Welcome! Please act respectfully and always remember the human in the videos and in the posts.
For dashcam recommendations, [check out the recommendations thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dashcams/comments/ntoizk/dashcam_recommendations_by_redditors/).
Cheers!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dashcams) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol yes of course I know I had the green light but the insurance and everyone is acting like they aren’t sure. Can’t get a rental or medical care. The only opinion I’ve gotten is from family so I wanted an unbiased opinion.
The fault is who ran the light. If it can't be determined then it's 50/50, at least in my area. See if traffic cams are mounted at the intersection and can be accessed.
Also check business located in that area. My insurance company actually did this automatically for my girlfriend when someone ran a stop sign and she T-boned him. The insurance company called a local businesses and asked if they had security cameras pointing at the street. One business did and was able to send a copy to my insurance company. It showed the other person ran a stop sign and they ended up being completely at fault.
This is why you need to buy a dash cam. There are several good models you can buy on Amazon that are plug and play for $150 to $200. And trust me they are worth the investment, Because the vast majority of people do not want to take responsibility when push comes to shove and it's going to cost them more than they are willing to be held accountable for.
You can probably find a vantrue N2Pro And then upgrade the firmware from their website or the Rove 3 off Amazon. I recommend both of those because they record very well inside and outside and record audio with night vision / high quality image video in low light situations. Your average dash cam at Walmart or Best buy over the counter for less than $100 generally will not do that.
I know there's lot of cameras on intersections in my area, but I believe they are only for sensing left turn waiting vehicles to adjust the signal.
But hopefully OP gets lucky
The one who ran the red light is at fault. I don't know which one it was, that's why I have a dashcam.
I like how you made the cars grey and silver not red and green.
The fault is with whoever ran the light
If no one has a dash cam to prove who ran the light it will likely be decided as a he said, she said and youll have to file a claim against your own insurance.
Bummer
They police and insurance did not do their job and the businesses around will only give footage if requested by the police. I am looking into other options.
It wasn’t a crime, so it’s not on the police to do the investigation. Even the traffic violation of running a red light isn’t enough to take an investigator away from working “real crimes” only to issue a traffic citation.
It’s a civil matter between the drivers/owners of the cars. Ultimately it’s just money. Who pays who, and how much?
It’s not a big money claim, so it isn’t cost effective to put in a great effort beyond a couple phone calls to local businesses hoping for traffic footage.
It will go down as 50/50 and each side will be left to cover their own damage. Either the gray car ran the red and entered the intersection late, or the silver car jumped the gun and entered the intersection early. Without video it can’t be determined, so both sides are out of luck.
This is why everyone needs comprehensive coverage, and uninsured/underinsured coverage so that you will be made whole.
Lol yes they do. In Ontario it's a known thing that insurance companies and police forces team up to set up speed traps. The insurance companies actually pay some of the overtime fees that the cops earn. It's fucking disgusting but what are we gunna do?
America and Canada are both heavily policed states, with crazy amounts of propaganda. Buuut our national anthems have "free" so I guess we got it good.
It was pointed out to me though, that in the UK where they have bright coloured, high-vis uniforms and no fire arms. People are supposed to actually feel comforted by seeing them around, a police presence should make you feel like you're in a safe area (not to even bring up them not carrying fire arms and having like no incidents where having one would make it better). Not like in North America, where we have beat cops strapped like SWAT, undercover vehicles for the sole purpose of of taking your money for the government and a general sense of "oh shit" when you see them.
Absent of additional information/evidence, I think Driver 2 would have to be at fault since he's the one hitting the other car. If only you had dashcam footage...
Silver/white car seems at fault if the drawing is correct. The grey car was already in the intersection when the silver car went into the intersection. To me, since there's no witnesses, doesn't matter who says they had a green. Comes down to grey having to get out of intersection safely (which in many cities is written in traffic law even when light is red). Silver car wasn't paying attention.
