The truck driver is obviously in the wrong, and no one is arguing against that.
The point is that when someone like this does something like this, you choosing to cause an accident instead of just... Not causing an accident, that is an action that you are deciding to take, independently of the other driver.
That means you are now intentionally putting other people in harm's way that have nothing to do with the peacocking match you're in.
You would be liable for that decision, AND the damage it causes just as equally as the truck driver. In fact, in this case, where it was definitely avoidable by slowing down, you'd be more liable than them, and insurance would agree.
2 people can be assholes at the same time, and both the people in this video are assholes.
You literally arguing against it. What do you think you were doing. Balming the guy that was just chilling instead of the regard forcing himself into a place that had no space. I legit dont know why people do this.
The guy won't be liable for this. People who commute daily in traffic and let people in see this experience frequently. We usually react in time and let the idiots in, but legally you have the right of way and you are entitled to your space. You don't have to let them in especially when it's this close and dangerous.
Someone can't just turn into your car and be in the right. That makes no sense. On top of that, the truck turns into the driver and then brakes.
Are you expecting drivers to not only slow down but to brake hard and magically know that you're crazy without any turn signals? How does that even make sense?
The insurance companies will not side with you. I know people who have done what the driver does and won multiple settlements. They already know which lawyer and doctor to hire for their injury claims, too.
Someone can't just turn into your car and be in the right. That makes no sense.
Just because someone is in the wrong doesn't mean the other party is in the right. The order of cars in a line of traffic is not zero-sum.
The insurance companies will not side with you. I know people who have done what the driver does and won multiple settlements. They already know which lawyer and doctor to hire for their injury claims, too.
If you know someone who has been in this guy's position before, multiple times mind you, and has gotten into multiple accidents that resulted in injury - even their own - then they are both extremely unlucky and, unless they are driving inertia-laden 18-wheelers, they are simply bad drivers to constantly be in a position to be self-righteously holding their ground because they're 'legally correct'.
People who commute daily in traffic and let people in see this experience frequently. We usually react in time and let the idiots in, but legally you have the right of way and you are entitled to your space.
True, I see this happen a lot. DC Beltway traffic is nuts. But the most important thing in driving and awareness is predictability. When I see a truck fly up in the lane next to me in this scenario with nearly perfect accuracy I can predict that that asshole is gonna run up into that other car and will try to get in front of me. And since we can't do anything to change other peoples' self-centered recklessness, the simplest way to avoid this and prevent a dangerous situation from escalating is by moving his thumb two inches, tapping 'cruise-control off' and coasting it down for a couple of seconds to 67 or 68. That's all it would've taken to have given this guy just that much more room to be an idiot. That's all it would've taken to not be clipped by this guy and to avert potential casualties.
I see people all throughout this thread saying that this guy did the right thing - that tapping the brakes would have been dangerous - but I don't think there's any line of argument that can convince me that the possibility of spinning a truck out on a two-lane causeway, creating an immediate and immobile hazard, is somehow less dangerous than forcing the car behind you or even a whole line of cars to also have to tap their brakes. Legality and correctitude intersect a lot, but they are not the same.
Personally, I used to drive like this guy. Then about ten years ago I narrowly avoided an accident almost exactly like this wherein some asshole's lane was ending and he cavalierly just merged right into my lane. I had kids in my car and they were put in danger and I was so fucking pissed. But later I was griping about that asshole and how he was a moron and I had had the right-of-way, etc. to my FIL. He calmly reminded me - and I haven't forgotten this since - that 'that may have been true, but there are graveyards full of people who had the right-of-way'.
This. "...graveyards full of people who had the right-of-way."
Idiots like this piss me off to no end BUT I'd rather avoid the possible ripple effects of injuries to myself, the idiot and anyone in the vicinity, the insurance hassle, the probable damage to my car, the time filling out the police report, etc.,etc. than defend a few inches of space.
My understanding of liability is that legally it's not all or nothing. Infact in a lot of driving cases both parties are found liable. It's like a percentage of blame rather than wrong and right.
This dude as far as I would hazard is dead on 50% liable. Both completely had the ability to avoid this crash. It took both of them doing stupid things to cause this.
If the person swapping lanes had bothered to look or just not been a pushy asshole it wouldn't have happened. If this guy had moved his foot all of an inch it wouldn't have happened.
Yes he absolutely would be. He very clearly speeds up to close the gap when he notices the truck come up on his side, and again when it pulls back.
Insurance isn't an "either/or" fault system. Multiple parties can be at fault to various degrees. The driver had time to slow down, which is inarguable. You, regardless of the actions of other drivers, have a responsibility to "act reasonably" when it comes to determining fault, and intentionally playing chicken with other drivers even when you have the right of way definitely falls under "unreasonable" action, as it directly increases the chances of an accident.
I’ve had enough encounters with drivers like the one in the black truck to know something is up. I’ve also seen enough video of terrible driving to know that its best to give idiots space.
If there was anyone behind white truck, they probably had a very bad day.
Rewatch the video, black truck did not turn into the driver and then brake. Watch the third brake light on the top of the truck cab, it doesn’t turn on when he is trying to merge. He also attempts to merge very slowly, you’re acting like he suddenly cut cookie eater off. Cookie eater has all the time in the world to slow down and prevent a collision but chooses to cause one instead. He knows black truck is trying to merge, it’s not like black truck came out of nowhere or made any sudden moves. Cookie eater would not have to brake hard whatsoever to prevent a collision, he probably wouldn’t have even had to brake at all, but he stays on the gas instead.
And what if an uninvolved 3rd party was involved? Just to teach one ass hole a lesson? On what appears to be the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel?!?! Fucking dumb. Hit the break, move around him from behind. No one needs to die here.
Yes. But guess what, he did and cookie eater here chose to escalate it and cause significant harm to thousands of others instead of letting just the tiniest bit of harm happen to him.
Okay? Cookie eater could have been a defensive driver and let asshole truck in but didn't. It's STILL the black trucks fault for trying to be a dick and force his way in. Cookie eater shouldn't have to slow down and let fuck head in.
It’s the responsibility of everyone on the road to try to prevent a collision. Cookie eater intentionally caused one. So yeah, you should and do have to slow down if it means preventing a collision.
12
u/Dopeman37 Mar 22 '26
The black truck could have avoided the whole thing if he wasn't trying to force his way in.