Witnessed an accident today. Talked to both drivers and sent this video to them. Who’s at fault?https://youtu.be/PCv4f0LXBcU
Probably they guy pulling across the road, even though he couldn't see it was still his responsibility to not cross traffic unless it was safe to do so.
Yup bmw faulty.
The other guy was in the lane already.
Tough call, but I assign fault to both drivers. Those center lanes, as marked, are not meant for passing just turning.
Yep in Illinois that is likely a "no fault" accident as they were both taking illegal actions.
Food for thought, How would FSD ever handle that turn?
+1 M8B. SUV is at fault. The center lane is for turn only not passing. SUV was clearly passing as seen by the side camera.
@Joshan the car is not taking illegal action as it is trying to enter the center lane. That's what center lanes are for.
varies by state... the laws in your state are not the same as every other state. He entered a lane of cross traffic without being able to see.
Bimmer did not have clear enough visibility to proceed forward (they were driving dangerously as well).
First rule of the road is watch out for the other guy.
Nice of you to offer the video. I bet one of their insurance companies will eat it up, and there will be your answer!
The SUV is at fault. If you watch the first SUV that entered the center lane, you can clearly see he used the center lane to pass other vehicles for the upcoming left lane turn. The 2nd SUV decided to use that lane to pass other vehicles while the BMW was given the go by oncoming traffic to enter the center lane.
That's why it's called a suicide lane
The person turning left crossing traffic was likely not looking left once across the two lanes probably looking right to see if cars on other side were coming. It appeared that person never hit the brakes until hit. The person in the left hand turn lane trying to pass everyone, which isn't a good thing to do, needed to pay attention particularly when there are gaps to the right in case someone is coming across, as in this case. I really think that the person in the center lane is at fault as they needed to insure they did . not hit anyone since they were illegally passing cars in a left hand turn lane. Just my take but would love to hear the real verdict.
That's gonna be a tough one for insurance to figure at fault but will probably be assigned to the BMW. I'm with you all that the person in the center is trying to use it to pass traffic but he can easily tell his insurance that he was going to turn left into the next driveway. If that was the case, the driver had the right of way in that lane regardless if he had signals on to signal intent.
All in all those street designs are horrible and are accidents waiting to happen.
Had the Hylander been signalling a left indicator, would be total BMW fault. However, since it was not, Hylander driver can't really claim intent to turn left and therefore can be accused of simply using the middle lane as a passing lane thereby making it probably equal fault.
I meant to add.. those lanes are meant to be short duration occupation lanes meaning you should only be in them almost immediately when you are ready to turn. I doubt the Hylander can claim that without having the indicator on.
I think the video helps the BWM's case. That does not mean that he won't be ruled at fault, it just means that I think the video gives him a better chance of not being found at fault.
Toyota at fault, it is a turn lane not a travel lane.
SUV at fault for a few reasons. Those mentioned above but 1 also that I didn't see mentioned above is that everyone had yielded the right of way to the car pulling out of the parking lot and the SUV should also have.
I was involved in a similar incident many years ago when I was in the center lane waiting to make a left into a parking lot. There was a red light behind me for the oncoming traffic so when the backup of cars at the light reached the driveway i wanted to make a left turn into, the next cars in the oncoming lane stopped with enough space in front of them to allow me to turn in. I made the turn and a guy on a bicycle came zipping down between 2 of the cars that were yielding to me and whacked my right rear quarter panel.
Did over 2K damage to my car and he suffered a cut on his head and the chain fell off the bike.
He was found at fault though for not yielding to me as all the other drivers had.
@dearvenumadhav (OP) What state is this in?
I'm from the Sacramento, CA area. Here, the BMW would be at fault. My GF at the time was involved in a crash just like this in my car back in 2013. We call it "she helped me get a new car." She was near stopped in the suicide lane, and was only in the suicide lane for about 100 feet, waiting to turn left into a parking lot. I think the most you can be legally in a suicide lane here is 300 feet. The idiot that hit here was from Hollywood area (400 miles away), did not have a copy of his license, or proof of insurance on him. He eventually produced both at the scene by calling a friend and having them sent to his phone. He gave a bad insurance policy #. Got snippy that I took his pic with my phone. In 20-20 hind site, I should have had him sited for failure to yield, no insurance or license. He had his lawyer attempt to assert the accident was my GF's fault. Insurance found him 100% at fault, and he was underinsured. My car that was crashed into was a 2007 Camry Hybrid.
s/hit here/hit her/
If the SUV were a Tesla with EAP would it have stopped the car in time to avoid the accident?
@mrburke Exactly. The BMW driver replied to my email : Thank you so much. This is so appreciated! Technology and your kind heart put some of the odds back on our side.
@cmh95628 San Antonio TX
Guy tries to save 10 seconds of time.. now stuck in a time vampire problem to deal with lulz.
