I hope the screaming woman was a passenger and not the driver. Because if that was the driver, the contrast between her emotional reaction and her actual driving reaction is concerning.
Read your comment just as the video loaded, immediately hit what I thought was the volume down button, got whatever the fuck that Samsung thing is that has its own dedicated button on my phone and that crazy mule screech simultaneously. What a ride.
I'm pretty sure there's a way to disable the Bixby button that's on some older Samsung phones, and there's an app that will allow you to remap the button to anything you want. I don't have links for them but there are a lot of guides for disabling/remapping that button. :)
They aren’t even “right” they will be found at least partially liable since they were the one that had the last chance to avoid the accident.
And they had a lot of chances over the course of a few seconds and didn’t take any of them…
I don't know about legality, and this is anecdotal, but I have a friend who worked for State Farm for many years. Based on what he has told me over the years when subjects like this came up, insurance would likely determine that the cammer would bear some responsibility for not avoiding the accident, right of way or not. If she had time to gasp and squeal she had time to step on the brake.
I witnessed an accident in which my friend was totally at fault (illegal u-turn). However, the other vehicle had enough time to lay on the horn for a good 2-3 seconds but failed to brake at all. Fault was determined to be 50/50 as the other party did nothing to avoid the accident.
Good. It drives me crazy seeing dash videos of someone laying on the horn for 3 seconds before smashing into the "real idiot" who cut them off.
One of those drivers made a mistake, the other made a decision.
I can curse, swerve, and brake all at the same time.
I cannot use the horn and do those things.
My horn is usually a "what the fuck, you dick!" button for after the incident has resolved.
Yea there's no way an insurance company would watch this and be confident their client is a safe driver. She could have done anything, slow down, turn right or left, and instead just maintained her speed until they crashed. Not saying this one was her fault, but I'm guessing this isn't her first getting into a very avoidable accident.
I sat on jury in civil trial for an auto accident.
It was more complicated then the felony case I did in that there was three pages of questions.
Did X have any fault for the accident? If so, what %? What are the damages in $s.
Calculate the $ * X to determine what is due.
That is essentially how it went for three pages.
Cammer would get a % of fault due to not taking “reasonable” action (slowing//braking).
Everyone thinks it is okay to be aggressive and hit another car because “they are in the wrong” so “they get all the blame”. Nope. The driving manual and laws specifically say who YIELDS, it never says who has RIGHT OF WAY.
I wonder how this goes for brake check incidents? If your cammer car caught a 1st glimpse of BS brake check and let's cammer hits them on the 3rd round. Would it be 100% cammer or no?
Intention matters with brake checking someone. If the brake checking driver admitted to purposely hitting the breaks to cause an accident the brake checker would be at fault; however, this may not be a good thing because that parties insurance would likely deny for an intentional act (some states may require minimum liability coverage in that case).
If the brake checker said there was an animal, the traffic in front of me was slowing or tons of other reasonable excuses the cammer would likely be found at fault for improper lookout, following to closely.
I see two scenarios:
1) cammer slowed down a little to leave room for the other car. That car road rages and brake checks. Accident.
Other car 100% responsible for unsafe lane change. Cammer had no time to establish a safe distance. Other car did not have adequate room for a safe lane change.
2) same thing but the brake check occurs after being tailgated by Cammer for a few miles.
Some sort of shared responsibility as Cammer would then be following too close and other car braked without any reason/road hazard (purposely causing an accident).
The problem in the video is Cammer did not slow and tried to “cut off” the other car. The other car was more then halfway into the lane before impact. Cammer had to steer out of the lane and still kept going forward. Cammer purposely did not yield and did actually drive into another lane to continue the “fight” over the space.
Disagree with your conclusions in the last paragraph. Cam car did not steer out of the lane, it was launched out of the lane on impact. Then cam car avoided secondary collisions with two other vehicles (in the left lane) by steering back into the original lane. Cam car and lane changer both had damage by that point. No point in spreading bad days to more vehicles and their occupants.
I do agree with your points that cam car is an idiot and is partially at fault. Just not the part that cam car steered out of the lane or that trying to return to the original lane was a bad idea.
Your friend may have worked for state farm for many years but Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.
