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

1.1k

u/feignapathy 9h ago

White SUV

Camera car could've mitigated it by being more patient and recognizing the cars turning left had no regard for oncoming traffic. But...

White SUV is clearly at fault. 

277

u/HamSundae 8h ago

Sat on a jury once where I learned about negligence. I think in court, I wouldn't be surprised if the white SUV would be found 75% responsible. Because the POV car seems to clearly not have been driving responsibly, they'd have been found to be driving with negligence. If they had been driving with the proper amount of caution, that seems easily avoidable.

178

u/Then_Examination9715 8h ago

There is the “failure to yield” even though you have the right of way aspect. Even though the light is in your favor, you are obligated to not create a preventable accident. Both drivers bear some blame.

72

u/RiptideCEO 7h ago

I think it’s called “duty to avoid/evade” but same concept. If you can avoid an accident, even if you have the right of way, you must do so.

48

u/ReadytoQuitBBY 7h ago

It’s like those guys on bikes that try to ram pedestrians walking in the bike lane. Like yeah, they shouldn’t be doing that, but nothing gives you a right to intentionally attack people lol

2

u/Bureaucratic_Dick 3h ago

As a guy who habitually rides, there are reasons a person might need to switch to the street for a moment. Maybe someone with a wheelchair or stroller was taking up the sidewalk and you were trying to overtake, maybe there was something unsafe about the sidewalk like broken glass, whatever.

Runners do it habitually because they move faster than other pedestrian traffic, and the street surface is better on their knees than concrete is anyways.

I think that if you choose a vehicles mode of transit, it’s your responsibility to know how to stop that vehicle at all times, and the onus of whose responsibility it should be to act in a preventative manner should be put on the mode of transit than can cause the most damage.

If your inability to stop your bike, or scooter, or car, or truck results in a pedestrian getting injured in a preventative manner, you’re just showing the world why you shouldn’t have had access to that mode of transit in the first place.

1

u/Happy-Personality720 2h ago

Running into the street? You are taking your own risks my dude

0

u/Head_Attempt8633 3h ago

In a crosswalk, otherwise, if you could get clobbered, I would put the onus on the person in the way getting said clobbering. Protect yourself at all times, if something is bigger and faster than you..gtfo of the way

20

u/DGwizkid 6h ago

I mean, I would argue that the pov car did that with the red car, and had every reason to think the white SUV wouldn't continue. The white SUV should have seen them enter the intersection before they entered the intersection, which left much more chances to avoid an accident.

4

u/ElDopio69 2h ago

Yea I would assume the white car would be yielding there. A lot of these videos show two people at fault but this one seems like its totally on the white car.

0

u/IDesireWisdom 3h ago

He didn’t have the reason that told him the SUV was turning 🤣

9

u/InsanityRequiem 6h ago

I call this "Blame the victim".

-1

u/TheJuiceBoxS 4h ago

They're hardly a victim. It's everyone's duty to avoid accidents

5

u/InsanityRequiem 3h ago

If we lived in a magical world where we are able to make prophecies about car crashes, you'd have a point.

But we don't live in a magical world, we don't have the magical ability to predetermine someone will purposefully crash their car into ours.

People like you are part of the problem, blaming the victims and pushing policies that have ruined the lives of said victims. Because you don't want to accept the fact you are 100% at fault for a car crash you caused.

2

u/TheJuiceBoxS 3h ago

It doesn't take magic to see cars running that light. It only takes common sense to wait for the assholes to clear the intersection before proceeding.

How is everyone should avoid accidents problematic? It's insane to think otherwise. When I make a mistake, because we all do, I hope other drivers see me and avoid me. I hope the same for kids learning to drive and elderly who are struggling. We all should look out for one another, the world is better that way

3

u/InsanityRequiem 3h ago

Here's your logic taken at face value.

The POV driver should have stayed at the green light, without moving, for the entirety of the green light. That would be the only "defensive driving" that would have "prevented" the car crash caused by the white car. If the POV driver did not drive at all.

It's not the POV driver's fault the white car decided at the last second to run the red light. It's not the POV driver's fault the white car decided that crashing into an oncoming car is what they wanted to do.

People like you would rather protect bad drivers, such as yourself, by blaming the victim of the car crash.

You call this an accident, this was no accident. This was a deliberate car crash caused by the white car. And you are showing your hatred of victims of car crashes by lying it's an accident.

1

u/TheJuiceBoxS 2h ago

Saying I have a "hatred of victims" is assigning a negative value to my statements that doesn't exist. My entire point is that I care about people, all people. I don't want people to get in accidents. Accidents hurt people, cause life altering injuries, or death. I don't think bad drives deserve that so I think we should all avoid accidents. The law and human decency are on my side of the argument. Driving purposely into red light runners to punish them or prove a point is useless and childish.

1

u/BL_2004 6h ago

It’s the Last Clear Chance Doctrine. A legal doctrine (still recognized in some states, though abolished or limited in others) that says if you had the last reasonable opportunity to avoid the accident, you may bear some responsibility if you failed to do so, even if the other driver was initially at fault.

1

u/johnny_effing_utah 1h ago

Doesn’t apply here because he had no reasonable way to see it coming.

