I was the second car in line in the turning lane at a red light awaiting the green arrow to make a left hand turn. This was in Pooler, GA at the cross roads in front of Sams Wholesale and Wal-Mart. It is an intersection where each side has a left-turning lane with a green arrow, then two regular lanes of traffic controlled by a traffic light, and an outer right turning lane with a barrier on each side of the road.

When the red-light in the turning lane changed to a green arrow, the car in front of me turned and I turned immediately behind them. I had crossed the region of the opposite turning lane, the middle lane, and nearly the entire outer lane when the light turned green for traffic in the regular lanes. (I had already crossed two lanes and the majority of the third. The only part of my vehicle that was in roadway was from my rear tire and back.

A vehicle approaching the intersection as the light turned green struck my vehicle in the right rear tire and fender with their right front headlight region. The impact caused my vehicle to spin completely around clockwise and land facing outward and pushed into the concrete median that separates the entrance and exit of the road that I was entering.

A person exiting the road that I was entering got out of their vehicle to check on me and stated that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down as they approached the intersection. I had hit my left temple and was very stunned.

While the EMS workers were checking me and getting me ready to go to the hospital, the police office that responded to the scene asked me for my information. I gave him my license and insurance and told him about the witness in the vehicle exiting had stated that the other driver has not slowed down as he approached the intersection.
I was packaged and taken to the hospital and treated for my injuries.

When I went to pick up the report from the Pooler Police Department, the officer placed me at fault. It stated that I failed to yield the right of way to the other vehicle, causing the accident. He listed one witness, a car driving behind the vehicle that hit mine. He did not even get a statement from my witness, even though I apprised him of what my witness had seen and stated. Their witness stated that their light had turned green.
The telephone number on the report for that witness has been disconnected. My insurance company cannot get a hold of them.

After two weeks of requesting to speak to the officer that worked the scene or his supervisor, I finally get called. (I had gone up to the station and called 4 or 5 times.) The officer was very rude, refused to acknowledge my side of the story, and had no excuse for not getting any information from the person that I advised him had witnessed the accident.

He pretty much called me a liar in an indirect way. His supervisor later called, even though he was a little more courteous and advised me that that is GA State Law. Since I was in the roadway when their light turned green, I was at fault. He advised me that I could get a lawyer and take it to court if I did not like it.

I find that very disturbing. My husband and I sat in the parking lot for about 20 minutes and timed the green and yellow left turning arrows. We compared them with other intersections of comparable traffic. The turning arrows have a very short interval compared to other intersections that are similar.

What disturbs me the most is that it is NOT safe to turn left on a green arrow from the turning lane at that intersection. Now I am quite nervous when it comes to driving. I feel violated. I get sick to my stomach now when I have to drive.

Just because a traffic light turns green as you approach an intersection, it does not mean that it is clear to rush through it. People should still have to be responsible enough to make certain that their path is clear of vehicles that are already in motion. Now I not only have to deal with my injuries, I have over $6000.00 in damage to my vehicle and any damages to the other vehicle. I have six weeks of physical therapy to pay for as well for my injuries. My insurance rates are going to increase.

I end up with all this, just because I trusted the state of Georgia and the city of Pooler with my safety to turn left on a green arrow. If the person who helped me by chance reads this, will you please contact me on here or even contact the Pooler Police Department.

I was the second car in line in the turning lane at a red light awaiting the green arrow to make a left hand turn. This was in Pooler, GA at the cross roads in front of Sams Wholesale and Wal-Mart. It is an intersection where each side has a left-turning lane with a green arrow, then two regular lanes of traffic controlled by a traffic light, and an outer right turning lane with a barrier on each side of the road.

When the red-light in the turning lane changed to a green arrow, the car in front of me turned and I turned immediately behind them. I had crossed the region of the opposite turning lane, the middle lane, and nearly the entire outer lane when the light turned green for traffic in the regular lanes. (I had already crossed two lanes and the majority of the third. The only part of my vehicle that was in roadway was from my rear tire and back.

A vehicle approaching the intersection as the light turned green struck my vehicle in the right rear tire and fender with their right front headlight region. The impact caused my vehicle to spin completely around clockwise and land facing outward and pushed into the concrete median that separates the entrance and exit of the road that I was entering.

A person exiting the road that I was entering got out of their vehicle to check on me and stated that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down as they approached the intersection. I had hit my left temple and was very stunned.

While the EMS workers were checking me and getting me ready to go to the hospital, the police office that responded to the scene asked me for my information. I gave him my license and insurance and told him about the witness in the vehicle exiting had stated that the other driver has not slowed down as he approached the intersection.
I was packaged and taken to the hospital and treated for my injuries.

