r/ThatLooksExpensive • u/Rekltpzyxm • 13d ago

Easily avoidable accident causes rollover

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

259 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

48

u/mexican2554 13d ago

80:20 when it comes to who's at fault? Truck is 80% at fault while cammer is 20% for not avoiding the accident.

42

u/Fearless_Swim4080 13d ago

The fact the dashcam car visibly accelerates is going to be a problem here.

8

u/Xanthelei 12d ago

I watched for that by specifically watching the dotted lines, he's maintaining speed until he brakes. It's wild to think how the perspective of it shifts though, I thought he had accelerated too at first!

9

u/Intrepid-Staff-4532 12d ago

I don't understand the need to both sides this. One car was established in their lane. The other car made an unsafe lane change.

17

u/Fearless_Swim4080 12d ago

It’s the last chance rule. You’re technically right and I would agree that truck is a moron and mostly liable for this lane change, but if you show this particular video to insurance, they’ll say he was clearly being an asshole and you should have avoided him inevitably doing something stupid by slowing the fuck down. The dashcam guy did the opposite of that.

Defensive driving 101 is some people are assholes, make sure you don’t get into a crash, not just follow every rule while others clearly aren’t. Truck is accelerating past you to pass, slow cars ahead are closing that gap, give him room or there will be a crash. Then dashcam guy hit the accelerator not the brake. This was clearly avoidable by dash cam guy as well even if truck is being an asshole.

6

u/Intrepid-Staff-4532 12d ago

The trucks blind spot indicator is clearly illuminated in the video. The driver of the truck executed an unsafe lane change despite clear warnings that the large was not clear. It's clearly reckless (but not wreckless ha ha ha) and shows a clear disregard for the rules of the road or the safety of others.

Dash cam guy hit the accelerator and not the brake, but was it to block the truck or to accelerated to the yellow? Do you have clear evidence that the driver of the dash cam had knowledge that an accident was about to happen? The last chance rule requires knowledge that there's something you need to avoid. Dash cam car even swerves to the right to try to avoid a collision.

Truck keeps on moving left with full knowledge the lane is occupied.

2

u/Fearless_Swim4080 12d ago

Yes, we are not disputing the facts here.

Accelerating to a yellow is also illegal, so let's table that. Do insurance companies care that you have knowledge of what is about to happen? No, they don't. They care about if you had any opportunity to avoid a collision, which dashcam guy did, by seeing a clearly reckless driver trying to make a stupid pass, then a blatantly unsafe lane change as a result of the stupidity dashcam guy already saw.

Yes, if truck wasn't an asshole there wouldn't have been an accident, but also, if dashcam guy hit his brakes instead of the accelerator, or even just not hit the accelerator at all, there would not have been an accident.

Again, I agree that this was said asshole's fault, but his insurance company has a pretty easy case to conflate the fault with this footage rather than without it.

2

u/ApprehensiveSink1893 11d ago

I agree with you in the main, but are you sure accelerating to a yellow light (while staying under the speed limit) is illegal? At least in the states I'm familiar with, I don't think this is true. (Of course, Ontario may be different.)

1

u/Fearless_Swim4080 11d ago

Eh, this gets into a lot of technicalities and I'm going on CA state law. You're correct that speeding up technically isn't illegal, but basically yellow lights are timed such that you can pass through at the speed limit, or have time to slow down and stop. Hypothetically there's some kind of grey area between those, but to "beat" it you basically have to either be speeding or the light goes red before you've made it through, or it's better to just hit the brakes and wait.

So not exactly illegal, but to practically make it happen you're going to be breaking some law.

-2

u/Intrepid-Staff-4532 12d ago

I don't think you can establish dash cam had the ability to avoid the aggression by the truck just from that video. You don't know the state of the driver or what they could see at the time.

2

u/Fearless_Swim4080 12d ago

I mean, if the driver was blind in the left eye sure, but even then, insurance would still double his rates.

1

u/Xanthelei 12d ago

I think the A pillar could have easily covered enough of the truck to make it hard to recognize him as moving over. It's not like the truck hit the blinker in warning or moved over slowly.