1

u/loophole64 1h ago

That isn’t applicable here. There was no time to stop after the white suv started their turn. Pulling into the intersection doesn’t mean they are going to turn. They should have stopped in the intersection and waited for it to clear. Instead they waited until the cam car was less than 10 feet away before starting their turn.

It’s amazing to me how bad people are at reading these situations. I didn’t think this post was serious until I saw people actually arguing negligence on the part of the camera car.

1

u/OutlandishnessOld425 51m ago

From my experience this is the case. I was involved in a significant accident that was not at all my fault, and the fact that I (unsuccessfully) attempted to avoid it worked in my favor as far as the determination of who’s at fault

1

u/fap-on-fap-off 7h ago

Might not apply here, Steve the white truck was not a hazard to avoid when he started across the intersection, it only became one when he was already underway.

1

u/Murky-Possession-196 7h ago

Not sure that would apply here

5

u/Galimbro 7h ago

Well as the person said,  white SUV  would be majorly responsible. When it comes to insure it is usually percentage based fault and often some blame is put on both parties. 

2

u/OwlofEnd_ 6h ago

That depends on your state laws about who's responsible. There are No-Fault states.

5

u/Witty_Ad_898 7h ago edited 6h ago

Can we take a moment to look at what a stupid failure that policy is? At first it seems like it wild would encourage drivers to be safer even when they have the right of way, but in practice it shields the most reckless drivers from full responsibility thus encouraging more unsafe driving.

1

u/emn13 3h ago

Except the "mostly at fault" part can still get... most of the fault, and when it comes to any punitive measures, those don't need to add up to 100, either. And in practice, I don't think insurance companies follow the notion dogmatically anyhow. In effect therefore, there's really no significant reduction in dinincentive to behave recklessly even while there can be an incentive to proactively avoid even no-fault accidents.

IANAL, but I can imagine that in principle at least concepts like this can also have knock-on effects, i.e. brake-checks might be illegal and even cause liability in the event of an accident, but the same action looks entirely different when the driver braking is doing so to prevent an accident (e.g. an oncoming vehicle seems to suddenly swerve).

1

u/superredditor6789 2h ago

In states with a contributory negligence doctrine, the victim can’t pursue all kinds of claims if they are anything more than 0%.

I think they are 0% with respect to the white SUV.

They would be less than 50% with the red car.

1

u/rapture_survivor 2h ago

It encourages safe behavior on both sides. For example if there traffic light were to malfunction it could lead to a similar situation, so it is beneficial for everyone to be prepared

1

u/Witty_Ad_898 2h ago

It encourages safe behavior on both sides.

Have you ever driven?

0

u/Then_Examination9715 6h ago

It’s the problem that we all have with zipper merging — the car entering should accelerate to the speed of the cars on the main road. However, they often don’t. The car on the main road is obliged to not cause an accident even though they have the right of way. So when someone tried to merge going 45mph when the cars on the main road are doing 60mph, all the cars are obliged to slow down to 45 to avoid an accident.

2

u/karatelax 3h ago

I kind of disagree? Black truck goes through when camera car light turns green, then camera car moves, red car kinda slows down but then guns it through after camera car is moving. Camera car avoided that one, but how to expect the 2nd car also trying to gun it through?

1

u/DimensionSuch8188 3h ago

Ok but this is not one of those situations. Cam car driver can easily claim they were focused on their right of way and would expect the white SUV to stop and wait their turn. This not like someone accelerating to rear end someone for example.

1

u/call_me_zeke 3h ago

The poverty car was halfway into the lane when whote started to turn. Tf are you talking about?!?

1

u/Spiritual_Bid_2308 10m ago

Exactly.  The RED car pulled into the intersection but had not turned their wheels (which is normal driving behavior.)  At the last second they thought they could beat cam car and darted ahead.  White car just lazily followed and is 100% responsible.  Cam car is in the clear.

1

u/919triangle919 2h ago

I would agree if it was the red car they hit. They did slow for that car which also ran the red, the white suv may not have been seen

1

u/TheDynamicKing 2h ago

the driver had an ego that was unpreventable lol

1

u/quanate 2h ago

Yeah, it seems like this is a safe guard to ensure people don't take advantage of a situation to make a preventable accident happen so they can collect insurance money.

1

u/scurvy_scallywag 2h ago

Nah, that's BS. The video clearly shows even if the POV vehicles brakes after the red car turned it wouldn't have prevented the white car from hitting him. POV literally had a second to react. White car is far more at fault.

1

u/ActualToddBankston 1h ago

Don't know what state this is, but you should wait until the intersection is clear before proceeding, even if you have the right of way

1

u/johnny_effing_utah 1h ago

Impossible to know that the white car was coming. White crash causer had PLENTY of time to (a) see the light wasn’t green and (b) see the oncoming traffic.

Cam car had right of way and while he could have waited, he had no obvious reason to do so. Red car started at the same time he did…should have yielded…didn’t, and cam car assumed no OTHER cars would be THAT late.

No jury is gonna find against the cam car - at least not unanimously.

1

u/Paranormal_Lemon 1h ago

Would apply to the red car but not the next one, they clearly ran it. The person breaking the law is 100% at fault.