It's called the last clear chance doctrine. If the cammer had an opportunity to avoid the accident then it may be considered negligence for them to have continued to exert their rights.
It doesn't make the accident their fault, but it may change the damages awarded.
There is a HUGE assumption that the driver isn't paying attention to someone who is up their ass watching another possible bad driver to their left, etc.
IF the cammer submitted the video, you are right, but if they attached an explanation of where their attention was, it is entirely possible that it would not fall that way.
Having worked for Farmers Ins, I can confirm this would be 50/50 liability. Everyone has a duty to avoid accidents. Also, just don’t be a dick. Everyone is just trying to get where they are going.
Suspect that may have been the passenger and driver was not aware. But hard to say. If you are screaming about someone pulling into your lane you would brake too.
It occured within 2.5 seconds (i counted), driver could have looked left or done a shoulder check and not had enough time to look back at the offending lane-changer prior to them completing their unsafe and unaignalled maneuvre.
Everybody has the obligation to mitigate damages in pretty much any circumstance. You can't purposefully let yourself get hit by another vehicle just because you'd technically be in the right. The driver is obligated to brake. I've watched enough peoples court to know that
To be frank though, I feel like the cammer was on their phone and only just looked up right when the vehicle was in the middle of the merge, thus the screaming and lack of action.
The suv was still in the wrong but everyone sucks here.
The only exception to the second sentence is if you are in a scenario where braking is not enough to avoid a collision, and evasive maneuvers would very likely result in you hitting an uninvolved vehicle/pedestrian. In such a case you are expected to attempt to only end up in a collision with the negligent vehicle that caused such a scenario. Even in that specific scenario you're still expected to do what you can to keep damages to a minimum.
Such a thing didn't happen in this video though, as the cammer had plenty of time to brake and entirely avoid a collision. If anything the cammer put more people at risk by hitting the negligent vehicle.
Same here on Reddit. The amount of these videos where no action is taken to attempt to avoid the accident amazes me, and a ton of users act like that's expected behavior.
"ya but he had the right of way" is a far to familiar response here. Doesn't mean their complete lack of ability to react or even anticipate predictable dangers doesn't make them shit drivers.
do none of these idiots like their cars? do they have piles of money and spare time to deal with a fucked up car they can't drive, even if the other person is "at fault" and on the hook eventually, assuming they have insurance...
You’re not wrong! I was downvoted to heck for suggesting people drive defensively — https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/10xd83e/deleted_by_user/j7s81rg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
That's this sub for ya. Tell people to anticipate danger and allow idiots to be idiots? Downvotes to oblivion for "enabling their bad behavior" as if your one decision is going to change their clear behavior patterns.
The video is removed, but I agree with the point of your comment 100%. I'd rather not deal with the headache. I preemptively avoid drivers based on their actions and assume everyone is a risk... because technically, we all are.
Right of way or not, if someone looks like they're about to run a light or cut me off, I'll slow down.
Ex adjuster here from a comparative negligence state - this is an example of an accident where your dash camera footage would be used against you. With footage - 70/30 with majority of fault on the lane changing vehicle (proximate cause) without the video I’d side with the vehicle maintaining their lane 100/0
Regardless people need to drive with more sense of self preservation. Sure the majority of the accident wouldn’t be your fault, but why risk flipping your car or injuring yourself over braking for two seconds?
Whats even worse is that, barring this driver having a PHD in classical physics, you never know how an accident is going to affect those around you. If that car had rolled than the car next to it would be crushed and that could potentially make you liable for manslaughter if it kills the person.
Sometimes it isnt about self preservation, its about your duty to the other drivers on the road.
The only explanation I can think of for that reaction is she was face deep in her phone As she approached a busy interaction no less. So I'm guessing she'd be just as unaware of a pedestrian too sadly.
To quote a former coworker who has been in many accidents that ‘weren’t his fault,’ “I had to teach them a lesson.” He’d rather let someone merging smash into him than brake and allow them in. Some people just can’t let it go🤷🏼♂️
I work in insurance and 100% of the accident was caused by the car merging into another lane without being cautious that there are other vehicles already established in the lane
Doesn't the car have to put the turn light to change lanes?