When I went to pick up the report from the Pooler Police Department, the officer placed me at fault. It stated that I failed to yield the right of way to the other vehicle, causing the accident. He listed one witness, a car driving behind the vehicle that hit mine. He did not even get a statement from my witness, even though I apprised him of what my witness had seen and stated. Their witness stated that their light had turned green.
The telephone number on the report for that witness has been disconnected. My insurance company cannot get a hold of them.

After two weeks of requesting to speak to the officer that worked the scene or his supervisor, I finally get called. (I had gone up to the station and called 4 or 5 times.) The officer was very rude, refused to acknowledge my side of the story, and had no excuse for not getting any information from the person that I advised him had witnessed the accident.

He pretty much called me a liar in an indirect way. His supervisor later called, even though he was a little more courteous and advised me that that is GA State Law. Since I was in the roadway when their light turned green, I was at fault. He advised me that I could get a lawyer and take it to court if I did not like it.

I find that very disturbing. My husband and I sat in the parking lot for about 20 minutes and timed the green and yellow left turning arrows. We compared them with other intersections of comparable traffic. The turning arrows have a very short interval compared to other intersections that are similar.

What disturbs me the most is that it is NOT safe to turn left on a green arrow from the turning lane at that intersection. Now I am quite nervous when it comes to driving. I feel violated. I get sick to my stomach now when I have to drive.

Just because a traffic light turns green as you approach an intersection, it does not mean that it is clear to rush through it. People should still have to be responsible enough to make certain that their path is clear of vehicles that are already in motion. Now I not only have to deal with my injuries, I have over $6000.00 in damage to my vehicle and any damages to the other vehicle. I have six weeks of physical therapy to pay for as well for my injuries. My insurance rates are going to increase.

I end up with all this, just because I trusted the state of Georgia and the city of Pooler with my safety to turn left on a green arrow. If the person who helped me by chance reads this, will you please contact me on here or even contact the Pooler Police Department.

First, there is way too much information here. All you would have had to have said was "I was turning on a green arrow; a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction proceeded into the intersection and struck my vehicle."

Second, yes the other driver should have used more caution. However, I find your story to be iffy because I have yet to see a light change in a matter of two cars traveling through the intersection. If you had a green arrow, you should have been able to make it through the intersection before the oncoming traffic's light turned green. But if your arrow was yellow as you were heading into the intersection, then I could see the other driver being given a green light and proceeding.

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking at this point. Are you looking to take legal action against the other driver? Is your insurance company investigating this?

I'm an accident investigator - this would be a lot easier if a simple explanation ("We were doing this and he was doing that") were included BUT all parties should have exercised caution.

Everyone should have been aware of what everyone else was doing.

Otherwise - This8384, you go girl!

First, there is way too much information here.


Agreed, but too much is probably better than not enough.

But still some critical info. Is not there. A few questions I have:



OP says



"A person exiting the road that I was entering got out of their vehicle to check on me and stated that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down as they approached the intersection. I had hit my left temple and was very stunned. ... Their witness stated that their light had turned green. The telephone number on the report for that witness has been disconnected. My insurance company cannot get a hold of them."


Is this person (who said "that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down ") (OP didn't note the sex of this witness?) the same witness who told the officer that the light had turned green and who has disappeared?

"the officer placed me at fault."

Was OP given a ticket or was this simply the officer's conclusion made in the report?

[The investigating officer's supervisor] "advised me that that is GA State Law. Since I was in the roadway when their light turned green, I was at fault. He advised me that I could get a lawyer and take it to court if I did not like it."

That is one man's opinion, If OP is not being charged with a traffic infraction, what difference does it make?
"Now I not only have to deal with my injuries, I have over $6000.00 in damage to my vehicle and any damages to the other vehicle. I have six weeks of physical therapy to pay for as well for my injuries. My insurance rates are going to increase."

OP (i.e.: "GALadyRed"), you have made a claim against the insurance which covers the car that hit you, right?

Apparently, you see this entirely differently than Judy and I do. The OP stated that they were turning left on a green arrow, across at least two lanes of traffic and that in the middle of their turn, traffic heading in the opposite direction got a green light which caused the OP to be hit by an oncoming vehicle.

I find that highly unlikely that the OP had a green arrow at the same time the oncoming traffic received a green light, unless the OP was turning on a yellow arrow and turned when they should not have, thereby being at fault for the accident.

But as I already asked/said, their insurance should be handling this for them. Unless of course, their insurance has conceded that they are indeed at fault for the accident.


