Hi folks, hoping you can help me determine if it is correct that Driver 1 (D1) is 100% at fault, or if Driver 2 (D2) is at fault too: D1 traveling westbound enters intersection to cross two lanes to make left into a single lane southbound (both eastbound and westbound have left turn lanes in addition to two lanes of flowthrough traffic). Coming the opposite way is D2 in the outside lane. D1's vehicle gets hit on passenger side by D2's vehicle. D1 gave following evidence to police officer at the scene: "I was westbound in left turn lane, signal on, light was green, I wasn't going fast. Thought it was clear, I went, [D2] was too fast." Police had notes at end of D1 statement: No injuries, P/S airbag deployed. No witnesses. Sunny, dry. (seems like it is written as part of D1's statement, but D1 didn't say "Sunny, dry" and we're not sure D1 would have said 'no witnesses' - D1 can't remember this. D2 gave following evidence to police officer at the scene: "I was eastbound in outer lane, 55 km/hr, saw car turning, I slowed down, [D1] still didn't turn, blocking my way, slammed on my brakes before intersection, I hit [D2]. Green light all the way." Witness (in nearby store on south side) gave following evidence at the scene: "A vehicle was travelling west turned south into store's parking lot right into the path of a vehicle travelling east. The eastbound vehicle impacted the passenger side of the left-turn car and air bags were deployed. The two cars ended up almost side by side. Both vehicles moved their cars into the store's parking lot and waited for police." Police log is hard to read but there a note that may say 'slid from A01 to V1 revting 26.3 m' where "revting" appears to be a shortform or I'm an incompetent decipherer... The accident report says (I think) "D1 turned in front of D2 + they collided. No injuries. A01 unknown as vehicles were moved before police arrival." D1 was charged with 'Left turn failure to afford reasonable opportunity to avoid collision' and 100% at fault. I believe this is 2 demerit points. D1 insists D2 was going too fast, and D2 admits to seeing D1 and slowing down but then hitting D1 anyway (and admits to going 55 in a 50 zone, D1 thinks it was more), means D2 is also at fault. Could this be argued in court? Thank you so much for any help!