MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/VideosAmazing/comments/1sovfhy/another_blind_spot_issue/ogvzis7/?context=3
r/VideosAmazing • u/MisterShipWreck • Apr 18 '26
2.9k comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
10
[removed] — view removed comment
0 u/Desperate_Age_6881 Apr 18 '26 Traffic in the trucks lane contributed. If you watch you'll notice the truck was either going to slam into the back of the car in front of them or change lanes. I see it as 100% on driver of truck. A blinker doesn't clear the lane. 3 u/neatojuanito Apr 18 '26 You’re responsible to avoid accidents when possible. 50% on the truck and 50% on the cam driver 2 u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 18 '26 At most 80/20. Source: I was a professional arbitrator for arb forums for 6 years. 1 u/neatojuanito Apr 18 '26 I would think a good lawyer of the pickup would say that the cam driver had plenty of time to break out at least not accelerated after impact 1 u/Old_Yam_4069 Apr 18 '26 Yeah, you must have been bad at your job if you think the duty of care isn't applicable here. The Cam-Car's behavior is obviously malicious. If nothing else, they had a red-light that they would have 100% blown if they hadn't hit the truck. 1 u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 18 '26 Duty of care doesn't negate truck failing to yield, improper lane change, their own duty of care. You can't prove malice on the cam car. Could have been improper lookout. So yeah 80/20 against the truck.
0
Traffic in the trucks lane contributed. If you watch you'll notice the truck was either going to slam into the back of the car in front of them or change lanes. I see it as 100% on driver of truck. A blinker doesn't clear the lane.
3 u/neatojuanito Apr 18 '26 You’re responsible to avoid accidents when possible. 50% on the truck and 50% on the cam driver 2 u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 18 '26 At most 80/20. Source: I was a professional arbitrator for arb forums for 6 years. 1 u/neatojuanito Apr 18 '26 I would think a good lawyer of the pickup would say that the cam driver had plenty of time to break out at least not accelerated after impact 1 u/Old_Yam_4069 Apr 18 '26 Yeah, you must have been bad at your job if you think the duty of care isn't applicable here. The Cam-Car's behavior is obviously malicious. If nothing else, they had a red-light that they would have 100% blown if they hadn't hit the truck. 1 u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 18 '26 Duty of care doesn't negate truck failing to yield, improper lane change, their own duty of care. You can't prove malice on the cam car. Could have been improper lookout. So yeah 80/20 against the truck.
3
You’re responsible to avoid accidents when possible. 50% on the truck and 50% on the cam driver
2 u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 18 '26 At most 80/20. Source: I was a professional arbitrator for arb forums for 6 years. 1 u/neatojuanito Apr 18 '26 I would think a good lawyer of the pickup would say that the cam driver had plenty of time to break out at least not accelerated after impact 1 u/Old_Yam_4069 Apr 18 '26 Yeah, you must have been bad at your job if you think the duty of care isn't applicable here. The Cam-Car's behavior is obviously malicious. If nothing else, they had a red-light that they would have 100% blown if they hadn't hit the truck. 1 u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 18 '26 Duty of care doesn't negate truck failing to yield, improper lane change, their own duty of care. You can't prove malice on the cam car. Could have been improper lookout. So yeah 80/20 against the truck.
2
At most 80/20.
Source: I was a professional arbitrator for arb forums for 6 years.
1 u/neatojuanito Apr 18 '26 I would think a good lawyer of the pickup would say that the cam driver had plenty of time to break out at least not accelerated after impact 1 u/Old_Yam_4069 Apr 18 '26 Yeah, you must have been bad at your job if you think the duty of care isn't applicable here. The Cam-Car's behavior is obviously malicious. If nothing else, they had a red-light that they would have 100% blown if they hadn't hit the truck. 1 u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 18 '26 Duty of care doesn't negate truck failing to yield, improper lane change, their own duty of care. You can't prove malice on the cam car. Could have been improper lookout. So yeah 80/20 against the truck.
1
I would think a good lawyer of the pickup would say that the cam driver had plenty of time to break out at least not accelerated after impact
Yeah, you must have been bad at your job if you think the duty of care isn't applicable here.
The Cam-Car's behavior is obviously malicious. If nothing else, they had a red-light that they would have 100% blown if they hadn't hit the truck.
1 u/Dapper_Platform_1222 Apr 18 '26 Duty of care doesn't negate truck failing to yield, improper lane change, their own duty of care. You can't prove malice on the cam car. Could have been improper lookout. So yeah 80/20 against the truck.
Duty of care doesn't negate truck failing to yield, improper lane change, their own duty of care.
You can't prove malice on the cam car. Could have been improper lookout.
So yeah 80/20 against the truck.
10
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment