“Charged With Fail To Yield From Private Drive”

When entering a 7 lane road consisting of 3 northbound and 3 southbound lanes with one turning lane between them from a private driveway I got charged with fail to yield from private drive S139(1)

Private driveway is located 145 ft from pedestrian corossing with traffic lights.

I yielded traffic on the rodway waiting to safely enter. The lights turned red and traffic stopped. The red lights last for 35 seconds. It takes 6.3 seconds for traffic to stop and fill lanes from the lights to the driveway I was exiting from. Say after 10 seconds of waiting, I was allowed (waved) in the nearest two lanes by the drivers. Wouldn't this satisfy compliance with S139.1?

My driving record is pristine clean and I want to keep it that way. Thanks for answering.

I would say being waved in does not satisfy 139.1, simply because the onus is on you to ensure your actions are safe, not other drivers. Any errors on the police report would not result in the charges being dropped, but may help raise some doubt at trial if there is confusion over vehicle positioning. That being said, regardless if you were struck in the front or back, you're the one who is still legally required to yield. The vehicle that struck you had no legal obligation to yield to you if I understand your sequence of events.

Thank you for your opinion. Your opinion closely matches the one of the police officer. I absolutely understand my duty to yield right of way to the traffic on the highway. However once I was waved in and allowed onto the roadway that changes things, I think.

Now that vehicles stopped, I entered without endangering anyone. From there, again I pulled fully across the next lane and I suspect I was hit for the other vehicle did not pay attention, or did not want to brake. Aren't we as drivers having duty not to intentionally cause accidents if we can avoid them? Where there is a common courtesy?.

Shortly after the accident, I was driving home in borrowed vehicle. There was a truck backing up from a private driveway about 150 ahead of me. I slowed and stopped let him complete the maneuver.

I felt that if I continued and hit it, I would be responsible.

I may not understand the traffic law, so my thinking is clearly based on the logic of the example above. I believe my two cases are closely comparable but in reversed roles. There is this feeling of doing it right here and also believing that laws are fair and protect right actions.

Stanton,

Thank you for posting your comment, it made me think. My first response may mean nothing in the court by itself, but together with your comment it helped me consider the following: once I am on the roadway and have a possession then others must yield to me. If I am deemed to be entering, then I must yield. One may argue that was true for first two lanes from the curb. I complied with 139(1). The onus was on me to repeat yielding again before entering and crossing the third lane, again.

So, I checked left and saw a vehicle in the 3rd lane about 60 ft away approaching me. I estimated the speed of that vehicle to be appropriate for the conditions: two lanes to the right of it already stopped, and it was approaching red light ahead. So, I proceeded thinking it was safe to proceed without constituting an immediate hazard. I suppose and immediate hazard would be if right there collision happened, my car being hit in say front part. The fact is that I made it across the full width of the lane (11 ft) with the front of my car and entered the turning lane between the two directional lanes. My left front wheel is on the double yellow line, and the nose is over past it. I believe that the immediacy has to do something with it. As a driver in the third lane had a chance to yield me in my opinion. Unfortunately that yielding did not happen, so I am at fault?

I do not count much on the confusion about the accuracy of the sketch showing position of the vehicles contrary to the photographs. I would challenge it, for the above reasons, even if it exactly matched the photographs. Perhaps, in this case will have fewer things to argue.

Any comments are welcome and appreciated.

Reading past similar posts, there was a mention of "immediacy" as well as the arguing on "deemed to be entering the highway" vs on the highway as result of being waved. Wonder if authors of these topics can report back to you on their own results.