he not turn into the nearest lane, he wasn't paying attention to traffic.

 

[Gaseous Anomaly]

Anyway, I'm leaving a shopping center and I come to a stop at the end of the center's "driveway" to wait for cross-traffic to subside. [highlight](This is an uncontrolled intersection.)[/highlight] At the same time a vehicle arrives at the end of the driveway entrance to shopping area he's coming out of and he comes to a stop. I have my signal on to make a left turn and while his vehicle is positioned to make right turn I note no signal. (Though he may have had it on and I just didn't notice due to brightness of the day/position of his car.)

Cross traffic stops, I wait a moment and he doesn't move so I pull out into the intersection and being to make my left turn into the nearest lane to me. (This side of the street at this point is about two lanes wide, both headed south bound, but expands to four lanes at the intersection.) As I complete my turn and begin heading straight I hear/feel a vehicle striking my car and look over and notice the other driver is hitting me, seemingly trying to enter my lane. I'm trapped at this point my a hard median and cannot make any evasive action, he apparently realizes he's struck another vehicle, pulls to the right, over takes me, and pulls over on the side of the median to get out of his vehicle. (I do the same.)

As I approach him we assess that we're okay, as well as the passenger in his car, and he states that he didn't see me.

We contact the police, they come, ask us to pull to the other side of the road, and begin taking statements, etc. I was not cited with any road violations. I am not sure if he was or not.

So, here's where I'm at. I've talked with insurance company to make my statement, and I've got an appointment to talk to mine later today to make a statement to them so both insurance companies can hash out fault. (The police report is not yet available, so I'm not sure if it cites fault on either of us or if they say we push on the fault.)

My argument he is at fault since he "turned wide." Rather than turning into his nearest lane he pulled through it to try and get into "my" lane. According to the state's driver's handbook whenever you make a turn you turn into the lane closest to you and then change lanes when it is safe to do so. As a driver he also has a responsibility to ensure any lane he enters is clear.

I think it's likely he wanted to turn left at the upcoming intersection as was turning wide in order to get into the left-turn lane not far ahead. I'd argue in which case he needs to turn into his lane and then either speed up to over-take me and get in front of me or fall back to get behind me, as opposed to crossing a lane to get into the furthest lane.

I've been anxious the last couple of days on how this will all play out. To the point of medicating myself to be able to relax and sleep. Because my biggest worry is that my car is more damaged than it is worth, meaning it'll need to be totaled out. The collision severely crumpled my front-passenger side fender and damaged the passenger-side wing mirror.

I suppose I can "live" with the fender if I really had to. But the mirror needs to be fixed (it's not broken but not securely mounted to the a-pillar either.) and the damaged to the fender precludes the passenger-side door from opening. I guess I could crumple the fender "back" more to get the door to work but I'm not sure I'm ready to deal with a new car payment just yet. (I know recently I was looking into a new car, but I still need to get some other financial issues worked out before dealing with a new car too much.)

Anyway, here's the diagram:

I'm "1" and he's "2."

The only problem is you had to cross his primary lane of travel rather he was turning or going straight. This would give him the right of way.

Before he (guy #2) made that turn, he should have came to a complete stop, assess the traffic, and then proceed into the nearest lane. (I wish the street had names because this next part would be easier to explain) As soon as Trekker4747 passed that lane immediately to his left at the start of the turn, he became part of the traffic of the lane he was turning into. Guy #2 should have saw him by that point. The point at where they hit says not only did he not turn into the nearest lane, he wasn't paying attention to traffic.

With it being an uncontrolled intersection it gives guy #2 the right of way as Trekker4747 has to cross guy #2s primary lane of travel.

 

[Trekker4747]

I should say that while the guy did not have his turn signal on (at least I didn't notice it) his car was positioned to make a turn, rather than go straight. So I assumed he was going to turn and that, well, he knew how to make a legal turn.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Did you tell you insurance provider and his insurance provider, that he admitted fault? Any traffic cameras?


In a personal opinion, not legal in any way, I have to question both whether he was even paying attention or possibly if he can't see that well. Your picture shows you had more space to cover and he should have seen you coming.


By the way, what a fucked up intersection of Hell.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

By the way, what a fucked up intersection of Hell.

Never heard of the Magic Roundabout, have ya?

 

[Trekker4747]

Did you tell you insurance provider and his insurance provider, that he admitted fault? Any traffic cameras?


In a personal opinion, not legal in any way, I have to question both whether he was even paying attention or possibly if he can't see that well. Your picture shows you had more space to cover and he should have seen you coming.


By the way, what a fucked up intersection of Hell.

Yeah, it's a very screwy intersection. When talking to insurance providers for both his and mine I asked if I could send them a Google Maps image showing out routes of travel. (As opposed to the Paint Diagram I have above.)

And, yes, I told the police and both insurance companies that he admitted he couldn't see me when we talked with one another. But, who knows how much weight that'll carry. All he has to do is say he didn't say that.

 

[DimesDan]

By the way, what a fucked up intersection of Hell.

Never heard of the Magic Roundabout, have ya?

And it's one of the reasons I avoid the hell known as Swindon.

 

[J.T.B.]

The reason it may be shared fault is because -- in most states I'm aware of, anyway -- a vehicle turning left is supposed to yield right-of-way to a vehicle turning right or going straight through. Turning into the wrong lane is really the main cause of the accident, IMO, but it's unfortunately something people do all the time where I live so I would probably have hung back until car 2 moved.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The reason it may be shared fault is because -- in most states I'm aware of, anyway -- a vehicle turning left is supposed to yield right-of-way to a vehicle turning right or going straight through. Turning into the wrong lane is really the main cause of the accident, IMO, but it's unfortunately something people do all the time where I live so I would probably have hung back until car 2 moved.

