Who is at fault here?

[LikeLinus]

Think about it. The guy turning left had to be there first. He had to cross the intersection before the other guy started turning right. Go get out your matchbox cars, and draw a diagram of such an intersection. Once half way through his turn, the guy turning left had the right of way; the guy turning right would have been just arriving at the intersection.

And, though someone above claims that it varies by state - I've always been taught that you turn into the nearest (legal) lane. (You don't turn into, say, a bike lane.)

You need to re-read the original post. He says

"making the turn as one or both cars cross over into the adjacent lane."

You are making assumptions about who pulled into the wrong lane. For all we know the Left turning car turned into the wrong lane. But that isn't what my point is. You are completely missing the point that he is crossing across traffic and unless there is yield sign for the right turning car, he has the right of way and the left turning car is crossing across his lane, unless he has a green arrow which would mean that the right turning car was running a red light. But that doesn't seem to be the case because he said they both turned on yellow. So Lefty has to yield to oncoming traffic.

 

[DrPizza]

Think about it. Suppose the car turning right instead just decided to go straight. Bang, the left turning car just turned directly into a car which was legally going straight. The left turning car should yield (out of the intersection) until all oncoming traffic is clear.

You sure that the left turning car wouldn't have been through the intersection first?

 

[dullard]

Where was anything in the OP stating the left turn was hanging out in the intersection? Did I miss it are assumptions replacing facts?

You even quoted the facts about it:

The left-turning car is already in the intersection...

Also:

the left turner (already in the intersection)...

The left turner should not be in the intersection until all oncoming cars have either gone straight through or have safely turned. Otherwise the left turner is just hanging out there. The only proper choice is to be in the left lane (or left turning lane) behind the crosswalk waiting for this oncoming traffic.

 

[LikeLinus]

We'd have to ask Howard for clarification. He says he is in the intersection, but then says "and is first in line to turn left." Was he in line at the light? Or was he indeed in the middle of the intersection wait to cut across the other lane? Which is illegal anyways.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Right-of-way traffic question (advanced)

In this diagram blue has right of way, red yields. Both cars see green light.

Not sure if it's the same when left turn light is on both sides, shouldn't blue car yield before turning right? :\

If the left turn light is on then the oncoming traffic would have red lights so blue car would have to yield.

 

[LikeLinus]

If the left turn light is on then the oncoming traffic would have red lights so blue car would have to yield.

That diagram says they both have green lights. In that case, the Left has to yield the oncoming traffic.

OP states they both went on yellow. You're right though, if the left turning light is a green arrow/light, the right would have a red light. Then the right car would have to come to a stop and the proceed when intersection is clear, unless there's a no right on red sign.

It sounds like the OP had a turning lane without an arrow light. He would have to clear that up though. There's a few details missing to truly determine who had the right of way.

 

[Murloc]

You are completely missing the point that he is crossing across traffic and unless there is yield sign for the right turning car, he has the right of way and the left turning car is crossing across his lane, unless he has a green arrow which would mean that the right turning car was running a red light. But that doesn't seem to be the case because he said they both turned on yellow. So Lefty has to yield to oncoming traffic.

I think this is the central issue.
Howard should clarify because I don't think he could see that both lights are yellow at the same time, so he's believing another witness on this, but it seems impossible to me that both are yellow.

That diagram says they both have green lights. In that case, the Left has to yield the oncoming traffic.

OP states they both went on yellow. You're right though, if the left turning light is a green arrow/light, the right would have a red light. Then the right car would have to come to a stop and the proceed when intersection is clear, unless there's a no right on red sign.

yeah that's sort of why in my country non-arrow lights have been totally phased out, they create too much ambiguity, especially since if you turn there could be walkers crossing the street and you have to yield to them so you risk killing them if you accelerated to get through before it switched to red.

I wasn't aware it's legal to turn right on red in the US if it's a non-arrow light, it sounds dangerous.
I don't think the left-turning car could have an arrow green light if the right-turning car doesn't have a red with no right on red sign/red right-and-straight arrow, because the green arrow means there is no way you have to yield in the crossing, to anything.

