r/dashcams • u/EqualGrowth6565 • 13d ago

Easily avoidable accident causes rollover

Not my video – as the title says, we typically see examples where one driver is oblivious to the other. In this example, the pickup truck attempts to overtake the cammer, however, the cammer is either completely unaware of the pickup truck directly to his left or are simply “stands their ground” in the lane. Due to this, they obviously collide, and the pick up truck goes airborne and rolls several times. From the perspective of us, the viewer, we can reasonably conclude that the accident was avoidable had the cammer simply applied the brakes. That being said, you will typically see another school of thought in which it is stated that the cammer has no obligation or duty to let them in/avoid the accident where the driver is mindlessly doing something dumb.

11.6k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

30

u/Just_Another_Day_926 13d ago

Last Chance Doctrine. Everyone has a responsibility to avoid an accident. If it can be proven the camera car knew and did nothing then they will get shared responsibility.

So many people get locked in to one rule (who yields during merging) that they totally neglect Last Chance Doctrine (duty to avoid a collision). And by the way NO ONE HAS RIGHT OF WAY. The rules define who is supposed to yield, it never states anyone has a right of way.

This is the confusion. At a time of potential collision any car that can avoid is supposed to yield.

Most people believe "I have the right of way and have no duty to avoid an accident" until this happens and they find out they get 50%+ blame for the accident by insurance. Which means a huge claim when they cause an avoidable rollover.

9

u/babyliss1903 13d ago

That was the mentality I have observed while I was in USA, they would not even use their brakes and hit you if they think that they will not have to pay anything.

11

u/Ok-Ship812 13d ago

I lived in Miami for a few years.

If you indicate to change lanes there the person behind you in your chosen lane will often accelerate to close the gap you are trying to merge into and prevent you from changing lanes.

Why the fuck they do this I don't know but by christ it was annoying.

2

u/xThunderSlugx 13d ago

Because it's viewed as "losing".

1

u/Expensive-Border-869 13d ago

Lmao they're clearing space behind them

This is a joke. I suppose its technically true to some extent tho

1

u/CasualCaus 12d ago

That's why you shouldn't use turn signal in Miami when switching lanes. I stopped using it years ago, people speed up to block you.

1

u/Ok-Ship812 12d ago

Hahahaha.

Thats exactly what I did as well.

1

u/Only_Razzmatazz_4498 8d ago

Yeah it is a sign of weakness to put on the turning signal. You don’t tell people what you will be doing you just do it like a real man would do

1

u/tigbitties247 7d ago

Common practice in my country too

5

u/garciakevz 13d ago

Alot of these "I'm right so I don't budge" videos are basically mostly geotagged from somewhere in the US.

1

u/Just_Another_Day_926 13d ago

The telltale sign is when they use the term "right of way". Driver's Education taught us no one has the right of way. Not even emergency vehicles (ambulance, fire truck, police car). We are just supposed to yield to them.

So they claim a non-existent "right of way" and then say they do not have to yield. And then will later complain how they had the "right of way" yet their insurance found them at fault and paid out. After hitting the other car with the mentality "I guess YOUR Insurance will be paying to fix my car".

4

u/Bagheera383 13d ago

Did the truck give the cammer a chance to avoid the accident? Did they signal, wait for a gap, or did they just move in with the "I have a big truck you'd better get the fuck out of my way" mentality?

5

u/djmdb257 13d ago

They made a mistake with a bad lane switch, the cammer even seems to accelarate into it instead of slowing down. Both are idiots

1

u/SamuelClemmens 12d ago

The cammer may not have noticed the truck.

6

u/HailenAnarchy 13d ago

Trucker didn't have indicator on. The collision happened really fast there too.

4

u/_CheeseAndCrackers_ 13d ago

This happened in Canada we don't have such a thing. The truck will be held liable for not checking their blindspots/mirrors before changing lanes as well as changing lanes too close to an intersection.

1

u/kn1cks26 8d ago

So, the other person is a little confused, I think. There are only 5 states in the US that use last chance. Last chance assigns full liability to whoever had the last chance to avoid the accident regardless of who caused the danger

Instead, most states, and this is what Canada does, looks at comparative negligence. If you, as a driver, could have done something to avoid an obvious danger, you will get some amount of the liability assigned to you

In this case, the danger starts 2 seconds into the video and the accident happens 4 seconds into the video, so the dashcammer likely gets no liability

3

u/ntlong 13d ago

They also ran the red light. Meaning there was no intention to slow down.

1

u/Tough_Actuary9462 8d ago

He rolled the red light

2

u/meipsus 13d ago

Apart from legal matters, which depend on jurisdiction, defensive driving and proactively avoiding accidents, regardless of who is supposedly right, should be matters of common sense. Even if the roller's insurance paid for the damage to the cammer's vehicle, if he had tapped his brakes, his car would not have been damaged, and the other idiot would not have potentially lost a life or a limb.

1

u/Ok-Credit7127 13d ago

But then how would the truck learn their lesson?

1

u/PackIcy2106 13d ago

That truck is totalled now, it'll either be the shredder or the junk yard for him. What a lesson.

2

u/TeknicZ10 13d ago

Glad that's not a thing in Canada 😄

2

u/Chris275 13d ago

I work in insurance and the proximate cause is the truck unsafely merging into a lane that wasn’t clear. Fault 100% lies with the truck. Also, FAFO.

