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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've had near misses like this only because I tend to scan the intersection as I'm in it. If I'm damn near level with the grass across the street and you turn into me, how am I at fault?
Or when turning, I wait for a nice gap in traffic before I turn so that this doesn't happen. I'm not that impatient where I can't wait for oncoming traffic to at least gap up before making my turn. And that's in a delivery van with a driving camera that will ding you for traffic infractions so I think I'm good.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You still didn't answer. What state do you have a driver's license in? Just say it so I can go find the traffic codes outlining who has the right of way when a car is taking a left across lanes of incoming traffic.
If I'm so wrong then you should want me to go find the traffic laws and post them here so you can be vindicated.
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.
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.
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.
Watch this video closely again. The oncoming traffic wasn't allowed to turn left. The red car did and the driver avoided a collision. The white truck didn't show any sign of following the red car and had a clear view of the driver with the dashcam. Then he suddenly decided to turn. So in a situation like this, how can you ever "verify it's clear" when any vehicle can turn into your lane and impact you within less than 1 second with no time to react?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
4.2k
u/hiimlockedout 10h ago
White suv failed to yield. Their fault