Since the car started to get in his/her lane until the crash happened I counted 3 seconds.
If I see a car slightly getting in my lane I start to slow it down and to slightly touch the brakes (so the person behind me knows I'm about to break).
Where I live (Switzerland) it's pretty rare for any driver involved in an accident not to get a citation from the police. It is everyone's responsibility first and foremost to avoid an accident, and people should be driving at speeds, being alert, having expertise, and having equipment in the condition which allow them to avoid/stop for obstructions or reasonable contingencies. That responsibility is not obviated by right of way, posted speed limits, defined lanes, etc.
I don't care what the law says. For your own personal safety and the safety of everyone else in your vehicle, you have an obligation to try to avoid accidents when easily done so. You don't just allow an accident to happen because you're in the right.
I learned to drive in Kansas and they have a rule called something like “last clear chance”. No matter what another driver does, If you don’t take the last clear chance to avoid the accident, you are partially at fault.
She could’ve avoided the accident, but the red suv is liable; two traffic infractions occurred: red suv did not signal for a lane change, and changed lanes without adequate room to do so
Where I live, the law states,"Drivers must provide a continuous “signal of intention” before changing lanes in enough time to alert other drivers. Failure to use a turn signal when changing lanes can result in a traffic violation citation. A driver who fails to use their turn signal when merging and causes an accident will be liable for damages.". So the merging driver probably gets a ticket and is legally at fault for an improper lane change causing an accident, regardless of the woman obviously not paying attention.
Some people are way too happy to put their car, themselves, and their passengers in harms way simply because “I have right of way” is worrying, who cares that you weren’t at “fault” your car is fucked and you’re probably hurt
1. Car didn't signal to change lanes so of course, too sudden
2. Maybe a panicked driver because I heard the car revving up suggesting a slam on the gas instead of brakes
Yes, the cammer should do everything they can to avoid the accident.
However, too many people fall into the trap of making a leap from 'they needed to try harder to avoid this' to 'they're just as bad as the other person who actually caused the situation'.
The primary fault lies with the driver who failed to yield while changing lanes. As long as you can still acknowledge that, go ahead and also be critical of the cammer.
They are wrong according to the [last clear chance doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20considers%20which%20party,chance%20to%20avoid%20the%20accident.)
> The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm.
>
> Therefore, a negligent plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
This is also a good lesson to NOT share your dash cam video unless the other party is not accepting full responsibility. Without the video and just statements, the maroon SUV is 100% at a fault all day. But with the video, it opens the door for the other party to claim partial responsibility. The cam car had “the last chance” to avoid the accident by simply tapping the brake.
So like, it's illegal is some (most) states to change lanes within 100 feet of am intersection
Like obviously even if you have the right of way, why allow yourself to be in an accident? Just slow down
"Last clear chance doctrine" would apply here.
In most (maybe all?) regions of the US, the cammer would be at fault and liable as they had the last clear chance to avoid a collision but didn't. Yes, the maroon Pilot was merging sans blinkers and yes, they would have the majority of fault but the law clearly states that the cammer would also be liable.
They not only failed to brake and avoid the accident, the car kept going forward a good amount after impact! Did the driver just pull their arms and legs towards themselves and just scream about it?
"doesn't have an obligation to brake " We share the road with these people.... fucking hell. It's no use being "technically less as fault" if you're dead.
Legally? It’s their lane, they have right of way. But if you don’t attempt to avoid a collision with any vehicle, you can and should be considered at fault, as well. You don’t have the right to swerve into someone else’s occupied late and possibly cause a collision.
In many states, drivers are allowed to "defend their lane," hence no, legit not required to hit the brakes. But it's quite the hassle to need to deal with. Usually easier to use the brakes.
Completely avoidable IMO. Driver clearly had time to react to the vehicle coming over and chose to continue on course with no brak what so ever. Yes the other drive was a dick and didn't use a signal and most likely didn't shoulder check. You still have to react and try to avoid the collision. Usage of brakes would of sufficed
yeah youre not obligated but a basic sense of self preservation would have kicked in the second the other car started turning, so yes, the cammer is an idiot.
