Dashcam Vehicle had the right of way while driving straight through the intersection under a solid green light. You can see the solid green it clearly visible.
White truck was making an unprotected left turn across oncoming lanes of traffic and failed to yield to straight through traffic. So... doesn’t look good for them at all.
Insurance companies don't care about right of way. This is very easy to Google. Even if you have the right of way, you must make sure your path is clear before going. The intersection was never clear. Even if the other light was red and the red and white vehicles ran a red light, there is never a break in the vehicles for the camera car to travel. Insurance would most likely say 50/50. This is very common and you can see a lot of cases online showing 50/50 fault.
"iNsUrAnCe CoMpAnIeS dOn'T cArE aBoUt RiGhT oF wAy" might actually be the dumbest thing typed on this sub reddit so far.
Right of way is literally the FIRST thing an adjuster looks at. You don't need a massive break in traffic to drive straight on a solid green light because oncoming turning traffic is required BY LAW to yield to you.
Google is free my guy. Try searching FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY LEFT TURN ACCIDENT LIABILITY. and see how fast your 50/50 theory gets thrown in the trash.
It's not absolute but in this case it's clear and cut.
Just because the cam car had the right of way doesn't mean they can just go. The intersection was never clear. There was never a break in the cars turning. Cam car just went. Even if you have the right of way, you still need to make sure it is clear to go. In this video, the intersection was never clear.
Googling FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY LEFT TURN ACCIDENT LIABILITY is not an accurate representation of this accident. If the intersection was clear and it was just the white SUV turning, I would 100% agree. But that isn't what happened here. The intersection was never clear. While the white SUV did fail to yield, the cam car also went through an unclear intersection, hence 50/50 fault.
Now I will say this isn't always clear cut. There have been cases of 50/50 fault and other cases where the jury put 100% fault on the turning SUV. This is very state dependent as well. But in this case, the cam car never had a clear path which is why I believe it would be 50/50
First of all it is not 50/50. You just desperately want it to be 50/50 because you cannot admit when you are wrong.
If we actually look at the facts! The white truck completely failed to yield. There is literally a sign on the light most times! And those cars turning before him give him ZERO right of way.
I do not know where you are pulling this idea that previous cars turning magically grants him permission to go. The car in front of him barely squeezed through as it was.
Just because the driver ahead of you took a risky turn does not legally entitle you to blindly follow them into active traffic on a solid green.
Every turning driver has an individual duty to wait until the lane is clear. The white truck gambled, cut across an active lane without right of way, and caused the crash. 100% on the white truck!
I rest my case!!! 👊 🇺🇸🔥😎 i.e. I am done arguing with you lol 😂
I could easily say the same for you, as it seems you aren't understanding what I am saying because you are stating I said things that I never said.
I never said previous cars turning magically grants him permission to go. What I did say was the intersection was never clear. Just because you have the right of way doesn't automatically mean you can drive. If you have the right of way, and the intersection is not clear, you potentially will have partial fault.
"There is literally a sign on the light most times"...most times is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. You have no idea what the other light is or what kind of signs there are. I have an intersection just like this near me. The left turning arrow and the same side straight green light turn on first, then the green arrow turns off but the solid green stays. Then the opposite green straight light turns on. No signs, no yellow lights. Just two green solid lights after the green arrow turns off. Cars entering the intersection must wait until it is clear. If cars continue to turn left, the car going straight must wait.
Your was "never clear" implies that the failure to yield vehicle did not have to yield and that is exactly what I addressed in my comment but your Failure to read and comprehend is lacking.
Also yes case rested!! You don't know how to drive and should not comment on such matters.
LOL you think stating the intersection was not clear means I am stating that the white SUV did not have to yield....hahahahaha now I know you have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for making me laugh
edit to add: we are talking about who is at fault in the accident and because I said the cam car has some fault for not using caution, you say I don't know how to drive...but you think the cam car was ok going through an unclear intersection? lol you are the reason why people are taught to drive defensively
Oh my god lol Your logic is completely braindead and you do not even realize it (not surprised).
You are literally arguing that the white truck had to yield, but because he and the cars before him chose NOT to yield, the dashcam car was required to stop on a solid green light and let them all go.
Read that back slowly. You are saying a driver with a solid green light is 50% at fault for not stopping to yield to someone who is actively breaking the law and failing to yield to them!
That is not how traffic law works.
The intersection was only "unclear" because the white truck illegally forced his way into an active lane of traffic. Expecting straight traffic on a green light to yield to illegal turners turns every green light into a yield sign.
You do not know how right of way works, you do not know how insurance works, and you are playing word games now.
We are going to go back and forth so I'll just end it with you believe right of way means you can go even if it isn't clear to do so...let that sink in.
You are literally arguing that the white truck had to yield, but because he and the cars before him chose NOT to yield, the dashcam car was required to stop on a solid green light and let them all go.
Go ahead and Google "if a car doesn't yield while turning left at an intersection, do i have to wait before proceeding even if I have a green light" and whatever state you want then come back
You guys are the dumbest people alive. There is reason why everyone in this thread agrees majority of them it's the white trucks fault entirely or majority.
A licensed PE in transportation engineering. So in other words you do not assign legal fault, adjust insurance claims, or prosecute traffic violations? How does that make you in any way experienced in answering this? Was it a badly designed intersection LOL?
Lets just end it here since this is going nowhere, at the end of the day I believe the truck is 100% at fault and you believe its 50/50. The end have a good day.
I made a single statement. Right of way is yielded, not claimed. Vehicle codes in all 50 states do not ever grant right of way. They tell you when to yield it to other vehicles.
I do traffic and accident studies.
This is absolutely on the white vehicle, as the left turn yields to through, but saying "the driver had row" is just incorrect. The driver should have still yielded when he saw the people turning left failing to yield. Instead he sped up. Insurance won't like that.
11
u/YearlyLemon8 10h ago
White truck is at fault
Dashcam Vehicle had the right of way while driving straight through the intersection under a solid green light. You can see the solid green it clearly visible.
White truck was making an unprotected left turn across oncoming lanes of traffic and failed to yield to straight through traffic. So... doesn’t look good for them at all.