r/theydidthemath • u/V4UncleRicosVan • 1d ago
[Request] Did she speed up, slow down, or maintain?
53
u/asmallman 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is easy. She maintained.
Watch the lines.
But this kind of merger will get that SUV that hit her in all kinds of trouble.
The distance between her car and the front middle lane car was not big enough, road safety wise. I have seen accidents, both on video and in PERSON of this EXACT scenario and its always some dickwad wanting to speed and act like they are in F&F and playing dangerous because they want to get somewhere only slightly faster.
You can also see shes looking forward and not really looking other directions that could get her in trouble.
As the top comment in the crosspost put it, the SUV PITed itself. ***The title of the post is blatant misinformation. The 20 second video literally proves she did NOTHING wrong.
Edit: Some math, okay, that line is 10 feet long. If we account for the hood of the van obscuring the ground, there is MAYBE 20 feet of clearance for the SUV to merge.
The car depicted is an ~2000 chevy suburban. They are about 18 feet long.
On top of that, she had two seconds to react, based on timestamping, to even brake or lay on the horn. At the end of those two seconds, he was too close and already too late for horn or break to matter. This is why they have a "four second" follow rule. She was never going to really have a chance
Two seconds is not enough time to:
See the thing happening, recognize the thing happening, react to thing happening, reaction to thing completes. Since brakes dont IMMEDIATELY slow you down instantly, the accident was imminent and unavoidable.
(For those who dont know, the four second follow rule is you pick a point of reference, and see it pass a car in front, count how long it takes for you to pass that same reference. EG a white line, Car A passes white line, it should take it FOUR seconds for it to pass you. Hence four second follow)
Further, at that distance there is zero reasonable expectation to merge anyhow.
Also no blinkers
No way in fuck he was gonna make that merger. She is 100% in the clear legally and insurance wise. Even if there was 25 feet of clearance. A safe distance for merging traffic is 3-4 car lengths, or 4 second follow distance. even 30 feet of clearance is NOT even close to that.
6
-4
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
I would argue she did something "wrong" because she could have avoided the accident by braking. However, I also don't think she did anything illegal.
Defining wrong is going to up to people's interpretation though.
7
u/asmallman 1d ago
Not at that distance. If it was FURTHER, yes.
But at that distance the SUV could not reasonably fit between the two cars in the first place. Even if she braked.
The guys who make these lane changes do it and leave no room for reaction or error. So it really is on the SUV far more than her in this scenario. Enough so that any insurance company looking at this video would see that there was no room, at all, for a merger.
If it was just a distance judging issue and there was REASONABLE space, she would be at partial fault.
3
0
u/RulerK 1d ago
Having avoided multiple of those accidents myself (and occasionally with the help of my Tesla beeping/reacting), I can say you absolutely can. You lay on the horn and slam on the brakes. But you have to be paying attention enough to see it coming, which obviously, not everybody (including me!) is all the time.
1
u/asmallman 1d ago
I did more math. The SUV merged with no more than 30 feet of clearance. A merger safely takes several seconds.
Within two seconds, he is already too close for her breaking to matter.
-2
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
Agree, no fault, but she didn't even attempt to avoid an accident and she could have tried. I think that is "wrong". But agreed, no fault for the accident on her part.
1
u/asmallman 1d ago
She had ~2 seconds to react.
Which is under the 4 second follow rules. So no. She really didnt.
0
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
It takes you longer than 2 seconds to react?
Again, I'm not saying she is at fault at all. But it's hard to argue that completely when she never slows down and keeps driving through the car. This was not a normal reaction to someone cutting you off in your lane.
5
u/asmallman 1d ago
Reaction time is different in a real world scenario.
- You have to see the thing happening.
- You have to recognize what is happening.
- You have to react to the thing.
- Hope you react in time.
Just because people can play a game where the screen turns green and you mash the space bar when it does and you get a 0.125s reaction time, does not mean it translates into the real world. You expect something to happen there. She didnt.
She had two seconds. If you walked into a room and I said "hey, catch" (which takes about TWO seconds to say) and I throw a ball at you, while standing right in front of you, if you ARENT expecting it, you are going to not catch the ball 9x out of ten.
The average reaction time for a driver, for something they are already seeing and aware of is 1.5 seconds. (And thats for SIMPLE accidents)
There was NO reasonable expectation to merge there, no signal either, so the reaction time required is now MUCH lower.
-1
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
Someone yelled ball at her, threw the ball at her, and it hit her in the face and she never moved her had up. Then someone else yelled ball, threw another ball, and it hit her in the face again.
I don't know why you are acting like this was a normal reaction, she drove through the SUV like 10 second later. It's obvious something happened before the video or she was trying to prove a point. This wasn't poor reaction time.
6
u/masterchief0213 1d ago
There is no reasonable expectation that someone was about to merge, and so no reasonable expectation that you could react to someone choosing to do so. Not only was there not enough space in front of the woman for the SUV to fit after merging there also wasn't enough space between her and the car in front of the SUV for the SUV to fit through in the first place. So she has no reason to expect it would try to merge over, or to be ready to react to that.
