T-Intersection collision
 

Location: Back alley, single lane (one car have to move over the curb/private property to be able to do side by side).
Time: around 1pm, sunny dry pavement.

I'm heading straight, the other driver are trying to turn left into my lane (this is a single lane back alley).
I was t-boned on my passenger side door all the way to the back.

ICBC says that it's 100% my fault (which I totally disagree).

my version of the story
- slowing down approaching the T junction, saw the other guy approaching too. Saw him stop so I proceed because there's no way for the other driver to get into my lane if I don't vacate the lane (I have a passenger who can vouch for that, but unfortunately ICBC won't accept my passenger as a witness). As I was in the middle of the intersection, suddenly he moves forward and hit my car. I tried to honk to warn him when he moves forward and tried to get away but he still kept moving forward (as if he only stop check his right and proceed to turn left then hit me)

his version (as told to me by ICBC adjuster)
approached intersection, rolling stop and suddenly he heard me honking but it was to late, so he hit my car.

Looking at examples on ICBC website also shows that in the previous accidents, the court sided with my side of the story.
ICBC | crash_intersection.pdf

Do I have a case here? or is it totally my fault??

I could be wrong, but how do you get T-Boned and still your fault.

If it was other way round, then maybe its your fault.

If you were T-Bone, meaning you already passed by him (He didn't look to his right and didn't see you.) and then went for it

If you T-Bone him, meaning he was almost in the lane, but you were going way to fast to react and you T-Bone him.

If you imagine a T, I'm travelling from left to right on top. He's coming from the bottom turning left at the dead end (but apparently not checking his left when turning left).

The ICBC adjuster just keep on repeating that the driver on my right have the right of way (which I agree, but in this case he will have to yield to me as a courtesy) that's why when I saw him stop then I proceed to clear the path for him to turn left (again this is a single lane back alley) none of us will go anywhere if I didn't go through first.

Was there a 3 way stop sign?

According to this, even though its 4 way stop sign, and if indeed there 3 way stop sign, he has the right of way, in which you should have yield

RoadSense Tip: Right of Way

Otherwise, if only him just have the stop sign, then he wouldn't have the right of way. In this case, he should have yield which means he should be at fault

Edit: Nevermind, Back ally, no stop signs haha

But I think if you are going straight, you always have the right of way. Turning will always have to yield unless says so, or with stop signs like above video. Thats just based on my common sense, but could be wrong :whistle:

In an uncontrolled intersection (a T intersection as you described, with no stop signs etc) the driver going straight ahead (at the top of the T....you) must yield to traffic coming on his right side. In other words, you were supposed to yield to him approaching the intersection on your right. That is likely why ICBC found you at fault.

The other thing is that it is a single lane alley where if he didn't allow me to pass, he will have to reverse and allow me to pass first because I'm blocking his intended path
Posted via RS Mobile

Fair enough, but "If a vehicle arrives at the intersection first and enters the intersection prior to another driver, it has the right of way."

And since OP described the damage as from the side passenger door to the rear, it indicates OP's car already was in the intersection when the other car hit.

I assume ICBC would have taken statements from both drivers & decided on who was at fault based on the statements and the damage they viewed. The timing of the entry into the intersection would be something they would have to look at. They made the decision to assign fault to the OP so they must have something to back it up. The OP asked for an opinion and based on the law generally, I gave one. They have the facts & decided on 100% fault which says something about what they found. The OP certainly has the right to a professional legal opinion which may be able to convince ICBC that he was not at fault...as that is what he is asking.

i always thought the one going straight on a T-intersection has the right of way over the one turning left or right...
i have been wrong all these years...:ohgodwhy:

@Zulutango thanks for the input, and it's She :). Either way it is lacking in addressing this specific situation. The law says who has to yield the right of way. But not all driving circumstances or situations are covered specifically in the law.

@Ferra you probably think that it made more sense, which I agree based just on common sense. That's why in some US states, that is the law. Sadly Canada hasn't adopted the same law

Examples
Minnessota
M.S.S. 169.20, Subdivision 1, “When two vehicles enter an uncontrolled intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right. When two vehicles enter an intersection controlled by stop signs or by blinking red traffic signals requiring drivers or vehicles from any direction to stop before proceeding, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right. At an uncontrolled approach to a T-shaped intersection, the driver required to turn shall yield to the cross traffic. The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which the driver might otherwise have hereunder.”

