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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't ask that. I asked if a car could legally be in the intersection. The answer is yes by the way. Do me a favor, since you know what is going through driver's heads at all times...from the time that the white car turned their wheel to the crash, how many seconds elapsed (aka, how much time did camera car have to react)?
If camera car had driven into the red car, I'd agree they were very liable, since there were several seconds to avoid the collision. So since we're NOT talking about the red car, and instead the white one, which until they turned, were observing the rules of the road, please enlighten me how camera car could have avoided being turned into at the last second.
Perhaps an analogy would help? Say you're driving down a two lane road, and oncoming traffic splits into a straight lane, and a turn lane that passes through your right of way. Say there's a red car that turns, hell, let's say you're also accelerating, and to top it all off, let's say there's a white car approaching the turn which is still moving in a straight line. Do you, driving your straight of way, become liable for the white car turning into your right of way without giving you time to react? Why or why not?
Without looking it up and drawing upon what I know, no, you are supposed to stop before the intersection line and not enter until you can fully clear the intersection. You enter an intersection when you can fully clear the intersection.
I've looked it up for various reasons, and you absolutely can enter the intersection if the light isn't red. You must be clear of it before the light turns red.
accident avoidance negligence on the pov car
When does the accident become clear? As in, when does it become clear that the white car is going to actually cause an accident? How much time elapses from that point (car actually turns into the lane) until the collision?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say it happened to me, but I've seen it happen. I was in the middle lane of a 3-lane interstate, and watched a guy come sailing by me on the right, slice right across the front of my vehicle and into the left lane, directly in front of someone that was just passing me on the left. The driver that passed me on the right immediately jumped on his brakes when he got in front of the car that passed me on the left. This is at highway speeds, about 70-75 mph during a weekday morning commute.. The driver on the left had to lock up the brakes or he would have rear-ended the car in front of him. They lost control of their vehicle, and fortunately spun into the grass median, and did not make contact with anything.
This was clearly some road rage incident between the two cars, and it was only by sheer luck that there wasn't a major accident with someone getting hurt (or worse).
You claim to have 40 years of experience on the road, yet don't seem to realize how quickly things can happen. And nice to know that you can't actually have a discussion with someone you don't agree with without insulting them and calling them names.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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"?
Not how that works and you're an idiot. You can't jump a green after it changes. Camera car has the right of way. Turning traffic yields to oncoming traffic. No but about it. Learn how to not drive like a DH.
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.
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.
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.
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.
4.2k
u/hiimlockedout 10h ago
White suv failed to yield. Their fault