But too much is probably better than not enough.

But still some critical info. is not there. A few questions I have:



OP says



"A person exiting the road that I was entering got out of their vehicle to check on me and stated that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down as they approached the intersection. I had hit my left temple and was very stunned. ... Their witness stated that their light had turned green. The telephone number on the report for that witness has been disconnected. My insurance company cannot get a hold of them."

[INDENT]Is this person (who said "that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down ") (OP didn't note the sex of this witness?) the same witness who told the officer that the light had turned green and who has disappeared?
No, this is not the same person. They clearly stated that "their" witness checked on them and stated that the oncoming vehicle did not slow down; the "other party's" witness was behind the second vehicle involved in the accident and told the police that the OP failed to yield.

Apparently, you see this entirely differently than Judy and I do. The OP stated that they were turning left on a green arrow, across at least two lanes of traffic and that in the middle of their turn, traffic heading in the opposite direction got a green light which caused the OP to be hit by an oncoming vehicle..
That's clearly what OP said, allright. If we are to believe what OP is saying, she turned on a green arrow and, at some time between then and when she would have cleared the opposing lane, the light for the opposing lane turned green. What she is saying is that the green arrow was set for too short of a time, so as to not allow her time to clear the intersection.


But as I already asked/said, their insurance should be handling this for them. Unless of course, their insurance has conceded that they are indeed at fault for the accident.

Putting in a claim against the other insurance? Maybe. But just to be clear, OP should understand that a claim can be made if it's possible OP wasn't at fault.


No, this is not the same person. They clearly stated that "their" witness checked on them and stated that the oncoming vehicle did not slow down; the "other party's" witness was behind the second vehicle involved in the accident and told the police that the OP failed to yield.
It's not at all clear which witness has disappeared. OP says that "A person exiting the road that I was entering got out of their vehicle to check on me and stated that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down as they approached the intersection. I had hit my left temple and was very stunned." Suggests to me that this witness' identity may be unknown.

All the officer reported from the other witness was that the light had turned green when the other vehicle entered the intersection. That's a "given", so I fail to see why anybody cares about that witness.

On the other hand, if the officer's conclusion (re OP's fault) is based in large part upon the word of a vanished witness, it's hard to understand what weight that would carry.

First, there is way too much information here.
What she wrote was well-said and clear. I'd rather read too much than not enough and have to play Twenty Questions.

However, I find your story to be iffy because I have yet to see a light change in a matter of two cars traveling through the intersection.
Please visit the western suburbs of Chicago, specifically the intersections at Butterfield and Meyers roads and Butterfield and Finley roads. Butterfield is wide and heavily traveled, and perpendicular streets are considered second-class. Even the second car in line on Meyers making a left turn onto Butterfield has trouble crossing all the lanes in time.

What she wrote was well-said and clear. I'd rather read too much than not enough and have to play Twenty Questions.

Please visit the western suburbs of Chicago, specifically the intersections at Butterfield and Meyers roads and Butterfield and Finley roads. Butterfield is wide and heavily traveled, and perpendicular streets are considered second-class. Even the second car in line on Meyers making a left turn onto Butterfield has trouble crossing all the lanes in time.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but that's why they have a yellow arrow as well. And the OP was turning from the heavily-traveled street onto an off-street, so your theory should mean that her arrow would have been longer, not shorter.

... theory should mean that her arrow would have been longer, not shorter.

Should have been longer, not necessarily actually longer.

I think what OP and Wondergirl are saying is that a traffic light's timing can be improperly set, possibly shifting liability to the other motorist.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but that's why they have a yellow arrow as well. And the OP was turning from the heavily-traveled street onto an off-street, so your theory should mean that her arrow would have been longer, not shorter.
That doesn't mean a thing around here. It's logical, but that's not how the traffic planners think. I've sat waiting in left turns lanes knowing the left-turn light is very short, am eager to roll, but am still shocked that the green left-turn lasts literally seconds (like three). If the car in back of me follows right behind me, he ends up crossing on a red left-turn light.

Plus, the last-minute left-turners from the major road to the secondary road tend to use up the yellow light and are still crossing when their light has turned red, so that prevents the secondary road traffic from making their left turn onto the major road.

I have no side in this argument BUT I am a liability investigator (I know, blah, blah, blah). I investigate probably a thousand, possibly more, accidents a year, have for more than a few years.

As interesting as the details are my interest is (A) what were you doing; (B) what was the other car doing; (C) what was everyone else doing; (D) who are the witnesses.

