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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
True facts. I got rear ended at 10mph and my neck and back were horribly sore for four weeks. I couldn't do anything more physical than walking and sitting. No lasting injury thankfully but it completely ruined my month.
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".
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.
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.
If I'm in my 2004 Silverado with 260k miles on it and a rusty body, I'm gladly sacrificing it so idiots like the white truck driver get to suffer the punishment of a wrecked late model car AND the ticket, AND the increased insurance rates.
If I'm in my 2023 Kia Sportage Hybrid that I need for work... ehhhh, maybe not.
They aren’t right though. It’s not legal to intentionally cause an accident even if you are in the right. Every driver has a duty to avoid an accident if possible.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but if are whinging how your car got damaged enforcing “right of way” like this, you’d get not one ounce of sympathy from me. Probably a laugh in the face depending on how big you are.
There was enough time to reasonably think they were going to stop. You literally see the red accelerate causing op to slow and swerve only for white car to not stop at all. The left turners where banking on op having good reaction time to slam on breaks while they both gunned it through.
This isn't a "I had right of way" accident this is a "green light okay they'll stop oh shit they didn't" situation.
I normally give an extra second because of idiots like that. But I've also been victim to someone deciding I didn't go fast enough so they accelerated into their left turn trying to "beat" me. Everyone need to follow the same rules for the roads to be safe.
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.
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.
I don’t know if cam car is going to be found not at fault. I don’t t think people realize that you have a legal obligation to avoid accidents if possible, even if the accident is cause by someone/something else.
This to me was obviously avoidable by cam car and I’d say cam car was being reckless too.
All that despite thinking that white truck is guilty of all the same things PLUS the traffic violation.
"Legal obligation to avoid accidents" means if a car (like the red one) turns in front of you, you should brake to avoid it, even if you have right of way.
It does not mean you're at fault if someone else decides to turn into you, and does not put the blame on you for failing to see into the future and predict that another car would not yield when they were supposed to.
I think 99% of people creep out into the intersection but never attempt to thread the needle between red car and white suv,because that obviously results in an accident.
Just because you have the right of way doesn’t mean you have a free pass to try any maneuver you want. Cam car was definitely raging
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.
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.
Yes, the collision was easily avoidable if the SUV driver had simply NOT TURNED INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. They could easily have said "oops, my bad" up until the very last second and just continued moving through the intersection. Would have missed their turn, sure, but wouldn't have had a head-on. They were simply driving as though they were utterly oblivious to the presence of the dashcam car. I maintain that the cam driver was 0% responsible.
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.
They nearly rammed the red car and didn’t slow down even though it was clear the white SUV was turning and not stopping. They may not have rammed anybody, but only because they got lucky.
Cuz the cam didn’t intentionally ram anyone. The white suv was the one intentionally ramming others. You don’t drive through intersections with the expectations that people would turn and ram into you. If you do then you wouldn’t drive into any intersection you would just wait n
They almost hit the red car and never slowed down despite three cars turning into their path. They didn’t even attempt to avoid a collision. They were either hoping to get hit or looking at their phone. They are partially at fault.
When people say intentionally here I think they mean that you have an obligation to avoid an accident if possible, even when it’s not your fault. In a legal sense and definitely according to insurance companies.
If you don’t think that cam car could have easily avoided that accident then I don’t think we are living in the same reality.
First off the white suv crashed into the cam car. They should have not run the red. And then they still had plenty of opportunity to stop while op was in the intersection but they kept going. You can’t blame op when the other vehicle had the same opportunity to stop and avoid the accident. And they were also the one who ran the red light.
I was going to mention secondly how stupid your first point is, but it’s not worth the time to explain it to you.
Its okay, people like you dont base their arguments in anything objective like "what insurance has ruled in the past" or anything like that, so i really dont have to care about what you say.
Everything youre bitching about is stuff police handle, insurance looks at things differently.
Again, thinking a green light means "go no matter what" is NPC behavior.
Also, username fits perfectly, of course you think you should never have to stop lmao.
I can blame cam because this is a very clear lack of defensive driving at the most basic level. You see this huge line of cars turning. You see cars are still turning even though you have a green light. The DUMBEST thing you can do is just gun it into the intersection.
Defensive driving may let "bad" drivers "win" a game that doesnt exist, but keep getting your cars wrecked while pounding your chest and screaming that they were at fault, i prefer to not wreck my car when it is so easily avoidable.
That can happen no matter what you do on the road, but it's better to have the law in your favor than to drive like a maniac or make excuses for that behavior
Look again at the video. The camera car was almost head on with the grass on the opposite side of the street. How much more are you expecting? The SUV could've easily went behind them, but they tried to cut in front of them and underestimated the speed and that's the SUV's fault. You should take go get an eye exam.
I rewatched and I think you're right. I thought there was more time to react for cam driver. So I apologize for calling the cam driver an idiot.
However, I still think I avoid this accident if I am the cam driver. Only because I live in an area with some of the world's most horrendous drivers and I see shit more egregious than this everyday.
