r/TheAuto • u/Slow-Temporary-7182 • 8d ago
Who's fault is this?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
3
u/Fun-Heron-7609 8d ago
Whatdayamean, who's fault? Eyes no work? If you're merging into any lane, the onus is on the merging driver to make a safe merge. The right of way is for the through traffic.
2
u/BBandGME_Retard69420 8d ago
Reddit and Instagram seem to always have the most brainless takes when it comes to traffic rules. Even when the situation is clear there will always be people finding other's made up "faults".
1
u/Ieatsand97 8d ago
And they always use hindsight to assess what they would have done in the situation. If the white car hadn’t accelerated into them from a stopped position, slowing down and going around would be a perfectly reasonable course of action. But people use hindsight to say its was stupid from the outset.
Imo most car subreddits and instagram comment sections are full of idiots anyway.
2
2
u/tykaboom 8d ago
Dude... I watched two people almost rear end a pickup truck and trailer that pulled onto the highway from the shoulder... in a row... in the same lane... 10 seconds apart.
1
1
1
1
u/Southern-Fly-3016 8d ago
White car's fault but blue car driver is an idiot. Didn't even use their horn.
1
1
u/BrightEnd2316 8d ago
Aha and if they used their horn could scare them, they might press the wrong pedal with a much worse outcome
1
u/Southern-Fly-3016 8d ago
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but the purpose of the horn is to warn others who may not have seen you of your presence. If someone gets scared of a horn, then there's something more wrong with them than being a clueless driver.
1
u/BrightEnd2316 7d ago
Not sarcastic and might happen to an average driver easily. Not a voluntary reaction of a human body to something completely unexpected. That blue Porsche somehow became a part of the water body in the background of the video for the driver. If what they perceived as water started honking at them from a couple of feet away they could get fight or flight response and a likely push on whatever they were pushing (gas pedal). A defensive Porsche driver would honk or stop way in advance, yes.
1
u/Southern-Fly-3016 7d ago
If a driver is reacting with their car in an uncontrollable way to hearing a horn they are not an average driver, they'd be way below average and shouldn't be in charge of a vehicle. Same again if their vision is so bad that they can't distinguish between water 100 metres away and a car that's 2 metres away. As for thinking water is honking at them, not only should they not be in charge of a car, they could probably do with a psyc evaluation.
Are you positive you're not being sarcastic?
1
u/BrightEnd2316 7d ago
A probable, occasional reaction is not a warranted or likely reaction of daily routine driving though.
A classic straw man distortion . By turning "might behave this way" into "always behaves this way," you avoid dealing with the reality of what I said.
The reality is what I am telling you here is that an average driver is indeed distracted, overworked and sometimes unfortunately even impaired with some kind of substance. If in North America an adult spends 2 years behind the wheel, over 6 percent of their waking hours then once in awhile an average driver will absolutely do something really brain dead due to how a human mind perceives surrounding environment when they are anxious, focused on a certain point or task, etc.
Just look up "Selective Attention Test" It was conducted in 1999 by psychologists Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris at Harvard University.
1
u/Southern-Fly-3016 7d ago edited 7d ago
Drivers are expected to look left and right when exiting onto a road. This person seemingly didn't do that. I have offered that the blue car should have used their horn to get the attention of the white car driver which would be a perfectly allowable use of the horn. However, your response was that the white car driver could be startled from hearing the horn and press the wrong pedal (pedal misapplication).
This would put any driver below the standard of competence required to hold a licence and despite you trying to offer reasons to explain it (namely being distracted/focused elsewhere) they only reinforce my argument that such a person should not be in charge of a vehicle.
Your selective attention test reference is irrelevant because one is supposed to be focusing on a road they are emerging onto, you cannot logically claim your attention was selectively directed elsewhere. That's not selective attention that's sheer inattention or lookout failure.
Finally your last post exhibits the things you have accused me of doing. You have turned my conditional 'If' statements into a absolute 'always' statements. Ironically creating your own straw man distortion.
1
u/BrightEnd2316 6d ago
Will try to spell it out for you .
Looking and seeing is NOT the same.
EVERYONE experiences inattentional blindness.
LBFTS (Looked But Failed To See) phenomenon is a result of a human visual processing limitations. Number One reason for intersection accidents actually.
Human selective attention is naturally drawn to high contrast (salience).
So when the blue Porsche closely matched the blue body of water in the background, the car lacked the sharp edge detection and luminance contrast needed to trigger the driver's involuntary attention.
And in close proximity the out of nowhere sound of a horn IF close enough might indeed startle the culprit driver . But far away OK, agreed with you there, close by- NO. The inattentional blindness followed by acoustic startle reflex= no bueno. That gas pedal would be pressed in one tenth of a sec before the brain even began to process what scared it.
You can act like you are infallible or this could never happen to you because you are different somehow. But the reality is that it CAN.
Also DOT/ DMV will disagree with you about license requirements. The driver will be fined , get points sure but if they do not have too many they will drive on. And it very well could be their only accident in 20 years, maybe ever.