As far as the Police not "even" getting a statement from the witness, that's not the least bit unusual. In my area unless it's a fatality (and sometimes if it is) there are no sworn statements taken by the Police - they are too busy and they'll tell you (again, in my area), they are not accident investigators. They talk to the witnesses, "quickly evaluate the scene," write their report, move on. They have no ax to grind either way.

OP should stop relying on the insurance company and Police (and any other party) to settle who was at fault and hire a private investigator.

I will admit I did not sort through all of this but, as I said, unless it is safe to turn (or drive forward or travel in reverse) there is some fault on the part of the "innocent" party. When you drive you have to be aware of everything that is going on.

I am not blaming the OP for this accident, not at all - I don't know enough of the facts to do that.

OP should stop relying on the insurance company and Police (and any other party) to settle who was at fault and hire a private investigator.
Years ago when I worked for State Farm, my five guys (claims adjusters) would sniff out the facts of the accident (and I would transcribe them into a file) -- who said what (recorded statements), the police report, personal on-the-scene investigation (even checking timing of lights, etc.), pow-wow with the opposing company (discovery). Do claims adjusters still do this for the insured, or does an insured have to hire his own investigator?

It's not at all clear which witness has disappeared. OP says that "A person exiting the road that I was entering got out of their vehicle to check on me and stated that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down as they approached the intersection. I had hit my left temple and was very stunned." Suggests to me that this witness' identity may be unknown.


I don't know how you're misunderstanding this:

A person exiting the road that I was entering got out of their vehicle to check on me and stated that the driver of the other vehicle did not even slow down as they approached the intersection. I had hit my left temple and was very stunned.

While the EMS workers were checking me and getting me ready to go to the hospital, the police office that responded to the scene asked me for my information. I gave him my license and insurance and told him about the witness in the vehicle exiting had stated that the other driver has not slowed down as he approached the intersection.
I was packaged and taken to the hospital and treated for my injuries.
I'll refer to this person as Witness A - the OP is stating that Witness A was placing blame on the person who struck the OP's vehicle.


When I went to pick up the report from the Pooler Police Department, the officer placed me at fault. It stated that I failed to yield the right of way to the other vehicle, causing the accident. He listed one witness, a car driving behind the vehicle that hit mine.(Witness B) He did not even get a statement from my witness(Witness A), even though I apprised him of what my witness(Witness A) had seen and stated. Their witness(Witness B) stated that their light had turned green.
The telephone number on the report for that witness has been disconnected. My insurance company cannot get a hold of them.
Witness B was traveling behind the other party's vehicle and said that the OP failed to yield right of way. The officer apparently never spoke to Witness A, whom the OP feels backs up their story that they are not at fault.

I agree that the identity of Witness A seems to be unknown, as they were not mentioned in the police report and the OP doesn't seem to know who they are or where they went. Again, I find it strange that this person was concerned enough to get out of their vehicle and check on a stranger, yet not stick around long enough to tell the police what they saw. But like Judy, I wasn't there - I can't say what happened for sure or not.

Years ago when I worked for State Farm, my five guys (claims adjusters) would sniff out the facts of the accident (and I would transcribe them into a file) -- who said what (recorded statements), the police report, personal on-the-scene investigation (even checking timing of lights, etc.), pow-wow with the opposing company (discovery). Do claims adjusters still do this for the insured, or does an insured have to hire his own investigator?


I also started with an insurance company, also as an investigator. Never worked as an adjuster, though.

If OP is not happy with the decisions made by the insurance company she has to hire an independent - same with a fire adjuster, anything of that nature.

I am positive that an independent would be much more thorough than an insurance company investigator/adjuster just from the standpoint of time and caseload. It may or may not be the situation in this case but in my area the insurance company employee makes phone calls and tapes conversations - I actually show up at the witnesses' door. I very seldom DON'T get a statement. I am a human face with a card in my hand, representing someone who has been hurt. People who wouldn't return a phone call talk to me. Those are not the odds the insurance company faces. I also don't get one statement which favors my client or the other side which insurance company employees in my neighborhood tend to do.

I go into Court with 3 witness statements; the insurance company has 1. It happens all the time.

With a claim this size I have no idea how much time/effort the insurance company is going to put into this. I am saying that the OP is not helping (or possibly hurting) her case by doing her own field work.

And I am faced with phantom witnesses (witnesses who stop, say something, disappear for whatever reason) frequently - OP states she hit her temple, was stunned, yet she remembers what the witness said. This would be a problem for me.

I don't know how you're misunderstanding this:.



