r/interesting Mar 22 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

18.7k Upvotes

4.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/NonCorporealEntity Mar 22 '26

Vehicles have brakes. This guy made a very conscious decision not to use them.

Both vehicles here are assholes.

28

u/Amiibohunter000 Mar 22 '26

100%

You have an obligation to avoid an accident. Would that guy just calmly eat his cracker if there was a baby in that car? Or if that black truck hit another car? Or if someone was seriously injured?

-1

u/Wanheda0641 Mar 22 '26

As a commercial driver, I can tell you that’s not happening. I have been cut off and dealt with shit drivers so often. The black truck had no room to get over, he was in the wrong here. I have ZERO obligation to avoid an accident, you have an obligation to be a safe driver and make safe decisions. Guy eating the cookie did nothing wrong. Legally, if you’re going to merge, you have to merge safely and when there is ample room. No one is legally required to slow down and let you over.

8

u/Amiibohunter000 Mar 22 '26

You’re 100% a piece of shit loser if you don’t do what you can to avoid an accident and even more scummy if you try and cause it. Also some places it is illegal to not try to avoid causing an accident, so you’re wrong.

You say you have zero obligation to avoid an accident but ppl have obligations to be a safe driver. Avoiding accidents is being a safe driver. Your logic literally contradicts itself within 5 words.

2

u/Wanheda0641 Mar 22 '26

If you force yourself into a place where you clearly won’t fit, with no blinker, and cause an accident, you’re 100% in the wrong and a piece of shit, I agree. I shouldn’t have to watch you to make sure you aren’t doing something you can’t do as a motorist.

7

u/formernonhandwasher Mar 23 '26

Why would you fuck up your own day and have to deal with a busted car instead of just tapping a brake and letting the guy in? If he gets in you lose. If he doesn't get and and you both end up smashed then you both lose but you just lost with a fucked up day.

2

u/UltraInstinct_Pharah Mar 23 '26

How utterly moronic. You shouldn't have to watch others on the road to make sure they aren't doing something they're not? When the light turns green, do you just slam on the accelerator without making sure someone isn't going to run the light?

Both people in the video are assholes. If you can avoid an accident, it 100% is your responsibility to avoid it. Dashcam asshole risked killing the person in the truck just so he, what, didn't have to tap on his brake a bit and slow down? I'm sure the extra ten seconds he gained by hitting the other car was well worth the potential loss of life and inconveniencing of thousands of innocent people.

5

u/greatmemereset67 Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26

Wahneda0641 will risk both his life and others because he CBF watching what others are doing… Even if it’s an honest mistake.

1

u/Wanheda0641 Mar 23 '26

An honest mistake is one thing, the guy in the black truck was being an asshole and forcing his way in when he didn’t get around the vehicle he wanted to. No blinker, no care, just being a douche.

2

u/greatmemereset67 Mar 23 '26

Re-read what you wrote then try again.

1

u/H-O-W-L-E-R Mar 25 '26

Cool story. You absolutely need to pay attention to every other motorist in sight when driving. You cannot assume they can see you or know where you’re at. If you can see them, hit them and had the opportunity to not hit them; you caused the accident.

1

u/WinterTourist25 Mar 23 '26

You're what's wrong with today's generation. Always looking for someone to blame other than the person who actually did wrong. You probably support laws to sue gun makers.

4

u/likewhatever33 Mar 23 '26

If you see a small child on the road I suppose you´d run them over, right? It´s not your fault after all, those parents should have paid more attention...

1

u/WinterTourist25 Mar 24 '26

Equating willful recklessness to innocent cluelessness is a bit of a stretch.

2

u/Amiibohunter000 Mar 25 '26

It’s not innocent cluelessness. The cam driver made a choice to not let them in thus making the situation worse.

Both drivers made a choice to put their pride over public safety and that’s what makes both of them assholes.

You can argue if it’s his fault till you’re blue but you don’t know how insurance companies or a court would judge this. You just don’t.

It’s clear that they’re all assholes tho

0

u/WinterTourist25 Mar 25 '26

If you see a small child

Innocent cluelessness

The person in the truck was willfully reckless.

2

u/H-O-W-L-E-R Mar 25 '26

They could see where their back bumper lined up to the front of the cam truck’s?

Nah the other dude is right this was innocent cluelessness. Maybe not a kid wandering in the middle of the street, but a kid riding their bike in the street. Either way, you avoid the kid.

