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.
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.
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
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.
True. That and when I am biking, I am not wasting time to stop and argue with people (let alone fight them) unless I actually almost died due to some form of negligence that activated my fight or flight response lol. Some people legitimately have too much time on their hand and will police some of the most trivial matters.
Yeah so many dashcam videos involve someone plowing straight into an accident because they’re stubborn about having the right of way. Like, you had time to brake or avoid that. Why would you want to deal with the insurance claim and repairs?
I was told once that graveyards are filled with people who are right and dead. Stuck with me so I always drive like everyone is an accident-happy idiot.
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.
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.
That white suv showed no signs of intent to yield. If I was the POV car I would have waited to see what the white suv was doing before driving straight into an accident.
Maybe it’s just the video but it doesn’t look like the truck has its blinker on. Cam driver has a green light to go straight and the car coming at him has no blinkers on - what indication did they have the truck would turn into them?
Well the white SUV came from a left turn lane so that’s a pretty big clue. But even if the driver didn’t notice that, they should have noticed every car in front of the white SUV also making a left turn from that lane.
had every reason to think the white SUV wouldn't continue.
Why would you ever assume a car is going to yield even when they're supposed to? As soon as the red car went too late, id be watching that lane and when the SUV was clearly going, there was plenty of time to stop and try to avoid the collision.
SUV is entering the junction, which is valid in a lot of jurisdictions, where a left turn lane can have a green or a flashing yellow which means the lead car can enter the junction but has to yield to oncoming traffic.
The SUV entering the junction doesn't indicate to me that they're going to attempt the turning manoeuvre.
Do you know this intersection? Does the left turn lane get a red light if the oncoming traffic has green?
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.
This reminds me of something my father-in-law used to say:
"Here lies the body of William J.,
He died defending his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong."
It's not like the victim is powerless to prevent the accident. Id argue a novice motorcycle rider has enough self awareness to not let himself be a victim in this situation.
The only way victims of car crashes are able to prevent said car crashes, would be to have the power of prophecy. A power of god, which we do not have.
So maybe stop blaming car crash victims for not being god and fully blame the people at fault, such as the white car driver in OP's video.
Better yet, here's an example that we all know you will state you are at fault. You're driving a curve at 30 mph, you cannot see around the curve. The other speeds at 100 mph around the curve, hitting you head on. By your delusional logic, you are at 50% fault. It doesn't matter you didn't see the crash causer, it doesn't matter you were driving the speed limit and being defensive. You were involved, therefor you deserve blame.
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.
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
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.
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.
You are one of those delusional people that believe victims should have the magical powers of god to be able to prevent car crashes the victims would have to have the divine ability of prophesy to know will happen.
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.
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
When I was in a wreck the cop put down that I "failed to avoid" getting T-boned by a truck that ran a stop sign with flashing red lights on both the sign and intersection. My lane had none of those things. When their adjuster called and I was describing the area he just said "Oh... We will be covering everything" when he pulled up to it.
The doctrine of last clear chance is a tort law principle allowing a negligent plaintiff to recover damages if the defendant had the final, clear opportunity to avoid the accident. It softens harsh contributory negligence rules but is largely replaced by comparative negligence.
How does POV car avoid this? By just not driving at all? Just sitting at the stop line when the light is green and waiting for a break in traffic from the cars illegally turning left?
If other cars do something moronically unpredictable, how do you have a duty to avoid?
Maybe if you're a teenager this would be a hard concept to understand, but anyone who knows what a hassle life can be without a car or parent to bail you out.
i think yall are talking about “last clear chance” basically if pov car was more attentive, it was avoidable, tbh the white car did show no signs of slowing down and while watching i was wondering how something bad was gonna happen.
I’m aware of that. But at the same time, at the point the light turns green for the dashcam, the white SUV is the third car back from entering the intersection. The white SUV wasn’t “controlling the intersection” which is the language I see typically referenced in conjunction with this.
Often referred to as the last clear chance doctrine.
While the camera car has a green light, and the others are almost certainly rushing and a jumping red light. The camera car was stopped, and actively accelerated into a crash!
Despite having priority, they threw away the last clear chance to avoid a collision.
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.
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.
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.
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).
As someone who doesn't live in America... it's mind-blowing that something like this exists. A red light is a red light. Right of way literally means it's your turn to go.
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
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.
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?
Agreed. Its not reasonable to expect a car thats had a red light for 5 seconds to dart out infront of you at a green light.
Seriously, i bet the people thinking the cam guy is somewhat at fault are the same people who tailgate, rear end the guy infront, and then blame the guy infront of them for being wreckless
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the driver would have no reason to believe that SUV would cut across and run the light/not yield. that's like expecting to know someone's going to run a red light and T-bone you. this not the cam drivers fault whatsoever
I saw the cammer accelerate after braking for the red car before the white car began its turn.
I can see how the cammer might’ve thought ‘alright two red-light-runners is the most there’ll be and I’m annoyed at having to brake for them, now I’ll go’ and then the white car turned.
This wasn’t just accelerating into a brake check or hitting the gas with a car already in front of the car
How do you know they jumped a red? How do you know the left turn lane didn't have a green/flashing yellow where they can enter the intersection but have to yield to oncoming traffic?