... the report from the Pooler Police Department ... listed one witness, a car driving behind the vehicle that hit mine.(Witness B) He did not even get a statement from my witness(Witness A), even though I apprised him of what my witness(Witness A) [/b]had seen and stated[/b]. Their witness(Witness B) stated that their light had turned green.
The telephone number on the report for that witness has been disconnected. My insurance company cannot get a hold of them.

The portion I underlined should tell you one reason why: There was a phone number on the polilce report, apparently for Witness B. Why witness B you ask? If the officer had not taken a statement from Witness A, do you think he would have been given a phone number?

The portion I underlined should tell you one reason why: There was a phone number on the polilce report, apparently for Witness B. Why witness B you ask? If the officer had not taken a statement from Witness A, do you think he would have been given a phone number?


I see Police Reports all the time that give a witness name and number but the Police didn't talk to that person. People give a number and run off to work (or whatever). Sometimes the Police believe one witness, take down info on the other (or others), don't question them.

That's why insurance company adjusters - and investigators - have jobs.

So there's a phone number - how does that translate to a report?

AGAIN - if there's a problem with the light all the OP's timing and watching is not going to make a difference. OP needs to hire someone who can write a professional report. Yes, I see lights which are poorly timed all the time. I work with a partner, we stand at the light, we synchronize stop watches, we time from all angles, we turn in a report. That's how it works.

And AGAIN - did OP's vehicle make any attempt to avoid the accident?

I realize your accident expertise is not in Georgia, nor is mine.

The portion I underlined should tell you one reason why: There was a phone number on the polilce report, apparently for Witness B. Why witness B you ask? If the officer had not taken a statement from Witness A, do you think he would have been given a phone number?

Now you have completely lost me. You originally asked if the "witness" she was referring to was one person - I said it was not, and pointed out that there were two witnesses but a statement had only been taken from one.

Now you're talking about phone numbers and who did or didn't give statements; I was just trying to help you understand that there were two witnesses with conflicting information, yet only one statement was taken.

I see Police Reports all the time that give a witness name and number but the Police didn't talk to that person. People give a number and run off to work (or whatever). Sometimes the Police believe one witness, take down info on the other (or others), don't question them.

That's why insurance company adjusters - and investigators - have jobs.

So there's a phone number - how does that translate to a report?

OK, then.

All I'm saying here is that it's unclear which witness has disappeared.

And until OP posts some answers I think we've worked this topic about enough, In my opinion.

OK, then.

All I'm saying here is that it's unclear which witness has disappeared.

And until OP posts some answers I think we've worked this topic about enough, IMHO.

No, it is NOT unclear which witness disappeared. Witness A says the other car was at fault, Witness B says the OP was at fault. The officer took a statement from Witness B and put it into the police report.

And yes, this thread is completely off-track

And I am faced with phantom witnesses (witnesses who stop, say something, disappear for whatever reason) frequently - OP states she hit her temple, was stunned, yet she remembers what the witness said. This would be a problem for me.
If an injured party is aware enough to know a witness is on her side, it would be smart to get that person's name and contact information despite paramedics hovering. And too often, our insureds' witnesses, after thinking about it for a few days, declined to be interviewed.

IN Georgia

You are not suppose to enter the intersection if you can not completely clear all roads before the light turns.
So if you car was still in the lane of on coming traffic when their light turned green, you were in the wrong.

They are in the wrong since they are suppose to watch for objects in or coming into their lane.

The oncomming car has no obligation to slow down under the speed limit if they have a green light, althogh they are suppose to use caution.

Had I been the officer that day, both you and the other driver both would have gotten tickets from the story you gave

** past GA police officer

You have the right to add a statement to the police report,

If an injured party is aware enough to know a witness is on her side, it would be smart to get that person's name and contact information despite paramedics hovering. And too often, our insureds' witnesses, after thinking about it for a few days, declined to be interviewed.



Absolutely - and that's the advantage of a personal visit by someone - insurance company rep or private person - instead of a phone call. OP does say she was stunned but she remembers what this witness said.

That would cause me to question OP's memory.

And, yes, people think about it and they ask, "Will I have to testify?" and then they think if over. My response? If this were you, your child, your parent, what would you want the witness to do?

I can't guarantee someone won't have to testify but if they don't want to give a statement the Attorney can hardball them anyway and serve them with a subpoena to testify, often unnecessary if we already have their statement and KNOW what they saw.

- just saying.

IN Georgia

You are not suppose to enter the intersection if you can not completely clear all roads before the light turns.

That's the thing: how are you supposed to know how much time you have before it turns? Say the time is (for example) half a second. Are you supposed to know that, even if
1. you have never been at that intersection before?
2. everywhere else it's 5 seconds?

