Driving/traffic question - Who is at fault

[sygyzy]

If that were the case, it would not be a marked passing lane.

That has to be mistake by the transportation board or whatever. The passing lines should have stopped before the intersection and resumed after. Could you imagine how dumb you have to be to see a car sitting to make a right (on to you), and you decide to go into the lane to pass? If there really is a marked passing lane, right at this spot, that shouldn't trump common sense and the desire for self-preservation.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If that's the case, the cop is at fault. I don't know of any place where it's legal to change lanes in an intersection. I can't believe people don't know this. This is exactly the situation the law is trying to avoid.

It is not an intersection, it is another road entering the road. An intersection is when two roads cross in such a way that it would be reasonable to expect that most cars going on one road will cross the other road and continue on their original road.

 

[sactoking]

If the vehicle making the pass is completely in the lane then they have command of the lane and the vehicle turning must yield the right-of-way.

If the vehicle making the pass is not completely in the lane then no vehicle has command of the lane and both vehicles are required to yield, though the person turning still has the greater duty since vehicles entering a roadway must yield to vehicles on the roadway.

 

[sygyzy]

You're right, I used the wrong terminology.

 

[Evadman]

So basically this Op?

I'd say both are partially at fault; with the person at the stop sign slightly more at fault because they're entering the larger street.

In this picture, the blue car must yield the right of way to the green car.

 

[blackdogdeek]

Pardon the hex stop sign.

thanks! now i understand. for some reason i thought the main road was two lanes in each direction and that the cop and the OP were both on or about to enter the same direction and that the police officer was passing another car but in the slower lane (ie - undertaking).

in the actual situation, OP is at fault. this isn't an intersection.

 

[DrunkenSano]

If that's the case, the cop is at fault. I don't know of any place where it's legal to change lanes in an intersection. I can't believe people don't know this. This is exactly the situation the law is trying to avoid.

It's not a four way intersection where there are traffic lights, it's more or less a small side street connected to a larger main street. The person turning is at fault, because he has to account for all traffic, not just one lane.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

All driving threads must have paint picturett

 

[SpatiallyAware]

OP is legally at fault.

I'm sure somehow the LEO is at fault as well I just haven't figured out why just yet.

 

[Meghan54]

You are stopped and waiting to turn right on a busy street. Watching left until their is no oncoming traffic and then make your turn. Boom head on collision with a car who was overtaking.

This section of the road has lines indicating it's ok to pass, but shouldn't you have to account for all traffic before passing?

This happened to me, but without a crash. I had enough time and room to drive off the road to avoid the cop (no lights) who was passing. He just gave me a dirty look and went on his way.

Sorry, OP, but the cop was right with the dirty look.

You are indeed correct that you have to account for all traffic....the cop did when he saw you stopped. It was incumbent upon you to check both ways before pulling out. Your fault through and through.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Are you sure the double yellow was dashed like that?

In my state, I don't believe they have any passing zones where there's a street coming in at an intersection such as in the paint pic.

If the line is double yellow then the LEO is at fault unless his emergency lights were on.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Are you sure the double yellow was dashed like that?

In my state, I don't believe they have any passing zones where there's a street coming in at an intersection such as in the paint pic.

If the line is double yellow then the LEO is at fault unless his emergency lights were on.

It can't be double yellow since passing is allowed. Yellow dash is passing allowed.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Loving the paint skillz in this thread.

kudos to all.

 

[Merad]

Depends on state law. In NC, the cop *should* be wrong, but will probably get away with it because he's a cop.

NCGS § 20-150 section C sez:

The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction at any railway grade crossing nor at any intersection of highway unless permitted so to do by a traffic or police officer. For the purposes of this section the words "intersection of highway" shall be defined and limited to intersections designated and marked by the Department of Transportation by appropriate signs, and street intersections in cities and towns.

Cop would probably argue that he judged passing in the intersection was safe or necessary.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

It can't be double yellow since passing is allowed. Yellow dash is passing allowed.

Yea it just seems odd. I used to use the passing lane all the time when I rode motorcycles and don't recall ever having a side street like that.

 

[TheUnk]

It's yellow dash.. Ok so it may be my fault, but I think it's a really bad idea to ever allow passing in such areas. Not only because of people making rights onto the road, but what if the person you are in the middle of passing decides to make a left.