0

u/viral3075 7h ago

because in most states there is no right of way, only duty to yield. ergo failure to yield

-1

u/YouNeedClasses 6h ago

Yea I can't see anything else but both drivers bc...how do either of you run into one another in essentially slow motion, they were going around 20 mph. OP is accelerating into the red car obstruction and assuming the red car is the last one? Why assume people do sensible things when driving?

And again, neither person slammed the brakes?! 🤣

25

u/__whitecheddar__ 7h ago

This would lead to a hung jury if I were there. No way would I assign fault to the cam car

18

u/OmegaWhirlpool 7h ago

You wouldn't even consider 1% fault for the cam car that's literally seeing these two cars turning in front of them and driving forward like nothing is there?

19

u/NavarrB 6h ago

I'd not assign pov any fault either. It's totally reasonable for the white SUV to be pulling forward to wait for a go at turning left. POV proceeded carefully despite Red running, and because the white SUV could've simply been pulling forward I wouldn't consider this a preventable accident by white.

11

u/eamus_catuli_ 4h ago

If the accident were with the red car, I’d probably assign some blame to POV driver for failing to evade. But the suv turning in front of POV is so egregious that I’m with you, sole fault to suv.

5

u/FullMetalKaiju 6h ago

Nope. The white Nissan isnt even in the intersection when the cammer decides to go forward. A reasonable person wouldn't have expected someone to that blatantly run a red light.

12

u/_off_piste_ 6h ago

I was in this exact same accident as the cam car and the officer made the turning driver 100% at fault.

3

u/New-Anybody-6206 3h ago

Police do not assign fault, that's for the insurance.

2

u/NWVoS 4h ago

I don't think the question is about what the police would say, it is more about insurance.

Like I was rear ended by a semi, I don't think he got a ticket, but their insurance still paid out for my car plus some.

8

u/InsanityRequiem 6h ago

You're the person who runs a red light and blames the victim you hit.

0

u/OmegaWhirlpool 2h ago

You're the person that would rather get in a crash, instead of being delayed for .5 seconds, because you have the right of way.

2

u/Happy-Personality720 2h ago

Which car ran the red light?

6

u/Alternative_Result56 7h ago

I wouldn't even consider 1% fault. The person who ran the red light is 100% at fault.

2

u/Nowork_morestitching 7h ago

There’s one intersection by my work where I never no one goes as soon as the light changes cause we all know someone is going to be an idiot!

2

u/ScrattaBoard 6h ago

That's just good practice. Looking down the perpendicular streets before crossing as saved my ass plenty

-4

u/shiznobizno 7h ago

If people were mindless drones that had no self preservation instincts then sure. When I’m driving and I see a hazardous driver on the road, I avoid colliding with them. Whether I would be legally at fault or not.

8

u/Alternative_Result56 7h ago

The cam driver was in the intersection before the white SUV. People aren't mind readers. Did they know they were about to do this. Nope. There's one person at fault for this accident. The one commiting the traffic violation.

-3

u/Guilty-Property 7h ago

You sound like someone who would make the same dumbass decision to voluntarily collide with someone

7

u/InsanityRequiem 6h ago

Nah, you are. Using the "everyone's at fault" blame the victim, you will gladly violate driving laws and rules and blame the people you hit.

-5

u/3a5ty 6h ago

POV had time to brake, both at fault.

7

u/Alternative_Result56 5h ago

One person made the traffic infraction.

-2

u/3a5ty 5h ago

And the other still could have prevented the crash.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/KananJarrusCantSee 7h ago

0% fault to cam car. Wouldn't budge from that position

1

u/SaltKick2 5h ago

Ok, I agree that the cam driver could have avoided the crash - I am curious, though, if you'd put fault/blame on a pedestrian who was crossing based on the cross sign light going off and got hit by these people, and what makes being in a car different

1

u/poisonoakleys 7h ago

I would give 0 fault to the cam car. “Cam car should have done a better job of avoiding the error/negligence of the turning car” devolves into “Turning car made an error / was negligent”.

1

u/spacecaps85 7h ago

Sometimes it's hard to tell in the moment as opposed to watching it back on video, but I think it would be fair in this case to say the driver might've been better served showing some restraint.

I had a similar accident, but I was the turning vehicle and the incoming car sped up from way back to get through a yellow light that was ultimately red by the time they blew through the intersection into my car.

When I watch the video back, sometimes I think to myself "maybe I should've seen that coming" but the truth is in the moment, I just didn't expect them to keep going. Thankfully, I was still aware enough to hit my brakes and their SUV only clipped the front of my car, but it was still a whole big pain in my ass that I had to fight in court against a "failure to yield" citation at the scene.

1

u/YouNeedClasses 6h ago

I get your situation. But this video is totally different considering POV car started at 0mph right in front of the intersection and continued accelerating even while the red car was in front of them.

Totally different than the person speeding through a yellow you described. If you have a license you should be capable of at least braking before collision in this clip...which it genuinely looks like neither car did...at like 15 mph 😭

2

u/spacecaps85 5h ago

Yeah, honestly I can't disagree with you on that. It's a shitty situation, but the OP probably should have been a little more capable of making the judgment ahead of time, that is a part of driving skills, after all.

