Question about an accident.

[MABoy]

I was recently involved in an accident where i was placed at fault by the cop who came to the scene. But this was without seeing a third party of the accident who had left.

So this is what happened.

I pulled up to a T intersection of a private way and a main street. I stopped for traffic, then a van pulls up to my left side obstructing my view of oncomming traffic to my left.

So the situation goes me on the right side of the private way, the van about a foot to the left of my door. The van being a mid 90's Ford E class van, and me driving a 2000 audi s4. With the substantial high difference i could not see into his passanger window to see his actions, or on comming traffic through his windows. Also this past week i saw the van again while driving and it appeared to have tinted windows which would have also attributed to my inability to see into or past it.

So i sit for a period of time, keeping an eye on the road infront of me as no traffic passed, and the van didn't move i decided he was stopped and doing something and that he probably wasn't moving anytime soon.(i knew the driver of the van, he is quite the agressive driver so i expected him to have made his turn, because he had ample time to have made several turns)

I take one last look at the van to try and see headlights or anything from oncomming traffic, and at the road, seeing no headlights(the accident took place at 4:48 pm november 18, so it was dark out) or Traffic, i decided to roll forward to try and regain view of the road. In doing so i impacted another vehicle in the passangers side.

So i back my car up, the van leaves, and shortly after the police show up. I am placed at fault because i impacted another vehicle.

According to my passanger, a co-worker of the driver of the van, he left because his license was suspended. I can't legaly confirm this because it wasn't checked out in a police database but if it is true.

According to the massachusetts RMV drivers manual at fault standards i could be placed at
http://www.mass.gov/rmv/dmanual/chapter6.pdf
Page 170

Collision at a T intersection
Failure to Yeild to Right of Way
Driving with an obstructed view(not sure if this is a law, i mean when driving your view is obstructed quite often)

The van
Noncontact Operator causing collision
Operating in the Wrong Direction
Operating a Vehicle with a suspended License

If he can be placed as part of the accident, would him leaving before the police arrived be Fleeing the scene of an accident.

it just seems to boil down to if he wasn't there the accident wouldn't have happened. (and he shouldn't have been driving in the first place if his license is indeed suspended, and not on the wrong side of the road) the accident wouldn't have happened.

I am trying to give an unbaised look at what happened, i am just looking for any input from the standpoint of a LEO on how fault could be placed.

[Dudley DoRight]

If you can't see oncoming traffic and you take a chance and pull into traffic, causing a crash...then you are at fault for what resulted. The car you hit didn't cause the crash...you hit him...and the stopped van didn't cause the crash because he was still sitting in his stopped vehicle. Depending on your local laws he might be required to give a statement (which would condem your actions ) , but YOU caused the crash. Where I work, the charges could be "unsafe start" or "drive without due care" or "emerging vehicle fail to yield".
If you cannot see the oncoming traffic then you don't move.

[L-1]

I can't speak for Massachusetts, but in California the fact that your view was obstructed by the other car doesn't mitigate your responsibility to ensure the intersection is clear before you enter. If anything, it reenforces negligence on your part because you entered the intersection when you knew you couldn't see cross traffic.

Based on what's listed in your message, there was nothing wrong with the van leaving the scene either. It is not a crime to operate a vehicle so big or dark that it obstructs the view of people driving smaller vehicles, so the presence of his van was not a contributing factor under the law.

I'm afraid you won't be able to wiggle out of this one. <G>

[Centurion44]

You are at fault. Failure to Yield while Entering the roadway.

[MABoy]

From my point of view the van did cause the crash.

Ok if the van didn't pull up on the wrong side of the road at the intersection my view wouldn't have been obstructed, i would have been able to see oncomming traffic and wouldn't have rolled forwawrd.

Further more if the van driver infact doesn't have a license, he shouldn't have been operating the vehicle in the first place which would means he shouldn't have ever been there.

