After Car Accident, Other Driver Says I Ran a Red Light

#1 Edited by PinkiePirate (2086 posts) -

I was driving home after work down a main road. I pass through an intersection with a green light and collide with another vehicle that failed to yield on a left hand turn.

My car:

I got my check from the insurance company for the value of the car (I made sure I got compensated for all the work I've done to it).

I was in the left lane going straight.

Light was green.

Car on other side in the left turn lane keeps going without yielding and I run into him.

And the other driver says I ran a red light (he claims he had a protected green arrow), which is not true.

Here is an image I made to help explain the situation:

It was at around 11:50 PM after I got off work. We were the only two cars on the road. The street is a main street and the light remains green unless cars are detected on the crossing street. There is no reason for him to have a protected arrow unless there was traffic at the time of the collision. If that were the case, he would have tons of witnesses. I have one witness, but he is a homeless man with no phone and it's impossible to reach or contact him. The police collected his information though.

What do I do? What can I say to have a strong case? I don't want to pay the deductible or have my rates go up because of something I did not cause.

#2 Edited by ssvegeta555 (2264 posts) -

The car turned left into your car, so he is liable. He should've yielded. You had a green light after all. Even if you did have a red light as he claimed, he should have one too on his end, yeah? He's just trying to pin the blame on you. At that intersection, is that a dedicated left turn light for the other driver, or a yield on green? But either way, I think you'll be fine. I had my car totaled last month and it sucked. A guy turned left from a side road and hit me as I was heading home. The fact he didn't yield to me on a main road meant he was liable.

Edit: I noticed you live Oregon. I live there too. Not sure if that makes tings better, but umm... same state same laws right? I still think you're in the right.

#3 Edited by PinkiePirate (2086 posts) -

@ssvegeta555 said:

The car turned left into your car, so he is liable. He should've yielded. You had a green light after all. Even if you did have a red light as he claimed, he should have one too on his end, yeah? He's just trying to pin the blame on you. At that intersection, is that a dedicated left turn light for the other driver, or a yield on green? But either way, I think you'll be fine. I had my car totaled last month and it sucked. A guy turned left from a side road and hit me as I was heading home. The fact he didn't yield to me on a main road meant he was liable.

Edit: I noticed you live Oregon. I live there too. Not sure if that makes tings better, but umm... same state same laws right? I still think you're in the right.

Thanks. He is saying that he had a protected green arrow, which would mean my light was red. Both sides were green and he didn't yield to me, so yes, in reality, I was in the right. But it's been nearly three weeks after the accident and he's still contesting that I ran a red light. The insurance company is taking a long time to make a decision. I just want to end this and get my deductible back.

And yeah, I live in Eugene, Oregon.

#4 Edited by Hydrolex (1462 posts) -

They will look at the cameras around. I can see a camera on the top of the light... Those are not light enforcement cameras, but they are just there for traffic and monitoring.

I really suggest nowadays, people installing dash cam recorders...Nuvi Garmin just came out with one, or GoPro is another option.

#5 Posted by XilePrincess (13128 posts) -

Talk to the cops. There are traffic cameras in the intersection, and it looks like they're on all four lights. It should be easy to get footage, especially considering the police were called to the scene so a report would have been made.

But you seem to have a pretty strong case regardless.

#6 Posted by Hydrolex (1462 posts) -

Also, go and talk to Goodyear, I bet you they have some cameras either inside or outside that would show that intersection...

Gently take the police report to goodyear, and ask a manager if any of their cameras are pointed towards the intersection, and then ask to review.

#7 Posted by PinkiePirate (2086 posts) -

Talk to the cops. There are traffic cameras in the intersection, and it looks like they're on all four lights. It should be easy to get footage, especially considering the police were called to the scene so a report would have been made.

But you seem to have a pretty strong case regardless.

I looked into this and sadly, those cameras are just there to detect vehicles for light changes. They don't record anything. http://www.modot.org/stlouis/links/signalcameras.htm

#8 Edited by ssvegeta555 (2264 posts) -

If both sides were green, he definitely should've yielded to you. Looking at the intersection on Google maps, he would see only one green light and therefore must yield, and he didn't have a shielded green arrow as a result. From the sounds of it, it appears this guy came speeding down the road and thought he could make the left hand turn before you reached the intersection, but misgauged it. Does the intersection have cameras? But hopefully this sorted out for you soon. It's frustrating waiting for a response from the claims guy and also very stressful.

Edit: yes there are cameras. That is good news for you. :)

#9 Edited by Hydrolex (1462 posts) -

again, go to good year or stores around

#10 Posted by ssvegeta555 (2264 posts) -

@XilePrincess said:

Talk to the cops. There are traffic cameras in the intersection, and it looks like they're on all four lights. It should be easy to get footage, especially considering the police were called to the scene so a report would have been made.

But you seem to have a pretty strong case regardless.

I looked into this and sadly, those cameras are just there to detect vehicles for light changes. They don't record anything. http://www.modot.org/stlouis/links/signalcameras.htm

Well that sucks. >_<

#11 Posted by PinkiePirate (2086 posts) -

@Hydrolex said:

Also, go and talk to Goodyear, I bet you they have some cameras either inside or outside that would show that intersection...

