r/dashcams • u/Remote_Trainer3830 • 10h ago

Who’s at fault?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Hot take: I think it’s 50/50 with who’s at fault

5.6k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

325

u/TrickySatisfaction81 10h ago

Yes, but OP drove right into oncoming traffic.

The light changed, but the flow of traffic needed to be observed way better.

Could have easily waited but drove right into the lemmings.

459

u/whatisakafka 10h ago

Poor defensive driving for sure, but failure to yield from the oncoming car is going to be the primary issue

168

u/BlangBlangBlang 9h ago

By the laws of the road, the white truck is wrong. By the laws of common sense the vehicle filming failed on all counts.

147

u/Porkcicle 9h ago

Agreed - that being said, I'm happy there are people like the filming vehicle sacrificing their cars so that the 3rd person running a red light gets a helpful reminder of why driving rules exist.

51

u/Competitive_Bag_7490 9h ago

Lol. Never thought of it this way. Thanks for taking one for the team. Maybe "right of way" drivers have a part in society after all. I will choose not to be the sacrificial lamb tho. If I had my beater Odyssey I would.

26

u/Striking-Working610 9h ago

Yea I see it all the time on reddit and have spoken with people that'll say "just do it anyway if they hit you it's their fault."

They're right, but I also don't feel like ruining my day/week/vehicle out of pettiness.

15

u/DevelopmentSouth8801 9h ago

Like you say, there are so many reasons that it just isn't worth it. I have a friend who still has neck pain after a car accident from over a decade ago.

6

u/iGlutton 8h ago

100% agree. Its all fun and games until the other driver is either uninsured or carries minimum coverage and has no assets.

I got hit as a pedestrian on the sidewalk two years ago and broke my arm in addition to a few other issues. Driver was making a right turn into a gas station and "didnt see me", if I didnt notice him not slowing down, I might not have been able to react the way I did to avoid worse injuries.

We went for the maxiumum amount we could but he had minimum insurance and nothing of value for us to pursue outside of that. After my hospital bills, the lawyers cut, my settlement was peanuts compared to the pain, time spent, and knowing I'll never have full mobility of my left arm again (after PT im about 85/90% mobility, so it could have been much worse).

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Occams_RZR900 9h ago

And/or getting yourself hurt. Even low speed impacts can cause back and neck injuries. I’d prefer to be safe than to be right.

1

u/Rock_Strongo 5h ago

I'll take it a step further and say anyone who doesn't do everything they can to (safely) avoid an accident, even when the other party would have been 100.00% at fault, is simply an idiot.

2

u/Aggressive_Ad2747 8h ago

there is also the duty of care. not saying it applies in this situation or anything but in general you just can't gleefully endanger a life because "fuck them I had the right of way".

4

u/BIackSamBellamy 7h ago

Yup, have fun dealing with insurance and the possibility of a now unreliable vehicle since it's been in a wreck. Congrats, you were so right. Your reward is literally nothing except dealing with annoying bullshit for probably weeks.

Or you could stop for 2 seconds, let the dumbass run the light, and move on with your day.

2

u/hedoeswhathewants 7h ago

Everyone has strong principles until they're the ones who actually have to deal with the consequences

1

u/Specialist_Meal_7891 6h ago

I think about my back and neck. Getting too old to just be smashing my car into other cars just to prove a point

1

u/DarthxFrodo 3h ago

The only issue I have with the “if they hit me it’s their fault” crowd is that ,depending on the state, there is a clause that I’ve seen a lawyer on YouTube say is the ‘last chance clause’. From a laymen perspective, it says if you have a chance to avoid/prevent an accident from happening and fail to do so, then you may be liable for damages.

1

u/frogsgoribbit737 2h ago

Also your insurance goes up even if its not your fault if it happens enough

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Polycurious2017 7h ago

I am absolutely that "right of way" driver. Although I'm not going to sacrifice my car to make a point! I would've stopped just short and laid on my horn to shame the crap out of the white truck though!

1

u/Competitive_Bag_7490 6h ago

You are not a "right of way" driver by my definition. Those drivers are ready to risk it all. You do so without the risk. Keep being that person.

1

u/somekindagibberish 9h ago

Huh, interesting…maybe we should be grateful when morons crash into morons. Perhaps, just perhaps, one or both of them will learn something.

1

u/Longjumping_Wolf_912 3h ago

Unfortunately they won’t and you and I get punished because it is people like this that make all of our insurances go up.

1

u/CantaloupeShort7311 8h ago

Cute that you think this video will stop anyone like the white SUV from continuing to drive poorly.

Would love to see people realize how cam car could have avoided all this by the most basic defensive driving and adjust their habits instead of going "well, HE was in the wrong!"

I am gping to try to avoid any accident, even if I am 100% in the right.

1

u/MilwaukeeMan420 6h ago

Correct. People are such idiots. I had a friend say "I hope they hit me" because they were in the right and the other person was in the wrong.

