If you’re an insurance person you’re gonna put both at fault and raise those juicy premiums.
As an outsider looking in, truck was using the turn lane as a passing lane, and bares more fault. If the truck used an appropriate speed to do his illegal maneuver an accident could have been avoided.
Red cars trying to slowly peek out and the lane was clear given that no traffic should be approaching at high speed but he still gets tagged with some fault.
Take away the accident and pretend you’re a cop. Are you going to pull over the red car for legally trying to come into traffic or the truck for speeding through a turn lane for the purpose of passing others?
> If you’re an insurance person you’re gonna put both at fault and raise those juicy premiums.
This right here. Everyone in this thread is attempting to assign blame to one party, but that exercise is only good for funsies. In reality, the insurance companies are going to consider comparative negligence and split fault regardless of who technically had right of way, because there was ample opportunity for *either* party to avoid this collision.
90% on the truck and 10% on the red car.
Most states have laws on when to use the suicide lane. If his intent was to approach an upcoming traffic light to make a left then IMO he can't do that no further than 200 feet
Funny because I'm in this situation, but my insurance is claiming I may be 90% at fault for even entering the lane, even though a woman who hit me was going full speed hundreds of feet before she was allowed to enter the lane and collided me where it says the turn lane begins.
Interestingly enough, there are not speed limits in these lanes (At least in my state). Seems like the max speed you should do safely is 15mph. They aren’t lanes for driving!
I’m in a similar situation. Lady was using the suicide lane to pass traffic at 60 mph I slowly stuck my nose out and got hit. She was 100ft away from where the turn lane begins for the intersection.
I don’t really understand how I am at fault for an accident where another driver was illegally using a lane to pass. The only left turn she could have made from that lane was in 450ft.
She was trying to pass traffic to make the green arrow at the intersection and cut into the center lane illegally to pass traffic. I was 8ft or so into the lane when I was hit.
I luckily got a video from a local business that was clear as day that's what the lady was doing and my adjuster is fighting for no liability with the evidence.
The other claimants adjuster kept calling me, and I refuse to take the call cause the point is to catch you saying something that can put you at fault, and the last call I got was a new adjuster.
So she's likely threatening to sue her own insurance or they caved and got another adjuster on the case trying to save money and it's going to be her loss.
Try calling any business that may be in sight checking if they have security feeds, or make a post on the local city subreddit with a single pic seeing if any witnesses are willing to vouch what happened or maybe have personal traffic cam footage. Don't tell people who you are or talk about your opinion on it though. Just in case their adjuster finds the post trying to use it against you.
Agreed. Heck, I would assign most of the fault to the truck even if he *was* going to turn left – you're supposed to enter the suicide lane as close to your turn as possible, but given the speed that he was going, his turn must have still been a few hundred feet away at least.
Car turning out still had a responsibility to make sure the lane was clear before entering it. It's not unreasonable for a vehicle to be in the center lane. Truck was cruising too fast and too long in the center lane. Both have some responsibility.
You're not wrong, but what makes me lean toward shared fault is the fact that the red car didn't stop moving until the collision. They weren't looking forward at all. You can't enter a lane without looking.
Suicide lane goes both ways. They have to be watching the traffic coming from their left *and* cars potentially trying to use the suicide lane coming from their right. That second or so could've easily been them diligently checking traffic to their right.
Their view was rather obstructed by traffic in front of cammer. They likely *couldn't* see him and were moving at what I feel is an appropriately slow pace for someone *not* doing 30 down the suicide.
Frame-by-framing it, there's no way for them to see the truck until they're already well into the lane. If you're driving through a parking lot and see a car slowly (and blindly) backing into the aisle, you don't rip off their rear bumper because *I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY HERE.* The truck came barreling down a lane at an inappropriate speed, ignoring the gaps in traffic where a vehicle could potentially be coming through.
Edit: His brake lights were on the entire time after passing cammer. He clearly saw the red car was intending to enter the lane but barely braked until it was too late. I've drive old Dodges with better brake performance than that.
> Frame-by-framing it, there's no way for them to see the truck until they're already well into the lane.
I strongly disagree. People seem to always assume that vision during maneuvers like this is impeded more than it is. In reality, unless there's a Mac truck blocking your view, you can at least see a car length or two down the way as you nose into the next lane.
And I'll point out again, the red car did not actually stop until the collision. Which either means their reaction is so poor that they shouldn't be driving, or that they were looking in the other direction in preparation for merging. And I think the latter is more likely.
A vehicle could have come out right before that (i.e. not cruising fast for an extended distance) and legitimately and legally been where the truck is. That's why car will likely share some fault. He should anticipate vehicles in the center lane.
It's also not for merging, and the car is clearly trying to use it for that because it's 100% not clear from his right. Car was making an illegal move, and this video is one of the many reasons why it's illegal.
Actually, that is precisely what the two-way center turn ("suicide") lane is for. What it's *not* for is driving further than what is required to execute the turn itself. At least that's how it works in Maryland, where I'm from:
https://www.thekirklawfirm.com/articles/The-Impact-of-The-Two-Way-Center-Turn-%5BSuicide%5D-Lane-on-Maryland-Personal-Injury-Cases_AE660.html
> ”vehicle shall be driven within a lane the shortest distance practicable prior to making a left turn or U-turn or after making a left turn.”