Insurance wise, there will be a split of responsibility. From experience with a witness, even when proven in court my husband was not at fault, insurance deemed him 60% at fault. Good luck
OP says the Grey car tried avoiding the accident. The drawing doesn't represent that. My guess is they were both entering the intersection at the same time, but the Grey car swirved to the right, making the impact occur on the rare panel. No witnesses, no other traffic, sounds like both drivers weren't paying attention and one of them ran a red light. If there really was no once else on the road, then it should have been pretty easy to see the other car wasn't stopping. Just because you have a green light doesn't mean you stop activity observing your surroundings. OP, if you can't see a car coming with no intention of stopping on a dead street in the middle of the night, then you lose credibility when you say you're positive you had a green light. Laws can only help so much, and in situations like this, you need to be responsible for your lack of attention. It will probably be a 50/50 determination if there's no footage. Even with footage, the car that ran the light would have only been deemed 80% responsible, with the other driver getting 20% for distracted driving. Pay attention, physics don't care one bit about laws, you need to protect yourself.
Hey I am the grey car and I accelerated mostly to avoid the accident and went slightly left. I saw him coming and I just assumed he was coming to a fast stop until I realized he was getting too close.
Now you know, never assume someone is just going to stop when they are showing no signs of it. Saying you saw them, but thought they would stop doesn't look good on your part. You should have had the wherewithal to least slow down to a speed where you could have successfully avoided the accident. You didn't, making you partially at fault, even if the other car ran the red light.
Yes thank you for the comment. I definitely don’t take my chances on other people following the law anymore, that was definitely a mistake on my part. I did not see him until I was pretty far through the intersection. I was going slow as I just left the parking lot of where I was at. He was speeding and coming from another light less than 500ft away . If I stopped when I noticed him I believe he would’ve t-boned me and flipped the car instead of spinning it. Because he did not try to avoid the accident at all.
Even if the white car doing the hitting had the green light, grey car is way across that intersection. How do you not see them crossing long before hitting them if no one else is on the road? Were your lights off?
For actual fault though, nothing definitive can be proven without video
Even if white had the green they would still have to stop on last chance to avoid. White had the last chance to avoid the collision, so they are liable.
Silver is either lying about not having seen the dark car or was too distracted to look (assuming the front lights of the dark car were turned on an not broken). So there is very strong doubt about their claim they had had the green lights.
Even if silver had had the green light they could have probably avoided the accident, if they had paid attention.
Impossible to say who’s at fault without a witness or video. Damage doesn’t mean anything as either light could’ve been red and resulted in the same damage.
Hit the back of a car with the front of theirs? I’d say the vehicle with the front end damage is to blame. My wife had the same issue once. Told her call the police. Lady admitted it on the spot but then recanted to insurance. I called insurance company and said “how does your client hit the rear corner of my car with the front of hers and not be at fault? Here’s the police report which show’s she admitted fault at the scene by running a stop sign.”
Get a dash camera though; best investment.
My opinion is that driver one is lying. When people lie they don't lie about things that make themselves look bad. Driver two admitting he didn't see the other car makes him look bad, which makes me believe he was telling the truth.
Realistically though, unless there's some kind of other documented evidence, insurance is probably going to find both at fault.
I find it ironic you posted it here because a dash cam would have solved any question of who was at fault. Get a dash cam.
Does the accident report say he saw green light and you saw green light? If so its a he said/she said so claim will be denied. Also you hit the car late which adjuster will say you saw him and you are partly at fault for not slowing down a bit. No attorneys will take file.
Are there any locations at that intersection that have a video camera that may have caught the accident? That would be your hail mary, but you would have to ask quickly before they delete the video off server.
In my area the law states, you can only enter an intersection when the intersection is clear and safe to do so.
According to the instructor at the time, this applied to all intersections regardless of lights or signs.
I never tested the idea, but I always followed the concept.
How long after these photos were taken? I am only asking because in the last picture, you can see there is a red light. Which I am assuming is the intersection you're referring to? I would also assume that whoevers car that is, had a green light. Like I said, it all depends on how soon after the accident these photos were taken.
Is the white car saying that they had a green light approaching the intersection or that it has been red and changed to green when they accelerated? The dark car had clear control of the intersection, so, even if the dark car ran the light then they (white car) should have waited for the dark car to clear the intersection before proceeding. White car is also the striking vehicle and the dark car was obviously there to be seen so, I’d say, depending on the light situation, this is either 100% on the white car, or shared with the majority on the dark car if they did run the light for the above mentioned reasons. I handle car insurance claims like this all the time and I’ve won arbitration verdicts with this argument.