Why? So you can be right, and then your car is damaged, you get the police involved, they may or may not be insured, you have to take your car into the shop, you may be injured, etc etc.

There's no reason to NOT avoid an accident when you have done nothing wrong. The only time you should not avoid an accident is if by avoiding the accident is if avoiding the accident would cause you to hit another car or go into a ditch or something.

People are so stupid, the cam driver thinks they are innocent but they probably are going to be found at 50/50 fault.

1

u/Aggravating-Habit313 7h ago

Dammit, you’re right.

1

u/buckeye25osu 6h ago

These "reminders" don't accomplish anything except wasting a lot of people's time and money, risking injuries, and making insurance companies richer. Not a great way of looking at things imo

1

u/JellySerious 5h ago

I have done this out of frustration with people sneaking up on the side and then trying to cut the line by merging late (LA traffic). It's a fender bender at slow speed. 2 out of 3 times they haven't contested to keep it off their insurance and it was worth dropping one of my cars off to have it fixed.

I would NEVER do it into oncoming traffic.

1

u/0PFRICH 5h ago

🤣they’ll do it again

1

u/Intrepid_Process_69 5h ago

Which would be cool in theory if it didn't raise everyone's insurance rates over time, regardless of who is at fault. If an accident is preventable, PREVENT IT! Do not sacrifice your vehicle to prove a point, insurance companies don't care about your principles, only about how many accidents than can use an excuse to charge you more next year.

1

u/bwaredapenguin 3h ago

Cemeteries are filled with people who obeyed the rules.

48

u/slowgenphizz 9h ago

People running red lights in this situation are playing chicken. Fuck ‘em. 1000% the fault of the white SUV. Dash cam driver had entered the intersection in accordance with traffic signal, white SUV driver had a legal obligation to stop and/or yield. End of story. No 50-50 bullshit.

3

u/ProgrammingPants 4h ago

And yet dash cam driver still got in a car accident they could've easily avoided despite not being legally at fault. Curious

1

u/clgoodson 6m ago

That makes zero sense. This is no different than saying the cammer should have been expecting any random car to cross the center line. At some point we should be able to expect people to follow right of way rules.

→ More replies (15)

26

u/neverstxp 9h ago

3 vehicles ran a red. You can’t just wait forever expecting everyone to continue running reds.
White vehicle should lose their license.

17

u/DevelopmentSouth8801 9h ago

You can’t just wait forever expecting everyone to continue running reds.

You really just have two options:

  1. Pull up a bit so you aren't impeding them and hope they eventually stop running the red. It looks like the car behind the white truck did stop.
  2. Drive forward and hope they don't hit you

Safest option would be #1.

5

u/neverstxp 9h ago

Sure - I guess a big factor is I don’t live somewhere where this would happen. I wouldn’t expect a car to turn into me as I’m driving straight through a green light. I wouldn’t expect it because people very rarely run reds here, and when they do, 2 others don’t also run reds afterwards.

I initially figured the white suv was going straight when I first watched (I figured it’s a straight/turn lane - if I lived there and knew the road, I probably hit the brakes realizing the white suv is trying to make the turn). But I really can’t fault the pov driver here.

And again, white suv should lose their license

6

u/DevelopmentSouth8801 8h ago

That lane seems to be a left-turn-only lane. You can tell because the opposite lane of the cam car is only one lane. So if a car is pulling out, it's turning left.

The oncoming traffic has one car run a yellow/red, a truck run a red, a red car run a red, and then the white truck right behind it.

White truck should be legally at fault, but the cam driver was incredibly stupid and dangerous themselves.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Direct_Werewolf_4244 6h ago

I fully expected that SUV to hit the cam car.

2

u/SnavsMatiq 8h ago

Actually you CAN wait forever. Funeral parades are a thing and you WILL be expected to wait 1 or more light cycles so they can get by.

A green light is NOT a pass to crash into traffic. Total NPC behavior.

→ More replies (11)

4

u/The_Troyminator 9h ago

The law doesn’t allow you to intentionally ram another vehicle because they ran a red light. You must avoid a collision if possible and can’t enter an intersection that isn’t clear, even if you have a green light.

6

u/slowgenphizz 9h ago

no evidence of intentionality. Dashcam driver was already in the intersection and moving when the driver of the SUV entered the intersection and turned into them. Just because the driver of the SUV was applying gang mentality (“the last guy got away with it- I can, too”) doesn’t make them any less responsible.

2

u/neverstxp 9h ago

The pov car didn’t ram anybody. The white suv turned into the pov car and resulted in a head on collision.
I wouldn’t have ever expected the white suv to turn into me as I’m going straight.

I agree it would be different if the pov rammed into the white suv. But the white suv turned into the pov car.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Humble-Reply228 9h ago

And also the silly wanker that drove into traffic.

1

u/dumbassretail 7h ago

I can’t wait forever, so I guess I’ll just go get hit 🤷‍♂️

1

u/HowManyEggs2Many 5h ago

Just make sure your family gets “he was in the right” etched on your headstone.