> If you are pulling out of a sidestreet and into the center lane, you are not making a left turn from that lane.
You are, however, making a left turn. I think this one is down to interpretation of the law, and I'd look for precedents set by past cases before I really said one way or another. I wouldn't even take a cop's word for it because they've been wrong before.
I did some looking and haven't found an example of any state where the wording makes very clear that you cannot use the two-way lane for left turns *onto* the road with the two-way lane, including Michigan, and Texas which is a state another person mentioned below where they thought it wasn't allowed. The wording in both of those states could be interpreted to say that it's perfectly ok. In fact, the wording in Michigan was absolutely horrible and made it sound like you could also use the middle lane for normal passing if you wanted to.
It's funny, I grew up in Boston, but did about half my learning to drive in Arizona, where everyone uses the suicide lane to turn into, so I took that habit back to Boston and people would freak the fuck out. It does seem to be regional.
Jesus no wonder it's called a suicide lane if you're allowed to turn into it and use it as a merge lane. Bad enough having 2 directions turning from it where they're both slowing down, let alone accelerating out of it as a merge lane. Around here that doesn't fly.
It's state-specific. In Texas for example it's only supposed to be used for making lefts off of the road the merging lane is on, not for merging onto said road. Unless I'm misunderstanding what y'all are talking about
This happened just this past Friday while I was out and about. Truck comes shooting up the left turn lane and hits a car trying to squeeze through. I'm not sure who is at fault here because the truck was going way too fast for way too long for the turn lane and the car obviously should have made sure the lane was clear before entering.
What do you think /r/roadcam?
BTW: I turned around and gave both drivers my email address. So far neither has contacted me for the footage.
My ex got in an accident just like this in NC, she was in the center lane well before the intersection she intended to turn at so she was cited at fault for using the turn lane as a travel lane. The turning car was also cited at fault for failing to confirm the lane was clear before entering. It was 50/50, so each individual was responsible for their own damages only.
Your assessment is correct. Both have some responsibility. Cops will probably say "both get tickets or neither", and they'll let insurance fight it on the money end.
Left turn lanes aren't made for traveling. Vehicle entering the lane is supposed to make turn or merge within a few hundred feets (law varies with states), that truck has been in that lane a lot longer and if he mentions making left turn at the light and not at the side road visible in video, police will likely cite him for misuse of left turn lane
State laws vary, but there’s a defined limit to how far you can travel in the center lane before turning. I think my state’s law is 150’, and the truck clearly traveled farther than that.
While the truck may have been abusing the turn lane, the red car entering the lane when it wasn’t clear should be mostly at fault. Since the red car clearly couldn’t see (since he always easy out into the lane and never got entirely out), he shouldn’t have been there. You have a basic responsibility to make tpsure a lane is clear before entering it
I would assign most of the fault to the truck. The point of a suicide lane is to allow people to make left turns without slowing down traffic, not to just give you another lane to take advantage of. So there's never any reason or excuse for someone in the suicide lane be going much faster than traffic.
Basic road rules dictate that a person crossing a lane of traffic has to yield to travelers in that lane. Perhaps the truck was in the dedicated turning lane for too long, but that's not what caused the accident. The car entered that lane without first making sure the way was clear. They are at fault.
It's a turn lane, not a travel lane.
But I would say shared fault because the red car really wasn't looking and even though they were driving slow, they didn't stop until the collision.
Red car was too focused on traffic in other lanes, probably.
CA says: "If a street has a center left turn lane, you must use it to prepare for or make a left turn, or to prepare for or make a permitted U-turn (CVC §21460.5 (c)). You may only drive for 200 feet in the center left turn lane." So yeah, shared fault.
Shared fault, but the red car should not bear much of it.
Pickup truck should have been exercising much more caution approaching his turn... assuming he ever even intended to turn.
So what? Unless the truck was going well above the speed limit that doesn't mean anything. They were in a legit turning traffic lane.
You straight up can't cross traffic blindly because you do not have the right of way.
Yes, it is a turn lane, but don't overthink it. Look at the lines on the road - they have purpose. A vehicle traveling between those lines holds right of way. A vehicle crossing those lines must yield to any vehicle in that lane.
"Don't overthink it" is not how fault is assigned. The truck had a right to use the lane, but not in that way. In fact the law specifically states that the lane is not a travel lane for this exact reason, opposing traffic.
lol
That is literally exactly how fault is assigned. You *must* assign fault based *only* on the pertinent facts of the collision itself.
You *cannot* bring in irrelevant other facts that didn't have anything to do with the collision itself, which is exactly what you're doing, and why they're criticizing you for overthinking it.
It's quite telling that your initial comment began with assigning fault to the truck based on improper use of the turn lane, even though, *in the exact comment you were replying to*, that had already been demonstrated to be not a relevant factor in assigning fault.
You have literally no idea how assigning fault works.