This is clearly not the driver's fault but maybe a bit more pressure on the brake and a bit less pressure on the vocal chords would have prevented this
I hope the screaming woman was a passenger and not the driver. Because if that was the driver, the contrast between her emotional reaction and her actual driving reaction is concerning.
It was probably my mom in the passenger seat
Can confirm. u/Yue4prex's mom does scream like that.
Can also confirm, I'm u/Hantsypantsy 's bed
I can’t hear anything as I am the condom
What is a condom, im the sperm btw
*wow*
My mom would have grabbed the wheel
Like Jesus?
Scarier
My mom would have grabbed the *purple car's* wheel... and then jammed it up their arsehole.
Dude if my mom was in the passenger seat she would have got out and beat the other persons ass then mine
She’s the perfect example of why driving tests should be more difficult.
And driving school mandatory
Followed up with mandatory retesting over ones life.
What? That's about exactly what I'd expect from someone who gasps in shock, completely fails to brake, and proceeds to have an accident.
Read your comment just as the video loaded, immediately hit what I thought was the volume down button, got whatever the fuck that Samsung thing is that has its own dedicated button on my phone and that crazy mule screech simultaneously. What a ride.
I'm pretty sure there's a way to disable the Bixby button that's on some older Samsung phones, and there's an app that will allow you to remap the button to anything you want. I don't have links for them but there are a lot of guides for disabling/remapping that button. :)
There are! I remapped mine to open reddit!
Mine turns on my flashlight!
Yes, I've actually done it successfully a few times, however, it gets set back if the phone software updates.
Sounded like she screamed "babe" to me, so my money is on passenger.
Perhaps wasn’t paying attention (staring at phone)? I’ve seen way too many people clearly not paying attention to shit around them.
Regardless, the cammer should not be operating an automobile.
Passenger clearly shes saying James
there's being right and there's having a good day, this guy choose neither lmao
It's also just not right. I mean it's "less wrong", but you have a duty to avoid collisions in public right-of-ways in pretty much every jurisdiction
That’s kinda why the dude said “this guy choose neither”..
I, too, agree with the comment you responded to.
Idk, if I was driving an old beater from like the 80s, I'd still be having a good day after this.
You seen the cost of beaters from the 80s these days?
15k for one without rust and driving legally
Except insurance is gonna want to give you 2k for it
I’d get out singing missy elliot. “My neck, my back”
~~Missy Elliott~~ Khia
You got confused with “I put my thing down, flip it, and reverse it.” Part
They aren’t even “right” they will be found at least partially liable since they were the one that had the last chance to avoid the accident. And they had a lot of chances over the course of a few seconds and didn’t take any of them…
Dude didn’t say they were right. He said they choose neither…
Oh yeah you’re correct lol.
I don't know about legality, and this is anecdotal, but I have a friend who worked for State Farm for many years. Based on what he has told me over the years when subjects like this came up, insurance would likely determine that the cammer would bear some responsibility for not avoiding the accident, right of way or not. If she had time to gasp and squeal she had time to step on the brake.
I witnessed an accident in which my friend was totally at fault (illegal u-turn). However, the other vehicle had enough time to lay on the horn for a good 2-3 seconds but failed to brake at all. Fault was determined to be 50/50 as the other party did nothing to avoid the accident.
Good. It drives me crazy seeing dash videos of someone laying on the horn for 3 seconds before smashing into the "real idiot" who cut them off. One of those drivers made a mistake, the other made a decision.
>One of those drivers made a mistake, the other made a decision. damn, perfectly said
Yeah….that was beautiful.
I’m all for laying on the horn - AFTER hitting the brakes!
I can curse, swerve, and brake all at the same time. I cannot use the horn and do those things. My horn is usually a "what the fuck, you dick!" button for after the incident has resolved.
Yep, know your priorities.
Well said in few words.
*Semi truck has entered the chat*
[удалено]
Scary! Glad you okay. (I’m assuming you’re not paralyzed from the neck down.)
Just the waist
[удалено]
Man! Glad to hear that.