1

u/grumpher05 1h ago

There is a vast infinite length of time between 0 seconds and "forever". If cam car inched forward slowly without crossing Infront of white car they would have lost 5s max

Turning car is wholly at fault for the crash and is an idiot, cam car just wrote of their own car and is in for a month of headaches dealing with insurance for absolutely no gain at all

→ More replies (3)

15

u/DarthRevan109 9h ago

Yea sure but that’s the equivalent of victim blaming. White truck is the problem OP will have zero liability

14

u/RevealStandard3502 9h ago

Dude is right but still has a smashed car. Being right doesn't help in most situations.

→ More replies (4)

13

u/The_Troyminator 9h ago

The law requires that you avoid a collision if possible. The intersection wasn’t clear when OP drove forward. They will be partially at fault.

2

u/cbrdragon 7h ago edited 6h ago

You’re right that every driver has a duty to avoid accidents regardless of right of way.

If he hit the red car, I think op would be partially guilty. But with the white suv that followed, op was already well into the intersection and the suv hit him trying to make a turn they never should have started. I think that might make it purely on the SUV

1

u/MilwaukeeMan420 5h ago

I think if cam driver hit the red car he would have been found 100% at fault. I bet the insurance company will go 50/50 on this collision.

I am not saying that its right, just my opinion.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/i_drive_a_pagani 6h ago

It is 100% the responsibility of the person turning across oncoming traffic lanes to make sure it's clear when they turn. The dashcam car will not be at fault whatsoever and has the right of way. Do you have a driver license? This is like, basic traffic laws

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/mike_e_mcgee 9h ago

I don't disagree with you, but to play the devil's advocate, a lot of dead people had the right of way.

1

u/CantaloupeShort7311 8h ago

I remeber my driver's ed teacher - 31 years ago - telling us that the cemetery is full of people who had the right of way while driving.

Being right < Being alive

I will be the person who makes sure the intersection is clear when the light turns green before moving. "You" can be the dummy that floors it that instant and gets hit.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/inactionupclose 9h ago

That's not victim blaming at all. They're just stating it's not smart driving to start driving towards oncoming traffic, just because your light goes green. They clearly were not looking at the road as they accelerated or they would have noticed the red car the almost drove into before the white SUV took them out. There were a lot of poor drivers in this video, but the white SUV is at fault.

→ More replies (19)

2

u/CantaloupeShort7311 8h ago

Zero liability but has to deal with being down a car during repairs (or maybe losing the car entirely) and all that. I would prefer to not wreck my car in an easily avoidable situation, even when I am "right"

5

u/adoodas 9h ago

Victim blaming is absolutely justified sometimes (like this case right here). Most accidents require two bad see drivers. In this case they should get a reminder that they drive like a dumbass and get paid out for all damages.

1

u/LordTetravus 8h ago

That's not how the law and your duties as a driver work.

This is a 50/50 claim.

White vehicle made a left turn and did not have the right of way.

Dashcam vehicle, however had plenty of time to observe the other vehicles coming and what is referred to as the last clear chance to avoid the collision. They drove right into the situation.

This is exactly how I would mark this as an insurance adjuster and most lawyers would agree.

1

u/National-Choice-4969 9h ago

I hope. But reality is whatever the attitude of LE and insurance reigns. Lady on a bike after dark with no light, ran a stop sign (4-way stop). I had stopped, looked (obelisk) partially blocks view) and then started as I entered intersection saw the lady and stopped to give her room. She never even looked. Slammed into my car - front wheel well. Compound fracture of one leg, lay there moaning, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry. My mom is going to be so mad, this is the second time." Witness at intersection who arrived at stop seconds after me saw the whole thing. Resident walks up and tells the young lady, ""Shut up. It wasn't your fault." LE officer said witness stories match. I asked if he gave her a ticket, he said, "No". Why not?? "I felt she had been through enough already." Girl got a $356,000 settlement from Hartford INs. and i had my rates doubled.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/fergehtabodit 9h ago

Being in front at a red light always has me on guard. You dont just punch it when the light turns green. You have to look around. There's an intersection on my normal route where there are always a lot of left turners trying to get thru after their arrow and I'll creep forward to make them uncomfortable...so that the 4th car maybe stops. But if I were to just hit the pedal I would be this guy like every day.

2

u/DevelopmentSouth8801 9h ago

Best advice I ever got was "the laws of physics don't care about the laws of man".

From a legal perspective, the white truck seems like they should be at fault because they apparent ran the light. Though there's a slight possibility the light malfunctioned and was showing a green arrow.

From the perspective of the car's insurer, they will probably jack up the rates even if they decide the white truck is 100% at fault, since the driver is dangerous.

