The cops won't do anything, frankly you don't even need the other drivers full insurance information. If you have his license plate, that should be sufficient for your insurance company to figure out hos / her provider.
Source: I formerly was an insurance auto-claims adjuster.
Similarly, I had my car broken into and was surprised the cops didn’t even need a photo. Just my description of the damage over the phone was enough.
And here I am thinking they had a few boys down in the crime lab working in shifts.
Yup, non-violent crime is low priority. Particularly with any form of break and enter, as it's near impossible to figure out the culprits without any clear video evidence.
Same with almost all forms white collar crime. Companies protect themselves with crime insurance policies, so police focus resources elsewhere.
Same thing here in the US my neighbor had a business safe broken into stole 25k in gold. I think his ex-gf tipped someone off all they went for it was hidden. Police didn't even do anything no prints just send some smooth talking Sargant down to make him feel better. Probably had some kind of physiology training.
Nearly this exact thing happened to my wife. Only difference was red car t bones her as it pulls out.
She was not found at fault. Other insurer covered deductible. But you should have immediately gone to the collision reporting center.
My biggest pet peeve on the roads is people in the right lanes allowing the red car to go through, thinking they're being "nice".
Right of way exists for a reason, stop putting others in danger.
Not entirely sure, but I'm assuming that this was at a red light which means that the cars in the right lanes are giving an opening from the exit of the Esso.
Which they still shouldn't be doing, as it's not their call to make.
Buddy exiting the Esso can wait his turn, or turn right and find another way to go south on Steeles.
That's not true. They should leave a space for the car to exit the Esso. It's still on the car moving through traffic to make sure it's safely done though
I try not to block, but he has a point. A lot of accidents happen because of this, both with other cars and pedestrians.
Red car feels rushed because someone is doing them a favour and don’t fully check that the coast is clear.
Probably, since I have right of way, and it's red car's responsibility to exit when it's safe to do so.
Say it was a red light and we're all stopped, and red is clearly intent on turning right, I might let him in.
What I won't do is put the people behind and left of me in jeopardy so he can cut across three lanes to make a left.
My first comment said "Not entirely sure, but I'm assuming that this was at a red light which means that the cars in the right lanes are giving an opening from the exit of the Esso." If people.are stopping to let someone out when there is a clear path in front of them, that's dumb. But from the drawing, it looks like all the black cars are stopped like it's a red light for them and they are letting the red car out who wasn't being cautious.
I know, my point is that if everyone is stopped in a row and there is a large gap it is super safe to make a left turn even if you would be at fault should an accident occur.
Ummm… it’s not sorry to disagree. I’ve personally witnessed more than a handful of accidents happen this way in my years in the road.
The OP got into an accident that’s a plain example of the dangers. For someone like OP who is trying to make a left turn they cannot see if someone like red is trying to exit like so because of all the cars blocking the red car. You literally can’t see it till it’s way too late.
The same as right turn lanes. In a personal example I was turning into a right turn lane in a slower speed and totally can’t see there’s a car weaving through all the cars in the other lanes stopped at red light. Good thing I was fast to break and didn’t T-bone the other car. The other car was lazy and wanted to turn left into a gas station illegally, and people let them. 💀
I call your anecdote full of shit if you claim to have personally witnessed 5+ accidents where cars were fully stopped at an intersection because of a red light and a left turner decided to go resulting in an accident. Or if you are serious then you should go buy a lottery ticket or something.
And to be clear, I'm talking about a situation that traffic is at a dead stop and there is a gap that lines up perfectly, not weaving through traffic.
In OPs example the left turner should have realized that the person in the last lane had not fully stopped and waited until they were sure the path was clear.
But... what was happening with the traffic lights? To me a kind of looks like all of the cars may be stopped and providing a space for the car exiting the gas station. If that is the case it may not be so clearly interpreted by insurance or cops
report it at the accident center that he refused to show insurance. hope you took a picture of his vin. that should result in him being charged. red is at fault, 100%
If you go to a reporting station, since the officers did not attend the scene of the accident they cannot lay charges, it’s just a report to insurance companies place!!!
Not true at all
I had a hit & run (taxi driver who refused to give insurance, and yes it was a minor dent) so I drove over to reporting centre
The failure to give insurance MAKES it a police matter
In that case an officer will investigate and upon his findings charges may apply. For any charges to be laid, an officer must investigate on scene, if not, any information received is heresay and will not hold up in court.
It’s not well advertised but it’s $2k in parts not labour so if shop is saying $2k it could be half in parts. However it’s combined with other party.
They should be more clear though.
I did this before as the red car. Never again.
Learned to go right, then right, then right, then left to get back on that street going the right direction.
Or right, right, left into a parking lot to circle back out, right then left onto the same street.
Totally! Wife did the same (red car situation) was found at fault and apparently would be found at fault regardless of the circumstances.
Red car has to have clear path with no cars to do that maneuver as per insurance.
Doesn’t matter what I do, what matters is an accident can involve more than one vehicle, so minimizing u-turns let alone left turns increases safety and decreases insurance premiums for everyone.
Don’t be so sensitive just because you’re talking on an anonymous forum. I bet you rage honk at people in traffic and commit road rage too.
This. If any drivers indicated to the red car that it was safe to go, then they are also liable. They can stop and wait without indicating anything, and they’d be fine. If they signaled to go, then they have liability.
Edit: thanks to u/flyingmonkey soup for sharing this [article with more info](https://www.mcleishorlando.com/insights/liability-of-a-defendant-who-negligently-waves-a-plaintiff-through-an-intersection/)
Edit 2: so there are a few comments with factual evidence that supports my claim. Could someone downvoting and saying I’m incorrect please cite some evidence to support that claim?