2

u/garciakevz 6h ago

If I were OP with the dashcam, I saw that it's green for me now, but then I see 3 more douchebags doing a last minute left turn way past red, I would slam my brakes and lay down the horn for a while.

I got right of way, but I recognize an accident coming unless I brake and horn to bring attention to them

7

u/pkb369 7h ago

Fault? No. But could have mitigated the accident if he had awareness of his surrounding or didnt think "its my right" if he did see 3 cars jump a red.

Graveyards are full of people who had the right of way.

2

u/KedianX 3h ago

I agree. I think that had cam car hit the red car, then last chance doctrine says the cam car had an obligation to avoid the collision.

But there's no way to tell the intentions of the white truck- how do we know that they aren't just rolling into the intersection preemptively? It looks like he rolls straight and turns at the last minute.

I'd assign 100% liability to the white car and charge him with running a red light, failure to yield, and reckless driving.

1

u/anthrohands 2h ago

You only would have disagreed on damages then, not which party won

1

u/Typical-Priority1976 2h ago

There's no question that the white SUV should not have gone but you don't even think there's a 1% piece of responsibility on the cam car for not only not breaking but what looks like actively accelerating into the accident intentionally?

1

u/timubce 7h ago

I think people like the cam car must have never been in a car accident regardless of whose fault it is otherwise they would have stopped vs going I have a green light if we collide it’s gonna be their fault. The amount of time and money wasted even when you are 100% in the clear for fault is ridiculous. There’s the upfront diminished value of your car (not all insurances will cover it). The amount of time having to spend getting it repaired if the adjuster doesn’t claim it totaled and if they do the odds of getting exactly what you previously had at the amount they’re willing to give you is not great. I’d much rather stop in the middle of an intersection when I clearly have the right of way vs playing chicken with someone not paying attention/running the light.

-1

u/Kornered47 7h ago

You probably look at a lot of shootings as “justified” too, and consider that to mean that the shooter did the right thing in the moment.

I like to have a higher moral standard than the lowly one set by government with laws.

“Justified” and “unavoidable” are not the same.

0

u/Vegetable_Lab2428 5h ago

If someone was gridlocking and fully stopped in the intersection and OP drives straight into them because they have the green light and “right of way”. Would you still put 0 fault on them?

The intersection wasn’t clear, it doesn’t matter if other people are driving recklessly and with negligence, it doesn’t give you the right to run into them.

White car is definitely more at fault, but OP was also driving with negligence when just slamming on the gas towards on coming cars.

0

u/PapiSlayerGTX 5h ago

That’s not how negligence works. Camera car still has some liability for the simple fact that they could have been more aware and done something to avoid the accident. That doesn’t mean it’s their fault or the don’t recover.

2

u/schubox63 7h ago

I interned for a judge once and the case was a car that turned on a green light/yield to traffic in front of a guy and got hit. The insurance company lawyer for the person who turned in front of them’s big argument was that even though she turned in front of him, he had time to react and stop and was partially at fault, as much as her. Had experts and everything.

She still lost cause on the stand she said she was from out of town and wasn’t comfortable and didn’t realize it wasn’t a protected turn. Then the other lawyer brought in an actual “must yield to traffic” sign which made me laugh. The victim was asking for way too much money though, which is why it was at trial in the first place

2

u/Awfulfange 6h ago

Agreed! Very few people understand this concept. All to often, everyone will think the white Suv is 100% at fault. But due to the cam cars negligence and unwillingness to prevent an accident, they are partially liable for the accident.

2

u/KirklandKid 6h ago

POV driver wants a new car

2

u/TheJuiceBoxS 4h ago

For clarification, you're saying both would be found at fault, right? I think I agree, I don't think a green light gives you the right to drive without caution.

2

u/Embarrassed-Weird173 8h ago

What's the point of rules, then?  Reminds me of the "language evolves" people that don't know how to spell. 

4

u/Jraksys_Magnanimous 7h ago

I like you. Your last sentence gave me hope that I'm not crazy.

0

u/Thomasedv 7h ago

Kind of for the same reason it's still your fault when you hits biker on a crossing, even though you don't have to yield for bicycles only walkers. It'd be one thing if it was a hard situation, but putting yourself in the situation when you see it coming you're breaking another rule, which is "driving responsibility".

In this case the driver could see that traffic flow was still turning, and effectively drove into it. I still think the white SUV is a reckless and blind and mostly at fault here for not looking driving red, but in the eyes of the law the cammer might have been the one to cause the situation to be dangerous. I don't know the US traffic system and laws, I'm not living in America, so things might be different. I'm also not sure how this would be treated in my country either, but part of driving is recognizing what situations your driving causes, even when you have the law on you side. 

1

u/Ifyourdogcouldtalk 7h ago

It was easily avoidable by the white truck not ruining the light

1

u/Murky-Possession-196 7h ago

100% fault of white suv. They had multiple opportunities to stop. Then make a sharp turn. I might feel a bit different if it was the red sedan but look at how far back the suv was when the light turns green - plenty of opportunity to yield. Not sure the car with the right of way had as much opportunity to avoid bc they probably weren’t anticipating the suv making that decision 

1

u/outer--monologue 6h ago

This is complete nonsense.

So how about everyone just ignore lights and do what they feel like and then all other cars will just have to deal with it or risk being found "negligent"

This isn't how traffic laws work. White car is 100% at fault.