So the case is probably that both were non-arrow lights and according to US law both had an equal right to do the action they intended to do. In this case, it makes sense to apply the usual law: who has to cross the other guy's lane, yields. So the left-turning car is at fault.

OP provide information about the lights plz.

 

[Howard]

Hopefully this clears up the confusion?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Assuming the most common rules of the road (which may vary by state) the at-fault driver is the one who changed lanes.

The driver turning right was obligated to do so into the rightmost lane. The driver turning left was obligated to do so into the leftmost lane. Only after establishing position in the proper lane may the driver then change lanes, and while doing so he has the normal requirement to yield to cars in that lane.

Whichever of the two drivers crossed into the other lane is at fault.

However, as a practical matter, an insurance company is very likely to determine that some amount of fault belongs to both drivers. Also, individual state laws or administrative codes may change the analysis above, I'm simply commenting based on the most prevalent law.

ZV

 

[Howard]

To those who are saying that one should not enter the intersection to make a left turn unless the way is fully clear, what happens when:

1) There is no opportunity to make the left turn as even when the light turns yellow, there are opposing cars turning right until the light turns red? One cannot make a left turn on a red, of course.
2) One enters the intersection to make the left turn and needs to stop due to an oncoming car that was either unnoticed or hidden behind the opposing left-turner? Is one automatically at fault due to chance, or is the right thing to do never to enter the intersection until all oncoming traffic has come to a halt?

 

[LikeLinus]

To those who are saying that one should not enter the intersection to make a left turn unless the way is fully clear, what happens when:

1) There is no opportunity to make the left turn as even when the light turns yellow, there are opposing cars turning right until the light turns red? One cannot make a left turn on a red, of course.
2) One enters the intersection to make the left turn and needs to stop due to an oncoming car that was either unnoticed or hidden behind the opposing left-turner? Is one automatically at fault due to chance, or is the right thing to do never to enter the intersection until all oncoming traffic has come to a halt?

1. Then you wait for the light to turn green again and find another opportunity?? Otherwise you put yourself into the position of turning into oncoming traffic and causing an accident.

2. You shouldn't enter an intersection to make a turn unless you have a clear view and path for the turn. If you get stuck in the middle of the intersection you're probably going to be at fault because you didn't have the right of way.

 

[olds]

In CA, if you pulled into the intersection to turn left and the light turns red on you, you have the right of way even though you have a red light.

 

[Howard]

1. Then you wait for the light to turn green again and find another opportunity?? Otherwise you put yourself into the position of turning into oncoming traffic and causing an accident.

2. You shouldn't enter an intersection to make a turn unless you have a clear view and path for the turn. If you get stuck in the middle of the intersection you're probably going to be at fault because you didn't have the right of way.

So if there are opposing left turners that are not aligned in the lane correctly, or if you're facing a bus, you may NEVER find an opportunity to go.

 

[Fenixgoon]

If the left-turning vehicle had a green and the right turning vehicle had a red, then I would say the right-hand turn vehicle is at fault since you need to stop and yield to traffic

If both had green, then left must yield

 

[Zenmervolt]

One cannot make a left turn on a red, of course.

While technically true, the reality is that this happens all the time in the city.

Where I live (Seattle) there are a sizable number of intersections that have a left turn lane but no left turn arrow. In other words, there's never a protected left, but there is a left turn only lane. This is usually at places where there aren't typically a lot of people making left turns but there's heavy straight-through traffic. The idea being to keep straight-through traffic moving in both lanes.

In these situations it's essentially universal for the person making the left turn to enter the intersection (without turning into oncoming traffic) and only complete the turn after the light has turned red and oncoming traffic has stopped.

In many cases, waiting for a clear chance on green would mean waiting 15 minutes or more due to heavy straight-through traffic. I've seen people do this in front of police many times and the police don't care because they understand that it's the only way to make the turn without waiting forever.

ZV

 

[LikeLinus]

While technically true, the reality is that this happens all the time in the city.

Where I live (Seattle) there are a sizable number of intersections that have a left turn lane but no left turn arrow. In other words, there's never a protected left, but there is a left turn only lane. This is usually at places where there aren't typically a lot of people making left turns but there's heavy straight-through traffic. The idea being to keep straight-through traffic moving in both lanes.