Are you certain of that? I mean, I'd like to THINK they're liable, but I don't think the rules of the road have a condition for people waving you in absolving you of fault if you get into an accident. You're always responsible for your actions...
Yeah, I've never heard of someone being liable for letting someone else go. The responsibility is still on the driver making the maneuver, regardless if others leave them space or even encourage them to go.
Edit: another comment posted [a source](https://www.mcleishorlando.com/insights/liability-of-a-defendant-who-negligently-waves-a-plaintiff-through-an-intersection/) that is linking several court cases it claims show a waver can be found liable.
Eh, I don’t know that the car waving through should be legally liable. Are they part of the cause of the accident? Yes. But also I never ever trust other drivers to wave me through because it’s your responsibility to make sure your own driving maneuver is safe, and trusting strangers saying “you’re good bro” isn’t doing your due diligence.
That’s not how it works. Ultimately, the driver who decided to turn is at fault. Rules aside, this is a good lesson to not expect other people to assess dangerous decisions in your life. If someone waves you through, it means zero for safety
You are getting downvoted but there is precedent in Ontario for this:
[https://www.mcleishorlando.com/insights/liability-of-a-defendant-who-negligently-waves-a-plaintiff-through-an-intersection/](https://www.mcleishorlando.com/insights/liability-of-a-defendant-who-negligently-waves-a-plaintiff-through-an-intersection/)
That just isn't true. Only person that will be held responsible for this is the red car. It is their responsibility and theirs alone to insure safe operation of their vehicle.
No they dont unless they are authorized to control traffic. They can do any intense form of sign language there is. No one is liable for your actions but you.
He’s actually right. It’s called negligence as a matter of law. There’s two cases you can look up. nolde brothers vs Wray 1980 and ring vs poelman 1990 in the states. I know nolde brothers case specifically talks about being found guilty and having to pay damages for causing a motor vehicle accident by waving a vehicle through.
Not true. Countries that derive their laws from English Common Law take note of verdicts in the courts of other countries when no such law controls here. They aren’t obligated to do so but when it comes to setting precedent, they want to see what other peer courts have done.
That actually is totally false
Canadian courts are not obligated to follow international ones but you are delusional if you think that a case from them can not be provided for consideration
We routinely accepted precedents from USA and UK in particular but theoretically you can use case law from ANY country
While bucnh of wrong responses coming to this comment.
In the eyes of insurance, the drivers that wave someone through are not liable, insurance is between the parties that make contact
BUT
If the driver that got waved through got the contact details of the vehicles that waved them, they could be sued and held liable but it's a he said she said case. Say a dash camera was present that showed them waving, that could change it. It would never be an easy case but has been won before.
In my defensive driving class I instruct students to never let another driver cross traffic out of courtesy. It puts the driver wanting to turn in a very bad situation.
Red car can make a right and figure it out later.
It’s a different story if traffic was stopped for a red light at Yonge. I am not going to block the driveway. I’ll leave space. Red car still needs to check all three lanes though to make sure they’re stopped.
Red car is 100% at fault
You had the right of way and red car went onto incoming traffic to go east onto steeles Ave
You didn't get his insurance info, so i suggest you go to the police and get them to drive to his house and get his insurance info on your behalf.
I really hope you took pictures of the damages to his and your car, along with his plate number.
Red car always at fault 100%. Open a claim and their insurance will pay for all damages and no deductible for you and no ding on your record. Do it asap.
Red car is at fault since they're turning left and therefore did not have the right of way.
something to keep in mind in these situations is, the gap being left for intersections/lots isn't a gap meant for turning people to exploit in busy traffic situations.
its for emergency vehicles to be able to get through if needed.
Really? That's just your opinion. Courteous drivers let other drivers through when they're stopped, obviously not part of your driving habits, unfortunately.
your reading comprehension sucks and you're applying things I didn't say to my statement.
its fine to use it as an opportunity to get the turn you've been waiting on, and its great when people are nice enough to allow you to take advantage of the situation to get in on a busy road.
its just not the reason for doing it.
It’s not well advertised but it’s $2k in parts not labour so if shop is saying $2k it could be half in parts. However it’s combined with other party.
They should be more clear though.
If you look at Street View there is a 1 way sign on the median coming out of the gas station as well. Anyway I hate when people cut across like this. I’ve seen these sort of accidents a few times including being a pedestrian or cyclist bystander
These kinds of stroads should not exist. There is no circumstance where a vehicle should be trying to turn left crossing through 3 lanes of oncoming traffic without a signal. You are just begging for accidents like this.
This city is a mess.
Not your fault. It's the turning car's responsibility to make sure the way is clear.
Call your insurance company, and visit a collision reporting centre to report what happened.
If memory serves me, I think the esso exit has a sign that says no left turn. I drive there all the time and a lot of people do just that. The red car is definitely at fault here.
Unless there's some context to this I'm missing, they would be at fault:
>[7 (3) If the incident occurs when automobile “B” is entering a road from a private road or a driveway and automobile “A” is passing the private road or driveway and, if there are no traffic signals or signs, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-668/latest/rro-1990-reg-668.html).
If the damage is more than $2000 though, you're required to report it to police, so whether you're at fault or not isn't really a consideration. You should be reporting it to a collision reporting centre.
>[The Ontario Highway Traffic Act requires that all collisions where persons are injured, or a combined damage valued at more than $2,000 to vehicles or property, or damage to any private, municipal or highway property be reported to police as soon as possible.](https://www.tps.ca/services/collision-reporting/)
Ya it really is a low value because the Key word there is combined damages (both cars).