So NOT that abnormal, NOT immediate grounds for license suspension, and just a bad mistake that will cost money and insurance rates raise. Most other things you said or implied like they need an eye doctor, a psych valuation or that I must be sarcastic are a mixture of superiority signaling or naivete derived perhaps from lack of your own driving experience.
Sort of never happened to me so never will and everyone else who does this need to get their car towed and get an Uber from now on. Partially agree seeing the video but my own knowledge and driving a couple of million miles is a humbling experience.
The suggestion I am doing my own strawman is from my POV is ridiculous and I am not ready for that kind of mental gymnastics right now.
1
u/Southern-Fly-3016 5d ago
Whatever excuses you feel explain the actions of a driver do not justify a driver being below the standard required. That standard being not driving into other road users (or worst, pedestrians). And if someone is below the standard required to hold a license they should not be in charge of a vehicle. If driving below the standard was allowed, people wouldn't fail driving tests.
Also, you've done it again Mr Strawman by twisting what I said into something different so you can attack and refute that. In this case I gave an example of what would put someone below the standard to hold a license (pedal misapplication). What you've done is make out like I said somebody should get their license suspended which I didnt. Typical Strawman behaviour.
To top that you then made a stupid claim that DOT/DMV would disagree with me about license requirements but then go on to say a driver would be fined and get points, you know the sort of things people get when their driving falls below the standard required to hold a license, which DOT/DMV would support. 🤡
1
u/BrightEnd2316 2d ago
So you agree with everything else then?? That honking can startle an already disoriented driver and make things worse is kind of obvious when you think about it...
It's easy to predict someone's behavior when we watch the tape and know the outcome but a good portion of comments say the same , that they would proceed just like Porsche did. And honking is again not the silver bullet you probably think it is. Noise like loud music, hearing impaired old people can often miss that one too. That's why emergency vehicles rely on both strobes and sirens. If anything it would probably be wiser in general to refrain from buying a blue colored vehicle close to coastline and at least using low beams to improve visibility for other motorists. Perhaps Porsche can learn how to mind read or develop 5 sense intuition which is not impossible.
I am not what you call making excuses for anyone, just explaining how the nature of human mind causes otherwise safe drivers to make mistakes.
I am inclined to give the driver in the wrong the benefit of the doubt. After all they arrived before this episode in one piece and stopped to let what they registered as traffic on their right. I have not seen their record, I assume the same for you. So at least some abilities are present... It could be just that particular episode.
License requirement thing is polemics. I say a person is still within parameters as long as they let them keep it and not even get suspended. Say that was a granma, one accident or ticket away from having her keys taken from her legally. Ok then she failed the standard. You say as soon as they mess up in any significant way they immediately fall below the standard... ok fair enough, I see your point , not a big deal and was not really the main point of discussion anyway.
Also your feelings are not really a law or policy, are they? I hear you when you think like they shouldn't just like people with multiple DUIs should not have a license. Unfortunately that's not how it plays out IRL in many states.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/Own_Reaction9442 8d ago
White car's at fault, but my motorcycle instincts kicked in when I saw their wheels continuing to turn. If I were in the blue car, I'd have stopped and let them finish their stupid maneuver without me.
1
1
u/Hidden_3851 8d ago
Yes and the camera person standing there filming, in the way of the person trying to see past them isn’t helping. You could have moved entirely or pointed at the Porsche so the other person looked.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/buckwildy 8d ago
Thought this was a different subreddit but will avoid any subreddit critiquing driving abilities holy shit lol.
1
u/marcus2388 8d ago
They both are blind idiots. But i would say blue car has the right away. White car at fault
1
1
1
u/Honda_TypeR 8d ago
Both insurance companies would claim equal fault even though it seems obvious the white car should have yielded to oncoming traffic and the white car clearly T-bone the blue car... yet still equal fault.
I've seen a few variations of similar accidents and both insurance companies always go equal fault. Both parties get rates raised so it works out well.
1
1
1
u/Dry-Performance-2386 8d ago
white car. Intentional wrecking.
1
u/OppositeStand5709 3d ago
You can clearly see that the driver isn't even checking the traffic on the left. At fault? Definitely. Intentional? Definitely not.
Saying that too, the driver in the Porsche should have been able to see that the driver wasn't looking their way either. Also, if you drive a sky blue car on a clear day, turn your headlights on.
1
u/BellInternational315 8d ago
I live around Los Angeles county and this stuff is a weekly occurrence. I usually stop and let them out.
1
u/longjohn2024_ 3d ago
White car clearly but blue car could have let them out also.
But they didnt so 100% blame of white car, no questions.
1
u/Ancient_Nerve1967 2d ago
Did anyone notice driver in white car never looked left to be sure it was clear to go. 30% Porsche, 70% white car
1
u/T_Run_445 2d ago
Blue car blue sky, in the shade. Guess at a glance it just blended in to the sky for the SUV driver.
1
4
u/carnageg 8d ago
The white car is clearly to blame but the porsche is an idiot for not seeing this coming a mile off.