Defending myself and Determining Fault

[wonderlandenvy]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts

I was in an accident a few weeks ago in which I was taking a left turn at an intersection with a traffic light. The light had been green, but I had to yield to oncoming traffic. Because there are two lanes of traffic travelling in either direction, and because the intersection is a very busy one, I had waited about a minute and a half to two minutes for traffic to clear. As the traffic cleared and I proceeded into the intersection, the light had turned yellow. The inside oncoming lane was clear, and a car had come to a stop in the outside oncoming lane (due to the yellow light). I made my way into the intersection, and was more than halfway through when a van that had been coming up behind the car that was stopped switched lanes and hit my rear passenger side.

My car was spun around a little less than 180 degrees to face the street opposite that that I had been turning onto. Of course any witnesses left quickly thereafter.

When the driver of the other car approached mine, all that he would say was "It was yellow."

I have a few problems. Because I was injured and had to be transported to the hospital by ambulance, I was not asked for a statement by the officer who arrived on the scene. He did take one from my boyfriend who was in the car with me, but somehow managed not to include that in his report of the accident (along with many other things). He (the officer) came into my room at the hospital, dropped off my belongings and told me that I had a citation for failure to yield that I must pay, then left.

When I was released from the hospital, I went to the police station to speak with the officer, because at this time I was unsure as to why I was receiving the citation. According to him there were skidmarks indicating that I had cut the other driver off. I returned to the site of the accident immediately and found there were no skidmarks in or around the intersection (which I documented).

I've been able to determine based on my speed (roughly 10mph, perhaps less), and the distance that I had travelled before I was hit that I was in the intersection for roughly 4.1 seconds. In 4.1 seconds, a driver going 30mph would have had to travel roughly 180ft to hit me. I've also found documentation of stopping distances which state that in that amount of time, a driver travelling 30mph (the speed limit on the road) should have been able to react to the situation and come to a complete stop in roughly 90-100ft, significantly shorter than the distance he did travel. As a matter of fact, in 4.1 seconds, whether he was going 30, 40, or 50mph, he should have been able to react and come to a complete stop before reaching my vehicle.

The fact that there were no skidmarks in the intersection show a lack of even a reaction from the other driver, let alone the capability to stop before hitting me.

I think that this enough to prove that the driver was either a: not paying attention, b: not of sound mind (drugs or alcohol perhaps? his vehicle was owned by a drug rehab center), or c: perhaps even going over the speed limit, limiting his reaction time.

I'm hoping for at least a 50/50 fault here, enough for it not to show on my record. I have enough to get my citation thrown out based on mistakes made by the officer on site, and a few other things, but I need to know if this mathematical logic would be enough to put something against the other driver since without witnesses I have really nothing else to prove my side of things.

Please help.

[JohnBLZ]

In general...with auto insurance companies the ticket could be considered a non-issue if the company finds reasonable evidence that you were not at fault.

The burden of proof lies on whomever is filing the claim against you... something I didn't learn until an unlicensed driver yapping on her cell phone crossing three lanes of traffic blindly sideswiped me, got arrested and received two tickets but claimed it was my fault for driving into her while maintaining my lane of traffic

let your insurance company know you're fighting it and build all the evidence you can...

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

[stephenk]

You should have waited the extra 2 seconds for the light to turn from yellow to red and then started your left turn. Are you saying the light was yellow for more than 5 seconds? have you gone back to the intersection and timed the traffic signals?

You have to yield to all traffic close enough to be a hazard while the light is green or yellow. The fact that an accident happened defeats your argument that the other car was speeding. If he was speeding it was not safe for you to turn.

The car being owned by a drug rehab clinic has nothing to do with whether the driver was on drugs. If the car was owned by a liquor store would you argue the driver had to have been drunk?

Lack of skid marks means you turned in front of the car before he had a chance to brake or that the car had anti lock brakes.

[wonderlandenvy]

I have timed the intersection and the yellow light stays yellow for about 4 seconds. Therefore it would have turned red while I was in the intersection.