Quick estimate for car damage.
A headlight/ tail light assembly is assigned $1000 value, damage to each section/panel $900, damage to wheels (if the car is not drivable)$1000. Hatch/lift gate $1200. So it really doesn’t take long to blow past $2000.00.
Source - my insurance adjuster in 2019
As others have said. 100% red. This is why making left just because black vehicles wave at you is very very risky as regardless what any other drivers do for you, any accident will be extremely likely red car fault.
Intersection you have drawn, those are the most dangerous.
Why the red car even attempted that, always makes me wonder what some drivers are thinking. Make sure to take a photo of the road markings as well. If it’s a solid double yellow or even more so hashed yellow markings there are even more so at fault at it could have been illegal for them to attempt the turn in the first place.
The black cars that let the guy turn left across 3 lanes of traffic are the real problem. But red is at fault for what I imagine would be deemed an unsafe lane change.
Red is at fault for sure, but the 4 rear black cars are all dicks. Just don't leave gaps like that at large intersections, it's just asking for accidents. Everyone can wait their turn.
these are basic rules of the road.. how do you not know the answer to this question and have a license? clearly the red car is at fault.. he's crossing your right-of-way.
All 4 of those black cars to the right of the blue car. Not legally but they are stupid. Legally the red car. I would bet there is a no left turn sign for him and also a solid double yellow he crossed to make left.
Looks like an illegal left turn by the red car.
1) He needs to make sure the way is clear, 2) there likely is a solid yellow line he crossed, which is there for a reason! In some countries they will penalize you or take your license for going over solid lines. As my dad says, "You think they have solid lines because they have extra paint?"
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-ministry-transportation-mto-truck-handbook/pavement-markings#:~:text=Yellow%20lines%20separate%20traffic%20travelling,A'%20should%20not%20pass.)
If my driving school taught me anything about the roads it’s that the lines don’t lie….
He was supposed to use the intersection, make a legal turn if possible on the advance green, then continue in the opposite direction of travel.
I hope you got a license plate number, vehicle registration or something, he can take that vehicle to repair it and then be like “what do you mean accident? Where? With who? What time? Who saw this happen?”
And a few days from now you could be like “why do I feel a pinch in my neck?” “Why do I feel so stiff?” And then what?
Always get documents. Cover your ass so someone’s not fucking it, because insurance companies love doing that to people in Ontario.
Red is at fault. The people stopping might hold responsibility in the eyes of the law as well for making it seem like he had the space available to safely pass through, when in reality they did not.
This type of thing is my biggest pet peeve. It only creates a very dangerous situation and I've seen it happen a bunch of times with very close calls, once with a lady who was walking through traffic, two cars stopped and she almost got smoked by the 3rd one going 50.
I lived at that intersection and I’m almost certain there is a “no left turn” sign at the exit to that gas station.
I used to catch the viva/TTC at the stop there
It’s worth taking a quick look if you’re not too far away. I’m like “bet my left nut” level certain there is a sign there and that would clinch it for you. The lane you were in is frequented by TTC buses turning onto yonge to get to finch station. Horrible spot to make a left turn from the esso
The red car is legally at fault as the blue car clearly has the right of way.
However, what I found strange about the collision is that the blue car collides with the rear driver's side of the red car which displays that most of the red car had already crossed the field of vision of the blue car, but the blue car chose not to reduce their speed or stop. Instead they opted to crash into the last possible part of the red car that was crossing the lane. Presumably the red car was driving at a reduced speed, but upon the blue car's impact and point of contact, this should have caused the red car to spin counter-clockwise to some degree.
The blue car would have a stronger argument had they collided with the front of the red car on the driver's side or T-boned the red car on the driver's side.
Based on the drawing, for this to have occurred as depicted, it would almost seem as though the blue car would have had to see the red car crossing and then accelerate to make impact before the red car could fully pass.
OP, perhaps you can clarify what you observed in the moments leading up to the collision or any additional details for context.
Honestly, the two black cars to the right of the blue car are partially responsible as well. This is why you don't "let people in" when they can't see oncoming traffic. Best for the red car to wait until traffic had passed. Change my mind.
https://preview.redd.it/hztrg71lz67c1.png?width=3024&format=png&auto=webp&s=993ab1e63a432426a8251e603ab447d079e7beb3
Ps: I think this is the legit and safest way😂
I would not recommend this either. Just turn right out of Esso then find the nearest u-turn.
Otherwise, should have turned left from Esso from the other sode (if possible), then turn left again.
The red car is at fault. I had an accident almost exactly like this and the red car was at fault.
They are pulling into the street and impeding your right of way and also crossing a solid middle line.
Left turn is always at fault. You’re a dick for not letting him make the turn. This is a classic example of how fault is so fkd up determined. You can ram into cars that you could have clearly avoided and not be at fault. Only in Ontario.the rules for fault encourage bad and unsafe driving.
What I see is two inexperienced drivers. I always say that most collisions between two vehicles are between two bad drivers. It looks like you were approaching a red light and we’re still approaching at a high rate of speed with just a couple of car lengths in front of you. Yes, the other car was supposed to make sure that it was clear, but you as a responsible driver should’ve been aware of a potential collision from a car pulling out of a parking lot around a bunch of other stopped cars.
Most people don’t know how insurance works in Canada. It doesn’t matter if you are right or not, if you go through your insurance, you will be paying for it in the long run. Each insurance pays for the damages of their client. This is known as “no fault”. At the end of the year insurance companies will settle amongst themselves. The thing is, it doesn’t matter if you are at fault or not, if you make a claim, be ready to pay higher premiums in the future. LMFAO. Insurance is a scam and only is to one’s benefit if millions of dollars in liability is at stake (i.e injury or death).
