Watched a van get T-boned and still don’t know who in the wrong
Posted by Hail_Astro@reddit | driving | View on Reddit | 83 comments
I was waiting at a red light when I saw a van lead out to turn. When the light turned red he went to finish his turn. At the same time there was a Yaris who timed it “right” to catch the green just as it changed with out slowing. The two collided with the Yaris catching the backside of the van.
Who’s in the wrong? The Yaris was just going through a green light but the van was just completing the turn as are the rules in Canada.
Cranks_No_Start@reddit
The Yaris had a green but the intersection wasn’t clear. So the Yaris should’ve slowed.
990403@reddit
Yeah, but the van blew a red light. On a left turn, you enter the intersection and turn even if changes to red. Then the van would not be at fault.
On a right turn, however, you do not enter the intersection unless you have the right of way (green light, or red with no traffic oncoming)
Therefore, the van is at fault for proceeding with their turn when it was neither safe to do, nor legal.
EGOfoodie@reddit
They were already in the intersection when the light turned red, so the van should have had the right of way.
990403@reddit
They shouldn't have entered the intersection illegally.
EGOfoodie@reddit
They entered during a green light. How is that illegal?
990403@reddit
You don't lead out to turn during a green light, stop, then go when it turns red.
POAndrea@reddit
This is not necessarily accurate in most places. If there is no arrow, left-turners may enter the intersection on green and then wait until oncoming traffic allows them to complete their turn--even if they complete the turn on yellow or red. Cross traffic must wait until the intersection is clear--even if they do have the green light.
Cranks_No_Start@reddit
>When the light turned red he went to finish his turn.
Im reading this amd Ops description as...
The OP had a red light.
The Van was in the intersection in the process of turning waiting for opposing traffic to clear.
The opposing traffic stopped, cleared and the van proceeded.
Consequently the other flow of traffic now got a green and the other car not slowing for the red ran into the intersection THAT WASNT CLEAR YET.
Thats how I'm seeing it...if I'm wrong Please point it out.
BouncingSphinx@reddit
This is the short and simple correct answer. The intersection wasn't clear.
Hey_u_ok@reddit
The Yaris had a duty to AVOID an accident. It didn't. Sounds like Yaris is at fault
The van was in the process of COMPLETING it's turn.
TacStock@reddit
What ?
Hey_u_ok@reddit
People who don't know the basics/common sense/common courtesy of driving shouldn't drive
ZSG13@reddit
Green straight trumps yield turn all day, every day. Grean means go, not yield because YOU have right of way and nobody else.
Sparky_Zell@reddit
Green doesn't give you carte blanche to cause an accident.
Van started the turn when they still had the right of way. As long as you enter the intersection before the light turns red, anybody getting a new green light has to wait for the intersection to clear.
ZSG13@reddit
It simply gives you right of way, which puts the law on your side. If the van couldn't safely complete their turn without causing an accident, which they clearly couldn't, then they should not have entered the intersection to begin with. They essentially caused a collision by choosing to occupy an intersection during a red light when they did not have right of way to begin with. Van clearly at fault 100%. Other vehicle could have easily avoided this, but they did allegedly have right of way.
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
Assumptions, assumptions. Perhaps a pedestrian started crossing after the can entered the intersection. Perhaps a car pulled out of a driveway as the van was making the turn. I'm either car, the van started the turn appropriately and legally, and was required to stop appropriately in middle of that turn.
ZSG13@reddit
I'm not making any assumptions at all. I am operating solely off the facts OP has given. There's never a reason to stop in the middle of an intersection. I have never done it and I've also never been in an accident. Maybe that's just a coincidence but I like to think the two are related. I don't assume or pretend to know what, if any, reason dude may have had to stop in an intersection. The only thing I know for sure is that them travelling through the intersection while their light was red and oncoming traffic had a green caused an accident. That's really all there is to it. It doesn't matter why they travelled through an intersection when they had a red light and oncoming traffic had green and right of way. They did it and caused a collision. That was their choice.
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
You really didn't understand OP.
ZSG13@reddit
Which part did I not understand?