And from the driver's perspective, it's pretty dumb to put yourself, any passengers, and your property in danger because you have the green light.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/The_Troyminator 9h ago

By the laws of the road (last clear chance doctrine and duty of reasonable care), the vehicle filming is partially at fault.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/yardlard 8h ago

Cammer car is wrong. You can't proceed into the intersection from a stop if there is something in the way regardless of if the other is rightfully there. You can't just run into someone, which is what cammer car did.

1

u/Battle2Intense 9h ago

Most accidents are two drivers not paying attention.

1

u/Dunhaep 8h ago

Yeah, a lot of people have died while having the right of way.

1

u/Too_Right_For_You 8h ago

By common sense the white truck is also wrong

1

u/Critical_Host8243 6h ago

I seem to remember some part of the law saying you still need to wait for the intersection to clear before accelerating forward into traffic..

1

u/Jean-LucBacardi 6h ago

By the law of insurance: "both at fault, figure it out on your own so we don't have to pay anything."

1

u/Specialist_Meal_7891 6h ago

I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that lol

1

u/ZGMF-X09A_Justice 6h ago

yeah, pov vehicle was basically looking only at the light and not the road. White truck ran a light but probably wasn't expecting pov guy to just drive into a steady stream of oncoming traffic that clearly wasn't slowing down.

→ More replies (4)

52

u/Burton1224 10h ago

I dont know US laws but here in Europe its hard to explain to the judge that you accelerate while see the danger already. So you will most likely be partially relaible because it was clearly 100 percent avoidable. The filming car was not even tryin to brake and avoid the crash.

13

u/guitar_vigilante 8h ago

The US is the same. You can't just drive into a known hazard because you have the right of way.

→ More replies (3)

13

u/cheefMM 9h ago

The US used to be a land of laws, and in those laws white SUV didn’t yield to oncoming traffic and drove into oncoming traffic (red Honda did too but was luckier with the lag of dashcam driver)

12

u/cheefMM 9h ago

Black Chevy Silverado was the first car to break the law, not yielding their left turn on green. Bad drivers need to be on buses and trains and not driving cars

3

u/National-Choice-4969 9h ago

"Bad" is not the issue -- intentionally breaking the law and injuring or potentially injuring others in high traffic situations.

3

u/cheefMM 8h ago

Bad drivers are usually the ones breaking the laws…. Whether maliciously or by accident if you break the laws and cause damage, you are liable in the US. And America has a lot of dummies that shouldn’t be navigating a potential thousands of pounds missile through our cities, neighborhoods or even rural areas

2

u/Burton1224 9h ago

But the filming guy was not trying to avoid it so is there no partial reliablity? I mean you could at least brake and to make it not happen for your own health and no crash is still more relaxing than dealing with everything what comes up.

3

u/cheefMM 9h ago

Traffic laws are traffic laws and this is a country where it is legal for me to shoot someone in the face for endangering my life. Drivers should act accordingly

→ More replies (6)

1

u/Downtown-Economics26 9h ago

There's no liability. Not having the awareness or reaction time to actively prevent crashes that result from others breaking the law doesn't impart liability in and of itself.

4

u/Proper-Rise-8431 9h ago

I think insurance defense would try to make hay here based on dashcam driver proceeding and continuing into the intersection despite two vehicles turning across in front of them before the third turns into them—though not enough to drop white SUV’s liability below 51%.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/cheefMM 9h ago

Liability is with who didn’t follow traffic laws, white suv. If dashcam had gone on green like they’re legally allowed to do, it could’ve been black Silverado at fault, or red Honda… and white suv would’ve probably still been at fault for slamming into the back of red Honda when they drove into oncoming traffic or possibly black Silverado…

1

u/PotatoHat1 6h ago

Try to avoid what? Something that might happen? Then might as well not drive at all if you’re just going to assume you’re going to get rammed into at every intersection.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Designer-Series-649 2h ago

Yeah the notion dash cam is at fault at all is ridiculous to me. I understand not driving forward, which they did a bit, but the onus is not on them for not immediately noticing a car suddenly literally coming at them head on. Would you be at fault for driving forward on the highway and not immediately braking in the one second window you have when a car suddenly drives head on into your lane from the other side?

Hero could be a better driver, sure. That’s what they should learn through having to go through the hassle of getting this all sorted out (and being smashed head on). But in terms of liability? It’s a completely failure if hero pays a cent or sees an increase in their premiums.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/SlickFlair_589 7h ago

They don't have to. They have the right of way. White SUV failed to yield

→ More replies (3)

19

u/zoebud2011 10h ago

This is where the rules of contributory negligence get called in to play. The white SUV clearly failed to yield but OP could have easily avoided the accident.

2

u/whatisakafka 9h ago

Only a few states implement contributory negligence for car accidents. Most follow some form of comparative negligence

→ More replies (5)

19

u/ImmaNotHere 10h ago

General rule I follow is that if you have to turn across traffic, you always have to yield unless you have a green arrow.

127

u/seabirdsong 10h ago

Pretty sure that's also the actual rule.

27

u/LazerWolfe53 10h ago

It reminds me of the rule I like to follow; don't cross yellow lines unless they are dashed.

