Q: We are helping our nephew learn to drive. On a recent drive, he was first at a green light, and did not look to see if anyone was running the red light for the cross street before he proceeded. His uncle maintains a crash would be the fault of the red-light runner, and I say the law requires you to make sure the intersection is clear before you proceed, so the person proceeding through without first making sure it is clear could be at fault.
A: I should not get involved in a family dispute, but I’m going to anyway. Collisions between two vehicles sometimes happen because of the actions of both drivers, so it’s not uncommon for both drivers to share some responsibility for the crash. In this case though, I’m siding with the uncle, and I’m basing that on what the law requires for each driver.
When trying to solve a conflict, it’s good to start with what we agree on. The law states that a driver facing a red light is required to stop. No argument there. For any driver that’s not on board with that, please shred your driver’s license and get a bus pass.
For the other driver, it’s wise to make sure the intersection is clear before proceeding, but the law on traffic signals doesn’t include that as a requirement. Once stopped at a red light, drivers are to remain until “an indication to proceed is shown.” When the light turns green, they can proceed. It doesn’t have a part about checking to make sure the intersection is clear in the way you’re describing, but does require turning drivers to yield to other vehicles lawfully in the intersection (think oncoming traffic that also has a green light.) That wouldn’t include the red-light runner, as it’s not lawfully in the intersection.
I understand why you might believe that the law requires a driver to make sure the intersection is clear before proceeding. The law for vehicles at an intersection with a stop sign does require drivers to “yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard.”
There is a law that states that it is “the duty of all persons to use due care”, so I’ll ask, “Is waiting for the light to turn green before proceeding sufficient due care, or does due care require a driver to also confirm that the cross-traffic with a red light has actually stopped?” That’d be up for a judge to decide, but if there was an officer investigating the crash and they had only one ticket left in their ticket book, I’m confident they’d give it to the red-light runner. (And it’s been years since police have had actual ticket books.)
To add to the debate, I’ll argue that the real question isn’t who’s at fault (well, if the crash actually happened that would be an important question) but in this theoretical scenario it’s, “Could the crash have been avoided?” It feels good to be right, but I’d much rather avoid getting in a crash because I took a second to check for someone else violating the law than have an officer (and possibly paramedic) give me sympathy for being hit by a red-light runner. Knowing the other driver got the ticket isn’t really much of a comfort when your car is totaled or you’re in the back of an ambulance.
Doug Dahl is with the Traffic Safety Commission and writes a weekly column for this newspaper.