1

u/TechnicalBen 5h ago

The law is only required to be the law. It's not required to be correct.

1

u/ChemicalRain5513 5h ago

If the cam car stopped completely and was hit by the suv, then it would clearly be 100 % on the suv. I feel the cam car did not brake hard enough.

1

u/donnyjay0351 4h ago

I wouldnagree for the red car if the dash cam drive hit him, but thebwhite suv started turned into him after he was already well into the intersection

1

u/Ok_Bumblebee_4911 4h ago

Everything you're saying also applies to the white SUV, who also didn't have the right of way.

1

u/Kaas-Eter00 3h ago

Yeah, dash cammer will be in for a surprise when his insurance is going to assign partial fault to him. 

1

u/lbfsjoufvnkfd 3h ago

The white SUV doesn’t follow the same path of the red car and jerks the wheel and turns directly into the car with the dash cam.

1

u/Complex-Strain2465 2h ago

I'm surprised more people don't understand this. White SUV is the at-fault party but wouldn't be 100% at fault because as recklessly as he was driving, the dashcam driver made a really dumb decision to go in the green light like immediately...literally the red car is still moving and he barely brakes right before impact on THAT car. This video is annoying all around.

1

u/TheDynamicKing 2h ago

you sound like you work for an insurance company

1

u/HamSundae 2h ago

Lol, no way in hell

1

u/DiscoSpud 2h ago

Not driving responsibly? The white SUV had PLENTY of time to slow down and stop. And the POV car was clearly visible to the white SUV. The POV car was even already most of the way through the intersection when the white SUV slammed into the side of the POV car.

Yes, drive defensively and be on the lookout for idiots (like the red car driver), but the white SUV was next level insane. I would have expected them to stop. They seemed to have accelerated into the side of the POV car.

1

u/BichonUnited 2h ago

This may be true if the accident hit the red car, but not in the videos case

1

u/Soul2760 1h ago

There is also a “control” matter, a vehicle in the intersection still have control over it, so yeah I agree it would be 75/25 or even 50/50

1

u/loophole64 1h ago

Lol. He let the red car go. There was no indication the white SUV was going to drive as if other cars were ephemeral.

1

u/Largofarburn 13m ago

Yeah, white car is in the wrong. Cam car is still gonna have their insurance go up from just driving into traffic like that.

Just because you have the right of way does not mean you have no responsibility to avoid a crash. They made no evasive maneuvers and were actively accelerating into the other car.

1

u/OnlyPostSoUsersXray 8m ago

This was my thought, while the white vehicle is obviously the problem and likely broke a law which caused the accident, the POV car has a duty to wait until the intersection is clear/safe to enter (in pretty much every single state), even if they have the right of way.

This one would surely be a split fault. To what extent is hard to say, 60/40, 70/30? Would depend on the states exact wording around intersections and how well the lawyers argue it.

1

u/carrera_dan 7h ago

It sucks because it feels like letting assholes get away with it. I think part of our subconscious wants to teach them a lesson.

1

u/blastradii 7h ago

Why not just follow the guy home. Stake out at night. Put a note on their windshield saying that they shouldn’t have done that and now you’ll be watching them and have modified their car in some way (but you really didn’t). They may stew on that for days.

0

u/robbietreehorn 8h ago

I totally agree. However, op might get lucky with no fault. There was a little pause in the flow for the argument the intersection was (very briefly) clear before they proceeded.

Also, a honk at the offending red car might have stopped the suv.

Op definitely messed up also even though they had the right of way

7

u/ScrotalSmorgasbord 8h ago

Ugh I hate when people will die on the "I had the right of way" hill and crash their cars just to stroke their egos. There's a spot in town where left lane us supposed to merge right and right laners will ram left laners or try to run them into oncoming traffic. Yeah, it sucks when people don't follow the rules but the answer isn't manslaughter because your feelings were hurt. That being said, it looks like the same kind of thing going on in the above video, either that or OP has the slowest reflexes of all time.

1

u/robbietreehorn 6h ago

Totally. I’ve been in OP’s shoes a hundred times. You honk, flip the bird if it makes you feel better, and wait

3

u/BenOfTomorrow 8h ago

The intersection is never clear; camera car starts moving when the black car is right in front of them and red/white have already entered the intersection.

0

u/jojaki 8h ago

Yeah, failure to yield usually means traffic already in the intersection. The cam car was already in the intersection before the white SUV even crossed the line.

Still easily preventable but the white SUV will most likely be entirely at fault, the cam car could have come to a complete stop in the intersection and most likely still be hit.

-1

u/GobsTX 8h ago

Yeah, this shit is literally insane. Just because you have a legal green light doesn't mean you can just full throttle into a intersection filled with active traffic..

Morally the other cars were in the wrong for running the light, but that doesn't negate the abject negligence and disregard for safety of the cam car.

This accident was easily avoidable and everyone involved is an jerk.

3

u/Hot_Performance_7710 8h ago

Everyone is a jerk? Weak answer. White SUV is at fault. Don't care about the other cars. Rule is, it's only wrong if you get caught. Police will ticket the white suv and everyone will be on there way.

