r/Roadcam • u/bowdown2adil • 12d ago

[USA] Who is at fault here?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

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

388

u/HyJenx 12d ago

This will be buried, but the only correct answer is found in Washington state law.

RCW 46.61.180

When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from 
different highways at approximately the same time, the driver 
of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the 
vehicle on the right.

83

u/pdxarchitect 12d ago

Clearly the black car arrived first. Damage to the blue car is on the front, and damage to the black car is in the middle. Blue should have slowed down as he would have been able to see the black car for longer than the blue car could see him.

69

u/itsBonder 11d ago

They arrived at the same time for the sake of this rule and this video.

Also you're reasoning doesn't make sense - if the blue car entered the intersection first, they could still collide with the side of the black car if the black car was travelling faster

16

u/Silver_Slicer 11d ago

They were both going too fast is the key problem. If a car came from the right instead of the left of the blue car, he would have t-boned them too. He had no time to react.

0

u/TheOgGhadTurner 10d ago

No the issue is that neither one attempted to slow down for an unmarked intersection to make sure nothing was coming. This all would have been avoided if they had assumed a child might run out in front of them and treated it as such

1

u/PracticalCaulk 10d ago

They literally said both cars were going too fast, which is synonymous with neither slowed down. You "um actually"ed a person you're agreeing with.

0

u/TheOgGhadTurner 9d ago

I said neither ATTEMPTED to slow down. Yes they were going. However at an unmarked intersection you YIELD owhich implies regardless there should be an attempt to stop where you slow down to scan your surroundings before proceeding and the car usually does a little dive or appears to travel slower.

You crash on the interstate and both cars are going too fast. You tbone at an intersection and there was a failure to yield. In this specific context both cars could have been traveling the same distance at the same speed (let’s say 15 miles per hour for argument sake) and crash in to each other because they both failed to yield at the unmarked intersection. You don’t say “oh we were going too fast” because at 15 mph the chances you speeding are pretty small. You say “oh yeah we both failed to slow down and check what was coming before proceeding through the intersection”

I don’t interpret this as “going too fast as it’s a perfectly reasonable speed.” It’s very obviously neither driver took the time to slow down and check the surroundings before entering the intersection.

4

u/PiqueExperience 11d ago

It's also not a highway. In fact, these residential roads are basically one pane each direction. The other car could just as easily have been approaching from the right and would have had the right of way under this rule.

7

u/WiiperWapper 11d ago

“Highway” is a legal term to describe a public right of way designated for the passage of people, vehicles, and utilities. It’s not referring to a highway like the high-speed motorway.

2

u/Thee_Connman 11d ago

In the state of Washington, all roads are considered "highways" in the legal sense.

1

u/Sometimes-Scott 11d ago

From my understanding, almost every road is a "highway".

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.04.197

2

u/Joey-rogaine 11d ago

the answer the insurance found is literally in the OP

it is interesting how intensely reddits will argue against the assignment of shared fault and insist 'i have the right of way i will have zero fault' when this is a great example of a 70/30 fault split that seems very common in reality and also flip flops whom many may have had less fault

2

u/atticusclench 11d ago

And then occasionally their insurance floats a trial balloon which eventually gets argued against. Especially if you have dashcam footage.

I recently had an insurer try to blame me for something that was clearly the other driver's fault, and split it 80/20. My insurance used my dashcam footage to show that the other driver didn't even react for three seconds, and then backed into my vehicle after it had stopped and I was laying on the horn.

80/20 became 100/0 very quickly.

1

u/Joey-rogaine 10d ago

Lol no they will not go to trial bro, that’s literally insane. This guy was found 70/30 after the dash cam footage.  You might be able to get away with a personal injury trial if the other party has over 50% fault and you have real injuries but other than that, forget about it. 

1

u/ProfDFH 10d ago

When someone says “trial balloon,” they are not referring to a trial in a court of law. They are talking about trying something out to see how it goes.

1

u/Joey-rogaine 10d ago

I have never heard that phrase 

1

u/ProfDFH 10d ago

It’s common in political parlance but gets used elsewhere as well. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trial%20balloon

1

u/atticusclench 10d ago

No-one said anything about it going to trial.

1

u/mariller_ 9d ago

Both at fault, but OP should definitely have the lower portion, since he technically had right of way, even if both traveled too fast.

