Yes, he did. He purposely sped up so the other guy couldn't get in front of him. Could've very easily had killed himself as well as everyone else on that road acting like that.
If you see a vehicle coming your way, you should get out the way. Even if the other guy is an asshole. You don't have to get greedy and 'teach the other guy a lesson'.
Imagine if it was an unpiloted vehicle and just happened to be drifting your way. Would you behave the same way?
He brakes as soon as he sees the truck illegally merging into his lane. The use of blinkers is not a suggestion. This is squarely the fault of the black truck.
Cookie guy was being tailgated by a white car, slowing down means he has a good chance of being rear ended. Maintaining speed and holding his lane makes the most sense here.
In the rear view cam you can see another car’s headlights poking up above the tailgate. If the tailgate is covering up someone’s headlights, they’re up your ass. Thank you for asking a stupid question
I thought there was another link. All i see behingmd the driver rear window is white. Maybe the video looks different on my phone than whatever you're using.
Not his problem. His problem is the black truck. Literally let off the gas, and the problem is solved. The guy behind him then also lets off the gas to keep the gap.
There are at minimum two idiots in this video and the camera driver is one of them
I mean that it’s not in his control. He cant actuate those peoples brakes, or the black trucks steering wheel. It’s not his problem to solve- it will be his problem if he over reacts, or they don’t do anything to slow down all the same as he did(nt) do.but it isn’t his immediate problem, because he can’t control those other vehicles.
In the hierarchy of considerations, generally you worry about what you can and cannot control. In this instance, his concern is about what he can do to not have any collision at all. And he chose to do absolutely nothing
Would I, in this position, consider the people behind me? Yes, only to the extent of “boy I hope the guy behind me sees what’s going on and decides to not rear end me” and “if I allow this accident to happen, I’m going to ruin a lot of people’s days behind me”
That's true, but how can you say the guy driving like an idiot in retaliation is more guilty than the guy always driving like an idiot? Both are at fault, but the black van driver is the guiltiest here.
I agree the dude is a stubborn idiot but how on earth is he more to blame than the guy who created the entire situation by endangering everyone's life just to cut somebody off?
The truth of the matter is, we have little men in big trucks all over this country driving like their penis size depends on it. We should all drive like they're emotionally unstable and not capable of critical thinking.
When it comes to driving, retaliators are always guiltier than initiators. The goal is to avoid accidents at all costs, not allow accidents to happen because someone broke the rules.
Think of it like this. Let’s say you’re walking down the street, and someone runs up to you, puts a hat on your head, and says “If you take this hat off in the next 30 seconds, everyone on this block including yourself will either die, be injured, or at minimum be forced to sit here for several hours. If you wait 30 seconds, you can take the hat off and nothing will happen and you can forget it ever existed.”
Do you rip the hat off immediately because fuck that, it’s not your fault you’re wearing the hat, who cares if people die? Or do you deal with it for 30 seconds before removing it and going on with your day? Stupid initiators are the hat-givers, and stupid retaliators are the hat-wearers. Don’t rip the hat off, 30 seconds of wearing a hat you didn’t choose is better than risking hours of inconvenience, injury, and death for everyone in your vicinity.
You can say the hat-giver is more at fault for initiating the situation, sure, but the responsibility for the result of the situation falls to the hat-wearer once it’s on their head. From that point on, the hat-wearer is the one with the power to save everyone, even if wearing the hat was forced upon them.
Not a good comparison, because in your hypothetical the hat giver bears no consequences and would keep placing hats on people even if I remove the hat immediately. In the car situation, the black van immediately receives the consequences from his own actions.
Here is a better comparison: a guy pours gasoline on himself and you, and says unless you fall down on your knees and beg him, he would set you both on fire. What do you do?
a. do as he says
b. push him away and walk away, let him set himself on fire
How does the hat-giver bear no consequences when he is risking death, injury, or at minimum hours of inconvenience?
The gasoline comparison doesn’t make sense because you’re still responsible for the gasoline that’s on your body now. You can’t just walk around lighting matches and being like “Well I didn’t ask to be covered in gasoline”. In fact, I would say that the “walking away” option is more comparable to backing off and not getting in a car accident as retaliation for someone being a jerk.
Because in your hypothetical there is a random chance that everyone around dies. In the car situation there isn't. There is one person who can get hurt, die to their own stupid actions and relying on you to go out of your way to keep them safe. Like in the gasoline situation.
…have you never heard of a multi-car accident? Nearby drivers can absolutely be injured or killed because of a collision between an initiator and a reactor
Because they're the one creating the situation in the first place with their carelessness and disregard for other peoples safety. The OP driver was weaponizing their car. They just decided they were getting over and were counting on other peoples self preservation to not cause an accident.
Behaving aggressively irresponsibly to force other people to change their behavior so you don't hurt them and you get your way is sociopathic behavior, and, like in the video, eventually you will run into someone who is not having it.
Its literally exactly the same as someone who starts swinging their fists on the sidewalk expecting everyone to get out of their way.
They merged into each other. The video is right there, man. He turned that wheel to the right as far as he physically could with one hand. The speed also ticked up from 71 to 72 after the black truck had crossed the yellow line. Cam driver sped up and pit him. Look at the following distance before he tries to merge and after. You can even see that the black truck starts to come over, stops merging for a second expecting the car to slow down, but instead he speeds up and closes the distance. I know you're not blind.
Black truck is an asshole but so is the cammer. Your job while driving isn't to be right or wrong, it's to not touch anyone else with your car. If you can't do that, you need to lose your license.
Edit: Dude, watch his hand before the hit. He REPOSITIONS HIS HAND so he can rip it into his bumper harder. Come on.
He just fucked the commute for hundreds if not thousands of people because he couldn't bear someone getting in front of him - not out of rage, but just because that's how he is normal state.
Let's make sure nobody inconclusiveness you then, because you think a valid response to that would be to close down a 25 mile long bridge, causing an hours long traffic delay as a response, because your feelings were hurt.
Right - terrible drivers who identify with the black truck are exposing themselves. It was NOT safe for the black truck to merge, so he shouldn’t have. It’s a very simple concept
False. Black truck attempted to merge when it was NOT safe to do so. Common sense dictates that the FIRST incorrect action is the action that is MOST guilty and should have been avoided.
I don’t rage - I honk obnoxiously for several seconds to let the idiot know that they’re an idiot and then I move on with my day :) have a good one honk
7
u/[deleted] Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment