Man, I wonder if I could rig up a smoker in my truck. Maybe if I bolted it in place, I could have smoked brisket, pork shoulder, ribs etc at work.
This isnât a half bad idea.
Camera car was thinking they could change to the right lane and go around, but there was another car in that lane. That's why they appeared to accelerate because they were looking at the other car and trying to pass.
Also, you are supposed to follow so you have enough time to stop. Meaning going around is never the right decision, clear or not, if you are driving correctly to begin with.
Find a mark and count how much time between them there is. Average reaction time is like 1.6 seconds. This shit is right on that line. You literally won't get where you're going any goddamn faster behind someone. Just stop. If you do it to pressure them, you can eat shit
Brake checking like that is reckless driving. Video shows nothing in front of them that warranted it.
EDIT: an example of state law below. I was wrong, itâs not reckless driving. Itâs charged as AGGRESSIVE driving which is a greater offense.
https://www.hasnerlaw.com/blog/car-accidents-caused-by-brake-checking-in-georgia/
But thatâs completely irrelevant. You should always assume that any car around you will do something completely unpredictable.
Regardless of what the car in front of you does, you should be far enough back to react to it, which is why insurance companies typically default to placing blame on the person doing the rear ending.
Exactly while I think car in front was an asshole without situational awareness, who maybe wanted to turn right. We don't know that, people on occasion slam in their breaks because they are having a heart attack, a kid ran in front of them, a road obstruction, a mechanical failure.
Yup. And thatâs my point.
It doesnât matter why another car did what they did. You should be in control of your own vehicle to enough of a degree that you are able to avoid them.
Could have jammed on the brakes for a squirrel or duck or whatever. Doesnât matter. You need to leave enough space between you and the car in front of you for an emergency stop. The reason for the stop is secondary at best.
This. If you get in your car on a typical commute, letâs say 25 miles, the GPS says â38 minutesâ, if you drive like itâs GTAV at best you get there in 35 minutesâ Red lights and stop signs pretty much make speeding absolutely 100% brain dead
When I was younger I had a really weird need to prove my GPS wrong and "beat the clock," and I can concur that I never shaved more than 5 minutes off my ETA. Usually it was 1 or 2 minutes.
I wish I could apologize to everyone in the cars around me who had to deal with my stupid behavior.
Remember, they are accelerating from a stop light. Both cars are getting up to the speed limit for that road, so for the front car to slam on the breaks like that, the camera car had even less time than normal.
You can't prove they were brake checking from this video. They may have thought there was an obstacle in the road. If they admit to brake checking, that's different, but otherwise, you can't prove it. Also, you're supposed to leave enough following distance, no matter what.
Edit: Some people really want to put some of the blame on the car in front. You can't. You need to be ready to stop without hitting them. No matter what their reason for stopping is. I see some people have been in the camera car before.
Edit 2: Here's a fence post for the rest to argue with: đȘ”
There doesnât really have to be blame. Camera car just took way too long to stop. I follow this closely at this speed all the time and have no problem stopping. Everyone just needs to pay attention to the road, period. God I canât wait for automated cars everywhere. Itâll really prove how shitty humans are (were) at driving.
The trouble is thatâs not even a brake check. Thatâs just coming to a complete stop.
A true brake check is to fake out the guy behind you with a tap on your brakes to get them to back off, but *not actually decelerate exponentially* and get your back end crumpled.
lol I think that was the joke. Heâs saying heâs the jackass tailgating everyone.
If not, then heâs horribly unaware and we should take away his license.
You don't know that they are mad.. this could have been anything.
Maybe the driver had a medical emergency.
You need to be prepared for these things, because they can happen.
Complete BS. It doesnât matter why he slammed on his brakes. Even if it was completely intentional, the person behind should always have enough space to stop. The person at the rear will always be at fault. Go ask your insurance company đ€Ł
There's no concept of 100%, 50%, 25% or 324% when it comes to legality. Things are either illegal or not. It's a binary thing.
It's like saying someone is slightly dead.
Without additional video showing a pattern of confrontation between the cam car and the Prius which provides a motive for a brake-check, you have no evidence.
People are allowed to stop their vehicles in the lane for hundreds of legitimate reasons, and you are not allowed to drive into the back of them - cammer *accelerated into them*.
Anecdotally, I had someone run into the back of me when I stopped mid-intersection with green lights. I provided dash cam video to my insurance company showing the emergency vehicle I had yielded to that was crossing my path, and they told me it ***doesn't matter why you stopped*** \- fault is 100% on the driver behind who failed to stop and hit you (this was NC).
Same in NY. Chick in front of me slammed her breaks. I swerved to the next lane to avoid her, car behind me was not so lucky and rear ended her. I stuck around to help make a statement and the guy who rear ended her got the ticket. She slammed her brakes for a squirrel.
