Accident involving left turn into private drive and a passing vehicle Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Right of way: U-turn vs right turn (Illinois)Can a renter get a vehicle towed from an apartment parking lot?Restrictions of private tow companies in Arizona regarding holding the vehicle for paymentWhat type of 3 lane roadway is being described in 625 ILCS 5/11-709
Was Kant an Intuitionist about mathematical objects?
Special flights
Why weren't discrete x86 CPUs ever used in game hardware?
How much damage would a cupful of neutron star matter do to the Earth?
RSA find public exponent
Why not send Voyager 3 and 4 following up the paths taken by Voyager 1 and 2 to re-transmit signals of later as they fly away from Earth?
How do living politicians protect their readily obtainable signatures from misuse?
Flight departed from the gate 5 min before scheduled departure time. Refund options
How to force a browser when connecting to a specific domain to be https only using only the client machine?
Simple Http Server
What initially awakened the Balrog?
What is the "studentd" process?
Why do early math courses focus on the cross sections of a cone and not on other 3D objects?
Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines
Resize vertical bars (absolute-value symbols)
How many time has Arya actually used Needle?
NERDTreeMenu Remapping
Can an iPhone 7 be made to function as a NFC Tag?
How does the math work when buying airline miles?
Tips to organize LaTeX presentations for a semester
Monty Hall Problem-Probability Paradox
Universal covering space of the real projective line?
Where is the Next Backup Size entry on iOS 12?
Why is a lens darker than other ones when applying the same settings?
Accident involving left turn into private drive and a passing vehicle
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Right of way: U-turn vs right turn (Illinois)Can a renter get a vehicle towed from an apartment parking lot?Restrictions of private tow companies in Arizona regarding holding the vehicle for paymentWhat type of 3 lane roadway is being described in 625 ILCS 5/11-709
Where does fault lie in the following situation; and what tickets if any should be issued according to Illinois Motor Vehicle Code and why?
Please site IL MVC code that applies.
A 3 lane (unmarked) Road exists that traverses north/south. Side street parking is allowed on the north bound lane. Side street parking is not allowed on the South bound lane and is marked as such.
A vehicle traveling South is hugging their right curb as parked cars exist on the North bound lane. Traffic is moving in both directions with the center lane being used by North bound vehicles.
A vehicle traveling South signals to turn left while in the right portion of their lane and comes to a stop to allow a oncoming traffic to clear and allow a truck to exit the private drive (There is insufficient space for the South bound vehicle and the truck to use the private drive at the same time) that they wish to turn in.
The South bound vehicle waits for the truck to finish its left turn and then proceed in front of the south bound vehicle. The south bound vehicle waits to ensure no additional North bound vehicles are coming (the truck obscures some of the road until it is further south) and then proceeds to make a left turn. At this time a 2nd vehicle traveling south comes up behind the waiting vehicle and proceeds to pass the vehicle assuming it's a parked car. The 1st vehicle proceeds to make a left turn and collides with the 2nd vehicle. The 2nd vehicle swerves more to the left in an attempt to avoid the accident; but the accident occurs anyway.
The 2nd vehicle states the 1st vehicles hazard lights were on and that they thought they were parked being that far to the right. They indicate as a stationary vehicle they have an obligation to ensure it is safe to proceed before pulling out into traffic.
The 1st vehicle states their turn signal was on; and had simply been waiting for a free and clear moment to turn left. They indicate they were not parked; and therefore had no obligation to check if it was clear behind them.
Again who is at fault or what %'s of fault should be applied and why?
For purposes of explanation's the 1st south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #1(red). The 2nd south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #2 (black). The truck can be called Vehicle #3 (blue).
Example of Road:
At this time these are the two IL-MVC codes which seem to apply; but there very well may be others; and I'm not sure 801 applies at it seems to be for intersections which I'm unsure this is.
- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-701
- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-801
illinois motor-vehicle
edited Aug 23 '18 at 20:32
phoog
8,10111437
asked Jul 23 '18 at 15:08
xQbertxQbert
1013
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 21 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
|
show 4 more comments
Where does fault lie in the following situation; and what tickets if any should be issued according to Illinois Motor Vehicle Code and why?
Please site IL MVC code that applies.
A 3 lane (unmarked) Road exists that traverses north/south. Side street parking is allowed on the north bound lane. Side street parking is not allowed on the South bound lane and is marked as such.
A vehicle traveling South is hugging their right curb as parked cars exist on the North bound lane. Traffic is moving in both directions with the center lane being used by North bound vehicles.
A vehicle traveling South signals to turn left while in the right portion of their lane and comes to a stop to allow a oncoming traffic to clear and allow a truck to exit the private drive (There is insufficient space for the South bound vehicle and the truck to use the private drive at the same time) that they wish to turn in.
The South bound vehicle waits for the truck to finish its left turn and then proceed in front of the south bound vehicle. The south bound vehicle waits to ensure no additional North bound vehicles are coming (the truck obscures some of the road until it is further south) and then proceeds to make a left turn. At this time a 2nd vehicle traveling south comes up behind the waiting vehicle and proceeds to pass the vehicle assuming it's a parked car. The 1st vehicle proceeds to make a left turn and collides with the 2nd vehicle. The 2nd vehicle swerves more to the left in an attempt to avoid the accident; but the accident occurs anyway.
The 2nd vehicle states the 1st vehicles hazard lights were on and that they thought they were parked being that far to the right. They indicate as a stationary vehicle they have an obligation to ensure it is safe to proceed before pulling out into traffic.
The 1st vehicle states their turn signal was on; and had simply been waiting for a free and clear moment to turn left. They indicate they were not parked; and therefore had no obligation to check if it was clear behind them.
Again who is at fault or what %'s of fault should be applied and why?
For purposes of explanation's the 1st south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #1(red). The 2nd south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #2 (black). The truck can be called Vehicle #3 (blue).
Example of Road:
At this time these are the two IL-MVC codes which seem to apply; but there very well may be others; and I'm not sure 801 applies at it seems to be for intersections which I'm unsure this is.
- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-701
- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-801
illinois motor-vehicle
edited Aug 23 '18 at 20:32
phoog
8,10111437
asked Jul 23 '18 at 15:08
xQbertxQbert
1013
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 21 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
So are we going to leave unresolved whether in fact the turn signal or hazard lights were actually on?
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
As a side note, it appears that Illinois defines "intersection" to require two roadways or highways. "The junction of an alley with a street or highway does not constitute an intersection."
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:50
The hazard vs left turn signal is a "he said/she said" situation. No clear evidence one way or another. There's no solid evidence one way or another which is why %of fault may apply
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:55
That's fair, but it also might make the question more difficult to answer because it might depend on which side is found to be more credible.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
True but life is seldom that simple. If we believe the person making the left turn had the signal on, then vehicle 2 is likely 90%+ at fault. If we believe the person had the hazards on and was parked then it's likely 90%+ vehicle 1's fault for failure to signal/yield when merging into traffic. To make matters more interesting: Vehicle 2 was issued a citation for improper lane usage by the PD. but I don't want a biased answer based on what police indicate.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:20
|
show 4 more comments
Where does fault lie in the following situation; and what tickets if any should be issued according to Illinois Motor Vehicle Code and why?
Please site IL MVC code that applies.
A 3 lane (unmarked) Road exists that traverses north/south. Side street parking is allowed on the north bound lane. Side street parking is not allowed on the South bound lane and is marked as such.
A vehicle traveling South is hugging their right curb as parked cars exist on the North bound lane. Traffic is moving in both directions with the center lane being used by North bound vehicles.
A vehicle traveling South signals to turn left while in the right portion of their lane and comes to a stop to allow a oncoming traffic to clear and allow a truck to exit the private drive (There is insufficient space for the South bound vehicle and the truck to use the private drive at the same time) that they wish to turn in.
The South bound vehicle waits for the truck to finish its left turn and then proceed in front of the south bound vehicle. The south bound vehicle waits to ensure no additional North bound vehicles are coming (the truck obscures some of the road until it is further south) and then proceeds to make a left turn. At this time a 2nd vehicle traveling south comes up behind the waiting vehicle and proceeds to pass the vehicle assuming it's a parked car. The 1st vehicle proceeds to make a left turn and collides with the 2nd vehicle. The 2nd vehicle swerves more to the left in an attempt to avoid the accident; but the accident occurs anyway.
The 2nd vehicle states the 1st vehicles hazard lights were on and that they thought they were parked being that far to the right. They indicate as a stationary vehicle they have an obligation to ensure it is safe to proceed before pulling out into traffic.
The 1st vehicle states their turn signal was on; and had simply been waiting for a free and clear moment to turn left. They indicate they were not parked; and therefore had no obligation to check if it was clear behind them.
Again who is at fault or what %'s of fault should be applied and why?
For purposes of explanation's the 1st south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #1(red). The 2nd south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #2 (black). The truck can be called Vehicle #3 (blue).
Example of Road:
At this time these are the two IL-MVC codes which seem to apply; but there very well may be others; and I'm not sure 801 applies at it seems to be for intersections which I'm unsure this is.
- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-701
- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-801
illinois motor-vehicle
edited Aug 23 '18 at 20:32
phoog
8,10111437
asked Jul 23 '18 at 15:08
xQbertxQbert
1013
Where does fault lie in the following situation; and what tickets if any should be issued according to Illinois Motor Vehicle Code and why?
Please site IL MVC code that applies.
A 3 lane (unmarked) Road exists that traverses north/south. Side street parking is allowed on the north bound lane. Side street parking is not allowed on the South bound lane and is marked as such.
A vehicle traveling South is hugging their right curb as parked cars exist on the North bound lane. Traffic is moving in both directions with the center lane being used by North bound vehicles.
A vehicle traveling South signals to turn left while in the right portion of their lane and comes to a stop to allow a oncoming traffic to clear and allow a truck to exit the private drive (There is insufficient space for the South bound vehicle and the truck to use the private drive at the same time) that they wish to turn in.
The South bound vehicle waits for the truck to finish its left turn and then proceed in front of the south bound vehicle. The south bound vehicle waits to ensure no additional North bound vehicles are coming (the truck obscures some of the road until it is further south) and then proceeds to make a left turn. At this time a 2nd vehicle traveling south comes up behind the waiting vehicle and proceeds to pass the vehicle assuming it's a parked car. The 1st vehicle proceeds to make a left turn and collides with the 2nd vehicle. The 2nd vehicle swerves more to the left in an attempt to avoid the accident; but the accident occurs anyway.
The 2nd vehicle states the 1st vehicles hazard lights were on and that they thought they were parked being that far to the right. They indicate as a stationary vehicle they have an obligation to ensure it is safe to proceed before pulling out into traffic.
The 1st vehicle states their turn signal was on; and had simply been waiting for a free and clear moment to turn left. They indicate they were not parked; and therefore had no obligation to check if it was clear behind them.
Again who is at fault or what %'s of fault should be applied and why?
For purposes of explanation's the 1st south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #1(red). The 2nd south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #2 (black). The truck can be called Vehicle #3 (blue).
Example of Road:
At this time these are the two IL-MVC codes which seem to apply; but there very well may be others; and I'm not sure 801 applies at it seems to be for intersections which I'm unsure this is.
- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-701
- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-801
illinois motor-vehicle
illinois motor-vehicle
edited Aug 23 '18 at 20:32
phoog
8,10111437
asked Jul 23 '18 at 15:08
xQbertxQbert
1013
edited Aug 23 '18 at 20:32
phoog
8,10111437
asked Jul 23 '18 at 15:08
xQbertxQbert
1013
edited Aug 23 '18 at 20:32
phoog
8,10111437
edited Aug 23 '18 at 20:32
phoog
8,10111437
edited Aug 23 '18 at 20:32
phoog
8,10111437
8,10111437
asked Jul 23 '18 at 15:08
xQbertxQbert
1013
asked Jul 23 '18 at 15:08
xQbertxQbert
1013
asked Jul 23 '18 at 15:08
xQbertxQbert
1013
1013
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 21 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 21 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
So are we going to leave unresolved whether in fact the turn signal or hazard lights were actually on?
