Wobble,
Let me try a bit here. I was a traffic cop with primary duty of accident (collision) investigation for over 12 years until a kid in a mustang took me out of the street.
First about the turn situation. What do you mean by "protected" left turn light? If you mean left turn arrow, I understand that fine. If this is an intersection with a "left on green arrow only" sign, your GF is at fault. You simply cannot turn without the arrow. If this is a signal with a left turn arrow but NO sign saying left on green arrow ONLY, then she can do what she did, but
only if there is no other vehicle so closely approaching so as to constitute a hazard or a collision results. She must also be
in the intersection before the light turns red for her.
If there is an outside witness to the signal then you "might" have a chance about the red light violation on the old lady. But it HAS to be an outside witness in a position to see the light from the old lady's position to refute her story. You don't count due to the relationship you have with your GF. You can't be considered "unbiased". The witness must be able to state clearly that the light was red
before the old lady entered the intersection. That means the old lady must not have gone past the curb line of the intersecting street before the light she was facing turned red. A witness is absolutely crucial unless the old lady "fesses up" to a red light. If she (the old lady) passed the curb line of the intersecting street
before the light turned red she can legally proceed through the intersection. If not, then she ran a red light. Proving it requires a witness.
As you see there isn't much hope here for the situation absent an outside witness. It is just one parties word against the others.
Now here is the speeding angle. By measuring the scruff or scrub marks(assuming the car was sliding not in line with the normal direction of travel) the tires made a reasonably accurate guestimate of the speed the old lady was going can be made. I say guestimate as the impact
ALWAYS has a bearing on the speed. In this case an argument can be made that the impact did not add any speed to the old lady's car as the impact was almost in opposite directional conflict rather than parallel where speed could be added to her vehicle from the impact with your girlfriends car. This is assuming an impact that was not a 90 degree collision but where your gf was still almost in opposite direction to the old lady. (Much easier to explain with drawings or physical examples) If the marks on the pavement are measured and the coefficient of friction of the pavement is reasonably known a speed can be extrapolated. In other words the vehicle can be shown to have had to travel x mph to create y amount of skids / scuff on the pavement given a known coefficient of friction. A skid test can be done with another vehicle going a known speed over the same kind and condition of pavement in the same area to confirm the coefficient of friction. This will confirm the speed determined from a skid nomograph. Based on this work you can derive an "approximate" speed of the old lady's vehicle.
In my jurisdiction a speed of more than 15mph over the limit woud be sufficient to show a negligent behavior while approaching the intersection and would negate the legal assumption that anyone turning as your gf did at the intersection would be failing to yield to oncoming traffic. In effect, the speeder has forfeited the right of way due to the excessive speed and it would not be reasonable for anyone turning to expect a car to be traveling that fast at that location under the circumstances. It almost always has to go to court to get this ruling or assumption to stick.
Now after looking at these assumptions and the situation, what would I have done? I would have cited both of them. All of the measurements and computations can be easily done at the scene to determine findings. I would have cited the old lady for "speed greater than reasonable or prudent" and your gf for "failure to yield making a left turn". This would allow the court to make a determination of "actual" fault. I have investigated a collision almost like this and did cite both parties.
Now here is what YOU do about the signal.
1. Get a video camera and film several hours of cars NOT getting the left arrow even though they should have. You must film it to show the car arrived in plenty of time to trip the sensor to phase the arrow in. You
must be able to show the signal is malfunctioning not once in a while but regularly.
2. Contact the highway repair division of the legal entity responsible for the signal and find out when it was last repaired and if they have repair complaints on file for the date of the collision. Find out if it has been repaired yet. Get this in writing. Go to the office if you have to or hire an attorney to subpoena the records.
3.
IF the film and the records show the signal was malfunctioning
AND the highway department knew about it but had not fixed it your gf has an outstanding opportunity to sue the entity responsible for the intersection and signals. She may not be found to be not at fault for the actual collision but can get compensated for the negligence of the highway department for not fixing a known malfunctioning traffic signal.
To gain additional weight for this you should also contact a local tv station news desk and offer them a copy of the tape you made showing the signal screwing up. Some stations love to dump traffic problems on the screen and embarrass the county / town or whatever entity is responsible for this.
Long post here as it is easier to explain in person than by typing. Hope this helps.
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 12-04-2000).]
