Who would be at fault? Pedestrian question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a left turn to get to my office across 2 lanes of traffic. It is at an intersection with a traffic light and crosswalks with walk/no walk lights. This morning I was going to make the turn - I have a green light and the no walk sign is lit but a pedestrian just starts to walk out into the street (of course not paying attention, nose in their phone and earpods in) at the same time that I am turning. I slam on my brakes and a car is coming towards me to go straight through the intersection then has to slam on their brakes, almost hitting me. If the truck approaching the intersection were to hit me because I'm stopped in the middle of the intersection due to a pedestrian walking with a no walk sign, who would be at fault? Thankfully nothing happened this morning, but I feel like it's only a matter of time. There's a lot of foot traffic by my office and I always am on the lookout, but sometimes I have to act quickly to make the left due to traffic.

If you had a green left arrow, then there shouldn't have been anybody driving towards you to go straight through the intersection; they should have had a red light.

If you didn't have a green left arrow, then the walk sign should have been lit.

This. The walk sign was likely on and flashing red. Often pedestrians cannot cross when it first comes on because drivers run the red light. So they enter on the flashing red. Neither of you was right but drivers have a responsibility to watch out for pedestrians. And no one wins in an accident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedestrian was wrong but you would be at fault.

This is correct.

Yes. You have to be sure you can clear the intersection before you move into oncoming traffic. It sounds like you cut it too close if the oncoming car was so close they almost couldn't stop in time.

I'm happy that nothing serious happened.

[Anonymous]

If it was just a regular green light and not a green arrow, you are 100000% at fault, because you did not have the right of way to turn.

Where did you learn to drive, OP??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You would be at fault because you couldn't complete your turn when you entered the intersection.

But wouldn’t that be because the pedestrian walked out into the street when they weren’t supposed to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would be at fault because you couldn't complete your turn when you entered the intersection.

But wouldn’t that be because the pedestrian walked out into the street when they weren’t supposed to?

If the op is stopped and another car runs into her, it is the other drivers fault. You have to control your car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would be at fault because you couldn't complete your turn when you entered the intersection.

But wouldn’t that be because the pedestrian walked out into the street when they weren’t supposed to?

If you were driving and hit a patch of ice and slid into a parked car, would the ice be at fault?

[Anonymous]

Doesn't matter at all that there was a pedestrian. The driver who failed to observe traffic (the other car) is at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter at all that there was a pedestrian. The driver who failed to observe traffic (the other car) is at fault.

Incorrect.

If OP had a green arrow, then that's very different. If OP had a basic green light, the other car in oncoming traffic likely also had a basic green light - that means it's green to go STRAIGHT. Green does not mean it's ok to turn. OP failed to yield to the pedestrian, AND traffic. OP would be completely at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would be at fault because you couldn't complete your turn when you entered the intersection.

But wouldn’t that be because the pedestrian walked out into the street when they weren’t supposed to?

If the op is stopped and another car runs into her, it is the other drivers fault. You have to control your car.

The car turning left has to yield to cars going straight. Always.

[Anonymous]

If a pedestrian crosses with a don't walk sign up..they are at fault. If there is no walk/don't walk sign the pedestrian has right of way all the time. I am in a similar situation daily. I have a left turn arrow and there is a don't walk for pedestrians yet they always walk because of the green traffic light..meaning no one has time to go left and backing up traffic,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would be at fault because you couldn't complete your turn when you entered the intersection.

But wouldn’t that be because the pedestrian walked out into the street when they weren’t supposed to?

As a driver, you need to be able to anticipate what *might* happen. If you see a pedestrian headed toward the curb, you are foolish to assume that he or she is not going to step off the curb. Likewise, the oncoming driver needed to be prepared to react if OP tried to turn across traffic without enough time. Responsible drivers need to assume that pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers can make unpredictable and unsafe moves at any time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a pedestrian crosses with a don't walk sign up..they are at fault. If there is no walk/don't walk sign the pedestrian has right of way all the time. I am in a similar situation daily. I have a left turn arrow and there is a don't walk for pedestrians yet they always walk because of the green traffic light..meaning no one has time to go left and backing up traffic,

If a driver hits a pedestrian who is crossing with a don't walk sign, then the pedestrian is at fault.

If a driver hits another driver, who is stopped for a pedestrian who is crossing with a don't walk sign, then the pedestrian is not at fault.

(Also, you know, it's not the pedestrian who is backing up traffic. It's all the other cars, and you. You are the traffic.)

[Anonymous]

You are at fault even though it would be the pedestrian who was the underlying cause. Same as if it was a dog in the crosswalk instead of a person. If you don't have the right of way and get hit, you are at fault. The chance of you going after the jay walking pedestrian successfully would be very slim.

[Anonymous]

All I’m getting from this is that cars should be physically limited from going above 20 mph in the city. It makes “slamming on the brakes” much less of a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I’m getting from this is that cars should be physically limited from going above 20 mph in the city. It makes “slamming on the brakes” much less of a big deal.

Works for me.