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
Read OP again. There's no "oncoming" traffic. Van started on green and connected on red. There's was no oncoming traffic to content with. Yaris started on new green and tear-ended the can; that's not oncoming traffic either. The can could not wait, something you mention at the end of your last comment. The Yaris could have waited, and works have, maybe that's what you meant, which was unclear.
ZSG13@reddit
One vehicle had a red light. The other did not. Make any assu.pfions you'd like.
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
You have exceeded my weekly limit for dealing with obstinacy, misinformation, and stupidity, ask at once. Would you like to choose your prize?
ZSG13@reddit
Okay, buddy. Whatever helps you feel better.
ZSG13@reddit
Are you suggesting the collision was caused by the car that travelled straight through an intersection when they had a green light? You really gonna blame the guy with the green light and right of way...? Cause it's one of their fault, and only one of them had a green.
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
Yes, actually. I didn't think you have a good understanding of the law.
ZSG13@reddit
I definitely have no understanding of Canadian traffic laws. For sure. But I can tell the difference between right and wrong. Not once have I said a word about legality until now.
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
No, you don't. We've seen whatever in this thread that you misunderstand things and make incorrect assumptions. You cannot wantonly enter an intersection when there is another vehicle in your way, whether you are in the US or Canada. The can was there before the Yaris guy a green signal, and did not enter in a way that was likely to interfere with other vehicles in an unexpected way, that's all you really need to know.
ZSG13@reddit
All I know is that one vehicle was travelling through the interrsection with a red light
Sparky_Zell@reddit
But they didn't run a red light. They cleared an intersection that they entered while green.
ZSG13@reddit
So they travelled through an intersection while the light was red and caused a collision with another car who clearly had right of way to go straight through an intersection with a green light? Yeah, that's what I said. This is how OP explained the situation. If it's wrong, talk to them bro.
girljuju@reddit
So the Yaris saw a red light and didn't have any intention on slowing down
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
Your description of US law is inaccurate. All driving laws are state level (except for some things relating to CDL). State laws are not uniform, even on this point. In NJ, the law is that the first driver to enter the intersection has right of way - even if that driver is turning left and the driver coming from the other direction is continuing straight. However, there is a somewhat conflicting law that a driver turning left must yield to a driver who is either in the intersection or so close as to create an immediate hazard. Synthesizing the two, the left turn driver dues not have to yield the right of way to a driver coming from the opposite direction unless there is danger of collision, i.e., the other driver cannot reasonably be expected to successfully yield the right of way. In states without this "first to enter" rule, the left turner must yield the right of what even if the turn can be completed safely, if the turn would force the other driver to slow down.
DeadSpatulaInc@reddit
The law being discussed covers a driver already in the intersection in preperation for a left turn, making that left turn when the light turns yellow and being hit by a car who entered the intersection at speed when the cross traffic got a green
It appears everything in your message applies to cars traveling in opposing directions on the original road, not the cross traffic of the street being turned onto.
Every example you provide requires the van not have the right of way when the turn starts. The van in this scenario had the right of way to turn during the yellow by pulling into the intersection while the light was green. If the cross traffick gets a green during the turn, the van retains its right of way. Even if the van came to a stop and illegally obstructed traffick, cross traffic hitting the van is reckless driving with some level of fault. But if the van was proceeding in normal course, the reckless driving is the only fault.
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
I'm not referencing the OP at all, only the comment I replied to, which made incorrect assertions about the law in the US.
DeadSpatulaInc@reddit
The asserttions were made in the context of a specific set of facts. Your clarifications about the law ignore the disclosed underlying facts in which the law is being discussed. Your clarifications do not apply to the particular facts at hand and so only confuse the discussion about the application of law.
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
First of all, you're lawyering, and this isn't court, you don't get to Perry Mason. Second of all, you're wrong. The comment I was responding to made a blanket assertion incorrectly. They may not have intended to, but they did.
felidaekamiguru@reddit
This wasn't an opposite direction situation, but rather a cross-traffic situation. Otherwise, why would the van be waiting to turn left if opposite traffic has a red?