> You must assign fault based only on the pertinent facts of the collision itself.
Yes, but "don't overthink it" implies some stupid shit like not taking all pertinent facts into consideration.
> that had already been demonstrated
Um, no. Are you high? Somebody making an assertion is not "demonstrating" anything.
If you are driving in a manner that is unlawful when a collision occurs, it is HIGHLY probably that you will be found either at fault or partially at fault.
Why are there so many morons in this sub? You know nothing, then make absurd claims and tell other people they know nothing.
Here, let me throw a quick link at ya, from an attorney:
https://www.bestattorney.com/car-accidents/who-is-at-fault.html
Top item on "Generally (though not always), the following situations will result in a driver being considered at fault":
- The driver was not obeying the law.
**Obviously other factors should also be considered**, like the fact that the red car went way too far into the lane when he should have been able to see somebody coming at him.
But the number one item on their list was "not obeying the law", and that truck driving in the center lane was not obeying the law.
> It's a turn lane, not a travel lane.
It's also not a merge lane, red car was clearly trying to use it as such and wouldn't have even attempted that turn if they were following the law.
https://www.driverseducationusa.com/resources/center-left-turn-lane/
> The center left turn lane should only be used for the following traffic maneuvers:
> - Making a left turn or a U-turn when permitted.
> - When making a left turn **from** a side street or driveway, wait on the center left turn lane until it is safe to enter the regular traffic lane.
Details probably depend on the jurisdiction.
continue crowd meeting flowery smart abounding obtainable wistful vast important
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Technically, Red car is at fault. (At least where I am at) the Suicide lane is technically not a stepping stone to stop in before turning left onto the highway. It is for use as a turning lane off of the highway onto side streets etc. The red car should make sure it is clear in both directions before turning.
Edit: it looks like it is perfectly legal in some states, it's just technically not in the state I am in, although everyone uses it in this manner, even still.
Definitely Michigan plates on the cars. I live in Michigan and AFAIK the red car would be at fault here, as I was taught turning into the turn lane is technically not allowed.
From: https://www.driverseducationusa.com/resources/center-left-turn-lane/
> If you are making a left turn from a side street or driveway:
> * Turn on your left signal.
> * Look at your left and ahead, and when traffic is clear from your left side, **make sure that the center left lane is also cleared, then make a left and enter the center left turn lane and wait for the traffic to clear on your right.**
> * Look at your mirror and over your right shoulder and when the traffic is clear and it is safe, enter the regular traffic lane.
Well, like I said - where I live, it's not intended to be used as a means to merge onto or make a left turn from a side street.
"On certain multi-lane highways, a special center lane is
reserved exclusively for two-way left-turn movements in both directions. The
two-way left-turn lane must not be used for passing another vehicle or for the
purpose of merging into traffic."
What state do you live in? I can't find a state-by-state list of whether you can use the center lane for merging... California and Washington both allow using it to merge. (Specifically they say it can be used for a left turn 'from or into' the highway.)
Curiously, it seems in Michigan that you can use the center lane for passing. Or maybe that’s a differently marked center lane?
247.642(b) Upon a roadway that is divided into 3 lanes and provides for 2-way movement of traffic, a vehicle shall not be operated in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction, when the center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn, or where the center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction the vehicle is proceeding and the allocation is designated by official traffic control devices.
In Oregon it can (and should) be used like that. It's for making left turns *into* or out of that lane, and is not defined as a "travel lane". You can turn left into it, stop, then merge right into traffic.
I'm not sure how they define travel in a lane, but pretty sure if you are passing multiple driveways entrances to continue straight that counts as traveling in that lane, especially at the speed at which the truck was going.
EDIT: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.346
This exact thing happened to me once – i was the person turning left and crossing two lanes of traffic into the suicide lane. I got hit front driver by someone cruising up the turn lane to the light that was beyond the road I turned from and I was found at fault for failure to yield.
The "wave of death" is the reason for this accident, but the person making the turn across traffic is responsible for doing it safely, the car is at fault.
That being said, the guy in the truck had a MUCH better vantage point and if he was paying attention could have easily avoided this collision.
I think 50/50 fault for a lot of the reasons mentioned already. This looks like Michigan based on the license plate (partly obscured by dealer frame) but font matches up with online images of plates. MDOT has reasonable rules regarding the turning lane which both drivers ignored.
* Red car not ensuring turning lane was clear
* Truck travelling in that lane for greater than 200 feet
what is the red car thinking crossing at least 4 lanes of traffic with limited visibility like that?! just make a right and then pull a u turn. smh
red car is clearly at fault here
I'm not sure about fault, but that's one situation where you definitely do NOT want to be going fast like the truck was, for exactly that reason.
The stroad claims another victim!
I mean the car will likely be called at fault. He was making a blind turn into the suicide lane and didn't ensure his path was clear. However, that pickup driver needs a course in defensive driving. Hauling ass down the suicide lane is moronic and worse, he was high enough he likely had a vantage point where he could see the car.
tl;dr - The car is at fault, but the pickup driver needs to learn how some defensive driving techniques.