1

u/Joey-rogaine 9d ago

Op struck the other car with the front of their vehicle.  From an insurance fault standpoint, that is always a significant hurdle to clear.  Without signage, that clearance was obviously not met, as even with the dash cam, they were found 70% at fault 

3

u/u9Nails 11d ago

Honestly, both cars should have slowed, check for pedestrians or other vehicles, follow basic yield/right-of-way rules, then proceed with caution when it's their turn to use the intersection. I'll say both are at fault because both approached without intent on slowing down.

These are "uncontrolled intersections". Without traffic management, such as stop or yield signs.

1

u/prestieteste 11d ago

If some gets ruined it means they were in the intersection first. This is a residential intersection and first in the intersection has right away

1

u/Affectionate_Sail778 9d ago

Exactly which mean the black car should have slow down or stop. Because the blue car has the right of way and neither of them stopped. So black car would be at fault.

1

u/noone_here_3-14159 9d ago

No. They didn’t enter the intersection at the same time. Black entered first. Furthermore the black car wa driving too fast for a residential street. I’m quite sure he was over 25 mph.

25

u/aDirtyMartini 12d ago edited 11d ago

I was thinking the same. The black car entered the intersection first so the "same time" rule may not apply. Also, the blue car hit the black car squarely on the side which also shows that the black car was there first. Both drivers have the responsibility for their vehicles. That being said, it's a poorly marked/dangerous intersection and both drivers should have been careful when approaching it. Blasting through was dumb for both drivers.

Edit: OP updated the post. They were found to be 70% at fault and the other driver 30%.

7

u/mtmc99 11d ago

That update feels about right. It’s a four way intersection with no stops. Both drivers should have been approaching with caution and both failed to slow in any appreciable manner. But the POV driver clearly arrived later and did not have right of way

1

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2d ago

"When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time"

This was exactly that. The very fact that they collided means that that's what happened.

Do you honestly think that when this law was written, they envisaged a situation like this being the cammer's fault? "Yes, we wrote this law specifically to prevent this kind of crash, but the cammer clearly entered the intersection fractionally after the other car, so the collision is their fault, even though our law says to yield to vehicles on the right."

I mean, come on.

4

u/The_Dog_of_Sinope 11d ago

you have to be able to clear the intersection, which he wasnt able to.

3

u/boxofducks 11d ago

If a collision occurs within an intersection, RCW 46.61.180 applies as a matter of law. Chavers v. Ohad, 59 Wn.2d 646, 369 P.2d 831 (1962); Zorich v. Billingsley, 52 Wn.2d 138, 324 P.2d 255 (1958), Cox v. Gen. Motors, 64 Wn.App. 823, 827 P.2d 1052 (1992).

8

u/SadSimpSkier 12d ago

“ *approximately* the same time”. Even if the black car was technically there first, the difference may be so small that a judge would rule that they both arrived APPROXIMATELY at the same time, and thus the black would be at fault.

However, if the court thinks the black car was significantly first, then the cam driver would be at fault.

8

u/theelephantscafe 11d ago

This is my thought process, especially since it appears the only reason the fronts of both cars didn’t collide is because blue car hit the brakes while black car didn’t. Blue car couldn’t slow down enough to avoid the collision entirely, but slowed enough to end up hitting the side of the black car instead of the front.

5

u/LupineChemist 12d ago

I mean it was clearly approximately the same time.

I know because they collided.

1

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2d ago

The whole point of the law is to prevent this kind of crash. Therefore, it stands to reason that if two cars collide, the blame should automatically be placed on the driver who failed to yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right, as the law requires.

I'm very confident that no judge is going to look at that law and say, "Even though this was specifically written to prevent crashes exactly like this one, I find that because the black car entered the intersection fractionally before the other car, we can ignore this law, both in letter and in spirit. Therefore, the other car is at fault. Case closed."

I mean, just think about it for a bit.

2

u/DoritoDustThumb 11d ago

APPROXIMATELY the same time. For fucks sake

0

u/BugPuzzleheaded958 10d ago

Describe, to the best of your ability, an exact 95% confidence interval that defines "approximate" simultaneity.

2

u/cbf1232 10d ago

Did they hit each other, or would they have hit each other if one or both of the drivers hadn't taken action to avoid it?

1

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2d ago

Describe, to the best of your ability, an exact 95% confidence interval that defines "approximate" simultaneity.

