“Left Turn Collision, Person Travelling In Wrong Lane”

Squishy wrote:it is a designated turn lane, not a travel lane.

That is exactly what I am trying to ascertain since there is no place for him to turn into from that area. if he didnt intend on turning immediately, he had no business being in that lane. I know he wanted to take a left further down from the intersection.

To answer your orignal question, the EB side was backed up quite a bit (another reason for the other person to use the center lane as the thru lane) and the drivers in the 2 EB lanes gave me way for me to go across and merge into WB traffic. So I proceeded to cross the 2 EB lanes, According to me, both traffic lanes had stopped. I didnt expect anyone would be coming down the center lane so fast. I didnt intend on using the center lane to merge in, I intended to merge directly into the 2nd WB lane (I have attached a picture that shows that). The WB lane was empty, because if t wasnt, then the WB lane car would have had a head-on collision with the car that was travelling down the center lane since it ended up in oncoming traffic. I used to think that you cant enter, let alone drive down a yellow lined center lane simply because (a) it yellow lined and (b) no place to turn into.

Im trying to find a paralegal who dosent think this is a simple left-turn at fault case.

Stanton: Thanks for the clarification

Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. You can't rip down a turning lane to pass stopped traffic, just like you said.

Radar Identified wrote:Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. You can't rip down a turning lane to pass stopped traffic, just like you said.

Thank god someone agrees with me....ive been getting the 'left turn at fault' bullshit.....according to the insurance company, even if you are going the wrong way and collide with a car taking a left turn...the car taking the left turn is at fault :S....fault determination rules at their finest.

Radar Identified wrote:Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. .

Or Subaru was in the proper lane, took evasive action to its left as it seen someone cutting out from the right. Then the Subaru got pushed that much further over as it was struck on the side.

hwybear wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. .

Then the Subaru got pushed that much further over as it was struck on the side.

If it was struck on the side, the body panels should show it...none of the body panels show evidence of such a SEVERE impact that would push the car in the other lane...