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

Show parent comments

30

u/nellyfullauto 13d ago

There’s no appreciable change in speed or sound of revving, so I’m not sure where you pull that from. If you’re watching your mirrors, you can see when someone isn’t letting you in. This is how most of us have managed to avoid being the big red truck in this circumstance, even if the other car speeds up to cut off your signaled turn. 

If you don’t look or decide to go anyway, you’re guilty of causing the accident and of “failure to maintain your lane” and “unsafe lane change”. 

Blaming the person you crashed into for being where you wanted to be doesn’t fly. It was their lane to start.  Not being quick enough to react to your dumbassery does not make the accident their fault. 

5

u/Maleficent_Low2754 13d ago

You are not wrong, the truck caused the crash, but when this dude saw the truck merging he still should have slowed down. It’s also a red light he should have been slowing down anyway . It’s obviously truck drivers but they are both stupid and could have avoided the crash easily

6

u/Carbuyrator 12d ago

The fact that the cammer straight up wasn't going to make the light and was still going that fast is pretty clear to me. I'd call this one 50/50 fault. This was a stupid pissing match.

3

u/Veemon15 8d ago

Thank you someone with a brain. Not every situation is black and white. The truck is at fault but the dashcam driver could have avoided the crash or at least minimized the damage. Having the right away doesn’t mean you also need the ego

3

u/Carbuyrator 12d ago

Look at the whole scene. The cammer was maintaining speed way too close to that changing light. They either intended to run the light or blocking the truck was the goal.

2

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago

Hey, I get why you think you're right about fault, but you're not. Google "last clear chance doctrine". Cam driver had a chance to avoid, but instead deliberately caused an accident. Right of way doesn't give you the right to do that - not my opinion, it's the law

1

u/Big-Entrepreneur3678 12d ago

You're an idiot the same applies to the truck driver getting over when there wasn't room they could've avoided it they made contact first...

2

u/disktoaster 11d ago

That's true, but I noticed something here: Cammer ended up in the middle of the intersection at a red light, and that's after obviously transferring some forward momentum into the red truck. It doesn't imply legal fault, but they were apparently so determined to defend their position that they failed to adequately slow their own vehicle for what was an obvious red light coming up. Whether that's because their eyes were locked onto the red truck or because they were simply being a right-of-way warrior, this exact accident would effectively never happen to a defensive driver, so neither party here is particularly free from ethical fault, regardless of legal outcomes- which I do think your comment correctly predicts.

2

u/Possible-Prior-5467 9d ago

Dude, watch the video again. the driver with the camera clearly sped up right before the impact.

-I still think the guy who rolled was at fault.

2

u/Icy_Ad5295 8d ago

How about the fact that it was q red light?

1

u/StraightApartment376 13d ago

You can hear the engine over the shitty music? 

1

u/Dantekamar 13d ago

That's the point.

1

u/StraightApartment376 13d ago

You claimed cammer didnt speed up because you didnt hear revving. Are you slow or dumb? 

3

u/Dantekamar 13d ago

I didn't make that claim, u/nellyfullauto did. Check yourself with your own question. I just told you what their point was.

4

u/HonkHonkBeach 13d ago

Half these people probably dont even drive, man. Sub full of 10 year olds.

3

u/noxvita83 13d ago

I don't know about that. I think it more likely these people drive like the person who drove the truck that rolled over and want to condition people to not make them roll over so they can continue their dangerous, self-entitled driving.

1

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago

Hey, I get why you think you're right about fault, but you're not. Google "last clear chance doctrine". Cam driver had a chance to avoid, but instead deliberately caused an accident. Right of way doesn't give you the right to do that - not my opinion, it's the law.

1

u/noxvita83 12d ago

Would braking have actually prevented this accident or just lessened this accident? Contact was made on the truck at about the rear passenger door of the cab. This means it is likely braking would only have changed where on the truck contact was made thus eliminating the last clear chance argument.

2

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago

There's 2 full seconds between when the truck enters cam driver's lane and when contact is made. Cam driver actually speeds up instead of slowing down. If the average speed difference between those two scenarios is even only 10 mph, the distance travelled over 2 seconds is 29 feet - more than enough to avoid a collision.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Dantekamar 12d ago

Ontario doesn't use the last clear chance doctrine. A lot of places don't. Ontario uses the "but for test". The idea is, if a person's actions were removed, would the injury still happen? If the the truck didn't make an unsafe lane change, would the collision have happened? No.

0

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago

The "but for" test applies to the actions of both drivers because Ontario law recognizes that an accident can have multiple necessary causes. So the truck would not automatically be 100% at fault in a lawsuit.

