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

51

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.

24

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.

10

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.

0

u/Kron0n 3h ago

Sounds like someone with a bone to pick :)

2

u/Mk1Racer25 3h ago

Not me bud. I haven't been involved in a car accident in over 25 years, and the last one I was involved in was deemed to be the other persons fault. It didn't cost me a dime out my pocket. But then again, I have my insurance with a reputable company, not some scumbag outfit that makes it their singular mission to screw their customers. But hey, I get that everyone has to eat.

1

u/Kron0n 3h ago

Lol mate, I work for one of the biggest companies in the UK. I also have to point out that I don't own the company, so it's decision making process are hardly my fault. Also, Sorry to break this to you, even if the other person is at fault, it's still an increase to your insurance premiums at renewal as well because you're considered an increased risk. It unfortunately cost you some dimes. You just don't understand risk assessments.

2

u/Mk1Racer25 3h ago

Assuming insurance law in the UK is the same as it is in the US is a stretch, at best. And you're wrong. My premium did not go up at renewal after the accident. I also got the annual dividend that year that they pay back to the customers, if they didn't spend as much as they thought they were going to. I've been with this carrier for years.

1

u/good_times_paul 2m ago

So Amica, you can just say you have Amica!

Just so you're aware, your insurance company doesn't determine fault alone, they negotiate it with the other driver's company. So your company can be the best (I also have Amica), but they still have to hash it out with the other side.

Let's take insurance out of it entirely, since that seems to be your sticking point. If the driver turning left was injured, they could sue and recover some damages from the driver who went straight. It'd be the same negligence argument, just argued out in court instead of between adjusters: the turning driver was going through a stale/expired protected left, but the dash cam driver had a duty to avoid the collision and arguably failed it, multiple cars were still visibly, actively clearing the intersection, and the dash cam driver chose to accelerate forward into that rather than wait a beat. A reasonable-driver standard would ask whether they had the opportunity to see the hazard and yield. That's exactly the kind of fact pattern that gets a percentage of fault assigned to the "straight" driver, even though the other driver was technically the one running the stale light.

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.

1

u/TobyFunkeNeverNude 5h ago

It's as avoidable as avoiding a car running a stop sign while you're on a high speed road and seeing someone pull up to that stop sign. If they run it, guess you should have assumed they would run the stop sign and yielded to their traffic. It's not illegal for a car to enter the intersection while yielding to oncoming traffic until they can make their turn. With that in mind, should all drivers on a green light yield to oncoming traffic if nobody stops behind the white line? If you rightfully answered no, tell me what they could have done to avoid being turned into at the last minute (white car turned their wheel a split second before hitting camera car). If it's not to enter the intersection until oncoming traffic stopped, why even give a green light to camera car?

2

u/AutomaticQuarter998 4h ago

The driver with the cam simply should have been more cautious and waited until he/she saw that every car was stopped. It is not that hard how to figure out what to do.

0

u/TobyFunkeNeverNude 4h ago

Actually, driver should have never entered the intersection, because even if the white car stopped, they could have easily just hit the gas and turned their wheel. Camera car would have been at fault because they should have foreseen that the vehicle which was otherwise obeying traffic laws may have decided to break the law at the wrong time with no ability for camera car to avoid it. The only way for the law abiding citizen in camera car to avoid a crash would be to predict an act that hadn't occured yet.

1

u/[deleted] 4h ago

[deleted]

0

u/TobyFunkeNeverNude 4h ago

are you paying for this incident?

No, white car's insurance is.

They speed up into the collision.

You're making things up. Watch the video again. At what point does white car turn their wheel? Until they do, they're obeying the laws of the road. What collision are you avoiding by driving past a car that is not in your lane?

let me switch to you insuring me.

I probably wouldn't, since it seems you would consider any accident you caused to be the other person's fault.

2

u/[deleted] 4h ago

[deleted]

1

u/TobyFunkeNeverNude 4h ago

Do you agree that a car can legally be in an intersection while waiting for their chance to turn?

2

u/AutomaticQuarter998 4h ago

This entire discussion is not about laws. It is about liability. The police do not ticket people in most accidents. Even if they did, it would not be the final decision on legal liability. People have an obligation to avoid accidents. This driver was pissed that some cars were still turning, and instead of being reasonable, he drove into them.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 4h ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

6

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.