My main arguement is that if the van wasn't there the accident wouldn't have happened. From my previous two statement, show 2 neglegent actions of the van driver part, operating on the wrong side of the road, and operating a vehcile with a suspended license.

Also if the van wasn't there and i did still roll forward for reasons unknown to me, the oncomming car would have been able to see me and swirve or honk, to alert me to my careless actions.

If you cared to click the PDF file linked there is a standard that says Noncontact operator causing collision, he wasn't in contact with either car, but his actions are what caused the collison, they were far more neglegent then me rolling forword at 2 mph for 1 second(which equates out to roughly 3 feet, which is what my car traveled) to try and see past the van to regain view of traffic.

[SgtScott31]

Trying to list all the faults/violations of the van driver doesn't do you any good. Your actions, not the van's, are the ones that caused that vehicle to have a smashed passenger side. It doesn't matter if the van driver was freakin Charles Manson, he didn't cause the collision, you did. The van definitely didn't help the scenario, but it was your car and ultimately your responsibility to know if a car was coming before entering the intersection. Not going to win this one, sorry.

[L-1]

Ditto as to what Sgt. Scott said. Your argument simply reaffirms that you chose to enter the intersection knowing full well that your view of cross traffic was blocked.

I sympathize with you regarding the van being on the wrong side of the road, blocking your vision and it's driver not having a license. But the simple fact is that the accident occurred only because you elected to enter the intersection when it was not safe to do so. You had other safe options such as waiting for the van to move but you chose to go ahead anyway.

I know it seems wrong to you but that's just the way the law is written. Until you can get the law changed, you won't get much support here.

Sorry.

L-1

[t150vsuptpr]

From my point of view the van did cause the crash.

Ok if the van didn't pull up on the wrong side of the road at the intersection my view wouldn't have been obstructed, i would have been able to see oncomming traffic and wouldn't have rolled forwawrd.

Further more if the van driver infact doesn't have a license, he shouldn't have been operating the vehicle in the first place which would means he shouldn't have ever been there.

My main arguement is that if the van wasn't there the accident wouldn't have happened. From my previous two statement, show 2 neglegent actions of the van driver part, operating on the wrong side of the road, and operating a vehcile with a suspended license.

Also if the van wasn't there and i did still roll forward for reasons unknown to me, the oncomming car would have been able to see me and swirve or honk, to alert me to my careless actions.

If you cared to click the PDF file linked there is a standard that says Noncontact operator causing collision, he wasn't in contact with either car, but his actions are what caused the collison, they were far more neglegent then me rolling forword at 2 mph for 1 second(which equates out to roughly 3 feet, which is what my car traveled) to try and see past the van to regain view of traffic.

What caused the crash was you taking the chance and rolling forward into a traffic lane that you couldn't be sure was clear. You got impatient, made assumptions, and took a chance, and cost an innocent driver. It's your fault. The van's position may have hindered your vision, but you still have the obligation to make sure it's safe to pull partially or fully into any lane before doing so. If that means you have to wait, you simply have to wait. ;)

[MABoy]

Ok then could somone explain to me what would constature a "Noncontact operator causing collision"

I mean i waited about a minute and the van didn't move, and about 45 seconds of it was trafficless. He said he was trying to talk to me, probably trying to signel me from his drivers seat, but i unable to see him didn't know this.

What is a person supposed to wait 10 minutes to make his move.

[Centurion44]

Ok then could somone explain to me what would constature a "Noncontact operator causing collision"

How did the van cause your accident? Did he force you into the intersection? Did he put a gun to your head and make you press the gas? No.

You entered the intersection. Because you did another car who had the right of way struck you.

What is a person supposed to wait 10 minutes to make his move.

People make good money giving driving lessons, so I'm not about to do it for free. You posed your questions, and like the cop on the scene we told you you were at fault. You don't like it so now you want to drag this out.