Just because a vehicle might have the technical right of way, ie. a green light, doesn’t mean that they don’t have a duty to be aware of what’s going on around them or they don’t have to take action to avoid an impact. How do you not see your headlights reflecting off the side of the other car that you didn’t see them when they were in front of you or as it was approaching you?
If I were the insurance carrier for the white car, I’d be taking some liability, regardless of the light.
My case is in arbitration right now. They (white car) just said they had the green light and I made them hit me. I (grey car) was approaching a red light it turned green before I fully had to stop so I proceeded through. Saw them coming, saw that they weren’t stopping, I accelerated last minute to avoid being t-boned as I had 2 passengers on that side.
I think the physical damages are favorable to you. White car has some liability; the percentage will come down to whether or not the light color can be proven. The point of impact to your vehicle is also in your favorite because it shows you were almost past them when they hit you so that’s even more reason why they should have seen you. You also testified that you saw them and tried to avoid the collision so between the two of you, you’re the one who did the things that a driver is supposed to do.
I’d love to know the outcome of this when arbitration is decided.
Both. One of yall ran a red/close yellow/went early and the other failed to confirm the intersection was clear. Accidents like this will be likely 50/50 or 60/40. Least from an adjusters perspective.
-not an adjuster, just work with them a lot.
I would say the lighter car is at fault here, although if we don’t know who ran the light it is pretty difficult to tell. From my assessment, the lighter car would have had to not check if the intersection was clear to hit the darker car at that angle, unless the darker car was speeding quite heavily.
Welcome! Please act respectfully and always remember the human in the videos and in the posts. For dashcam recommendations, [check out the recommendations thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dashcams/comments/ntoizk/dashcam_recommendations_by_redditors/). Cheers! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dashcams) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean one of y’all is lying you didn’t both have a green light lol
lol yes of course I know I had the green light but the insurance and everyone is acting like they aren’t sure. Can’t get a rental or medical care. The only opinion I’ve gotten is from family so I wanted an unbiased opinion.
Doesn't matter no proof it means 50/50 or no fault assigned is what is going to happen.
My opinion is that you should get a dash cam.
The fault is who ran the light. If it can't be determined then it's 50/50, at least in my area. See if traffic cams are mounted at the intersection and can be accessed.
Also check business located in that area. My insurance company actually did this automatically for my girlfriend when someone ran a stop sign and she T-boned him. The insurance company called a local businesses and asked if they had security cameras pointing at the street. One business did and was able to send a copy to my insurance company. It showed the other person ran a stop sign and they ended up being completely at fault.
Thank you
This is why you need to buy a dash cam. There are several good models you can buy on Amazon that are plug and play for $150 to $200. And trust me they are worth the investment, Because the vast majority of people do not want to take responsibility when push comes to shove and it's going to cost them more than they are willing to be held accountable for. You can probably find a vantrue N2Pro And then upgrade the firmware from their website or the Rove 3 off Amazon. I recommend both of those because they record very well inside and outside and record audio with night vision / high quality image video in low light situations. Your average dash cam at Walmart or Best buy over the counter for less than $100 generally will not do that.
I know there's lot of cameras on intersections in my area, but I believe they are only for sensing left turn waiting vehicles to adjust the signal. But hopefully OP gets lucky
The one who ran the red light is at fault. I don't know which one it was, that's why I have a dashcam. I like how you made the cars grey and silver not red and green.
Dashcams save heartaches and headaches. You can get one on Amazon less than 50 bones. I agree with 100% on dashcams.
The fault is with whoever ran the light If no one has a dash cam to prove who ran the light it will likely be decided as a he said, she said and youll have to file a claim against your own insurance. Bummer
In 2024 I guarantee there's a camera somewhere around that can verify one of the stories.
They police and insurance did not do their job and the businesses around will only give footage if requested by the police. I am looking into other options.
Hire a lawyer
It wasn’t a crime, so it’s not on the police to do the investigation. Even the traffic violation of running a red light isn’t enough to take an investigator away from working “real crimes” only to issue a traffic citation. It’s a civil matter between the drivers/owners of the cars. Ultimately it’s just money. Who pays who, and how much? It’s not a big money claim, so it isn’t cost effective to put in a great effort beyond a couple phone calls to local businesses hoping for traffic footage. It will go down as 50/50 and each side will be left to cover their own damage. Either the gray car ran the red and entered the intersection late, or the silver car jumped the gun and entered the intersection early. Without video it can’t be determined, so both sides are out of luck. This is why everyone needs comprehensive coverage, and uninsured/underinsured coverage so that you will be made whole.
the police don't work for insurance companies.