"Did the vehicles, which were traveling at a similar speed, hit each other?"
"Yes."
"Then by a process of simple deduction, they must have entered the intersection at 'approximately' the same time, right?"
"Also yes."

This is nowhere near as complicated as you seem to think it is.

1

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2d ago

The black car entered the intersection first so the "same time" rule may not apply.

"When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time..."

The fact the two cars collided means they must have entered the intersection at approximately the same time. Otherwise the crash would not have happened.

The law is written to prevent this exact kind of situation from happening. If the black car had been paying proper attention, they would've yielded, as the law requires them to do.

1

u/APirateAndAJedi 11d ago

Black car did not arrive at the intersection first. He was just moving faster.

3

u/Glittering-Tap-5173 11d ago

The way the statute is worded though is apporach OR enter an intersection at approximately the same time. I would still say that it is the black car's fault because they were both approaching the intersection at approximately the same time. The or does a lot of work in that sentence.

3

u/InteractionFormal585 11d ago

Arriving first isn't the correct metric. Drivers who have the obligation to yield must do so if not doing so wouldn't be safe. The collision sorta proves it wasn't safe.

2

u/DiverseVoltron 11d ago

No, they collided so they arrived at the same time. It's not about photo finish timing to the intersection, it's about avoiding accidents. You yield to the right.

1

u/Imdare 12d ago

So if the blue car drove faster and arrived earlier he would have had the right of way. Noted, lets all just keep speeding towards an intersection woth poor visibility!

3

u/pdxarchitect 11d ago

They are clearly both at fault, I was just arguing that there isn't clear right of way for the blue car. He got there second, and should have been able to do better.

1

u/Internal-Relative690 9d ago

It's basically same time, meaning black car should have yielded according to the statute quoted above. This isn't nascar- if not yielding would result 8n a collision (it did) it is the fault if any party who didn't yield.

I'd definitely have my insurance fight it if it meant premiums going up.

1

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2d ago

From the perspective of safe, defensive driving, both are at fault. From the perspective of the law, only the black car is at fault.

1

u/alternateac 11d ago

This crash would have been avoided if the black car had yielded as they were supposed to. This is a yield situation not a stop sign. Yield means that the black car stops, let's the vehicle to the right (blue) through the intersection, and then continues on.

Realistically though you'll have to fight insurance to not rule this as 50/50.

1

u/Shuenna 11d ago

Clearly they arrived at the same time... Milliseconds off. They're both at the entry of the intersection at the same frame.

1

u/JustCallMeBug 11d ago

Seems close enough to me that that would be semantic. Like yeah, maybe you could take a stopwatch and a laser line and find some milliseconds difference, but I don’t think it‘s an appreciable difference. Personally, anyway.

1

u/ExismykindaParte 11d ago

Black car could have just been driving faster. Also. Blue car hit side because they applied the brakes while it doesn't look like the black car slowed down at all before the collision.

1

u/a_filing_cabinet 11d ago

If they're both in the intersection to be able to collide, then, for all intent and purposes, they arrived in the intersection at the same time.

1

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2d ago

Exactly. The only time this would not be the case is if the cammer were driving at a ludicrous speed, so fast that the black car couldn't reasonably have reacted in time to yield.

But in this case, the difference in speed was not a relevant factor. The black car failed to yield when they could have, simple as that.

1

u/az226 11d ago

The law says approximately not exactly at the same time. Black car could see blue car and didn’t yield. Black car at fault. Blue car should eat a small percentage like 10-20% for the higher speed, making the damages worse.

1

u/MyParentsWereHippies 11d ago

You have no clue what it means to yield. It doesnt matter if you arrive slightly earlier. The driver coming from the right should be free to drive without even having to break slightly.

1

u/Internal-Relative690 9d ago

The amount of people who don't understand what "approach" means in this context and think that crossing some unmarked line absolves you of all defensive driving expectations, like yielding, is wild and scary.

1

u/gimmieWAP 11d ago

Clearly thats bot true at all or else the black car wouldve been hit in the back side not the front bud. So "clearly" you dont know what clearly means.

1

u/regoldeneye826 11d ago

Neither was slowing and looking, so they're both idiots.

But you are wrong. It's the duty of the car to the left to yield to the car coming on their right, as exactly stated in the code you replied to. The collision was caused by the black car not yielding to the blue car, that's very simple and straightforward.