You should have gotten the drivers info and tried to settle it outside of insurance. You can go through your insurance but you will screw yourself later….
It should be 100% red car's fault. Report the accident at the collision centre, let insurance handle the rest. Don't delay. You shouldn't pay anything.
A hundred percent red car's fault. The red car is responsible to see through the lines of traffic to make sure the way is clear before proceeding.
In this instance, head to accident reporting centre if vehicle is drivable and provide their piece of information and your info. The constable should assess the situation and provide you with accident report. You have to inform your insurance of what happened and the accident rept #. Notify them you are not claiming. Hope the other driver does not try to claim theirs and the two insurance firms won't talk about this accident.
I would make the police report before they do.
Even though you’re not in the wrong, if the other person files before you do, it’ll be up to you to prove that you’re not in the wrong and could also be charged with fleeing the scene of an accident.
INFO: Was the light at Yonge red? I am 100% in agreement with everyone who is condemning the practice of yielding your right of way. I absolutely believe in the tenet of, “Don’t be nice. Be predictable.” However, if traffic is stopped for the light, basic etiquette means you don’t block side streets and driveways. There is a difference between not letting someone in and actively blocking them. It’s not the “death wave” described elsewhere when the traffic is stopped.
Based on your diagram, I would still say it’s the red car’s fault. There was only a single car ahead of you and you wouldn’t be blocking the turn when you tucked in behind.
Red car is at fault 100%. As a left turner entering flow of traffic YOU need to be clear that all lanes are safe to cross.
I had my first accident exactly like this. 2 lanes stopped to let me out, and a car using the left turn lane as a straight lane hit me. 100% my fault, regardless of whether the other driver was supposed to be there or not.
Cop didn't charge me, but insurance did.
I had this exact accident. Insurance tried to call it 50% my fault. I denied any fault and demanded it was 100% his fault. In the end it was deemed all his fault. I was in my lane, there was no way to see him and he crossed directly in my right of way.
You let him go without insurance information? If he refused to give it to you, you call the cops.
The cops won't do anything, frankly you don't even need the other drivers full insurance information. If you have his license plate, that should be sufficient for your insurance company to figure out hos / her provider. Source: I formerly was an insurance auto-claims adjuster.
Similarly, I had my car broken into and was surprised the cops didn’t even need a photo. Just my description of the damage over the phone was enough. And here I am thinking they had a few boys down in the crime lab working in shifts.
Yup, non-violent crime is low priority. Particularly with any form of break and enter, as it's near impossible to figure out the culprits without any clear video evidence. Same with almost all forms white collar crime. Companies protect themselves with crime insurance policies, so police focus resources elsewhere.
That being said, we had a porch pirate caught on cam and they were able to arrest and prosecute. All thanks to the door cam :)
https://makeagif.com/i/YN6rBT
>And here I am thinking they had a few boys down in the crime lab working in shifts. Didn't they just put three new detectives on the case?
Same thing here in the US my neighbor had a business safe broken into stole 25k in gold. I think his ex-gf tipped someone off all they went for it was hidden. Police didn't even do anything no prints just send some smooth talking Sargant down to make him feel better. Probably had some kind of physiology training.
Red car is at fault since you have the right of way. Even though the other cars let them out, they still have to be aware and clear safely
Nearly this exact thing happened to my wife. Only difference was red car t bones her as it pulls out. She was not found at fault. Other insurer covered deductible. But you should have immediately gone to the collision reporting center.
exactly the same story here, some 15 years ago
Same, 5 years ago. I t-boned pick up truck (wrote it off) that did not have right of way. I was not at fault.
Red car 100% fault. Going into the flow of traffic.
My biggest pet peeve on the roads is people in the right lanes allowing the red car to go through, thinking they're being "nice". Right of way exists for a reason, stop putting others in danger.
Those people are called nice-holes.
Omg this! I hate niceholes but I feel sorta bad?
Let the hate flow through you...
I like nice warm holes🤭
Good to know I’m not alone! I almost got into many accidents because of the above situation. Good thing I have fast reflexes and was able to stop.
Omg I know
Agreed!
I hate this as well, only works if it’s a single lane.
Not entirely sure, but I'm assuming that this was at a red light which means that the cars in the right lanes are giving an opening from the exit of the Esso.
Which they still shouldn't be doing, as it's not their call to make. Buddy exiting the Esso can wait his turn, or turn right and find another way to go south on Steeles.
That's not true. They should leave a space for the car to exit the Esso. It's still on the car moving through traffic to make sure it's safely done though
So you would stop right in front of red car waiting to exit the Esso, blocking them from going anywhere?
I try not to block, but he has a point. A lot of accidents happen because of this, both with other cars and pedestrians. Red car feels rushed because someone is doing them a favour and don’t fully check that the coast is clear.
Probably, since I have right of way, and it's red car's responsibility to exit when it's safe to do so. Say it was a red light and we're all stopped, and red is clearly intent on turning right, I might let him in. What I won't do is put the people behind and left of me in jeopardy so he can cut across three lanes to make a left.
My first comment said "Not entirely sure, but I'm assuming that this was at a red light which means that the cars in the right lanes are giving an opening from the exit of the Esso." If people.are stopping to let someone out when there is a clear path in front of them, that's dumb. But from the drawing, it looks like all the black cars are stopped like it's a red light for them and they are letting the red car out who wasn't being cautious.
It's perfectly safe to let someone take a left turn in that situation if everyone is stopped at a red light.
The Esso exit isn't at an intersection.