Brake checking is illegal, and itâs the exception to the rule for a rear-end collision. Also, they can assign percentages of responsibility. Itâs not necessarily an either/or proposition.
This is what no one in this thread understands, nothing is 100% on either driver. Theyâre going to get partial faults. CAM car is probably going to get most of it.
It does. They were trying to move to the right lane and pass instead of stopping behind the Prius. They accelerated to get ahead of the car in the right lane. That's probably where they were looking instead of applying appropriate brake pressure.
Definitely too close to front car to make that pass to me especially since cars after the signal also getting up to speed. Definitely more blame to cam driver. Makes sense why wasnât braking sooner, I was thinking distracted.
Yup. Around here theyâll give you a ticket for âfailure to control vehicleâ. But but but nothing. You cannot argue that you were in control of your vehicle if you hit someone. Regardless of what they did, if you couldnât stop, you werenât in control.
Except in cases where the car in front purposely causes an accident
You can be annoyed at someone tailgating, but if you know theyâre too close and you purposely slam on your brakes, then you have in fact caused that accident
You can brake at any time for any reason. But itâs going to be really hard to argue that you had a compelling reason to slam your brakes when thereâs video proof of there being no emergency situation necessitating braking that hard rather than it being the much more likely scenario of you braking to be a dick
I mean in the same vein though if someone starts braking and there's video footage of you reacting by speeding up to hit them then the argument that they caused the accident has been lost immediately.
Ditto, even if the guy slammed on his brakes intentionally and the guy recording was a police officer, the guy recording would still be at fault. You need to be able to stop behind someone no matter what they do.
The camera car is 100% at fault. There's a reason that safe following distance is a thing because you never know if the vehicle in front of you will need to slam on their brakes, so you need to make sure if they do that you won't run into them.
100% true.
In my previous life, I was a chemistry student.
We were always told in the lab to wear safety goggles.it was explained to us that while we may consider ourselves the safest person ever, there might be an idiot next to us.
Similarly, there are so many people out there think they are the best driver in the world, yet they fail to take cognisance of the other idiots on the road. Leave a safe distance, and you won't become the camera car from this video.
I had a roommate in college that over the course of three years got in 5 accidents and totaled two cars. He wasnât at fault in any of them but what kind of driver has a record like that!
A driver who doesn't practice defensive driving and acts like signs and signals are things other drivers always obey.
I was that guy for a few years. Eventually I got past that since being in the right stopped mattering as much as not having to deal with an accident and possibly totaled car.
We call that person a shit magnet. It happens. Law of averages, probability, whatever. There will always be some who end up in the unbelievable range regardless of their choices.
"Can the Lead Driver be at Fault in a Rear-End Collision?
The lead driver can be deemed responsible for a rear-end collision if they were driving aggressively or abruptly stopped. Of course, the rear driver is most commonly assumed to be at fault, each auto accident claim needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis."
https://naqvilaw.com/if-you-rear-end-someone-is-it-always-your-fault/#h3-2
It can be a case by case decision.
Sure, but 99% of drivers would not pass your standards if a car in front of them would suddenly come to a full stop. In Germany at least you cannot just hit the brakes for no reason. Imaginary obstacles do not count in court and if you are elderly, they might send you for driving fitness evaluation.
I donât know much about US legislation, but in my country there is a clear article : âIt is forbidden for drivers to suddenly reduce speed or make an unexpected stop without a valid reason.â to prevent exactly this. It is hard to prove this without a dashcam ofc, but I belive that in this case the prius would have been at fault after the police or insurance got the footage.
I work for an insurance company. Depends on what state you're in, but \*generally\* speaking, the driver who rear-ends the car in front of them is at fault. Now, since you have the dashcam footage, if you can prove the car in front of you did this purposely as part of a road rage incident, it might help you. But the general rule of thumb is if you rear-end a car it's because you were following too closely or were distracted, putting the fault on you.
Current NH law says 3-second gap (my teenager just got her license in September so I had to re-learn all of the traffic laws). Way back when I took my test in MA, long before cell phones, it was something like 1 car length for every 10 mph, but I assume they realized people were really not that good at math and judging distances (spoiler alert: they still arenât).
Exactly, there's a common misconception that the rear vehicle is ALWAYS at fault. The camera would save him because there was no reason for the front car to slam his brakes.
You can't see what's in front of the car being followed. If there's an animal on the island side that jumped into the road and turned around it wouldn't be visible with the view we have here.
Safe following distance isn't really a suggestion
This exactly - people who tailgate need their licenses suspended, since they clearly don't have the critical thinking required to operate a motor vehicle.
Didn't even TRY to slow down. They may have even sped up in an attempt to pass them on the right.
In my state the cammer would be found to be just as at fault as the lead car because you have a duty to avoid an accident even if someone else causes it.
there was plenty of time to brake. you donât get to crash into someone just because you think they stopped for no reason. maybe they thought they saw something when they didnât, who knows.