That's the thing: how are you supposed to know how much time you have before it turns? Say the time is (for example) half a second. Are you supposed to know that, even if
1. you have never been at that intersection before?
2. everywhere else it's 5 seconds?


Because you are supposed to be aware of your surroundings. For example, you have to be prepared for a signal malfunctioning.

If you are turning left under a traffic light you have to prepare for the other person NOT to stop.

That's the thing: how are you supposed to know how much time you have before it turns? Say the time is (for example) half a second. Are you supposed to know that, even if
1. you have never been at that intersection before?
2. everywhere else it's 5 seconds?

As Judy already pointed out, you are supposed to be aware of your surroundings. Someone crossing 3+ lanes of traffic does not have the right of way over someone who is traveling straight through an intersection.

At this point, it's all a guess as to how long the arrow was green, how soon the other light turned green, how fast either of the cars were traveling, etc. Enough arguing already. If the OP returns and gives more pertinent information, this might be worth continuing but at this point, it's just bickering over different opinions of what happened. No legal advice is being given any longer.

The OP was obviously turning with an arrow and then the arrow changed. How would any sensible driver proceed forward if they saw the other car coming at them head on? Makes no sense to me. If I am caught in this situation (as I have been many, many times due to short turn arrow lights) I always STOP my car and wait until the other oncoming car passes me by.

I think the onus in this situation was on the OP. Unfortunately she didn't get out of the way far enough in time. The ticket she got was justified as she was hanging out in the lane. I'm sorry but that's the law. You must be able to complete your turn safely and be on the look out for other drivers coming at you if the light has changed in their direction.

If OP has been through that intersection turning previously then they would have known that the arrow light was a short one and waited for the next green arrow to proceed forward. The OP must have been in a hurry to "try and miss the oncoming train" headed right at her.

How would any sensible driver proceed forward if they saw the other car coming at them head on?
Calm down. The OP was nearly though the intersection and didn't see the other driver coming at her, so got hit in the rear, not in the front. She said, "A vehicle approaching the intersection as the light turned green struck my vehicle in the right rear tire and fender with their right front headlight region."

Calm down. The OP was nearly though the intersection and didn't see the other driver coming at her, so got hit in the rear, not in the front. She said, "A vehicle approaching the intersection as the light turned green struck my vehicle in the right rear tire and fender with their right front headlight region."

Sorry, you can't tell me that the OP didn't see the car coming and they kept turning left when in fact they could have stopped and let the other car pass. I've seen this little "trick" of keep turning when the light has changed many, many times and have almost hit these jokers but I've applied my brakes and avoided a collision. It's usually a "trick" of some drivers that they do on a constant basis.

Sorry, you can't tell me that the OP didn't see the car coming and they kept turning left when in fact they could have stopped and let the other car pass. I've seen this little "trick" of keep turning when the light has changed many, many times and have almost hit these jokers but I've applied my brakes and avoided a collision. It's usually a "trick" of some drivers that they do on a constant basis.
The other car was coming up on her right rear and was probably in her blind spot. Plus, she said someone at the scene said the driver who hit her did not stop for the light, had been approaching the light when it apparently changed. Meanwhile, she was concentrating on going forward and getting out of the way of the lanes that she was crossing as she turned.

The other car was coming up on her right rear and was probably in her blind spot. Plus, she said someone at the scene said the driver who hit her did not stop for the light, had been approaching the light when it apparently changed. Meanwhile, she was concentrating on going forward and getting out of the way of the lanes that she was crossing as she turned.

She should have been using caution when turning period. End of story. I still think she could clearly have seen this approaching car and not proceeded forward and turning thinking she'll make it. I'd hate to see this woman at a rail road crossing and hear her excuse for why the train hit her car.

Whenever you are turning a car (or going to turn a car) to the left you ALWAYS look forward on the road to judge any oncoming vehicles that could collide with your vehicle and take evasive action. She chose to go forward with her turn and ignore the oncoming car. I don't buy the excuse "she was concentrating on going forward" and getting out of the way of the lanes that she was crossing as she turned. Sorry, doesn't wash with me. She could have stopped her car in midturn and let the speeding car pass her by and THEN finished up her turn. What's the harm in hanging out in an intersection to avoid a crash? I would have avoided the other car and happily have gotten a ticket if a cop had witnessed everything rather than having my car wrecked into like that.

