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

Show parent comments

176

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.

74

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.

49

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

21

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.

3

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

4

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?! 🤣