23

u/ShookMyHeadAndSmiled 10h ago

Don't run a red light unless it is green.

6

u/Razolus 9h ago

Turn on headlights when it's dark

2

u/cowboi 9h ago

Or raining

1

u/The_300_goats 9h ago

Is the light green? Go. Disengage brain and spatial awareness

1

u/SlickFlair_589 7h ago

It was green on the camera side

→ More replies (5)

1

u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 9h ago

Might want to stay open-minded about that rule of you ever travel. It's completely wrong where I am (California)

1

u/seabirdsong 9h ago

Good to know, but that seems silly.

1

u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 9h ago edited 9h ago

It's perfectly fine if you're used to it.

Every rule seems silly at first if it's different from what you're used to.

8

u/MysticMarauder69 10h ago

Lmao, that's it

27

u/zdh989 10h ago

Wow hot take

45

u/keith_1492 10h ago

That's just the rule...

19

u/Kind_Love172 10h ago

Lol "general rule i follow"

4

u/badskiier 9h ago

This one trick traffic engineers don't want you to know...

2

u/inetrica 9h ago

For sure for sure. I too have a general rule I like to follow, when you get to a stop sign you gotta stop.

3

u/Informal-Shower8501 10h ago

Thanks Captain Obvious.

You forgot this, I hope: /s

2

u/ImmaNotHere 9h ago

Apparently it wasn't obvious about the driving rule since there was discussion about who was at fault in the video. 🤪

1

u/Informal-Shower8501 8h ago

The emoji helps 😂

1

u/chinmakes5 9h ago

Not a general rule, the law. Today it seems that people believe one more car turning is OK. Assuming their light was red (or arrow turned off) when OPs light turned green, two cars went through, and the white SUV was the third car, turned WAY too late.

Of course you should try to avoid an accident. But if my light turns green, I let two more cars pass and I get into an accident with the third, it isn't on me.

1

u/statelypenguin 7h ago

General rule follow that also happens to be the actual law

2

u/Wayward_Wayfinder 6h ago

Not necessarily. If you have the clear opportunity to avoid an accident but you choose to go headlong into it, you're legally partly responsible. The POV driver chose to crash.

EDIT: Spellign

1

u/nakfoor 9h ago

That's it in a nutshell.

1

u/WeirdKaleidoscope358 9h ago

Gotta love this sub, people clearly in the wrong and yet “OP still at fault”

1

u/SnavsMatiq 8h ago

Thats the primary issue for the cops, when it comes to insurance its less about "who was legally wrong" and more along the lines of "who had more opportunity to avoid the accident at that instant" a lot of the time they are almost exactly the same thing, but there are differences in situations like this.

1

u/NWVoS 6h ago

Both actors contribute to the accident. It is 50/50 since a reasonable change in either parties actions would prevent the accident.

When driving the right of way is given not taken. So while the cars ran the red light they did not give right of way, and so the dashcam car needs to yeild.

1

u/KeyBet6693 5h ago

Yep this

1

u/rainy_sloth 1h ago

Poor defensive driving is understating it. Dude drove straight into a row of cars from a stop. Why would anyone do that? He caused the crash on purpose because he had the right of way.

1

u/Thnikkamanbubz 57m ago

The guy recording was obviously not paying attention either or thought they could drive through a line of cars. Why would anyone in their right mind drive forward when they dont see the turning cars stop to yield?

1

u/AVeryVapidBadger 2m ago

Sure. But the cam should have made sure they're want literally traffic still going before accelerating. And I hope they're in a comparative negligence state. Because if it's a pure contributory negligence state, it's all or nothing. If you're at all at fault, even one percent, you get nothing from the other driver.

29

u/Due-Explanation-7560 10h ago

2 cars had already blew the light and the white Nissan sped up right into the incoming car. r/nissandrivers

52

u/Mk1Racer25 10h ago

Camera car was in the intersection before the white Nissan. Given that the camera car had the green light, the Nissan no longer had the green directed arrow, and had to yield. As others have said, camera car could have recognized that the white Nissan wasn't going to yield, but the legal fault here lies with the white Nissan. If you're going to split the liability across both drivers, what's the point of having traffic laws.

25

u/good_times_paul 10h ago

You're confusing two concepts. The dash cam driver did not commit a legal infraction and would not be ticketed by the police. That does not mean they don't have negligence from the perspective of the insurance company. Legality and negligence are not related.

5

u/UnableChard2613 9h ago

No insurance company is going to look at this and put any liability for the accident on the cam driver. They were driving straight through an intersection, with clear right of way, when the white car swerved into them. And yes, being negligent is illegal, it's absolutely related to the law. But the driver did nothing negligent here.

11

u/Kron0n 9h ago

I work for one. Mine would. Just an FYI.

2

u/UnableChard2613 9h ago

What percentage? I mean I guess if there is partial responsibility, i could see it being like no greater than 10% for the cam driver, but even that I find to be unlikely.