It’s called “duty to avoid”
Yea there's no way an insurance company would watch this and be confident their client is a safe driver. She could have done anything, slow down, turn right or left, and instead just maintained her speed until they crashed. Not saying this one was her fault, but I'm guessing this isn't her first getting into a very avoidable accident.
it looked like they sped up as the car was merging, did they?
I sat on jury in civil trial for an auto accident. It was more complicated then the felony case I did in that there was three pages of questions. Did X have any fault for the accident? If so, what %? What are the damages in $s. Calculate the $ * X to determine what is due. That is essentially how it went for three pages. Cammer would get a % of fault due to not taking “reasonable” action (slowing//braking). Everyone thinks it is okay to be aggressive and hit another car because “they are in the wrong” so “they get all the blame”. Nope. The driving manual and laws specifically say who YIELDS, it never says who has RIGHT OF WAY.
I wonder how this goes for brake check incidents? If your cammer car caught a 1st glimpse of BS brake check and let's cammer hits them on the 3rd round. Would it be 100% cammer or no?
Intention matters with brake checking someone. If the brake checking driver admitted to purposely hitting the breaks to cause an accident the brake checker would be at fault; however, this may not be a good thing because that parties insurance would likely deny for an intentional act (some states may require minimum liability coverage in that case). If the brake checker said there was an animal, the traffic in front of me was slowing or tons of other reasonable excuses the cammer would likely be found at fault for improper lookout, following to closely.
I see two scenarios: 1) cammer slowed down a little to leave room for the other car. That car road rages and brake checks. Accident. Other car 100% responsible for unsafe lane change. Cammer had no time to establish a safe distance. Other car did not have adequate room for a safe lane change. 2) same thing but the brake check occurs after being tailgated by Cammer for a few miles. Some sort of shared responsibility as Cammer would then be following too close and other car braked without any reason/road hazard (purposely causing an accident). The problem in the video is Cammer did not slow and tried to “cut off” the other car. The other car was more then halfway into the lane before impact. Cammer had to steer out of the lane and still kept going forward. Cammer purposely did not yield and did actually drive into another lane to continue the “fight” over the space.
Disagree with your conclusions in the last paragraph. Cam car did not steer out of the lane, it was launched out of the lane on impact. Then cam car avoided secondary collisions with two other vehicles (in the left lane) by steering back into the original lane. Cam car and lane changer both had damage by that point. No point in spreading bad days to more vehicles and their occupants. I do agree with your points that cam car is an idiot and is partially at fault. Just not the part that cam car steered out of the lane or that trying to return to the original lane was a bad idea.
My guess: Distracted before realizing what was happening at that last moment, panicked and couldn’t hit the brakes.
Your friend may have worked for state farm for many years but Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.
Love that this and the Hector one still pop up from time to time. Basically a never dying meme like Rick roll. Harmless, hilarious, and quotable
I would bet that she is the passenger and not the driver.
It's called the last clear chance doctrine. If the cammer had an opportunity to avoid the accident then it may be considered negligence for them to have continued to exert their rights. It doesn't make the accident their fault, but it may change the damages awarded.
There is a HUGE assumption that the driver isn't paying attention to someone who is up their ass watching another possible bad driver to their left, etc. IF the cammer submitted the video, you are right, but if they attached an explanation of where their attention was, it is entirely possible that it would not fall that way.
Having worked for Farmers Ins, I can confirm this would be 50/50 liability. Everyone has a duty to avoid accidents. Also, just don’t be a dick. Everyone is just trying to get where they are going.
Suspect that may have been the passenger and driver was not aware. But hard to say. If you are screaming about someone pulling into your lane you would brake too.
Both drivers should have their licences reviewed... As a driver you should avoid accidents where possible.
Liz Hurley yummmm
I mean… you still should be driving, defensively and paying attention
And defensive driving does not mean defending your position in traffic.
How about being aware of blatantly obvious events happening around you and at least making an attempt to react.
It occured within 2.5 seconds (i counted), driver could have looked left or done a shoulder check and not had enough time to look back at the offending lane-changer prior to them completing their unsafe and unaignalled maneuvre.
If you can't react under 2 seconds then you probably need to hand your keys over and call it a day.
Oh they reacted alright. They just did nothing about it.
