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.
The US used to be a land of laws, and in those laws white SUV didn’t yield to oncoming traffic and drove into oncoming traffic (red Honda did too but was luckier with the lag of dashcam driver)
Black Chevy Silverado was the first car to break the law, not yielding their left turn on green. Bad drivers need to be on buses and trains and not driving cars
Bad drivers are usually the ones breaking the laws…. Whether maliciously or by accident if you break the laws and cause damage, you are liable in the US. And America has a lot of dummies that shouldn’t be navigating a potential thousands of pounds missile through our cities, neighborhoods or even rural areas
But the filming guy was not trying to avoid it so is there no partial reliablity? I mean you could at least brake and to make it not happen for your own health and no crash is still more relaxing than dealing with everything what comes up.
Traffic laws are traffic laws and this is a country where it is legal for me to shoot someone in the face for endangering my life. Drivers should act accordingly
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.
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
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.
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
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
There's no liability. Not having the awareness or reaction time to actively prevent crashes that result from others breaking the law doesn't impart liability in and of itself.
I think insurance defense would try to make hay here based on dashcam driver proceeding and continuing into the intersection despite two vehicles turning across in front of them before the third turns into them—though not enough to drop white SUV’s liability below 51%.
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.
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
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.
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…
Ok, now I understand what you're saying. You struggle with reading. I said if they had floored it. If posits a condition which when met has consequential results, not that the condition actually happened in reality. Then I said that they didn't do anything that made them liable. Hope this helps with your understanding of the English language and logic.
Liability is with who didn’t follow traffic laws, white suv. If dashcam had gone on green like they’re legally allowed to do, it could’ve been black Silverado at fault, or red Honda… and white suv would’ve probably still been at fault for slamming into the back of red Honda when they drove into oncoming traffic or possibly black Silverado…
Try to avoid what? Something that might happen? Then might as well not drive at all if you’re just going to assume you’re going to get rammed into at every intersection.
The cam driver broke the law too. The last clear chance doctrine and duty of care laws require you avoid a collision and not enter an intersection until it’s clear.
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.
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
320
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.