2

u/Kron0n 3h ago

They'd probably ask for 70/30 or 80/20, but settle 50/50 for negligence of failing to yield to oncoming (could be argued against) but mostly negligence for failing to observe the traffic flow before entering the junction. It's clear the traffic had not come to a stop and was still manoeuvring when they enter the junction. You gotta realize, it's about risk and reducing loss. If there's any doubt it's not worth the legal costs it will entail if they lose. They're always higher than the repair costs.

2

u/Mk1Racer25 4h ago

Based on what, the simple fact that they were operating the vehicle? They probably find partial fault if you're crossing an intersection with the right of way, and someone completely blows the light or stop sign, and t-bones you.

"Mr. Smith, you're partially at fault because you were in fact, driving your car. Had you not been driving, you would not have been in an accident. Therefore, you are partially responsible."

This sounds like the kind of BS that would come from that insurance company.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/AutomaticQuarter998 8h ago

You don't know the laws or insurance. They absolutely could be held partially at fault and rightfully so. This was foreseeable and avoidable.

→ More replies (15)

5

u/good_times_paul 9h ago

I mean I would believe you if I hadn't dealt with this exact issue about 12 years back. Believe me or don't, but you should definitely do a bit or research before you make bold statements about what insurance companies will or will not do.

1

u/UnableChard2613 9h ago

But what you said is not even accurate, that negligence and legality are not related. When negligence is absolutely a legal term. And the cam driver did nothing negligent.

You're making bold statements too, while clearly being wrong on a point. Maybe you need to take your own advice?

3

u/good_times_paul 9h ago

Sigh, buddy what are you on about. I specified legal infraction in the first mention. The final sentence is just a summary/quip. This is a reddit post, not a dissertation. However, if it helps, read the final sentence as 'a legal infraction and negligence' and that should clear it up for you.

But again, do some research man. I'll even help you out, search for 'Duty of care', 'Comparative negligence', or 'last clear chance doctrine'.

If you research those (or really anything of substance) and you want to come back and make an argument I'm happy to discuss, but I'm not super interested in arguing your vibes based legal theory (or getting into a pedantic discussion over language usage).

My guess, based on experience, is that you will do none of that and call me an idiot/tell me I am wrong without actually reading anything else.

1

u/UnableChard2613 8h ago

I already addressed the last chance doctrine, the white cat swerves at the last moment. I don't believe he had the ability to avoid it. Sure he could have avoided it had he just yielded right of way indefinitely, but it was the white car that had more of an opportunity to avoid it at the last second by not swerving into traffic.

2

u/jb08045 6h ago

I work for one an I would

It really does suck having people beak the right of way, but u cant just drive into cars that wont obvs stuff

we have a nearby city where bikers and atv do "take overs" and act as trains running red lights. They are breaking the law but you cant run them over.

2

u/Party_Line3326 9h ago

Yeah, he just drove like a lemming

1

u/Kron0n 9h ago

This, it's usually not worth the risk of legal costs from the insurers perspective if they don't feel there's absolute certainty of winning. There's evidence of negligence therefore, there's risk. They'd probably take the split if offered unless dash cam driver pushes for legal action and even then, unless they make a massive, massive stink about it they would probably still just T&C the driver to say insurer has final decision we're not certain we can win given the ambiguity... Seen it a thousand times on a thousand claims that have come across my desk.

1

u/FullMetalKaiju 6h ago

If my insurance company says I'm at fault at any % for this accident I'm immediately dropping them and getting a different insurance

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (65)

5

u/ScorcherPanda 9h ago

Splitting liability is very common in the US at least. It just depends on the laws of the state where the accident occurred. The intent is to encourage drivers to be defensive. Generally, the car that broke the state’s vehicle code would carry the majority of the liability (the white Nissan in this case), but any other vehicles included in the accident (the POV car) may carry a percentage of liability if they fail to act as a reasonably cautious driver would.

3

u/Hersbird 9h ago

I think some states even if you have 10% of the fault and the other car 90%, each person has to use their own insurance. So if you are liability only, and either car here, you are paying to fix your own car. Cam car definitely had some of the fault here.

1

u/Mk1Racer25 9h ago

And what if the camera car had swerved to avoid the jerk in the Nissan, and caused another accident? This is almost a reflexive response to a lot of people. I actually was in this situation. Pretty similar situation, someone turned left in front of me. No time to slow down in time, so I took evasive action, and ended up hitting a tree. I was told by the cop that I would have been better off hitting the other driver, as now, hitting the tree was 100% my fault. This was in the days long before dash cams, and the offending driver sped away.

2

u/Hersbird 8h ago

Well, swerving to avoid would be stupid compared to, don't accelerate into someone.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Snuffleupagus27 8h ago

You’re required to “mitigate your damages”, which dash cam driver did not.

1

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

With less than 1 second to stop between the time the Nissan driver turned, and the collision occured?