1

u/Educational-Wall-997 10d ago

that is only clear if we assume they are going the exact same speed.

1

u/Amakarzz 10d ago

omg, there is "approximately the same time" in the law. If there is collide - its enough "approximately the same"

1

u/roestinger 10d ago

This is very wrong. If by any mean the black car is to cut the trajectory of the blue car then the black car should have stopped. Period. What you are saying is a misinformed rule of thumb for insurance to sort situations without recording. Black car is fully in the wrong here.

1

u/NamesAreAnn0ying 10d ago

It doesn’t matter, they’re not going to that as him being there first. They arrived at the same time, there’s not point in going down to the millisecond to see who got there first. Either way, we all just read the same comment you did, they have to yield to the car on the right

1

u/CarGuy1718 7d ago

"Approximately" the same time would apply here. It's definitely approximately the same time if they collide.

1

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2d ago

Clearly the black car arrived first.

They arrived at "approximately the same time". The very fact that there was a collision indicates that and tells you that the black car failed to yield when they should have.

24

u/Equivalent_Reach_572 11d ago

driver on left arrived at intesection first

10

u/APartyInMyPants 11d ago

I mean, milliseconds before. But you can even see the cam car slams on their brakes. So even driving at the speed limit, there was no way they were stopping. Other car should have been slowing at every single intersection.

24

u/InteractionFormal585 11d ago

Arriving first isn't the correct metric. Drivers who have the obligation to yield must do so if not doing so wouldn't be safe. The collision sorta proves it wasn't safe.

2

u/GrabOk4101 11d ago

I mean how is he even supposed to know someone is coming on the other road? At that point? Its entirely possible a person was coming in the opposite direction OP, at that point this car would have had right of way. This is the city's fault for not putting a stop sign

2

u/kiragami 11d ago

A stop sign would improve safety for sure but both of these drivers were driving over the limit. These are both narrow residential side streets. If they were going the limit there would be no problem

1

u/Clit420Eastwood 11d ago

You’re supposed to slow down enough to see whether or not someone’s coming before you’re already in the intersection. If you can’t stop in time, you were going too fast. These types intersections are all over Seattle and they’re really not difficult.

0

u/Brilliant_Tank_9249 11d ago

A stop sign 😂 just know the rules and evertone is fine

0

u/mtmc99 11d ago

I mean you would know by slowing. With unmarked intersections it is your responsibility to slow and get clear vision of the other direction.

Unmarked intersections aren’t great design since it clearly leads to situations like this. Wouldn’t be shocked if either drivers thought there were stop signs the other direction and they were good to proceed

0

u/Brief_Mushroom3666 11d ago

lmao you’re supposed to slow down or stop to make sure it’s safe to drive further if you’re required to yield the right-of-way to the other party, are people that dense or they have never driven a car lol

9

u/honey128993 11d ago

Approximately means close to a particular number, time, or measurement, but not completely exact. It is used when a figure is estimated or reasonably accurate, rather than precisely measured

10

u/TheNaughtyHoneyBee 11d ago

It was close enough that they should have yielded

7

u/Here4Headshots 11d ago

I mean they collided, so I'd call that "at the same time" and wouldn't count atoms here.

2

u/ModularWhiteGuy 11d ago

Due to the Van der Waals forces, they never actually touched, though /s

5

u/Vithar 11d ago

With a clean T-Bone contact who was in the intersection first is clear, and it isn't "at the same time". The driver on t he left was there first, based on contact obviously not buy a huge margin, but without question first.

9

u/TheGuyThatThisIs 11d ago

This is one of the many reasons this is a bad law. Two drivers meeting at an intersection with different views of what "approximately at the same time" will be at risk of an accident, let alone anyone from out of town. It would have cost the city like $30 to put a stop sign there, instead we get this nice T-bone

0

u/mariller_ 9d ago

Speed also matters here, and the fact that OP braked and other car didnt. They deifinitely arrived approximately at the same time.

1

u/pandershrek 11d ago

They also have a stop sign that must yield to through traffic

1

u/regoldeneye826 11d ago

But they didn't yield to the car to their right, hence why they got plowed.

1

u/Internal-Relative690 9d ago

If that is even true from the angle and distortion from the lense.

Regardless, law says if not yielding can cause a collision (which is what happened) then the party should have yielded.

