Am I at 25% fault?
 

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y80...5/accident.jpg

I was heading southbound on the street heading home w/ my gf on the leftlane as in pic. The other driver came out of a complex (not 3/4-way stop or intersection) trying to make a left turn to go northbound. He either didn't check or didn't see me coming & I hit him. I did brake if that makes any difference. Anyways ICBC says I'm @ 25% faul since there were cars in the right-lane & he was inching in already. But I don't feel I should stop to let him thru if my lane has no traffic. I would find it more dangerous if I just brake & let him thru as I might get rear-ended. I feel like I'm being penalized 25% for being @ the wrong place @ the wrong time.

What do you guys think? I can't find anything about actual law/rule saying if there's traffic in the right-lane & that I'm suppose to stop for him. If there is I guess I'll have to accept it.

which part of the car did you hit him? If it's in the rear half you are kind of responsible too he has to be in front of you for some time by then.

I hit him driver-side square on. I hit the driver & passenger door. Damage to my car was starting from passenger-side front bumper up to around where my driver-side head-lights starts.

I always thought that the stream of main traffic always has right of way, so the guy turning out of the complex has to yield until safe to turn.

In this incident, it wasn't safe to turn so he should be at fault 100%?

I acted as a witness to a similar situation before. ICBC called me and specifically asked me if the person in the right lane already stopped and let the car out of the complex coming out or not. I think what they are saying is, if the car in the right lane has already stopped and let the other car come out, then you should've paid attention to it and let it out as well.

That is a good point.

maybe you should talk to a lawyer

square on?? you are lucky you are not 100% at fault.

Good point but wouldn't he still have the right of way and the car should have made sure that he was going to stop being going?

I was always under the impression that you would have the right of way since you're going straight, and on a main road, and the other guy is just turning out of a driveway.

that's stupid if they're trying to say you're 25% at fault



but if you are 25% your ins doesn't get dinged does it?

another situation similar to urs
car A was traveling south on grandville street on the right curb lane, there was traffic so the left and middle lane stopped before the intersection, car B was taking a left from northbound grandville street onto 49th ave. car A was approaching the intersection and car B took a left out of no where. car A was 100% at fault.

this is pretty BS as car A(and u) has the right of way, yet ur at fault because some douch decides to pull a dangerous move. and car B should be at fault because im sure he did not have a clear view so it was unsafe to make the turn.

25% fault doesnt affect insurance premiums, but still, ur getting dinged for doing the right thing.

That's what I think so too. Sometimes it seems the guidelines they follow are quite arbitrary.

If you're going north through an intersection, and you hit someone making left turn from a southbound lane, I think they would be 100% at fault.. how is this any different?

Emerging from alleys
176 (1) The driver of a vehicle in a business or residence district and emerging from an alley, driveway, building or private road must stop the vehicle immediately before driving onto the sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across an alleyway or private driveway, and must yield the right of way to a pedestrian on the sidewalk or sidewalk area.

(2) The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, lane, driveway, building or private road must yield the right of way to traffic approaching on the highway so closely that it constitutes an immediate hazard.


I would be talking to a lawyer and seeing what he had to say about this scetion of the MV Act.

yea i say there trying to 'ding' it down, i dont see any way that you get 25%

I don't see how you could be responsible in anyway. You have the right of way.

you could fight it out and win if you want to. but generally if you see the guy on ur right slowing and stopping, you should be aware of what's going to cross. I've almost seen a fatal accident because this.

a pedestrian crossing the street; a big truck stops but a benz on the right did not see the pedestrian crossing and zipped through crosswalk and almost hit pedestrian

in the end, you should decide if you want to be at fault or not. forget about morals and do what's right :)

I am curious what is the function of the lawyer besides pointing out the finer details of MV Act?

Since the process is not a court of law, the lawyer can't advocate for the OP?

To the OP, it might help if you draw your map in a more easy to read manner eg N pointing at the right direction, and fits your description. More often than not, the manner you present information really affects the outcome.

There is also an arbitration process if you object to the result?

whatever happened to pull out or turn when its safe to do so.... if they are cars on the road . traveling (not crawling) how can it be safe for the other guy to pull out of complex to make a left turn.

I'm obviously no lawyer, but I don't see what finer details there are to the MVA. It states that the driver leaving the alleyway must yield because the crossing highway has right of way; unless there is another portion in the MVA that states that a driver travelling on a highway must yield to a car coming out of an alley.. which would make no sense at all.

Was there a Double Solid Yellow Line?

If there was, I don't think he's allowed to cross and make a left.

That was my understanding as well.

I'd agree if there were traffic in my lane (left-lane) as well. But I don't find it safe for me to stop in the middle of the street w/ no traffic in my lane & endanger myself & my gf being rear-ended.

I'm considering it. I'm not sure if being @ 25% fault is going to affect me in any sense other than having to pay 25% of my $300 deductible. Can the other guy sue me somehow & me accepting 25% fault be disadvantage compared to 0% fault?

No, they said my premiums will not be affected. I'm responsible for 25% ($75) of my $300 deductible.

Wow thanks, you wouldn't happen to have a direct link of that would you?

[quote=fishing666;6888309]you could fight it out and win if you want to. but generally if you see the guy on ur right slowing and stopping, you should be aware of what's going to cross. I've almost seen a fatal accident because this.[QUOTE]

Yes it could have been avoided perhaps if I paid attention & scanned the roads. But to me it's pointing the finger in the wrong direction. It all originated w/ the driver who didn't yield or was careless coming out of the complex.

Sorry I just drew it quickly before work from my perspective. But that's what I drew to ICBC.

I don't know, if it makes a difference this occuered on Hazelbridge Way in Richmond, I was coming back from Aberdeen heading southband towards Lansdowne area where I live.

Thank you everyone for your input.

Well, if it was a double yellow, the left turn would be illegal. This will help your case. Go check it out on googlemaps and report back with the exact location.