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 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 requires 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. Now I suppose it’d be if they only had enough printer paper for one ticket.)
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.
Just a technical comment that I thought would be a trick question on driving issues. Do you have to come to a complete stop at a red lite. The answer is no. You just can’t enter the intersection on a red like. You do have to come to a complete stop for a stop sign, but you can keep rolling ( granted sometimes very slowly ) until the lite turns green than you can enter the intersection without ever coming to a complete stop.
I remember when there was a national conversation on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. Here we need to define ‘at’. I think we agree on the right behavior and just have a different definition for ‘at’. You’re right that if you see a red light ahead you can slow down and gradually approach the intersection, and if the timing works out it’ll switch to green before you have to come to a complete stop. But if the red light is long enough, you’ll eventually come to a stop line, a crosswalk, or the bumper of the car in front of you. Then, of course, you’ll have to stop.
If we define ‘at a red light’ to include the area a few car-lengths before the intersection, then you may be able to keep rolling for a bit if the situation permits. If we define ‘at a red light’ as the stop line, crosswalk, or edge of the intersection, (and I think this definition is consistent with the law) then you always have to stop at a red light.
from the DOL drivers guide “At an intersection, look left and right even if other traffic has a red light or a stop sign.” The WA skills test has a score area for not looking left and right, when you are stopped at a red light that turns green, before entering the intersection. If the driver’s guide says to do something – does that mean I should find an RCW or law for the topic.
The Washington State Driver Guide includes traffic laws as well as safe practices. Chapter 3 of the guide is titled ‘Rules of the Road’ and any information in there you should also be able to find in the Revised Code of Washington. Chapter 4 is titled ‘Safe Driving Tips.’ This chapter has a lot of good advice for being a safe driver, but not all of it is found in the law. As one example, there’s a section about scanning that’s full of good advice you won’t find in the RCW; things like looking 15 seconds ahead and anticipating the need to slow down or stop so you can do it gradually (saving fuel and reducing wear on your brakes).
Your reference also comes from this section. Looking both ways before entering an intersection when you have a green light is a smart practice, but the law doesn’t specifically call it out as a requirement. I think of the law as the bare minimum requirements for driving. Following the law doesn’t make a person a good driver. It’s all those additional safe practices that driving instructors are teaching and students are being tested on that make better than bare minimum drivers.