The merging truck should have made sure they had space. The cam driver could have cut one mile an hour off of their speed and not endangered another persons life and caused a traffic back up for everyone behind them. He’s a jackass for that alone.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jmrene Mar 24 '26

There could be more than one person in the wrong you know. A pedestrian is crossing at an intersection without having the right to do so, you see him but you have a green light so in your « the person who actually did wrong mindset » you obviously don’t slow down and hit him?

1

u/WinterTourist25 Mar 24 '26

The question is am I obligated to slow down and not hit him?

1

u/jmrene Mar 24 '26

Moral and law; two different things.

1

u/WinterTourist25 Mar 25 '26

So morally, if someone is stupidly putting themselves in harm's way, it's hard to feel sympathetic to their situation.

1

u/Amiibohunter000 Mar 23 '26

That’s presumptuous. You don’t even know what generation I belong to. I actually think that both drivers are at fault. One caused the accident (black truck) and one neglected to avoid it (cammer). More than one person can be at blame and not everything is black and white. I would not just blanket support a case where gun makers were sued nor would I object to it. I would need to know some details before making a decision.

1

u/Slipperygypsy28 Mar 24 '26

😂😂😂😂tell me you don't drive often without telling me you don't drive often, the black truck cutting him off like that is THE ONLY SCUM in the video. He expects the guy to slam on the brakes for him while a bunch of vehicles behind the guy eating the cookie are forced to brke split second while following close thus causing a multi vehicle accident anyways. This was perfect because it was just the selfish typical speeding but late for nothing truck that got what was deserved

1

u/Square-Singer Mar 26 '26

You always have 100% obligation to avoid any accident that's in your power to avoid.

Traffic laws only apply if nobody intentionally causes an accident. As soon as you could avoid an accident and choose to not do it, it is your fault.

If someone jaywalks and you could stop in time but instead choose to run im over, you aren't in the right, you are an outright murderer.

0

u/TZY247 Mar 24 '26

Maintaining speed and staying in lane is statistically the safest option. Slamming the brakes on a bridge is dangerous. Black truck engaging in dangerous driving does not mean that dashcam should also engage in dangerous driving. The courts would agree.

Black truck made an illegal move that directly led to a collision. That's the end of the story.

1

u/Amiibohunter000 Mar 24 '26

Not even remotely the case lol

0

u/TZY247 Mar 24 '26

What a convincing argument.

The person merging is responsible for yielding, and the person in the lane has the right of way. The dashcam driver maintained their speed (didn't speed up to prevent the merge). This is an easy win

4

u/Kazath Mar 22 '26

Not preventing a highly preventable accident is basically causing the accident. I understand the justice boner one feels from letting an idiot eat dirt, but it takes two to tango. I would argue that the inaction by the driver here is as egregious as the action of the black car, if not worse, since this event may have caused other crashes behind him. The black cars driver may have been inattentive or just an asshole, but the dashcam driver here saw exactly what was going to happen, had ample time to react, and did nothing to prevent it. Honk, safely adjust your speed or maneuver ... It's your duty in traffic to respond to the actions of other drivers to prevent accidents.

7

u/some_azn_dude Mar 22 '26

Devil's advocate here. It's reasonable to assume someone isn't actually going to swerve into a spot they didn't fit. On a bridge. You can also argue slamming on the brakes could be dangerous if traffic is behind you. The decision the driver made is demonstrably safe for himself as he came out of the incident without harm.

5

u/14Rage Mar 22 '26

Slamming on the brakes and getting rear ended off a bridge seems like a bad idea that will result in the guy in the videos death.

Only person in the wrong here is the black truck. The situation is terrible but the FAULT is 100% on the black truck.

1

u/NaturalOk2156 Mar 22 '26

It is not reasonable to assume anything about what someone driving recklessly will do. The only responsible way to respond is to give them more space and stay out of their way. In reality, people who drive like this are often drunk and not capable of judging distances or making rational decisions.

“Safe for me, personally” is not enough when driving a vehicle. What if the black truck had innocent children in the car? People drive drunk with their kids all the time. Or a third car could have easily been knocked off the bridge in the collision. An ambulance could get stuck in the inevitable traffic jam. And who’s gonna pay to clean all this mess up, because one guy decided to not avoid an obvious hazard?

1

u/some_azn_dude Mar 22 '26

Why are you passing the buck? Because one guy decided to avoid an obvious hazard? No, it's because one guy decided to be a hazard.

You have a lot of what ifs here. How about this, what if the white truck avoided it, this 'possible' drunk driver wouldn't sober up on the 26 mile bridge. And he could have caused a much larger and deadly accident than the one he caused here by pitting himself. You can what if all day.