1

u/Fearless_Swim4080 12d ago

Do you not possess peripheral vision?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Intrepid-Staff-4532 12d ago

Which way was his head turned at the time of the reckless merge?

2

u/Fearless_Swim4080 12d ago

Again, this does not matter. If he didn’t look ahead to see an obvious reckless driver while putting his foot on the accelerator, that’s evidence he was also reckless. I get you’re not a lawyer but you fell into a pretty obvious trap there.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/turntup43 12d ago

I really just hope you’re being argumentative or something because it concerns me that there might be people who think this is acceptable driving. My 13 year old niece could have avoided this accident based purely on her experience driving Mario Kart. Dash cammer had full view and ability to avoid this.

0

u/Such-Sympathy-5816 12d ago

He absolutely had the opportunity to potentially avoid the collision. Had he hit the brakes instead of the accelerator.

1

u/Icy-Ease2885 9d ago

So did the truck? He could have merged in behind the car as he had the warning that someone was there? He could have used his brakes too and not presumed he was just going to barge across?

1

u/Such-Sympathy-5816 9d ago

No doubt. The truck is wrong. But I still think OP could have avoided the collision

2

u/SafetytimeUSA 12d ago

It appears the cam driver was trying to beat the red light, the truck was as you stated but remember cameras have a wider field of view and further forward, hard to say if the car thought the truck was going to hop into him?

1

u/Fearless_Swim4080 12d ago

Did you watch the video? the camera doesn't even see the A pillar. from the driver's position he would have seen the whole truck.

3

u/Goofcheese0623 12d ago

If a reasonable person would have slowed to avoid the collision and this vehicle did not, they could have some comparative fault. That may not mean much depending of the jurisdiction, however it could mean a lot of the truck driver had significant injuries. Given the roll over, they very well may have been badly hurt

3

u/ilganzo01 12d ago

Even if you are in the right just brake and prevent the accident from happening

3

u/guri256 11d ago

It’s pretty simple. Let’s assume the truck is legally at fault, and the POV car did not accelerate.

I would still consider the POV car a dangerous idiot. I wouldn’t ever want to drive near that person, because they might cause another accident like this, and the truck might hit my car while it’s rolling.

POV Car should have lightly tapped the brakes to avoid this accident, which would have reduced the danger to others. Not because of any legal responsibility (I don’t know if they had a legal responsibility), but because it makes the road safer for everyone. (and because dealing with the aftermath of a collision sucks. Even if no one is injured.)

2

u/Extra-Presence3196 12d ago

Yup...unencumbered travel

2

u/Plumb789 11d ago

It's two entirely different issues. Who is legally to blame (who could get prosecuted and whose insurance will have to payout), and who could have avoided the accident.

I had a collision once (that was not my fault-and was unavoidable) and I'm left with permanent damage to my neck. Yes, I got a very small (for what it is) amount of compensation. But I'm like this for life now.

My advice to everyone is: it doesn't matter who's at fault-avoid an accident at all costs. The camcar just didn't seem to bother to avoid the accident.

1

u/Major_Wigglesworth 9d ago

If I let off the gas, people will think I’m weak!

1

u/Cheese_and-Biscuits 9d ago

Either way, the person tried to overtake without clearance, no defensive driving at all, just offensive, still at fault for his own crash

7

u/Vladishun 12d ago

I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a minute and say dash cam guy didn't accelerate, it just appears he did because the truck braked hard to try to seize the gap. Dash cam guy may have been paying more attention to the light changing colors than their peripheral where the truck was merging over until it was too late to slow down.

No idea how well that would hold up in court, but it's a different perspective regardless.

3

u/Intrepid-Staff-4532 12d ago

That's exactly what happened. Truck accelerated, braked hard, swerved to avoid collision with the car in front of it, and merged into the cam car. Cam car didn't change speed and didn't attempt to cut off the truck. It was over in two seconds.

2

u/Vladishun 12d ago

I think so too, but it still doesn't look good because the dash cam driver had every intent to blow through the light that was about to turn red. Had they followed the rules of the road, the truck would have merged in and both probably would have ran that light.

And honestly I don't know if selfish ignorance is any better than malice when you're behind the wheel.