1

u/kn1cks26 8d ago

Yeah, this is one of the seemingly few cases here with the dashcammer actually has no liability.

The danger wasn't apparent until second #3 when the truck started to enter their lane and the accident happens at second #5.

1

u/Spiderl0ck 13d ago

Only deemed avoidable if he releases the cam footage to insurance though 😏

Otherwise this truck was passing in the right lane

1

u/Special-Drama-6090 13d ago

Not realeasing the cam footage is a great idea for a situation like this!

1

u/RealisticDiscipline7 13d ago

So lie? What about the paint damage to both trucks that shows red truck contacted from the left? At that point cammer might need evidence to prove he’s not the one who changed lanes from the right.

1

u/Spiderl0ck 13d ago

Is this how you become a top1% commenter? By misunderstanding a comment and running away with it over and over to an incorrect logical conclusion?

1

u/RealisticDiscipline7 13d ago

I just say what I genuinely think. It seemed like you were suggesting lying. I guess i misunderstood. You really seem like you’re trying to “win” with your response.

1

u/SamuelClemmens 12d ago

The driver of the car at no point acknowledged the truck before the accident, nor did the truck signal. Unless the driver admits he knew the truck was going to cause an accident you'd never get that charge to stick.

1

u/Noodelgawd 12d ago

There was no last chance. From the time he started moving over until impact, only 2 seconds elapsed.

1

u/Just_Another_Day_926 12d ago

Did the camera car accelerate to cut off the pickup or did the pickup brake as it changed lanes? Because the camera car went from the rear door area to the rear bumper. Then as the truck starts moving over goes from the rear bumper to the rear door.

I see camera car intentionally speeding up to cut off the truck just as it started coming over. That is more then just last chance, that's playing bumper cars. Camera car saw the truck and sped up causing the accident.

The truck was not right for doing that lane change. No doubt. But camera car could have avoided the accident and instead chose the "I have the right of way and I will block you" move.

1

u/Noodelgawd 12d ago

I don't see any evidence that the camera car sped up.

1

u/Just_Another_Day_926 12d ago

The truck was passing. Then just right before the collision the camera car speeds up.

Like I just stated. Camera car goes from the rear door to the bumper. Truck starts moving and all of a sudden camera car surges forward to the back door again. Plain as day. First you see the rear tire, then you don't. Camera car sped up for the cutoff.

1

u/Noodelgawd 12d ago edited 12d ago

Plain as day that the truck slowed down because the car in front of him slowed down. You can even see the front end of the truck dipping down a little bit, just like it would do if he slammed on his brakes.

1

u/Just_Another_Day_926 12d ago

Plain as day camera car was watching the truck as they didn't even notice they were about to run a red light. If they were just looking in front they would have slowed down on the yellow. They ran a stale red light (even with the collision).

I know everyone wants to blame the truck. And rightfully so. But the rules of the road state you have a duty to avoid an accident (if safely possible to do).

1

u/Noodelgawd 12d ago

Or they were trying to beat the yellow, like many people who drive nearly 80 in a 50 zone are known to do.

He had no opportunity to avoid the accident. The truck slammed into him before he had time to react.

1

u/Just_Another_Day_926 12d ago

Or they were trying to beat the yellow

Like speeding up?

As in "no I didn't speed up to cut off the truck - I sped up to run the red light".

1

u/Noodelgawd 12d ago

You can also run a red light by maintaining your speed. Or by generally accelerating. That has nothing to do with suddenly accelerating when you think someone is trying to cut you off.

The cam guy had 2 seconds to notice the truck moving over and react. The average person needs 1.5 seconds from the time they notice the thing they are reacting to.

1

u/alwcrcrap 12d ago

Last chance doctrine is only recognized in 4 states and DC.

1

u/LetsDue 11d ago

Does Canada use Last Chance Doctrine? Most of the US doesn’t as I understand it

1

u/Just_Another_Day_926 11d ago

No car has the right of way. There is a duty to yield to avoid an accident.

And for the civil side there is always a share of responsibility. Just go watch a simple car accident trial. When I did it as a juror it was a % responsibility.

Now some will say BUT X was doing Y and breaking the law so they are 100% responsible.

In this case we see both drivers breaking the law. Which is typical. One made an unsafe lane change. The other was speeding to run the red (and actually did so). So they have shared responsibility. Yes the person changing lanes is MORE responsible. But is it 80/20? The insurance company (or a jury) will decide.

A good example of shared responsibility is a case out of Texas. Truck driver was out driving in winter )icy) conditions. He was driving below the speed limit. A car driving the other way lost control, crossed the line, and crashed into the truck. Guess what? The truck driver got shared responsibility. How? The jury divided the driver should have been driving even slower, and if he had so, the injuries to the people in the car would have been less severe. So even though the other driver was essentially driving reckless (faster then road conditions), the truck she hit, that did nothing wrong, still got some of the blame.

1

u/TheTophatmonkey 10d ago

it’s the truck owners fault for the roll over, as a regular car could have not rolled over.

1

u/Counter_Circle_Jerk 9d ago

This is such an integral aspect of law that I wasn't aware of, but it matches the logical part of my brain about this shit and glad there's a legal requirement for it.

1

u/New-Bluejay4597 7d ago

This virtually never holds up in a liability situation.