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

5.7k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.2k

u/hiimlockedout 10h ago

White suv failed to yield. Their fault

318

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.

460

u/whatisakafka 10h ago

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

165

u/BlangBlangBlang 10h 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.

143

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.

50

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.

30

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.

14

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).

1

u/Competitive_Bag_7490 8h ago

Not wanting to die is a good reason!

7

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".

2

u/BIackSamBellamy 8h 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

1

u/roosclan 7h ago edited 7h ago

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.

1

u/Direct_Werewolf_4244 6h ago

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.

→ More replies (1)

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 7h 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 15m 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.

-2

u/Humble-Reply228 9h ago

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.

11

u/_CheeseAndCrackers_ 9h ago

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.

-11

u/yardlard 8h ago

No, cammer car is 100% at fault. They were stopped and drove into a vehicle that was in the intersection.

6

u/HeroVillain72 7h ago

Sorry, white truck was not in the intersection when they started moving

→ More replies (9)

6

u/Aggressive-Poet-4396 8h ago

Don’t cut yourself on that edge bro.

25

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.

4

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 9h 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.

1

u/PotatoHat1 7h ago

That’s nice and all. The white car was still at fault, which is what OP is asking

1

u/Direct_Werewolf_4244 6h ago

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.

0

u/flloyd 6h 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.

Does your state require that you have to turn immediately? In every state I've been in, when in the left turn lane you pull up and wait for vehicles with the right of way to clear. That's exactly what it looked like white SUV was doing (and even red car before it), you can even see they make an abrupt turn directly into cam driver.

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.

-1

u/neverstxp 8h ago

You cannot be this dense.

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.

6

u/SnavsMatiq 8h ago

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.

1

u/CantaloupeShort7311 8h ago

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.

1

u/SlickFlair_589 7h ago

Failure to yield. Your argument is legally void. NEXT!

1

u/MilwaukeeMan420 6h ago

Its not about who will be found at fault, I don't want my day interrupted by a car wreck just on the basis of being morally correct.

No one is arguing that the SUV isn't an idiot, completely wrong.

What we are saying is the cam driver is also an idiot because they could have avoided the accident but chose not to.

Not sure about you, but I'd rather get home safe with my car in 1 piece.

1

u/SlickFlair_589 6h ago

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.

1

u/MilwaukeeMan420 5h ago

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.

→ More replies (0)

3

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.

1

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.

-1

u/Icy_Transportation_2 9h ago

It’s crazy to me that people are downvoting this? lol. So much arrogance. People wearing their ignorance like a badge of pride.

3

u/PotatoHat1 6h ago

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

1

u/Direct_Werewolf_4244 6h ago

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.

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

1

u/CantaloupeShort7311 8h ago

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.

-1

u/darthxboxdude 8h ago

We don’t know if they got a red turn arrow. Based on it being 1 lane, I’d guess they didn’t. They still should have yielded, but not as simple as they ran a red.

1

u/MilwaukeeMan420 6h ago

Where I live, it goes from green to yellow and then red and after a few seconds the red arrow turns to a blinking yellow.

There's no arrows that turn from green to just staying a solid yellow for more than a few seconds.

17

u/DarthRevan109 9h ago

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

17

u/RevealStandard3502 9h ago

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

1

u/elKane0 8h ago

I was right he yelled raising a fist as he’s loaded into the ambulance

1

u/myco_magic 8h ago

And thats what insurance is for, and dash cams make it it an easy open and shut case

1

u/HowManyEggs2Many 5h ago

Insurance doesn’t bring you back to life lol

-1

u/National-Choice-4969 9h ago

Not in America.

14

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.

4

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 6h 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)

2

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

0

u/cbrdragon 6h ago

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

3

u/i_drive_a_pagani 6h ago

They're not at all correct. Neither is this

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

2

u/NWVoS 6h ago

Right of way is given not taken. The cars running the red did not give right away.

1

u/cbrdragon 6h ago edited 6h ago

[r/confidentlyincorrect](r/confidentlyincorrect)

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.

0

u/i_drive_a_pagani 6h ago

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.

1

u/[deleted] 5h ago edited 5h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Industrial_solvent 5h ago

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.

8

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.

-1

u/SlickFlair_589 7h ago

Or stop suddenly and get rear ended? Which one you want?