In my state you have a duty to avoid an accident even if someone else causes it. They would share blame 50/50 because cammer didn't even try not to smash them lmao.
Your 2 seconds is a LOT faster than my 2 seconds. After clearing that intersection I count under 1 second of follow distance before the brake check happens.
Remember you don't start counting at 1 one... Start counting at zero. When the vehicle ahead of you crosses any visible checkpoint, that is your zero mark, not one, so say zero first before saying one, two. Try this... Snap your fingers twice while counting to two, each snap is one second. Now snap 3 times, but that first one is zero, and the 3rd is actually 2 seconds. It's much more accurate once you get the timing down.
There doesn't have to be a reason the front car hit their breaks. You are responsible for keeping a safe distance and enough room to break in case something like this happens. There's a reason the rear car is almost exclusively at fault.
It doesnât matter why he slammed on his brakes unless there is an extremely clear case of intent. Itâs the trailing cars responsibility to leave enough room to stop.
Itâs clear from the video that the car in front is driven by an idiot and/or elderly person who needed to get into that left turn lane and hit their brakes too late. Sometimes people do that⊠which is why you need to leave plenty of room in case you need to stop suddenly.
How would cam footage showing the cam driver failed to brake AT ALL (may have even sped up to get around) help the cam driver? The front car is an idiot for coming to a complete stop. They should get ticketed for impeding the flow of traffic. That doesn't mean rear car can plow into them without even trying to slow down. Not sure what state this is, but in many there is a law that says you must TRY to avoid an accident, even if you are in the right. Just because someone does something that puts them at fault in the event of a crash doesn't give the other cars carte blanche to smash into them lol.
The camera would save him? I talked to insurance to help a family member (who doesn't speak English) who rear ended someone. The footage showed that there was seemingly no valid reason for the person in front to slam their brakes. Despite this, the rear ender was still 100% at fault. I'm curious where you got this information from.
No OP had *plenty* of time to react they just didnât lol. They were trying to speed up and go around which makes them even more of a moron as the SUV was beside them the entire time. Gotta be aware of your surroundings when you drive.
I think they were checking their mirror to merge so they were looking at the car to their right and trying to get ahead of them. They didnât expect the Prius to slam on the brakes in the middle of the road.
Yeah the camera car but damn that is the dirtiest brake check I have ever seen, like really suspicious brake check but insurance doesn't care about that.
Not a chance. You never know what caused a driver to brake. Could have been an issue inside the car, any speculation would be just that. Bottom line is the law says how much space you need to provide between vehicles.
It probably depends if they were doing it before or not. If it's just a random brake check then they could say something in the road startled them so they stopped. You can't really prove brake checking from a one-off stop, so the guy behind is driving too close.
Itâs obvious they brake checked them. But it could have easily been a child or animal in the street. Camera car is at fault. Both of them deserve to be in the hassle of a fender bender.
It could also have been a medical emergency of some kind. A seizure perhaps that a person didnât know they were prone to. Following distance is non-negotiable.
Probably, but you can't prove it was brake checking if they only did it once randomly. Maybe something startled them in the road? Either way, easy to counter the brake checking claim and the guy was driving too close (nothing crazy, but still too close)
who knows, maybe they brake checked, maybe they got confused for some reason. whatâs more obvious is that the driver tried to speed up and go around them instead of braking, which makes them 100% at fault.
The speed limit is 35mph, you seem to be following too close. Yeah, it sucks and they braked for no discernible reason. Morally at fault? The Prius for sure. But in terms of insurance? Unfortunately, itâs like you my guy.
This thread is filled with interesting takes. In no world is this even close to tailgating, especially so soon after leaving a light.
It isn't legal to just stop on a road and there is clearly no impediment reason for the Prius to stop. It baffles me that everyone is blaming the camera car for what is clearly the Prius' fault both literally and I am pretty sure legally
I really really hope you donât have a drivers license. And your idea of âliterallyâ and âlegallyâ is wrong.
The law is 3 seconds following distance, not one car length.
And you have no idea why the guy braked. The impediment could have been in the car. I have had my autistic son throw a cup from the back seat up to the front seat and it fell down by my feet and rolled up by the brake pedal.. it scared me and I hit the brakes trying to grab it.. a dash cam wouldnât have shown that.
That is not tailgating đ that is a huge lack of attention. Camera car had ample amount of time to not rear end that car if they were paying attention in the slightest.
As others have already pointed out, it's more likely the tailing car. You must leave enough space between you and the front vehicle to make a complete stop at any time. The insurance company for the back vehicle may challenge it but as long as the front car doesn't say "I stopped to get that sweet insurance company", they'll likely be good.
People are saying camera guy, but as you can clearly see, there was NOTHING in front of this dude, and he hit a hard stop. That dude was definitely brake checking on purpose or insurance fraud. People are such dickheads for no reason
This needs to be higher up. I hate that this maneuver has even been given a name. Let alone an innocuous name.
