Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6337/drivingcf5.jpg

Blue box: my car
Pink car: some crazy ho

Situation: we are stopped at a red light. I need to get into the LEFT ONLY lane and turn my left signal on. Whether the guy ahead of me sees it or not, he starts inching toward the car in front, allowing me to pass on his left. As soon as I start turning, some crazy ho (was waiting behind me) goes into the oncoming traffic lane and zooms past me. Thanks to my lightning quick reflexes I avoid an accident where I would have side-swiped her.

I thought about it for a while.. more specifically I thought of the possible outcomes where I may have been considered to be at fault:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5841/driving2hv0.jpg

I think 1) and 2) are clearly her fault. But what about 3) and 4)? She illegally passed the double yellow lines. I guess it's my responsibility to check my mirrors but if everyone followed the rules I shouldn't even have to look. What do you guys think?

I spent way too much time on this.

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

[ QUOTE ]
She illegally passed the double yellow lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

=ho's fault in every scenario.

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

Why were you even stopped in the first place? Unless you changed your mind on which way you were going post stoppage, you should've gotten into that lane and pulled up before you even stopped. Stopping so close to the guy in front of you that you can't turn into that lane is even worse.

Wrt who would be at fault, I really couldn't tell you what an insurance company would rule. But from a common sense standpoint, you are more at fault than she is in all of your options. People will very often bypass the line of cars going straight in these spots if there's no chance of interfering with on-coming traffic, especially at intersections where the left turn arrow goes green before the straight light, which is the huge majority in the two states I've lived in. As a good driver, you should be aware of this and check your mirrors in these spots, though as a good driver you should've never been stopped there in the first place if you were turning left.

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why were you even stopped in the first place? Unless you changed your mind on which way you were going post stoppage, you should've gotten into that lane and pulled up before you even stopped. Stopping so close to the guy in front of you that you can't turn into that lane is even worse.

Wrt who would be at fault, I really couldn't tell you what an insurance company would rule. But from a common sense standpoint, you are more at fault than she is in all of your options. People will very often bypass the line of cars going straight in these spots if there's no chance of interfering with on-coming traffic, especially at intersections where the left turn arrow goes green before the straight light, which is the huge majority in the two states I've lived in. As a good driver, you should be aware of this and check your mirrors in these spots, though as a good driver you should've never been stopped there in the first place if you were turning left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crossing the double-yellow line in order to get into the turn lane is illegal. That's the reason he wasn't already in the turn lane, and the reason why the car in front of him inched forward - to give him room to get into the turn lane.

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

1-4 is the pink car's fault.

She could contend #4 at the scene, but any reasonably decent post-accident investigator would blow her defense out of the water.

Her pet chihuaua might bite your ankles. Whatever you do, don't kick it and make the situation worse.

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She illegally passed the double yellow lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

=ho's fault in every scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are wrong on #4 sorry, you need to pay attention to whats ahead of you (so sayeth the law of insurance) no matter what you think is right.

its sorta like this

1) 70/30
2) 60/40
3) 50/50
4) 30/70

Unless you live in New York, then who cares its all no fault anyway

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

But in the 4th scenario, she still should not have crossed the double yellow lines to get into the turn lane, correct?

He should have been able to assume that nobody was there, even if he also should have looked out of common sense.

I think.

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But in the 4th scenario, she still should not have crossed the double yellow lines to get into the turn lane, correct?

He should have been able to assume that nobody was there, even if he also should have looked out of common sense.

I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. You should be able to make a reasonable assumption that other people are obeying traffic signals and markers.

For example, if someone t-bones you running a red light. You shouldn't have to look at make sure no one else is coming at every green light in an intersection.

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

Anyone saying that it isn't her fault every time is just wrong. And yet, it just goes to show that you could get an officer at the scene or an insurance investigator that was a total dolt and you would end up losing...despite being right.

Re: Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?
 

the theorist?