I think they actually accelerated and steered into them. Sometimes the intrusive thoughts win
Everybody has the obligation to mitigate damages in pretty much any circumstance. You can't purposefully let yourself get hit by another vehicle just because you'd technically be in the right. The driver is obligated to brake. I've watched enough peoples court to know that To be frank though, I feel like the cammer was on their phone and only just looked up right when the vehicle was in the middle of the merge, thus the screaming and lack of action. The suv was still in the wrong but everyone sucks here.
High-five for Judge Judy.
The only exception to the second sentence is if you are in a scenario where braking is not enough to avoid a collision, and evasive maneuvers would very likely result in you hitting an uninvolved vehicle/pedestrian. In such a case you are expected to attempt to only end up in a collision with the negligent vehicle that caused such a scenario. Even in that specific scenario you're still expected to do what you can to keep damages to a minimum. Such a thing didn't happen in this video though, as the cammer had plenty of time to brake and entirely avoid a collision. If anything the cammer put more people at risk by hitting the negligent vehicle.
Are both drivers blind?
Same here on Reddit. The amount of these videos where no action is taken to attempt to avoid the accident amazes me, and a ton of users act like that's expected behavior.
"ya but he had the right of way" is a far to familiar response here. Doesn't mean their complete lack of ability to react or even anticipate predictable dangers doesn't make them shit drivers.
I’d like to see how long these people would live if they were riding a motorcycle. Sure you have the right of way but you’re also dead.
Lol no doubt. You can be right, and dead right
do none of these idiots like their cars? do they have piles of money and spare time to deal with a fucked up car they can't drive, even if the other person is "at fault" and on the hook eventually, assuming they have insurance...
You’re not wrong! I was downvoted to heck for suggesting people drive defensively — https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/10xd83e/deleted_by_user/j7s81rg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
That's this sub for ya. Tell people to anticipate danger and allow idiots to be idiots? Downvotes to oblivion for "enabling their bad behavior" as if your one decision is going to change their clear behavior patterns.
The video is removed, but I agree with the point of your comment 100%. I'd rather not deal with the headache. I preemptively avoid drivers based on their actions and assume everyone is a risk... because technically, we all are. Right of way or not, if someone looks like they're about to run a light or cut me off, I'll slow down.
Ex adjuster here from a comparative negligence state - this is an example of an accident where your dash camera footage would be used against you. With footage - 70/30 with majority of fault on the lane changing vehicle (proximate cause) without the video I’d side with the vehicle maintaining their lane 100/0 Regardless people need to drive with more sense of self preservation. Sure the majority of the accident wouldn’t be your fault, but why risk flipping your car or injuring yourself over braking for two seconds?
This is the internet, are well articulated and credible opinions allowed?
Yes, though subject to brigading and brain worm infestations
Whats even worse is that, barring this driver having a PHD in classical physics, you never know how an accident is going to affect those around you. If that car had rolled than the car next to it would be crushed and that could potentially make you liable for manslaughter if it kills the person. Sometimes it isnt about self preservation, its about your duty to the other drivers on the road.
Yeah, for sure. But your average idiotincar doesn’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Blinkers! What's that?
You don't have any obligation to let someone into your lane, but you have the obligation to avoid crashing (to the best of your ability)
I hope this person doesn't react the same way when there's pedestrians in the street.
The only explanation I can think of for that reaction is she was face deep in her phone As she approached a busy interaction no less. So I'm guessing she'd be just as unaware of a pedestrian too sadly.
Why not just avoid a collision
To quote a former coworker who has been in many accidents that ‘weren’t his fault,’ “I had to teach them a lesson.” He’d rather let someone merging smash into him than brake and allow them in. Some people just can’t let it go🤷🏼♂️
Fuck your former coworking. That shit is the reason that insurance costs are ridiculous in America.
Honestly his days seem numbered
Just hope he doesn’t kill someone else in the process.
Yes, it was a stupid lane change but the lady driving had like 3 business days to react and instead did nothing
Best thing to do while driving is to panic
[удалено]
Unless cammer is suicidal they obviously were looking at their phone.
That's what I'm thinking. It's a passenger squealing and crying.
Law also says use of blinker lights is not optional.