The other car was coming up on her right rear and was probably in her blind spot. Plus, she said someone at the scene said the driver who hit her did not stop for the light, had been approaching the light when it apparently changed. Meanwhile, she was concentrating on going forward and getting out of the way of the lanes that she was crossing as she turned.

Just to clarify: the vehicle that struck the OP was traveling in the opposite direction. It could not have been in her "blind spot" if she was turning in front of the vehicle.

Just to clarify: the vehicle that struck the OP was traveling in the opposite direction. It could not have been in her "blind spot" if she was turning in front of the vehicle.
The OP was turning left. Here is what she said: "A vehicle approaching the intersection as the light turned green struck my vehicle in the right rear tire and fender with their right front headlight region."

How could the vehicle that hit her be "traveling in the opposite direction" if the other vehicle hit her in the right rear? (She did not say she was turning in front of the vehicle.)

The OP was turning left. Here is what she said: "A vehicle approaching the intersection as the light turned green struck my vehicle in the right rear tire and fender with their right front headlight region."

How could the vehicle that hit her be "traveling in the opposite direction" if the other vehicle hit her in the right rear? (She did not say she was turning in front of the vehicle.)

Then please explain this:


When the red-light in the turning lane changed to a green arrow, the car in front of me turned and I turned immediately behind them. I had crossed the region of the opposite turning lane, the middle lane, and nearly the entire outer lane when the light turned green for traffic in the regular lanes. (I had already crossed two lanes and the majority of the third. The only part of my vehicle that was in roadway was from my rear tire and back.

A vehicle approaching the intersection as the light turned green struck my vehicle in the right rear tire and fender with their right front headlight region. The impact caused my vehicle to spin completely around clockwise and land facing outward and pushed into the concrete median that separates the entrance and exit of the road that I was entering.

If the other person struck her in the right rear with their right headlight, that would mean the other party had left their lane and swerved severely into the left turn lane. If that is what happened, there is absolutely no way that the officer would have found the OP at fault.

Let's say the OP was heading east. You cannot have impact between a right rear corner with a right front corner unless the vehicles are traveling in opposing directions, whether it's east-west or east-south.

Then please explain this:


If the other person struck her in the right rear with their right headlight, that would mean the other party had left their lane and swerved severely into the left turn lane. If that is what happened, there is absolutely no way that the officer would have found the OP at fault.

Let's say the OP was heading east. You cannot have impact between a right rear corner with a right front corner unless the vehicles are traveling in opposing directions, whether it's east-west or east-south.
Let's say she was facing north. The left-turn arrow came on, so she followed the car ahead of her to go into a perpendicular-to-where-she-was east-west lane. Thus, she was turning left to go west.

The car that hit her had been traveling south, came to the intersection as the light was changing to green, and did not stop, but continued into the intersection. The OP happened to still be in the intersection, not yet having completed the turn, with her right rear in the way of the fast approaching vehicle's right front.

Let's say she was facing north. The left-turn arrow came on, so she followed the car ahead of her to go into a perpendicular-to-where-she-was east-west lane. Thus, she was turning left to go west.

The car that hit her had been traveling south, came to the intersection as the light was changing to green, and did not stop, but continued into the intersection. The OP happened to still be in the intersection, not yet having completed the turn, with her right rear in the way of the fast approaching vehicle's right front.


As you proposed, let's say the OP was heading north - the other vehicle had to be heading south. Thus, they were traveling in opposite directions. That's exactly what I said before - yet you argued with me.

If the vehicles were traveling in opposite directions, the other vehicle was not "in her blind spot" because she was turning in front of the other vehicle - it's kind of hard to argue that a windshield has a blind spot.

If the vehicles were traveling in opposite directions, the other vehicle was not "in her blind spot" because she was turning in front of the other vehicle - it's kind of hard to argue that a windshield has a blind spot.
The OP was turning and was no longer facing north, was in fact on a arc or curve and facing mostly west. The vehicle that hit her was going south, and could have hit her in her right side, but she had already traveled far enough into the westward-traveling lanes that he hit her with his right front in her right rear.

The vehicle that hit her was on her right and to the rear of her car, and thus in her blind spot.

The OP was turning and was no longer facing north, was in fact on a arc or curve and facing mostly west. The vehicle that hit her was going south, and could have hit her in her right side, but she had already traveled far enough into the westward-traveling lanes that he hit her with his right front in her right rear.

The vehicle that hit her was on her right and to the rear of her car, and thus in her blind spot.

You have to be kidding me. That is not even an argument. "I turned in front of oncoming traffic, thereby placing them in my blind spot so I can't be at fault." Do you honestly think that would hold up in a court of law anywhere?

