Accident: Who's fault?
#17
#18
Originally Posted by roneski
I'm pretty sure that in California it is illegal to change lanes within X (not sure of the number) feet of a signal. That would put you at fault.
Also how can you be accused of not allowing enough following distance to someone who cuts you off?
Also how can you be accused of not allowing enough following distance to someone who cuts you off?
![Stick Out Tongue](https://g35driver.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
#19
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on where the damage is on the vehicle. If it appears to be a direct impact to the rear, the "rear-ender" is probably at fault. If damage is on the corner of the car(as it doesn't sound like it was), you would have been at fault.
It is possible though that if there were witnesses and it could be proved you were negligent in getting in the turn lane, then it could either be considered you fault or negligence on both parties. In that case, it goes to court to see who was "mostly" at fault, then a judgement would be made.
It is possible though that if there were witnesses and it could be proved you were negligent in getting in the turn lane, then it could either be considered you fault or negligence on both parties. In that case, it goes to court to see who was "mostly" at fault, then a judgement would be made.
#20
#21
I don't know where you live but, in Illinois, we have comparative fault. IF it ever actually went to court, a trier of fact (jury or judge) would have to decide the percentage of fault of each party. To keep it simple, you could each be found to be partially at fault. If one of you was found to be 51% or more at fault, then the other would win. Here, it sounds like you were each at fault. If he testified that he never saw you, I would argue that, if he had been paying attention, the accident could have been avoided. If he testified that he saw you, but you cut him off and he had no way to avoid you, you likely lose.
BTW, this would never go to court in Illinois if there is insurance involved. The insurance companies will decide who is more at fault and then pay based on a percentage of fault. In other words, if the companies agreed that you were 80% at fault, your insurance company would pay 80% of the property damage claim. Of course, your premiums may go up if this happens.
BTW, this would never go to court in Illinois if there is insurance involved. The insurance companies will decide who is more at fault and then pay based on a percentage of fault. In other words, if the companies agreed that you were 80% at fault, your insurance company would pay 80% of the property damage claim. Of course, your premiums may go up if this happens.
![Frown](https://g35driver.com/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif)
#22
were you already in the lane fully? if so, technically, you wouldn't be at fault if he rear-ended you. realistically though, you would be partially at fault (or fully) since you cut him off. but the other driver would have to prove that. and without witnesses, it's his word against your's. and in those cases, it's ALWAYS the guy in the rear that gets the blame for rear-ending someone.
as far as crossing the white line goes, i remember a police officer friend of mine had said that it is illegal to cross the solid white line in cases where the white line indicates the partition/path for an exit ramp, for example. if a car passed the entrance point and crossed over the solid white line, he could be ticketed. if not for crossing the white line, perhaps it would be for unsafe lane changes.
as far as crossing the white line goes, i remember a police officer friend of mine had said that it is illegal to cross the solid white line in cases where the white line indicates the partition/path for an exit ramp, for example. if a car passed the entrance point and crossed over the solid white line, he could be ticketed. if not for crossing the white line, perhaps it would be for unsafe lane changes.
#23
This is the law in FL.
Solid White Line
A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this line, but you should not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard.
Solid White Line
A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this line, but you should not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard.
#24
#25
#26
Originally Posted by roneski
Also how can you be accused of not allowing enough following distance to someone who cuts you off?
I didn't get the ticket, or I likely would STILL be standing there arguing about it.
It made no sense to me.
#27
Originally Posted by SkylineR35
Uhh I was under the impression turn lanes always had a solid white line ?? Therefore to get into it you have to change lanes before the line? That line sometimes is like 100 feet long. If you get rear ended it's not your fault. Cutting people off is not illegal, it's rude.
![EEK!](https://g35driver.com/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
Of course it's illegal. Silly goose.
No wonder people drive like they do...
#28