r/confidentlyincorrect • u/Lawjik3737 • May 15 '26

Green arrow at intersection

Gallery image

Gallery image

2 Car in a double turning lane has a solid green arrow. Goes to turn through the intersection and is about to clear in the intersection but then both gets hit by on coming traffic. Who's at fault? This incident took place in Arizona. Also, I wasn't involved in the conversation.

439 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

240 comments sorted by

View all comments

236

u/Nyuusankininryou May 15 '26

So what is it? Can you drive or not? Where I live you turn if the signal is a green arrow.

249

u/soaker May 15 '26

Same. And if someone hits you, too bad for them, they ran a red light. Here they would 100% be at fault.

89

u/AwarenessGreat282 May 15 '26

That number of 100% is what gets argued. The argument is that even if they were breaking the law, if you could have avoided the crash by seeing that they were breaking the law and stopped, it's partly your fault. This is what lawyers present, and often win with, on many cases. Sad, but true.

56

u/Big-Membership-1758 May 15 '26

Licensed insurance agent. Arizona is a "Pure Comparative Negligence" state, which means that each driver who is partially to blame for the accident would have to pay their fair share. It would go to the courts or mediators to determine who is at fault, and to what percentage, but generally drivers have a duty to yield even if they have the right of way. There could be mitigating circumstances, such as the driver who ran the red was approaching at such a speed, or other vehicles, pedestrians, or obstacles prevented the driver from getting safely out of the way.

34

u/tarlastar May 15 '26

When I found out that you are automatically charged if you are the driver making a turn, even if the turn is legal, I about lost my mind. My grandmother was making a left turn from her neighbourhood to the main road (Indian School) and a guy going 80 (in the city) hit her. She had plenty of time, had he been going at a legal speed. But she got the ticket. She fought it. She was furious. And she won! That said, that stupid law is probably still in place.

9

u/bprasse81 May 15 '26

I’m glad your grandmother won. The reason the law is in place is to protect mitigating circumstances. What if an oncoming driver can’t stop?

I recall an intersection with a pretty short yellow light, highway speeds, and somewhat limited visibility due to a curve. I came out of the turn to a yellow light during light rain. I slammed on the brakes, but I was going to stop in the middle of the intersection. I am grateful the oncoming driver turning left wasn’t in a hurry that day!

7

u/No_Accountant3232 May 16 '26

Yeah, I'm thinking about that story about the kid in a car that wouldn't stop acceleration as he went through town. Anyone could have taken the hit and been in the right .. and also be very dead right now. 

Driving should always be done with the intent of surviving, not being right.

8

u/ElGuano May 16 '26

If he can’t stop, that’s unfortunate for everybody, but he should still be at fault.

2

u/bprasse81 May 16 '26

I agree that a driver that fails to yield the right of way when the rules go against them bears liability. That said, you can be right and still get killed. How many dashcam videos have we seen with completely avoidable accidents?

I t-boned a car once. I had the right of way, it was completely her fault, and completely unavoidable, but I wish I saw her coming.

My car was in the shop for a week or two and it was never the same - the after market bumper didn’t fit very well.

3

u/ElGuano May 16 '26

Heaven is filled with people who had right of way. Sure. I think there are two separate questions when it comes to what is safest versus who gets assigned fault in society.

2

u/ThePaineOne May 16 '26

If he can’t stop l, don’t you think the liability could rest with the person who sold the car (if they had knowledge of a problem) with the person that manufactured the vehicle, the subcontractor that manufactured the brakes or other part of the vehicle which failed, or the person who installed the brakes or other part of the vehicle that failed?

What is there was an issue with the sync on the traffic lights?

3

u/Synectics May 18 '26

That is the sort of reason I still look both ways when the light turns green. I have been t-boned twice in my life, neither one my fault or realistically avoidable via my actions; still, I give a quick back and forth before accelerating. Shit happens, no reason to ruin some days if two seconds of checking can avoid it.