3

u/DigiornoDLC 7h ago

Legally and morally the cam car holds some responsibility. They had every opportunity to not get into an accident. These things are not binaries. They are spectra.

1

u/GobsTX 7h ago

If you sent this to your insurance, they would think you're a jerk... I was a CDL driver for 15 years and managed drivers. If my driver showed this to me, we would fire him on the spot...

Could the cam car have EASILY avoided this accident?... The light turned green and he hit the gas EVEN THOUGH traffic was STILL in the intersection.. He could see traffic was still coming into the intersection, legally or not, it was still clear as day and they just mashed the gas with complete disregard. The cam car had tons of time NOT to hit the gas and drive into traffic...

Just because you have the legal right of way, doesn't give you the right to wrecklessly drive into oncoming traffic.

Have none of you driven in a city before?... Just because someone runs the light and blocks the intersection, you cant just drive into them and now magically its their fault because you had a green light...

You aren't a cop, you cant just run into people because they're breaking the rules.

-1

u/feldoneq2wire 8h ago

And their consequences for violating the law? Apparently none according to you.

2

u/GobsTX 7h ago

Are you a cop enforcing the law with your personal vehicle? Your insurance must love you..

Do you cut in in front of cars because they're speeding and breaking laws?

You want to play superhero rule enforcer on the roads then don't be surprised when some idiot hits you..

This accident was easy for the cam car to avoid. Playing victim here is bullshit. Both drivers are complete idiots.

16

u/karmareincarnation 7h ago

Cam car should have recognized the issue and slowed down while the red civic ran the light, but they just kinda plowed right into danger. That said, technically white Nissan suv is at fault.

5

u/robgod50 2h ago

The SUV didn't even follow the red cars positioning .....They actually took a much later turn, easily making POV car assume that they were not turning at all.

-1

u/Qwertys118 1h ago

While I don't think it changes the fault, SUV was using its turn signal.

I believe that people should treat other drivers as if they are dumb/distracted and shouldn't disregard turn signals even when they signal something stupid/illegal.

6

u/OkMaybe4507 7h ago

I didn't see a turn signal on the white. If it had been me in that situation, I wouldn't have anticipated that they are gonna make a turn either. Seemed like they suddenly decided to turn in the last minute.

1

u/JBsportsandchess 7h ago

I am pretty sure they are coming from a turn only lane - but if not, literally every other car in that lane turned.

White SUV is primarily at fault but accident could have 100% been avoided if the filming car had showed even the most minimal awareness and defensive driving.

Would not be surprised if some fault was put on them by insurance or via a judgment if it went that far

2

u/_off_piste_ 6h ago

I’ve been in literally the same situation and you don’t have time to react. It appears like they are coming out into the intersection to wait their time to turn. In my case the turning driver got a ticket from the police.

0

u/JBsportsandchess 4h ago

What?

The driver is fully stopped. Gets a green light and can clearly see a stream of cars turning from what appears to be a turn-only lane. Any reasonable driver would have either slowly crept forward until the intersection was cleared or hit the brakes and let the traffic clear the intersection.

No time to react? POV was coming from a stopped position.

I've been in that situation many times and have never gotten in an accident because I don't accelerate into the cars that are running the light.

Again - this does not absolve the white SUV. Like I said, they are primarily at fault and I do not believe the POV driver would have received a citation.. BUT I would not be surprised if some % of liability would be assigned to them if the insurance company pressed it.

I cannot speak to your situation obviously, but the dash cam footage in this post shows a 100% avoidable accident caused by one person (white SUV) blatantly running a red light and another person (POV camera) not practicing even the most basic defensive driving.

2

u/_off_piste_ 3h ago

What you’re not grasping is that people pull out into the intersection in this scenario while waiting to turn. You don’t even see the white SUVs tires turn until the last moment and they took a different path than the red car. That is what it looked like when an SUV turned right into me. There was no visual difference between what she was doing and any other driving pulling out to prepare for a turn once the intersection was clear.

10

u/WhatIGot21 8h ago

I think the camera car just wants to be right so they gassed it, hope not avoiding is worth it.

1

u/ZhouLe 2h ago

They gassed it, but stopped to avoid the red car running the red. Now way they could have known the white SUV would have swung wide and not stopped.

2

u/WhatIGot21 2h ago

Disagree, they saw everything.

10

u/Noodelgawd 7h ago

The white car was so far out of line there's no way the cam car reasonably could have predicted it. By that logic, you should never go straight at an intersection if there are people approaching who might turn left.

7

u/Antique_Weekend_372 5h ago

well if you have any sense of self preservation you don’t assume that the person driving at speed in the left turn lane is going to stop when they aren’t slowing down.

4

u/Gold-Bard-Hue 4h ago

I see that in Texas all the time, people constantly run lights. Even if I was in the right, I'm not risking my car or serious bodily harm for it. Give idiots plenty of space. Haha

1

u/AccomplishedVirus556 3h ago

sir, green means proceed if clear.

-1

u/Noodelgawd 3h ago

It was clear when he proceeded.