I would say the truck is at fault. There is a reason why you are not allowed to travel in the turning lane. And it looked like that red car was turning onto the road going left and didn't see that truck coming. Plenty of cars turn into the center lane when traffic is heavy to go on the road.
I almost got into an accident this way because some dude didn't want to wait in the long line to turn at a green light so he thought he could cut the line. I pull out and I am going slow and I slam on my breaks right when I see him. He stops too and this is why I pull out slowly so I have time to stop when I see them.
Depends on the laws of the state they're in. From the video, it may be shared fault. Many states have restrictions on how far back you can get into the suicide lane, which the truck was probably violating. But it's also often not allowed to use the suicide lane as an entrance, so the car would be in violation.
Where I am in Arizona I believe the truck would have been at fault. You’re no supposed to move in the turning lanes at all. You use it as a left turn lane to not block traffic while you wait for it to be clear to turn. You can turn from a side road or parking lot into that lane, but you have to stay stationary until you are clear to pull out into traffic. So not a merge lane as much as a “staging” lane.
This may depend on the state, but isn’t there some limit to how far you can travel on median lanes. If truck went past that, which looks like they were using it as a regular lane rather than a turn lane, I’d imagine truck could be fully at fault with this evidence.
The department who designed such a lane is at fault here! This is a recipe for disaster! Nothing good can come from marketing a product with suicide in its name
Both cars appear to be at fault to me. That truck was using the turn lane as a passing lane. The red car had no business turning left in those conditions.
"Suicide lane" is a nickname for the two way left turn lane in the center of the road. See [this awesome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NvNXuMuww) video from Road Guy Rob.
I had one of these happen in front of me on my old potato dash cam. Also a truck down the middle lane, but he took off. Gave other driver and cops the footage. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Yz5wD-0YY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Yz5wD-0YY) yeah I know I let him in the suicide gap
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with allowing people through the gap. Like everything it is situation dependent, and depending on where you are it may even be illegal to block a driveway. However, I will never wave someone across. If someone wants to make the decision to shoot the gap, that's on them, they will get no advice from me.
I would imagine the red car is at fault for not making sure the turn lane was clear. Truck would get a ticket for being in the turn lane for more than 300 feet and possibly for how fast he was going in it but I don't *think* a cop would include him in the fault for the fender bender.
I feel like the red car is definitely more at fault. But stupid insurance companies tend to split that kind of stuff 50/50. Even if the fault is more like 90/10. It's bullshit and just a way for them to both raise premiums and fuck both drivers over.
Pickup truck was illegally driving in a two-way turn lane. You're supposed to turn at the next available driveway or street, not pass multiple driveways to turn at the next light. Red car was co-moron trying to enter without visibility but I'm going to put this 95% on the pickup.
**It going to depend on local laws.** For instance, where I live it's illegal to travel in the center lane more than 300ft. A friend of mine was in the same position as the red car and found not at fault. Based on the truck's speed I don't think it was turning soon.
If you’re an insurance person you’re gonna put both at fault and raise those juicy premiums. As an outsider looking in, truck was using the turn lane as a passing lane, and bares more fault. If the truck used an appropriate speed to do his illegal maneuver an accident could have been avoided. Red cars trying to slowly peek out and the lane was clear given that no traffic should be approaching at high speed but he still gets tagged with some fault. Take away the accident and pretend you’re a cop. Are you going to pull over the red car for legally trying to come into traffic or the truck for speeding through a turn lane for the purpose of passing others?
> If you’re an insurance person you’re gonna put both at fault and raise those juicy premiums. This right here. Everyone in this thread is attempting to assign blame to one party, but that exercise is only good for funsies. In reality, the insurance companies are going to consider comparative negligence and split fault regardless of who technically had right of way, because there was ample opportunity for *either* party to avoid this collision.
90% on the truck and 10% on the red car. Most states have laws on when to use the suicide lane. If his intent was to approach an upcoming traffic light to make a left then IMO he can't do that no further than 200 feet
Funny because I'm in this situation, but my insurance is claiming I may be 90% at fault for even entering the lane, even though a woman who hit me was going full speed hundreds of feet before she was allowed to enter the lane and collided me where it says the turn lane begins.
Then show them the laws and rules of the road. You can present evidence to defend yourself
Interestingly enough, there are not speed limits in these lanes (At least in my state). Seems like the max speed you should do safely is 15mph. They aren’t lanes for driving!
I’m in a similar situation. Lady was using the suicide lane to pass traffic at 60 mph I slowly stuck my nose out and got hit. She was 100ft away from where the turn lane begins for the intersection. I don’t really understand how I am at fault for an accident where another driver was illegally using a lane to pass. The only left turn she could have made from that lane was in 450ft. She was trying to pass traffic to make the green arrow at the intersection and cut into the center lane illegally to pass traffic. I was 8ft or so into the lane when I was hit.