Seeing as the van was already in the intersection, and the light turned red, there's probably a provision that they clear the intersection at that point.
girljuju@reddit
This is a great point, it probably was cross-traffic. I would still say that the Yaris blew the light too fast and the van did properly yield to oncoming traffic and did in fact have a right to clear the intersection.
girljuju@reddit
What I said is pretty standard even if it varies slightly. I'm well aware of the first-to-enter rule. Even having said this, the Yaris is still at fault lol
No-Significance-8622@reddit
The van was already in the intersection and had the right of way. Even though the Yaris entered the intersection with a green light, he/she should have yielded the right of way to the vehicle already there. The Yaris should not have anticipated the light changing and should have slowed down before getting to the intersection.
Pro_Ana_Online@reddit
It'd say they are both wrong, about 20% on the van and 80% on the Yaris.
Forget the Yaris, and forget the accident. If I cop wanted to be a real big atypical jerk against the driver of the van, the van being out past the intersection line is technically illegal. They should have waited at the line, waited for the oncoming to clear, and then if they couldn't turn left well then they are stuck at the light...safely behind the line, until it turns green. Although technically illegal as a practical matter though this is normal and unless a cop was literally itching to pull that person over is something normal and safe enough to be ignored. In this case though.. there was an accident changing the equation.
The Yaris just having the right of way is not sufficient, crossing at oncoming speed is not considered safe or prudent driving. And hitting a vehicle in the intersection...whether it was making a less than ideal turn, or was a stalled vehicle doesn't give them a green light and a free pass to hit it.
Hypnowolfproductions@reddit
The straight vehicle if in intersection legally has the right of way. All turns must yield if it’s not a protected turn.
DaerBear69@reddit
This is why you shouldn't pull into the intersection with the intent of finishing your turn at the last possible second. You won't make it.
vonnostrum2022@reddit
Sounds like the van proceeded on a yellow
rscottyb86@reddit
This. If the van couldn't get through the intersection before opposing light turned green, he shouldn't have started in the first place
porcelainvacation@reddit
That is not the law in many places. In fact, the Oregon driver’s manual states to wait in the intersection for the light to change red for an unprotected left turn, then proceed.
taratarabobara@reddit
Thankfully, drivers manuals are not law. Oregon law allows vehicles to stop within an intersection while yielding to through traffic.
One-Inch-Punisher-@reddit
Yaris at fault. “Timing” a light will still count as running it since there was no intention of slowing down. Once it goes from red to green, the drivers getting the green still can’t go if the intersection is not clear of cars.
felidaekamiguru@reddit
I hope you waited at the scene to tell the police, or at least handed out your phone number to both parties.
The van might be at fault depending on the laws in the province, but the Yaris is DEFINITELY wrong. You do not enter an intersection if there's a vehicle in your way, period. Every provincial/state law I've read has made that much clear.
greenlungs604@reddit
I think both are at fault. At least that's how the insurance here in BC Canada would work. But they tend to apply this conclusion all the time. Van is in intersection when it has solid red and opposing is green. Yaris has a duty to avoid accident but he just yolo into the intersection at speed. What if there was a pile of babies in the intersection? Who cares, my light is green maximum warp! Yaris is more at fault because he could avoid. Van was doing all he could to get out of intersection in time.
Wigberht_Eadweard@reddit
If the van was already in the intersection, I’d assume the Yaris would be at fault. I’d assume there was a visibility issue, but imagining this was a semi truck instead kind of highlights that this could really only be the Yaris’ fault. Sometimes a vehicle takes a long time to clear the intersection due to no fault of their own. If they’re in it legally and expected to clear the intersection, that’s what they should do.
Necro_the_Pyro@reddit
If I had to guess; the van was one of those idiots who slowly creeps into the middle of the intersection while waiting to make the left turn and then just runs the red if they don't get the opportunity. They often use the "completing the turn" argument as attempted justification when they get hit even though they and everyone else knows that that's not what the law actually means.
mochrist99@reddit
That's exactly what the law means. If a vehicle is in the intersection before the light turns red then they are allowed to legally complete their maneuver.