In these situations it's essentially universal for the person making the left turn to enter the intersection (without turning into oncoming traffic) and only complete the turn after the light has turned red and oncoming traffic has stopped.

In many cases, waiting for a clear chance on green would mean waiting 15 minutes or more due to heavy straight-through traffic. I've seen people do this in front of police many times and the police don't care because they understand that it's the only way to make the turn without waiting forever.

ZV

Very true. I see it happen all the time. That said, the emphasis is still the fact that a car was oncoming and the OP story has them trying to quickly get through a yellow light and not yielding the right of way. The car should have done exactly what you suggested..wait for all the other cars to come to a stop and proceed to make the turn.


Howard - I get what you're asking, but are we talking about one specific instance, or are we making up different scenarios? I was only saying what I thought about the original scenario.

 

[BUTCH1]

While technically true, the reality is that this happens all the time in the city.

Where I live (Seattle) there are a sizable number of intersections that have a left turn lane but no left turn arrow. In other words, there's never a protected left, but there is a left turn only lane. This is usually at places where there aren't typically a lot of people making left turns but there's heavy straight-through traffic. The idea being to keep straight-through traffic moving in both lanes.

In these situations it's essentially universal for the person making the left turn to enter the intersection (without turning into oncoming traffic) and only complete the turn after the light has turned red and oncoming traffic has stopped.

In many cases, waiting for a clear chance on green would mean waiting 15 minutes or more due to heavy straight-through traffic. I've seen people do this in front of police many times and the police don't care because they understand that it's the only way to make the turn without waiting forever.

ZV

We have an intersection close to me where there is a 2 lane left arrow green, however the number of cars waiting to turn fills both lanes so all the cars cannot complete the left turn before the turn arrow goes to full red, then then form "the train", the arrow's been red for 3+seconds but bumper-to-bumper the cars just plow through making the cars waiting to go straight through the intersection wait, makes me wish I still had my '67 lincoln so I could ram the train LOL..

 

[Perknose]

In these situations it's essentially universal for the person making the left turn to enter the intersection (without turning into oncoming traffic) and only complete the turn after the light has turned red and oncoming traffic has stopped.

In many cases, waiting for a clear chance on green would mean waiting 15 minutes or more due to heavy straight-through traffic. I've seen people do this in front of police many times and the police don't care because they understand that it's the only way to make the turn without waiting forever.

ZV

This is exactly how ALL of us do it here in SE Pa. It may be a no-no de jure, but it's de facto protocol, and recognized by the police as such as well.

 

[alkemyst]

This is exactly how ALL of us do it here in SE Pa. It may be a no-no de jure, but it's de facto protocol, and recognized by the police as such as well.

One is supposed to enter the intersection to make the turn to begin with. You set up the turn and go when possible. If it means once the light changes red then that's the safe bet.

I can't believe how many are confused that left turner's are always to yield to those turning right.

 

[edro]

3 mods are defending the left turner... everyone else is defending the right turner.

This won't end well.

Ban stick for everyone...

 

[BUTCH1]

3 mods are defending the left turner... everyone else is defending the right turner.

This won't end well.

Ban stick for everyone...

The left turner is already on the road in question whereas the right turner is entering the road in question, left turner has right of way..

 

[ch33zw1z]

Left turner is at fault. You do not have the right of way ever, unless you have a green arrow. Both drivers need to lay off the stupid pills.

 

[edro]

The left turner is already on the road in question whereas the right turner is entering the road in question

wat?

They hit each other, so they were equally spaced from the target lane(s).

Left turner thought right turner was going to stop, but the right turner didn't.
Both drivers were trying to beat the yellow light.

I personally stop and let the left turner go, since he is in the intersection and would otherwise have to wait for me to go. I can simply turn right on red and continue my journey.

 

[edro]

Also, why did the cars collide?

99% of the time, either car would have slammed their brakes.
Since they were going <10mph, they would have stopped instantly... avoiding the crash.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

My apologies. I always assumed it was stupid people who comprised the fools that didn't understand the rules of the road and were ignorant of the concepts of driving. After reading the responses in this thread I now know that even some reasonably intelligent people fall into that group. Whoda thunkit?