[L0uie69]

At about 3:10 this afternoon, I was pulling out on 49th close to Argyle facing west bound. It was a red light and traffic was stopped and the car closes to me was stopped and the cement truck was about 2-3 car lengths away stopped. I began to creep out as I thought he was yielding to me. Got half way out and traffic began to move slightly, I got 3qt's out and at the same time the truck began to roll and squashed me between the truck and the park car in front of me. Damages are to the rear panels majority drive side.

Any input would be greatly appreciated! TIA!

[Mr.Jay]

that is the worse picture ever wtf it looks like ur in a parking lot or some shit in the pic cause I dont see intersection lines

however from ur description I would say either trucks fault 100% or 75% truck 25% you.

[flagella]

Hard to say really, but I failed you because of the shittiest pic I've ever seen. It's better understood without the pic.

[snowball]

I think you're screwed unless you have a witness.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

:bullshit: say what?????

[twitchyzero]

the truck driver could easily say you pulled out without making sure the traffic (right of way) was clear.

do you have a witness?

[L0uie69]

I was unable to get any witness, the 49th bus came and all those at bus stop were gone. And the cars behind the truck were unable to see what had happened till the truck drove in front and at this point it was hard to flag the cars down.

[Bonka]

Were you the beige Acura CL with the crushed driver's rear quarter parked on 49th?

From what you've mentioned it sounds 50/50. Better post some witness needed flyers at the bus stops there.

[ilvtofu]

the truck driver could easily say you pulled out without making sure the traffic (right of way) was clear.

do you have a witness?

+1 IMO It's 100% your fault as it looks like you were forcing your way out from the curb so unless you're a bus truck driver has the right of way. It was probably hard for the truck driver to see you anyways. You might be SOL but depends if you have any witnesses :/

[Dragon-88]

Ya your fault... You were "merging" and your supposed to do it safely.. In this case it was not safe as the truck driver obviously didnt see you becuase his front is soo long... You should be more careful when you are around trucks as there are many blind spots.

[Berzerker]

I would say the fault lies with your Art teacher cuz that drawing is terrible.

Berz out.

[boss604]

lol ur pic looks like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcRWADEln80

[tonyvu]

your at fault unless u have a witness...i got some idiot that changed lanes and side swiped my car and like an idiot, i got no witnesses... it went 50/50 -.-

[hk20000]

100% your fault. The truck has zero obligation to let you out just coz "your signals were flashing"

it's still your responsibility to make sure it's clear to pull out. The truck driver will admit nothing. "you think he's yielding" is no excuse to pull out of the space knowing that the truck is there. No witnesses? GG.

[taylor192]

50/50

Despite what others here think, the truck driver does have an obligation to avoid an accident if he can (it is in the MTA, I'll see if I can find the section). If you had as much space as you claim, and traffic was slow, then the truck driver should have been able to stop especially considering how far you got out into the lane.

[dai3yuen]

100% your fault. The truck has the right of way as he is already established on the road. You are going from a stopped position pulling out into the roadway. Just because you 'think' that the truck is yielding to you does not mean it was. It is your responsibility to ensure that the way is clear and safe.

[hk20000]

50/50

Despite what others here think, the truck driver does have an obligation to avoid an accident if he can (it is in the MTA, I'll see if I can find the section). If you had as much space as you claim, and traffic was slow, then the truck driver should have been able to stop especially considering how far you got out into the lane.
That's really vague to enforce. He might have "slammed his brakes" to avoid it but it doesn't mean he has any fault in suddenly having a car that pull out in front of him inches away, against common sense or right of way rules.

[Euro7r]

Damn. Don't assume he's gonna stop for you and allow you to creep out. Need some witnesses if you want this to favor you.

[Nicotine]

your fault 100% sorry bro. you were pulling into the street.

[gearshifter]

Seems more to your fault... 100%? 75%? at best, 50%
You had no right of way.

[taylor192]

That's really vague to enforce. He might have "slammed his brakes" to avoid it but it doesn't mean he has any fault in suddenly having a car that pull out in front of him inches away, against common sense or right of way rules.
The whole incident is vague, thus why I stated my assumptions. Low speed, with 3 car lengths of room, the truck has an obligation to stop. Your assumptions are obviously different, yet not inline with what the OP posted.

If I saw 3 car lengths of room and a slow moving truck, you bet I'd pull out into the space. That's common sense. Yet you twist it to say he squeezed his car into inches of room, which is not what he posted.

A car cannot speed up to suddenly take away what appeared to be a reasonable amount of space, no matter if they have the right of way. This is why drivers have an obligation not to cause an accident, cause otherwise you could just run your car into everyone who does something stupid - and trust me, there's times I want to do that, my front bumper could use a repaint :D

[adambomb]

100% your fault.

The fact that you even have to ask... tells me you need more driving training. :buttkick:

[hk20000]

The whole incident is vague, thus why I stated my assumptions. Low speed, with 3 car lengths of room, the truck has an obligation to stop. Your assumptions are obviously different, yet not inline with what the OP posted.

