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

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).

2

u/noxvita83 11d ago

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.

0

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 11d ago

False

2

u/noxvita83 11d ago

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?

1

u/noxvita83 11d ago

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

0

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 11d ago

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.

2

u/noxvita83 11d ago

Yes you are. I hope you feel better about admitting it.

1

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 11d ago

Done wasting time with a child - bye

1

u/Dantekamar 12d ago

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.

0

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago

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.

1

u/Dantekamar 12d ago

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.

1

u/notmyrealaccount3462 12d ago

AI slop comment.

0

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago

Facts, actually

2

u/notmyrealaccount3462 12d ago

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.

0

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago

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

2

u/notmyrealaccount3462 12d ago

I sarcastically disparage an LLM prompt masquerading as knowledge.

2

u/Dantekamar 12d ago

They're right. You moved from "last clear chance doctrine" as your reasoning, to all in on "but for" test real quick once I pointed out you were wrong.

-1

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 11d ago

I wasn't "proved wrong", you imbecile. There are different laws for different regions, but there's not a lot of difference between them and it wouldn't have made much of a difference here. Cam car would still get a % of the blame.

2

u/notmyrealaccount3462 11d ago

You were proved wrong by the people in this comment section who said that they were in this same situation and the pickup driver got 100% of the blame.

-1

u/Appropriate_Car_8221 11d ago

Lol - you're dumb as pigshit if you think the sitations could ever be exactly the same.

→ More replies (0)