YAAT: Would Would Have Been At Fault?

[nageov3t]

I was at a red light this afternoon. all roads in all directions are one-lane.

I'm the first car in the line, and I'm making a left turn. The car in the opposing lane was also making a left turn. a few seconds before the light turned green, he waved me on to indicate that I was good to make the left turn. The light turns green, I begin my turn, and as I'm turning, a car in back of the other driver goes into the parking lane to go straight / get around the other driver making a left turn. In doing so, she came within a couple feet of hitting my car before she looked up, saw me, and hit her brakes (all the while, yacking on her cellphone).

assuming she hadn't looked up and hit me (collision would have been near my rear passenger-side door), who'd have been at fault? me for not yielding the right of way (I didn't see her due to the huge SUV she was scooting around; if I had, I would have waited), or her for going into the parking lane to get around the other left-turning car?

 

[TechnoKid]

So you are making a left turn at an intersection without lead lights? In this case you'd be making a left yielding to traffic [that has the right a way].

If that lady was going into the parking lane to get around the car in front of her making a left, then I would think she'd be at fault because she passed on the right, or more correctly she used a somewhat of a "shoulder/non traffic lane" to go straight, though the question comes to mind tha once shes in the intersection going straight, is she now the right of way even though she became so passing on the shoulder?

 

[Wanescotting]

Hmmm. I guess it would have been your fault, but I have a question. Was she ata standstill before going around the other car? I mean it almost sounds like she changed lanes in the intersection, which is not leagl, I believe.

 

[jagec]

she'd be at fault. An ex-cop told me that "waving people on" means you are guaranteeing that person is clear to go, and could potentially be held liable if they are not...so if anyone besides the woman were to be at fault, it would be the guy who waved you on.

 

[paulee]

Originally posted by: jagec
she'd be at fault. An ex-cop told me that "waving people on" means you are guaranteeing that person is clear to go, and could potentially be held liable if they are not...so if anyone besides the woman were to be at fault, it would be the guy who waved you on.

That's not true at all. Not in CA at least. I had a friend who had this happen in an incident. A lady waved him the all clear. He proceeded to turn left and was smacked by a car going straight that he couldn't see.
He was completely at fault.

 

[Supermercado]

All roads were one lane? And she pulled out of her lane and onto the shoulder? You said parking lane, but I don't know if that means shoulder or not. I remember a few years ago when I was either first learning to drive or had just gotten my license, one of my mom's friends mentioned an encounter she had with a cop. She was in a similar situation except she was the one who pulled onto the shoulder of a one-lane road. The cop pulled her over and gave her a warning saying that technically, it was illegal to pull onto the shoulder to pass a car waiting to turn. If that is indeed true, then the woman in your scenario would have been violating a traffic law. Would that not make her at fault?

 

[tami]

isn't it illegal in new jersey to be using a cell phone while driving?

i know in new york it is.

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: SuperCommando
All roads were one lane? And she pulled out of her lane and onto the shoulder? You said parking lane, but I don't know if that means shoulder or not. I remember a few years ago when I was either first learning to drive or had just gotten my license, one of my mom's friends mentioned an encounter she had with a cop. She was in a similar situation except she was the one who pulled onto the shoulder of a one-lane road. The cop pulled her over and gave her a warning saying that technically, it was illegal to pull onto the shoulder to pass a car waiting to turn. If that is indeed true, then the woman in your scenario would have been violating a traffic law. Would that not make her at fault?

Yes, she'd be violating the "passing on the shoulder" thing, but once shes in the intersection, the question is does she have the right a way and does the OP now have to yield to her, even though her becoming into the intersection [going straight] was a direct result of her disobeying a traffic law?

 

[Supermercado]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Yes, she'd be violating the "passing on the shoulder" thing, but once shes in the intersection, the question is does she have the right a way and does the OP now have to yield to her, even though her becoming into the intersection [going straight] was a direct result of her disobeying a traffic law?

Hmmm, that's true. I don't have any clue what a ruling on that would be. If it were up to me, though, she'd be at fault because her violating a traffic law was what would have ultimately caused the accident.

 

[agnitrate]

I believe you can't change lanes within 100 ft of an intersection. She's busted.

-silver

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SuperCommando I remember a few years ago when I was either first learning to drive or had just gotten my license, one of my mom's friends mentioned an encounter she had with a cop. She was in a similar situation except she was the one who pulled onto the shoulder of a one-lane road. The cop pulled her over and gave her a warning saying that technically, it was illegal to pull onto the shoulder to pass a car waiting to turn. If that is indeed true, then the woman in your scenario would have been violating a traffic law. Would that not make her at fault?

She should have gotten a ticket :|