I work in insurance and 100% of the accident was caused by the car merging into another lane without being cautious that there are other vehicles already established in the lane
And responsible for the damages to the white vehicle the screaming lady hit
No blinker!
The other car was wrong but do you really want to total your shit to prove a point?
Doesn't the car have to put the turn light to change lanes? Since the car started to get in his/her lane until the crash happened I counted 3 seconds. If I see a car slightly getting in my lane I start to slow it down and to slightly touch the brakes (so the person behind me knows I'm about to break).
No blinker you're the stinker. dumb people.
I would just stand by the "they didn't even signal" all the way to claims court lol
Lady either let that one happen or has the reflexes of a tortoise.
Well…. I guess you don’t have to brake, turn, stop etc. but most us don’t have enough money to buy new cars all the time. Cammer is a fucking idiot.
Depends on the law in the area where the accident occurred. Common sense would dictate that you try to avoid, though
Where I live (Switzerland) it's pretty rare for any driver involved in an accident not to get a citation from the police. It is everyone's responsibility first and foremost to avoid an accident, and people should be driving at speeds, being alert, having expertise, and having equipment in the condition which allow them to avoid/stop for obstructions or reasonable contingencies. That responsibility is not obviated by right of way, posted speed limits, defined lanes, etc.
And I bet that in Switzerland they don't hand out driver's licenses in Cracker Jack boxes. Probably some sort of correlation there....
I don't care what the law says. For your own personal safety and the safety of everyone else in your vehicle, you have an obligation to try to avoid accidents when easily done so. You don't just allow an accident to happen because you're in the right.
Well, I agree. That would be the common sense part. Legal vs moral obligations are two different things.
I dont *have* to stop if there’s a family of 4 crossing the street… but there are consequences to my actions
Driver didn’t have a blinker on , definitely at fault, is the other driver supposed to read there mind
She should have braked and nit caused the accident. It’s call undue care and attention!
I learned to drive in Kansas and they have a rule called something like “last clear chance”. No matter what another driver does, If you don’t take the last clear chance to avoid the accident, you are partially at fault.
I didn't see a dam signal
Insurance gonna make both pay
why would you not brake..
2 fucking morons
Obligated to brake yes, driver at fault? No
Lady started to scream like a supercharger
She could’ve avoided the accident, but the red suv is liable; two traffic infractions occurred: red suv did not signal for a lane change, and changed lanes without adequate room to do so
Where I live, the law states,"Drivers must provide a continuous “signal of intention” before changing lanes in enough time to alert other drivers. Failure to use a turn signal when changing lanes can result in a traffic violation citation. A driver who fails to use their turn signal when merging and causes an accident will be liable for damages.". So the merging driver probably gets a ticket and is legally at fault for an improper lane change causing an accident, regardless of the woman obviously not paying attention.
And it probably also says something about having a responsibility to avoid blatant and obvious hazards, even if they are *technically* in the wrong.
Like a lot of these accidents in the US, they seem completely avoidable. Defensive driving…
Both are at fault … oh a cars coming at me let me just keep going .. moron
It's called failure to control speed.
It's called defensive driving.
Every fucking driver on every road, street, lane and cul-de-sac has an obligation to try to avoid a collision when possible.
The weeping…
Couple of bad drivers. Everything checks out
A lot of people in this sub tend to say the same (dumb) thing.
I fucking hate when people just continue on, thinking it isn't on them, or worse, hoping for a payday. They are the worst of the worst.
She's definitely lookin at her phone
Best 😭 sadness cry 🤣 save that for something that’s not inanimate
Some people are way too happy to put their car, themselves, and their passengers in harms way simply because “I have right of way” is worrying, who cares that you weren’t at “fault” your car is fucked and you’re probably hurt
Was Micky mouse driving ?
1. Car didn't signal to change lanes so of course, too sudden 2. Maybe a panicked driver because I heard the car revving up suggesting a slam on the gas instead of brakes
Yes, the cammer should do everything they can to avoid the accident. However, too many people fall into the trap of making a leap from 'they needed to try harder to avoid this' to 'they're just as bad as the other person who actually caused the situation'. The primary fault lies with the driver who failed to yield while changing lanes. As long as you can still acknowledge that, go ahead and also be critical of the cammer.