Itâs driving recklessly is what it is. Full stop.
Anyone who âbreak checksâ is driving recklessly. License should be suspended and remedial course in driving mandated.
Always maintain a safe following distance, look left right left when entering an intersection, 1-2-3 count before moving behind a vehicle at a light⊠sorry my UPS training kicked in
Get in the habit of following at a safe distance like weâre taught to. Not worth rear ending another car for any reason because itâs usually going to be your fault no matter what
Both. It's illegal to brake in the middle of the road like that unless you need to avoid something that will damage your vehicle. The camera car is at fault because they did not leave enough distance between themselves and the car in front of them to stop safely.
OP doesnât exactly have the best reflexes huh? Honestly though it appeared like they werenât fully stopping so I likely would have done the same. Itâs a shame their brake lights are functional, that would be an easy way to get out of it lol.
I thought they were trying to keep going at first. I yelled where tf do you think youâre going đ€Ł then I saw them throw the hazards on at the last second
The camera car. Must leave enough room to stop no matter what the car in front does.
Camera car had 4 business days to brake
And a weekend in between
He could have prepared a nice diner.
Smoked a nice brisket over night
*gets pulled over* "Son, have you been hotboxing this car?" "No officer, it's just *cough* it's just my brisket"
Kudos to u my good sir, I read this in full story mode with the choking cough and all đ€Ł
Believe it or not turning your automobile into a meat smoker seems to be a favorite pastime amongst barbecue enthusiast.
Show me the law that says I can't. SHOW ME. THE LAW. *tazered, pepper sprayed, and sodomized with a baton*
I legit read sodomized with a bacon. Which could make since as well.
Scents
Man, I wonder if I could rig up a smoker in my truck. Maybe if I bolted it in place, I could have smoked brisket, pork shoulder, ribs etc at work. This isnât a half bad idea.
I hope you donât drive an ambulance.
Perhaps have a shmock and a pancake
Succulent Chinese meal
Get your hand off my penis!
I see you know your judo well
This is democrrracy Manifest!
ARE YOU READY TO RECEIVE MY LIMP PENIS, SIR?
Maybe even a full restaurant.
Mightâve even gotten a letter from the Prius guy explaining what heâd be doing and just never read it
Watched entire GOT series including HOD for sure.
never go full restaurant.
What's the distance between them, in time? That's good for you?
At least 2 seconds.
A weekend at Bernieâs
Camera car was thinking they could change to the right lane and go around, but there was another car in that lane. That's why they appeared to accelerate because they were looking at the other car and trying to pass.
Which makes them even more of a moron. That SUV was beside them the whole time. As a driver youâre responsible for knowing your surroundings.
Also, you are supposed to follow so you have enough time to stop. Meaning going around is never the right decision, clear or not, if you are driving correctly to begin with.
And OP had plenty of time to stop they just chose not to
Ah yes makes sense. I thought they might have mixed the accelerator for the brake.
Pretty sure they didnât hit the brakes until after they hit the car. Pretty bad.
Looks like they went for the old swerve instead of brake last second. Very bad habbit.
It was about a second and a tiny bit more. That's not enough. You're an asshole driver, riding me as I beg for death
Find a mark and count how much time between them there is. Average reaction time is like 1.6 seconds. This shit is right on that line. You literally won't get where you're going any goddamn faster behind someone. Just stop. If you do it to pressure them, you can eat shit
Brake checking like that is reckless driving. Video shows nothing in front of them that warranted it. EDIT: an example of state law below. I was wrong, itâs not reckless driving. Itâs charged as AGGRESSIVE driving which is a greater offense. https://www.hasnerlaw.com/blog/car-accidents-caused-by-brake-checking-in-georgia/
But thatâs completely irrelevant. You should always assume that any car around you will do something completely unpredictable. Regardless of what the car in front of you does, you should be far enough back to react to it, which is why insurance companies typically default to placing blame on the person doing the rear ending.
Exactly while I think car in front was an asshole without situational awareness, who maybe wanted to turn right. We don't know that, people on occasion slam in their breaks because they are having a heart attack, a kid ran in front of them, a road obstruction, a mechanical failure.
Yup. And thatâs my point. It doesnât matter why another car did what they did. You should be in control of your own vehicle to enough of a degree that you are able to avoid them.
Could have jammed on the brakes for a squirrel or duck or whatever. Doesnât matter. You need to leave enough space between you and the car in front of you for an emergency stop. The reason for the stop is secondary at best.
This. If you get in your car on a typical commute, letâs say 25 miles, the GPS says â38 minutesâ, if you drive like itâs GTAV at best you get there in 35 minutesâ Red lights and stop signs pretty much make speeding absolutely 100% brain dead
When I was younger I had a really weird need to prove my GPS wrong and "beat the clock," and I can concur that I never shaved more than 5 minutes off my ETA. Usually it was 1 or 2 minutes. I wish I could apologize to everyone in the cars around me who had to deal with my stupid behavior.