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
As a side note, it appears that Illinois defines "intersection" to require two roadways or highways. "The junction of an alley with a street or highway does not constitute an intersection."
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:50
The hazard vs left turn signal is a "he said/she said" situation. No clear evidence one way or another. There's no solid evidence one way or another which is why %of fault may apply
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:55
That's fair, but it also might make the question more difficult to answer because it might depend on which side is found to be more credible.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
True but life is seldom that simple. If we believe the person making the left turn had the signal on, then vehicle 2 is likely 90%+ at fault. If we believe the person had the hazards on and was parked then it's likely 90%+ vehicle 1's fault for failure to signal/yield when merging into traffic. To make matters more interesting: Vehicle 2 was issued a citation for improper lane usage by the PD. but I don't want a biased answer based on what police indicate.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:20
|
show 4 more comments
So are we going to leave unresolved whether in fact the turn signal or hazard lights were actually on?
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
As a side note, it appears that Illinois defines "intersection" to require two roadways or highways. "The junction of an alley with a street or highway does not constitute an intersection."
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:50
The hazard vs left turn signal is a "he said/she said" situation. No clear evidence one way or another. There's no solid evidence one way or another which is why %of fault may apply
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:55
That's fair, but it also might make the question more difficult to answer because it might depend on which side is found to be more credible.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
True but life is seldom that simple. If we believe the person making the left turn had the signal on, then vehicle 2 is likely 90%+ at fault. If we believe the person had the hazards on and was parked then it's likely 90%+ vehicle 1's fault for failure to signal/yield when merging into traffic. To make matters more interesting: Vehicle 2 was issued a citation for improper lane usage by the PD. but I don't want a biased answer based on what police indicate.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:20
So are we going to leave unresolved whether in fact the turn signal or hazard lights were actually on?
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
So are we going to leave unresolved whether in fact the turn signal or hazard lights were actually on?
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
As a side note, it appears that Illinois defines "intersection" to require two roadways or highways. "The junction of an alley with a street or highway does not constitute an intersection."
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:50
As a side note, it appears that Illinois defines "intersection" to require two roadways or highways. "The junction of an alley with a street or highway does not constitute an intersection."
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:50
The hazard vs left turn signal is a "he said/she said" situation. No clear evidence one way or another. There's no solid evidence one way or another which is why %of fault may apply
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:55
The hazard vs left turn signal is a "he said/she said" situation. No clear evidence one way or another. There's no solid evidence one way or another which is why %of fault may apply
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:55
That's fair, but it also might make the question more difficult to answer because it might depend on which side is found to be more credible.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
That's fair, but it also might make the question more difficult to answer because it might depend on which side is found to be more credible.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
True but life is seldom that simple. If we believe the person making the left turn had the signal on, then vehicle 2 is likely 90%+ at fault. If we believe the person had the hazards on and was parked then it's likely 90%+ vehicle 1's fault for failure to signal/yield when merging into traffic. To make matters more interesting: Vehicle 2 was issued a citation for improper lane usage by the PD. but I don't want a biased answer based on what police indicate.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:20
True but life is seldom that simple. If we believe the person making the left turn had the signal on, then vehicle 2 is likely 90%+ at fault. If we believe the person had the hazards on and was parked then it's likely 90%+ vehicle 1's fault for failure to signal/yield when merging into traffic. To make matters more interesting: Vehicle 2 was issued a citation for improper lane usage by the PD. but I don't want a biased answer based on what police indicate.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:20
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
According to this: a vehicle overtaking a second vehicle making a lawful left turn at an intersection is 100% at fault. But this example is Alaska, not Illinois law.
Okay the below doesn't seem to apply:
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/ovetaking-vehicle-striking-left-hand-turning-car-fully-fault-collision
This is a BC reference; again not IL....
https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/collisions/left-turn-surprise
If illinois law is like this I'd be at fault too.
After signaling and waiting for at least 15 seconds for traffic to clear and coming to a complete stop, I find it hard to believe a passing vehicle has right of way.