I don't necessarily believe that the guy was speeding, although the amount of imact that he hit my car with suggests it (noted by the collision center, damage is now 10k). My point is that at 30mph, he would have had to travel 180ft (44ft per second), a safe enough distance for me to take the turn if a: he was in fact going the speed limit, and b: was paying attention. In 4 seconds, a vehicle travelling 40mph, according to the American Automobile Association should have been able to react and come to a complete stop.

Also, according to the AAA, the average reaction time (time it takes to brake) for a driver not under the influence and who is paying attention, is three-quarters of a second. For me to have cut him off fast enough to get 60 feet into the intersection and have him hit me where he did, with no reaction, no skidmarks, I would have had to have been travelling 45-50mph, and as my vehicle has a suggested rollover speed of about 25-30mph, him hitting me probably wouldn't be my biggest concern right now.

[jjoshua]

So your claim is that the van should have stopped behind the car instead of changing lanes and proceeding through the intersection?

When you continued through the intersection, you couldn't have yielded to the van because it wasn't yet in the other lane?

[wonderlandenvy]

Well, that and that the van should have been far enough up for me to be able to make it through the intersection safely, even if it had been in the inside lane before I started through.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by wonderlandenvy

Well, that and that the van should have been far enough up for me to be able to make it through the intersection safely, even if it had been in the inside lane before I started through.

Yes, it *should* have been, but it wasn't. Your mistake/misjudgement is what caused the accident.

[stephenk]

you never saw the van before you turned, right? While turning you never saw the van, right? Your first knowledge of an accident was feeling the impact, right?

[wonderlandenvy]

No, I did see the van before turning. The van was in the outside oncoming lane, coming up behind the car that had stopped. The inside oncoming lane was clear. That combined with how far back he was made me feel it safe to proceed. It wasn't until right before I was hit that the van changed lanes, making the collision even possible. That, combined with my boyfriend saying, "Oh ****" was the first inclination of an accident.

And please do not take this as me arguing with you or against you. The responses here are helping me very much to look at what questions will be made when I have to go to court for all of this. So I appreciate the advice/questions, whether its against or for my case.

[moburkes]

Originally Posted by wonderlandenvy

No, I did see the van before turning. The van was in the outside oncoming lane, coming up behind the car that had stopped. The inside oncoming lane was clear. That combined with how far back he was made me feel it safe to proceed. It wasn't until right before I was hit that the van changed lanes, making the collision even possible. That, combined with my boyfriend saying, "Oh ****" was the first inclination of an accident.

And please do not take this as me arguing with you or against you. The responses here are helping me very much to look at what questions will be made when I have to go to court for all of this. So I appreciate the advice/questions, whether its against or for my case.

You couldn't see the VAN when it was behind a CAR? I don't think you were paying attention.

[wonderlandenvy]

Okay, look at the first sentence of my last post. It reads "I DID SEE THE VAN BEFORE TURNING."

Wow. Maybe you're not paying attention. Thanks for the helpful response.

[stephenk]

Any moving vehicle close enough to be a hazard compels you to not make your left turn. You should have waited that extra 2 seconds for the light to turn red before starting your turn.

[moburkes]

Originally Posted by moburkes

You couldn't see the VAN when it was behind a CAR? I don't think you were paying attention.

I apologize. I thought that it read differently.

[wonderlandenvy]

Thank you. And I apologize for reacting the way I did... I'm very overwhelmed right now. I'm 20 years old and I've honestly never even gotten a speeding ticket, and I've never been to court. Heck, I'm a goody-goody.

The point that I really want to make to the court is not that the other driver is 100% at fault. I agree that obviously I didn't have the amount of time I thought I did, and thus should be held accountable to a certain extent. But I don't think that I should be put 100% at fault here either; I'm just trying to figure out how this is all going to be approached when I have to go to court.

I received an e-mail today from the manager of traffic safety for the AAA who confirmed my math regarding the distance the other driver would have been at 30mph, 40mph and 50mph, and that he should have been able to come to a stop at those distances. Which makes me feel better, even if the court doesn't care.