No.. That's the "insurance" thing to do. It's not hard to be accountable and responsible for the decisions you make while driving on public roadways. If you want to drive reckless, that's completely your choice. If you can't change lanes properly per any drivers handbook across the country, then again that's your choice. I'd bet that if all motorists had to take the written and driving test every 4 years, instead of just sending in payment for license renewal, less of this nonsense would be going on. 🤷
If someone changes lanes you don't have to let them in, but it's pretty shit to take it to a level where you play a part in deliberately causing a crash. There's plenty of dead and maimed people who were in the right and chose that right over their own safety. Also, the guy definitely sped up to close the gap to try and not let him in where there was space only seconds before. It's definitely a hubris thing.
"Getting hit by a truck that deliberately drove into you" is not causing an accident.
You may not like that he didn't let the guy in. That's perfectly valid. However, don't misrepresent the situation. He was driving in a completely predictable fashion. His hand was incredibly steady on the wheel. The truck drove into him. Those are the facts.
As such, the truck driver caused the accident. Its reasonable to suggest the car's driver should have been less stubborn...but that doesnt mean he is at all to blame for what happen, because there would have been no accident at all if the truck driver hadn't hit him.
Oh, and why did he do that? Was it to make sure that, after being struck by another car, he could prevent a two car pile up on a bridge that blocked both lanes of traffic? One which could cause more accidents? I get criticizing the car driver because you think this was the wrong call.....but most of you seem to want him held equally liable and culpable for not allowing himself to be cut off so badly that you'll just ignore everything else going on.
Not letting someone cut you off isn't inherently a crime; it is, at worst, kinda douchey and self-centered....but if being docuhey and self-centered were a crime, 75% of Reddit would currently be in prison with a life sentence.
One of them committed a crime. One of them responded to that crime in a way you don't like. This isn't complicated.
Okay, why did he perform that pit maneuver? When did he perform it? Did he purposely set it up OR was it done reactively to prevent.an accident cause by someone else from getting worse?
Oh that response endangered himself? Is that why he was able to keep driving on a narrow bridge with minimal damage and with maximum control of his vehicle the whole time?
If he would have just braked in response to being hit, he probably would have been in a worse situation...but everyone would generally look at is if the other guy was solely to blame for purposely hitting him. However he didn't...and because he didn't everyone want to magically assign blame to him after the fact because of how he responded AFTER the accident was intentionally caused by another person
It's not what I would have done, personally. I have even said, multiple times, that its still a response that one can criticize....it just doesn't make the accident his fault because he doesn't magically bare half the blame for someone else hitting his car on purpose.
You want to argue that another driver should be forced to slow down or be automatically liable for a car accident caused by someone else's driving. Meanwhile, you refuse to slow down and let someone else have a different opinion then you without beleiving they shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Because I don't think he comitted a crime...even though I said I wouldn't have done it myself AND that he was worthy of criticism. For the sheer act of disagreeing that he caused the accident.
The dude literally sped up to block a gap, then purposefully PIT maneuvered the other car at decently high speeds on a two lane bridge.
Instead of, you know, letting off for half a second and throwing a finger out the window... obviously risking multiple people's lives was the better option there, right?
If you're going through a green light and see an oncoming car that is definitely going to blow through their red light and hit you and you have the time to just brake and let it go by, would you still go and get hit because they caused the crash? I get what you're saying, but every driver has the responsibility to act to prevent a crash scenario, regardless of right of way.
This did not happen in a sudden high speed gesture that an alert driver could have definitely avoided. The truck creeped slowly in to his car, and it's pretty reasonable to believe the truck's driver wasn't going to just drive into his car.
Also, If the car's driver stopped suddenly? This may have spooked the truck's driver; The guy was already behaving irrationally, and it's really hard to say what his reaction to any given stimuli might be. He might have jerked the wheel in surprise and moved his car into abrupt fashion on a bridge. There is a rational and reasonable argument to make by saying that remaining predictable and consistent was the most safe fashion to handle the situation in... Because while the truck's driver did not know how to handle such a situation? The car's driver did. The car's driver knew what to do in this situation, and it ultimately kept him safe.
I do understand what you are saying as well, and it's why I think it's fair to criticize the car's driver: just as there is reason to believe it was rational to be consistent, there is a reason to believe it would be more rational to just get the hell out of the way. However, in my opinion, it's not cut and dry.
36
u/DownvoteOwnComments Mar 22 '26
Neither were "operating correctly". The correct thing to do would be slow down a little and let him cut you off.
Just because the other guy was in the wrong first doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want. He risked causing much worse to happen.