It's simple: If you don't know what to do in that situation, you don't need to be driving. If you want lessons, look in the Yellow Pages.

[SgtScott31]

Ok then could somone explain to me what would constature a "Noncontact operator causing collision"

I mean i waited about a minute and the van didn't move, and about 45 seconds of it was trafficless. He said he was trying to talk to me, probably trying to signel me from his drivers seat, but i unable to see him didn't know this.

What is a person supposed to wait 10 minutes to make his move.

I would wait 10 hrs if it meant my safety (and anyone else in the vehicle).

Non-contact operator would probably be someone pulling out in front of you and causing you to swerve and strike another vehicle or object. Technically, he's not involved in the accident/collision, but he caused it. Little different than your scenario.

[MABoy]

How did the van cause your accident? Did he force you into the intersection? Did he put a gun to your head and make you press the gas? No.

You entered the intersection. Because you did another car who had the right of way struck you.




Actualy i didn't press the gas, i let my foot half off the brake and rolled forward every so slightly.



People make good money giving driving lessons, so I'm not about to do it for free. You posed your questions, and like the cop on the scene we told you you were at fault. You don't like it so now you want to drag this out.

It's simple: If you don't know what to do in that situation, you don't need to be driving. If you want lessons, look in the Yellow Pages.

As tought in driving school when entering a primary street from a secondary street treat it as a stop sign.

If a stop Sign/line is placed in a situation where your vision is obsturcted to oncomming traffic roll forward ever so slightly to see the road.

And actualy i'm not trying to drag it out i am trying to present my point from all views to see if what seems to be the case really is or isn't.

And the condescending attitude you present yourself with doesn't seem to be on par with what a LEO should in a situation where a person is just trying to clarify his/her situation.

[Entre Nous]

May I just ask a question so I can understand what happened? When you say "impacted" do you mean you hit him or he hit you? It sounds like you hit him, but I wanted to make sure.

[Bigg Dogg]

Pay your fine,have your insurance pay for the damages.

[JKralC104]

Ok then could somone explain to me what would constature a "Noncontact operator causing collision"

I mean i waited about a minute and the van didn't move, and about 45 seconds of it was trafficless. He said he was trying to talk to me, probably trying to signel me from his drivers seat, but i unable to see him didn't know this.

What is a person supposed to wait 10 minutes to make his move.

You said the van left correct? How did he tell you he was trying to "talk" to you?

Personally, I think you have some issues with the law... Mad at the copper in this incident for citing you and your other post shows the same. Read the driving manual, pay your fine, and take more lessons. Don't justify your mistakes by pushing them off on someone else.

[Warhorse]

That's failure to use due care.. Van driver had nothing to do with the crash. Doesn't matter if he's suspended, revoked, D.U.I, dead... he was driving the VAN. YOU were driving YOUR car, which was the offending vehicle. Pay the fine and call your insurance company.

[t150vsuptpr]

Ok then could somone explain to me what would constature a "Noncontact operator causing collision"
1) ... You are driving down a two lane roadway and meeting a single vehicle, the speed limit is 55, you are both running 55, and then the oncoming car suddenly veers over the center line into your lane and you instantaneously swerve off the road to your right to avoid a partial headon with a moving vehicle and instead, you run through a fence and some small trees before coming to rest in a shallow creek. There was never any contact between vehicles, he caused the crash though.
2) ... You are traveling south on your favirite 6 lane (total) interstate, you are running in the left lane, there is a slightly slower car in the center lane that you are gradually coming up on, and a tractor trailer over in the right lane and suddenly the tractor trailer starts drifting into the center lane as it overtakes a slower tractor trailer ahead, and the driver of the car in the center lane drifts left to avoid getting hit by the tractor trailer coming into it's lane, and you being beside that car's rear fender, get struck by the car, and the truck never hits anything, and keeps going with no knowledge of the crash that he just caused.