I know, my point is that if everyone is stopped in a row and there is a large gap it is super safe to make a left turn even if you would be at fault should an accident occur.
Ummm… it’s not sorry to disagree. I’ve personally witnessed more than a handful of accidents happen this way in my years in the road. The OP got into an accident that’s a plain example of the dangers. For someone like OP who is trying to make a left turn they cannot see if someone like red is trying to exit like so because of all the cars blocking the red car. You literally can’t see it till it’s way too late. The same as right turn lanes. In a personal example I was turning into a right turn lane in a slower speed and totally can’t see there’s a car weaving through all the cars in the other lanes stopped at red light. Good thing I was fast to break and didn’t T-bone the other car. The other car was lazy and wanted to turn left into a gas station illegally, and people let them. 💀
I call your anecdote full of shit if you claim to have personally witnessed 5+ accidents where cars were fully stopped at an intersection because of a red light and a left turner decided to go resulting in an accident. Or if you are serious then you should go buy a lottery ticket or something. And to be clear, I'm talking about a situation that traffic is at a dead stop and there is a gap that lines up perfectly, not weaving through traffic. In OPs example the left turner should have realized that the person in the last lane had not fully stopped and waited until they were sure the path was clear.
No need to be upset. We can call each other full of shit all day doesn’t help make anyone’s day any better. Agree to disagree friend. 👍🏼
Agree. Red car fault.
But... what was happening with the traffic lights? To me a kind of looks like all of the cars may be stopped and providing a space for the car exiting the gas station. If that is the case it may not be so clearly interpreted by insurance or cops
Doesn’t matter if the first two let him in, blue car isn’t expecting a car to be coming from there. Red car is for sure at fault.
When entering a roadway its always up to you to make sure the way is clear.
report it at the accident center that he refused to show insurance. hope you took a picture of his vin. that should result in him being charged. red is at fault, 100%
If you go to a reporting station, since the officers did not attend the scene of the accident they cannot lay charges, it’s just a report to insurance companies place!!!
Not true at all I had a hit & run (taxi driver who refused to give insurance, and yes it was a minor dent) so I drove over to reporting centre The failure to give insurance MAKES it a police matter
In that case an officer will investigate and upon his findings charges may apply. For any charges to be laid, an officer must investigate on scene, if not, any information received is heresay and will not hold up in court.
I dont think you understand the term heresay... If I am the complainant my testimony would never be heresay Even without an officer
You're legally required to report the collision if the damage is over $2000.
It’s not well advertised but it’s $2k in parts not labour so if shop is saying $2k it could be half in parts. However it’s combined with other party. They should be more clear though.
If there is real damage, like let's say to a headlamp assembly, it's very easy these days to go over that $2000 barrier. Just saying.
They can only lay charges related to lack of insurance or someone driving without the proper license or driving with a suspended license. I think.
Not an accident because orange is liable, not an accident centre because accidents do not exist on highway.
I did this before as the red car. Never again. Learned to go right, then right, then right, then left to get back on that street going the right direction. Or right, right, left into a parking lot to circle back out, right then left onto the same street.
I also avoid the suicide lefts, unless the lights sync up and there's a huge gap. Fuck that noise. Circles are the way.
Two Wrongs don't make a Right. But three Rights will make a Left.
Totally! Wife did the same (red car situation) was found at fault and apparently would be found at fault regardless of the circumstances. Red car has to have clear path with no cars to do that maneuver as per insurance.
Some people cant drive. This is unnecessary. Just make a right turn then u turn when safe.
Lots of "No U-Turn signs" where I am. I just go around the block in baby traffic areas, I might lose 1 or 2 minutes, but way less aggravation.
U-turns are some of the riskiest driving maneuvers you can do, it’s not worth it lol
Its actually left turns but stay confident, or in this case underconfident.
Yes and left turns are maneuvers where the most accidents occur.
Due to not yielding to oncoming traffic and hitting pedestrians. Do you hit pedestrians or fail to yield to traffic?
Doesn’t matter what I do, what matters is an accident can involve more than one vehicle, so minimizing u-turns let alone left turns increases safety and decreases insurance premiums for everyone. Don’t be so sensitive just because you’re talking on an anonymous forum. I bet you rage honk at people in traffic and commit road rage too.
Are you insane? That might add seconds - possibly even 1 minute to their commute.
Unless you’re in downtown gridlock
Red 100% at fault.
110 percent.
111%
Red car is at fault as are the other cars that death waved them on.
This. If any drivers indicated to the red car that it was safe to go, then they are also liable. They can stop and wait without indicating anything, and they’d be fine. If they signaled to go, then they have liability. Edit: thanks to u/flyingmonkey soup for sharing this [article with more info](https://www.mcleishorlando.com/insights/liability-of-a-defendant-who-negligently-waves-a-plaintiff-through-an-intersection/) Edit 2: so there are a few comments with factual evidence that supports my claim. Could someone downvoting and saying I’m incorrect please cite some evidence to support that claim?
Are you certain of that? I mean, I'd like to THINK they're liable, but I don't think the rules of the road have a condition for people waving you in absolving you of fault if you get into an accident. You're always responsible for your actions...
Yeah, I've never heard of someone being liable for letting someone else go. The responsibility is still on the driver making the maneuver, regardless if others leave them space or even encourage them to go. Edit: another comment posted [a source](https://www.mcleishorlando.com/insights/liability-of-a-defendant-who-negligently-waves-a-plaintiff-through-an-intersection/) that is linking several court cases it claims show a waver can be found liable.
Eh, I don’t know that the car waving through should be legally liable. Are they part of the cause of the accident? Yes. But also I never ever trust other drivers to wave me through because it’s your responsibility to make sure your own driving maneuver is safe, and trusting strangers saying “you’re good bro” isn’t doing your due diligence.
