[Fr_Chuck]

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,

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[AK lawyer]

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?

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[this8384]

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.

[twinkiedooter]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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."

[twinkiedooter]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[twinkiedooter]

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.

[this8384]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.)

[this8384]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[this8384]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[this8384]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[AK lawyer]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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...