I mean i waited about a minute and the van didn't move, and about 45 seconds of it was trafficless. He said he was trying to talk to me, probably trying to signel me from his drivers seat, but i unable to see him didn't know this.

What is a person supposed to wait 10 minutes to make his move.
1) ... Just one more reason that I bust a55 on illegal window tint.
2) ... Doesn't matter how long you sit, you never blindly pull into a traffic lane without making sure it's safe to do so for reasons that should be abundantly clear to you.


Happy New Years all ....... :)

[gotthblues]

a non impact contributing vehicle is a vehicle that changes lanes next to you and forces you off the road, they didn t hit you but you took evasive action to avoid them, or as someone already said, a vehicle pulls out in front you again take evasive action and crash, something of this nature,

you also might want to check the motor vehicle code in your state, in oklahoma, traffic laws do not apply to private property, and if i understand correctly, you were leaving a private drive, right, well, then the van did nothing wrong because there is no center of roadway on private property he can pull to your left or right, he might be guilty of being a butt head, but thats about it, another example, for okla, if you are leaving a parking lot and it has a stop sign posted, you dont stop and you crash, you didnt run a stop sign, you failed to yeild right of way from private drive, the stop sign is meaningless.

[Centurion44]

And actualy i'm not trying to drag it out i am trying to present my point from all views to see if what seems to be the case really is or isn't.

YOu can't. You can only present the point from your view. And it's a viewpoint that is wrong. Not one police officer on this thread has agreed with you. Take that as a hint and move on with your life.

And the condescending attitude you present yourself with doesn't seem to be on par with what a LEO should in a situation where a person is just trying to clarify his/her situation.

Pin on a badge. Strap on a gun. Walk a beat for 5 years. Then you can tell me what is on par and what isn't.

[Bodie]

In plain English your were where you should not have been. You should not have entered the intersection until it was clear enough for you to make the complete turn safely. You have no idea how many times officers hear the excuse you are using and that is what it is an excuse not a reasonable defense for your violation. "Something (VAN) blocked my view" when by being in the position you were van or not you had already commited a citable offense even without an crash happening.

I say crash because this wsa no accident it was a totally avoidable crash had you obeyed the traffic laws. Pay fine and admit fault and have insurance settle etc.

[MABoy]

Ok i understand. I see where you guys make your point and i admit fault.

Just answer me this one question, If the van wasn't there would this accident have happened?

[Bigg Dogg]

Ok i understand. I see where you guys make your point and i admit fault.

Just answer me this one question, If the van wasn't there would this accident have happened?


Would you have ever had the wreck if you wasn't there???

Was this the same time that you got the other tickets that the other thread is about???

[Punisher11]

It was the vans fault, and they should hunt that driver down and write him for driving suspended, and causing your accident. It should be his insurance company that pays for damage you caused to your car even though you were the one driving. The van driver should have to pay for the other car involved even though you hit it, because all the van driver did was pull up and block your view of oncoming traffic. That rotten B@#tard. Hey here is an idea, they should pass a law that if there is a van within a country mile of your accident scene that they're the at fault party. I would've wrote you for failure to yield to right of way traffic.... And if the van would've stuck around for the police to get there and discover he was suspended I would've locked' em up for being stupid enough to stick around when he knew the cops were on their way. :eek:

[gotthblues]

Ok i understand. I see where you guys make your point and i admit fault.

Just answer me this one question, If the van wasn't there would this accident have happened?

clarification needed here, insurance companies determine who is at fault, officers determine what actions contributed to the accident.*ie- if any traffic infractions were committed,*

if the van had not been there, would the accident have happened, could be yes, or could be no, i had worked accidents where someone just flat out didnt look good enough and pulled out, no excuse what so ever,

i assume that MA is probably simular to OK traffic laws, so i would bet that in MA an accident not involving an intoxicated driver or a fatality/great bodily injure is a civil matter, the officer only determines if any traffic laws were violated, then the insurance company does what they want, so you and/or your insurance company could sue the guy in the van, because the accident is a civil matter and in civil court you could argue that he caused the accident by not being courteous, *but good luck* and depending on the amount of damage $$$, it may not be worth it,

but as far as your ticket and being show to have contributed to the accident, again, you failed to yield the right of way from a private drive, so in traffic court, i'm sorry, you're SOL.