Oregon
Failure to yield right of way at uncontrolled T intersection
• penalty
(1) A person commits the offense of failure to yield the right of way at an uncontrolled T intersection if the person is operating a motor vehicle on a highway that ends at an uncontrolled T intersection and the person does not yield the right of way to any driver who is on the highway at the top of the T intersection.

Road rules can differ from State to State. In many US States, the laws were only changed in the last few years to give the through road precedence in a T-intersection. Oregon only changed their rules of the road in 2003. In Canada, the old rules still apply about uncontrolled T-intersections.

Apparently NZ also have the same through road law (see change 2)
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/arou...user-rule.html
ps. so does Australia and UK

Ps it's pointless reading and citing road rules from other countries or provinces. Secondly, just because someone committed a traffic offence does not always mean they will be at 100 percent fault with ICBc

Blue box is me, red is the other driver.
Single lane back alley.

I was just giving an examples of how other countries have switched to this rules which made more sense. I'm not expecting BC to enforce other country's rules, just saying that it made more sense than the current rules that we use.

It sucks because I know I would be guilty of not stopping if I were in your shoes and was going straight. My mindset would be that because the other car has to turn they would have to yield to me. But that's the wrong mindset lol.

exactly.. but if you're in the states.. you have the right of way :)

The law also doesn't explicitly say what to do in a single lane situation like this. I can let him proceed but then he will have to reverse again, so the most logical situation is to let me pass first and then he can make his turn.

And I'm being penalized because the law which was written for 2 lane highway is being applied here where the situation (or common sense) dictates that I need to proceed first before he can make his turn.

Wow this is new to me
Come to think of it though, I think most of us probably are aware of how to handle uncontrolled T-Intersections (ie. treat it like a 3-way stop).

I have a feeling most of us just have the misconception that because it's an alley and doesn't look like a typical T-Intersection, we should treat it using common sense (the driver who is forced to turn should be yielding as he is turning onto the road the other driver is already on).

Or maybe it's because 99% of the T-intersections we come across has a stop sign for the street that ends!

I teach for Young Drivers now and we cover this specific situation in class. The MVA says the driver on the right at an uncontrolled intersection has the right of way. We, and I in my motorcycle classes, teach our students that the vehicle entering the T from the bottom should yield to the car at the top of the T...simply because very few drivers know this law. Most drivers would expect the car at the top of the T to have the right of way, and drive accordingly. I teach to be on the safe side and yield to the top of the T..even though we would have the legal right of way. Clear as mud? It's always better to be safe, than unsafe and "right". Those of you who are married well know this approach to conflict resolution.:accepted:

This uncontrolled T intersection is horrible. This situation should not be treated like a scenario with cookie cutter judgement. Laws, bylaws, acts are made using common sense and I see none with the adjuster's judgement. If I was the red car and I see the blue car stop to "yield" to me, all logic tells me:
1. I should be the one yielding since I am turning
2. I am unable to turn because the blue car is blocking me, I should have the blue car go first

:fulloffuck:
Well, I learned something new today. I always thought the top of the T had the right of way, but, legally, it makes sense if it's considered an uncontrolled intersection. Should this law be amended? What would prevent people from purposely causing accidents with this unfamiliar/misunderstood rule?

Wait what the fuck. The driver turning left onto a street with only room for one car has the right of way? So basically the guy turns left, then is face to face with the car. :fulloffuck:

Does this also mean if I am driving along a small side street and to my right is a T-intersection alley joining, I should always yield?

That';s what the MVA says about uncontrolled intersections. Small side streets and alley are considered "highways"...ie..."roads".

Holy crap..my mind is blown. I never knew about this at all
Posted via RS Mobile

Mind blown as well lol

So let me get this shit straight.

1. If I'm the blue car travelling northbound in this image I yield to the red car who's trying to turn because he/she is on my right.

2. If I'm the blue car travelling southbound then the red car has to yield to me because I'm on his/her right?

Attachment 20443

Mind blown.......... I agree with you guys, this is such a dumb rule, defies common sense.

Regardless, in back alleyways, you always gotta err on side of caution.

http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing...d/drivers4.pdf

go to uncontrolled intersections on page 41... you only have to yield to the right if both cars got there about the same time.. if you got there first, you go first... but you have to come to a complete stop.