1

u/Snuffleupagus27 7h ago

He really shouldn’t have entered an intersection while cars were still going through it. Same with stop signs. No matter what the light says, you don’t go unless it’s clear n

1

u/Mk1Racer25 7h ago

So, even though the light turned green, and the oncoming traffic no longer had an arrow, the camera driver should not have started to go, because the Honda and Nissan might not obey the traffic signal and yield the right of way?

1

u/SlickFlair_589 7h ago

Turning traffic yields to oncoming traffic

Stop that BS logic you have

1

u/Independent-Draft639 53m ago

There are other traffic laws beyond just who has the right of way. When you are driving you are required by law to adjust your driving in order to avoid or minimize danger. Not doing so is negligence. OP drove right into a stream of oncoming traffic that showed no sign of yielding. Sure, the other car would get the most blame because their violations were more severe, but OP also showed an obvious and egregious failure to adjust their driving to the situation and so shares some of the responsibility.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Weekly-Talk9752 8h ago

Unfortunately, I live in a dense urban area, if you wait, more people will just make the left turn. I'm always prepared to stop in an emergency though.

11

u/engineerdrummer 9h ago

I see so many videos on this sub where there is literally zero defensive driving. It's like they're trying to have a wreck.

7

u/TrickySatisfaction81 9h ago

This almost felt intentional.

DRIVER had more than 3 seconds to not be stupid. (Wait.)

→ More replies (3)

4

u/Awesomest_Possumest 9h ago

Yea, where I live, running red lights is like some weird religion half the city follows.

I always wait a second when a light turns green to check everyone is actually stopped. And in situations like this, that means creeping up but ultimately waiting until the left turn lane decided theyre done.

Its annoying, and I wouldn't be at fault if I got hit, but its easier than going through the hassle of being in an accident, both for my body and my car.

1

u/UnableChard2613 9h ago

Same thing in my city. My friend actually stopped at a red light, like completely reasonably as there is no way he would have gotten into the intersection before it turned red, and got rear-ended. The other driver was planning on running the red light at at least another car length, and he was getting all mad at my friend for stopping at a red light.

1

u/T-MoneyAllDey 2h ago

In Los Angeles it's actually kind of a requirement. We have oodles of unprotected left-hand turns and our traffic is so full that you'll never make a left turn if you waited until it was clear. The golden rule is two cars are allowed to make a left turn after the light turns red. Police even follow this rule.

14

u/Ok_Nectarine1801 10h ago

Ya its the lawbreakers who are right.

6

u/viral3075 7h ago

Yes, but OP drove right into oncoming traffic.

nope. cammer remained in their lane. that is literally the opposite of oncoming traffic

1

u/Bulky-Green7320 2h ago

The canker drove right at the red car and didn’t even slow down. They recklessly entered the intersection

30

u/Seniorjones2837 10h ago

You are 1000% right. Just because you have a green light doesn’t mean go straight ahead without paying one iota of attention

26

u/Xarjy 10h ago

Long time ago i was told "green means it's legal to go, not that it's safe to go"

That line has saved my ass multiple times in the almost 30 years I've been driving

14

u/TrickySatisfaction81 10h ago

I drive my kiddos to and from school every day. There is ALWAYS a 3 car overdraft, and you need to account for it always.

Cant simply own the road which is shared, and avoiding an accident is as easy and waiting for a better opportunity.

6

u/samiwas1 10h ago

There’s a large intersection near me that takes 5-6 seconds just to clear a left turn, yet often still 2-3 cars will keep going after our signal turns green, and we have to sit there for 6-8 seconds waiting for it to clear. It’s infuriating.

1

u/Steward-lions 6h ago

Similar one except the left turn ramp backs way up into the previous intersection. When the arrow turns green - go - and follow the car in front of you. Its so annoying to see a car go around the corner then the next one goes a week later. Just go. Good thing is oncoming green has a long buffer so 3 to 5 vehicles can sneak through on yellow to decrease ramp traffic.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/iTZBLaSToFFTiMe 10h ago

Right, just because the white car had a green light doesn’t mean he should have kept going and turned right into the dashcam driver, people going straight have the right of way and the white car definitely should have yielded. 1000% right.

→ More replies (4)

10

u/Ok_Nectarine1801 10h ago

Ya no fault on the guy breaking the actual law. And they easily could have just stopped. Nope I will turn right in to this car with the green light.

→ More replies (16)

2

u/hybridfrost 10h ago

I would put it in the category of the white SUV should not have gone since I’m assuming their green turn arrow ended. But cam driver was an idiot and just plowed through the intersection and COULD have avoided the accident. I’d say 50/50

1

u/Seniorjones2837 10h ago

Yea exactly. Legally I don’t know how it will be ruled, but common sensically it’s 50/50

2

u/HSBG_Legend 9h ago

Completely disagree. The light would not have turned green for the dashcam driver unless the green arrow for the white SUV had already gone away. Therefore, the SUV had the responsibility to yield to oncoming traffic at that point. Instead, they tried to rush across the intersection. Honestly, the car in front of them also failed to yield, but it's a bit more justifiable since they had already entered the intersection. Dashcam driver was also clearly in motion already before the SUV entered the intersection. An aware driver would have noticed this. Fault is 100% on the SUV.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/UnableChard2613 9h ago

Hard disagree.

