A Gift From Whitehorse, YT -- part 2

[AKOne]

This is the kicker. If I and the other guy began rolling at the same time as the light changed to green, the distance the pick-up had to travel -- as the overhead picture shows -- to reach my coach was substantially further than the distance I covered. A clear indication of his speed. Then there's the question, could the other driver not see a 12 foot tall 40 long motorhome making a hard, slow right turn with turn signal on? Even if I swung wide, the collision was avoidable. And, what if I at the last minute canceled my right turn signal and continued straight? What would the pick-up drivers excuse be then for the collision? That is why there is distinction as who has the right away and who much yield. Charging into an intersection is a bad idea. Anyway, these were all points I made to the Progressive.

[Finance]

Taking the position that this happens to me repeatedly,but it's not my fault or cause to examine my own habits is not a winning strategy.

You've stated your front steering was at maximum cut which if true means you were always going to take two lanes for your turn. Many drivers of smaller vehicles don't understand the maneuvering requirements of large vehicles, nor do I, as a defensive driver, expect them to.

If my behavior is going to vary from the expectations of those around me, I'm on guard to ensure adequate opportunity for those other drivers to recognize my actions and respond to avoid a collision. When you need two lanes to make a turn it's on you to avoid colliding with others who may assume the right lane is yours and the left lane is theirs.

I do agree with your advice on dash cams, we use one.

[RVPioneer]

Originally Posted by Finance

Taking the position that this happens to me repeatedly,but it's not my fault or cause to examine my own habits is not a winning strategy.

You've stated your front steering was at maximum cut which if true means you were always going to take two lanes for your turn. Many drivers of smaller vehicles don't understand the maneuvering requirements of large vehicles, nor do I, as a defensive driver, expect them to.

If my behavior is going to vary from the expectations of those around me, I'm on guard to ensure adequate opportunity for those other drivers to recognize my actions and respond to avoid a collision. When you need two lanes to make a turn it's on you to avoid colliding with others who may assume the right lane is yours and the left lane is theirs.

I do agree with your advice on dash cams, we use one.

There’s no way that the pick up truck driver is anything less than 100% at fault in this incident.

[Superburban]

Originally Posted by RVPioneer

There’s no way that the pick up truck driver is anything less than 100% at fault in this incident.

It comes down to the laws of the territory. If they have trhe crazy no fault laws like many states, all parties are automatically 10%, just for being there. Then one would need to determine which side of the white line the crash took place. The Op says the left side, I would bet the pickup driver says the right side. The pics, and diagrams the Op presented, lean more towards the pickups version.


Don't ever think your insurance company is on your side.

[RVPioneer]

Originally Posted by Superburban

It comes down to the laws of the territory. If they have trhe crazy no fault laws like many states, all parties are automatically 10%, just for being there. Then one would need to determine which side of the white line the crash took place. The Op says the left side, I would bet the pickup driver says the right side. The pics, and diagrams the Op presented, lean more towards the pickups version.


Don't ever think your insurance company is on your side.

The OP posted the laws/rules for that territory. The vehicle turning right has the right of way over the vehicle turning left. The vehicle turning left is responsible for seeing and understanding what is occurring in and beyond the intersection which they intend to enter. What they were thinking we’ll never know. What they did was broadside a big, white 40’ motorhome in broad daylight.

[Superburban]

Where does the intersection end, and the multi lane highway begin?


While I believe insurance companies are not your friend, They also operate in a manor that prevents them from being taken to court, and losing. I'm sure there is some substance in their decision.

[RVPioneer]

Originally Posted by Superburban

Where does the intersection end, and the multi lane highway begin?


While I believe insurance companies are not your friend, They also operate in a manor that prevents them from being taken to court, and losing. I'm sure there is some substance in their decision.

I don’t find the question relevant. A vehicle turning left must yield to oncoming traffic until it is safe for them to make their turn. Oncoming traffic includes vehicles making a right turn. Many large vehicles will use more than one lane from both the road that are turning from and the road they are turning to. It is not illegal and it is up to the vehicle waiting to turn left to abide by the law and not proceed as if they are the only vehicle on the road. In my opinion this incident would not have occurred had the vehicle turning left obeyed the law.

I won’t speculate on the motives or decisions of the insurance company.

[Superburban]

Not irreverent at all. Obviously well into the lanes divided by a solid white line. The RV had a wide sweeping turn, and by the OPs posting, was on his side of the dividing line. If thats the case, the the pickup was definitely the party not keeping his lane.


If the impact area is still considered part of the intersection, then we could agree that the pickup did not yield. If it is considered the highway, as evidenced by the solid white line, then the pickup had every right to pass the RV, and the RV should have been well into his lane.