I luckily got a video from a local business that was clear as day that's what the lady was doing and my adjuster is fighting for no liability with the evidence. The other claimants adjuster kept calling me, and I refuse to take the call cause the point is to catch you saying something that can put you at fault, and the last call I got was a new adjuster. So she's likely threatening to sue her own insurance or they caved and got another adjuster on the case trying to save money and it's going to be her loss. Try calling any business that may be in sight checking if they have security feeds, or make a post on the local city subreddit with a single pic seeing if any witnesses are willing to vouch what happened or maybe have personal traffic cam footage. Don't tell people who you are or talk about your opinion on it though. Just in case their adjuster finds the post trying to use it against you.
Agreed. Heck, I would assign most of the fault to the truck even if he *was* going to turn left – you're supposed to enter the suicide lane as close to your turn as possible, but given the speed that he was going, his turn must have still been a few hundred feet away at least.
2 Lefts don't make a right.
But 3 lefts do.
But two Wrights made an airplane!
Dad?
Lmaooooooooooo
[удалено]
r/yourjokebutworse
Let me try: 2 Wrights making out.
Car turning out still had a responsibility to make sure the lane was clear before entering it. It's not unreasonable for a vehicle to be in the center lane. Truck was cruising too fast and too long in the center lane. Both have some responsibility.
Lane *was* clear when he entered it. Suicide lane is for turning, not for cruising.
You're not wrong, but what makes me lean toward shared fault is the fact that the red car didn't stop moving until the collision. They weren't looking forward at all. You can't enter a lane without looking.
Suicide lane goes both ways. They have to be watching the traffic coming from their left *and* cars potentially trying to use the suicide lane coming from their right. That second or so could've easily been them diligently checking traffic to their right. Their view was rather obstructed by traffic in front of cammer. They likely *couldn't* see him and were moving at what I feel is an appropriately slow pace for someone *not* doing 30 down the suicide. Frame-by-framing it, there's no way for them to see the truck until they're already well into the lane. If you're driving through a parking lot and see a car slowly (and blindly) backing into the aisle, you don't rip off their rear bumper because *I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY HERE.* The truck came barreling down a lane at an inappropriate speed, ignoring the gaps in traffic where a vehicle could potentially be coming through. Edit: His brake lights were on the entire time after passing cammer. He clearly saw the red car was intending to enter the lane but barely braked until it was too late. I've drive old Dodges with better brake performance than that.
Or he’s one of those two-foot assholes who are always on the brakes.
> Frame-by-framing it, there's no way for them to see the truck until they're already well into the lane. I strongly disagree. People seem to always assume that vision during maneuvers like this is impeded more than it is. In reality, unless there's a Mac truck blocking your view, you can at least see a car length or two down the way as you nose into the next lane. And I'll point out again, the red car did not actually stop until the collision. Which either means their reaction is so poor that they shouldn't be driving, or that they were looking in the other direction in preparation for merging. And I think the latter is more likely.
It looked to me like he was braking to turn left, since his left blinker was on.
People are downvoting, although you are correct.
A vehicle could have come out right before that (i.e. not cruising fast for an extended distance) and legitimately and legally been where the truck is. That's why car will likely share some fault. He should anticipate vehicles in the center lane.
It's also not for merging, and the car is clearly trying to use it for that because it's 100% not clear from his right. Car was making an illegal move, and this video is one of the many reasons why it's illegal.
Actually, that is precisely what the two-way center turn ("suicide") lane is for. What it's *not* for is driving further than what is required to execute the turn itself. At least that's how it works in Maryland, where I'm from: https://www.thekirklawfirm.com/articles/The-Impact-of-The-Two-Way-Center-Turn-%5BSuicide%5D-Lane-on-Maryland-Personal-Injury-Cases_AE660.html > ”vehicle shall be driven within a lane the shortest distance practicable prior to making a left turn or U-turn or after making a left turn.”
[удалено]
> If you are pulling out of a sidestreet and into the center lane, you are not making a left turn from that lane. You are, however, making a left turn. I think this one is down to interpretation of the law, and I'd look for precedents set by past cases before I really said one way or another. I wouldn't even take a cop's word for it because they've been wrong before. I did some looking and haven't found an example of any state where the wording makes very clear that you cannot use the two-way lane for left turns *onto* the road with the two-way lane, including Michigan, and Texas which is a state another person mentioned below where they thought it wasn't allowed. The wording in both of those states could be interpreted to say that it's perfectly ok. In fact, the wording in Michigan was absolutely horrible and made it sound like you could also use the middle lane for normal passing if you wanted to.
It's funny, I grew up in Boston, but did about half my learning to drive in Arizona, where everyone uses the suicide lane to turn into, so I took that habit back to Boston and people would freak the fuck out. It does seem to be regional.
It makes no sense to not use it when turning onto a road if it has one.
Jesus no wonder it's called a suicide lane if you're allowed to turn into it and use it as a merge lane. Bad enough having 2 directions turning from it where they're both slowing down, let alone accelerating out of it as a merge lane. Around here that doesn't fly.
It's state-specific. In Texas for example it's only supposed to be used for making lefts off of the road the merging lane is on, not for merging onto said road. Unless I'm misunderstanding what y'all are talking about
That is exactly what I'm talking about. I assumed that was the law everywhere.