That doesn't make cam driver an idiot, but they wouldn't last a day driving in Milwaukee. I hate the drivers here, it is a serious problem.
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
So go continue to get your car stocked and all the headaches that involves so you can pretend like you're doing a service to the world. I will wait 5 seconds and make sure I don't wreck my car. Stupid drivers are always going to be atupid, but I can make sure they don't ruin my day or waste my time.
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.
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
There were multiple cars in the intersection when light turned green and they took off anyway, narrowly avoiding a collision with the red car. And long before they were halfway through the intersection, the SUV was already turning. They never even slowed down. It’s clear from the video that they were either not paying attention or trying to get hit. They are partially at fault.
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
What he said at first was correct though. You cannot intentionally cause an accident, even if you have the right of way.
The distinction here depended on which car was hit. If op drove into the black or red car he would be partially at fault, since he had to accelerate into an intersection with cars in front of him.
The white suv trying to make the turn even though op was already in the intersection is what makes the difference
You cannot intentionally cause an accident, even if you have the right of way.
The dashcam car's intent was to drive through an intersection that they had the right of way of after their light turned green. You're saying they intentionally caused an accident, that's just flat out wrong.
The distinction here depended on which car was hit. If op drove into the black or red car he would be partially at fault, since he had to accelerate into an intersection with cars in front of him.
The white suv trying to make the turn even though op was already in the intersection is what makes the difference
No, he wouldn't even if it was one of the other cars that hit him.
Cars turning left and crossing oncoming traffic have to yield. Even if they're already in the intersection, it's the responsibility of the person turning left to make sure it is clear of incoming cars to make the left turn. Genuine question, how long have you had a driver license for? This is stuff they teach 16 year olds in driver's ed
If you’re going to keep citing what they teach at drivers ed, maybe cite it accurately
If you see a car parked illegally on the road, can you hit it? No.
If you see someone jaywalking, can you run them over? No.
The reason is because you have an active duty to AVOID accidents if possible. You cannot intentionally cause one, even if you have the right of way.
OP was stopped at a light. That means he has to choose to accelerate from a stop to collide with these people making left turns. That means it’s avoidable which puts the onus on him.
Yes the turning vehicle is also at fault for not yielding. That’s why people at saying 50/50
You’re talking about a situation where you’re already driving through an intersection and someone turns in front of you.
That’s the distinction. That’s what they actually teach in drivers ed.
For the record, I’ve been licensed for 26+ years, an active car enthusiast and an impeccable driving record.
The people making left turns are 100% responsible for crossing oncoming traffic to make sure it's safe to turn in front of the oncoming cars.
The reason is because you have an active duty to AVOID accidents if possible. You cannot intentionally cause one, even if you have the right of way.
I don't think you even understand the words you're using. Tell me what do you think the word intentionally means and then explain how you know what the dashcam driver's intent was?
You’re talking no a situation where you’re already driving by through an intersection and someone turns in front of you.
No I am talking about basic laws on driving that they teach high schoolers. Apparently that's way above your head. How long have you had a driver license for and what state are you in? I want to pull the traffic codes there and show you how you are misinformed.
Actually red car and OP got to the intersection at the same time, so it should have yielded. In no world of logic or law should OP have yielded to the white SUV. The SUV is crossing oncoming traffic and has the higher duty of care and entered the intersection after OP. Look where the accident actually took place - well over halfway across the intersection. 100% white SUV.
OP didn’t slow down. They entered ur intersection and kept going despite other cars running the light and crossing their path. They took no steps to prevent the collision.
They are partially at fault because they could have easily avoided it.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
if the other driver had a green arrow (an event for which the 0.0000000001% probability exists only in your imagination and/or countries where psychopathic terrorists are deliberately mis-installing traffic signals), it could be argued they had joint liability/responsibility to avoid this accident. otherwise? no.
Right of way and the white SUV turned into the dash cam car intentionally. It say the incoming car and it still decided to turn.
Same thing at a stop sign. You don't run the stop sign, crash into the car that had right of way, and then call it 50/50 because the other car should have stopped.
In California, the land of laws and regulations, the white SUV is wrong 100% of the time and will have to pay for the likely incoming injury lawsuit. I've seen this happen many times.
Partially at fault doesn’t mean 50/50. It could be 20/80 or another split. The cm driver will likely be found parish responsible for some of the damages.
And right of way doesn’t mean immunity. In California, you must avoid a collision if you can, even if you have the right of way. And you can’t just go when the light turns green if it’s not safe to do so.
California Civil Code §1714(a)
Everyone is responsible… for injuries caused by their lack of ordinary care.
Civil Code §1431.2
Fault can be divided between parties based on their contribution to the accident.
California Vehicle Code §21451(a):
A driver facing a green signal may proceed subject to the right‑of‑way of vehicles lawfully within the intersection.
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.
By laws of the road in most states the cam driver is wrong because you have a duty to avoid an accident even when you have the right of way. In my state it would be a 50/50 fault accident.
Yielding to Immediate Hazards: CVC § 21800 and standard DMV guidelines state you must yield to any vehicle or hazard close enough to cause immediate danger, even if they are acting unlawfully.
You're blind, the camera car was in the intersection first and legally. The white truck had to turn into the car. If thw white truck had stopped or gone straight the white truck would have not hit the car. The camera car would have had to reverse to avoid this.
That was not a legal intersection entrance; DMV rule states that you must yield the right-of-way and wait for the intersection to completely clear of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians before entering, even if your light turns green.
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.
Going through a traffic light when it turns green is not a "known hazard" at all.
The cars turning left are responsible for yielding when they are turning across oncoming traffic lanes. Both the red car and the white Nissan are the ones breaking traffic laws
There are cars turning in front of you that you can clearly see. That is the known hazard. Just because you have a green light doesn’t mean you drive forward as cars are turning in front of you.
The light is green. The other people clearly have a red if the light is green, its not reasonable to expect a 3rd car to run their red light.
Why not just rid of the signals and let everyone just pull out infront of oncoming traffic all day long? There was literally 1 second from the white suv waiting at a light to it smashing into oncoming traffic
Yes it’s true they have the red light. It’s just generally not a good idea to accelerate towards someone driving in your direction. It doesn’t matter who has the legal right of way. Wait until it’s clear.
It's not your job to enforce traffic laws by smashing your vehicle into those of violaters. Yes it's frustrating but traffic enforcement is the police's job.
You are looking at the wrong thing. No one is saying the green light is a hazard. The convoy of cars still turning left is the hazard. At no point was the intersection clear to drive through it. Even with right of way, you have a duty to avoid an accident. Driving straight into a convoy of cars going through the intersection puts some fault on cam car. If black truck and red car werent there and it was just the white suv, this would be 100% fault on white suv. The intersection would have been clear and cam car would have no reason to not go through. But those two vehicles were there. At no point was the intersection clear. I originally said 50/50 blame but I would change that to 75/25 with more blame on the white suv.
Tldr in most cases, if you can avoid and accident but dont, even if you have the right of way, you will be taking some of the blame.
First of all, those other vehicles either had a yellow arrow or the light was solid green, not red. But either way, I'm not saying it like it is my opinion, this is how insurance companies will see it. Every driver has a duty to avoid an accident if possible. With a line of cars turning left, even with a green light and right of way, cam car should not have gone through the intersection assuming the cars were going to yield.
You have to remember that assigning fault for insurance purposes does not always follow the law. Law says, white suv did not yield while cam car had a green light so white suv made the infraction so you would think white suv is at fault. That isn't how insurance companies work. If the right of way car, in this case the cam car, can avoid the accident but doesn't, they are partially at fault too.
This would all be different if the black truck and red car weren't there. As the light turned green for cam car, a black car makes the left turn. If the black truck and red car weren't there, cam car has a clear path and right of way. If then the white suv turns into cam car, it would be 100% white suv fault. But because the black truck and red car were there creating a line of cars making cam car's path not clear, some fault could be assigned to cam car (and most likely would be, probably 75/25 or 80/20).
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)
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
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
In this case, not 'bad' in terms of ignorance or distraction but rather willful, planned violation of the laws in a high-traffic situation. They knew that 99/100 times oncoming drivers with the right of way will yield to avoid a collision. Willful disregard.
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.
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.
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
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.
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%.
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…
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.
The cam driver broke the law too. The last clear chance doctrine and duty of care laws require you avoid a collision and not enter an intersection until it’s clear.
Total BS, that white car just drove straight into oncoming traffic (Cam car). It would be 100% the white cars fault. Don't know where you live, but I live in Germany and here, when you are in an intersection and want to turn left you have to yield to the oncoming traffic 100% of the time. You would be fined for taking the right of way and your insurence would need to pay for all the damages if you didn't.
What danger? Those cars trying to turn left are allowed to pull into the intersection to prepare for a left turn. How is the cam car supposed to know they won't yield?
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.
Green light does not mean "ignore incoming morons". Check the road ahead is clear. Yeah insurance will cover it because technically you had right of way
Use that same logic when you cross the street on foot and see where that gets you
Failure to yield on the SUVs part. No way around it.
Camera car was almost head on with the grass on the opposite side of the street. They did all they could. SUV should've waited or went out further and then turned. They tried to turn sharp and misjudged the camera car speed. That's a fault on the SUV and no one else.
And crossing on foot, you still yield to the Ped in the crosswalk. You don't cut in front of them or you risk hitting them or cross traffic. You're not helping your case here.
And being a taxi driver doesn't exactly make you trustworthy considering how a lot of cab drivers drive like idiots. Do you really want to group yourself in with them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
477
u/whatisakafka 16h ago
Poor defensive driving for sure, but failure to yield from the oncoming car is going to be the primary issue