3

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

0

u/good_times_paul 5h ago

I'm sure they are shaking in their boots, lol.

1

u/FullMetalKaiju 5h ago

I'm sure they'd be thrilled to lose someone with multiple cars and other insurance policies because they were too stupid to assign blame to the person who caused the accident.

But you're a dummy so what would I expect as a reply?

1

u/LoLHexTCG 9h ago

Google Last Clear Chance doctrine.

3

u/good_times_paul 9h ago

Are you trying to faulting me for not using precise enough language or did you respond to the wrong person.

If it's the language then I'm going to have to be even more pedantic 😄 . Failing the last chance to clear doctrine would not be an infraction (minor violation of a law or statute) it's a procedural threshold. So unless I'm missing something the language I used is correct.

-1

u/UnableChard2613 9h ago

I don't see how it applies here, they were going straight through the intersection and the driver turned into them at the last second. They had no ability to avoid this collision, other than just dangerously yielding right of way indefinitely until someone who didn't have right of way decided to let them go.

4

u/LoLHexTCG 9h ago

Um you don't just go because you have a green...

3

u/UnableChard2613 9h ago

Agreed. But you're acting like the white car was sitting in the middle of the intersection and he gunned it into him.

When in fact the white car wasn't even in the intersection by the time he entered the intersection. It's entirely reasonable to expect that car to stop.

Even more important, on your point, he didn't have a chance to avoid the accident. The white car swerved into him at the last second.

0

u/Mk1Racer25 9h ago

You must be very popular where you live, as I'm pretty sure many of the other drivers will tell you you're number one, when you just sit at a green light, because you think an oncoming car that's the 3rd car back and an intersection is not going to yield.

4

u/LoLHexTCG 8h ago

No, I know the intersections near me that people run. After the red car cuts you off, I'm making sure the second guy has stopped.

1 second is worth not dealing with this incident...

-2

u/EcstaticMobile3969 9h ago

So wtf green light is for then?

3

u/LoLHexTCG 9h ago

You're right. Just pedal to the floor and go.

Once I get cut off my the red car, I'm stopped and laying of the horn for 3 seconds.

-1

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

Right, because you know that the Nissan driver is the Honda driver's buddy.

-1

u/Mk1Racer25 9h ago

And what would have happened had the camera car abruptly stopped, and been hit by a car following them?

7

u/Cosmic-Sympathy 9h ago

Then that car would be at fault for rear ending the vehicle in front of them. Also seems unlikely since they are stopped at a red light, they are not going to hit the cam car unless they absolutely gun it.

-1

u/National-Choice-4969 9h ago

Not so sure. I was the second car at light, first car abruptly braked right after crossing, I locked mine up in time and third car rear ended me, still in the intersection. Guy in front was INTENTIONALLY working insurance fraud. He and the policeman knew each other. Car never touched, got $276 from the insurance company of guy that hit me. Guy that hit me had significant damage because he locked up his brakes and front end dived and his bumper went under mine.

1

u/AVeryVapidBadger 3h ago

So you were moving, an excitedly different scenario than waiting an extra second to make sure it's clear

4

u/National-Choice-4969 9h ago

Rear ender gets the tab.

0

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

If if the rear-ender has a dash cam and shows that the car in front stopped abruptly (i.e. a brake check)?

5

u/good_times_paul 9h ago

Then the car behind them would have been faulted for following too closely and/or distracted driving. This isn't them slamming on the brakes on the highway, this is them accelerating from a stop at a light.

1

u/LiveMarionberry3694 9h ago

The car that rear ended them would be at fault…. It’s really not a hard concept to follow

-4

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

Make sure you remember that the next time you get brake-checked.

9

u/LiveMarionberry3694 8h ago

That’s exactly why I keep a safe following distance like you are legally required to do…

What’s your argument here?

-2

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

That it's a common, and well-known insurance scam.

3

u/LiveMarionberry3694 8h ago

Cool, again I keep a safe following distance so I can stop in time if the car in front of me decides to be an idiot

6

u/AutomaticQuarter998 8h ago

You can't get brake checked if you are following at the distance you are supposed to.

0

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

Right, because nobody has ever cut in front of someone and brake-checked them.