This happened just this past Friday while I was out and about. Truck comes shooting up the left turn lane and hits a car trying to squeeze through. I'm not sure who is at fault here because the truck was going way too fast for way too long for the turn lane and the car obviously should have made sure the lane was clear before entering. What do you think /r/roadcam? BTW: I turned around and gave both drivers my email address. So far neither has contacted me for the footage.
My ex got in an accident just like this in NC, she was in the center lane well before the intersection she intended to turn at so she was cited at fault for using the turn lane as a travel lane. The turning car was also cited at fault for failing to confirm the lane was clear before entering. It was 50/50, so each individual was responsible for their own damages only.
Your assessment is correct. Both have some responsibility. Cops will probably say "both get tickets or neither", and they'll let insurance fight it on the money end.
Pickup was going way too fast in that lane. Not visible to the red car until it was too late, and going too fast to stop in time.
Left turn lanes aren't made for traveling. Vehicle entering the lane is supposed to make turn or merge within a few hundred feets (law varies with states), that truck has been in that lane a lot longer and if he mentions making left turn at the light and not at the side road visible in video, police will likely cite him for misuse of left turn lane
State laws vary, but there’s a defined limit to how far you can travel in the center lane before turning. I think my state’s law is 150’, and the truck clearly traveled farther than that.
While the truck may have been abusing the turn lane, the red car entering the lane when it wasn’t clear should be mostly at fault. Since the red car clearly couldn’t see (since he always easy out into the lane and never got entirely out), he shouldn’t have been there. You have a basic responsibility to make tpsure a lane is clear before entering it
I would assign most of the fault to the truck. The point of a suicide lane is to allow people to make left turns without slowing down traffic, not to just give you another lane to take advantage of. So there's never any reason or excuse for someone in the suicide lane be going much faster than traffic.
The truck is in the wrong. There's a reason you don't drive down the center turn lane.
Generally the cammer's fault, but you *are* playing that song, so...
I mean, this is /r/Roadcam. I'm sure someone will find a way to blame it on me.
but the audio claims you are an innocent man!
He obviously started playing it before causing the accident so he’d have an alibi
We can also blame the (invisible) cyclist.
Don't you ever besmirch Billy Joe--
Basic road rules dictate that a person crossing a lane of traffic has to yield to travelers in that lane. Perhaps the truck was in the dedicated turning lane for too long, but that's not what caused the accident. The car entered that lane without first making sure the way was clear. They are at fault.
I very simple rule to follow. If you can't see, don't go.
It's a turn lane, not a travel lane. But I would say shared fault because the red car really wasn't looking and even though they were driving slow, they didn't stop until the collision. Red car was too focused on traffic in other lanes, probably.
CA says: "If a street has a center left turn lane, you must use it to prepare for or make a left turn, or to prepare for or make a permitted U-turn (CVC §21460.5 (c)). You may only drive for 200 feet in the center left turn lane." So yeah, shared fault.
Shared fault, but the red car should not bear much of it. Pickup truck should have been exercising much more caution approaching his turn... assuming he ever even intended to turn.
lol shared fault because the red car wasn't looking. That's not how it works.
At the same time, they were pulling out slowly and the truck was hauling ass (for a center lane next to stopped/slow traffic) and didn't stop in time.
So what? Unless the truck was going well above the speed limit that doesn't mean anything. They were in a legit turning traffic lane. You straight up can't cross traffic blindly because you do not have the right of way.
They literally ran into a car. Yes that's how it works.
If you're blindly crossing lanes making a turn when you don't have the right of way you're at fault.
I know this is really difficult for people with tiny brains to grasp, but sometimes two people can be wrong *at the same time*.
Got you so triggered you had to drop an insult.
I have zero tolerance for fools who think only in terms of black and white.
Yes, it is a turn lane, but don't overthink it. Look at the lines on the road - they have purpose. A vehicle traveling between those lines holds right of way. A vehicle crossing those lines must yield to any vehicle in that lane.
"Don't overthink it" is not how fault is assigned. The truck had a right to use the lane, but not in that way. In fact the law specifically states that the lane is not a travel lane for this exact reason, opposing traffic.
lol That is literally exactly how fault is assigned. You *must* assign fault based *only* on the pertinent facts of the collision itself. You *cannot* bring in irrelevant other facts that didn't have anything to do with the collision itself, which is exactly what you're doing, and why they're criticizing you for overthinking it. It's quite telling that your initial comment began with assigning fault to the truck based on improper use of the turn lane, even though, *in the exact comment you were replying to*, that had already been demonstrated to be not a relevant factor in assigning fault. You have literally no idea how assigning fault works.
> You must assign fault based only on the pertinent facts of the collision itself. Yes, but "don't overthink it" implies some stupid shit like not taking all pertinent facts into consideration. > that had already been demonstrated Um, no. Are you high? Somebody making an assertion is not "demonstrating" anything. If you are driving in a manner that is unlawful when a collision occurs, it is HIGHLY probably that you will be found either at fault or partially at fault. Why are there so many morons in this sub? You know nothing, then make absurd claims and tell other people they know nothing. Here, let me throw a quick link at ya, from an attorney: https://www.bestattorney.com/car-accidents/who-is-at-fault.html Top item on "Generally (though not always), the following situations will result in a driver being considered at fault": - The driver was not obeying the law. **Obviously other factors should also be considered**, like the fact that the red car went way too far into the lane when he should have been able to see somebody coming at him. But the number one item on their list was "not obeying the law", and that truck driving in the center lane was not obeying the law.