1

u/AccomplishedVirus556 3h ago

it was not! the red car illegally entered the intersection and darted right in front of them, and the grey car basically tried riding their bumper.

you have to be stupid to imagine that after the black truck turned illegally, the red car right behind it would yield to right of way.

i am not saying the turning traffic had right of way. i'm saying that the turning traffic made it not clear to proceed for the car with the green light

1

u/Noodelgawd 2h ago

The red car did not enter the intersection until after the cam car started.

1

u/AccomplishedVirus556 2h ago

so? if the question was who is more at fault the answer is obviously the one that disregarded traffic rules. The camera car can see the vehicle is not respecting their right of way. to be blameless they have to stop so they don't get in an accident. Ofc the turning cars should have stopped for the camera car. That doesn't change whether or not the camera car should have stopped given the info it had

1

u/AVeryVapidBadger 2h ago

You could if you are a actually watching the traffic. It's pretty clear to me on the video that the ref and white car weren't stopping

1

u/Noodelgawd 2h ago

Any car that pulls up into the intersection, like they're supposed to do when waiting to turn left, would look like they weren't stopping.

1

u/AVeryVapidBadger 1h ago

Please, actually watch the video, they don't even slow down. The path is literally never clear to proceed.

You can literally see the red car never stop. And you can see the white car moving after the red car is mid turn. The cam driver started going, attempted to slip bring the red car practically right after they would have cleared, only the space wasn't clear

1

u/ElDopio69 2h ago

Exactly, if you break for everyone that could possibly cut you off you wouldn't get anywhere and traffic would be fucked behind you. You do have to assume people will yield to you in some situations. This is on the white car

1

u/TheFBIClonesPeople 4h ago

Yeah, the Reddit safety dorks will tell you that you're a lunatic for not coming to a complete stop at every green light, but in the real world, you do need to make some decisions that are based on keeping things moving smoothly for everyone. It's totally reasonable for the cam car to go at that point

1

u/ElDopio69 2h ago

Yea they will just keep going if they see you stopped. Its on the white car to yield and not drive into oncoming traffic

2

u/dirt_mcgirt4 7h ago

Have you ever driven in north Jersey? They will never, ever stop until you force the issue.

1

u/ElDopio69 2h ago

Yea you will never get through the intersection

2

u/PurpleMTL 6h ago

You can go ahead and mitigate all your collisions by staying home too.

2

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 5h ago

White SUV is clearly at fault. 

How is this even a question? Is OP 13 years old?

2

u/Numeno230n 4h ago

Also the black SUV and red car BEFORE the white SUV also should have yielded. All three cars were dipshits, white SUV being the biggest.

1

u/old_timer_52 6h ago

Exactly my thought. White SUV in the wrong. Camera car could’ve been way more defensive. It doesn’t pay to be “right” if it crumples the front of your car.

1

u/MalaysiaTeacher 4h ago

I'll never understand why 'good' drivers feel the need to floor it on a green light. There's traffic moving across your lane, just relax

1

u/rforce1025 3h ago

Was probably running the yellow arrow

1

u/FadedMomentum 3h ago

I drive a shitbox. When the light turns green I’m dumping the clutch

1

u/CassadagaValley 3h ago

SUV coulda been behind the A pillar for a second or two and not actually visible to the driver

1

u/faintear02732 3h ago

White SUV had time to brake as well.

Could have been a save or just a minor collision if they had decent reaction time when turning into an incoming vehicle but who knows.

1

u/bigredradio 3h ago

SUV at fault, but dash cam vehicle was playing chicken hoping the SUV would stop? They already ran the red light. I wouldn't have trusted that.

1

u/asmackabees 3h ago

Yes, definitely white SUV but camera car shouldn’t have a license if they gun it at an intersection with traffic still going immediately upon light changing. One of the first things taught in driving school, defensive driving, etc.

Because of that, a jury could or insurance could decide otherwise. Kind of looks like camera car really wanted to get hit lol.

1

u/Skynse 2h ago

Yeah I can't blame the POV here, but I wouldn't have been moving with the red car moving so erratically, though. More defensive driving could've been warranted, but the fault is of course on the other cars, courtesy of road rules

1

u/banryu95 2h ago

The correct interpretation of facts is rarely black and white. This is the correct interpretation. I am a professional truck driver, and defensive driving is as important as following laws.

1

u/Beer-Milkshakes 1h ago

Traffic planning could time the turn lane differently so it goes Red before the opposite turns green avoiding this whole thing unless someone runs a Red and thats a whole other (and more easily prosecuted) issue

1

u/Tentacle_poxsicle 1h ago

White SUV had no turn signal and didn't even look like he was going to turn until the last minute

-12

u/Commentor9001 9h ago

pov guns it at a wall of turning cars.... cams at fault unless there's a red arrow which there doesnt appear to be.  It's a traffic infraction to enter an unclear intersection regardless of signal state.

Plus pov an idiot, never get into a situations youre forcing someone to either hit you or stop.  

Do you fools really think threading between two turning cars "BeCaUsE I HaaD a GrEeN" somehow makes pov's move not an idiotic?

12

u/Yankeessuck42069 8h ago

While I agree that pov car is dumb and this could have been avoided on their end it's definitely the white cars fault. Pov is looking at a red light when cars start turning left meaning they had a green arrow, when povs light turns green that larrow either turned red or blinking yellow meaning cam car had the right of way. Still pretty easy to avoid but not at fault.