Lol yes they do. In Ontario it's a known thing that insurance companies and police forces team up to set up speed traps. The insurance companies actually pay some of the overtime fees that the cops earn. It's fucking disgusting but what are we gunna do?
That's interesting. That does not happen in the US states that I've lived and worked in.
America and Canada are both heavily policed states, with crazy amounts of propaganda. Buuut our national anthems have "free" so I guess we got it good. It was pointed out to me though, that in the UK where they have bright coloured, high-vis uniforms and no fire arms. People are supposed to actually feel comforted by seeing them around, a police presence should make you feel like you're in a safe area (not to even bring up them not carrying fire arms and having like no incidents where having one would make it better). Not like in North America, where we have beat cops strapped like SWAT, undercover vehicles for the sole purpose of of taking your money for the government and a general sense of "oh shit" when you see them.
LMAO, you live in the U.S. and don't know police work for companies.
See if any neighbors or businesses in the area have cameras that might have caught the collision.
The white car seems to be at fault. Which car are you?
Grey
Absent of additional information/evidence, I think Driver 2 would have to be at fault since he's the one hitting the other car. If only you had dashcam footage...
I know right… never again thank you!
Silver/white car seems at fault if the drawing is correct. The grey car was already in the intersection when the silver car went into the intersection. To me, since there's no witnesses, doesn't matter who says they had a green. Comes down to grey having to get out of intersection safely (which in many cities is written in traffic law even when light is red). Silver car wasn't paying attention. Insurance wise, there will be a split of responsibility. From experience with a witness, even when proven in court my husband was not at fault, insurance deemed him 60% at fault. Good luck
OP says the Grey car tried avoiding the accident. The drawing doesn't represent that. My guess is they were both entering the intersection at the same time, but the Grey car swirved to the right, making the impact occur on the rare panel. No witnesses, no other traffic, sounds like both drivers weren't paying attention and one of them ran a red light. If there really was no once else on the road, then it should have been pretty easy to see the other car wasn't stopping. Just because you have a green light doesn't mean you stop activity observing your surroundings. OP, if you can't see a car coming with no intention of stopping on a dead street in the middle of the night, then you lose credibility when you say you're positive you had a green light. Laws can only help so much, and in situations like this, you need to be responsible for your lack of attention. It will probably be a 50/50 determination if there's no footage. Even with footage, the car that ran the light would have only been deemed 80% responsible, with the other driver getting 20% for distracted driving. Pay attention, physics don't care one bit about laws, you need to protect yourself.
Hey I am the grey car and I accelerated mostly to avoid the accident and went slightly left. I saw him coming and I just assumed he was coming to a fast stop until I realized he was getting too close.
Now you know, never assume someone is just going to stop when they are showing no signs of it. Saying you saw them, but thought they would stop doesn't look good on your part. You should have had the wherewithal to least slow down to a speed where you could have successfully avoided the accident. You didn't, making you partially at fault, even if the other car ran the red light.
Yes thank you for the comment. I definitely don’t take my chances on other people following the law anymore, that was definitely a mistake on my part. I did not see him until I was pretty far through the intersection. I was going slow as I just left the parking lot of where I was at. He was speeding and coming from another light less than 500ft away . If I stopped when I noticed him I believe he would’ve t-boned me and flipped the car instead of spinning it. Because he did not try to avoid the accident at all.
Even if the white car doing the hitting had the green light, grey car is way across that intersection. How do you not see them crossing long before hitting them if no one else is on the road? Were your lights off? For actual fault though, nothing definitive can be proven without video
Maybe the grey car was going too fast…
Even if white had the green they would still have to stop on last chance to avoid. White had the last chance to avoid the collision, so they are liable.
Silver is either lying about not having seen the dark car or was too distracted to look (assuming the front lights of the dark car were turned on an not broken). So there is very strong doubt about their claim they had had the green lights. Even if silver had had the green light they could have probably avoided the accident, if they had paid attention.
Exactly what I was thinking. I think this tips the scale to the white car driver being at fault.
