<p>
</p>
<p>A truism that means nothing whatsoever in any individual case, unless your position is that truck drivers never drive carelessly, and are never at fault in accidents. I doubt that you want to take that position.</p>
<p>
No - the truck driver needs to focus on ‘everything’ in the lanes around him and check and re-check repeatedly which they can usually manage to do because they’re usually making the turn extra slowly. They especially need to do this since they’re taking up 2 lanes including one not actually designated as a turn lane. Most truck drivers do this pretty well but some don’t.</p>
<p>I was wondering about the evasive action the car took once it realized the truck was there as well.</p>
<p>As far as we remember, and we will consult the other witness about this, is that we were never actually behind the truck. We believe that he was already in the left lane (and signaling, which we didn’t see personally) when we came up alongside him on the right. If he had been ahead of us, I don’t think it was directly. </p>
<p>As for evasive actions, I suppose we weren’t necessarily on guard to evade the truck. We thought that he was going straight because he was in the left lane and we did not see his signal. As far as I know, we hugged the corner pretty closely when we turned because I do not think my fiance at any point left the lane we were in. We couldn’t really evade once the truck was turning on us because it overtook us such that the cab of the truck was a ways in front of us and the back wheels underneath the bed of the truck were directly behind us (which is what did the damage to the back of the car). Our only options would’ve been to swerve right onto a sidewalk or to swerve left into potentially oncoming traffic (and hope to make a clean pass underneath the truck). What ended up happening was that both vehicles stopped once an impact was felt and we wound up resting with our vehicle underneath the truck, most of the way through the turn.</p>
<p>Wow - it sounds amazing you didn’t get injured in this one.</p>
<p>I think you should fight the ticket. The worst that’ll happen is you’ll lose and be in the same position you’re already in right now. Maybe the cop won’t show up, especially since he should know he didn’t treat you well and might not want that brought up before a judge, in which case you’ll win by default.</p>
<p>“What!?! It sounds like you didn’t see it because you were in the right hand lane and he was overlapping you in the left hand lane. If that is the case, the truck driver is TOTALLY at fault. One cannot legally make a right hand turn from a left hand lane, unless both lanes are turning lanes.”</p>
<p>Not true at all. Huge Mack trucks have <em>no choice</em> but to make a right-hand turn from the left lane. That is totally legal, and really the only way they can maneuver turns. If they didn’t do that, they’d shave off every corner building (and the pedestrians on the sidewalks).</p>
<p>Never, EVER, go on the right side of a Mack truck. If you’re turning right, and the truck is in the left lane, you should remain in the right lane, but <em>well behind</em> the truck. Always assume the truck cannot see you.</p>
<p>I’m sorry for your accident, but from your initial description, the silver lining is that you are alive and unharmed. Your car is just a hunk of metal, and it can be replaced. That’s specifically what insurance is for. You’ve learned a valuable lesson. Never, EVER, go on the right side of a Mack truck.</p>
<p>I’ve been driving for 32 years, and I have never before been told that one should never drive on the right hand side of a Mack truck, and that if one does so and the truck driver hits you it is your own fault. I have heard that if you can’t see the truck’s side mirrors the truck driver cannot see you, and in fact it says so on the back of some trucks. From the OP’s account, it seems that they could see the truck’s side mirrors, and so the driver should have been able to see them. It seems to me that the onus is on the vehicle that does not maintain it’s lane. If it physically cannot maintain it’s lane, then all the more. If the truck driver saw someone to his right, signalling for a turn, he should have stopped if necessary, or not made the turn. He should have been going slowly enough to do so, otherwise he was not driving in a safe manner, given the size of the truck he was driving.</p>
<p>I’m sure every one of us has driven on the right side of a semi truck hundreds or thousands of times. It happens every time you’re in a right turn lane and the truck is in the lane to the left of it going straight (or making a wide right turn from the left lane). It’s not as if when the truck is in the left lane all traffic using the right turn lane stops way behind the truck waiting for the light to change so it’ll move. In addition, even when going straight, there are frequently cars to the right of a semi truck. Go out and traffic and you’ll see this is the norm. It’s the norm on the freeway as well but of course, a prudent driver will minimize their time on the side of the truck but people still need to pass trucks.</p>
<p>Actually, i don’t think trucks are permitted to turn right from the left lane. I think they can swing wide into the left lane as part of the turn but they can’t just be sitting in the left lane to begin with, at a stop light for example, and then just turn right over the top of the right turn lane. That wouldn’t be ‘swinging wide’ - it’d be turning from the wrong lane. Truckers I’ve seen do the wide turn start in the right turn lane and then swing wide after starting the turn but in that case it’s pretty clear to all traffic that the truck is turning and there would be anyone to the right unless the car purposely scooted past the rear of the truck after it started the wide turn.</p>
<p>We can express opinions until we are blue in the face that it’s probably wrong to turn R from the L lane. We could argue trucks should not fly. Those opinions don’t help the Op. Neither is quite relevant in this case for one big reason- the police report. The OP has told us it says the truck was in the turn lane.
