My first accident

V8Cobrakid · 03-08-2006, 12:13 AM

she was traveling at "full speed" approaching the intersection... she saw the light turning and i guess hurried up to make it into the section before it was red.. when she stopped looking up to see if the light turned red, i don't know.. it was already green when myself and the suburban next to me started going. The intersection was clear when we started to go.. the suburban pulled up ahead of me.. i started to accelerate, next thing i know she's in front of me, the suburban hit his brakes, and i hit her... my right side (exactly above fog light) hit her rear wheel... causing her wheel to now tilt in a good inch or more.

larryenok · 03-08-2006, 01:05 AM

[quote]
Sorry to hear about your accident.

FYI: Your statement is not true. If any part of your car does not enter the intersection by the time the light turns red, it's illegal and considered running a red light. Having gotten a ticket for running a red light in CA, I should know. Refer to 21453(a) CVC and 21453© CVC for the exact wording of the law.

CA law changed a couple years ago so that if you enter the intersection on Green or Yellow, but have not cleared it by the time it turns red, you are running a red light (ergo you can enter the intersection thinking the traffic will clear by the time it turns red, but if any part of your car remains in the intersection when the light changes, you can be busted. The law was changed to prevent gridlock.

V8 - sorry tho hear about the accident. I have followed your posts and know she is Precioussssss to you.

cooljw · 03-08-2006, 01:50 AM

Wow, there is a lot of confusion as to what running a red light is exactly.

There is an anti-gridlock law, and a red light running law. The definition of running a red light has not changed and is the same as California's in most states - red light cameras, officers, everyone is trained to see if you entered the intersection before the light turned red or not. There are a ton of websites online that tell you how to fight red light cameras, see http://www.redlightcameraticket.com/, it tells you again what the definition of running a red light is. Any red light cam that only shoots you because you haven't cleared the intersection before the light turns red, is clearly malfunctioning - and that's an easy ticket to fight.

The newer anti-gridlock law only applies if you decide to enter an intersection and you get stuck in the middle because of traffic congestion ahead - ergo you shouldn't have entered the intersection. They have this same law in NYC and other places. It is for preventing gridlock - it has nothing to do with running a red light. You could break this law even if you entered an intersection on a green, and get stuck in the middle. So to answer hobbit's question, no you can't sit in the middle of an intersection because you'd be breaking the anti-gridlock law. In California, this is 22400a CVC. It has nothing to do with running a red light: No person shall stop in the roadway unless necessary for safety, in compliance with the law, so as to impede traffic and its regular flow. (This means no double parking or off loading children. This is not only illegal, but it is unsafe. Think what would happen if you were rear-ended while unloading your children in the street. This also means no blocking the intersection when the signal changes. Remember if you can’t proceed through the intersection because traffic is backed up, wait on the far side of the intersection until traffic moves and you can go through the intersection.)

Based on what V8 has said, I don't think the anti-gridlock law would apply in this accident. I bet the other gal's insurance company will claim their client did not know what color the light was - or even worse, will claim it was still yellow - thus squarely placing the blame for the accident on V8.

V8Cobrakid · 03-08-2006, 02:10 AM

yeah.. they probably will try to claim it like that... of course i wonder if my 3 witnesses who were in the car with me would count saying it was green and i wasn't the first car off the line but the second.

Sufferin' Prius Envy · 03-08-2006, 05:46 AM

It doesn't look good for the home team.

21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21451.htm
Unfortunately for you V8, she may have had the lawful right-of-way and you failed to yield.

21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm
Does not prohibit a driver from entering an intersection.

21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision ( b ).
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm
This law does not say you can not be in the process of passing through the intersection, only “shall stop . . . before entering the intersection.”

22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.
( b ) A driver of a vehicle which is making a turn at an intersection who is facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal shall not enter the intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.
(f) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22526.htm
If there wasn't space for her to keep the traffic lanes open, you could have relied on that fact, and the movement of the suburban as your good faith effort to "clear" the intersection. She COULD then be found at fault.

