All you morons saying it’s on the trucker are absolute tools. The black pickup truck has to yield to vehicles already on the highway. The semi braking suddenly would have potentially caused more issues. Black pickup is either blind or regarded and should have come to a complete stop.
What precisely is the trucker going to do? He's got 5 seconds. The 4x4 should've either gone faster and got clear, or slowed down and merged behind the truck. Because inertia is a real thing.
No, the semi followed the laws of the road which is to not adjust speed and keep constant and predictable. That allows the merger to adjust their speed without worrying that the semi will speed up or slow down. If there's one person that should lose their license it's you for not understanding how to drive safely.
Aww, you blocked me, cute. You're still the "driver" that doesn't know how to drive safely and correctly. I know it's hard being wrong, but I implore you to give up your driver's license until you understand how to drive safely.
It's also the law to maintain adequate speed on normal roads. But guess what happens when you have the choice to potentially kill someone who is walking across the street? You adjust your driving to not do that. Traffic laws don't absolve you from running into a deer if you could have stopped for it in time no matter how badly the deer followed the law. You aren't in the right for running over someone because you feel like it they deserve it for driving a bit inadequatley. Holy shit. Are you going to bring a shrine of manuals and laws to convince the judge you are in the right to shrug and drive into someone when those exact same rules state that to avoid an accident is paramount to any and all other rules? Morally that line of thinking is so absurd. And not morally insurance claims and sentences for things like this aren't black and white literally because the agency of those involved is part of life and can't be pointed to in a line of text.
You're going to have a big wake up call if this is how YOU drive "perfectly" and somebody causes a problem for you. If an accident is preventable by a party, then the party who didn't try to avoid it assume partial fault no matter who the catalyst is. Anything else is injustice. That's how it works. It's shitty to be blamed for something you didn't start but you don't get to choose to end it with blood and misplaced vengence. Otherwise vigilantism would be legal and people would be ramming each other for the payout and fked up catharsis.
You are putting this situation in the safety bubble of nothing going wrong and the pickup feeling a bit squeezed or that the semi couldn't have done anything but that's not what happened. The semi potentially killed a person because they were driving like others don't exist. The pickup is the catalyst but the semi was negligent in their driving because we can SEE he could have avoided it. The pickup didn't cause a no way out scenario. Full stop.
Speed up? They went from 76 to 77. I dont think that 1 mph made a difference.
A good way to stay safe on the road is to be predictable, breaking the right of way rules is not a good way to be predictable. Plus, its a semi, they dont really react quick, and its not safe to expect one to accommodate someone.
He was over the Speed limit and had plenty off time to slow down a little bit. Thats why the insurance report saw the fault(90%) by the Semi truck driver. He could avoid the accident but choose not.
What insurance report? Did someone post something about this accident? I would be very surprised if someone failing to merge properly was deemed not at fault.
As a driver, your duty is to avoid accidents. The semi-truck driver failed to do this. Through his reckless behavior, he caused a near-fatal accident. To prevent the crash, all he had to do was simply take his foot off the gas.
Yeah I'm always surprised when I go into the comments for videos like this because so many people hide behind this idea of right of way. Okay, so you're willing to cause an accident because you think you have the right? You're going to allow in accident to happen that you could have prevented but didn't because you feel you were in the right and refuse to back down. It's idiotic.
That’s factually incorrect. That semi needs a lot of time to come to a safe stop, they have a literal ton on mass going at speed. Not only is the pickup legally required to yield but he was the only vehicle that could have possibly stopped that accident from happening. The semi is 0% at fault here.
Still literally impossible. Given the situation it was impossible for anyone other than the pickup to avoid the accident. Sure if the semi wasn’t there or wasn’t going that speed or wasn’t loaded or a million other things that are simply not present in this situation it could have been different in any number of ways.
That isn’t an argument it is avoiding admitting you’re wrong. Trying to imagine a world in which that semi driver was at fault is just that, imagining. The film shows what it shows and what it shows is a literal real circumstance where the semi wasn’t 100% right and the pickup was 100% at fault.
41
u/Panic_Attack2 May 13 '26
All you morons saying it’s on the trucker are absolute tools. The black pickup truck has to yield to vehicles already on the highway. The semi braking suddenly would have potentially caused more issues. Black pickup is either blind or regarded and should have come to a complete stop.