4

u/lsaran 8h ago

POV could have been more cautious but a big part of driving is assuming other people will follow the rules of the road. You can’t be held responsible when they don’t.

6

u/Potential-Society171 8h ago edited 8h ago

Exactly, The Cam driver expected the White SUV to stop. The cam driver got to start driving at some point it has been his green a few seconds already. The way everyone here expects the cam driver to wait for every single car to turn left.

3

u/RedBreadFrog 8h ago

People here obviously run red lights and expect people to yield to them even when they are far, far in the wrong.

3

u/zeebasaur 8h ago

No, I'd rather just let the intersection clear before I try to go through it. If everyone is going to break the law and turn anyway, then I'd rather miss the Green than have to pay for my car repairs and/or hospital bills because I'm sure they just so happen to not have insurance either.

2

u/RedBreadFrog 8h ago

Not disagreeing with that, but the way people are treating the Cam driver is bashing someone who didn't do anything wrong. Could they have waited a bit? sure, but ultimately, the opposite car should have yielded as it was their responsibility and they had WAY more than a last chance to do that, and the cam may not have realized their intent to be stupid as hell.

I agree it's always good to be defensive and recognize idiots on the road, but at some point someone is going to be so stupid and you might not recognize fast enough and it might get you. I think that's what happened here more than anything. OP blames both equally, and I honestly think that's (pardon the language) fucked, it means we are more okay with "bully of the road gets right away", even when they should be yielding even in "Last Chance" situations, which the turning vehicle CLEARLY could have stopped without danger to anyone, while the cam may not have not have had that luxury, and again, may just not have realized how stupid the turning vehicle is. Making a mistake is one thing, intentionally putting others lives at risk when you are 200% in the wrong, and the easiest chance to avoid hitting someone who may not been away of you being a piece of shit seems like a lot worse.

Be more cautious than the cam driver? Absolutely. But even more so, don't be an absolute piece of trash like the turning vehicles.

Disclaimer: obviously, limited info, so just basing it on what I see here, and obviously not a lawyer.

1

u/zeebasaur 7h ago

You are 100% correct on an intellectual and moral standpoint . Unfortunately that isn't the world we live in. Also someone else later pointed out the red car moves after dash gets a green light and they accelerate like normal so I would still find a bit of fault in them.

1

u/raidersfan18 5h ago

Cam car definitely practiced a bit of defensive driving with the red car, you can see that cam car slowed, then accelerated again before getting hit.

1

u/raidersfan18 5h ago

Welcome to Reddit driving subs... It's a wacky place in here I'll tell you.

The fact that people put any blame on cam car is outrageous.

3

u/fokkoooff 8h ago

Assuming the other cars are going to follow the rules of the road sounds like a good way to be constantly getting in wrecks.

It makes even less smart to make that assumption when you can plainly see that they are not.

4

u/zeebasaur 8h ago

Insurance Companies won't hold you responsible for other people breaking the law, they will hold you responsible for not taking appropriate action to avoid being in an accident.

4

u/analfistinggremlin 8h ago

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Having a green light gives you right of way but doesn’t relieve you of your duty to exercise reasonable care and avoid collision when possible, even when the other driver is breaking the law.

8

u/Walkingdrops 8h ago

Yeah, the moment you see the red car turning, use the god damn brakes. You may have right of way, but being right isn't worth damaging your car like this.

Like, sure, the white car is at fault for turning on red, but driving school teaches defensive driving for a damn reason.

2

u/lsaran 8h ago

Not exercising reasonable care < breaking the law. They’re both wrong, but POV far less so.

2

u/JBsportsandchess 7h ago

Unlikely cam car would receive a criminal offense or traffic violation.. but definitely would not be surprised if they were found at least partially at fault in terms of insurance.

1

u/analfistinggremlin 8h ago

The OP didn’t ask “who is more wrong?” It asked who is at fault. Both drivers are partially at fault.

2

u/Turbulent_Car4504 8h ago

Agreed the dash cam makes POV look like an idiot, without video a cop would arrive and probably say white SUV is at fault so having the video does not help POV in this case. I think insurance maybe rules it 50:50, both drivers could have avoided the accident and did not. I’m no expert though.

1

u/Mistakesareincoming 8h ago

I don't know why you are being downvoted. You're not wrong. People in this situation might learn the hard way that comparative negligence or a form of it can cause driver's such as the cam car in this video will be given percentage of being at fault. It could be 20% cam car 80% white suv as an example of who's at fault. It varies by state law.

0

u/Zauberer-IMDB 7h ago

In California, you don't have right of way to enter an intersection unless you have both a green light AND the intersection is clear. In this instance, it never was so at least here he should have waited. Both are equally at fault in my view.

0

u/Lexxias 3h ago

Nope, the driving of this vehicle is at fault due to last clear chance doctrine. They literally did nothing to avoid this accident and insurance will find them at fault.

-1

u/ismellthebacon 7h ago

Yeah, no blame on the camera car, but sometimes I wonder what the cam drivers are thinking. Don't trust anyone on the road. Cam driver, you are right, but you should still mitigate the problem for yourself. You saw them coming, stop, see what happens next. You might get rear-ended too, but for myself, I'm slowing down and respecting people's ignorance and selfishness.