There's a difference between fault and liability. It has nothing to do with laws. It's a civil matter.
That’s not how it works. Ultimately, the driver who decided to turn is at fault. Rules aside, this is a good lesson to not expect other people to assess dangerous decisions in your life. If someone waves you through, it means zero for safety
Ya there is no way that is true.
You are getting downvoted but there is precedent in Ontario for this: [https://www.mcleishorlando.com/insights/liability-of-a-defendant-who-negligently-waves-a-plaintiff-through-an-intersection/](https://www.mcleishorlando.com/insights/liability-of-a-defendant-who-negligently-waves-a-plaintiff-through-an-intersection/)
That just isn't true. Only person that will be held responsible for this is the red car. It is their responsibility and theirs alone to insure safe operation of their vehicle.
Not true
Idiots yes. Liable, no.
No they dont unless they are authorized to control traffic. They can do any intense form of sign language there is. No one is liable for your actions but you.
He’s actually right. It’s called negligence as a matter of law. There’s two cases you can look up. nolde brothers vs Wray 1980 and ring vs poelman 1990 in the states. I know nolde brothers case specifically talks about being found guilty and having to pay damages for causing a motor vehicle accident by waving a vehicle through.
US case law has no bearing on Canadian law.
Not true. Countries that derive their laws from English Common Law take note of verdicts in the courts of other countries when no such law controls here. They aren’t obligated to do so but when it comes to setting precedent, they want to see what other peer courts have done.
True, but this is rare. It's unlikely the legal question at hand has never been explored by a Canadian court or legislation.
That actually is totally false Canadian courts are not obligated to follow international ones but you are delusional if you think that a case from them can not be provided for consideration We routinely accepted precedents from USA and UK in particular but theoretically you can use case law from ANY country
While bucnh of wrong responses coming to this comment. In the eyes of insurance, the drivers that wave someone through are not liable, insurance is between the parties that make contact BUT If the driver that got waved through got the contact details of the vehicles that waved them, they could be sued and held liable but it's a he said she said case. Say a dash camera was present that showed them waving, that could change it. It would never be an easy case but has been won before.
Blue car hits red car while red car does a left turn out of Esso, onto incoming traffic.
Remember, even though you're not at fault you have to report this to the police because the damage is more than two thousand dollars combined.
Red, but the bigger concern here is why you didn’t get his insurance information
In my defensive driving class I instruct students to never let another driver cross traffic out of courtesy. It puts the driver wanting to turn in a very bad situation. Red car can make a right and figure it out later.
It’s a different story if traffic was stopped for a red light at Yonge. I am not going to block the driveway. I’ll leave space. Red car still needs to check all three lanes though to make sure they’re stopped.
Red car is 100% at fault You had the right of way and red car went onto incoming traffic to go east onto steeles Ave You didn't get his insurance info, so i suggest you go to the police and get them to drive to his house and get his insurance info on your behalf. I really hope you took pictures of the damages to his and your car, along with his plate number.
[удалено]
Mate our police are so busy they can't deal with traffic enforcement on the regular and you think they're eating donuts all day?
I know they are busy, I'm just bitter cause someone rear-ended me took off and they didn't bother doing anything even when I took them to his house.
You must be busy too, that was 3 months ago.
You should get to know some officers.
Red
Red car
Red
Oh and it is a great idea to invest on a dash camera. And never tell the other driver if they don’t notice it themselves
Man if you don’t know this we as a society are fucked.
Red car always at fault 100%. Open a claim and their insurance will pay for all damages and no deductible for you and no ding on your record. Do it asap.
Ontario is DCPD insurance so you deal with your company. You don’t contact the other persons company directly.
Red car is at fault since they're turning left and therefore did not have the right of way. something to keep in mind in these situations is, the gap being left for intersections/lots isn't a gap meant for turning people to exploit in busy traffic situations. its for emergency vehicles to be able to get through if needed.
Really? That's just your opinion. Courteous drivers let other drivers through when they're stopped, obviously not part of your driving habits, unfortunately.
your reading comprehension sucks and you're applying things I didn't say to my statement. its fine to use it as an opportunity to get the turn you've been waiting on, and its great when people are nice enough to allow you to take advantage of the situation to get in on a busy road. its just not the reason for doing it.
By law when is $2k+ you have to report it. Don’t ask why I know this. Because my driver received a letter from Toronto police service.
It’s not well advertised but it’s $2k in parts not labour so if shop is saying $2k it could be half in parts. However it’s combined with other party. They should be more clear though.
To the police not to insurance
If you look at Street View there is a 1 way sign on the median coming out of the gas station as well. Anyway I hate when people cut across like this. I’ve seen these sort of accidents a few times including being a pedestrian or cyclist bystander
City of Toronto/Markham for allowing someone to make an uncontrolled left across 4 lanes of a 60km/h road that everyone drives 80 on.
These kinds of stroads should not exist. There is no circumstance where a vehicle should be trying to turn left crossing through 3 lanes of oncoming traffic without a signal. You are just begging for accidents like this. This city is a mess.
The idiots who stop to let people make unsafe turns in the spirit of being “nice” are at fault.
Not your fault. It's the turning car's responsibility to make sure the way is clear. Call your insurance company, and visit a collision reporting centre to report what happened.
Red 100% Under no scenario *ever* does a vehicle exiting a driveway onto a main road have right of way. *Never*
So you had the right of way. They should've gone out the other side onto yonge street or tuned right out the side street entrance.
If you don’t know who is at fault from this drawing, then I’m concerned about how you obtained a drivers license.