Necro_the_Pyro@reddit
That law refers to entering the intersection before the light turns red while actively turning, not blocking the intersection while waiting to turn. Blocking intersections is illegal.
mochrist99@reddit
Blocking the intersection would happen if you just hung out there or entered after light turned red. Its a very common and legal maneuver to enter the intersection while waiting to turn left for oncoming traffic to pass and then finish the turn once traffic stops or is no more.
fap-on-fap-off@reddit
That's going to depend on state law and driver guidance. In some states, you are correct, and you may not enter the intersection unless you are able to clear the intersection without stopping. In others, you are completely incorrect. In those states, in a controlled intersection without a left turn signal, this is exactly what you are supposed to do. Now apologize to the other commenters that you insulted.
New York:
You may enter the intersection to prepare for your left turn if the light is green and no other vehicle ahead of you plans to make a left turn.)
Necro_the_Pyro@reddit
I just looked through the thing you linked, and it doesn't actually say what you say it does anywhere. In fact, it says exactly the opposite, and I quote:
"You cannot enter an intersection if traffic is backed up on the other side and you can not get completely through the intersection."
Which is exactly as I said originally, congratulations, you've played yourself.
eugenesbluegenes@reddit
Rich
Alpine_Nomad@reddit
That exact text is highlighted in yellow when I click on the link. Try using the search function on your device, but it's definitely there.
The text you quoted, however, is irrelevant. It is specifically about traffic being "backed up on the other side" just like... the text you copied says. It has nothing to do with this situation.
Wigberht_Eadweard@reddit
This is acceptable in many places, and even in places where it isn’t legal I would assume it’s common practice and would have no issue with people doing it even if aware of the law. You aren’t really running a red if you’re in the intersection already. Many intersections are broad enough that timing a gap in traffic from behind the stop line would be nearly impossible and much more unsafe than starting your turn from within the intersection.
Necro_the_Pyro@reddit
If you pull out into the intersection before you actually have an opportunity to turn; then you are blocking an intersection.
Wigberht_Eadweard@reddit
In your edit, you reference “the law.” For which area? The law isn’t uniform. I don’t believe that waiting left turning cars really block the intersection to the extent that it would hinder any emergency vehicles from coming from the sides with a red light. It really isn’t that big of a deal, and it definitely isn’t idiotic. If traffic on the road one is turning onto is backed up to the point that you aren’t likely to be able to turn during that light cycle, then you shouldn’t pull into the intersection, otherwise it’s probably ok and most likely expected regardless of law.
Necro_the_Pyro@reddit
It doesn't matter what you "believe", I'm talking about the law in every state I or anyone I have ridden with has ever held a driver's license in. Coming to a stop in an intersection is considered blocking the intersection. Just because most cops won't write you a ticket for it doesn't mean that you should do it, just like most cops won't write you a ticket for driving 5 under in the left lane, but if you do it you're still an asshole.
Wigberht_Eadweard@reddit
Every state you’re aware of the law of means that every other state must be the same? Even though OP is in Canada??? Most laws about blocking intersections are talking about straight through traffic. If they can’t exit the intersection when they enter it, they risk having their car perpendicular to cross traffic long after their light becomes green, completely blocking traffic from moving. Left turning traffic is different, as in most cases the stopped cross traffic would be aware of the left turner waiting in the intersection and allow them to complete their turn, and the turner usually gets out of the way before traffic would come into conflict anyway.
Left turning traffic isn’t blocking the intersection, besides possible emergency vehicles which would have to slow if coming from cross traffic to clear the intersection anyway. They’d just go around the left turner. You have to weigh the rules against what works best in many aspects of driving. Sometimes going against the rules makes more sense and isn’t hurting anybody.
Alpine_Nomad@reddit
It is legal in the vast majority of states, and I believe most provinces of Canada. Several states/provinces explicitly instruct drivers to do this in their driver's manual. For example, the driver manuals in Illinois and BC. So your claim that "it's illegal" is obviously false. If it's illegal, cite a law, from any state/province that would make it illegal.
