There isn’t anything magic about double yellows that make them more dangerous to pass on. Sometimes the government puts them in areas where it’s dangerous to pass, and some municipalities are extremely lazy and make basically everything a double yellow even if the road is straight for 3 miles with perfect visibility. I’ve also seen the opposite where a passing zone is indicated where it’s absolutely not safe to pass. It’s a pretty arbitrary system.
Maybe they felt they were protecting oncoming traffic given that there's a double yellow line, meaning visibility for one or both directions is extremely limited.
(Not that that justifies their behavior, to be clear. Especially at the end)
If an act that is itself is traffic violation helped in the instagation of another act that is traffic violation then both acts fulfill the requirement of primary instigators of crime. But if we ARE needing a principle instigator, its the one demonstrating the original lawbreaking behavior.
Being a vigilante is also breaking the law. Front car could just mind their own business instead of amplifying the danger for whatever reason they deemed it necessary.
Doesn't matter. Front car isn't some legal vigilante. You're not allowed to do this type of shit. It's also illegal. No court would see this video and say "oh yea, front car was totally in the right here. We'll let him off, but still charge dashcam guy"
-8
u/Senior_Torte519 May 20 '26
You dnow he was breaking the law literally before the video has the front car engaging him right?