The Op will first have to argue the report is incorrect, not that R turns from the L are illegal. Arguing the second part is pointless unless the first part can be challenged successfully.</p>
<p>This quote from post 23 troubles me: “We believe that he was already in the left lane (and signaling, which we didn’t see personally) when we came up alongside him on the right.” Not only just because of the obvious uncertainty, but more than that. My interpretation of that sentence means they were behind the truck in the same lane or the R lane, but advanced forward on the R of the truck(“came up alongside”). If they had been traveling on the R- side by side to the truck all along, the Op would not have said “came up alongside”. A vehicle cannot come “up alongside” unless they are behind to begin with. This gives me the impression that a previous hypothesis is correct- that the truck shifted to the L to make a wide R turn and the car sped up on the R without noticing the turn signal, or if in the R lane they may have kept the same speed while the truck slowed, which would also explain their coming “up alongside” the truck just before his turn. </p>
<p>And to Consolation- you are so right about signs on the back of many trucks. Further, often times those signs have a pic showing drivers not to be on the R of a truck.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe this is what happened, in this case. We came off from a highway and went immediately to the right lane. The only reason I have any doubts about what happened are the conflicting reports from the witness. Other than that, we felt pretty confident about what had happened and were shocked by what the witness said. We were not going quickly around the turn, by any means. </p>
<p>Trust me, we have learned our lesson about being more cautious around big trucks.</p>
<p>And that is a large part of why I feel there is little value in disputing this.
Your uncertainty, fiancee’s uncertainty, conflicting reports from witness, wording in officer’s report, and your OP that said you were ultimately at fault.</p>
<p>For me, if am am approaching a right turn, I am particulary attentive to oncoming traffic and to the area ahead of me that I intend to enter. Could it be your fiancee was doing the same thing and overlooked the turn signal on the truck, and overlooked the front turn signal after you came alongside the truck because he was mostly looking to the R to concentrate on the area he would enter after the turn?</p>
<p>
But they really have nothing to lose in disputing this and they do have something to gain. There’s a lot of potential value in disputing this - $$$.</p>
<p>There can be something “to lose”.
If they hire an atty, as some have advised, then they risk spending money and may still have the same result. There is a $$$ risk.
Only the OP can decide if that risk is worth it.
Another option is to hire an attorney not to declare their innocence, but in hopes of mitigating the liability. Honorable since the OP admits fault, but again, costs money.</p>
<p>They can fight it without hiring an attorney. All they have to do (usually) is go to the court and plead ‘Not Guilty’ and then show up at the assigned court date and state their case to the judge. The cop can state his perspective on the ticket and the judge will decide who wins. If the cop’s case isn’t adequate then the OP will win. If the cop doesn’t show up then the OP will win. It’s not that big of a deal to declare not guilty and then give your side of the case. Worst case - they’ll be found guilty of the infraction which is what they’d be if they…plead guilty to begin with. Nothing to lose but a bit of time and hassle of showing up to court.</p>
<p>The OP isn’t admitting fault the way I read the OP’s words. The biggest issue is that the OP doesn’t seem completely certain of everything that happened but she does know that they were in the right turn lane and beside the truck. It seems that the op’s fiance, who was actually driving, would be more certain as to the circumstances.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be suggesting fighting the ticket if it was clear that the OP was at fault but it doesn’t appear to be clear in this case or the OP wouldn’t have posted what she did.</p>
<p>Thanks for repeating part of what I said, GGD.<br>
I said: “If they hire an atty, as some have advised…” and I discussed possible cost IF they chose that option. Maybe not every reader knows hiring an atty is optional, so your confimation of my post 32 should make that clear. You are also correct that in court, both sides tell their story then the judge rules.</p>
<p>Of course, based on what we know, if I were making bets on the likelihood of their being successful in this case without a skilled atty…</p>
<p>Good - we’re in agreement (as I think we often are on CC). It just boils down to, as you and I said, how it really went down and how it can be conveyed, what the judge would be convinced by, and whether the cop shows up or not. I think it’s worth a shot if the OP’s fiance thinks he didn’t commit an infraction.</p>
<p>Did the police officer write the report according the truck driver’s words? Or did he actually see the accident?</p>
<p>He wrote the report according to primarily the one witness, I think. I don’t think the truck driver even knew we were there, to be honest. The cop really didn’t seem to keen on getting our side of the story and when we tried to ask him how what happened was passing on the right, he got agitated very quickly and explained that truck drivers are allowed to make wide turns, without really answering our question. Frankly, he was pretty rude to us and spent way more time talking to the truck driver. Oh, he also laughed with the tow truck driver and took pictures that apparently never got attached to the police report.</p>
<p>I think you should ask your mother’s coworker to be a witness and report to your insurance company ASAP.</p>
<p>I’d like to make a technical point here:</p>
<p>The police do not determine who is at fault in a traffic accident. They attempt to determine whether any traffic violations have occured.</p>
<p>Insurance companies are the ones who determine who is at fault, and they determine this independently of any police report or traffic citations issues. Police reports and traffic citations will contribute to the insurance company determination, but are only a portion. The insurance company will interview witnesses, both drivers, and consult with professional experts if needed. </p>
<p>Therefore, fighting the traffic ticket is only a portion of attempting to pin the fault on the truck driver rather than hyperJulie. The more important fight will be with the insurance companies and their attorneys.</p>
<p>The police report carries SIGNIFICANT weight with insurers. If Julie is able to get the court to throw out the citation, that should also help her in working with her insurer. It would be additional evidence that the police report may be flawed. Different insurers spend different resources for cases, especially where there was no bodily injury, as in this case. Since the car was totalled, it is worthwhile being sure to get full name & contact info for coworker witness & anyone else that saw the accident and can support Julie’s version for insurer AND court.</p>