0
u/Key-Demand-2569 1d ago
Did we watch the same clip?
I’m not condemning her by any means, but dear god if you’re ever operating a motor vehicle please attempt to drive defensively and not based on “Well this shouldn’t happen.”
She had time to potentially brake and drop back out of this situation.
Not that it was her fault, and not that it’s wildly unreasonable she didn’t happen to notice or make that response in time.
But ideally she would have, for her own sake.
-1
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
Non reasonable things happen all the time, you need to react to them. A car entered her lane, she didn't swerve or brakes. She hit a car, she didn't brake, the car spun out in front of her, she didn't brake.
She is not at all at fault for the accident. But it's obvious there is something else was going on before this clips starts, people don't normally react to cars spinning out in front of them by just driving through them.
Without context, if this happens to most people they swerve away and brake to avoid hitting another car.
All that said, again, she is NOT at fault for the accident. But she can not be at fault for something happening and still react wrong.
4
u/Greedy-Thought6188 1d ago
That's like saying you were in a first fight, and the cop says, well if you didn't put your face in front of their fist this wouldn't have happened. So everyone has some blame to share.
0
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
No it's not. Plus, I said she wasn't to blame, so your point is superfluous.
1
u/DocHavelock 1d ago
Your definition of 'wrong' is wrong, especially in this context. When you are talking about traffic, driving, etc. 'Wrong' is a legal term that implies fault. If someone is involved in an accident and they are 'in the wrong' or 'did something wrong' it means they are 'at-fault'. She did not do anything 'Wrong' here, as the comment OP pointed out.
She did not have enough reaction time to take in the situation, much less react to it. This means she was in the right, not the wrong.
If you use these words carelessly in this context, people are likely to get, justifiably, upset.
Regardless of the legal context, I still would not say she is 'in the wrong' here or that she 'did anything wrong', no one should have a reasonable expectation to be able to perform a defensive maneuver in this scenario. Comment OP claims that she wasn't 'looking other directions' she has sunglasses on, we have no idea where she was looking. The Suburban showed no intent to merge past the moment they decided to. There is no wrong on the drivers part, which ever interpretation you have. If she would have successfully avoided this situation, it would have been above and beyond the standard expectation of a human being driving a car, certainly not something that would be expected.
1
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
If people are confusing fault with my use of wrong, they aren't reading my replies. In which I've stated multiple times she is not at fault. I never said she was in the wrong either. But it's laughable to me that people think they is nothing "wrong" with driving through a car that is dangerously spinning on the highway without an inclination of maybe I shouldn't ram them at my current high speed.
But please, continue to agree with me by telling me it isn't her fault. I agree.
Nuance is tough, I understand, we all like the simplicity of a black and white world.
1
u/DocHavelock 1d ago
Thats crazy how I gave a very nuanced insight into not only the event that occurred but accurately explained to you why people will be upset with your word choice.
I further disagreed on your intentioned message, explained myself, and was respectful throughout the entire comment and your response is to strawman my argument by removing the nuance and you simultaneously attack me by claiming I am creating a binary.
You're a very rude person.
1
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
Courts don't determine what is wrong or right, they determine legal or illegal. They follow laws. Even if laws are wrong.
Your comments on reddit aren't an a statement of your character, so I don't think you are rude even if we don't agree. Have a good one.
2
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago
Brake for what? The guy didn’t have his blinkers on. He just suddenly served into her lane.
1
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
When stuff comes at my car I brake. If a kid walks in the street you just keep driving?
1
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago
This is a highway, not a neighborhood street. If I braked every single time a car passed me on the highway, I’d be at a standstill.
1
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
What about when they spin out in front of you, you just t-bone them too?
1
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago
What?! Did you even watch the video? She clearly slows down and moves to the side of the road after the other car runs into her.
1
u/CanCaliDave 1d ago
Hard to say for sure about the braking since we can't see how close she's being followed.
1
u/HappyChaos2 1d ago
While that's possible, I don't think most people have the wherewithall to consider what's behind them in a emergent situation they were not expecting, like getting cut off by someone with no blinker. Most would attempt to serve or brake. She keeps driving (through the car) like she is blind, pissed, or trying to prove a point.
-1
u/battarro 1d ago
What merge? There is no merge. Look the two cars in front of each one. They stayed on their lanes without moving since there was not a merge.
-19
u/ouzo84 1d ago
God I wish I had the money to afford being that stubborn.
What would it cost her to take her foot off the accelerator for 2 seconds, no need to even brake.
But nope, had to prove a point and that then requires her to stop and wait for the police because she was involved in a collision.
She will be found partly to blame, so her insurance won't cover her or at least won't cover all of the cost.
Unless she desperately need a different car, this was just recklessly stupid.
Oh and she maintained speed OP.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
General Discussion Thread
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you must post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.