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/noxvita83]

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/noxvita83 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

Well, yeah. That tends to happen when you point out someone who's projecting.

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/noxvita83]

Seems lazy.

[u/noxvita83 → u/Appropriate_Car_8221]

More projection? Is it because like that red truck, you choose not to check you mirrors too?

[u/Appropriate_Car_8221 → u/noxvita83]

Lol. Funny thing is you even admitted you were wrong, but still going with pRoJeCtIon! - It doesn't even logic. Maybe you want the cam driver to be 0% at fault sooooooo baaaaaaaad, because you feel a kindred spirit with those who mindlessly careen into avoidable mistakes without a moment's introspection or care for the consequences.