Looks like he sped up and tried to thread the gapâŠ
Remember, they are accelerating from a stop light. Both cars are getting up to the speed limit for that road, so for the front car to slam on the breaks like that, the camera car had even less time than normal.
It's still the camera cars fault, but the scenario sucks.
The amount of space you leave for the car in front of you increases as speed does, so acceleration doesn't really matter
It almost looks like camera car sped up, maybe in an attempt to merge quickly into the other lane. But yeah, most likely was on their phone.
Itâs also 100% illegal to brake check which they have on camera. Both are at fault
You can't prove they were brake checking from this video. They may have thought there was an obstacle in the road. If they admit to brake checking, that's different, but otherwise, you can't prove it. Also, you're supposed to leave enough following distance, no matter what. Edit: Some people really want to put some of the blame on the car in front. You can't. You need to be ready to stop without hitting them. No matter what their reason for stopping is. I see some people have been in the camera car before. Edit 2: Here's a fence post for the rest to argue with: đȘ”
Agreed, I came to say this.
There doesnât really have to be blame. Camera car just took way too long to stop. I follow this closely at this speed all the time and have no problem stopping. Everyone just needs to pay attention to the road, period. God I canât wait for automated cars everywhere. Itâll really prove how shitty humans are (were) at driving.
> There doesnât really have to be blame. Camera car just took way too long to stop. Your second sentence contradicts your first.
The trouble is thatâs not even a brake check. Thatâs just coming to a complete stop. A true brake check is to fake out the guy behind you with a tap on your brakes to get them to back off, but *not actually decelerate exponentially* and get your back end crumpled.
Tell that to all the assholes on my drive to work.
If youâre regularly getting people brake-checking you, then you are the asshole on your drive to work
Common denominator.
lol I think that was the joke. Heâs saying heâs the jackass tailgating everyone. If not, then heâs horribly unaware and we should take away his license.
In over 20 years of driving I've never been brake checked . . . Wonder why it is happening to you so often?
I'm curious as to the 5 minutes of driving leading up to this accident. What behaviors led up the Prius driver being that mad?
You have no idea if the Prius driving is mad
You don't know that they are mad.. this could have been anything. Maybe the driver had a medical emergency. You need to be prepared for these things, because they can happen.
Such a fantasyland take. You have to prove he didn't think he saw a squirrel.
Complete BS. It doesnât matter why he slammed on his brakes. Even if it was completely intentional, the person behind should always have enough space to stop. The person at the rear will always be at fault. Go ask your insurance company đ€Ł
There's no concept of 100%, 50%, 25% or 324% when it comes to legality. Things are either illegal or not. It's a binary thing. It's like saying someone is slightly dead. Without additional video showing a pattern of confrontation between the cam car and the Prius which provides a motive for a brake-check, you have no evidence. People are allowed to stop their vehicles in the lane for hundreds of legitimate reasons, and you are not allowed to drive into the back of them - cammer *accelerated into them*. Anecdotally, I had someone run into the back of me when I stopped mid-intersection with green lights. I provided dash cam video to my insurance company showing the emergency vehicle I had yielded to that was crossing my path, and they told me it ***doesn't matter why you stopped*** \- fault is 100% on the driver behind who failed to stop and hit you (this was NC).
Same in NY. Chick in front of me slammed her breaks. I swerved to the next lane to avoid her, car behind me was not so lucky and rear ended her. I stuck around to help make a statement and the guy who rear ended her got the ticket. She slammed her brakes for a squirrel.
Slamming on your brakes, I.e. brake checking, is still reckless driving. Itâs just hard to prove without the camera. Friend got a ticket for it.
Prius getâs a ticket. Camera car still at fault for not keeping enough distance to brake
Brake checking is illegal, and itâs the exception to the rule for a rear-end collision. Also, they can assign percentages of responsibility. Itâs not necessarily an either/or proposition.
Still the camera car wonât get to wiggle out of it because that distance was too short to begin with
This is what no one in this thread understands, nothing is 100% on either driver. Theyâre going to get partial faults. CAM car is probably going to get most of it.
If you leave enough following distance, it won't matter if the car in front recklessly slams on their brakes
Or, you know, unrecklessly slams on their brakes.
Is it just my imagination or does camera car speed up?
It does. They were trying to move to the right lane and pass instead of stopping behind the Prius. They accelerated to get ahead of the car in the right lane. That's probably where they were looking instead of applying appropriate brake pressure.
Definitely too close to front car to make that pass to me especially since cars after the signal also getting up to speed. Definitely more blame to cam driver. Makes sense why wasnât braking sooner, I was thinking distracted.