 

[Evadman]

Depends on state law. In NC, the cop *should* be wrong, but will probably get away with it because he's a cop.

NCGS § 20-150 section C sez:

The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction at any railway grade crossing nor at any intersection of highway unless permitted so to do by a traffic or police officer. For the purposes of this section the words "intersection of highway" shall be defined and limited to intersections designated and marked by the Department of Transportation by appropriate signs, and street intersections in cities and towns.

Cop would probably argue that he judged passing in the intersection was safe or necessary.

There are no markings or signs for the road the police officer is on, so the the pictures in this thread are not of an intersection by the definition of that statute. If there was a stop sign on the main road, or a traffic light, then it would be a violation.

 

[DrunkenSano]

It's yellow dash.. Ok so it may be my fault, but I think it's a really bad idea to ever allow passing in such areas. Not only because of people making rights onto the road, but what if the person you are in the middle of passing decides to make a left.

If they have their blinkers on, then you will be at fault but that would be hard to argue. It'll be the same argument if the person is turning left into a driveway as there are streets with driveways on the sides that also have passing yellow.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Depends on state law. In NC, the cop *should* be wrong, but will probably get away with it because he's a cop.

NCGS § 20-150 section C sez:

For the purposes of this section the words "intersection of highway" shall be defined and limited to intersections designated and marked by the Department of Transportation by appropriate signs, and street intersections in cities and towns.

Cop would probably argue that he judged passing in the intersection was safe or necessary.

cop would rightfully argue that this is not a intersection of highway due to it not being designated and marked by the Department of Transportation

 

[Jaepheth]

Oh, I missed that the other car was a cop.

As my dad used to say, "King of the road" (referring to either patrol cars or 18-wheelers)
Meaning it's always best to assume they have right of way.

 

[Perknose]

Could you imagine how dumb you have to be to see a car sitting to make a right (on to you), and you decide to go into the lane to pass?

Not as careless or dumb as to be making a right turn onto a road and not first looking in the direction you will be going to make sure your path is clear.

The more prevalent and classic error here (not effing looking to make sure the direction you are going to go is clear) would be anot seeing a pedestrian or a kid on a bicycle entering your intended path.

Sorry, but the OP was negligent. If he was so careless as to fail to notice an oncoming police cruiser, how badly would he have felt if had slaughtered a smalller, harder to see pedestrian?

If there really is a marked passing lane, right at this spot, that shouldn't trump common sense and the desire for self-preservation.

Common sense, legal and moral duty, and the desire for self-preservation are exactly why the OP should have dead nuts looked to see if the path he was preparing to take was clear.

There is simply no valid excuse for his not doing so.

 

[ioni]

You are at fault. You have to account for all traffic before entering the road.

So does the guy passing. I'd say the guy trying to pass is at fault.

 

[dank69]

So basically this Op?

I'd say guy painting lines is at fault.

FTFY

Oh and lol at people saying intersection is only streets that cross each other. Never heard of a three way intersection? Can't roll my eyes hard enough.

 

[jlee]

So does the guy passing. I'd say the guy trying to pass is at fault.

And you'd be wrong. The OP admitted he didn't even look right before turning right - what makes you think he had entered the roadway prior to the pass being initiated?

FTFY

Oh and lol at people saying intersection is only streets that cross each other. Never heard of a three way intersection? Can't roll my eyes hard enough.

Never heard of an uncontrolled intersection where the major road has the right of way?

 

[TheUnk]

Not as careless or dumb as to be making a right turn onto a road and not first looking in the direction you will be going to make sure your path is clear.

The more prevalent and classic error here (not effing looking to make sure the direction you are going to go is clear) would be anot seeing a pedestrian or a kid on a bicycle entering your intended path.

Sorry, but the OP was negligent. If he was so careless as to fail to notice an oncoming police cruiser, how badly would he have felt if had slaughtered a smalller, harder to see pedestrian?



Common sense, legal and moral duty, and the desire for self-preservation are exactly why the OP should have dead nuts looked to see if the path he was preparing to take was clear.

There is simply no valid excuse for his not doing so.

I was looking forward as I entered the road and moving slowly as I just started from a stop sign. Would have never hit a pedestrian. It's a 50mph zone, the passing cop came up pretty sudden. He may have even started the pass just before I started turning.