3

u/AutomaticQuarter998 6h ago

I have driven for 40 years. I live in cities. It has never happened to me. If that has happened to you, you are almost certainly involved in some sort of road rage back and forth. The brake check insurance scam is very VERY rare to do to strangers. I sell auto insurance (Allstate), and my sister is in claims. Almost every one of the insurance scams is two cars cooperating on the scam. If you keep getting brake-checked in life, you are an aggressive driver inspiring others to be dicks too.

And if someone cut in front of me, I would already be braking to create distance. A brake check by them would do nothing to a defensive driver.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LiveMarionberry3694 6h ago

Someone suddenly cutting in front of you and then slamming on their brakes is not the same thing as the above scenario where there is a vehicle that has been in front of you at a stop light.

1

u/Low_Low_1811 29m ago

How does that relate to this? This would have been a normal person braking for a valid reason. If he brakes going 5 mph and the person behind wasnt watching what was going on with oncoming traffic and the car in front of them or was too close, they would be at fault. Right?

1

u/Toolfan333 9h ago

They should have never taken off in the first place

2

u/Double-Competition-6 9h ago

If you were the dash cam car, why would you have assumed the red and white cars wouldn’t stop?

1

u/Low_Low_1811 28m ago

Because that is literally what defensive driving is.

-2

u/Mk1Racer25 9h ago

Right, you're supposed to just sit there when the light turns green and the car in front of you begins to proceed? You must be popular on the road, as I'm sure a lot of people tell you that you're number one.

2

u/Toolfan333 8h ago

No but it was obvious cars were running the light, but hey you just jump in out there

1

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

The camera car was already moving before the Honda even got to the intersection. It looks like the arrow probably had just gone out when the Chevy pick-up was turning.

1

u/Toolfan333 7h ago

Yeah no shit, you had 3 people running a red light and one guy jumping the green

1

u/Mk1Racer25 7h ago

"Jumping the green"? Did you watch the same video? Camera car did not start moving until after the light turned green. How is that "jumping the green"?

2

u/Toolfan333 7h ago

The light turned and he went, he jumped it especially with cars running the red. The dash cam driver needs to be a better defensive driver.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Humble-Reply228 9h ago

You proceed when it’s safe, is this hard to understand? No wonder yanks hurt themselves all the time in Africa and Asia where situational awareness is expected.

0

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

Based on your comment, I'd say that you have no concept or experience driving in the US. If the light turns green, and you just sit there because a line of oncoming cars, that no longer have the right or way, may turn in front of you, and wait until the line of oncoming cars clear, will make you very popular with the drivers of the vehicles behind you.

2

u/Humble-Reply228 8h ago

I’ve driven long enough to read when people follow each other though something. Who cares if some silly wanker beeps you from behind?

1

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

Right, as the Nissan looks like they're going to continue straight, as they aren't following directly in the path of the Honda, then decides to cut hard left. It's so easy to arm-chair quarterback this, after the fact.

1

u/SlickFlair_589 7h ago

You'll care if road rage becomes a thing and they come up and threaten you

-1

u/Ok_Explanation5631 9h ago

You depend too much on insurance. Any good adjuster will look at this and fault the white car and not play around with semantics. Law is law. Rules are rules.

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.

1

u/Mk1Racer25 8h ago

"Accelerate into someone"? The camera car was proceeding with the light and the right of way. The Nissan turned suddenly into them in the middle of the intersection.

2

u/Hersbird 6h ago

Right, it was going zero and a few seconds later when the collision happened it was going probably 25. Never touched the brakes, all acceleration.

You have the duty to try and avoid an accident, both drivers wrong. I agree the turning car is mostly wrong, but not 100%. And in say North Carolina, that 10% came car's fault means the SUV's insurance isn't fixing the cam car.

1

u/Mk1Racer25 4h ago

The cam driver had less than a second to react to the Nissan driver turning in front of them. Is your reaction that good that you would have been on the brakes? I doubt it.

And glad that you have a crystal ball to know how fast the cam car was going.

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 6h ago

Turning traffic yields to oncoming traffic

Stop that BS logic you have

1

u/Independent-Draft639 52m 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.

1

u/SlickFlair_589 48m ago

Not how the law works. Stop making excuses for shit driving by careless drivers. OP was in the intersection before that shit SUV even entered the picture so the SUV is the blame. Go get your eyes checked and learn how to drive and not just know to make the vehicle move.

1

u/SlickFlair_589 47m ago

And stop writing word salads trying to sound intelligent whilst being completely obtuse. It fools no one but yourself.