Driving scenario - is this safe/legal?

[Dougal Short]

Another question. We can make right hand turns on red. Can you make a left hand turn from a one way street (say going West) on to another one way street (going south) on a red?

This is a basic driving law. Assuming you're from around here, you might consider picking up one of those nice little booklets from the license bureau and brush up!

To the OP, the driver entering the road from the cross street has to yield to oncoming traffic. If the right lane is clear, he can enter the roadway, but if he's smart, he'll keep looking over his shoulder. I do this ever morning...

The driver approaching in the left lane is obliged to stay in the left lane once the other driver enters the road. If he changed lanes without seeing the other guy and rear ends him, I suspect that this would be case of shared liability, which is the case with almost all accidents. Rarely, is an accident 100% the fault of one driver... getting rear-ended sitting at a red light would be one of a few exceptions.

 

[Hurricane Hank]

I believe it is entirely ILLEGAL to change lanes within an intersection. I'm sure someone will look this up soon enough.

 

[tboy]

All true, but I wouldn't recommend passing on a solid yellow line when an officer is around. Even if you don't cause an accident, or better yet even if there's only you, the guy you're passing and the cop on the road, and you never exceed the speed limit, the police officer can still pull you over for driving dangerously. Most solid lines are there for a reason (ie hill, corner, etc.).

The key word there is yellow line, white lines are NOT optional or suggestions......if you cross a solid white line you better be avoiding crawling babies else you will get a hefty fine!!!

The one who said the vehicle entering the roadway would be found guilty of causing the accident (should one occur, the term at fault doesn't really apply any longer). Even if the vehicle travelling on the roadway changes lanes into the curb lane, the one entering would be found at fault. Now there will be some that will argue that the vehicle travelling on the roadway should yield to any entering the roadway, but as in past threads, they'd be wrong.

OJ: I'm not 100% sure the vehicle travelling on the roadway would be found "at fault" of the accident. I think the charge (if one was coming) would be not signalling a lane change. The vehicle entering must always yield no matter what.

Barring all the various arguments for and against, it is always a good idea to wait until there are no vehicles around before making any turns. There is a thread around here about making a left onto a 4 lane road and which lane they have to turn onto, you never know what the other wingnut is going to do so it is a good idea to wait until they are past before completing your right turn. We have ALL seen drivers who, when they see someone making a turn or a lane change think "OMG that lane must be better than the one I'm in, I have to get over there FAST"......

I believe it is entirely ILLEGAL to change lanes within an intersection. I'm sure someone will look this up soon enough.

You are correct sir. One must maintain their lane position upon entering an intersection all the way through that intersection.....

... getting rear-ended sitting at a red light would be one of a few exceptions.

While I don't know if the other driver was charged, but I was rear ended while sitting at a red light and my insurance covered my damages. Pain in the ass too as it raised my rates and the accident was in no way shape or form my fault....That's the peril of "no fault" insurance. You can be a primo driver, totally defensive, and never cause an accident yet have your rates go up due to other bad drivers......

 

[oldjones]

Here's a variation with a parked car instead of a turning one. Two lanes going same direction each side of centre. Cars are parked along the curb lane. Car A is parked first in the row with a clear lane in front. Car B is driving along and wants to move to the right lane to park ahead of Car A, but as she signals then makes her move Car A starts up from parked position and drives forward in the curb lane without signalling. Bam! Low speed collision.

Who is at fault? Is which car was behind and rear-ended the other, a significant factor? The signals?

 

[tboy]

OJ: the basic rule of the vehicle travelling on the roadway having the right of way still applies. The parked vehicle must wait until it is safe to proceed before doing so.

It used to be that a vehicle rear-ending another was instantly at fault but the laws have been changed to reflect the fact that just because you're the vehicle in the rear, doesn't mean you could avoid the accident or were doing something wrong. This was a direct result of those insurance scammers who would pull in front of a vehicle and slam on the brakes in order to cause an accident.

In addition, the parked vehicle must signal his intention to merge with traffic before doing so, even if they are simply driving forward in the curb lane because in fact, they are "merging" with traffic.....

 

[Bill the Pirate]

boys boys boys, and Randy Girl

It matters not who would be at fault, nor does it matter if this is a safe act. What matters is that both drivers have the responsibility to ensure safe passage. Put the legality issues aside and concentrate on common sense.

Where it may not be wise to enter the road that close to oncoming traffic, but both drivers need to be aware and responsible no matter who is at fault.

As a skier we say that the uphill skier has the responsibility for safety as he can see the development of any situation. Driving a car is no different no matter who is at fault.
In skiing it is said the uphill skiier is responsible, this would make the driver of the car that is already on the road responsible.

 

[tboy]

Skiman, while you're right, both drivers must pay attention to the scenario as it developes, rules of the road and laws were written to insure that everyone knows what is what. Otherwise, you get the chinese system (or lack thereof) where it is utter chaos on the roads.

To use your "uphill skier has the responsibility" scenario, is the uphill skier still responsible if a stopped skier sees him coming, then pushes off in front of him? Having skied for a number of years and been on some pretty busy slopes, the goal of skiing is to basically go down the hill on your skis. If the uphill skier bears the responsibility for everyone downhill of him, that includes those stopped, skiing laterially across the hill, those practising stopping, etc. Then hang up your skis because you won't be going downhill. Same as on the road. Those already on the road and traveling on that road have the right of way to continue uninterrupted.

Same as on the ski hill, those already on the hill have right of way over those entering the ski hill. Otherwise, again, you might as well not bother trying to ski if you have to continually stop and let those entering, enter.

For eg: you're in line at the chalet for some choc hotlet. Someone else comes in who also wants choc hotlet. Does the person in line backup and allow the newcomer in front? No. The newcomer joins the line at the rear. Same as on the road: those already on the road continue on the road and those joining the flow wait until they are past then join, at the rear. When trouble arises is when those joining the line "butt in"......

 

[OddSox]

Say you're driving in the left lane of a 2 lane road (4 lanes total). Someone pulls out of a side street into the right lane. They do this at distance that, if you were in the right lane, you would certainly rear end them.

Seems to me this is a very dangerous move. As the first driver, I could change lanes any time. Whose fault would it be if an accident occurs in this scenario?

Keep in mind that insurance companies don't use any normal sense of the word 'fault'. If you rear-end someone it counts against your record - period. If the other vehicle backed into you while a police officer was sitting on your hood, you just might have a chance to avoid a premium increase, maybe.

 

[randygirl]

I believe it is entirely ILLEGAL to change lanes within an intersection. I'm sure someone will look this up soon enough.

I don't think it's illegal if it is safe to do so, but if there is something I missed in this section of the Ontario Highway traffic act, I am sure someone will set me straight.

http://rsea.ncf.ca/qAnda.htm

 

[mmouse]

Keep in mind that insurance companies don't use any normal sense of the word 'fault'. If you rear-end someone it counts against your record - period. If the other vehicle backed into you while a police officer was sitting on your hood, you just might have a chance to avoid a premium increase, maybe.

Very true - insurance companies care very little about fault. In my case I had 3 100% not-my-fault accidents (rearended twice while stopped; someone pulled out in front without looking).

When you call for quotes they ask "any accidents in the past x years?" If you say yes, it's basically byebye, they don't want to talk to you.