Gently take the police report to goodyear, and ask a manager if any of their cameras are pointed towards the intersection, and then ask to review.

Yeah, I think I will check that out tomorrow. Thanks.

#12 Edited by JangoWuzHere (16132 posts) -

People will say anything to not be liable for a car accident.

#13 Edited by hippiesanta (9812 posts) -

L-M-C-O

#14 Edited by lamprey263 (23201 posts) -

If you have witnesses to the accident that made a statement to the police then your case should carry a considerable amount of weight

not that I should imagine this should happen in your case, my brother gave a statement to a similar car accident that happened just like this, though the cop did not write down the info correctly, and wrote down that the car that actually went straight was the car that turned, and wrote the car that turned was the one that went straight, so the woman with the right of way that was cut off ended up being on the defensive because of the incorrect information being written down, luckily my brother gave the woman his contact info, she called him and told him about the mix-up, and he backed her up again when confronting the police for the wrongly written witness statement, and they ended up firing the police woman over that

anyhow, sorry for your loss, even if you recover money on this you're still going to be out money, I think your rates go up whether you were at fault or not, plus I'm sure the other insurance company will try to weasel their way out of paying you the full amount, and if not make it very frustrating to do so, hope all works out for the best possible outcome

#15 Posted by hippiesanta (9812 posts) -
#16 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36780 posts) -

Welcome to car accidents
Everyone lies
Its a cvnt of a thing

#17 Posted by _Judas_ (718 posts) -

sounds like an unwinnable case, if you ask me...sorry. Both parties claim they had "green arrows", which I guess is the same as a "green light" in my country. In my country, one "lane" gets a green light means the other (opposite) lane gets a red light, which means "stop". Both can't get green lights, but it seems this is different in the states(?).

good luck with your case, though.

#18 Edited by GamingGod999 (2973 posts) -

Ah, that sucks.

Care to post a pic of your car before the accident? I'm intrigued.

#19 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

Same exact thing happened to me before. Guy didn't yield for a left turn and crushed in the front end of my car, then claimed he had the green arrow. Insurance company didn't want to pay since there was no proof and no witnesses.

idk what my lawyer did, but he sorted it out.

#20 Edited by Toxic-Seahorse (4118 posts) -

The only thing you can really do is hope some local businesses have cameras pointing at the intersection. That or hope the police believe you. People suck.

I got my car totaled going straight at a green light but the other driver tried to turn left from the intersecting road on a red light. He was way late. Luckily fore me, the guy wasn't a complete douche bag and admitted fault. That plus I had a bunch of witnesses because even though to was well past 10pm, it was a busy intersection.

The worst part is that, being a college student, I can only afford PLPD on my car, meaning I got a measly $500 from his insurance and I was on my own to buy a new car. I still haven't recovered financially from it.

#21 Edited by PinkiePirate (2086 posts) -

@PinkiePirate:

are you a female driver??

No. Why should that matter?

Ah, that sucks.

Care to post a pic of your car before the accident? I'm intrigued.

Sure.

#22 Edited by PinkiePirate (2086 posts) -

The incident occurred at an actuated intersection with cameras as detectors. The only reason my light would be red is if there were other cars present on the intersecting road. The road I was on was a main road where the actuated signal is to remain green unless traffic is detected by the cameras. No matter how long the other driver sits at the left turn lane, it will never become a protected arrow if no traffic is present. If cars existed on the intersecting road, then there would be more witnesses because their cars would be stopped behind the intersection. I'm just using plain old common sense and logic here.

I don't know, it just seems like a 3rd grader could figure out that it's impossible for my light to be red. I'm disappointed that the other insurance company doesn't understand the fundamentals of how a traffic signal operates.

#23 Edited by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

Truth is it doesnt matter...

As long as he isnt trying sue or you get a ticket for red light. The reason is sadly the law and insurance claims voth parties are at fualt when a accident happens

#25 Posted by hippiesanta (9812 posts) -
#26 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -
#27 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150374 posts) -

Truth is it doesnt matter...

As long as he isnt trying sue or you get a ticket for red light. The reason is sadly the law and insurance claims voth parties are at fualt when a accident happens

Ah no. Both parties are not always at fault. And getting the deductible back does matter.

#29 Posted by Bikouchu35 (7353 posts) -

o.O thank god my relatives are lawyers. Perhaps the driver mistaken a solid green for an arrow and didn't yield.

#30 Edited by junglist101 (5457 posts) -

@PinkiePirate said:

The incident occurred at an actuated intersection with cameras as detectors. The only reason my light would be red is if there were other cars present on the intersecting road. The road I was on was a main road where the actuated signal is to remain green unless traffic is detected by the cameras. No matter how long the other driver sits at the left turn lane, it will never become a protected arrow if no traffic is present. If cars existed on the intersecting road, then there would be more witnesses because their cars would be stopped behind the intersection. I'm just using plain old common sense and logic here.

I don't know, it just seems like a 3rd grader could figure out that it's impossible for my light to be red. I'm disappointed that the other insurance company doesn't understand the fundamentals of how a traffic signal operates.

The other insurance company is of course going to try to paint the incident in their favor. Let your insurance company worry about the other person's insurance company. That is what you pay them for. I feel like you're worrying too much.