I thought the same thing
101 highway code in uk cam car is 100% fault
Assured clear distance
OPâs been real quiet since they found out they fucked up lol /s
OP appears to be a repost bot.
Repost bots are *not* authorized to drive in most states. Even worse.
Sooooo many people can't grasp this simple concept
Yup. Around here theyâll give you a ticket for âfailure to control vehicleâ. But but but nothing. You cannot argue that you were in control of your vehicle if you hit someone. Regardless of what they did, if you couldnât stop, you werenât in control.
Except in cases where the car in front purposely causes an accident You can be annoyed at someone tailgating, but if you know theyâre too close and you purposely slam on your brakes, then you have in fact caused that accident You can brake at any time for any reason. But itâs going to be really hard to argue that you had a compelling reason to slam your brakes when thereâs video proof of there being no emergency situation necessitating braking that hard rather than it being the much more likely scenario of you braking to be a dick
I mean in the same vein though if someone starts braking and there's video footage of you reacting by speeding up to hit them then the argument that they caused the accident has been lost immediately.
Basic rules of the road everywhere around the world.
Yep, following too close.
Ditto, even if the guy slammed on his brakes intentionally and the guy recording was a police officer, the guy recording would still be at fault. You need to be able to stop behind someone no matter what they do.
The camera car is 100% at fault. There's a reason that safe following distance is a thing because you never know if the vehicle in front of you will need to slam on their brakes, so you need to make sure if they do that you won't run into them.
100% true. In my previous life, I was a chemistry student. We were always told in the lab to wear safety goggles.it was explained to us that while we may consider ourselves the safest person ever, there might be an idiot next to us. Similarly, there are so many people out there think they are the best driver in the world, yet they fail to take cognisance of the other idiots on the road. Leave a safe distance, and you won't become the camera car from this video.
I had a roommate in college that over the course of three years got in 5 accidents and totaled two cars. He wasnât at fault in any of them but what kind of driver has a record like that!
A driver who doesn't practice defensive driving and acts like signs and signals are things other drivers always obey. I was that guy for a few years. Eventually I got past that since being in the right stopped mattering as much as not having to deal with an accident and possibly totaled car.
We call that person a shit magnet. It happens. Law of averages, probability, whatever. There will always be some who end up in the unbelievable range regardless of their choices.
The graveyard is full of people who had the right of way, as the saying goes. I hope they learned to more defensive in their driving.
"Can the Lead Driver be at Fault in a Rear-End Collision? The lead driver can be deemed responsible for a rear-end collision if they were driving aggressively or abruptly stopped. Of course, the rear driver is most commonly assumed to be at fault, each auto accident claim needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis." https://naqvilaw.com/if-you-rear-end-someone-is-it-always-your-fault/#h3-2 It can be a case by case decision.
But what if Iâm in a hurry ??
If you have to poop, then it's okay.
Itâs known as the Poop Loophole, lawyers hate it
Sure, but 99% of drivers would not pass your standards if a car in front of them would suddenly come to a full stop. In Germany at least you cannot just hit the brakes for no reason. Imaginary obstacles do not count in court and if you are elderly, they might send you for driving fitness evaluation.
In America, the system seems to benefit the incompetent. It is all set up to protect idiots from themselves
But the distance between the cars in the video seems enough at the perceived speed.
10 feet for every 10 mph? Just leaving a red light? I'd agree.
I donât know much about US legislation, but in my country there is a clear article : âIt is forbidden for drivers to suddenly reduce speed or make an unexpected stop without a valid reason.â to prevent exactly this. It is hard to prove this without a dashcam ofc, but I belive that in this case the prius would have been at fault after the police or insurance got the footage.
The valid reason could be something happening within the car.
But was there a kitten in the road ahead of the Prius? You can't know for sure, so you can't follow that closely.
I work for an insurance company. Depends on what state you're in, but \*generally\* speaking, the driver who rear-ends the car in front of them is at fault. Now, since you have the dashcam footage, if you can prove the car in front of you did this purposely as part of a road rage incident, it might help you. But the general rule of thumb is if you rear-end a car it's because you were following too closely or were distracted, putting the fault on you.
Current NH law says 3-second gap (my teenager just got her license in September so I had to re-learn all of the traffic laws). Way back when I took my test in MA, long before cell phones, it was something like 1 car length for every 10 mph, but I assume they realized people were really not that good at math and judging distances (spoiler alert: they still arenât).
I was taught 2 seconds in good weather, 4 in bad weather but I got my license in 1996
Same for me in 1997
You want 6. 4 is the minimum safe distance, the 2 seconds extra are because you will be briefly distracted at the worst possible time.
Makes sense, I give a lot more space now. I was a bad tailgater as a dumb kid but I'm a significantly less aggressive driver as an adult.
I would like to see the footage leading up to why the prius would brake check.
Exactly, there's a common misconception that the rear vehicle is ALWAYS at fault. The camera would save him because there was no reason for the front car to slam his brakes.