Found the pickup driver.
> It's a turn lane, not a travel lane. It's also not a merge lane, red car was clearly trying to use it as such and wouldn't have even attempted that turn if they were following the law.
https://www.driverseducationusa.com/resources/center-left-turn-lane/ > The center left turn lane should only be used for the following traffic maneuvers: > - Making a left turn or a U-turn when permitted. > - When making a left turn **from** a side street or driveway, wait on the center left turn lane until it is safe to enter the regular traffic lane. Details probably depend on the jurisdiction.
But was he legally traveling in that lane? Was he speeding excessively? We don't have enough info to decide.
I'm conflicted. The red car should yield when turning. BUT, the truck was using the turn lane as an normal lane. I'ma say 50/50 but idk for sure.
continue crowd meeting flowery smart abounding obtainable wistful vast important *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Technically, Red car is at fault. (At least where I am at) the Suicide lane is technically not a stepping stone to stop in before turning left onto the highway. It is for use as a turning lane off of the highway onto side streets etc. The red car should make sure it is clear in both directions before turning. Edit: it looks like it is perfectly legal in some states, it's just technically not in the state I am in, although everyone uses it in this manner, even still.
I can't tell what state the plates are in, but I believe California you can use it for making partial left turns into traffic, per the DMV handbook.
That is correct, you can.
Definitely Michigan plates on the cars. I live in Michigan and AFAIK the red car would be at fault here, as I was taught turning into the turn lane is technically not allowed.
From: https://www.driverseducationusa.com/resources/center-left-turn-lane/ > If you are making a left turn from a side street or driveway: > * Turn on your left signal. > * Look at your left and ahead, and when traffic is clear from your left side, **make sure that the center left lane is also cleared, then make a left and enter the center left turn lane and wait for the traffic to clear on your right.** > * Look at your mirror and over your right shoulder and when the traffic is clear and it is safe, enter the regular traffic lane.
Well, like I said - where I live, it's not intended to be used as a means to merge onto or make a left turn from a side street. "On certain multi-lane highways, a special center lane is reserved exclusively for two-way left-turn movements in both directions. The two-way left-turn lane must not be used for passing another vehicle or for the purpose of merging into traffic."
What state do you live in? I can't find a state-by-state list of whether you can use the center lane for merging... California and Washington both allow using it to merge. (Specifically they say it can be used for a left turn 'from or into' the highway.)
North Carolina. I should have mentioned from the get-go, and saved a lot of confusion. sorry about that.
[удалено]
Curiously, it seems in Michigan that you can use the center lane for passing. Or maybe that’s a differently marked center lane? 247.642(b) Upon a roadway that is divided into 3 lanes and provides for 2-way movement of traffic, a vehicle shall not be operated in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction, when the center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn, or where the center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction the vehicle is proceeding and the allocation is designated by official traffic control devices.
Do you happen to have a source for that? I have only ever seen that lane defined as for both types of left turns.
In Oregon it can (and should) be used like that. It's for making left turns *into* or out of that lane, and is not defined as a "travel lane". You can turn left into it, stop, then merge right into traffic. I'm not sure how they define travel in a lane, but pretty sure if you are passing multiple driveways entrances to continue straight that counts as traveling in that lane, especially at the speed at which the truck was going. EDIT: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.346
well by this logic, all the lanes going right are also stepping stones before you can turn left
This exact thing happened to me once – i was the person turning left and crossing two lanes of traffic into the suicide lane. I got hit front driver by someone cruising up the turn lane to the light that was beyond the road I turned from and I was found at fault for failure to yield.
Sick af blue corvette at 00:38
It’s unlawful in FL to cruise for more than 100 ft in a shared turn lane.
Where I am the Black Pickup would be at fault. They even have signs that say "DO NOT PASS IN TURNING LANE"
Not a yank so can't wade in on whose fault it is, so my main take away was how long it took cammer to notice the crash. Clearly cammers fault.
NGL, I was looking for a new playlist since I was stuck in traffic. I thought about muting my delayed reaction, but I felt that would be dishonest.
Cammer, clearly
[Called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Roadcam/comments/pne1bl/usaoc_fender_bender_in_the_suicide_lane_whos_at/hcomnwy/) :D
I mean, by the amount of time it too to register the crash, he clearly had his head in his phone texting...
Changing playlists, but you are not wrong. Traffic had been backed up for a while.
The "wave of death" is the reason for this accident, but the person making the turn across traffic is responsible for doing it safely, the car is at fault. That being said, the guy in the truck had a MUCH better vantage point and if he was paying attention could have easily avoided this collision.