IL-MVC states:
(625 ILCS 5/11-705) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-705)
Sec. 11-705. Limitations on overtaking on the left.
No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless authorized by the provisions of this Chapter and unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within 200 feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
(Source: P.A. 76-1586.)
answered Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
xQbertxQbert
1013
In that example it was also a no passing zone, so the person passing was clearly in the wrong anyway.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:43
True which is why It's not a good enough answer. I'm still looking and it seems based on verdict of other cases, that the vehicle making a left turn seems to be at fault even though they were being passed: however all the examples I've come across show the driver turning left had not signaled; were in a different state, passing in a no passing zone; and didn't have the extenuating circumstances of oncoming traffic with parked cars causing the vehicle turning left to ride more in the right of their lane.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:58
I'm also still struggling with finding IL-MVC that applies to the left turning vehicle being hit from a passing vehicle. All situations seem to discuss oncoming traffic and I would agree that in those situations the left turning driver is likely at fault. in this passing situation I'm having trouble understanding why the 1st driver would have any fault as no code seems to be violated.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:01
If you believe the person who said the turn signal was not on, then "No person may so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided" is violated.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
2
The cited incident was in British Columbia, on a BC road to Alaska, called, naturally, the Alaska Highway. "54-40 or Fight" is past history...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
– DJohnM
Jul 24 '18 at 1:00
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30451%2faccident-involving-left-turn-into-private-drive-and-a-passing-vehicle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
According to this: a vehicle overtaking a second vehicle making a lawful left turn at an intersection is 100% at fault. But this example is Alaska, not Illinois law.
Okay the below doesn't seem to apply:
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/ovetaking-vehicle-striking-left-hand-turning-car-fully-fault-collision
This is a BC reference; again not IL....
https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/collisions/left-turn-surprise
If illinois law is like this I'd be at fault too.
After signaling and waiting for at least 15 seconds for traffic to clear and coming to a complete stop, I find it hard to believe a passing vehicle has right of way.
IL-MVC states:
(625 ILCS 5/11-705) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-705)
Sec. 11-705. Limitations on overtaking on the left.
No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless authorized by the provisions of this Chapter and unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within 200 feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
(Source: P.A. 76-1586.)
answered Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
xQbertxQbert
1013
In that example it was also a no passing zone, so the person passing was clearly in the wrong anyway.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:43
True which is why It's not a good enough answer. I'm still looking and it seems based on verdict of other cases, that the vehicle making a left turn seems to be at fault even though they were being passed: however all the examples I've come across show the driver turning left had not signaled; were in a different state, passing in a no passing zone; and didn't have the extenuating circumstances of oncoming traffic with parked cars causing the vehicle turning left to ride more in the right of their lane.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:58
I'm also still struggling with finding IL-MVC that applies to the left turning vehicle being hit from a passing vehicle. All situations seem to discuss oncoming traffic and I would agree that in those situations the left turning driver is likely at fault. in this passing situation I'm having trouble understanding why the 1st driver would have any fault as no code seems to be violated.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:01
If you believe the person who said the turn signal was not on, then "No person may so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided" is violated.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
2
The cited incident was in British Columbia, on a BC road to Alaska, called, naturally, the Alaska Highway. "54-40 or Fight" is past history...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
– DJohnM
Jul 24 '18 at 1:00
|
show 3 more comments
According to this: a vehicle overtaking a second vehicle making a lawful left turn at an intersection is 100% at fault. But this example is Alaska, not Illinois law.
Okay the below doesn't seem to apply:
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/ovetaking-vehicle-striking-left-hand-turning-car-fully-fault-collision
This is a BC reference; again not IL....
https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/collisions/left-turn-surprise
If illinois law is like this I'd be at fault too.
After signaling and waiting for at least 15 seconds for traffic to clear and coming to a complete stop, I find it hard to believe a passing vehicle has right of way.
IL-MVC states:
(625 ILCS 5/11-705) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-705)
Sec. 11-705. Limitations on overtaking on the left.