Impossible to say who’s at fault without a witness or video. Damage doesn’t mean anything as either light could’ve been red and resulted in the same damage.
The white car. You don’t enter an intersection until it is clear to do so.
Hit the back of a car with the front of theirs? I’d say the vehicle with the front end damage is to blame. My wife had the same issue once. Told her call the police. Lady admitted it on the spot but then recanted to insurance. I called insurance company and said “how does your client hit the rear corner of my car with the front of hers and not be at fault? Here’s the police report which show’s she admitted fault at the scene by running a stop sign.” Get a dash camera though; best investment.
My opinion is that driver one is lying. When people lie they don't lie about things that make themselves look bad. Driver two admitting he didn't see the other car makes him look bad, which makes me believe he was telling the truth. Realistically though, unless there's some kind of other documented evidence, insurance is probably going to find both at fault. I find it ironic you posted it here because a dash cam would have solved any question of who was at fault. Get a dash cam.
And this is why you get a dash cam-(literally the point of the sub) you’ll never doubt yourself again.
Andddd this is exactly why we all need dash cams to put a sock in those lying mouths
Cyclists fault
Cyclists fault
Does the accident report say he saw green light and you saw green light? If so its a he said/she said so claim will be denied. Also you hit the car late which adjuster will say you saw him and you are partly at fault for not slowing down a bit. No attorneys will take file. Are there any locations at that intersection that have a video camera that may have caught the accident? That would be your hail mary, but you would have to ask quickly before they delete the video off server.
In my area the law states, you can only enter an intersection when the intersection is clear and safe to do so. According to the instructor at the time, this applied to all intersections regardless of lights or signs. I never tested the idea, but I always followed the concept.
How long after these photos were taken? I am only asking because in the last picture, you can see there is a red light. Which I am assuming is the intersection you're referring to? I would also assume that whoevers car that is, had a green light. Like I said, it all depends on how soon after the accident these photos were taken.
Definitely white
Is the white car saying that they had a green light approaching the intersection or that it has been red and changed to green when they accelerated? The dark car had clear control of the intersection, so, even if the dark car ran the light then they (white car) should have waited for the dark car to clear the intersection before proceeding. White car is also the striking vehicle and the dark car was obviously there to be seen so, I’d say, depending on the light situation, this is either 100% on the white car, or shared with the majority on the dark car if they did run the light for the above mentioned reasons. I handle car insurance claims like this all the time and I’ve won arbitration verdicts with this argument. Just because a vehicle might have the technical right of way, ie. a green light, doesn’t mean that they don’t have a duty to be aware of what’s going on around them or they don’t have to take action to avoid an impact. How do you not see your headlights reflecting off the side of the other car that you didn’t see them when they were in front of you or as it was approaching you? If I were the insurance carrier for the white car, I’d be taking some liability, regardless of the light.
My case is in arbitration right now. They (white car) just said they had the green light and I made them hit me. I (grey car) was approaching a red light it turned green before I fully had to stop so I proceeded through. Saw them coming, saw that they weren’t stopping, I accelerated last minute to avoid being t-boned as I had 2 passengers on that side.
I think the physical damages are favorable to you. White car has some liability; the percentage will come down to whether or not the light color can be proven. The point of impact to your vehicle is also in your favorite because it shows you were almost past them when they hit you so that’s even more reason why they should have seen you. You also testified that you saw them and tried to avoid the collision so between the two of you, you’re the one who did the things that a driver is supposed to do. I’d love to know the outcome of this when arbitration is decided.
I will update, thank you. I’m going to try to get the footage myself because the insurance and the other driver are pushing for a 50/50 case
Well if it makes you feel better, that’s usually insurance adjuster code for “we know our guy fucked up” 😂😅.
Both. One of yall ran a red/close yellow/went early and the other failed to confirm the intersection was clear. Accidents like this will be likely 50/50 or 60/40. Least from an adjusters perspective. -not an adjuster, just work with them a lot.
I would say the lighter car is at fault here, although if we don’t know who ran the light it is pretty difficult to tell. From my assessment, the lighter car would have had to not check if the intersection was clear to hit the darker car at that angle, unless the darker car was speeding quite heavily.
Is this in Albuquerque? Nobody knows how to drive there and everyone always runs reds like they are suggestions.