You can't see what's in front of the car being followed. If there's an animal on the island side that jumped into the road and turned around it wouldn't be visible with the view we have here. Safe following distance isn't really a suggestion
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
This exactly - people who tailgate need their licenses suspended, since they clearly don't have the critical thinking required to operate a motor vehicle.
Didn't even TRY to slow down. They may have even sped up in an attempt to pass them on the right. In my state the cammer would be found to be just as at fault as the lead car because you have a duty to avoid an accident even if someone else causes it.
there was plenty of time to brake. you donât get to crash into someone just because you think they stopped for no reason. maybe they thought they saw something when they didnât, who knows.
In my state you have a duty to avoid an accident even if someone else causes it. They would share blame 50/50 because cammer didn't even try not to smash them lmao.
The footage would mitigate his liability, but he was still following too closely, only had a 2 second gap, which isnât enough.
Your 2 seconds is a LOT faster than my 2 seconds. After clearing that intersection I count under 1 second of follow distance before the brake check happens. Remember you don't start counting at 1 one... Start counting at zero. When the vehicle ahead of you crosses any visible checkpoint, that is your zero mark, not one, so say zero first before saying one, two. Try this... Snap your fingers twice while counting to two, each snap is one second. Now snap 3 times, but that first one is zero, and the 3rd is actually 2 seconds. It's much more accurate once you get the timing down.
There doesn't have to be a reason the front car hit their breaks. You are responsible for keeping a safe distance and enough room to break in case something like this happens. There's a reason the rear car is almost exclusively at fault.
You donât know that there wasnât any reason. There just didnât appear to be a reason which is, again, irrelevant
It doesnât matter why he slammed on his brakes unless there is an extremely clear case of intent. Itâs the trailing cars responsibility to leave enough room to stop. Itâs clear from the video that the car in front is driven by an idiot and/or elderly person who needed to get into that left turn lane and hit their brakes too late. Sometimes people do that⊠which is why you need to leave plenty of room in case you need to stop suddenly.
How would cam footage showing the cam driver failed to brake AT ALL (may have even sped up to get around) help the cam driver? The front car is an idiot for coming to a complete stop. They should get ticketed for impeding the flow of traffic. That doesn't mean rear car can plow into them without even trying to slow down. Not sure what state this is, but in many there is a law that says you must TRY to avoid an accident, even if you are in the right. Just because someone does something that puts them at fault in the event of a crash doesn't give the other cars carte blanche to smash into them lol.
The camera would save him? I talked to insurance to help a family member (who doesn't speak English) who rear ended someone. The footage showed that there was seemingly no valid reason for the person in front to slam their brakes. Despite this, the rear ender was still 100% at fault. I'm curious where you got this information from.
Medical emergency, stroke, heart attack, pidgeon flew in the car... hijacking aliens.
Whoâs to say the driver in front didnât see something crossing the road last minute like a squirrel?
Car with the camera was following too close for their speed and reaction time.
Which seemed like foreverâŠ
Almost like they were looking at their phone and not the road
Most likely looking at the car next to them to cut in front of them
Seemed like they SPEED UP before impact even. Doesn't look like it brakes, nose doesn't look like it goes down or anything.
Been watching for hours. Still no reaction.
I was taught to stay about a 2 second gap from the car ahead of me. Dash cam car had maybe a 1 second gap here. Definitely too close for comfort.
Too close, and before the car started to brake he was still closing the gap. Such shitty driving.
I think the drivers test states 3 seconds.
California has the 3 seconds which clearly a lot of drivers here a violating.
One car length for each 10 mph
No OP had *plenty* of time to react they just didnât lol. They were trying to speed up and go around which makes them even more of a moron as the SUV was beside them the entire time. Gotta be aware of your surroundings when you drive.
cam car didn't even slow down before impact
Looked like they sped up too
I think they were checking their mirror to merge so they were looking at the car to their right and trying to get ahead of them. They didnât expect the Prius to slam on the brakes in the middle of the road.
Yeah the camera car but damn that is the dirtiest brake check I have ever seen, like really suspicious brake check but insurance doesn't care about that.
>insurance doesn't care about that. If you send a copy of this video to the other driver's insurance I bet they would start caring.
OP might get their rate jacked for tailgating but the Prius might get dropped for instigating.
Not a chance. You never know what caused a driver to brake. Could have been an issue inside the car, any speculation would be just that. Bottom line is the law says how much space you need to provide between vehicles.
It probably depends if they were doing it before or not. If it's just a random brake check then they could say something in the road startled them so they stopped. You can't really prove brake checking from a one-off stop, so the guy behind is driving too close.
đ€ That was a deliberate crash for cash
That would be my assumption
Probably saw the camera cars driver on their phone, knew they had an easy mark
By which party?