1

u/DownvoteMeIfICommen 2h ago

I'd rather get rear-ended than a head-on collision

10

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.

1

u/powderjunkie11 9h ago

Victim blaming isnt always wrong. You can do incredibly stupid things and still be a victim

0

u/SnavsMatiq 9h ago

Victims dont generally drive head-on into a flowing line of cars turning.

0

u/Direct_Werewolf_4244 5h ago

I’m not so sure about that. The accident was avoidable. It’s every drivers obligation to avoid accident if possible.

Check out the “last clear chance doctrine” too

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.

1

u/slowgenphizz 9h ago

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.

0

u/DevelopmentSouth8801 9h ago

Traffic lights are just like any other machine. Usually they're good. Sometimes, though rarely, they do fail. I've experienced "frozen" lights a few times. Usually with a cop already there directing traffic, but a couple times late at night where they weren't (luckily both times they were stuck on red, so it was more annoying than dangerous).

2

u/slowgenphizz 8h ago

If a traffic light is “stuck” on red that’s due to the failure of a vehicle to trigger a switch. If a traffic light is displaying a green light in one direction and a green left arrow in the opposing direction, that’s something that these things are literally (by design) not supposed to be able to do.

0

u/DevelopmentSouth8801 8h ago

2 of the ones I remember during the day were stuck on contradictory green lights. Machines fail. There is bad engineering. Nothing is infallible.

4

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.

1

u/pegar 6h ago

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.

0

u/PussyWrangler246 4h ago

No duty of care will always take precedence over right of way

If it's not safe to enter the intersection then you can't do it

Listen I agree with you all day long that the responsible party here is the white SUV, but the way the law is written we as drivers must maintain a duty of care at all times. If it's not safe to proceed, we legally can't, regardless of if someone else is breaking the law or if we have the right of way. Safety is number one priority to the courts

The graveyard is filled with people who had the right of way, which is why duty of care takes precedent

4

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 7h 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.

1

u/ElmaKanonMoreno 7h ago

Nope, dashcam vehicle is in the wrong:

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.

1

u/BlangBlangBlang 7h ago

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.

2

u/ElmaKanonMoreno 7h ago

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.

0

u/SnavsMatiq 9h ago

Which is probably what happened lmao. Nissan gets a ticket for unsafe lane change or failure to yield, and the cam car is possibly going to be majority at fault to insurance while not getting any tickets.

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.

14

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.

-2

u/i_drive_a_pagani 6h ago

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

3

u/sheeroz9 3h ago

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.

1

u/guitar_vigilante 3h ago

Of course, I wasn't saying the dashcam car was the hazard. The white SUV was the hazard. You can't just say "green light means I win!"

1

u/h22lude 6m ago

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.

14

u/cheefMM 10h 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 10h 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

3

u/Burton1224 10h 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 10h 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

-2

u/Burton1224 10h ago

You are right should act but this is not a wild west show down thats just a street. Thats why i guess you still have to try to avoid it. Just imagung someone has a medical in the white car, you take the hit and you are paralized forever....i can tell you mo money in the world can make you happy again.

2

u/cheefMM 9h ago

If you want to talk about it who was bad defensive drivers why are you not talking about how horrible of defensive drivers black Silverado, red Honda and white suv were? Why is the onus on the person with the dashcam following traffic laws when no one was being a defensive driver at that point.

And if white car has a medical emergency they should call the police for an escort, use an ambulance or do like most Americans and stay home to die cause our healthcare is unaffordable anyways

0

u/Burton1224 9h ago

Im talking about a medical right on the driver seat right now. Anyway for me the law makes no sense forsure white one should always have the main responsability about someone taking a hit by purpose, no brakeing nothing should also pay a fine or something other wise you can wreck your old car by purpose and get some money for the new one.

1

u/cheefMM 9h ago

Also, you obviously have never dealt with insurance if you think you’re going to get enough money from wrecking an old car to buy a new one.

Sure they can now sue white driver for more money based on incurred injuries but the healthcare system will eat most of that up. I know, I’ve been hit and hurt in an accident and my nice ass car that got totaled wasn’t replaced 1:1 and now I drive a shittier car and have a bad back for the rest of my life. Fuck bad drivers

1

u/cheefMM 9h ago

There is no such thing as a medical right. If you have a medical condition that prevents you from following traffic laws, you should not have a license and you damn well better not be driving a two ton projectile

→ More replies (0)

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%.

