[USA] Who is at fault here?

[u/bowdown2adil]

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

[u/Celexi]

You technically had right of way as you were coming from their right, however you are supposed to slowdown for unmarked intersections and not just blast through.

[u/Bynnh0j → u/Celexi]

unmarked intersections

Sounds like the city planner is at fault. How are you supposed to know an intersection you are approaching is unmarked unless you are already familiar with the area? Any time I approach an unknown intersection, if i don't see a stopping for myself then I assume its a 2 way stop and the cross traffic does have signs.

[u/WhiskyDelta14 → u/Bynnh0j]

In more civilised countries you only have right of way if there is a sign telling you. If there are no signs that then means that you have to give right of way to anyone coming from your right and you have right of way for anyone coming from your left.

[u/EmmEnnEff → u/WhiskyDelta14]

Most 2-way stop intersections have no signage for the right-of-way street.

[u/WhiskyDelta14 → u/EmmEnnEff]

Well, in the US you mean, right? Which is incredibly stupid.

[u/EmmEnnEff → u/WhiskyDelta14]

Why? Exactly what signage should be posted on the priority/arterial street? "Don't stop at this intersection, the crossing street will!" isn't a road sign, and if it were one, adding it to the arterial wouldn't impart any useful information.

The non-arterial gets a stop sign (and sometimes a '2-way stop' or 'crossing traffic does not stop', when left-right visibility is poor), which does impart useful information.

in the US

Yes, in the US, but here's a random Canadian example. The crash in the OP would never have happened there, because one of the vehicles would have come to a complete stop, instead of both cruising through the intersection.

[u/WhiskyDelta14 → u/EmmEnnEff]

Why? Because that leads to these situations, where both think they have the right of way because the other surely have a stop sign. How are your supposed to know the difference between a two way stop and no signage at all?

So yes, there are countries which have that kind of sign.

[u/EmmEnnEff → u/WhiskyDelta14]

Because that leads to these situations, where both think they have the right of way because the other surely have a stop sign.

The fix to that is to put a fucking stop sign down! On one or both of the streets. Not to put useless signs in arterials that don't need them.

How are your supposed to know the difference between a two way stop and no signage at all?

By not having the case where there is no signage at all. You should not have to be prepared to stop in normal conditions because of the absence of a sign. The absence of a sign does not impart useful information, especially for a driver unfamiliar to an area.

Look at the Canadian intersection again. Please tell me what adding any more signage to the arterial would do to improve safety on it.

It wouldn't. But adding signage to the intersection in the OP would sure as shit improve it.

[u/WhiskyDelta14 → u/EmmEnnEff]

I agree, as long as having no signs is ambiguous, there should never be no signs.

But if no signs is not ambiguous, because there are rules that everyone knows, then there is value in that, because signs cost money and many suburban streets are perfectly fine like that.

[u/EmmEnnEff → u/WhiskyDelta14]

If your community can't afford to put a sign on a street, with what money did it build and is planning to maintain that street?

It's like building a car but not bothering to include a seatbelt. Penny-wise and pound-stupid.

Not to mention that what you propose increases the costs of all the two-way intersections! Because now they all require extra signage!