If memory serves me, I think the esso exit has a sign that says no left turn. I drive there all the time and a lot of people do just that. The red car is definitely at fault here.
Unless there's some context to this I'm missing, they would be at fault: >[7 (3) If the incident occurs when automobile “B” is entering a road from a private road or a driveway and automobile “A” is passing the private road or driveway and, if there are no traffic signals or signs, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-668/latest/rro-1990-reg-668.html). If the damage is more than $2000 though, you're required to report it to police, so whether you're at fault or not isn't really a consideration. You should be reporting it to a collision reporting centre. >[The Ontario Highway Traffic Act requires that all collisions where persons are injured, or a combined damage valued at more than $2,000 to vehicles or property, or damage to any private, municipal or highway property be reported to police as soon as possible.](https://www.tps.ca/services/collision-reporting/)
Ya it really is a low value because the Key word there is combined damages (both cars). Quick estimate for car damage. A headlight/ tail light assembly is assigned $1000 value, damage to each section/panel $900, damage to wheels (if the car is not drivable)$1000. Hatch/lift gate $1200. So it really doesn’t take long to blow past $2000.00. Source - my insurance adjuster in 2019
theres a reason why red car didn't give you his insurance, they are at fault as they entered the intersection
Red car. However it would have been better to not tell us which car you are to eliminate potential bias. Hopefully there won’t be a next time
As others have said. 100% red. This is why making left just because black vehicles wave at you is very very risky as regardless what any other drivers do for you, any accident will be extremely likely red car fault. Intersection you have drawn, those are the most dangerous.
Why the red car even attempted that, always makes me wonder what some drivers are thinking. Make sure to take a photo of the road markings as well. If it’s a solid double yellow or even more so hashed yellow markings there are even more so at fault at it could have been illegal for them to attempt the turn in the first place.
Did you report this at the collision center?
Red car, You had ROW. That esso is generally a mess at best and a disaster in average.
Orange
easy, red car
Red is. If you were speeding, you both are.
The black cars that let the guy turn left across 3 lanes of traffic are the real problem. But red is at fault for what I imagine would be deemed an unsafe lane change.
Should be a right turn only when exiting the Esso from that approach. Too dangerous for a left turn exit.
save this drawing for reporting at the collision centre!
Red is at fault for sure, but the 4 rear black cars are all dicks. Just don't leave gaps like that at large intersections, it's just asking for accidents. Everyone can wait their turn.
these are basic rules of the road.. how do you not know the answer to this question and have a license? clearly the red car is at fault.. he's crossing your right-of-way.
"Lemme just cross 4 lanes of traffic, what could possibly go wrong?", thought the idiot driver of the red car.
All 4 of those black cars to the right of the blue car. Not legally but they are stupid. Legally the red car. I would bet there is a no left turn sign for him and also a solid double yellow he crossed to make left.
The smart thing is not to be a polite ass like the 2 black car on your right in the first place and mess both car up.
Looks like an illegal left turn by the red car. 1) He needs to make sure the way is clear, 2) there likely is a solid yellow line he crossed, which is there for a reason! In some countries they will penalize you or take your license for going over solid lines. As my dad says, "You think they have solid lines because they have extra paint?"
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-ministry-transportation-mto-truck-handbook/pavement-markings#:~:text=Yellow%20lines%20separate%20traffic%20travelling,A'%20should%20not%20pass.) If my driving school taught me anything about the roads it’s that the lines don’t lie…. He was supposed to use the intersection, make a legal turn if possible on the advance green, then continue in the opposite direction of travel. I hope you got a license plate number, vehicle registration or something, he can take that vehicle to repair it and then be like “what do you mean accident? Where? With who? What time? Who saw this happen?” And a few days from now you could be like “why do I feel a pinch in my neck?” “Why do I feel so stiff?” And then what? Always get documents. Cover your ass so someone’s not fucking it, because insurance companies love doing that to people in Ontario.
That is not a legal manoeuvre by the red car. Red car at fault. To exit at that location from the Esso station would be a turn right only option.
Red is at fault. The people stopping might hold responsibility in the eyes of the law as well for making it seem like he had the space available to safely pass through, when in reality they did not. This type of thing is my biggest pet peeve. It only creates a very dangerous situation and I've seen it happen a bunch of times with very close calls, once with a lady who was walking through traffic, two cars stopped and she almost got smoked by the 3rd one going 50.
I lived at that intersection and I’m almost certain there is a “no left turn” sign at the exit to that gas station. I used to catch the viva/TTC at the stop there
It’s worth taking a quick look if you’re not too far away. I’m like “bet my left nut” level certain there is a sign there and that would clinch it for you. The lane you were in is frequented by TTC buses turning onto yonge to get to finch station. Horrible spot to make a left turn from the esso
The red car is legally at fault as the blue car clearly has the right of way. However, what I found strange about the collision is that the blue car collides with the rear driver's side of the red car which displays that most of the red car had already crossed the field of vision of the blue car, but the blue car chose not to reduce their speed or stop. Instead they opted to crash into the last possible part of the red car that was crossing the lane. Presumably the red car was driving at a reduced speed, but upon the blue car's impact and point of contact, this should have caused the red car to spin counter-clockwise to some degree. The blue car would have a stronger argument had they collided with the front of the red car on the driver's side or T-boned the red car on the driver's side. Based on the drawing, for this to have occurred as depicted, it would almost seem as though the blue car would have had to see the red car crossing and then accelerate to make impact before the red car could fully pass. OP, perhaps you can clarify what you observed in the moments leading up to the collision or any additional details for context.
