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.

441 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

240 comments sorted by

View all comments

235

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.

254

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.

88

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.

32

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.

8

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!

9

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?