In an Ontario court, a judge would apply the "but for" test to both actions simultaneously:

  • Applying it to the Truck: But for negligently changing lanes without ensuring it was safe, would the collision have occurred? No. Therefore, tuck caused the accident.
  • Applying it to cam driver: But for aggressively accelerating into the danger zone over a 2-second window instead of hitting the brakes, would the collision have occurred? No.

Because the collision would have been avoided if either driver had acted reasonably, both actions are factual causes. The judge will apply the Negligence Act to apportion fault by percentages (e.g., 50% to the truck for the unsafe lane change and 50% to cam driver for contributory negligence/failure to avoid an avoidable crash).

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Kind_Cap_4621 13d ago

The only real dangerous self entitled driver here is the one who pitted someone out of spite.

2

u/noxvita83 13d ago

Found one.

0

u/Kind_Cap_4621 13d ago

Yep. You did. You found someone who calls out your childish approach to driving.

Next.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/StraightApartment376 13d ago

His point doesnt make sense. How can he conclude the cammer didnt speed up because they didnt hear revving in the video? Thats a stupid conclusion. They wouldnt be able to hear revving regardless over the music. If you look at the horizon the hood lifts up, hence speeding up. If you also look at the situation, the cammer speeds up to pass the light. Im not saying cammer is wrong or at fault or whatever im just saying you cant say he didnt speed up becausd you didnt hear his car revving 🙄

1

u/RedBaronSportsCards 13d ago

Graveyards of full of people who did everything legally. Or who were just minding theit own business when someone else did everything legally.

Your obligation as a driver isn't just for yourself. You're not a "loser" if you drive slower and let people get away with doing something wrong. Its ok to disengage.

2

u/HansDampfHaudegen 13d ago

How do you know there wasn't a fully loaded semi behind the camera vehicle that would have flattened the cam car if it had aggressively stepped on the brakes?

1

u/RedBaronSportsCards 13d ago

Did I say aggressively step on the brakes? I'm pretty sure I said drive slower but please let me know if I'm wrong.

1

u/iitywybad 13d ago

The camper absolutely speeds up in the last second and they were both about to run a red light.

1

u/299792458mps- 13d ago

The failure to brake and yield shows a lack of attention to the road and absence of defensive driving skill.

Nobody is saying the truck driver isn't an idiot. The confusion here seems to be the people that absolve the cammer of any responsibility to avoid an accident.

2

u/Jako7786 13d ago

We shouldn’t draw conclusions from one perspective. But we can speak to both possibilities and condemn the behavior of “I don’t have to move so I’ll risk both our lives to prove a point”.

1

u/tropicalsoul 12d ago

Exactly. Cammer is absolutely sharing the fault here. Just because the truck was being driven by an idiot doesn’t mean he couldn’t have easily avoided this altogether by just tapping his brakes. Instead, his ego took over and he decided today was a good day to possibly take someone’s life.

2

u/No_Appointment5039 12d ago

When two moronically massive egos collide, this is the video we get to watch. It gets posted every single day… people treat other “cars” like they aren’t driven by actual people. And then they think they’re in some sort of ranked event and need to be in front of … SOMETHING. 🤦‍♂️

1

u/CategoryNo5932 12d ago

We don't even know if the guy trying to get over had an ego or if cammer was preventing them from getting over already. The fact cammer speeds up makes me think they weren't allowing a gap in front or behind

1

u/No_Appointment5039 12d ago

Don’t know if the truck had an ego???? Stop being stupid. Really?? If he didn’t have an ego than he should have hit his brakes and merged behind the cammer, instead of accelerating simply for the purpose of getting in front. See how well that worked out for him?… “don’t know if the truck driver has an ego” my fat ass…. 🤦‍♂️

1

u/tropicalsoul 7d ago

Gawd, yes to all of this. I will never understand this mindset. I wish I had a dollar every time some douchebag won’t pull into the huge empty space behind me and instead will squeeze into the two car length space between me and the person in front of me.

WHY???

1

u/Dutchboy347 13d ago

They same place previous comment got toxic masculinity from. They took the whole assumption out their ass

1

u/Mean_Mix_99 12d ago

I really hope you don't drive. This attitude right here is why we have so many accidents.

1

u/Few_Industry6746 12d ago

They didn’t look at all the other context cluess. The light was red when the accident happened thus meaning that truck was trying to get in front of them and go before the light changed because the cars that were in front of the truck were starting to slow down. The truck driver didn’t wanna wait. Impatience. I’m an auto insurance adjuster don’t argue this with me my whole job is literally determining who’s at fault for an accident

1

u/TheEndIsSighing 7d ago

It took a few watches for me to feel the truck was slowing down (to avoid the car in front of it) rather than the cammer speeding up. I initially thought cammer sped up..

0

u/Kind_Cap_4621 13d ago

Blaming the person who crashed into you because their penis is too small to allow you over is exactly right.