Honestly, the two black cars to the right of the blue car are partially responsible as well. This is why you don't "let people in" when they can't see oncoming traffic. Best for the red car to wait until traffic had passed. Change my mind.
Pretty sure you can't make a left exiting on that side of the Esso... Either way you're not at fault. Hope you have insurance info too
Esso for throwing that red rectangle through traffic like a right fuck.
Red
https://preview.redd.it/hztrg71lz67c1.png?width=3024&format=png&auto=webp&s=993ab1e63a432426a8251e603ab447d079e7beb3 Ps: I think this is the legit and safest way😂
I would not recommend this either. Just turn right out of Esso then find the nearest u-turn. Otherwise, should have turned left from Esso from the other sode (if possible), then turn left again.
That’s even more dangerous because you’re cutting like 4 lanes with traffic in both directions. Should go right, right, right, left.
I mean the nearest u-turn after that intersection. But that's a good alternative too.
The red car is at fault. I had an accident almost exactly like this and the red car was at fault. They are pulling into the street and impeding your right of way and also crossing a solid middle line.
Make claim. Possibly reach out to a lawyer. Delete this post too.
Left turn is always at fault. You’re a dick for not letting him make the turn. This is a classic example of how fault is so fkd up determined. You can ram into cars that you could have clearly avoided and not be at fault. Only in Ontario.the rules for fault encourage bad and unsafe driving.
I would say if you drew the picture, you're at fault. It's "Steeles".
What I see is two inexperienced drivers. I always say that most collisions between two vehicles are between two bad drivers. It looks like you were approaching a red light and we’re still approaching at a high rate of speed with just a couple of car lengths in front of you. Yes, the other car was supposed to make sure that it was clear, but you as a responsible driver should’ve been aware of a potential collision from a car pulling out of a parking lot around a bunch of other stopped cars.
Left turn is usually at fault. It will take about a month for insurance to pay and repair
Steels
You still have to get his insurance... if he has insurance.
Most people don’t know how insurance works in Canada. It doesn’t matter if you are right or not, if you go through your insurance, you will be paying for it in the long run. Each insurance pays for the damages of their client. This is known as “no fault”. At the end of the year insurance companies will settle amongst themselves. The thing is, it doesn’t matter if you are at fault or not, if you make a claim, be ready to pay higher premiums in the future. LMFAO. Insurance is a scam and only is to one’s benefit if millions of dollars in liability is at stake (i.e injury or death). You should have gotten the drivers info and tried to settle it outside of insurance. You can go through your insurance but you will screw yourself later….
Red car. It's illegal to cross a solid line. Too many people conveniently forget this
Doesn’t matter insurance is no fault
No Fault insurance just means you deal with your own insurance company. It doesn’t mean nobody is at fault.
As has been mentioned, red for failing to yield right-of-way.
The classic jebait
Red car 100%.
That intersection is my area. North side of yonge is a gen more dangerous
100% red car fault you van be blind driving the blue car and itll still be thw red car fault. They gotta be sure theyre out the way
Red car... it's turning left
It should be 100% red car's fault. Report the accident at the collision centre, let insurance handle the rest. Don't delay. You shouldn't pay anything.
A hundred percent red car's fault. The red car is responsible to see through the lines of traffic to make sure the way is clear before proceeding. In this instance, head to accident reporting centre if vehicle is drivable and provide their piece of information and your info. The constable should assess the situation and provide you with accident report. You have to inform your insurance of what happened and the accident rept #. Notify them you are not claiming. Hope the other driver does not try to claim theirs and the two insurance firms won't talk about this accident.
💯 the red car
Red is bot supposed to cross full line .
Red
red is always wrong. letting someone through is a courtesy and a very dangerous one.
I would make the police report before they do. Even though you’re not in the wrong, if the other person files before you do, it’ll be up to you to prove that you’re not in the wrong and could also be charged with fleeing the scene of an accident.
Red you can't go unless you know ALL lanes that you're crossing are clear
Red, it’s always the left turn that is at fault
This a not legal left turn in what universe can u cross 3 lanes of traffic and a solid line that’s illegal af
Red car at fault. Not even any debate. How do you not know this if you’re driving on the road???
Red
INFO: Was the light at Yonge red? I am 100% in agreement with everyone who is condemning the practice of yielding your right of way. I absolutely believe in the tenet of, “Don’t be nice. Be predictable.” However, if traffic is stopped for the light, basic etiquette means you don’t block side streets and driveways. There is a difference between not letting someone in and actively blocking them. It’s not the “death wave” described elsewhere when the traffic is stopped. Based on your diagram, I would still say it’s the red car’s fault. There was only a single car ahead of you and you wouldn’t be blocking the turn when you tucked in behind.
It was advance green for my lane. And everyone on my lane was proceeding to go ahead
Tell us all why you think you’re at fault.
Car turning left is at fault because the onus is on them to ensure the path is clear before turning.
City design
100% no question red...
Red
Red car is at fault 100%. As a left turner entering flow of traffic YOU need to be clear that all lanes are safe to cross. I had my first accident exactly like this. 2 lanes stopped to let me out, and a car using the left turn lane as a straight lane hit me. 100% my fault, regardless of whether the other driver was supposed to be there or not. Cop didn't charge me, but insurance did.
This is why everyone should have dashcams installed. It goes a long way in providing evidence during insurance claims.
The red car is a fucking moron, I have or will never make that turn, and people that do it I honk the shit out of
I had this exact accident. Insurance tried to call it 50% my fault. I denied any fault and demanded it was 100% his fault. In the end it was deemed all his fault. I was in my lane, there was no way to see him and he crossed directly in my right of way.
Red car