Necro_the_Pyro@reddit
Every state has laws about blocking intersections. Pulling into an intersection to wait an indefinite amount of time before a gap in traffic comes that allows you to exit the intersection again qualifies as blocking an intersection according to every interpretation of the law I have ever heard.
Alpine_Nomad@reddit
Cite a relevant law then. Every law I've seen is specifically about traffic being backed up on the other side. There was one state (Minnesota, I think) that had a law that excluded drivers making turns. So cite a relevant law. And maybe try explaining why it's in the driver manuals.
Rangerman1230@reddit
As others have said, the can was in the intersection and thus is not at fault. I've been wondering if some laws changed and it was now ok to not stop for a right on red, considering how many people I see that don't stop anymore. Most only show down enough to properly negotiate the turn. This just seems like one of those, although maybe they were trying to time it. Maybe.....
imothers@reddit
You have to come to a full stop at a red light. If it is safe (and allowed) you may turn right after checking there's no traffic coming. I have paid red light tickets for our fleet drivers in Alberta who slowed but didn't stop for a red before turning right.
do_you_like_waffles@reddit
That sort of accident sounds like why we shouldn't hang out in the middle of intersections and try to "finish" after the light changes. Idgaf if it's legal where you're from. It's unsafe and you just saw why. Hope everyone survived to learn their lesson and drive another day.
Playful_Original_243@reddit
I see accidents that look like they’re from people doing this in my area at least once a week. It’s too risky. I don’t go to the middle of the intersection unless I see an opening.
Alpine_Nomad@reddit
Or, alternatively, drivers could obey the law that says they have to yield to traffic lawfully using the intersection. Obeying the law helps, too. Maybe let's place our blame on the one who broke the law?
do_you_like_waffles@reddit
Why put your life in the HOPE that someone sees you and follows a rule? I think its better to just be safe and not try to turn until there's an opening. If there's not an opening then don't sit in the middle of the intersection. It's as simple as that.
Technical_Annual_563@reddit
Right. The rule generally says “please make sure the intersection is clear before proceeding on green.” Many drivers have taken that as an explicit invitation to insert themselves into the intersection whether or not they have any hope of completing the turn before the light changes. So now an oncoming driver sees a bright green light, and they hope the driver sees their car which may or may not be a visible color under the weather conditions, which may or may not have headlights on, which may or may not have the turn signal on. It’s very precarious IMO
do_you_like_waffles@reddit
I once heard a comedian from Africa make a joke about how trusting North Americans are of the system. We see the light turn green and we just move into the intersection on the pure blind faith that the other people are gonna obey the light. Like that light has some sorta magic barrier that will protect us from inattentive drivers... lol.
i_liek_trainsss@reddit
It's going to be messy, but the van will probably be ultimately at fault. The Yaris had the duty to enter the intersection only when clear, but the van had a greater duty to only complete his left turn when clear. Basically, the left-turning aspect is the tie-breaker, in favour of the Yaris.
NousagiCarrot@reddit
I'm not familiar with the Canadian take on the laws...
But the laws of physics state that if the van was in the intersection already the Yari doesn't have space to move to/through, so...
Appropriate_Type_178@reddit
the Yaris is at fault
alwyn@reddit
In an ideal world both.
Astab321@reddit
If he is already in the intersection it doesn’t matter if its taking him time to clear it and your light has already turned green or whatever,you still have to let them clear it so you can proceed. Sounds like yaris is on crack
FANTOMphoenix@reddit
“Complete his turn” implies he was in the intersection.
If he’s in the intersection he has right of way.
fitfulbrain@reddit
The signals will be timed so that both drivers can't be right.
If the van had already crossed the limit line when the signal turned red, he is legal. So the Yaris will not have the green when it crossed the limit line and it's illegal.
Conversely, if the van crossed the limit line when the light is already red, it's illegal and the other driver would have the green crossing the limit line legally.
It's not about tendency and common sense reasoning. There are precise rules.
New_Breadfruit8692@reddit
The Yaris was at fault.