BMW was required to yield to other traffic, period. It doesn't matter if other drivers tell you to go ahead because they don't have any responsibility. The SUV as others have indicated didn't seem to be in the turn lane to actually turn immediately so they do have some responsibility. If you HAD to assign blame to 1 person I would say the BMW made the bigger mistake by crossing without being able to see. They both share some legal blame though.
In my opinion the SUV is in that lane to make a left turn . So he is looking at oncoming traffic not expecting anything coming in from the right. The BMW can't see because of the vehicles blocking his view. He probably should have waited until he could see. I say the BMW is at fault but it's kind of a perfect storm .
Why does everyone think the SUV is not using the left lane to turn left? He’s in the left turn lane. You basically have no choice, unless you plan to pull an illegal lane change at the intersection. Of course he is planning to turn left. It’s not like we see him passing several intersections in that lane. What am I missing?
@Madatgascar The left turn is few hundred feet awayhttps://www.google.com/maps/dir/29.5251565,-98.5984258/5790-5738+Babcock...@29.5248743,-98.5991707,459m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x865c676f4aba1141:0x35f073d58bd19999!2m2!1d-98.5996334!2d29.5233017!3e0
No indicator to turn left. Most likely driver is trying to circumvent traffic. One could of course try to state "nobody uses indicators" which of course is not an excuse nor a valid argument. How would that person be trying to tell
oncoming traffic "hey I am trying to turn" without that indicator? Nobody will stop to let them through. (and no, just being in that lane is not enough). That's why vehicles have indicators. They aren't a luxury or convenience mechanism.
@Madatgascar... he is in a left turn lane in regards to businesses along the road, but not in a technical left turn lane for an intersection. Not having their turn signal on, we don't know their intent, but looking at the speed and distance they traveled in that lane and where the intersection was, it does seem they were headed for the intersection, which would make his use of that middle section inappropriate.
I think at the end the decision will be made by two insurance companies based on whose insurance they think can be jacked up easily.
Probably 50/50. Can't cross yellow solid line into a turn lane - gotta wait for the dotted line. BMW was making illegal turn as well.
I was going to mention the solid yellow line. Look at FirstMark Savings & Loan's (red roof) parking lot exit sign on the pavement. One of them is reserved for left only turn.
Middle lane, no blinker, speed of travel, distance to intersection ==== trying to pass on left in a left hand turn lane, not a passing lane. With that doesn't matter what the other was was doing. The Tesla video is damning at best. I wonder what they would have done without the video........
everyone seems to think the fellow was passing, I suspect he was going to turn left . If so, he was using the middle lane properly
Insurance will claim, no blinker, not intent to turn........going too fast also if you were going to turn....
The guy making the left turn (who came from the right across traffic), 100%. LEft turns are almost always 100% at fault (unless the other is also making a left).
I think it was the guy in the truck's fault. He was waving to the guy in the BMW to "get the eff outa the way!" and the guy in the BWW mistook that for "traffic is clear, you're good to go!". Clearly improper use of hand signals.
Clearly everyone have strong opinions in this one. I would be intrigued to find out what happened at the end.
@Venu you are entitled to ask them since you helped them out.
Giving the left turn signal indicator does not guarantee that the person will actually turn left. Having the turn signal on will not have prevented the accident. If the SUV was actually going to turn or not, no one knows. The SUV wouldn't be at fault since we live in country where you can sue a coffee shop for the coffee being too hot.
You guys are crazy. Distance traveled in the left turn lane? Speed? He only went two car lengths, after coming to almost a complete stop before entering the lane. OK, he should have signaled, but it’s not like the accident wouldn’t have happened if he had his turn signal on. No way to tell if he was planning to turn immediately into one of the businesses or at the intersection.
Ninja’d by terminator9
As stated multiple times, signal is not about preventing accident, it is about determining the intent of the Hylander driver. No signal, highly likely considered misuse of lane and therefore at least partially responsible.
The left turn lane in this case has no defined left turn pockets, it is just a continuous center lane with left turn arrows painted for both directions. Obviously the intent is for drivers to cross the yellow line to use the turn lane. So it’s not a case of the Highlander illegally entering the lane before the beginning of a turn pocket at an intersection. I don’t see how the Highlander can be at fault.
@ICEMELT I have both of their emails that I took to send the videos. I'm thinking to ask them after a week or so..
@Johan "Food for thought, How would FSD ever handle that turn?" It will never be able to handle that turn, not with the current sensor suite at least, IMO. That's why it will at best be level 3.
@goose66 I am thinking it would have to be programmed to find a route at a light or stop signs instead of trying to cross 4 lanes of traffic at once.
FSD would turn right instead of trying to cross traffic.
The car will not drive like a person cutting across traffic. It will use proper turns and routes.
Follow up: Have you seen any software (Navi, google maps nav, GPS systems etc) ever create a route that takes you cross traffic like that? No, of course not. Why would you try to suggest that an autonomous system should be doing that to qualify as greater than level 3. That's just silly.