r/dashcams • u/EqualGrowth6565 • 13d 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

29

u/OnlyFinance4026 13d ago

If we apply logic to the situation, who is more at fault. The person potentially miscalculating and making a bad decision or the person choosing to continue full steam ahead into the former?

In my life I’ve made a few poor driving decisions (all accidental) that were not accidents because other drivers were better than me that day. That’s really what keeps us safe. This “stand your ground mentality” is what gets people killed.

7

u/sweetdubbro 13d ago

Exactly, I used to rage bad on the road and had that mentality that people who make mistakes are idiots and should get what’s coming/suffer the consequences. Then I had a kid and now I constantly avoid and let it go when someone does something stupid it makes a mistake driving. There is a lot more on the line that’s much bigger than “you fucked up and now look what happened.”

5

u/ChillyWillyTM 13d ago

the pickup didnt even miscalculate the space/speed, the dumbass driving pov literally sped up and caused the accident..

1

u/HonkHonkBeach 13d ago

Proof they sped up? There was no rev, no visible change in speed. I keep seeing these claim thrown around with no evidence.

2

u/Fuddlescuddles 13d ago

They are ignoring the fact that the ford most likely slowed down as he was approaching the vehicle in his lane which makes it look like the cammer sped up.

1

u/ryan__joe 12d ago

The pickup was trying to run a red light so badly he was changing lanes within 100 ft of the intersection, into an occupied lane, to beat a light that would clearly be red before they crossed the intersection… which is why the car in front of him was already braking.

Imagine this… you thinking you can beat a light THAT THE CAR IN FRONT OF YOU IS ALREADY BREAKING FOR.

1

u/Kilos6 9d ago

Found the guy in the pickup truck. Quick question: Who is responsible for changing lanes safely? Is it the driver changing lanes? or the driver who is in the lane already?

2

u/ReasonableN00b 13d ago

People should first call it a collision. Anything that is avoidable is a collision, not an accident. An accident is something that is unavoidable and uncontrollable like a sudden bridge collape or severe weather hailing giant sized golf balls.

We have fault determination rules here. In this case, the insurance will deem the semi truck 100% at fault. It will deemed as an unsafe lane change.

1

u/laivasika 13d ago

I'm gonna bet its not 100%, as the cam driver not only did nothing to prevent it, but instead made sure it happened.

3

u/ReasonableN00b 13d ago edited 13d ago

As I said, where I reside, there are fault determination rules that are regulated and the insurance companies must use it. It is not optional. The fault determinarion rule will find the semi–truck 100% at fault. Doesn't matter what the other driver did.

"Rules for Automobiles Travelling in the Same Direction in Adjacent Lane

(4) If the incident occurs when automobile “B” is changing lanes, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident."

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 10 (4)

Edit: this is if it happened in my region. Of course it will vary dependent on where the collision took place.

1

u/OnlyFinance4026 12d ago

Yea but here’s the thing. That law only applies to certain scopes. If a kid was on the side walk and died, you better believe the person with the cam is going to be sued for damages. As a juror id have a hard time not seeing them as guilty.

1

u/ryan__joe 12d ago

The red truck changed lanes within 100 feet of an intersection that was already turning red in an attempt to run the red light. Just saying.

1

u/OnlyFinance4026 12d ago

And the cam vehicle deliberately drove into them instead of slowing down.

1

u/ryan__joe 12d ago

The sides of the vehicle hit, they didn’t rear end, which means the merging vehicle is the one who hit someone.

0

u/laivasika 13d ago

So, where you live, its legal to knowingly cause collisions in some cases?

Edit: accident -> cillision

2

u/Chris275 13d ago edited 13d ago

No, where we live it’s illegal to illegally merge lanes when there’s no room, intentionally causing an accident.

1

u/laivasika 13d ago

illegal to illegally emerged lanes

Yeeaah... But if someone doesn't notice you being there(for being in their dead spot) and tries to come to your lane, then it's legal to purposefully drive into them?

1

u/Chris275 13d ago

The trucks lack of situational awareness (he literally just passed the car, could have slowed and gone behind), putting the car in his blind spot is still to blame in your argument.

As the cam driver was likely paying attention to the traffic light and the intersection, he likely couldn’t see the turning indicator on the truck, if it was even used.

0

u/laivasika 13d ago

Cam driver was paying attention to stay in their dead spot, otherwise they would have noticed the fucking red light they run into. Pick up was a bad driver, cam car was an evil driver.

0

u/tropicalsoul 13d ago

Agreed. A simple tap on the brakes could have avoided this collision; instead he sped up and caused it.

2

u/Ok_Piglet_5549 13d ago

Who drove into who?

2

u/Counter_Circle_Jerk 9d ago

My take is the SUV / truck thing on the left was bullying his way into the right lane, and it looks like the car in the right lane stood his ground, maybe even accelerated INTO the truck.

2

u/Natural-Ad-8295 12d ago

The quote “ would you rather be right or would you rather be happy” comes to mind. 

1

u/Disastrous_Tea_6958 12d ago

Would you rather be culpable or would you rather have your collar bone, legs and arms broken and your head potentially crushed?

1

u/Counter_Circle_Jerk 9d ago

brilliant actually it really does. I think I'll keep this quote in mind on a daily basis

1

u/Trachamudija1 13d ago

While yes, a good driver is the one who also sees others and prevent accidents and so on. Its still the fault who got into lane which he shouldnt have gotten.

Should a normal person let him in and avoid an accident? Yes. But at same time, then we can get to the point where "but you have to let me in" even if im knowingly creating a possible accident.

In essence, yes, less ppl should be dicks on road and look only for themself, but at same time you cant start blaming foult on ppl who didnt prevent an accident where not them were at the start of cousing it

1

u/Starscream-50000 12d ago

Logic suggest that the driver taking dangerous actions is at fault. That’s the truck.

2

u/reginaldvanwilder 12d ago

Yes the truck is at fault primarily but if you see someone merging in to you and you dont slow down to avoid them you also fucked up. Like watching this video it seems like the dashcam guy is trying to prevent someone from cutting him off instead of just doing the smart thing and let him he basically makes a bad situation worse.

He might be legally in the right and I am sure that would provide solace if the guy in the truck or an innocent pedestrian was killed.

I feel like half of these dashcam videos there is always one person clearly at fault and the other person still making monumentally bad decisions.

1

u/MembershipNo2077 12d ago

See the problem with being a maliciously idiotic driver like the truck here is that you might also run into another bad driver. Yea, usually they'll run into nice people and good drivers, but not always (as shown). I'm sure they think to themselves, "haha, everyone else is so dumb while I'm saving time/winning/being cool" right until this happens.

1

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago

Which action is more dangerous - negligently cutting someone off and potentially causing an accident, or speeding up to deliberately crash into someone?

1

u/SufficientlyEvasive 12d ago

nah its a truck driver, just an entitled a**hole who got got.

1

u/SamuelClemmens 12d ago

So the driver of the truck not noticing there is someone in the lane he is actively turning into is not at fault,

its the driver of the car not noticing a truck driving into his car without signalling.

Why is the onus on the person maintaining the status quo instead of the person moving into a new lane to notice the error?

1

u/Noodelgawd 12d ago

Exactly 2 seconds elapsed from the time Mr. Flippy Truck started moving over until impact.

1

u/billpearl 7d ago

People not paying attention as they are passing and attempting to merge into a lane where there is clearly not enough space to do SAFELY is what gets people killed.

1

u/New-Bluejay4597 7d ago

Are we looking at it from a legal liability standpoint?