[MABoy]

Would you have ever had the wreck if you wasn't there???

Was this the same time that you got the other tickets that the other thread is about???

I see someone went to school with Our president, your grammer is simply amazing!

Yes i received 2 citations 1 for a JOL violation, and 1 for Failure to yeild to right of way.

It was the vans fault, and they should hunt that driver down and write him for driving suspended, and causing your accident. It should be his insurance company that pays for damage you caused to your car even though you were the one driving. The van driver should have to pay for the other car involved even though you hit it, because all the van driver did was pull up and block your view of oncoming traffic. That rotten B@#tard. Hey here is an idea, they should pass a law that if there is a van within a country mile of your accident scene that they're the at fault party. I would've wrote you for failure to yield to right of way traffic.... And if the van would've stuck around for the police to get there and discover he was suspended I would've locked' em up for being stupid enough to stick around when he knew the cops were on their way. :eek:

See here is your mistake, i could see if he was on the correct side of the road, but he wasn't. Furthermore i could see if he had a license and was simply trying to talk to me, because he knows me. But no he shouldn't have been in a vehicle and he shouldn't have been driving on the wrong side of the road.

clarification needed here, insurance companies determine who is at fault, officers determine what actions contributed to the accident.*ie- if any traffic infractions were committed,*


All i was saying is the infractions commited by the van put me in a situation where i was presented with a choice, continue waiting for an extended period of time, or roll forward assess traffic and continue. I can see how since i hit another vehicle it could be placed as my fault, but the vans infractions putting me in this situation seem to outweigh my actions.


if the van had not been there, would the accident have happened, could be yes, or could be no, i had worked accidents where someone just flat out didnt look good enough and pulled out, no excuse what so ever,


If the van wasn't there it would be my fault and i admit that. But he was and his actions caused my reaction.


i assume that MA is probably simular to OK traffic laws, so i would bet that in MA an accident not involving an intoxicated driver or a fatality/great bodily injure is a civil matter, the officer only determines if any traffic laws were violated, then the insurance company does what they want, so you and/or your insurance company could sue the guy in the van, because the accident is a civil matter and in civil court you could argue that he caused the accident by not being courteous, *but good luck* and depending on the amount of damage $$$, it may not be worth it,

but as far as your ticket and being show to have contributed to the accident, again, you failed to yield the right of way from a private drive, so in traffic court, i'm sorry, you're SOL.

Actualy as for the intoxicated part he very well could have been, but i was hesitant to mention it due to my only evidence being that he had a half empty bottle of jack daniels about an hour ealier that day, it wouldn't have been the first time i have seen him drive under the influence though.

As for the insurance part i understand this and i was just asking about the infractions the van may have commited and if it could help my case. I wouldn't say courteous, if a person operates a vehicle on the wrong side of the road obstructing your vision, and that person is operating a vehicle without a license, it seems more like a legality issue.

Yea i accept the ticket part i did fail to yeild to right, and theres nothing i can contest about it.

In total the damaged exceeded 7k on my car(it's an audi a scratch is 2k to fix, repairs: new bumper, radiator, condensor, and some paint), and probably more on the driver i hit.

[Bigg Dogg]

I see someone went to school with Our president, your grammer is simply amazing!

Yes i received 2 citations 1 for a JOL violation, and 1 for Failure to yeild to right of way..




That might be.But I get paid for going to court!!So apparently,I would be worrying about my driving instead of coming onto a Police Forum and insulting police officers,if I was you.But tehn again,maybe that is why you are receiving all these tickets.Are you just a loud mouth punk kid that talks himself into tickets,or just totally misunderstood???Like on this thread and the other????