Unfortunately, also incriminating against you is your statement of, “If that damn huge SUV wasn't beside me i would have seen her.” That says you don't know if she made it into the intersection prior to her light turning red, because you didn't see her. Again, your failure to “clear” the intersection.

The best evidence you could have is if the intersection has red light cameras which show her running a red light!

Next best would be a statement from a witness – even the suburban driver. Your three passengers had worse lines of sight as you did – they too could not say they saw her enter the intersection after her light had turned red . . . same damn huge SUV.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the suburban driver may have seen the approaching car and purposefully “lead” you into the intersection . . . because they hate Prii and red light runners.

Sufferin' Prius Envy · 03-08-2006, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hobbit@Mar 7 2006, 07:54 PM
Is sitting in the *middle* of the intersection waiting to turn left illegal or not in CA? It's done all the time here in MA, and of course you have to wait for the 2 or 3 extras that run the just-turned-red from the other direction before you can finally turn and clear it... massholes, they call 'em...
[snapback]222048[/snapback]

Yes, In California, you may enter an intersection and wait till opposing traffic is clear prior to making a left turn.

22500. No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the following places: (a) Within an intersection, except adjacent to curbs as may be permitted by local ordinance.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22500.htm

ELdriftwood · 03-08-2006, 11:15 AM

I feel for you! I have only had my Pirus for a month and Sat night some idot decided to change lanes with out looking and gee whiz I was in the way! I was lucky another driver pulled over and said he saw the whole thing and would be a witness for me. Body shop is taking the car for a week to fix. Car scraped and dented. Sure wish I had a force field around my car.

bruceha_2000 · 03-08-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sufferin' Prius Envy@Mar 8 2006, 05:46 AM
It doesn't look good for the home team.

I disagree.

If she was going full tilt when CobraKid hit her, the light was NOT green when she entered, the first rule is not applicaple.
Given the width of the road (by number of lanes described), only an idiot would expect to clear it even on a long yellow unless it changed just before they entered the intersection. See yellow, STOP.
Unless the length of the yellow is exceedingly short, she had plenty of time to stop. She would have to prove that the yellow is very, VERY short.
Some proof of her speed is given by the fact he hit her rear quarter. With no other vehicles around, the rear quarter hit would usually put onus on the person hitting, not the light runner, as there is presumed to be enough time to stop. I bet her lawyer or Ins Co pulls this one out.
He clearly had a green since the SUV had also started moving. I'll bet it was red before she entered.

CobraKid:

It might be to your advantage to go out and time the lights - same time of day as the accident since they may change - How long is the yellow in her direction? How long is the delay between the red in her direction and green in your direction?
If you "didn't see her through your 'C' pillar", YOU are at fault since the 'A' pillar is the one in front, the 'C' pillar (if it can be so called) would be the rear window support. You shouldn't be looking behind you for oncoming traffic at an intersection.

WAY back when I lived in CA (like 27 years ago) the 'enforced' rule was "if you enter on a yellow and are not accelerating when it turns red, no ticket" (barring an accident)
I personally use the "let the bigger thing I can't see through go first" theory. That way if some idiot runs the light, I don't get hit.

Please add my sincere condolences to the list. I am glad no one got hurt and you aren't even close to a "total it or fix it" situation!

cooljw · 03-08-2006, 12:57 PM

I believe this all boils down to just one feasible argument for the home team. V8's only possible contention is that the other driver ran a red light, period. That is the only scenario that would place fault on the other driver. Otherwise, the other driver did nothing wrong.

So what did V8 do wrong? If the other driver didn't run a red light, V8 has a responsibility not to hit them as they clear the intersection. Since V8 was stopped and waiting at the light, green does not mean go and have an accident. And no gridlock laws apply because there was no congestion.

I wonder how saavy the insurance claims adjusters will be in arguing this one. V8: make sure you get your story straight soon, you'll get a recorded phone call where you'll have to make your statements.