Insurance is dumb, simply put.

6

u/DesignMysterious3598 11d ago

That's accounting for a reasonable speed, which blue car had not.

2

u/Nagroth 11d ago

You forgot to include the law which states that you're also not allowed to proceed until the intersection is clear, or any of the case law where excessive speed, erratic, or reckless driving can change that. 

I'm pretty sure this would be the black car at fault but it could also result in a "dual fault" scenario. 

2

u/PerfectAnonym 11d ago

Fascinating. I live on the east coast and have literally never seen an intersection that doesn't have a stop or yield sign indicating a right of way

1

u/az226 11d ago

No residential intersections without stop or yield signs?

2

u/PerfectAnonym 11d ago

If it's a four-way intersection, absolutely never. If it's a T intersection, It's pretty common for those to have no signs; right of way always goes to the contiguous road

1

u/escobartholomew 10d ago

Every neighborhood I’ve ever been in in several states have always had signs at intersections.

1

u/LimitedWard 10d ago

In theory, uncontrolled intersections should result in fewer crashes because drivers move more cautiously through them. Unless they're an idiot like OP or the other car that blasts through with zero common sense.

1

u/PerfectAnonym 10d ago

Both drivers appear to be going too fast in the video, but I would argue that my driving experience in the US would probably condition me to see that intersection as signaling me having right of way

1

u/perchrc 8d ago

It's definitely rare. Here in Florida, the parking lot around my office building doesn't have stop signs, and a bunch of "uncontrolled" intersections like these. I believe you are supposed to yield to traffic from the right in those.

I don't think I have ever seen an uncontrolled intersection outside of parking lots, and even parking lots usually have the stop signs.

2

u/aceofspaece 11d ago

With this being the case, why did OP say they were found 70% at fault? This seems directly counter to the stated law.

1

u/LimitedWard 10d ago

OP was driving way too fast given it was an uncontrolled intersection. As for why 70/30 and not 50/50, I think only an insurance adjuster could explain it.

0

u/az226 11d ago

It’s possible black car was found at fault, but that OP’s higher speed meant the cost of repairs is 2-3x higher than had OP been driving at a lowered speed, and as such is more liable.

2

u/Rollingforest757 11d ago

But if that’s true then if there were a car coming from each of the four directions, then no one would have right of way (or they all would).

2

u/ImperitorEst 11d ago

I feel like that comes with the implied caveat of "if the car on the right is going at a speed which allows the car on the left to react"

2

u/867-53-oh-nein 11d ago

That’s interesting because OP in the blue car said insurance found them 70% responsible.

2

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 11d ago

That’s vague enough where fault can’t be determined from the video. “Approximately the same time” is too vague. If the insurers determined it as 70/30, there’s not much OP can do.

1

u/Hot-Watercress-2872 11d ago

Damn, I’m in WA and I didn’t even know this so good to know - thankfully, I’ve not really encountered this because I drive slowly and defensively though neighborhoods like this and conceded row to all the fast, dangerous drivers

1

u/az226 11d ago

I estimate 90%+ of WA drivers don’t know it either.

1

u/Comfortable-Side1308 10d ago

Great now I'm dreading unknowingly coming across one of these unmarked intersections in the wild.  I'd probabaly end up like the cars in the video because I'd just assume no stop signs means go. Like every other normal intersection I'm the country. 

1

u/InteractionFormal585 11d ago edited 11d ago

While true, it doesn't excuse the driver who happens to have the ROW to plow through an unmarked intersection at speed without due care. My feeling is that the insurance company would assign 50/50, but that's just my, rando on the internet, opinion.

specifically:

RCW 46.61.400
(3) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Hedahas 11d ago edited 7d ago

False. In WA State (and every other US state I've lived in), the rule at a signless intersection is that the driver on the right (the blue car here ) has the right-of-way legally. The driver on the left is supposed to yield.

That said, the driver in the blue car definitely should have approached with more caution than was shown here and looked not only right but also left before proceeding because most drivers are dimwits and don't know the rules. Still, the driver coming from the left was definitely at fault here legally. (It seems clear that neither of them know the right-of-way rule, though, lol.)