If I saw 3 car lengths of room and a slow moving truck, you bet I'd pull out into the space. That's common sense. Yet you twist it to say he squeezed his car into inches of room, which is not what he posted.

A car cannot speed up to suddenly take away what appeared to be a reasonable amount of space, no matter if they have the right of way. This is why drivers have an obligation not to cause an accident, cause otherwise you could just run your car into everyone who does something stupid - and trust me, there's times I want to do that, my front bumper could use a repaint :D
ya but it's a guy who's trying to explain his story to get himself a favorable claim, you have to assume all distance measurement he told you is exaggerated / underestimated first, then go from there.

Because that's how ICBC like to do. If the big man says no it's a no. ;)

[SuperSlowSS]

50/50

Despite what others here think, the truck driver does have an obligation to avoid an accident if he can (it is in the MTA, I'll see if I can find the section). If you had as much space as you claim, and traffic was slow, then the truck driver should have been able to stop especially considering how far you got out into the lane.

read it again:
It was a red light and traffic was stopped and the car closes to me was stopped and the cement truck was about 2-3 car lengths away stopped. I began to creep out as I thought he was yielding to me.


If it is a big truck, they have blind zone. You can't just pull right infront of them from the right.
Actually some motorcyclist have been killed because of this. They pull right infront of a big truck because of the extra room trucks leave. Then stall the bike when light turns green. Truck driver doesn't even know theres a bike infront of him and runs the guy over.

[taylor192]

read it again:

If it is a big truck, they have blind zone. You can't just pull right infront of them from the right.
You read it again. 2-3 car lengths is not "right infront of them" and should be more than enough space for a truck driver to see over the hood. Trucks do have a blind spot, yet it is not as big as you're misleading otherwise they've never beable to drive forward or judge when to stop cause they couldn't see the vehicle immediately infront of them. Motorcycles are obviously different cause they are 1/2 the length of a car and would fall into the truck's blind spot.

So either the truck driver was lazy and didn't see the car, the truck was not stopped, or the OP did not have 2-3 car lengths as stated. You can make your assumptions, I am using what the OP posted.

[_TiDy_]

100% your fault. Because you are the party merging or turning into the lane, it is your duty to ensure the lane is clear and safe. The truck does not need to yield to you or let you in the lane even if you are partially in the lane already. Without a witness I bet the truck driver is going to say that you darted infront of him and he hit you. The damages to your car will prove you are the one turning which will basically screw you. Sorry bro.

[Anjew]

I can't see how a witness vouching for you would be in your favor. Anything they say (truthfully based on their observation) would only implicate you further. it would have to be such a specific and well detailed account of the incident to acquit you of fault. Even then you would still have partial liability.

depending on the trucks speed(based on your judgement), 3 car lengths is ample room to accelerate yourself into the lane even with a torqless car. I have learned never to trust the other party and never to take chances.


chalk this up to lesson learned and move on the wiser.

[zulutango]

"Starting vehicle
169 A person must not move a vehicle that is stopped, standing or parked unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety and he or she first gives the appropriate signal under section 171 or 172"

This is what you did not do and ICBC should find you 100% at fault. Turn signals flashing don't part traffic for you like Moses did to the Red Sea.

[FerrariEnzo]

i would say your at fault... truck has right of way....

Truck drive can say you made a lane change last minute... and i bet thats what hes gona say.

WHEN i do this, I ALWAYS make sure to look the person in the face and wave to say thanks so that he notices me. this is what you should have done.

[PDA_86]

I'm sorry to say this too, but I view this as 100% your fault as well. Try having eye contact with the other cars before you go out. If some truck drivers see you and they're having a good day, they'll wave you out (and maybe smile).

[lgman]

Different scenario: Lets say if you were stuck behind traffic, someone is parking And the lane to your left was free and you pull out, and the person behind you also pulls out and hits you, then it's your fault because you're supposed to watch and let all rear traffic clear before merging. Even if its a rear ender situation. Most of the time.

So yea %100 your fault. unless you have witness saying that he did stop and then on purpose sped up just to hit you.

[slammer111]

I'd have to say 100% OP's fault too based on my limited understanding of traffic laws. Any time you merge into someone else's lane, they have the right of way by default. I'd imagine this to be the case even if the guy in the next lane was speeding 100+ over the limit and smacked into you as you merged. ie doesn't matter what the other guy was doing, it's still your responsibility to make sure the other lane is clear.

Chalk it up to experience, and good luck with the case.

[UFO]

One thing that may be in the OP's favour is the fact that his damage is on the rear quarter that does not need to be verified by any witness. ICBC may rule that the truck COULD have stopped in order to avoid the accident, even though the truck has the right of way and the OP should have been 100% at fault.

I agree the OP should be at fault, but ICBC may try and go 50/50 and ding both insurances.

[twitchyzero]

^ you could still hit someone's quarter panel if they just pull out abruptly.

[UFO]

Yes of course you could. Like I said, ICBC can always say that since the damage was to the rear portion of the car, you SHOULD have had enough time to slam on your brakes to avoid the accident (even if that puts you at risk for getting rear ended) given the supposed slow speed that the incident happened at.