No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless authorized by the provisions of this Chapter and unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within 200 feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
(Source: P.A. 76-1586.)
answered Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
xQbertxQbert
1013
In that example it was also a no passing zone, so the person passing was clearly in the wrong anyway.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:43
True which is why It's not a good enough answer. I'm still looking and it seems based on verdict of other cases, that the vehicle making a left turn seems to be at fault even though they were being passed: however all the examples I've come across show the driver turning left had not signaled; were in a different state, passing in a no passing zone; and didn't have the extenuating circumstances of oncoming traffic with parked cars causing the vehicle turning left to ride more in the right of their lane.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:58
I'm also still struggling with finding IL-MVC that applies to the left turning vehicle being hit from a passing vehicle. All situations seem to discuss oncoming traffic and I would agree that in those situations the left turning driver is likely at fault. in this passing situation I'm having trouble understanding why the 1st driver would have any fault as no code seems to be violated.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:01
If you believe the person who said the turn signal was not on, then "No person may so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided" is violated.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
2
The cited incident was in British Columbia, on a BC road to Alaska, called, naturally, the Alaska Highway. "54-40 or Fight" is past history...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
– DJohnM
Jul 24 '18 at 1:00
|
show 3 more comments
According to this: a vehicle overtaking a second vehicle making a lawful left turn at an intersection is 100% at fault. But this example is Alaska, not Illinois law.
Okay the below doesn't seem to apply:
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/ovetaking-vehicle-striking-left-hand-turning-car-fully-fault-collision
This is a BC reference; again not IL....
https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/collisions/left-turn-surprise
If illinois law is like this I'd be at fault too.
After signaling and waiting for at least 15 seconds for traffic to clear and coming to a complete stop, I find it hard to believe a passing vehicle has right of way.
IL-MVC states:
(625 ILCS 5/11-705) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-705)
Sec. 11-705. Limitations on overtaking on the left.
No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless authorized by the provisions of this Chapter and unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within 200 feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
(Source: P.A. 76-1586.)
answered Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
xQbertxQbert
1013
According to this: a vehicle overtaking a second vehicle making a lawful left turn at an intersection is 100% at fault. But this example is Alaska, not Illinois law.
Okay the below doesn't seem to apply:
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/ovetaking-vehicle-striking-left-hand-turning-car-fully-fault-collision
This is a BC reference; again not IL....
https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/collisions/left-turn-surprise
If illinois law is like this I'd be at fault too.
After signaling and waiting for at least 15 seconds for traffic to clear and coming to a complete stop, I find it hard to believe a passing vehicle has right of way.
IL-MVC states:
(625 ILCS 5/11-705) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-705)
Sec. 11-705. Limitations on overtaking on the left.
No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless authorized by the provisions of this Chapter and unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within 200 feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
(Source: P.A. 76-1586.)
answered Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
xQbertxQbert
1013
edited Jul 24 '18 at 19:28
answered Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
xQbertxQbert
1013
answered Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
xQbertxQbert
1013
answered Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
xQbertxQbert
1013
1013
In that example it was also a no passing zone, so the person passing was clearly in the wrong anyway.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:43
True which is why It's not a good enough answer. I'm still looking and it seems based on verdict of other cases, that the vehicle making a left turn seems to be at fault even though they were being passed: however all the examples I've come across show the driver turning left had not signaled; were in a different state, passing in a no passing zone; and didn't have the extenuating circumstances of oncoming traffic with parked cars causing the vehicle turning left to ride more in the right of their lane.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:58
I'm also still struggling with finding IL-MVC that applies to the left turning vehicle being hit from a passing vehicle. All situations seem to discuss oncoming traffic and I would agree that in those situations the left turning driver is likely at fault. in this passing situation I'm having trouble understanding why the 1st driver would have any fault as no code seems to be violated.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:01
If you believe the person who said the turn signal was not on, then "No person may so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided" is violated.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
2
The cited incident was in British Columbia, on a BC road to Alaska, called, naturally, the Alaska Highway. "54-40 or Fight" is past history...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
– DJohnM
Jul 24 '18 at 1:00
|
show 3 more comments