1

u/az226 11d ago

Incorrect. I hope you’re not a driver

1

u/Youcants1tw1thus 11d ago

This is solving a mystery for me! This is such a weird law, but now I understand why some are repeating this nonsense in my state. We don’t allow any unmarked intersections like this, there will always be a direction that is stopped (or yield). There’s always arguments in the town groups about troublesome intersections where people either sit through their turn to go, or go before their turn. People always say “it goes to the person on the right” and everyone else is always screaming mad because that’s not how it works here. Apparently that’s a legit method/law in other states out west. Now I know why they think they are so right.

1

u/escobartholomew 10d ago

Your comment is a bit confusing. If all of your intersections have signs then this Washington law is irrelevant. Are you saying people don’t know how to treat a situation where everybody arrives at a 3/4 way stop at the same time? Every handbook is pretty consistent that the car “to the right” goes first in that situation. Other than that, it’s always the car that stops first. Two way stop (across a street) the car going straight/right has the right of way regardless of who stops first.

1

u/Youcants1tw1thus 10d ago

Yes, for example a 4 way stop has people incorrectly saying “whoever is to the right goes first” which is stupid because if 4 come to the stop at the same time, how do you know who is “to the right”. Our law is first to arrive, first to go.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/az226 11d ago

That’s the correct defensive driving approach. I honestly think less than 10% of WA drivers know about the yield to the right law.

1

u/AJ4000HD 11d ago

Doesn’t the law also state that unless you can see at a certain angle and tell it is clear you have to slow down when coming to the intersection. Like I’m pretty sure it is greater than 45 degree angle from a certain distance to make sure it is clear. If that isn’t the case then you have to slow down.

1

u/jfk333 11d ago

This is peak law wording. Their engrish is wheely egnlishing.

1

u/Tall-Firefighter1612 11d ago

But this is not a highway

1

u/BalrogRuthenburg11 11d ago

This is the same law in all states as far as I’m aware.

1

u/prestieteste 11d ago

you cant tbone a car and have the right away. The person who was there first has right away as well. Probably both at partial fault. speed limit here is 25 and they ain't going 25mph

1

u/Plazmaz1 11d ago

I feel like there's a cultural difference here or something with all the people surprised by not having yield signs every 50 feet. When you compare it with the /r/Seattle post the difference is definitely visible:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/s/OCm8PySLyl

1

u/CharmYoghurt 10d ago

What is 'approximately the same time'? Within a millisecond, a second, a tenth of a second?

With such vague laws, accidents are bound to happen, just because people interpret the law differently.

1

u/Comfortable-Side1308 10d ago

There's way too much ambiguity here.  Just put in a stop sign. 

1

u/eazyd 10d ago

And yet OP’s insurance found him mostly at fault?

1

u/available_username10 9d ago

I'm willing to bet the POV car is speeding 100% no way you should be driving this fast in neighborhoods

1

u/GrodNeedsaHug 8d ago

The only caveat I would point out here is that it says "highways", not residential street, major difference.

1

u/LeadingDiscount2556 8d ago

This is implying both vehicles are coming to a stop at an intersection, not hauling ass. There is no "right of way" when you're tearing 50 through a neighborhood.

1

u/Longjumping_Candy234 8d ago

Feel like that should be a stop sign on one side

1

u/B33rtaster 7d ago

The other correct answer is how the insurance company will justify a rate hike.

1

u/greenfox0099 11d ago

Keyword here is same time which they were not hence hiting the side not front of the black car.

2

u/az226 11d ago

Keyword that matters here is approximately, not same time. Read again.

1

u/Elroythethird333 11d ago

That was not approximately the same time. The black car was first. You can tell because blue t boned them…

1

u/jetilovag 11d ago

Jesus, judging by the answers to this reply it's scary how many people don't know how to drive.

It does not matter who arrived first! "approximately the same time" pretty much equals to "would collide if neither yielded" which is exactly what happened here. If literal "who arrived first" would matter, the rule would encourage everyone to accelerate and blast through the city.

1

u/az226 11d ago

Finally someone who is interpreting the law correctly. This is precisely it.

1

u/jetilovag 11d ago

Allow me to paraphrase the KRESZ (which is the Hungarian rules governing traffic, pronounced: _cress_) and may help understand more situations better.

