After the other person's agent finally got in touch with her, got her side of the story, and then negotiated & compromised with my agent, they decided that the other person was 85% liable and I was 15% liable. Apparently, anything under 50% is considered a "good" result (as it means you weren't "found at fault"), my agent thought was a pretty good deal, and I didn't want a re-negotiation to end up with a worse result for me, so I took what I could get and accepted that. So I got 85% of my deductable back.
However, the reason it wasn't 100%/0%? Because the other agent argued that because the road is two lanes each way, and I was in the right-hand lane and hit the other car behind the center post, that means the other car was alllllmost all the way through the intersection, and therefore could not be 100% at fault.
But 15% liable? WTF?
The whole reason there was an accident in the first place was because at the time she pulled out, I didn't have time nor space to stop, nor anywhere to veer to avoid her. I was already going under the speed limit, what in the world else could I have done in that situation that would have resulted in no liability on my part? Nothing, as far as I can tell, but this thought has gnawed at me in the month since the liability judgement was made.
Should I have veered left and run into the car stopped in that lane (more than 50% my fault)? Veered right and slammed into a the stoplight or streetlight poles there, or both (more than 50% my fault)? Sped up so that she would hit me (not possible, actually, given the situation and the lack of acceleration of my car, and that likely would've resulted in my car being totaled instead of hers). Dropped my speed to half the posted speed limit or less? (How many of you drop your speed to nearly nothing when approaching an intersection at which you have a green light, on the off chance that some idiot pulls out in front of you?)
The cop ticketed her, not me. My agent originally sounded confident that we'd get 0% liability on my part (of course, it's his job to say and argue that). I can't come up with any scenario that starts with the same cars in the same position on the same street that results in the accident being avoided. This is what is so aggravating about it, plus "got most of the way through the intersection" does not even remotely equal "had enough room to completely clear the intersection" (which is probably the only reason it wasn't closer to 50/50...)
After the same thing almost happened to me a couple more times at the same intersection over the past month--you really cannot see any oncoming left-turners at that intersection if there's a left-turner in your direction--I've started taking a different street for that part of my route home, one that only has three-way intersections that go off to the left and thus no chance of the same thing happening. Unfortunately, because of a train depot on a diagonal rail line with two grade crossings immediately adjoining the station that's right before that street on my way home (and with passenger trains that go through there pretty frequently during the evening rush), it's an alternate route that's much harder to get to.
I still don't know if my insurance rates will go up as a result (they shouldn't after a judgement of less than 50%, but that's a decision for the local agency to make), but otherwise, this is finally closed and (mostly) behind me.
Feudalism: Serf & Turf