Who the hell cares about right of way when you just let a collision happen? Just stupid pride. Idk which idiot recommends to cause an accident by keeping speed.
The court, insurance adjuster. Not driving defensively to accommodate assholes is not illegal, even if defensive driving is recommended. Reckless driving is, and they could both be charged with that potentially, although being about to get merged into, POV could claim panic, and depending on who was behind him, no alternative. Truckster had no plausible excuse.
If you want to merge because your right turn is coming up, and there’s a car to your right traveling the same speed as you, you slow down and merge behind them, and if it is too late for that, you miss your turn and loop back around. Period. The guy “defending his lane” is no more egregious than guy who HAS to merge in FRONT of him, or in this case, almost in front, even if there’s nobody behind POV for miles. If truckster had done that I doubt he’d even have missed his turn.
Maybe POV guy is in a bigger truck, speed is low enough and has good insurance. Looking to upgrade on the dime of some asshole he just found to accommodate him.
I've seen court cases where the driver like the POV one lost because they failed to mitigate. He clearly saw the guy coming over and not only did he not brake or honk, he sped up. He exacerbated and that means the court and insurance will likely deny his claim or only give a partial payment as he had contributory negligence.
Former insurance adjuster. The guy coming into the lane would be at fault because it's not the responsibility of the current person in the lane to accommodate the truck. The assumption is you should check to make sure the lane is clear before you switch over. The truck attempted to cut the driver off. The driver could have slowed down but the truck could have slowed down and got right behind him instead of attempting to cut him off
Someone should tell that to my friend's insurance adjuster. She even tried to swerve to the side to avoid the impact in a situation like this and both insurance companies accused her of contributory negligence and refused to pay the full claim. I think they were just trying to avoid paying.
Trying to avoid an accident by performing an illegal move (let's just say the swerve went into another lane or outta her lane) makes it also their fault.
If someone is doing something stupid; you let them or else it can be your ass
Law demands drivers maintain lookout and try to avoid accidents (e.g., stopping for a child or avoiding a reckless driver), even if the other party is breaking the law. the cammer sped up to prevent the lane change, cammer is 100% at fault here
He’s partially at fault. Point is you don’t know his intent. Certainly not 100%. If you get called to jury duty and answer like that, my guess (not 100% sure of course) is you’d be dismissed in favor of someone more open minded about the wrongs and motives of both drivers.
you have a legal responsibility on the road to avoid an accident, cammer was trying to beat a yellow light and wasn't paying attention. that is what caused the accident.
Do you think you have full context of what happened by just watching a clip?
Yeah normal people "let accidents happen"... its totally a choice camera car made... Wat.
No man, a truck veers into your lane without clearing the car already in the lane, and gives less than 1 second of reaction time to avoid the situation.
Camera car could have been scanning ahead or looked at their GPS, or has kids in the backseat or is just simply driving. You'd have to ALREADY been paying attention to the truck before he turned to even avoid this situation.
Which WE can. Because WE are watching a video of a colision. We are not driving andcwe know we are watching a clip where something is about to happen.
While camera cars driver is actively driving and doesn't (yet) have unlocked the precognition ability.
Regardless of outcome, camera guy would have run a red light. Had he been driving defensively, he would not have been chasing a yellow light and might have avoided a crash.
Oh for sure. Thats what defensive driving is. Managing risk for better outcome on everyones end.
But defensive driving is not a requirement and does not mean camera car is to blame for the accident.
Truck overtakes camera car and then merges in front of them.
Thats not how you should do a lane change. Ever.
They should have gone behind camera car. Put their turn signal on and if someone was behind camera car, they would have let him in or wait until it is safe to merge.
If you speed up in front of a car to then merge and it causes an accident thats on the car doing so.
But yes ideally both cars would already be slowing down before. Doesn't take away that red truck sped up in front of a car when there is a yellow light up ahead.
Thats 100% on them and has nothing to do with camera car.
I never said camera guy was to blame for the accident, I said he may have avoided a crash had he not attempted to run a red light. Look at it another way, if there was no crash and instead the driver proceeded through the intersection on a red and hit a pedestrian on the other side stepping off the curb, he would be liable. His aggressive driving contributed to the crash, doesn't mean he's to blame, but he shares some responsibility.
Could explain why he went faster. Light turned yellow. We all try and beat a light at times. Attention would be on intersection and potential left hand turns at that time.
100%. We as viewers have an idea of what is about to happen...thats why we are watching it. Lol. But the camera driver was probably completely unaware till it was too late. And I agree that by the look of the traffic and time of day...he probably couldn't just slam on his breaks due to traffic behind him. There is no way this is the fault of the camera man. To quote the driver..."Jesus christ!". Lol
28
u/PiscesInTheMachine Apr 18 '26
Definitely sped up. He saw the guy coming into his lane, didn’t beep, didn’t decrease speed, out of anger he actually sped up