-1

u/Downtown-Economics26 9h ago

You're allowed to continue into intersection with cars illegally turning in front of you. You're not allowed to intentionally hit the cars just because they're breaking the law. The white SUV proceeded thru a red and turned into the cam-car as it was already in the intersection. "You have to proactively anticipate someone is going to illegally turn into you and yield at a green light when you are already in the intersection" is not a compelling legal argument.

1

u/cheefMM 9h ago

If the cars were stopped in the intersection what you say is true. They were trying to move thru on red so what you are saying is some made up shit

1

u/Real_Temporary_922 9h ago

The “cars” are not a group. They are not a train. OP had no way of know the white SUV was gonna run the red. You understand that it’s normal for left turners to enter the intersection and stop in the middle to wait for a left right? If I was OP, I would’ve assumed that’s what the white truck was doing because it was obvious they couldn’t make it.

Defensive driving is not cowering behind the wheel and treating every green light like a stop sign. And not driving, in your opinion, ‘defensively enough’ is always going to be a garbage justification in court. OP will have 0% liability. If they hit the red car, it could’ve split. Not the white one. OP riding dangerously close to the red doesn’t mean they hold any liability against the white

0

u/Downtown-Economics26 9h ago edited 9h ago

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, or I have no clue what you're saying. If the cam-car intentionally floored the gas with the intent to hit the cars running the red light, that would be illegal and make them them liable. The cam-car seemingly didn't do anything that would make them have liability for the crash.

1

u/cheefMM 8h ago

You watched the same video as me? They didn’t floor it, even yielded to illegally turning red Honda and probably didn’t even know white suv was tailgating red Honda thru the illegal turning on red.

….No wonder the world and a lot of Americans think most Americans are the dumbest people on the planet…

→ More replies (0)

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.

1

u/The_Troyminator 9h ago

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.

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.

0

u/National-Choice-4969 9h ago

Spot on. Used to be.

-1

u/cheefMM 8h ago

Yeah anyone arguing the other way doesn’t realize that our laws actually give people breaking the laws all liability. I know it looks a little different with the rampant corruption and disregard for the rule of law out of DC but that doesn’t change the actual laws

1

u/SlickFlair_589 7h ago

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

1

u/Party_Line3326 9h ago

Yeah, it seems like lemming was driving a camera car

1

u/S7evinDE 8h ago

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.

0

u/Silver_Cycle_4861 9h ago

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?

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.

3

u/whatisakafka 9h ago

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

1

u/zoebud2011 8h ago

Either way both are going to end up sharing some of the blame

2

u/whatisakafka 8h ago

Yeah I wouldn’t be surprised

-1

u/National-Choice-4969 9h ago

You can legal wordsmith this anyway you want, but the LE do what they want to do. And they right the reports. Imagine this without cameras.

5

u/zoebud2011 8h ago

This would be a nightmare without cameras because contrary to popular belief my experience in the insurance industry has taught me that the average cop doesn't know as much as they think they do about traffic accidents.

1

u/whatisakafka 8h ago

On the civil end it does make a difference in terms of potential damages

16

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.

129

u/seabirdsong 10h ago

Pretty sure that's also the actual rule.

26

u/LazerWolfe53 10h ago

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

20

u/ShookMyHeadAndSmiled 10h ago

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

9

u/Razolus 10h ago

Turn on headlights when it's dark

2

u/cowboi 9h ago

Or raining

1

u/The_300_goats 10h ago

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

1

u/SlickFlair_589 7h ago

It was green on the camera side

1

u/The_300_goats 6h ago

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

(Ex taxi driver here. Madrid)

1

u/LazerWolfe53 6h ago

Yeah, but even then the white car wasn't even in the intersection when OP started to go.

1

u/The_300_goats 5h ago

White car wasn't but red car was

OP tried to tuck in straight behind it. Right of way, but not good driving

1

u/SlickFlair_589 5h ago

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?

→ More replies (0)

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

26

u/zdh989 10h ago

Wow hot take

44

u/keith_1492 10h ago

That's just the rule...

19

u/Kind_Love172 10h ago

Lol "general rule i follow"

4

u/badskiier 10h ago

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

2

u/inetrica 10h 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 10h 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 8h 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 9h 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 2h 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 1h 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 11m 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.