[gotthblues]

As for the insurance part i understand this and i was just asking about the infractions the van may have commited and if it could help my case. I wouldn't say courteous, if a person operates a vehicle on the wrong side of the road obstructing your vision, and that person is operating a vehicle without a license, it seems more like a legality issue.

.

okay, where you in a parking lot, NOT ON THE ROADWAY, before entering the road, if so,, YOU NEED TO CHECK THE MOTOR VEHICLE LAW in your state, as i said earlier, if this is the case and your state laws are like okla law, then THE VAN COMMITED NO VIOLATION. there is no center of the road in a parking lot or in a driveway, no at all, so he CAN pull along side of you, on private property, COURTESY, is the only rule that applies, their are no wrong way drivers, there is no improper passing, so on, i brought up the insurance because they will usually fall back to traffic laws and apply them on private property, HOWEVER, these actions CAN NOT be cited by an officer, at least not in oklahoma. so basically if the van had stayed put, the officer could have included him in the accident diagram, but i promise you, the officer would not have showed the van to have made any improper actions,,

*not being smart *** here* but you said his actions forced you to react, right, well, why not back up, then you could have seen the road around from behind him,,just a thought,

[MABoy]

That might be.But I get paid for going to court!!So apparently,I would be worrying about my driving instead of coming onto a Police Forum and insulting police officers,if I was you.But tehn again,maybe that is why you are receiving all these tickets.Are you just a loud mouth punk kid that talks himself into tickets,or just totally misunderstood???Like on this thread and the other????


You guys started with the attacks, i just retaliated it's only human nature. Typically i'm not a punk, i don't have a police record, i don't get in trouble with the police. But when i feel i have been done wrong. I make it a point to fight it in a civil way, until i can be proven wrong, or right. In this thread it's mostly been acusations at me and what i did wrong, when i was questioning about something else.

[MABoy]

okay, where you in a parking lot, NOT ON THE ROADWAY, before entering the road, if so,, YOU NEED TO CHECK THE MOTOR VEHICLE LAW in your state, as i said earlier, if this is the case and your state laws are like okla law, then THE VAN COMMITED NO VIOLATION. there is no center of the road in a parking lot or in a driveway, no at all, so he CAN pull along side of you, on private property, COURTESY, is the only rule that applies, their are no wrong way drivers, there is no improper passing, so on, i brought up the insurance because they will usually fall back to traffic laws and apply them on private property, HOWEVER, these actions CAN NOT be cited by an officer, at least not in oklahoma. so basically if the van had stayed put, the officer could have included him in the accident diagram, but i promise you, the officer would not have showed the van to have made any improper actions,,

*not being smart *** here* but you said his actions forced you to react, right, well, why not back up, then you could have seen the road around from behind him,,just a thought,

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&cat=&address=25+cliff+way&city=dedham&state=ma&zipcode=02026

it wasn't a parking lot, is is a street, cliff way. You might need to zoom into see the road.

Yea in retrospect i probably should have backed up, but that didn't cross my mind. I have been told this and i acknowledge that it was probably the properthing to do not roll forward.

[gotthblues]

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&cat=&address=25+cliff+way&city=dedham&state=ma&zipcode=02026

it wasn't a parking lot, is is a street, cliff way. You might need to zoom into see the road.

Yea in retrospect i probably should have backed up, but that didn't cross my mind. I have been told this and i acknowledge that it was probably the properthing to do not roll forward.

okay, if thats the case then disregard all i have said earlier, the way i understood it earlier, you were leaving a parking lot pulling onto the street,

if you were on a street pulling onto another street, then you are going to need witnesses, did the vehicle that you hit see the van there?? other than that its just going to be your word,, and you brought up "human nature" in another post, well, *again not being smart *** or acussing* but no one wants to be at fault or pay $, so its going to be your word,, HOWEVER, again this is just okla law, but in this case you are still not relieved of your duty to operate safely, the van pulled up, blocked your view, YOU STILL have to make sure you can enter the other road/intersection safely, if the van had been moving and force you to make a movement it would be a different ballgame, BUT because they were stopped, again you are SOL. i know you dont want to hear it, no one does, but from what i can gather from your post, you are stuck holding the ball.