Yep. Car 2 erred by turning wide. But Car 1 was likely also supposed to yield right of way to Car 2:

An open intersection is one without traffic control signs or signals. When you enter one, you must yield the right-of-way if:

• A vehicle is already in the intersection.
• You enter or cross a state highway from a secondary road.
• You enter a paved road from an unpaved road.
• You plan to make a left turn and a vehicle is approaching from the opposite direction.

Source

And what happens if two drivers traveling in opposite directions arrive at a two-way or four-way stop at the exact same time?

If both drivers are going straight or turning right, they can proceed simultaneously. But a driver planning to turn left should yield to anyone going straight or turning right, Bennett said. "Actually, even if that person arrives a little sooner, the law says a driver turning left has to yield to the anyone close enough to the intersection to constitute an immediate hazard."

Source

Of course, I'm not speaking with any authority and my sources are from FL and MI (respectively) and may not apply in this case. But in my (admittedly amateur) opinion, it would seem that there are contributing factors from both cars, which might result in the split-fault decision.

The most important thing, of course, is that no one was hurt. That's good to hear.

 

[Trekker4747]

The reason it may be shared fault is because -- in most states I'm aware of, anyway -- a vehicle turning left is supposed to yield right-of-way to a vehicle turning right or going straight through. Turning into the wrong lane is really the main cause of the accident, IMO, but it's unfortunately something people do all the time where I live so I would probably have hung back until car 2 moved.

Yeah, as far as I know the vehicle turning right has the right-of-way too. At the same time, however, you're still supposed to turn into the closest lane and not change lanes in the intersection/turn. And I was impacted when I was straightened out and going straight down the lane (so you could argue the lane was mine and he hit mes as if he was just changing lanes normally and didn't see me.)

Plus there's the whole "I didn't see you!" thing.

I'm really curious to see the police report.

And, heck, we could even argue that if I was in the wrong and violated his right-of-way then I would have been ticketed. I was not so it would seem the police didn't think I broke any traffic law. So any rigjht-of-way issue is between the insurance companies to work out on that subject, assuming he wasn't ticketed either. But if he was ticketed, likely for inattentive driving ("I didn't see you there!") or changing lanes in the intersection/over turning then it would seem the fault would lie more on him. (Which, again, if they split fault my understanding is that it wouldn't be a 50/50 split.)

 

[bbjeg]

The only problem is you had to cross his primary lane of travel rather he was turning or going straight. This would give him the right of way.

Before he (guy #2) made that turn, he should have came to a complete stop, assess the traffic, and then proceed into the nearest lane. (I wish the street had names because this next part would be easier to explain) As soon as Trekker4747 passed that lane immediately to his left at the start of the turn, he became part of the traffic of the lane he was turning into. Guy #2 should have saw him by that point. The point at where they hit says not only did he not turn into the nearest lane, he wasn't paying attention to traffic.

With it being an uncontrolled intersection it gives guy #2 the right of way as Trekker4747 has to cross guy #2s primary lane of travel.

That's true, but it's the location of the crash, and timing to get to said location that's the issue. If Trekker4747 and Guy #2 arrived at the intersection at the same time, Guy #2 would have the right of way, but for Trekker4747 to get all the way to where he crashed, he had to be in motion around the time Guy #2 should have been observing the traffic.

To put it another way, if Trekker4747 and Guy #2 arrived at the intersection and they both preceded to turn at the same time, Trekker4747 would have to powerslide to hit him where he did.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

That's true, but it's the location of the crash, and timing to get to said location that's the issue. If Trekker4747 and Guy #2 arrived at the intersection at the same time, Guy #2 would have the right of way, but for Trekker4747 to get all the way to where he crashed, he had to be in motion around the time Guy #2 should have been observing the traffic.

To put it another way, if Trekker4747 and Guy #2 arrived at the intersection and they both preceded to turn at the same time, Trekker4747 would have to powerslide to hit him where he did.

Or, Car 2 could have been going at a much slower pace, checking for oncoming traffic to the left and assuming (correctly) that there shouldn't be a car from in front turning left because Car 2 had the right of way.

There really are way too many plausible variables to say with any certainty. But as I noted upthread, it's pretty clear that Car 1 should have given Car 2 the right of way given the description, "At the same time a vehicle arrives at the end of the driveway entrance to shopping area he's coming out of and he comes to a stop." That's further reinforced by the fact that Car 2 was not observed with a turn signal, meaning Car 1 should absolutely have given Car 2 the right of way as there was the potential for it going straight (despite its positioning). Still, Car 2 should have turned into the right lane, then signaled a lane change. Both are Cars were subject to potential infractions, I suppose, but absent any police tickets, the insurance companies will have to find a compromise. And given the fact that both cars erred, I'd guess that it would be a split-fault compromise.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

With it being an uncontrolled intersection it gives guy #2 the right of way as Trekker4747 has to cross guy #2s primary lane of travel.

I think that Trekker absolutely would have to yield to oncoming traffic in that scenario, but I don't think that's the same that he has to stay out of the path of a car going straight when there isn't a car going straight. The guy was turning. That's why I don't think "primary lane of travel" is relevant.

Granted, I'm not opposed to the argument that it's comparative negligence with both having relatively similar fault. I'm just saying that, if one car gets the greater blame here, it's the car that made an improper turn rather than the car that failed to yield to a car making an improper turn.

 

[Finn]

Agreed. However, would it make a difference if there was a left turn immediately after a right turn for the car "2" that might warrant a wide turn, especially if it was the only way to access an establishment? Trekker's diagram shows a such left turn...

I know I've been in situations like that.