car accident.. am i liable?

Forums › Off topic › car accident.. am i liable?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#683243 8-Sep-2012 21:50

well don't mention that you came from the green sign road .. because after the green sign road the actual road had no markings ... but your chances of coming out of this in the correct is slim ... coz no insurance to fight on your behalf :(

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#683244 8-Sep-2012 21:50

but yeah what a dumb intersection!

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#683246 8-Sep-2012 22:01

That is one shocking road, and poor road markings. And I though Wellingtons roads were bad.

I am not sure if the Op was in the wrong, as I personally would have interprated that I could go straight on or right due to there being no extra markings on the next intersection where they said the accident occurred. It is essentially two interestions, but he markings only refer to the first one. Why they haven't got extra raod markings is beyond me. Perhaps this raod was repaired after the EQ's and they forgot to remark them?
Also the markings on the road to the right seem to differ and contradict the other ones. They say that if you are in the right lane, you can either go straight one or go right. Thus if the bus was in the left lane, they shouldn't have turned right at all http://goo.gl/maps/p8TDk

Edit: Some of the streetview photos and the aerial photo appear to be from a different date from others. eg some of the photos and aerial photo show the OP twas trying to drive into as 2 laned, while the closest streetview photo to the intersection appear to show it as a single lane.

gogokr431

77 posts

Master Geek

#683247 8-Sep-2012 22:08

thanks for your input guys..

i hope the bus' insurance company understands how confusing it could be for a new guy in town :(

sleemanj

1514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 315

#683249 8-Sep-2012 22:13

This intersection has been like this for years (I forget how long since it was remodelled, probably 10 years, more, I don't recall exactly what it was originally, I think a straight T intersection on cranmer-kilmore and then another kilmore-montreal).

It is a bit of a strange intersection admittedly, but then the one-way system in Chch is a bit unusual itself :)

Unfortunately, I'd have to say that the OP is liable for the accident as they left their lane and crossed into the bus' lane causing the accident, the bus did not have an opportunity to avoid the accident.

Hopefully the bus wasn't badly damaged. As for your own car, you better break out the socket set!

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#683261 8-Sep-2012 22:39

mattwnz: That is one shocking road, and poor road markings. And I though Wellingtons roads were bad.

I am not sure if the Op was in the wrong, as I personally would have interprated that I could go straight on or right due to there being no extra markings on the next intersection where they said the accident occurred. It is essentially two interestions, but he markings only refer to the first one. Why they haven't got extra raod markings is beyond me. Perhaps this raod was repaired after the EQ's and they forgot to remark them?
Also the markings on the road to the right seem to differ and contradict the other ones. They say that if you are in the right lane, you can either go straight one or go right. Thus if the bus was in the left lane, they shouldn't have turned right at all http://goo.gl/maps/p8TDk

Edit: Some of the streetview photos and the aerial photo appear to be from a different date from others. eg some of the photos and aerial photo show the OP twas trying to drive into as 2 laned, while the closest streetview photo to the intersection appear to show it as a single lane.

The actual intersection is unmarked because the "rules" depend on whether you are approaching it from the east or the south.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#683267 8-Sep-2012 23:02

Here's the facts as I see them. At the intersection itself there is no road marking for direction, and there is no road marking for side turning lanes. Therefore you were not in the bus's lane. The outcome here is just one of those many accident cases where there is no liability on either side.

I doubt the bus company's insurance company will pursue you for the accident. I'm sure they will be familiar with this intersection from other clients. Stupid intersection which needs another set of control lights. Lights are not new technology.

The way the intersection is laid out and marked you can even say the bus is at fault for not giving way to the intentions of the vehicle on the right. That is the logical outcome of the facts.

I realise the design attempts to show the desired path at the previous intersection - but that is not the intersection where the accident occurred.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#683268 8-Sep-2012 23:04

sleemanj: This intersection has been like this for years (I forget how long since it was remodelled, probably 10 years, more, I don't recall exactly what it was originally, I think a straight T intersection on cranmer-kilmore and then another kilmore-montreal).?

It is a bit of a strange intersection admittedly, but then the one-way system in Chch is a bit unusual itself :)

Unfortunately, I'd have to say that the OP is liable for the accident as they left their lane and crossed into the bus' lane causing the accident, the bus did not have an opportunity to avoid the accident.

Hopefully the bus wasn't badly damaged. ?As for your own car, you better break out the socket set!

I guess you don't really know until you see the physical road. 'Unusual' roading system is a nice way to put it.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#683271 8-Sep-2012 23:10

gzt: Here's the facts as I see them. At the intersection itself there is no road marking for direction, and there is no road marking for side turning lanes. Therefore you were not in the bus's lane. The outcome here is just one of those many accident cases where there is no liability on either side.

I doubt the bus company's insurance company will pursue you for the accident. I'm sure they will be familiar with this intersection from other clients. Stupid intersection which needs another set of control lights. Lights are not new technology.