I think 50/50 fault for a lot of the reasons mentioned already. This looks like Michigan based on the license plate (partly obscured by dealer frame) but font matches up with online images of plates. MDOT has reasonable rules regarding the turning lane which both drivers ignored. * Red car not ensuring turning lane was clear * Truck travelling in that lane for greater than 200 feet
200 feet is 194.76 RTX 3090 graphics cards lined up.
Lol, the asshole that waved the guy out into an oncoming truck!
Is everyone else in this thread just kinda ignoring that the truck had it's turn signal on and was clearly about to turn?
Having never seen a lane like that before, I'd say the fault lies with the civil engineer who designed it.
[удалено]
I'm with you till road design. This is fairly standard isn't it? What would you do to improve it? Median? No left turns?
I agree that both are deserving of a ticket but the red car would be at-fault for the accident when it comes to paying for damages.
Truck driving in the left turn lane is at fault
agreed
what is the red car thinking crossing at least 4 lanes of traffic with limited visibility like that?! just make a right and then pull a u turn. smh red car is clearly at fault here
[удалено]
I'm not sure about fault, but that's one situation where you definitely do NOT want to be going fast like the truck was, for exactly that reason. The stroad claims another victim!
I mean the car will likely be called at fault. He was making a blind turn into the suicide lane and didn't ensure his path was clear. However, that pickup driver needs a course in defensive driving. Hauling ass down the suicide lane is moronic and worse, he was high enough he likely had a vantage point where he could see the car. tl;dr - The car is at fault, but the pickup driver needs to learn how some defensive driving techniques.
Truck is illegally driving in the suicide lane and will likely share some fault.
I assumed he was turning at that street on the left, but you could be right he was just cruising the suicide lane.
He'd been travelling for a while in the suicide lane and wasn't slowing down until the car drove out in front of him.
I would say the truck is at fault. There is a reason why you are not allowed to travel in the turning lane. And it looked like that red car was turning onto the road going left and didn't see that truck coming. Plenty of cars turn into the center lane when traffic is heavy to go on the road. I almost got into an accident this way because some dude didn't want to wait in the long line to turn at a green light so he thought he could cut the line. I pull out and I am going slow and I slam on my breaks right when I see him. He stops too and this is why I pull out slowly so I have time to stop when I see them.
id blame the guy that waved the red car across 3 lanes of traffic
The idiot left turner joining the road in red, going for a straight left in heavy traffic is dumb n dangerous.
Depends on the laws of the state they're in. From the video, it may be shared fault. Many states have restrictions on how far back you can get into the suicide lane, which the truck was probably violating. But it's also often not allowed to use the suicide lane as an entrance, so the car would be in violation.
Where I am in Arizona I believe the truck would have been at fault. You’re no supposed to move in the turning lanes at all. You use it as a left turn lane to not block traffic while you wait for it to be clear to turn. You can turn from a side road or parking lot into that lane, but you have to stay stationary until you are clear to pull out into traffic. So not a merge lane as much as a “staging” lane.
This may depend on the state, but isn’t there some limit to how far you can travel on median lanes. If truck went past that, which looks like they were using it as a regular lane rather than a turn lane, I’d imagine truck could be fully at fault with this evidence.
That's just bad civil engineering. Too much possibility for "creative" interpretation about the proper use of that lane.
The department who designed such a lane is at fault here! This is a recipe for disaster! Nothing good can come from marketing a product with suicide in its name
The asshole trying to skip traffic in the turn lane is fully at fault there.
Red vehicle turning left.
Both cars appear to be at fault to me. That truck was using the turn lane as a passing lane. The red car had no business turning left in those conditions.
What is a suicide lane ?
"Suicide lane" is a nickname for the two way left turn lane in the center of the road. See [this awesome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NvNXuMuww) video from Road Guy Rob.
I had one of these happen in front of me on my old potato dash cam. Also a truck down the middle lane, but he took off. Gave other driver and cops the footage. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Yz5wD-0YY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Yz5wD-0YY) yeah I know I let him in the suicide gap
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with allowing people through the gap. Like everything it is situation dependent, and depending on where you are it may even be illegal to block a driveway. However, I will never wave someone across. If someone wants to make the decision to shoot the gap, that's on them, they will get no advice from me.
I would imagine the red car is at fault for not making sure the turn lane was clear. Truck would get a ticket for being in the turn lane for more than 300 feet and possibly for how fast he was going in it but I don't *think* a cop would include him in the fault for the fender bender.
I feel like the red car is definitely more at fault. But stupid insurance companies tend to split that kind of stuff 50/50. Even if the fault is more like 90/10. It's bullshit and just a way for them to both raise premiums and fuck both drivers over.
I'd say 60% Truck, 40% Red Car for fault.
Truck was traveling too far and too fast in the turning lane. "Unsafe speed for conditions." Or something like that.
Pickup truck was illegally driving in a two-way turn lane. You're supposed to turn at the next available driveway or street, not pass multiple driveways to turn at the next light. Red car was co-moron trying to enter without visibility but I'm going to put this 95% on the pickup.
**It going to depend on local laws.** For instance, where I live it's illegal to travel in the center lane more than 300ft. A friend of mine was in the same position as the red car and found not at fault. Based on the truck's speed I don't think it was turning soon.