This was a he said - she said deal. And a good example of why everything you say and do right after an accident is important. If the RV was well in his lane, he erred by turning into the center of both lanes, and stopping. What would a reasonable person do? stop? or pull off to the side? I can't see a reasonable person turning into the space where the other vehicle was, and stopping, where you are blocking the highway.



What is the YT's laws on turning onto a multi-lane roadway? Is it like most states, where you have to turn into the closest lane, then make a lane change if necessary? If so, then again, the pickup was within his right to take the left lane. and pass the RV. If not, then in court, it would go back to what a reasonable driver would do.


With the information we have, I can understand why the insurance company handled it the way they did. But a few actions on the RV driver, could have made it into a 50/50 or better case. Like any time you go to court, it is not a question of what happened, but what the evidence shows as what happened. The pictures, the diagrams, do not match the RV drivers statement. Does not mean he is wrong, but does add more value to the PU drivers story.

[RVPioneer]

The photo in post 7 shows the coach partly in the lanes and partly in the intersection. The rear tires are within the right lane and the front tires have swung wide into the next lane. This is a common practice when making a right turn in a large vehicle. Legal or not, it happens all the time. This photo appears to be post-collision as evidenced by the damage, the open entry door and no driver being present.

Where was the coach when the impact occurred? Perhaps 10-20’ farther back. Either way, the photo shows that the coach had not cleared the intersection even after the collision and coming to a stop. In my opinion, that is clear cut, indisputable evidence that the vehicle turning left failed to yield.

[Superburban]

Would you feel the same, when you read the police report that says the pickup was damaged at the right rear tire area? A lot of unknowns here. And the OP says the accident occurred on his side of the white line. To back up his story, look at the pics of the intersection, the turn is wide enough that he had no need to be in the left lane, and the white line starts well after the intersection.


Like I said, what I believe hurt the OP, was what he did, and said after the accident. Pulling into the left lane after the impact. taking a pic with the RV well into the left lane, well after the intersection. Submitting diagrams that show the impact as the left lane, while claiming he was in his lane, and did not cross over the line.


Parking the rig where he did, right away sets up in the police officers mind, that he was making a lane change, or had poor lane control.


Having had the duty of sitting down, and helping drivers fill out, and submit the official report, I can say everyone thinks their story is clear as heck, and cut and dry. But what they initially write down, is not.


Nobody is ever prepared for an accident. Yet what you say and do right afterwards, is what determines the fault. I do not know enough to say who's is at fault here, but I do see lots of things the OP could have done better to get his point across.

[RVPioneer]

A good friend of mine often says: “The facts, while interesting, are irrelevant.”
Everything you’ve said may be true.
What else is true, is that this accident would not have occurred had the driver turning left obeyed the law, and yielded to the vehicle turning right.
In my opinion, how many lanes the coach occupied while negotiating the turn or how much space may have existed between the right rear tire and the curb doesn’t matter. It does appear that the pickup driver thought he was participating in a NASCAR event and that decision led to a bad outcome.

[Superburban]

Once the RV started the right turn, he was no longer oncoming traffic. Once the RV turned, the pickup was perfectly legal to make his left hand turn, and pass the RV in the left lane.



Many places allow one to turn left, when the other vehicle if turning right. Thats why they have the laws that say you must take the lane closest to you, then make a safe lane change after you have turned. You cannot make a turn, and take whichever lane you please.



There is lots of new and seemingly crazy laws on the books now, that older drivers do not understand.

[RVPioneer]

http://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=2041

Here’s a link.

In particular, Part 11, Section 157(1) says a vehicle intending to make a right turn shall approach and exit the turn “as closely as practicable “ to the right curb.

That’s the short version. It is certainly open to interpretation. What is “practicable “ should be determined by the operator of the vehicle. The recommended approach and exit guidance is suitable for a passenger vehicle. Anyone who has completed a single right turn in a 40’ motorhome knows how impracticable that would be in said vehicle. The wording does not prohibit a vehicle from using all or part of an additional lane to make a right turn.

Section 163(2) “A driver intending to turn left across the path of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction shall not make or attempt to make the left turn unless the turn can be completed in safety”

It could be argued, incorrectly IMHO, that once the coach began it’s right turn, it was no longer approaching from the opposite direction. It could also be argued that the coach was approaching from the opposite direction and the driver turning left clearly violated Section 163(2).

That’s all the information the insurance company and the police need.
Truck waits to turn, no accident.

I’m done.

[Superburban]

Originally Posted by RVPioneer

That’s all the information the insurance company and the police need.
Truck waits to turn, no accident.

Apparently both did not see it the same as you.

I’m done.

Thankyou.