In that example it was also a no passing zone, so the person passing was clearly in the wrong anyway.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:43
True which is why It's not a good enough answer. I'm still looking and it seems based on verdict of other cases, that the vehicle making a left turn seems to be at fault even though they were being passed: however all the examples I've come across show the driver turning left had not signaled; were in a different state, passing in a no passing zone; and didn't have the extenuating circumstances of oncoming traffic with parked cars causing the vehicle turning left to ride more in the right of their lane.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:58
I'm also still struggling with finding IL-MVC that applies to the left turning vehicle being hit from a passing vehicle. All situations seem to discuss oncoming traffic and I would agree that in those situations the left turning driver is likely at fault. in this passing situation I'm having trouble understanding why the 1st driver would have any fault as no code seems to be violated.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:01
If you believe the person who said the turn signal was not on, then "No person may so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided" is violated.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
2
The cited incident was in British Columbia, on a BC road to Alaska, called, naturally, the Alaska Highway. "54-40 or Fight" is past history...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
– DJohnM
Jul 24 '18 at 1:00
In that example it was also a no passing zone, so the person passing was clearly in the wrong anyway.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:43
In that example it was also a no passing zone, so the person passing was clearly in the wrong anyway.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:43
True which is why It's not a good enough answer. I'm still looking and it seems based on verdict of other cases, that the vehicle making a left turn seems to be at fault even though they were being passed: however all the examples I've come across show the driver turning left had not signaled; were in a different state, passing in a no passing zone; and didn't have the extenuating circumstances of oncoming traffic with parked cars causing the vehicle turning left to ride more in the right of their lane.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:58
True which is why It's not a good enough answer. I'm still looking and it seems based on verdict of other cases, that the vehicle making a left turn seems to be at fault even though they were being passed: however all the examples I've come across show the driver turning left had not signaled; were in a different state, passing in a no passing zone; and didn't have the extenuating circumstances of oncoming traffic with parked cars causing the vehicle turning left to ride more in the right of their lane.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:58
I'm also still struggling with finding IL-MVC that applies to the left turning vehicle being hit from a passing vehicle. All situations seem to discuss oncoming traffic and I would agree that in those situations the left turning driver is likely at fault. in this passing situation I'm having trouble understanding why the 1st driver would have any fault as no code seems to be violated.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:01
I'm also still struggling with finding IL-MVC that applies to the left turning vehicle being hit from a passing vehicle. All situations seem to discuss oncoming traffic and I would agree that in those situations the left turning driver is likely at fault. in this passing situation I'm having trouble understanding why the 1st driver would have any fault as no code seems to be violated.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:01
If you believe the person who said the turn signal was not on, then "No person may so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided" is violated.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
If you believe the person who said the turn signal was not on, then "No person may so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided" is violated.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
2
2
The cited incident was in British Columbia, on a BC road to Alaska, called, naturally, the Alaska Highway. "54-40 or Fight" is past history...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
– DJohnM
Jul 24 '18 at 1:00
The cited incident was in British Columbia, on a BC road to Alaska, called, naturally, the Alaska Highway. "54-40 or Fight" is past history...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
– DJohnM
Jul 24 '18 at 1:00
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30451%2faccident-involving-left-turn-into-private-drive-and-a-passing-vehicle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
So are we going to leave unresolved whether in fact the turn signal or hazard lights were actually on?
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:41
As a side note, it appears that Illinois defines "intersection" to require two roadways or highways. "The junction of an alley with a street or highway does not constitute an intersection."
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 16:50
The hazard vs left turn signal is a "he said/she said" situation. No clear evidence one way or another. There's no solid evidence one way or another which is why %of fault may apply
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 16:55
That's fair, but it also might make the question more difficult to answer because it might depend on which side is found to be more credible.
– D M
Jul 23 '18 at 17:04
True but life is seldom that simple. If we believe the person making the left turn had the signal on, then vehicle 2 is likely 90%+ at fault. If we believe the person had the hazards on and was parked then it's likely 90%+ vehicle 1's fault for failure to signal/yield when merging into traffic. To make matters more interesting: Vehicle 2 was issued a citation for improper lane usage by the PD. but I don't want a biased answer based on what police indicate.
– xQbert
Jul 23 '18 at 17:20