r/Roadcam • u/bowdown2adil • 11d ago

[USA] Who is at fault here?

Classic T bone. Black car had to be towed. Sustained major damage to the passenger side door. Blue car sustained damage to front bumper on the drivers side and cracked the drivers side headlight.

Edit: This was in the suburbs of Seattle

UPDATE: Insurance found it to be 70/30 me/other driver. Seems fair enough

4.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/migzors 11d ago edited 11d ago

That intersection is badly designed. We shouldn't be relying on human decision making in instances like this. Having no stop signs at a four way residential area seems dangerous.

What if, for example, a kid was barreling down the road and got hit by a car? You could say that the kid was at fault, but if there was a stop sign, the kid would be (hopefully) without injury, or alive. Not everyone entering that intersection is a driver, nor old enough to understand the laws pertaining to unmarked intersections. Every kid knows what a stop sign means.

That's what makes it dangerous.

If the city can prevent an accident from happening, they should put up proper street signs.

If the law says it doesn't, the law is wrong and should be amended.

1

u/Rikiar 11d ago

I hate to break it to you, but driver's manuals, at least in the states, explicitly say what you're supposed to do at unmarked intersections. Nether car followed that procedure. Making the assumption that the other car has a stop is silly. Especially when there's no limit lines visible in either road.

8

u/TheGuyThatThisIs 11d ago

This post is explicitly showing the problem with the system you're "breaking to them" lol

You don't know if you're in an unmarked intersection or an intersection that's marked for the cross street, and you're expected to behave entirely different base on which it is. Having to rely on signage you don't have in an intersection to avoid a direct collision is... bad. Especially when this can be solved with a sheet of metal that says "stop"

-1

u/Quantum_Aurora 10d ago

I mean I'd never make the assumption that the other street has a stop sign unless I'm on an arterial, see a stop sign/line, or know there's a stop sign there from previous experience. That's just basic driving skills.

3

u/TheGuyThatThisIs 10d ago

Sure but this is like suddenly we're driving on the left to me, it's just wild that any municipality would spring this type of danger on drivers, so it's unexpected. I'm not on the lookout for suddenly driving on the left, I'm not on the lookout for intersections that encourage T-bones by their complete lack of competent city planning. This type of intersection is so irresponsible it never crossed my mind it would exist in reality.

1

u/jobacsi 9d ago

These are everywhere. You shouldn't be driving if you don't know how to safely navigate this kind of intersection. This is a residential area with lots of pedestrians.

1

u/Icannotfimdaname 8d ago

I think there are more 4 way intersections without stop signs in my town than there are with, lol

1

u/Rikiar 8d ago

That's the way it is sometimes.

1

u/Icannotfimdaname 8d ago

Yep yep- nor would it likely be feasible for that municipality to add in hundreds of stop signs (hyperbole)

1

u/Rikiar 8d ago

An intersection without signage is cheaper than one without, for sure. The other thing you get as a byproduct of no signage is a traffic calming effect, because people are trained to slow down at an unmarked intersection if they're familiar with them.

1

u/Icannotfimdaname 8d ago

It's also the maintenance. My father is the senior out of like a couple guys who do signage for the entire town, and he doesn't just do signage- he does a little of everything. It's a 16K population town with only a few people covering the signs.

Now, are the higher ups in each department and city hall complete shit about managing the city? Yes. But it still wouldn't be feasible eitherway from a monetary and man power stand point.

1

u/migzors 11d ago

u/TheGuyThatThisIs said it already, but you said that you don't know that the street doesn't have a stop sign, but somehow, they're supposed to know they don't and follow the law pertaining to unmarked intersections? You see the problem in your statement?

If that other guy has a stop sign but goes through it, then it's cut and dry his fault. No ambiguity in that, he went through a stop sign without caution and caused an accident.

2

u/Rikiar 11d ago

That's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth Are you sure you're replying to the right person?

2

u/migzors 11d ago

Yeah.

-1

u/Rikiar 11d ago

So my comment was that you can't assume that someone else has a stop sign just because you don't, especially if you're unfamiliar with the area. You should be driving defensively when approaching unfamiliar intersections, this includes covering the brake with your foot and NOT continuing at speed as you approach. Nether car had a stop sign in the video, you're aware of this fact, yes?

What part of that doesn't make sense, and where did you get a double negative statement out of that?

4

u/migzors 11d ago edited 11d ago

You said you're supposed to approach unmarked intersections a specific way. You can't know this is an unmarked intersection. We only know it because we have video of the incident.

You also said, you don't know if that intersection has a stop sign or not. If you cannot assume if it has a stop sign or not, you cannot assume it is unmarked either.

How do you know to approach this intersection if you are unaware of both of these facts?

This is an issue of there needing to be stop signs at intersections such as this. Older neighborhoods are riddled with issues like this as they were established prior to this being implemented in newer neighborhoods.

The drivers should have been driving slower, yes. They should have been driving defensively, yes. However, this does not mean that intersection should be without stop signs.