200Volts · 03-08-2006, 01:04 PM

V8 sorry to hear about the bad news.
Here's a long shot. Measure how far out you were when you got hit. Measure how far she had to travel to hit you. If she was at the speed limit(or lower) and you know the light timings you may be able to prove she was speeding or ran a red light. Hypothetical, but it may help.

This type of accident is not that unusual. My boss got hit in a similiar scenario by someone going 70 mph from the cross traffic. It spun his Crown Victoria 3 times and into a phone pole. He has permanent spinal damage.
After hearing this I am VERY careful when my left side is blocked when the first car at an intersection.

03-08-2006, 12:13 AM	#11
V8Cobrakid some guy... Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,554 My Car: 2004 Prius Package: #9 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 5	she was traveling at "full speed" approaching the intersection... she saw the light turning and i guess hurried up to make it into the section before it was red.. when she stopped looking up to see if the light turned red, i don't know.. it was already green when myself and the suburban next to me started going. The intersection was clear when we started to go.. the suburban pulled up ahead of me.. i started to accelerate, next thing i know she's in front of me, the suburban hit his brakes, and i hit her... my right side (exactly above fog light) hit her rear wheel... causing her wheel to now tilt in a good inch or more. __________________ Silver 9 as of June 12th '04 (over 101k Miles now) Decals, Mud Flaps, BT Tech Rear Brace, coastaletech 2" receiver hitch, and 215/45/17 tires.

03-08-2006, 01:05 AM	#12
larryenok Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 44 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	[quote] Sorry to hear about your accident. FYI: Your statement is not true. If any part of your car does not enter the intersection by the time the light turns red, it's illegal and considered running a red light. Having gotten a ticket for running a red light in CA, I should know. Refer to 21453(a) CVC and 21453© CVC for the exact wording of the law. CA law changed a couple years ago so that if you enter the intersection on Green or Yellow, but have not cleared it by the time it turns red, you are running a red light (ergo you can enter the intersection thinking the traffic will clear by the time it turns red, but if any part of your car remains in the intersection when the light changes, you can be busted. The law was changed to prevent gridlock. V8 - sorry tho hear about the accident. I have followed your posts and know she is Precioussssss to you. __________________ Larry of Cupertino White 2006 Prius Package 8, Delivered 1/23/06

03-08-2006, 01:50 AM	#13
cooljw Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 42 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	Wow, there is a lot of confusion as to what running a red light is exactly. There is an anti-gridlock law, and a red light running law. The definition of running a red light has not changed and is the same as California's in most states - red light cameras, officers, everyone is trained to see if you entered the intersection before the light turned red or not. There are a ton of websites online that tell you how to fight red light cameras, see http://www.redlightcameraticket.com/, it tells you again what the definition of running a red light is. Any red light cam that only shoots you because you haven't cleared the intersection before the light turns red, is clearly malfunctioning - and that's an easy ticket to fight. The newer anti-gridlock law only applies if you decide to enter an intersection and you get stuck in the middle because of traffic congestion ahead - ergo you shouldn't have entered the intersection. They have this same law in NYC and other places. It is for preventing gridlock - it has nothing to do with running a red light. You could break this law even if you entered an intersection on a green, and get stuck in the middle. So to answer hobbit's question, no you can't sit in the middle of an intersection because you'd be breaking the anti-gridlock law. In California, this is 22400a CVC. It has nothing to do with running a red light: No person shall stop in the roadway unless necessary for safety, in compliance with the law, so as to impede traffic and its regular flow. (This means no double parking or off loading children. This is not only illegal, but it is unsafe. Think what would happen if you were rear-ended while unloading your children in the street. This also means no blocking the intersection when the signal changes. Remember if you can’t proceed through the intersection because traffic is backed up, wait on the far side of the intersection until traffic moves and you can go through the intersection.) Based on what V8 has said, I don't think the anti-gridlock law would apply in this accident. I bet the other gal's insurance company will claim their client did not know what color the light was - or even worse, will claim it was still yellow - thus squarely placing the blame for the accident on V8. __________________