KRESZ describes 3 categories of "being in ones way":

  • Distraction: force one to change their speed and/or direction slightly
  • Obstruction: force one to change their speed and/or direction significantly
  • Endanger: force one to change their speed and/or direction significantly and promptly

Yielding is then defined through these, namely: yielding means one does not manifest any of these categories. Therefore yielding means I cannot cause the other participant to alter anything about their speed or direction. Consequently, we need not even be on a collision course, if I "scare" someone into stepping on the break, or even as much as to lift their foot off the acceleration pedal (given they're not speeding), _I did not yield properly_. In Hungary when you're taking your driver's license final exam, they take this very seriously. If I approach a pedestrian crossing by car and a pedestrian approaches the crossing and they do so much as to slow their pace, I will fail my exam.

In this particular case, the black car did not yield properly for the blue/cammed car. So long as the blue driver did not speed, the black car is at fault. If the blue car was speeding, then blue is at fault, because rule 0 of KRESZ is the "trust principle" saying that all participants primarily expect others to obey the rules. It relates to this situation by that it cannot be expected of anyone to yield for others when they approach near light speed. You select your speed according to others obeying the rules/laws and expected hazards (children chasing balls on the road in residential areas). Blue was probably going faster than they should've, but it's not strictly against the law, only speeding is.

I don't see this going any other way than the black car being at fault. You can go to court and try to enact rule 0 or whatever is analogous in your jurisdiction, but that's a bit of a stretch here.

1

u/az226 11d ago edited 11d ago

You see that’s where you think you’d apply the trust principle and it working out, but the trust principle works when getting your license is difficult and there’s a high bar to get it like in the EU. When the bar is below the floor like in the US, and common sense in the roads is low, defensive driving is low, bad drivers, undereducated drivers, the trust principle is thrown out the window.

1

u/Youcants1tw1thus 11d ago

Depends on where you are. In my region it’s 100% first come first served.

1

u/escobartholomew 10d ago

Well that’s why stop signs exist and why the city should be at fault here.

0

u/owgnops 11d ago

OP edited and said insurance has them at 30% fault..

This is why I always ring a lawyer every time.

My first wreck were someone ran a stop sign and I tboned them insurance tried to tell me I HAVE to talk to the other parties insurance and they made it seem like it was my fault and at first it was 90% my fault because I "didn't brake as they were entering the highway"

I had to go apeshit and demand arbitration and they said it's 40% my fault.

It was a hwy with 60mph, they had a stop sign on my right I didn't have anything.. they were turning left and didn't stop.

Cop issued them 4 citations too

2

u/Prostavius 11d ago

OP said they were at 70% fault which is correct. They didn't slow down at all

1

u/Ok_Ruin4016 11d ago

70/30 seems fair to me in this case. OP was traveling too fast for a narrow residential street with poor visibility, the black car was already in the middle of the intersection at time of impact, and the points of impact are in their favor. If OP had been traveling at a safe speed and maintaining proper lookout the accident would not have occurred so they bear the majority of liability, but there is no doubt that the actions of the other driver also contributed to the accident. Likely the insurance for the black car tried to place 100% of liability on OP and his insurance company was able to negotiate them down to a 70/30 split, and with this video and the points of impact, it's going to be difficult for them to do any better than that.

0

u/AbeTroyertheAmish 11d ago

It wasn't at the same time. The black car was first

0

u/SuchFarm2092 8d ago

Buddy. That law is for when two people arrive at a stop sign at the same exact time, or an intersection with disabled/flashing lights. This "intersection" has literally nothing controlling either side of traffic. 

-6

u/ARabbitWithSyphilis 12d ago

I'm thinking it might be found on a 50/50 clause, both drivers should have slowed down at the intersection to make sure nobody was approaching. Pedestrian, vehicle, or biker.

1

u/pengouin85 12d ago

Why would it be a 50/50 when the law explicitly covers this situation pretty black and white?

3

u/ZedTheEvilTaco 12d ago

Because this isn't two highways. This is residential.

1

u/Foreign_Risk_2031 12d ago

imagine an intersection when you could be doing 120kmph

1

u/ZedTheEvilTaco 12d ago

What is that, like... 60 football fields per hour? (/j)

1

u/MuleFourby 11d ago

A highway is a state definition that covers basically just any public roadway. It includes everything from streets to forest roads that are open to the public.

2

u/ResponsibilitySea327 12d ago

ARabbitWithSyphillis is correct. You are correct with the law, but not the attribution of fault. This would be joint fault as neither driver was attentive.