The way the intersection is laid out and marked you can even say the bus is at fault for not giving way to the intentions of the vehicle on the right. That is the logical outcome of the facts.

I realise the design attempts to show the desired path at the previous intersection - but that is not the intersection where the accident occurred.

I disagree, I don't believe that lights will fix the issue - the fundamental problem is that the rules are different depending on whether you are approaching from the east or the south. It's a little easier to consider the two intersections as a whole (and presumably the traffic light phasing will reflect that so nobody will get 'stuck' in between the two intersections.

I suppose you could make it clear by having the right lane from both approaches right turn only, and the left lane from both approaches straight only; however that would effectively introduce a bottleneck into both north/south and east/west traffic restricting both to a single lane at that intersection.

It is fairly clear on approach to the intersection what the rules are, and in this case he has tried to continue straight in a right-turn only lane. I don't see how the bus company can be held liable (even partially).

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#683272 8-Sep-2012 23:12

A reasonable analogy is a two-laned roundabout - the roundabout lanes aren't marked, as the rules depend on where you enter the roundabout.

I agree it's poorly designed, but I really don't see how he can escape liability.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#683275 8-Sep-2012 23:27

KevinL: I disagree, I don't believe that lights will fix the issue - the fundamental problem is that the rules are different depending on whether you are approaching from the east or the south. It's a little easier to consider the two intersections as a whole (and presumably the traffic light phasing will reflect that so nobody will get 'stuck' in between the two intersections.

I agree. That is the problem that needs a solution. Lights are capable of changing the rules dynamically. You would be right to point out that creates it's own problems but it would still give clearer and unambiguous rules at the intersection itself.

I suppose you could make it clear by having the right lane from both approaches right turn only, and the left lane from both approaches straight only; however that would effectively introduce a bottleneck into both north/south and east/west traffic restricting both to a single lane at that intersection.

There are many complementary solutions. Making a rush hours clearway (where you can see the cars are parked at present) and allocating that lane for a free left turn would help with flow. This would involve cutting a bit of the park - perhaps this is a political problem. My guess is the intersection has been left this way because potential solutions create political problems of one kind or another.

It is fairly clear on approach to the intersection what the rules are, and in this case he has tried to continue straight in a right-turn only lane. I don't see how the bus company can be held liable (even partially).

Because at the intersection itself the only lane marking is straight ahead if anything. I'm not suggesting the bus company is 100% liable here. But it is a possibility to argue this because the bus did not give way to the right at the intersection. As stated before, IMHO it will fall into the 'oh well it's an accident' category where nobody is liable because of the lack of clarity at the intersection itself.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#683276 8-Sep-2012 23:34

gzt: The way the intersection is laid out and marked you can even say the bus is at fault for not giving way to the intentions of the vehicle on the right. That is the logical outcome of the facts.

Thats a good point, and by the bus turning right across the OP who said they were on their right and going straight on(as well as being ahead of the bus), I believe the OP would have the right of way on an unmarked road. This is because the bus went into their lane and hit them,they didn't hit the bus. It does appear from the aerial photo that the two separate roads that feed that intersection have two different rules, which makes no sense at all.

Wonder how many other accidents have occurred on this road, and I wonder who responsibility this road is. I presume it is local council road.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#683277 8-Sep-2012 23:38

KevinL: A reasonable analogy is a two-laned roundabout - the roundabout lanes aren't marked, as the rules depend on where you enter the roundabout.

This is not a reasonable analogy. Correct roundabout behavior is clearly defined and tested as part of the Roadcode and drivers license requirements. This intersection? Not at all. ; ).

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#683280 8-Sep-2012 23:50

gzt:
KevinL: A reasonable analogy is a two-laned roundabout - the roundabout lanes aren't marked, as the rules depend on where you enter the roundabout.

This is not a reasonable analogy. Correct roundabout behavior is clearly defined and tested as part of the Roadcode and drivers license requirements. This intersection? Not at all. ; ).

It was more a rationalisation of why the lanes aren't marked at the "second" intersection than a defense of the whole setup, which remains badly designed!

A two lane roundabout would be a logical solution, but I guess it doesn't work when you have one-way streets in the mix. The intersection rules actually kind of makes some sense if you think of it as a truncated two-laned roundabout, to be honest...

a) coming from the South, the left lane can either leave the roundabout and turn left, or continue straight around the roundabout (exiting at the next intersection). The right lane can't turn left around the roundabout and can only continue straight around the roundabout.

b) coming from the east, the left lane can't turn left as it's a one-way street, so must continue "around" the roundabout and exits straight. The right lane can either exit straight, or continues further around the roundabout and exits right.

Gordy7

gordy7
2001 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 505

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#683292 9-Sep-2012 06:45

While the road and markings are difficult I would say the OP is liable.
Maybe a lack of defensive driving.
Best to take the lane of least resistance in that situation.

Gordy

My first ever AM radio network connection was with a 1MHz AM crystal(OA91) radio receiver.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9