03-08-2006, 05:46 AM	#15
Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: USA Posts: 4,012 My Car: Other Non-Hybrid Package: N/A Nominated 15 Times in 1 Post TOTM Awards: 1 Friends: 0	It doesn't look good for the home team. 21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21451.htm *Unfortunately for you V8, she may* have had the lawful right-of-way and you failed to yield. 21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm Does not prohibit a driver from entering an intersection. 21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision ( b ). http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm This law does not say you can not be in the process of passing through the intersection, only “shall stop . . . before entering the intersection.”** 22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side. ( b ) A driver of a vehicle which is making a turn at an intersection who is facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal shall not enter the intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side. (f) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22526.htm If there wasn't space for her to keep the traffic lanes open, you could have relied on that fact, and the movement of the suburban as your good faith effort to "clear" the intersection. She COULD then be found at fault. Unfortunately, also incriminating against you is your statement of, “If that damn huge SUV wasn't beside me i would have seen her.” That says you don't know if she made it into the intersection prior to her light turning red, because you didn't see her. Again, your failure to “clear” the intersection. The best evidence you could have is if the intersection has red light cameras which show her running a red light! Next best would be a statement from a witness – even the suburban driver. Your three passengers had worse lines of sight as you did – they too could not say they saw her enter the intersection after her light had turned red . . . same damn huge SUV. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the suburban driver may have seen the approaching car and purposefully “lead” you into the intersection . . . because they hate Prii and red light runners. __________________ My words are my word. I refuse to actively participate in any forum where my written words can/are changed by the powers that be. If you don't like what I wrote, delete it – but don't put words in my mouth that aren't mine. Good-bye.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Car Accident, What do I look for?	heffd	Care, Maintenance and Troubleshooting	2	02-14-2006 05:13 PM
Accident HELP!.....Please Help Me Out.	bballah3	Prius Main Forum	7	05-20-2005 12:02 PM
Accident	BoBraxton	Care, Maintenance and Troubleshooting	9	04-29-2005 08:52 AM
accident	myride	Prius Main Forum	12	12-01-2004 08:20 AM
first accident	Bob Allen	Prius Main Forum	28	11-11-2004 03:23 PM

03-08-2006, 02:10 AM	#14
V8Cobrakid some guy... Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,554 My Car: 2004 Prius Package: #9 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 5	yeah.. they probably will try to claim it like that... of course i wonder if my 3 witnesses who were in the car with me would count saying it was green and i wasn't the first car off the line but the second.

03-08-2006, 11:15 AM	#17
ELdriftwood Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	I feel for you! I have only had my Pirus for a month and Sat night some idot decided to change lanes with out looking and gee whiz I was in the way! I was lucky another driver pulled over and said he saw the whole thing and would be a witness for me. Body shop is taking the car for a week to fix. Car scraped and dented. Sure wish I had a force field around my car.

03-08-2006, 12:57 PM	#19
cooljw Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 42 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	I believe this all boils down to just one feasible argument for the home team. V8's only possible contention is that the other driver ran a red light, period. That is the only scenario that would place fault on the other driver. Otherwise, the other driver did nothing wrong. So what did V8 do wrong? If the other driver didn't run a red light, V8 has a responsibility not to hit them as they clear the intersection. Since V8 was stopped and waiting at the light, green does not mean go and have an accident. And no gridlock laws apply because there was no congestion. I wonder how saavy the insurance claims adjusters will be in arguing this one. V8: make sure you get your story straight soon, you'll get a recorded phone call where you'll have to make your statements.

03-08-2006, 01:04 PM	#20
200Volts Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Northern CA Posts: 346 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	V8 sorry to hear about the bad news. Here's a long shot. Measure how far out you were when you got hit. Measure how far she had to travel to hit you. If she was at the speed limit(or lower) and you know the light timings you may be able to prove she was speeding or ran a red light. Hypothetical, but it may help. This type of accident is not that unusual. My boss got hit in a similiar scenario by someone going 70 mph from the cross traffic. It spun his Crown Victoria 3 times and into a phone pole. He has permanent spinal damage. After hearing this I am VERY careful when my left side is blocked when the first car at an intersection.