[gotthblues]

I pulled up to a T intersection of a private way and a main street.

this makes it sound like you were leaving a parking lot or a driveway,, pulling into the roadway,

[Bigg Dogg]

You guys started with the attacks, i just retaliated it's only human nature. Typically i'm not a punk, i don't have a police record, i don't get in trouble with the police. But when i feel i have been done wrong. I make it a point to fight it in a civil way, until i can be proven wrong, or right. In this thread it's mostly been acusations at me and what i did wrong, when i was questioning about something else.


First off,i never insulted you.If someone insulted you,be sure and insult them back,that helps your case even more!!!

[MABoy]

okay, if thats the case then disregard all i have said earlier, the way i understood it earlier, you were leaving a parking lot pulling onto the street,

if you were on a street pulling onto another street, then you are going to need witnesses, did the vehicle that you hit see the van there?? other than that its just going to be your word,, and you brought up "human nature" in another post, well, *again not being smart *** or acussing* but no one wants to be at fault or pay $, so its going to be your word,, HOWEVER, again this is just okla law, but in this case you are still not relieved of your duty to operate safely, the van pulled up, blocked your view, YOU STILL have to make sure you can enter the other road/intersection safely, if the van had been moving and force you to make a movement it would be a different ballgame, BUT because they were stopped, again you are SOL. i know you dont want to hear it, no one does, but from what i can gather from your post, you are stuck holding the ball.

I'm not clutching i was just waiting for an answer like yours above which is detailed and helpful. At the scene the other party did see the van and made note of it to the officer.

Aside from that i know 2 other people who saw the van, 1 being an employee of a towing company which was 15 feet away, though he probably wouldn't go against the van driver an employee of a refinishing company at the end of cliff way. And the other being a person i know who lives about 2 houses away who heard it and came out so see what happened. Both saw the van.

Again i restate myself, i didn't move for what felt to have been ample time for the van to have made his turn(i can assume left because he was heading home, i actualy just droppedhte guy off and he got into his work van because he no longer had a vehicle, and his boss let him use it) After that time i saw it fit to say the van didn't intend on moving.

Again the part i find troubling is the entering the intersection, while technically yes i did enter it, my vehicle was only slightly pertuding into what would be the main street. the accident occured due to neither vehicle involved in the accident being able to see eachother due to the van.

[MABoy]

First off,i never insulted you.If someone insulted you,be sure and insult them back,that helps your case even more!!!

I apologise for my previous statement, it was rash and uncalled for.

[gotthblues]

I'm not clutching i was just waiting for an answer like yours above which is detailed and helpful. At the scene the other party did see the van and made note of it to the officer.

Aside from that i know 2 other people who saw the van, 1 being an employee of a towing company which was 15 feet away, though he probably wouldn't go against the van driver an employee of a refinishing company at the end of cliff way. And the other being a person i know who lives about 2 houses away who heard it and came out so see what happened. Both saw the van.

Again i restate myself, i didn't move for what felt to have been ample time for the van to have made his turn(i can assume left because he was heading home, i actualy just droppedhte guy off and he got into his work van because he no longer had a vehicle, and his boss let him use it) After that time i saw it fit to say the van didn't intend on moving.

