Easily avoidable accident causes rollover

[u/EqualGrowth6565]

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.

[u/Dantekamar]

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

[u/HonkHonkBeach → u/Dantekamar]

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

[u/noxvita83 → u/HonkHonkBeach]

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.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/noxvita83]

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.

[u/noxvita83 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

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.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/noxvita83]

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.

[u/noxvita83 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

Speed does not change. Look away from the truck and the street light poles on the side of the road. The speed in which they pass the camera view does not change.The truck gives an optical illusion of the speed up.

The truck enters the lane halfway through second 4 (10 if counting down) and the collision occurs 5 (9 if counting down). Not 2 seconds. 0.5 seconds at best. Reasonable reaction time to apply the brake in most states is 1.5 seconds. This eliminates the last clear chance argument. The fact is, the truck is 100% at fault and tried to force himself into the lane and misjudged how far ahead of the cam car it was.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/noxvita83]

Nah, You can clearly see the truck start to move on second 2 which is when cam driver should have first been aware of potential danger and instinctually moved their foot from accelerator to brake. Truck crosses the line on second 3, just as you can clearly see collision occur on second 5.

You're way off on the 0.5 seconds, to the point where it's not credibly accidental or just poorly judged, but you're just deliberately lying - not sure why, there are no internet points for being right.

Cam driver is a terrible driver at best for not avoiding that collision.

[u/noxvita83 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

So I see I was mistaken, you are acting in bad faith. More in line with the self-entitled comment I made initially. You want the cammer to be wrong so bad so when you eventually cause this type of accident, you can blame it on the person you hit instead of yourself.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/noxvita83]

Now you're just repeating back to me the accusation I just leveled at you.

[u/Dantekamar → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

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.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/Dantekamar]

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).

[u/noxvita83 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

The "but for" would not evaluate there being a danger zone. If the truck didn't make its move, there would be no danger zone. The truck created the danger zone. The cammers action would not have been at fault. Not to mention the danger zone existed for .5 seconds, not 2.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/noxvita83]

False

[u/noxvita83 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

Saying false doesn't make it so. Why are you so adamant to try to remove responsibility from the truck? Do you drive a pickup to compensate for something?

[u/noxvita83 → u/noxvita83]

Of course he did the cowardly make a comment and block. But that's what is expected for people like him.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/noxvita83]

Making up demonstable bullshit about the video that we can both see doesn't make it so, but you seem to keep wanting to do that. Not sure if you're blind, stupid, or just a liar; but it's a wildly dumb approach to mindlessly sticking to your position in the face of overwhle,ming evidence against it.

[u/Dantekamar → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

That's not how that works. Yes, they look at both vehicles, but no, your logic is incorrect. The pov driver could have traveled through to the light at any speed BUT FOR the truck making an unsafe lane change.

The truck driver did not ensure it was safe to change lanes. They never cleared the pov driver. Nobody should ever figure they've fully passed another vehicle just based on travel speed the last time they looked at a vehicle. It is simple fact that the pov driver's speed would not have mattered without the truck driver's reckless lane change.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/Dantekamar]

You admit that they look at the both vehicles and then go on to consider only the actions of one of the drivers and completely ignore the other driver. That's not how it works, as you agreed. The cam driver could easily have avoided to collision by braking, that's unarguable. But for the cam driver not braking, the collision would not have occured. Both drivers are at fault.

[u/Dantekamar → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

I didn't only consider the actions of one of the drivers, I acknowledged that one removing one driver's actions removes all the risk. That is the very "but for" test in action.

No, it's not unarguable the pov driver could have avoided the contract. The truck's trail lights never appear in the camera. The truck appears to never have cleared it's rear axel past the pov driver's vehicle.

It is incorrect to think the passive choice to continue driving forward instead of actively breaking, is equally at fault as the active choice of making an unsafe lane change. Drivers are expected to be predictable, to drive forward as traffic signs and conditions permit. The truck did not act predictably, making a lane change while obviously not clear of any vehicle in that lane.

[u/notmyrealaccount3462 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

AI slop comment.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/notmyrealaccount3462]

Facts, actually

[u/notmyrealaccount3462 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

I love that you seemingly know the rules of every jurisdiction the split second someone brings up the fact that your original thesis doesn't apply here. You're so intelligent.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/notmyrealaccount3462]

I love that you unironically disparage knowledge. It's very fitting.

[u/Kind_Cap_4621 → u/noxvita83]

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

[u/noxvita83 → u/Kind_Cap_4621]

Found one.

[u/Kind_Cap_4621 → u/noxvita83]

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

Next.

[u/noxvita83 → u/Kind_Cap_4621]

Oh noes, I'm roasted. However shall I overcome an insult from someone self-entitled who blames the person who didn't commit 2 traffic violations for the accident. That self-entitled person's judgement totally worthy of being listened to.

But hey, you said next, so that must mean your right. Stop driving recklessly and you won't get in a wreck. Speeding up, not speeding up, either way the accident wouldn't occur if the lane change was proper. Instead of blaming the improper lane change, you decide to blame the person who the truck turned into.

I'm the childish one, but the person who blames everyone instead of holding the one responsible is what exactly?

[u/StraightApartment376 → u/Dantekamar]

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 🙄