Yesterday I had a close call while riding my motorcycle. I was waiting to turn right onto a main road. A car approaching from my left had his right turn signal on. Traffic from his direction (including him) was approaching slowly because they had come around a bend in the road, and as he approached me he appeared to be slowing even further, as if to make the turn onto my side road. I decided at this point that he was in fact turning right, and so I proceeded with my right turn. At that point he aborted his right turn (or perhaps he had never meant to turn right at all) and continued straight down the main road. It was close; I’m pretty sure his front bumper came within a couple of feet of my rear wheel. As we continued down the main road, I saw that his right-turn signal stayed on for a couple of blocks. I was pissed at him, but I was more pissed at myself for misreading the situation and nearly getting myself hurt.
Lesson learned: I will never again truly believe someone is turning until their car has moved past the point of no return (i.e. they have proceeded far enough through their turn that they can’t possibly resume their non-turning path without stopping and/or backing up).
Meanwhile, it got me to thinking. Suppose for the sake of discussion that I had gotten into a crash under the above circumstances, and suppose that the other driver admitted to the police that his turn signal was on and that he never turned. Could he be held responsible for the crash, or would I be ticketed instead for failure to yield right-of-way to him?
IANAL, but in a civil trial regarding liability in a very few states, his improper signaling might be considered contributory negligence, affecting the outcome. But in most states, which are no-fault, you’re out of luck if you’re not in the right of way, even if the other guy is speeding, signaling, drunk, and any number of other things. There might be an exception if there was no possible way for you to yield right-of-way.
A friend of mine got ticketed in Michigan in the 70’s for pulling out and getting hit in just this situation. You have to wait untily they’re irrevocably committed to the turn.
Yea, it would be hard to make the case that the signaler was at fault.
I’ve done this before while driving in an unfamiliar part of town. I slow down and signal because I think my turn is coming up but when I get right next to it I can see the street sign and it is the wrong street. I take my signal off and keep going. I can’t be made to turn.
Great question. In Ohio, you can be ticketed for “improper signal or change of course,” a traffic minor misdemeanor punishable by up to a $150 fine and two points against your license. I’ve never heard of improper signal or change of course forming the basis of civil liability for a crash, but it doesn’t seem too far-fetched a theory to me. Another driver may reasonably rely on your signals, and if you signal improperly, or not at all, and she relies on that to her detriment, then - all things being equal - I could see a court holding you at fault.
If signaling without turning were illegal then half the Cadillac drivers in Florida would be ticketed.
The circumstances of each incident are different, but the law doesn’t require you to turn within any distance of signaling, or turn at all. Elendil’s Heir’s reference of “improper signal or change of course” seems broadly open to interpretation and I don’t know if that is intended to cover the case of turning without signaling, dangerous lane changes, or what.
I do know that a friend in Maryland was waiting at a stop sign to turn right (or maybe it was a red light where she was trying to turn right on red, I’m not sure). A car was approaching along the main road from her left, in a right-turn-only lane with his right turn signal on, and so she pulled out. She was T-boned by the other driver who did not turn, and found at fault by the court for failing to yield. The results of such a case may depend on jurisdiction and the individual judge but in the OP’s case we have to at least say that the motorcyclist would likely be ticketed and could even be found guilty.
When I took Driver’s Ed (1973) they taught us to not trust a turn signal until the driver commits, i.e., turns the wheels. Few people actually drive that defensively, though.
I almost failed my driving test because of a simila situation. I’m pulling out of the DMV to start the test and a guy in the right hand lane is signaling and slowing. Something about it made me not pull out. The tester is getting frustrated and is about to write something down when the guy turns off if signal and speeds up. If I had pulled out I would have been t-boned.
There are two issues here that are often confused and combined. One is if any statute was violated and the other is who would be found at fault civily. I can only give my answer as it pertains to New Jersey since those are the laws I know and understand.
Is there a statute that has been violated? As far as I can tell, no. NJ 39:4-126 deals with signaling. It only states that prior to turn or lane change there shall be a signal of intention to turn given continuously durning not less than the last 100 feet traveled before the turn. There is nothing about forgetting to stop signaling. In 15 years I have never heard of anyone being ticketed for it and I can not see a statute that would fit.
In New Jersey there is no spot on the accident report to indicate who is at fault per se. On the NJTR-1 report there is a section called “contributing circumstances.” In practice one could mark off one or more circumstances for one driver and state “none” for the second and that would estentially state one driver was at fault. Often both drivers contribute to the accident in some manner. In this case the officer could mark the car down for “07 Improper Use/Failed to Use Turn Signal” if he felt that the signaling did contribute to the accident. The OP would most likely be out down as “04 Failed To Yield ROW to Vehicle/Pedes”. If there was a ticket issued it would most likely go to the OP.
Then the insurance company gets ahold of the report and assigns blame however the hell they feel like.
There’s a big difference between things you can be ticketed for and things that determine right-of-way. As I said above, if you fail to yield right-of-way, you’re hosed, and the only counterexample to that is in the very few states that have contributory negligence clauses, you might have a case.
Really? Then there are more idiots out there than I realized. I never trust a turn signal. I only take it as a possible clue. Helpful, but not determinate.
There’s a third issue you’re omitting, and it’s the big one: it’s called RIGHT OF WAY.
Note that I’m not talking about fault, I’m talking about right of way. But when the determination of who’s at fault is made, right of way is usually the only thing that matters. The form doesn’t need to say who’s at fault, because the right-of-way can be assessed from the info on the form.
In any case, most states are “no-fault”, so it doesn’t matter except regarding how the insurance company processes it (whether your rates go up, whether they cover deductables, etc.)
You failed to read my entire post. “The OP would most likely be out down as “04 Failed To Yield ROW to Vehicle/Pedes”. If there was a ticket issued it would most likely go to the OP.”
I was involved in an accident today. Similar situation, but I was trying to turn left onto a road while a driver approaching from my left with a right turn signal on. My car was completely stopped with a left turn signal on. Her car was approaching rather slowly with the right turn signal on. I thought she would just turn right into the parking lot of the shopping center. Then just as I started to move my car to the left, I realized she didn’t turn right. It was too late for me to stop. My left front side went into her rear right passenger side. Her door was messed up, her right rear tire went flat. Fortunately no one was hurt (she was the driver, her husband was also in the vehicle). I asked the police officer why her blinker was on if she didn’t intend to turn right. The office said that her turn signal should cancel itself at that point (she came from a nearby bend). After I talked to my insurance company, the claim representative made it clear that it was probably my fault. I told him that I understood and I was willing to accept all responsibilities. But I was not cited for violation of any traffic law by the policer officer, and I still thought the other driver was somewhat responsible. If she hadn’t approached the entrance to the parking lot so slowly, I wouldn’t have moved my car even when I saw her right turn signal was on. They all say it is almost always the left-turning drivers’ fault, but I just don’t know how I could have made such a mistake.
Commonly (well, in CA at least), when you have an obligatory right-turn lane, commonly that lane does not continue straight through the intersection. This lane is separated from the lane to the left by a solid white line, which it is impermissible to cross. That is, once a car enters the right-turn-only lane, that car may not legally merge left in order to go straight. And that car can not stay in the right-turn lane and go straight, because there is no lane there going straight ahead.
Now suppose that you, driving “Car B” see the above car approaching from your left. I should think you may assume he must turn right because there is no lane for him to go into straight ahead. If you pull into the intersection and “Car B” goes straight ahead and T-bones you from your left, I don’t know how it could be argued that “Car B” had the Right-of-Way. “Car B” could only do that by making an illegal lane change to his left, where he had no right-of-way to be in the first place.
In Thailand (a drive-on-left country – reverse right⇔left in the following to make sense for U.S.), a left-turn signal has two distinct possible meanings! It might mean “I’m turning left” but it might also mean “It’s safe for you to pass on the right.” :smack:
For obvious reasons I ignore any “safe to pass” indication other than my own view. (There are also unambiguous safe-to-proceed hand signals given by parking attendants which should also be ignored. I personally know of at least two injury crashes caused by believing signals.)
By all accounts I have heard or read, that is incorrect. A single solid white line may not be crossed.
I just looked this up in the on-line CA Driver Handbook, where the best I can find is this page, which says, [del]somewhat[/del] ambiguously:
This seems to lean toward what Lord Feldon wrote, but leaves it unclear just what the rules are for solid single white lines, and what they are actually used for. This page shows illustrations of multi-lane one-way streets with dashed lines separating the lanes, which agrees with all the ones I’ve seen.
As the vehicle that is turning it is up to you to determine when it is safe to make your turn. The main responsibility lies with you. The other driving can help contribute to the accident but that does not relieve you of your responsibility.
If I read that correctly you are asking who was at fault when one car goes straight from the turn lane. I think you needed to add a “Car A”. It is illegal to go straight from a marked turning lane. In that case (in my state) one car would be guilty of failure to follow a marked turning course. The other vehicle would not be at fault.
Solid single white line means no lane change for vehicles going in the same direction. Double lines for no passing with oncoming traffic. It is not just a suggestion.
My understanding is that in general, a single white line is advisory, but that crossing a single white to exit a right-turn only lane is specifically not permitted. That, as senegoid said, entering then exiting a right-turn only lane was illegal. I recall hearing of police ticketing people who do this (perhaps they were using the right-turn lane to pass a line of traffic in that case). I’ve lived in Michigan and in California, so these would have been in one of those two states. I’m fairly certain that in Michigan, single white lines are only advisory, but I don’t have time to search right now.