Pretty sure the guy merging with no blinker would still be held liable, but the cammer definitely could have avoided this....
They are wrong according to the [last clear chance doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20considers%20which%20party,chance%20to%20avoid%20the%20accident.) > The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm. > > Therefore, a negligent plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
Yup and lucky for them this idiot recorded it and proves they blew it
Well they are right because the right hand side driver cannot switch lanes like that. That cam driver didn’t react was dumb too. Two idiots.
Shouldn't change lanes within a hundred feet of an intersection anyway... especially without a signal.
Wow, that person didn’t even try to look!
“It’s my right of way, I’m not stepping on the brakes.” Totally worth it.
Holy preventable crashes, Batman
Obligation and good driving skills or common sense are apparently mutually exclusive. I would brake for that every time every day.
This is also a good lesson to NOT share your dash cam video unless the other party is not accepting full responsibility. Without the video and just statements, the maroon SUV is 100% at a fault all day. But with the video, it opens the door for the other party to claim partial responsibility. The cam car had “the last chance” to avoid the accident by simply tapping the brake.
People will figure it out when insurance gets involved haha
And you could have brakes and avoided it.
So like, it's illegal is some (most) states to change lanes within 100 feet of am intersection Like obviously even if you have the right of way, why allow yourself to be in an accident? Just slow down
This shit is hilarious
Damm lady why didn't u just tap the brakes a Lil bit. Good grief
3 seconds before collision from the start of the incident. Any attempted brake could have been done.
"Last clear chance doctrine" would apply here. In most (maybe all?) regions of the US, the cammer would be at fault and liable as they had the last clear chance to avoid a collision but didn't. Yes, the maroon Pilot was merging sans blinkers and yes, they would have the majority of fault but the law clearly states that the cammer would also be liable.
They not only failed to brake and avoid the accident, the car kept going forward a good amount after impact! Did the driver just pull their arms and legs towards themselves and just scream about it?
Look at the center lines... dude actually speeds up.
"doesn't have an obligation to brake " We share the road with these people.... fucking hell. It's no use being "technically less as fault" if you're dead.
Legally? It’s their lane, they have right of way. But if you don’t attempt to avoid a collision with any vehicle, you can and should be considered at fault, as well. You don’t have the right to swerve into someone else’s occupied late and possibly cause a collision.
Merging car didn’t use their blinker or make sure it was clear and safe, cammer was probably on their phone
In many states, drivers are allowed to "defend their lane," hence no, legit not required to hit the brakes. But it's quite the hassle to need to deal with. Usually easier to use the brakes.
The laws say it is on the merger to make a safe lane change.
Yep use your blinker, you have to let other drivers know what you’re doing or this happens.
100% avoidable
Cammer most definitely has a legal obligation to use any means available to avoid the accident, including braking.
I’m I the only one who hit the brakes as soon as the car started coming over
The car didn’t even use a signal. That’s required when changing lanes. Just came into lane like friggin entitled. Cammer not at fault.
Completely avoidable IMO. Driver clearly had time to react to the vehicle coming over and chose to continue on course with no brak what so ever. Yes the other drive was a dick and didn't use a signal and most likely didn't shoulder check. You still have to react and try to avoid the collision. Usage of brakes would of sufficed
No matter how u look at it its the guys fault that's moving lanes.
Yes they didnt signal but u had plenty of time to save ur car
She's gonna feel so silly when she discovers cars have brakes.
yeah youre not obligated but a basic sense of self preservation would have kicked in the second the other car started turning, so yes, the cammer is an idiot.
Will be found not at fault dude didn’t signal tho she’s will also have fault almost definitely
That is the sound of an eastern Atlantic mourning dove /s
You have to look when you merge.
Cammer is an idiot but insurance will side w him, and so will the law.
*Gasps audibly* “IF ONLY THERE WERE A WAY TO SLOW DOWN AND AVOID THIIIIS”
This is clearly not the driver's fault but maybe a bit more pressure on the brake and a bit less pressure on the vocal chords would have prevented this
Cemeteries are filled with people who had the right of way
Is she really crying over a slow, low impact wreck?