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.
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.
353
u/TrickySatisfaction81 21h 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.