That would be like saying, "I checked my blind spot five miles back and there was no car in it; the other vehicle sped up and since I had checked my blind spot already, I decided to change lanes without looking so it's not my fault I caused an accident."

There is no argument that the other vehicle probably SHOULD have used more caution. However, the OP is at fault for entering into the intersection without sufficient time to complete her turn and not interfere with other traffic. No matter which way you cut it, she was in the wrong.

She can sue if she wants, but odds are she's not going to win. Plain and simple.

You have to be kidding me. That is not even an argument.
I did not say it was an argument. (The OP said she didn't know the left-turn light was so short. As Judy said, it would take an investigator to find out about the light and other details about the intersection.) I wasn't reporting to you about the OP's guilt or innocence. I just wanted to explain to you that she wasn't hit head-on, that her right rear damage was reasonable.

I'm thinking it looked something like this:

http://thorgaardlawoffice.law.officelive.com/images/intersection%202.jpg
The "car" shown in red represents the OP.

The "car" shown in blue is the car that hit the OP.

I'm thinking it looked something like this:
The "car" shown in red represents the OP.
The "car" shown in blue is the car that hit the OP.
Unfortunately, it doesn't come through. I've been trying to figure out a way to draw it, but can't do it. Maybe we're working too hard on this...

Unfortunately, it doesn't come through. I've been trying to figure out a way to draw it, but can't do it. Maybe we're working too hard on this....

Yes. Forum can't take pics, of any format, evidently.

Link to my pic here (http://thorgaardlawoffice.law.officelive.com/images/intersection%202.jpg).

Edit: maybe it can.

Sometimes I see a red "x", sometimes I see the image.

Anyway, I can see what is probably the intersection when I Google Pooler, Georgia (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=pooler+ga&rlz=1W1GGIE_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Pooler,+GA&gl=us&ei=aAnFS6mzHcOBlAfak8CDDA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CA8Q8gEwAA). There is a Wal-mart (Location "A" is my guess.). I can see the satellite image. Pooler Pkwy. Goes e-w, there is a freeway ramp to the east, There are actually two intersections (either Benton Blvd. or Mill Creek Cir.). Wal-mart to the north of the intersections. One can even see a steet-view. Very interesting and everything, but I don't know where this gets us, as the OP has never returned. :)

Ok. One can get an image from Google Earth. :)
http://thorgaardlawoffice.law.officelive.com/images/Poole%20Blvd.gif

Yes. Forum can't take pics, of any format, evidently.

Link to my pic here (http://thorgaardlawoffice.law.officelive.com/images/intersection%202.jpg).

Edit: maybe it can.

Sometimes I see a red "x", sometimes I see the image.

Anyway, I can see what is probably the intersection when I google Pooler, Georgia (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=pooler+ga&rlz=1W1GGIE_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Pooler,+GA&gl=us&ei=aAnFS6mzHcOBlAfak8CDDA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CA8Q8gEwAA). There is a Wal-mart (Location "A" is my guess.). I can see the satellite image. Pooler Pkwy. goes e-w, there is a freeway ramp to the east, There are actually two intersections (either Benton Blvd. or Mill Creek Cir.). Wal-mart to the north of the intersections. One can even see a steet-view. Very interesting and everything, but I don't know where this gets us, as the OP has never returned. :)

Ok. One can get an image from Google Earth. :)
http://thorgaardlawoffice.law.officelive.com/images/Poole%20Blvd.gif

I see both pictures, and I agree 100% that this is what the scenario was. Because I believe that this is exactly as it occurred, I do not believe that the OP has any claim against the other party. She was crossing over numerous lanes of traffic and anybody with a license knows that when you are crossing traffic, you do not have the right of way.

OP states that she was the second car in the left turn lane and had started to make her way into the intersection, the oncoming traffic received a green light in the middle of her turn and one vehicle in particular did not slow down even though she had not cleared the intersection. This would mean that in a matter of mere seconds the arrow first changed to green, then to yellow, and then the oncoming traffic received a green light resulting in an accident. I know from personal experience that yes, arrows can change quickly but based upon what she has posted here, my assumption is that the turn arrow was no longer green when she entered the intersection.

But back to her original question: does she have any recourse against the other driver? Personally, I feel she does not - she was crossing traffic while they were going straight. It was her job to yield, not theirs. As has already been posted, she can have her insurance company look into it or she can sue the other driver herself. My opinion is that she will not be successful in recovering any funds she invests in pursuing this any farther, and will only create more debt and more of a headache for herself.

I think it gets us to Walmart, Time to go shopping and forget the accident since he never got back with us