Again the part i find troubling is the entering the intersection, while technically yes i did enter it, my vehicle was only slightly pertuding into what would be the main street. the accident occured due to neither vehicle involved in the accident being able to see eachother due to the van.
then you need to see if you unbiased witnesses will appear in court on your behalf,

you had just dropped off the driver of the van?????? okay youre making my head hurt,,,,,

well, i see what your are saying about inching into the intersection, ive done it too, but its a gamble, but again, *going off okla law*, if you were on a two lane road, and the van pulled up and stopped next to you,yes he committed a traffic violation, but he didnt force you to make any action or movement, you just made a bad choice, it happens, and sorry, but it happend to you.

[Northtechsan]

Ok i understand. I see where you guys make your point and i admit fault.

Just answer me this one question, If the van wasn't there would this accident have happened?

If you would have waited until the van left, allowing you clear view of the on coming roadway the accident never would have happened.

If you were exiting a private drive whose view was obscured by a building, legally parked car, unidentified monolithic object, or any other person, place, or thing obstruction your view, and you pulled into the path of oncoming traffic because you could not see it. It would be your fault.

Plain and simple you decided to allow your car to enter the intersection when you, the driver, did not have the ability to see if the path was clear.

The driver of the van is not legally required to stay at an accident scene b/c his vehicle was not moving, not in a public roadway, and not involved in a crash. The license status of the van's driver is irrelevant in this case, and has no bearing on your decision to blindly place your car in front of on coming traffic.

As far as waiting for ample time, there isn't a traffic statue that I am aware of that states. A driver may legally enter a street from an obscured location after waiting X sec/min/hours/days

[Hinged]

Mass what a great STATE. Here it is in a lump some, Failing to yeild will get you a citation no matter what, down here especially if you entered the intersetion not knowing that it indeed was not safe. The second thing is there is no witness to what occured correct? im assuming your passanger told the officer something as well?. If his license was indeed suspended in MA that is an arrestable offense, however the van was not on the scene of the accident so how will the responding officer know?
Hopefully you can tell them what occured and see what the officer will do or even how he/she responds to it. For the most part if the accident does not do alot of damage to any vehicle just exchange papers. If your vehicle has substantial damage as well as the second vehicle involved then the report will be made for the insurance companies and the last thing involving that will be your "deductable". Good luck

[MABoy]

This thread is dead but what ever.

It was a public roadway, just non residential so it was classified as a pvt roadway, about 4 companies on the road.

For what i knew the van made an illegal pass attempt, operated on the wrong side of the road, and could have had his vehicle in park talking to someone out his window.

The accident occur me pulling far into an intersection, i rolled into a car at like 2 mph, while he was going 35-40.

All the officer got from my passanger was his info, no statement. I stated the van was there, and according to the officer the other party stated the van was there.

The officer is a ****** bag who tried 2 fu'ck me over. Wrote me a citation, but never sent me my copy so i defaulted, when i got a note from the registry i went to the police station and talked to him, he said he never wrote the citation. I go to the registry he wrote it just never sent me my copy. Not to mention he screwed up a law, and now i have to go to court over it, because he is an idiot, and wouldn't admit his mistake.

And it's already gone through insurance, it was like 7k in damaged to my car(keep in mind i drive an audi, it's super expensive for anything) And all it was, was the front bumper, radiator, and condensor, and a small dent to be pulled out of the hood.

My insurance company is already pursuing the van, i was just wondering what i could use against him if my insurance company asks me for a further statement.

[sergeantbell]

Sounds like a liberal to me. Trying to force HIS way of thinking on us. Look kid, you were wrong plain and simple. YOU pulled out into a lane that YOU could not see. YOU are the one at fault. The van is of no importance whatsoever. If it was a building that was blocking your view....would you blame the person who built it? Maybe the van shouldn't have been there. Who cares? You moved into the lane without being able to verify it was safe. Grow up and deal with it. Take responsibility for your actions for crying out loud. How many different ways do you have to hear that you F&^%*ed up?

[Mike11]

Ahh give him a break, he is from the state that keeps re-electing ol' Teddy!!!?????????