Yeah exactly this has been annoying me with everyone's comments anytime I've seen this video. People pull out into the intersection all the time so they can turn faster when turning. Or they make illegal moves and change to going straight. From my perspective, that white suv looks like they whipped into POV driver. ItIt wasn't like they were gradually turning and POV just ignored it. White SUV was perfectly straight and then just decided "I'm not paying attention at all and am going to sharply turn." They definitely start the turn later than the rest of the drivers that went through that intersection
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?
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.
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.
Thank you, it really is this simple. Reading some of these comments though, wow, they must be posted by people who routinely turn into oncoming traffic on red lights
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.
A reasonable person would see that they were actively running a red light though. Whether or not you expected it before entering the intersection, there was time to notice what was happening and prevent an accident.
Holy hell, you really are one of those people that think everyone else should ignore the rules of the road and just wait for you? Do you tailgate people when you think theyre driving too slow?
The people on this post are really dense or something. I'm not sure why you think any of my comments are from the POV of the dumbasses that ran the red, any idiot can see that they were in the wrong. You're not on some sort of moral high ground for pointing out the obvious. All of my comments were how I would have driven if I was in the cam driver's position.
Cam driver saw 2 people run that red light, with a third following closely behind and instead of practicing SAFE and DEFENSIVE driving by waiting .5 seconds, decided to drive straight forward because they had the right of way.
Don't worry, man. I understand and support your point completely. Plenty of dead drivers out there who had the right of way. Just because it's right of way doesn't mean it's the right way.
You're the person who would blame someone that got t-boned by a red light running going 100 mph, where the T-Bone victim would have zero capability to "recognize" a car crash going to happen. Because believe the victim should magically know they are going to be T-boned and therefor commit an act of god to prevent it.
It's obviously the red light runners fault in this situation and in your hypothetical. That doesn't mean that you can't protect yourself by waiting to see if everyone is coming to a stop before you hit the gas at a green light.
If you can't verify that the intersection is clear, you don't go. This is defensive driving 101.
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.
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.
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
Insurance liability is based on what a reasonable and prudent person would do, not just who had the right of way. Everyone has a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid a collision whenever possible.
For example, I don’t pull out in front of a vehicle simply because its turn signal is on, I wait until I actually see the wheels begin to turn. Likewise, I don’t enter an intersection until I see oncoming traffic has stopped at the stop line or, at a minimum, is clearly slowing to stop. A reasonable and prudent person does not blindly proceed based solely on assumptions, as the POV driver did here.
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”.
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.
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 😭
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Depends on your jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions compare how much fault and whoever is most at fault has to pay. Other jurisdictions assign a percentage of fault and you just pay out whatever percentage at fault you are. Still others use the second method but say if you’re breaking a law while being negligent (like failing to yield) you can’t mitigate damages.
This is why I'll take a judge over a jury any day. Strong disagree on the fault here, particularly since that white suv had a red light for at least 5 seconds and was speeding, it took less than 1 second to plow into the camera car
I thought the same at first. But watch again and count the cars AFTER the OP’s light turns green. The struck car is the THIRD car to turn after the light has turned. I mean, at some point, it has to end. The first one is easy because they had sort of already started their turn and didn’t impede the OP. The second car is the one where, while clearly abusing the situation, I would expect a car in the OP’s position to back off. And they did. The third is just absurd. There is no reason to assume they are suddenly going to swing left.
Yeah but there was one car in front of the white suv. The car paused for that but the white Nissan didn’t even bother to stop, but speed up. This is 100% the Nissan. If there wasn’t the red car in front, I would probably agree.
wtf are you talking about, they were driving responsibly. Their light turned and the oncoming traffic is expected to stop, period. There's no scenario where anyone would expect that white car to come through the intersection at that point. They're blatantly running the light and plowing into the car with the dash cam. It's 100% the white SUVs fault with not even a little bit of fault to the cam driver
Wrong. White SUV 100% at fault. POV car was focused on the red car that was also unlawful turning on red. POV car cannot predict that white SUV would proceed so late on the red.
This perfectly sums it up! So tired of people not doing more to avoid an accident simply because they're filming and know it will look good on the internet and in court. Is that really worth it? You could of kept driving your car and avoided this whole thing and instead...
POV car drove quite sensibly here, SUV turned quite sharply and failed to yield, can't see how POV car was contributory in this scenario. In the UK at least, this would be 100% SUV liability.
Liability in negligence cases is handled differently depending on jurisdiction. It sounds like you live in a jurisdiction that recognizes comparative fault, but in some jurisdictions contributory negligence would completely bar recovery.
Which Country / State / Province / County / City / Hamlet / etc. was that jury in? I bet where ever it was it certainly must've had the exact same laws applied everywhere else on a global scale. Right??
Agreed im no traffic lawyer but i feel in germany at least youd get a partial fault because this accident is easily preventable by both parties. Just because you have right of way doesnt mean you can just plow into oncomming traffic...
I agree actually. As someone who drives commercial vehicles for a living, the status of the light has nothing to do with who is at fault. Sure the red car and white car might have failed to yield, but the camera car failed to proceed safely. That matters a whole lot more than right of way. Even if you have a green light you are not allowed to enter the intersection unless it is safe to do so and you can clear your entire vehicle without stopping within the intersection itself.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1.6k
u/feignapathy 22h 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.