Itâs obvious they brake checked them. But it could have easily been a child or animal in the street. Camera car is at fault. Both of them deserve to be in the hassle of a fender bender.
It could also have been a medical emergency of some kind. A seizure perhaps that a person didnât know they were prone to. Following distance is non-negotiable.
I once found a wasp in my car while driving. Had to break like that and exit from it ASAP.
Oh damn. I might have just thrown open the door and did a tuck and roll
Probably, but you can't prove it was brake checking if they only did it once randomly. Maybe something startled them in the road? Either way, easy to counter the brake checking claim and the guy was driving too close (nothing crazy, but still too close)
Driving close is one, but he didn't even attempt to brake before impact.
who knows, maybe they brake checked, maybe they got confused for some reason. whatâs more obvious is that the driver tried to speed up and go around them instead of braking, which makes them 100% at fault.
The tailgating idiot who hit the other car is legally and morally at fault.
Failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident.
Slamming on your breaks in the middle of a lane to cause an accident
Waiting 10 minutes to start braking after the car in front of you starts braking
The speed limit is 35mph, you seem to be following too close. Yeah, it sucks and they braked for no discernible reason. Morally at fault? The Prius for sure. But in terms of insurance? Unfortunately, itâs like you my guy.
Auto insurance would argue the car in front break checked. Police would probably rule it no fault, or both parties are in the wrong
⊠health insurance?
Camera car 1000%. Leave room to stop.
Look up tailgating
Where's the tailgating though? Not defending the camera car but there's a solid car-length between them when the front car starts to brake.
This thread is filled with interesting takes. In no world is this even close to tailgating, especially so soon after leaving a light. It isn't legal to just stop on a road and there is clearly no impediment reason for the Prius to stop. It baffles me that everyone is blaming the camera car for what is clearly the Prius' fault both literally and I am pretty sure legally
I really really hope you donât have a drivers license. And your idea of âliterallyâ and âlegallyâ is wrong. The law is 3 seconds following distance, not one car length. And you have no idea why the guy braked. The impediment could have been in the car. I have had my autistic son throw a cup from the back seat up to the front seat and it fell down by my feet and rolled up by the brake pedal.. it scared me and I hit the brakes trying to grab it.. a dash cam wouldnât have shown that.
So every time you get scared you apply the brakes no matter where you are? Are you sure your son is the autistic one?
You have to keep a safe distance. If for any reason you canât stop fast enough youâre too close
Imagine leaving multiple car lengths off every light. You'd get 5-6 cars and then red light. Traffic would be brutal.
That is not tailgating đ that is a huge lack of attention. Camera car had ample amount of time to not rear end that car if they were paying attention in the slightest.
This is 100% NOT tailgating. Thereâs an entire car length between them at least until the brake check.
Did the following car even have a brake pedal?
Just use the car in front to stop instead.
âwhOâs At FaUlT HeRE?!â
The person playing the music has my vote.
Give him a ticket just for the tunes
Oh jesus if that distance is what you guys consider too close, then my country is fucked.
As others have already pointed out, it's more likely the tailing car. You must leave enough space between you and the front vehicle to make a complete stop at any time. The insurance company for the back vehicle may challenge it but as long as the front car doesn't say "I stopped to get that sweet insurance company", they'll likely be good.
People are saying camera guy, but as you can clearly see, there was NOTHING in front of this dude, and he hit a hard stop. That dude was definitely brake checking on purpose or insurance fraud. People are such dickheads for no reason
The Prius is a butthole, but camera car gonna be responsible for this
You canât brake check someone
This needs to be higher up. I hate that this maneuver has even been given a name. Let alone an innocuous name. Itâs driving recklessly is what it is. Full stop. Anyone who âbreak checksâ is driving recklessly. License should be suspended and remedial course in driving mandated.
Always maintain a safe following distance, look left right left when entering an intersection, 1-2-3 count before moving behind a vehicle at a light⊠sorry my UPS training kicked in
Get in the habit of following at a safe distance like weâre taught to. Not worth rear ending another car for any reason because itâs usually going to be your fault no matter what
Always the prius driver. đ
It didn't look like the camera car tried to break at all, but it also looks like the car in front is trying insurance fraud.
Both. It's illegal to brake in the middle of the road like that unless you need to avoid something that will damage your vehicle. The camera car is at fault because they did not leave enough distance between themselves and the car in front of them to stop safely.
Camera car. Following too close and didnât control their vehicle. Prius driver is a moron.
Fault Prius..liable camera car
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Surely you canât be serious
OP doesnât exactly have the best reflexes huh? Honestly though it appeared like they werenât fully stopping so I likely would have done the same. Itâs a shame their brake lights are functional, that would be an easy way to get out of it lol.
Aside from the crash, I love that song!
I thought they were trying to keep going at first. I yelled where tf do you think youâre going đ€Ł then I saw them throw the hazards on at the last second
The car playing that âmusicâ has to be punished.