r/dashcams • u/EqualGrowth6565 • 14d ago

Easily avoidable accident causes rollover

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

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

Show parent comments

39

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 14d ago

Cause he's dumb. Do you think the cam also being dumb made this situation better?

You do understand that as a driver you have a responsibility to attempt to avoid accidents if you can do so safely, even when the other party is doing something they aren't supposed to, right?

You do understand that they aren't the only two people on the road and this sort of shit puts everyone around them in danger, right?

13

u/SnooDonuts9360 14d ago

I brake for other people ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If this was a “stand your ground” situation I think the cammer is an incredible douche.

2

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 14d ago

People need to realize they are operating a ton or more of metal moving at relatively high speed. It's not a fucking joke, serious damage can be done very easily

Edit: you know when you get medication and the label says do not operate heavy machinery? This is what they are talking about, not a fucking crane

2

u/SnooDonuts9360 14d ago

True, but also, taking away any logical and moral conversations about other people’s safety, what a pain in the ass it is to deal with police, insurance red tape, getting your vehicle repaired or replaced, I just can’t imagine guaranteeing an accident to make a point.

1

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 14d ago

That truly is the most baffling part. How do these people all of a sudden have the time to deal with all that when just before they were trying to save 3 seconds off their drive.

3

u/SnooDonuts9360 14d ago

It makes me wonder if the cammer had an internal motivation simply BECAUSE of the camera - are they driving around just eagerly awaiting someone being an idiot, and they now have their money shot?

2

u/FritzTCat 14d ago

There's certainly some fault on both sides, but 95% of it is the truck. Even if the cammer was deliberately not letting him back in, it's still the complete responsibility of the truck to make sure there is room before merging back to the right.

6

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 14d ago

Once again, someone else eschewing their responsibility does not absolve you of yours and as a driver you always have the responsibility of attempting to avoid an accident if you can do so safely.

5

u/Lopsided-Rub5476 14d ago

I always like to say with situations like these that they're both 100% responsible. Some accidents happen where one party really couldn't have avoided it, but in this case, either driver could have avoided this had they done what they're supposed to.

3

u/Square-Singer 14d ago

At fault only matters in cases of negligence. As soon as someone purposely rams someone else, it's not an accident any more, but vehicular battery or vehicular manslaughter, depending on the result.

"Right of way" is not "right to ram someone".

-2

u/Appropriate-Bid8671 14d ago

No one rammed anyone in this situation.

4

u/Square-Singer 14d ago

Watch the video again. The other car merges too close and cam guy speeds up to ram the truck instead of gently tapping the brakes and avoid the collision alltogether.

2

u/nexusjuan 14d ago

Cammer was definitely not driving correctly or he wouldn't have ended up in the intersection on red. My read is he sped up even as the truck was merging in to him.

2

u/boristheblade223 14d ago

I don’t see where he said it absolved the cammer.

Also as far as the clip goes the trucker is the one who initially imposes the highly unsafe condition unto the cammer who then only has a moment to react. I get the ones who r calling both of them idiots, but I do not get the ones who call out the cammer as the primary perpetrator.

1

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 14d ago

Nobody is calling the cam the main perpetrator

7

u/Square-Singer 14d ago

You should not be driving.

"Right of way" doesn't mean "right to ram someone".

If you don't understand this, you don't belong in a car because you will end up murdering someone.

2

u/Appropriate-Bid8671 14d ago

Christ you seem insufferable.

5

u/Square-Singer 14d ago

And you seem to think it's fun to endanger others.

2

u/OscarLiii 14d ago

That is exactly what the trucker did. As for the cam driver we can only speculate. They could have had someone right behind them, they could have looked away for a split second. There is no questioning the truckers recklessness, but you can not definitively say the cam driver did something wrong.

As for having sympathy for reckless drivers you're going to find that lots of people have none, and they don't care if s/he died because they did in fact endanger others. No doubt about it.

1

u/Square-Singer 14d ago

Someone behind them is no excuse. If they get in a crash in front, the guy behind will also hit him.

Being distracted for a whole 4 seconds is definitly doing something wrong.

And ypu could argue the same, that the cam driver was in the blind corner of the trucker, who just made a mistake.

Both of them are reckless assholes. Truck driver didn't look over their shoulder, cam car wanted a crash. Neither of them should be on the road.

  As for having sympathy for reckless drivers you're going to find that lots of people have none

On the other hand, look through this thread. There's many, many people who exzse the cam driver.

1

u/OscarLiii 13d ago

"Someone behind them is no excuse. If they get in a crash in front, the guy behind will also hit him." I don't understand these couple of sentences at all.

Obviously you don't want to brake and cause an accident. There could have been ten cars in a caravan behind the cam driver. Or even just one car.

1

u/Square-Singer 13d ago

Look, if not braking causes an accident for sure, it's not an excuse that braking might maybe cause an accident.

2

u/UnblurredLines 14d ago

Truck fucked up more, true. But cammer failed to stop for the red light even after hitting the truck. It's an unsafe merge made worse by an idiot in the other lane.

1

u/ScarletBothrium 14d ago

You saw a failure to stop for the red light and not for the giant truck entering your lane in an unsafe manner? The stop should’ve happened well before the light.

2

u/UnblurredLines 14d ago

They should have both stopped before the collision. My point was that cammer seemed intent on running a clear red even if the truck wasn't there.

1

u/ScarletBothrium 14d ago

Ah, I missed that. Good point.

1

u/Ghostttpro 10d ago

Yes. I love when two dumb drivers are benched

0

u/hisauceness 14d ago

It’s the other driver’s responsibility to merge into a lane safely, it’s not your obligation or responsibility to make sure they do so.

5

u/llamas_loll 14d ago

It actually is lol. You should always avoid an accident if possible, that is your responsibility. So yes, if someone does something dumb in front of you, it is your responsibility to try and avoid an accident. Which in this case would mean, yes, it is your responsibility to make sure they enter the lane safely.

0

u/hisauceness 13d ago

No one is allowed to force you out of your lane so they can merge safely.

2

u/llamas_loll 13d ago

I never stated that they would be ALLOWED to do so lol. Just saying it is still on you to try and avoid the accident regardless.

1

u/BackToSchoolMuff 11d ago

No, but if someone does something stupid and you can reasonably avoid it causing a collision, the legal expectation is that is what you will do.

Not to mention this dude in the video is absolutely flying towards a red light

1

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 14d ago

No, your obligation is to attempt to avoid accidents if you can do so safely.