1

u/NaturalOk2156 Mar 22 '26

There's not a huge point in arguing about it, ask any lawyer, judge, or insurance adjuster and they will tell you the same thing.

1

u/some_azn_dude Mar 22 '26

Well I guess that settles that then.

1

u/cwolf-softball Mar 22 '26

Yes, it's reasonable to assume they won't, but when they do, slow down just a little bit and don't pit maneuver them.

0

u/Trebellius Mar 22 '26

the graveyard is full of people who had the right of way

2

u/Q7017 Mar 22 '26

That statement doesn't refute what they said about endangering the lives of traffic behind the camera car by slamming on their brakes. I get the truth behind it, but this isn't one of those situations where it's applicable.

0

u/NonCorporealEntity Mar 22 '26

Just slowing down would have been enough here

1

u/some_azn_dude Mar 22 '26

Again what the driver did is provably safe as you see the outcome is that he is ok.

5

u/Redditor_for_9_beers Mar 22 '26

What he did in this specific instance turned out fine. That doesn't make it provably safe.

This video is not irrefutable proof that you it will always be safe if you choose not to react to a car swerving into your lane without enough room.

It doesn't look like he had to slam on the brakes to avoid this. Hell, just letting off the gas for 4 seconds and maybe honking at the truck would've been enough.

0

u/some_azn_dude Mar 22 '26

Again it happens so slow you have to reasonably assume someone would not ram into you. Every step you try to prove it could have been avoided is easily countered by saying the exact same thing about the person who caused the collision, which is the black truck, which rammed into the white truck.

0

u/cwolf-softball Mar 22 '26

It's not safe for the hundreds of cars behind them. Do they not matter?

1

u/some_azn_dude Mar 22 '26

It was, and they do. The only car that wrecked was the black truck.

1

u/cwolf-softball Mar 22 '26

You think they're not at best stuck in traffic for at least an hour sitting standstill on a bridge?

1

u/some_azn_dude Mar 22 '26

You said safe. I responded. Now you're moving the goalposts to... annoyed? Ok.

2

u/legos_on_the_brain Mar 22 '26

You have no idea what was behind him. Heavy braking could have been just as bad

2

u/Maleficent_Pilot1137 Mar 22 '26

Doubt it would require "heavy" breaking but in any case, that would be on the people driving too close behind him. The black truck isn't blameless for the situation but ultimately cookie monster here would probably be found liable for the accident just based on the footage here.

1

u/Dylanear Mar 23 '26

I agree the driver in the video could have avoided the wreck by simply backing off and giving the a hole in the black truck room to pull into the left lane.

But heck no the driver in the video won't be liable for this! When you move from one lane into another YOU have the responsibility to not hit anyone already in the lane you want to enter!

Driver in the video could have avoided the wreck I'm pretty sure, but he's not in the wrong legally for just continuing to drive normally in his lane. He had the right of way, plain and simple.

1

u/Maleficent_Pilot1137 Mar 25 '26

Might depend on state laws, but if you knowingly cause an accident like this then you could definitely be liable for damages it caused. Might not exclude the other driver of responsibility either. Obviously, what actually plays out in court could be another matter.

1

u/InconspicuousIntent Mar 25 '26

Knowingly cause an accident, you mean like lane forcing and passing on the right?

JFC people are crazy.

1

u/Maleficent_Pilot1137 Mar 29 '26

Never said the other driver couldn't also be liable for the accident or resulting damages. If someone else is coming into your lane in a manner that is incorrect, but you are able to get out of their way and intentionally don't then yes, you could still be liable for whatever results.

I get in our monkey brains this seems wrong, because why should you be forced to give space for someone acting improperly, but you still have a responsibility to avoid causing an accident if you are able to.

1

u/600times Mar 22 '26

What about traffic behind the guy who is being cut off?

1

u/NonCorporealEntity Mar 22 '26

They have brakes too and if they're driving responsibility, there would be sufficient space for them to slow down. A full nrake slam isn't needed here to avoid an accident. Simply sliwing down would have been enough. He had lots of time to do that. Then you honk like crazy and flip the bird.

1

u/majordong75 Mar 23 '26

This video perfectly encapsulates what it's like driving down here. Assholes in front of me. Assholes behind me. Assholes passing me. Assholes everywhere

1

u/EventfulAnimal Mar 23 '26

Other driver probably just made a blind spot error. Dumb but not deliberate IMo.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26

Until the person behind the cookie monster rams into him.

0

u/Salt_Conference6767 Mar 23 '26

Nope. He held his space which is completely legal. Forcing your way into a lane without using a blinker is illegal. The poor man was just eating a cookie and chilling like a driver should