Suppose a car wants to leave a business driveway out onto a four lane road (two per direction, of course). Suppose that driver wants to turn right, and this is America. Suppose the driver specifically wants to get into the near lane. Suppose there’s a car approaching in the far lane going from the driver’s left to right, but nobody in the near lane for miles. Suppose the driver decides it’s safe to leave the driveway.
Suppose that, simultaneously, the driver in the far lane decides he wants to change lanes into the other lane, and this results in a collision.
That driver who was in the far lane is at fault, right? The driver in the driveway can’t be expected to wait until the entire road is clear if he’s intending to stay in the near lane, right? Or maybe he is? Does it make a difference whether the driver in the far lane signaled the lane change? I assume it does, since maybe the far lane driver doesn’t see a point to using his signal, because, as I said, the near lane is empty for miles. Are there any cars these days that would make it hard for another driver to see the turn signal from the angle likely in this particular situation?
This is one of those things where I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but there are enough complicating factors that I’m not 100% sure.
This is about conflicting interest when changing lanes, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to use it as an indication that the guy changing lanes from right to left is in the right.[sic] At least in Texas. So at long as they were clearly indicating a lane change, the person in the driveway would have to wait.
The driver in the far lane is at fault as long as he/she is in a smart car and you’re in a, say, big, comfy SUV.
Also firearms can help prevent such calamities from happening in the first place by simply firing off a little warning shot or two, regardless if you’re the driver in the driveway or the driver in the far lane - just a friendly little heads up that’ll go a long way in saving possible headaches, heh - down the road.
I think it would be the fault of the driver pulling out of the driveway. Traffic on the road has right-of-way over cars entering the road, even if that car is in the second lane and you want to turn onto the road in the curb lane.
So yes, I think you really are supposed to wait until both lanes are free of traffic before you pull out. In practice, people do it anyway and it usually works.
Another vote for the fault of the person entering the road. A person on a road has a reasonable expectation to perform mundane maneuvers like lane changes without being hit by others not already on the road.
It’s quite similar to a situation I find myself in all too often. 4 lane road with a center turn lane. I’m moving into the turn lane to pull into a drive. A person in the drive ignores my blinkers, actions, etc. to pull out to the left into the turn lane. I.e., right where my car is now.
Yes, I performed an action. No, my action is not of “lower priority” than the other person’s action.
(Assuming you’re the one pulling out from the driveway)
If you’re far-enough out and established in the travel lane that he rear-ends you, it’s his fault. If you’re not, and any part of your car other than the rear bumper is hit, it’s your fault.
I hate the exact scenario described by the OP. I don’t know who’s at fault - I suppose it may depend on the exact timing of events - but my priority as a driver is to avoid collisions, even ones in which I may not be deemed at fault. So my policy is thus:
When I’m driving in the left lane, and I see someone wanting to turn right out of a driveway into the right lane, I will not change lanes until after I’ve passed that driveway, precisely because they may choose to pull out just as I’m changing lanes.
When I’m the one pulling out of the driveway, I wait until there are no cars in either lane, precisely because someone in the left lane may decide to change to the right lane (the lane that I would choose to pull into). Occasionally this may irritate drivers behind me because they may see me passing up “perfectly good” opportunities to pull out into the right lane, but so be it.
This is remarkably similar to a case on Judge Judy recently. And what jz78817 said is a pretty good approximation of the ruling. The defendant even made the “can’t be expected to wait until the entire road is clear” argument and was quickly rebuffed in typical Judge Judy fashion.
No single clear answer. Unsure who - if either - would get a ticket. And plenty could be argued by attys in a civil suit.
Like folk have said, the guy on the road presumably has the right of way. But that is not absolute. For example, you can’t just put on blinders and proceed thru an intersection on green, paying no attention to potential accidents.
If he strikes the merger, there generally is a principal that he should have been able to avoid striking the other car. He had the “last chance” to avoid the accident.
How fast was he going? Did he signal? Here’s another wrinkle my wife and I were discussing recently - in IL, thru traffic is required to be in the right lane except when passing. Of course no one obeys that, but it could cause difficulties in situations such as you describe.
Then there are the always fun concepts of contributory negligence and comparative fault. :smack:
Overall, I’d prefer to be arguing the case for the non-merger. If he was the only car for miles, why didn’t the merger wait until he passed before merging?
It seems to me that there’s no prevailing traffic in the lane that the car pulling out is turning into. Depending on the timing, I think there may be a good argument that the lane-changing driver is at fault for an unsafe lane change and failure to stop.
Disclaimer: Not legal advice; just idle, uninformed speculation.
My take would be that it depends on the highway guy signaling his lane change. If he doesn’t, then the clear assumption seems to be that the right lane is open. If he does signal, then the merger should wait.
Of course, as mentioned above, without some form of witness (passerby, dash cam), he said/he said is probably going to end up with the merger losing.
I think it could be either of these, depending on the exact circumstances/timing. The thing is, they are separated by a difference of only a couple seconds, which is such a tiny amount of time that the person entering the road should just wait to be safe. And on the other hand, the left lane driver should realize that the other car is planning to turn out and it’s kind of dumb to choose that exact second to change lanes. It’s called defensive driving.
I know the OP said “this is America”, but it matters greatly what part of America. Traffic right-of-way laws are pretty similar from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but may vary enough in the details to make a difference. In Georgia the person entering the roadway would likely be guilty of failure to yield right-of-way.
Think of it this way - the lane changer may have prevented the accident by maintaining their lane, but A) they don’t have to; B) they may have had a valid reason to change lanes at that moment; C) your vehicle may not have been visible to them, etc. The person entering the roadway could have absolutely prevented the accident by waiting.
When I turn left out of my work place, I am turning onto a 2 lane road with a bend a few hundred feet to the left, and a light a bit to my right.
Cars will come around the bend in the right lane, and move into the left lane just before they pass where I am trying to exit, without signal or any other warning. I’ve gotten used to it, and wait until both lanes are clear, even though it is frustrating.
In both Japan and Taiwan they assign percentages of fault rather than 100/0. Atypical accident has 60/40 or 70/30 although if it involves a motorcycle then the car will have an even higher share.
Per the 340-page Uniform Vehicle Code (and North Carolina State law)
S 11-404-Vehicle entering roadway
The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any
place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all
vehicles approaching on such roadway.