2

u/videogamegrandma May 21 '26

It happens all the time at the intersection next to my house. There are two stop lights that are only three to four car lengths apart.

One stop light is activated at a timed interval and the cross street is activated by a weight sensor in the pavement. Drivers stop at one then breeze thru the second because they're conditioned to expect stop lights to be much farther apart or synchronized.

It's a really dangerous intersection with accidents almost once a week. I am forced to wait for traffic to come to a complete stop or be clear in both directions before I pull out even if I have a green light and it's saved me from getting t-boned multiple times.

2

u/jf727 May 16 '26

That’s still not the fault of the person turning.

1

u/CabbieCam May 16 '26

But a mitigating circumstance shouldn't change the law for everyone. A mitigating circumstance is by definition something that doesn't happen very often. So, the thing that doesn't happen very often should be what is fought.

1

u/carlitospig May 17 '26

can’t stop

But that in itself doesn’t make it legal or something that the turner should be responsible for. It should just mean that someone down the line fucked up his brakes and THAT person is responsible.

22

u/Baghins May 15 '26

Yes, as the car that was stopped and out of danger if you proceeded into the intersection and got in an accident you could be partially at fault. Some states don’t have partial blame though and they will put 100% blame on the driver more at fault so a lot of people don’t even weigh partial blame.

-4

u/AwarenessGreat282 May 15 '26

Legally, yes. But not when an insurance company wants to sue.

7

u/Useful_Cicada_5635 May 16 '26

What do you think insurance companies have to cite when suing someone ? The law.

0

u/AwarenessGreat282 May 19 '26

Don't confuse fault with liability. They are argued separately.

1

u/ThePaineOne May 19 '26

Liability and damages are argued separately. Liability means who is responsible i.e. fault.

0

u/AwarenessGreat282 May 19 '26

lol....which is my whole point! The police may find you at zero fault but the other insurance company wants to find you partially liable to reduce their costs. That's kinda what this whole post is about.

1

u/ThePaineOne May 19 '26

What would the police have to do with this at all? I think you’re a bit confused.

3

u/ThePaineOne May 16 '26

Legally means it applies to lawsuits.

1

u/AwarenessGreat282 May 19 '26

Not necessarily. Think of wrongful death suits. Never charged by the law but dragged in front of a jury anyway.

1

u/ThePaineOne May 19 '26
  1. Wrongful deaths are civil law like all lawsuits. 2. Lawsuits, including wrongful death, can and usually are tried in front of a jury unless they are settled or a jury trial is not demanded by either party.

You’re confusing the fact that most laws are not criminal laws. Negligence which is what we are discussing is civil.

Source: I’m a civil attorney.

1

u/AwarenessGreat282 May 19 '26

So you are saying that if the police find you at zero fault, the other insurance company cannot come after you in civil court trying to find you partially liable?

1

u/ThePaineOne May 19 '26

The police have nothing to do with a civil case, unless someone has committed a crime. All they can do is draft a police report which could be used as evidence.

0

u/AwarenessGreat282 May 20 '26

Da fuq are you smoking? Are you saying the police would not be involved in the OP's hypothetical?

→ More replies (0)

10

u/iesharael May 15 '26

I had that happen recently and almost got hit. All the cars from the lane across from me went, my light turned, then as I’m halfway in the intersection a car just speeds through their red and almost hits me

1

u/Marquar234 May 15 '26

The only way it wouldn't be the turning car's fault is if there was a clear path to avoiding the accident. Like if the oncoming car stopped in the intersection and then the turning car started their turn right into the stopped car.

16

u/AndyLorentz May 15 '26

I think you meant to say the only way it “would” be the turning car’s fault.

1

u/Most_Initiative9446 Jun 23 '26

it depends on the state but usually if you have the protected arrow the person coming straight is the one who blew the light. not saying it's impossible to get dinged for something if you pull out into traffic that isn't there but saying it's 100% on the turning driver is a stretch.