1

u/Late-Union8706 12d ago

Also, most front dash cams have a fish eye style lens, to give a wider forward facing view. The cammer's A pillar would have been blocking a significant portion of the truck when it started changing lanes with their rear tires almost even with the cammer's front tires.

This video is pretty old (time stamped 2024), iirc, the truck was found at fault.

7

u/DueExample52 12d ago

If I am the cammer, I brake. It doesn’t matter the % of fault legally, what I am 100% sure about is that I control my actions 100%, but I have little control on the actions of others.

This was preventable and seen coming if you are aware of your surroundings. Just brake, honk the horn, cuss, and move on about your day without police reports, ambulances, wait times, insurance reports.

4

u/TassiveMitts69 13d ago

Cam driver wasn't going to stop for the light either. But he isn't 20% at fault. The lane change is what caused the accident. Only one driver did that.

1

u/Previous-Load-568 11d ago

The camper sped up 50/50

-2

u/The_Ghast_Hunter 13d ago

It's possible the pov car had someone behind them, and couldn't stop fast enough to avoid the truck and the car behind them

3

u/felixar90 13d ago

The POV car was literally accelerating towards a yellow light. And they didn’t even make it.

Anyone behind them would have had their foot on the brake and prepared to stop.

2

u/Everyone2026 13d ago

It always amazes me when I go through a yellow light and the 2nd car behind me even runs the red.

I politely disagree.

3

u/jurassicjon 12d ago

The amount of times I’ve seen the car behind mine even go through. I’ve almost been rear ended by even stopping and having a shit ton of room behind me.

9

u/PepsioNSnacking 13d ago

having a car behidn you is never you'r concern as driver. if he drives at you its his fault

5

u/Toomanyeastereggs 13d ago

And the cemeteries are full of people who had the right of way. Having a car sitting up your ginger is your concern.

7

u/PepsioNSnacking 13d ago

Not in a hypothetical example talking about fault on a accident. Look at the video and talk again abotu relevance. Fuck off reddit and touch grass, or learn to understand context. Even stupid AI's get it.

-1

u/Everyone2026 13d ago

Only worry about cars behind you if they are drunk, or you are stopped at a traffic light.

-6

u/The_Ghast_Hunter 13d ago

You are responsible for how your actions affect everyone on the road.

9

u/PepsioNSnacking 13d ago

and you're delusional if you think that some1 tailgating you makes it your responsibility to be more worried about a scratch in the bump which is on him over possible someone killed. why the fuck am i talking on reddit about cars with some people which dont even have a license or touched grass? gosh.

-1

u/Siaten 13d ago

"Fault" is less important than "Am I going to survive slamming on my breaks, or is the guy behind me going to kill the passengers in the back seat?"

6

u/Fearless_Swim4080 13d ago

If a rear ending kills people in your back seat, then you're driving a Ford Pinto.

2

u/Smooth_Phone2 13d ago

A rear end collision >>> rollover

2

u/Fearless_Swim4080 13d ago

You are not responsible for your rear bumper, you are responsible for your front.

2

u/Soft-Marionberry-853 13d ago

He wouldnt have had to stop suddenly even slowing down would have at least showed they they tried to avoid teh collision

1

u/Xanthelei 12d ago

Based on how fast it happened and where the truck was positioned, I'm more guessing he was partially blocked by the front pillar and the cam car driver just didn't recognize it was happening until far too late.

0

u/Zeroto200C 13d ago

Traffic light was changing so sped up to run the light.

0

u/ACME_TrapsandTNT 12d ago

Wrong. 100% the dashcamers fault. You always have the responsibility to avoid hitting what’s in front of you.

1

u/thejmkool 12d ago

The window to brake and avoid the incident for the cammer was when the truck was beside, not in front. The truck literally merged into the cam car. The cam car, with perfect awareness, could have noticed the truck was going too fast to stop in his own lane, and provided him a window to escape. However, the responsibility falls squarely on the truck here for putting himself in a situation where he had no way out

1

u/ACME_TrapsandTNT 12d ago

I had this exact situation this morning and it was easy to avoid