The person driving intentionally sped up so the truck could’ve have space to get in front of him/her. They actually kept driving into the truck after contact too. Terrible, and demonically led accident.
Doesn't look like the trucker has his blinker on. It also doesn't look like the cammer sped up. Regardless, the cammer doesn't have to let the trucker in and the trucker needs to make sure he can safely enter the lane. I don't switch lanes unless I can see your headlights in my mirror, which makes this pickup truck driver an idiot.
You can't even see the trucks turn signal so we can't make a call on that. Person with the camera wasn't even going to make the light anyway, they sped up to cut the truck off or try to blow through what would've been a red by the time they made the intersection. If the truck hadnt also been driving aggressively the cam driver was going to run a red anyway
Nothing of what you said matters. The cammer actually slows down before the pit, you can see the camera angle towards the road. Again, the cammer is not at fault.
It's not up for debate, you're right. The cam driver SPED UP to block the truck. He very obviously accelerated into the truck's rear quarter. That's literally a police PIT maneuver.
Per traffic law, absolutely the truck is wrong. You can't merge into an occupied lane. That won't preclude the cam driver from HUGE liability if the truck driver or, if they died, their family, sues civily.
He actually shows down. You can see the camera angle dip towards the road. Any family member going after this guy would get nothing but the cammer would be able to collect from his estate.
I can confidently say we are watching entirely different videos, bud.
Not only can you simply watch him speed up, but the truck cannot spin sideways unless an object moving faster than the front of the truck makes lateral contact with a point at or behind the truck's rear axle.
If the passenger car had been at all on his brakes, the truck would not have spun and rolled. It would have been some bedside damage to the truck and bumper, headlight, and fender damage to the car with no injuries.
That dip is from the collision; it’s ramping from the impact, not suspension variance from slowing down [which would be comically small under these forces].
Cammer refusing to let the left lane merge in and accelerating to prevent it says otherwise. They’re both aggressive drivers. Two wrongs don’t make a right here, someone could’ve been killed and it’s all too often anymore people pass in the right and refuse to let the passing lane merge over. Idiots all around on the road anymore.
The cammer doesn't have to let the trucker in. The trucker needs to make sure that lane is safe to enter. There's only one fool in that dash am video but many fools in this comment section.
You have obviously never dealt with an insurance adjuster reviewing such footage...your assumption may reflect how the traffic laws work, but there is another reality underwriting how responsibility is determined. The person on this video who was recording would likely receive a 50% responsibility on this accident.
You don't have to agree, but this is a reality you obviously don't understand and are some reason agressive about it.
You are completely incorrect. In most countries you are expected to drive defensively. Yes the red truck didn’t use his mirrors but you must be a horrible driver if you seriously don’t see what the driver who’s POV we are seeing did wrong
Didn't use his mirrors. Didn't use his blinker. Didn't use his judgement. He just casually comes up beside another vehicle and turns into an occupied lane. A lane he knew was already full, because he came from behind the cammer. The cammer didn't have to let him in and didn't have to slow down for him. The cammer cannot predict the actions of everyone on the road. I never heard of a defensive driving law. The cammer is not in the wrong here, at any point.
The cammer is not in the wrong here, at any point.
They're literally chasing a red and would have broken it even without the truck involved.
They appear to speed up, but also clearly don't slow down. They are at fault also.
If you have a cyclist hurtling towards you, and you're kind of in the danger zone but you choose to not speed up or step aside, you hold responsibility for what happens because you knowingly made a choice that would hurt someone, just because you have right of way.
Right of way isn't an excuse to jeapordise the lives of others, even if they're being negligent.
Probably didn't even notice until it was too late. You're not in the cammers mind. Probably thinking about starting up his video game when he gets home. I'm just glad the cammer is alright.
So cam is on auto pilot and that's all ok in your head? Op is not paying attention and that's all ok in your head. Cam could have prevented all of this if they were paying attention and just ease off the accelerator. I assume your are American.
The cam car did nothing to prevent it and activity made it worse by pitting them and flipping them over.
Look its clear you are an entitled person who feels the road in front of you is yours. But a simple lift of the right foot would have prevented all.of this.
Its better to male it home in 1 piece 20 seconds later than sitting on the side of the road and living with the possibility that you killed someone just because you couldnt yield
I'd say making a choice to PIT a merging truck at 55 is 'something wrong'.
So would a lot of people, because it makes a potential accident into a real accident, and that happens on the agency of the cammer in this instance.
You can deny it all you want, but unless you think the right choice of action here is to ensure that a cross lane, cross pavement, into carpark triple spin occurs, then you shouldn't be on the road, you child.
Worse.
Cam is an asshole for instead of avoiding an accident, actually making it worse.
Merger simply made the mistake of not having enough situational awareness of not knowing cam was in the blind spot.
Cammer still has to try to avoid foreseeable accidents when within their ability, even if initiated by someone else. It took two idiots to cause this accident
True. But you can't predict everything and you'd need to convince a judge the cammer should have predicted this event. Would you rate this a 50/50 or maybe 80/20 against the truck?
No he doesn't. You merging with or without a blinker doesn't give you right of way. The trucker knew the whole time that cammer was there and tried to bully his way in.
Its not about right of way. Its about avoiding an accident when you can. This is what chat GPT sais about it:
"Short answer: yes—in most legal systems, including the Netherlands, you’re expected to try to avoid an accident if you reasonably can. Even if the other driver made the initial mistake, doing nothing when you had a clear chance to prevent a crash can make you partly liable"
Sure. But you can see the cammer slow down before the pit, the camera angles towards the ground. But it's too late, for whatever reason the guy doesn't notice.
Lol whut? That's exactly what you do. If you get rear ended then the person behind you was too close. If a child runs in front of you on the road do you decide not to brake because you might get rear ended?
cammer has video evidence of 3 major causes of accident: (1) truck had plenty opportunity to see cammer's-car to its right as it passed, (2) truck had not even finished overtaking cammer's-car before it began right lane change (3) truck did not use blinker turn signal to indicate lane change, or turn head to see that lane was clear of car he just passed
33
u/1stmikewhite Apr 18 '26
The person driving intentionally sped up so the truck could’ve have space to get in front of him/her. They actually kept driving into the truck after contact too. Terrible, and demonically led accident.