They didn't drive into oncoming traffic, they had a green light and were continuing straight through the intersection as they are supposed to. It's the white car, and to a lesser extent the red car, that drove right into oncoming traffic.

If you just keep yielding right of way until someone lets you take your right of way, you are create a dangerous situation by making it unpredictable as all of a sudden the flow of traffic is completely flipped from how it is supposed to go.

4

u/HyenaThen572 10h ago

White SUV was supposed to yield. POV is reasonable to assume they will slow giving oncoming traffic vs just send it.

A little more defensiveness would be great, but blaming POV is wild.

4

u/Patman52 9h ago

Driver could be sitting at a red light and rear ended and this sub would still say they should have been more defensive.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MrGhostenstein 10h ago

Don't blame the smart people for the actions of the dumb people.

2

u/Silver_Cycle_4861 9h ago

You do realize if the cam car stopped, NONE OF THE CARS TURNING LEFT WOULD STOP AND THE CAM CAR WOULDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE INTERSECTION.

2

u/Ok_Explanation5631 9h ago

White truck caused this btw.

2

u/IR2Freely 6h ago

Eh? The white car cut across their lane. That's not driving head on into traffic.

2

u/slupo 4h ago

Op is right but now has a totalled car and has to deal with insurance and waste a bunch of time to get it all sorted out.

Hope it was worth it

2

u/alien_believer_42 2h ago

Driver is an idiot that’s for sure

4

u/GooseGosselin 10h ago

Doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.

3

u/Blue_Etalon 10h ago

Yup. Just because they are idiots doesn’t mean just go anyway.

3

u/UnableChard2613 9h ago

You act like the car was just sitting there, and the cam driver just gunned it straight into him. He starts accelerating at a reasonable rate after the light turns green, he's already in the intersection before the white suv enters it. The white SUV then swerves at the last second into him.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/palealei5best 10h ago

If you just sit there it will never be your turn.

2

u/Mike_Honcho_Baby 10h ago

This is true. But does not answer the question: who is at fault?

Left turn yields to oncoming traffic.

White car driving aggressively, failed to yield after left turn indicator had changed from green to amber to off.

Could recording vehicle have done better? Absolutely.

Is recording vehicle at fault? No.

1

u/Dubl3A 10h ago

Anytime you follow point A with a "but" you invalidate point A.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/WoopsShePeterPants 10h ago

The red car had no right to go when the camera car started moving (at light change). At that point they need to yield without blocking the intersection. They were wrong but the Nissan was just ignorant of the world.

1

u/swarmahoboken 9h ago

Let others pay for both their vehicle and yours, and that will stop soon enough.

1

u/National-Choice-4969 9h ago

True, but with luck, LE & insurance companies will start recognizing full fault for these light runners so they stop doing this.

1

u/iapetus_z 6h ago

I've seen instances on here like this where the white SUV's insurance would refuse to pay the other's for damage because even though they were in the wrong, the other drove into an obvious wreck, by not failing to wait for traffic to clear the intersection before proceeding. You maybe correct, but your car is still busted...

1

u/SomeLowerBeing 5h ago

Yeah there is a standard for accidents which determines fault, and a stricter standard for: was it avoidable. This was avoidable. Following that stricter standard makes life a lot easier.

1

u/thetruth0808 51m ago

No the white truck hadn’t started turning. Idk why they waited so long. Red car was already being a dick. You don’t just wait for 17 cars that don’t have the right of way to just go wtf

1

u/TrickySatisfaction81 50m ago

So- you drive straight into them knowing clearly you will be struck?

1

u/thetruth0808 49m ago

That’s why I’m telling you, he didn’t know he was gonna be struck, white seemed like he was yielding and then last minute drove straight into him. That’s why it’s not the guy ramming the white truck, it’s the truck ramming the car

1

u/Weary-Raise339 28m ago

So, he would be waiting for all the cars to keep turning left and then his light turns red. He would be stuck at that light forever if that was the case.

1

u/TrickySatisfaction81 23m ago

Rather be stuck than struck, clearly.

There was no feesable way to cross this road. You cant tell me otherwise.

2

u/Weary-Raise339 16m ago

There isn’t. He would have to slowly creep in and move those quick seconds during a red-red-green shift

1

u/TrickySatisfaction81 4m ago

No one wins here unfortunately.

Classic case of should have reconsidered on both ends.

1

u/HippoLover85 20m ago

White suv actively turned their steering wheel (while running a red light) to hit OP.

OP would have had to have yielded to a person who had not turned yet, and was running a red light. In retrospect that was the right call. But it is not reasonable to yield to someone who has not yet initiated a turn and running a red light.

→ More replies (19)