Target Zero Manager Doug Dahl discusses the appropriate actions of drivers at intersections
Doug Dahl
The Wise Drive
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.
The Wise Drive is hosted by Doug Dahl, a Target Zero manager for the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.
Also read:
- Opinion: A year in review of news stories from a former sports guy
Clark County Today reporter Paul Valencia reflects on his evolving role, revisiting major news, community debates, sports moments, and human-interest stories that shaped Clark County in 2025. - Opinion: Ready for another pay decrease from the state? It happens Jan. 1
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that Washington’s Paid Family and Medical Leave payroll tax increase will further reduce workers’ take-home pay beginning Jan. 1. - Opinion: Justice for none – Court hands down a mandate without a dime to fund it
Nancy Churchill argues that a Washington Supreme Court ruling on public defense imposes costly mandates on local governments without providing funding to implement them. - Letter: When headlines gaslight the public
Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi argues that emotionally charged immigration headlines blur legal distinctions and mislead the public rather than inform it. - Opinion: California’s unemployment debt crisis mirrors Washington’s Employment Security Department failures
Mark Harmsworth compares California’s growing unemployment insurance debt with Washington’s Employment Security Department failures and argues both states must reform or risk continued economic harm.
