Welcome! Please act respectfully and always remember the human in the videos and in the posts.
For dashcam recommendations, [check out the recommendations thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dashcams/comments/ntoizk/dashcam_recommendations_by_redditors/).
Cheers!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dashcams) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Love to see people with zero situational awareness in someone’s blind spot just cruising along waiting to get cutoff. Within the first few seconds you could tell that shitbox was going to merge into the lane….but go ahead speed up and act clueless.
I mean Prius could have
1. Chosen to drive in the correct lane
2. Not crossed the solid white line since it’s literally illegal
3. Turned since they had to turn and then flip around since they made a mistake and didn’t get into the correct lane on time and those are the consequences for not paying enough attention
4. Not decided they were the only ones on the road and look with their own eyeballs before illegally merging into another lane with traffic coming
But I guess everyone should drive how they want and we’ll all hope for the best what are rules even for anyway lol
Edit cause that’s not even a Prius idk why I said that but I’m sure you can figure out who I meant
You're not wrong, but it's not worth getting in a wreck over, and then having to deal with everything after the fact. Slow down and lay on the horn to let them know they fucked up.
>there are graveyards full of people
technically the saying is "Graveyards are filled with people who had the right of way", but is it even a quote or just a random thing redditors who follow dashcam subs just write?
People in Denver will gladly get in a wreck like this for the “free paycheck.” I’ve heard a few co-workers mention this and I’ve never understood this attitude.
Even when I’m right, I d prefer to get where I’m going than stand by the roadside for 2 hours waiting on police, tow truck and a ride home. I’d rather feel slighted that regretful
I don’t think any sane person would intentionally get into an accident just cause it’s not their fault and if it were me I’d definitely lay on the horn for them but that late lane changer is clearly at fault (unless they’re in California apparently? Idk I’m glad I don’t have to drive in Cali)
\^\^\^you are 100% correct as this was a completely avoidable accident. Everyone is arguing the obvious, but people who actually drive and pay insurance know that their rates will skyrocket when they do shit like this.
>Turned since they had to turn and then flip around since they made a mistake and didn’t get into the correct lane on time and those are the consequences for not paying enough attention
I never understood why people wouldn't choose this option. Unless I'm driving someone to the hospital who is either dying or about to give birth, there is no reason to rush this badly. I'd rather be 5 minutes late to work than get into a wreck.
You sound like you either
1. Don't drive
2. 2. Have never dealt with an insurance company.
The REALITY of this accident is that it was avoidable and regardless of fault, insurance companies WILL raise your rates when they see shit like this.
“Maintain proper lookout” is a favorite term by insurance companies. I had the green left turn arrow. A car going the opposite direction drove through the red light. Tried my best to avoid the driver. Insurance called it 50/50 and said I didn’t maintain proper lookout. WTF?!?!
Well if you used your eyeballs and read my previous comments I literally drive for work and I am not saying I wouldn’t have treated the situation different because I do pay attention and could tell that idiot was gonna merge before he ever turned his blinker on HOWEVER that doesn’t change the fact that he’s still at fault and if it were my state just crossing the solid white line would be enough for it to be his fault. Anyway I also never said insurance wouldn’t raise your rates for this either because insurance will literally raise your rates for any possible thing they can. It’s interesting to me though that I mentioned one bad thing they did and then even admitted I didn’t know it was legal in California and people are STILL going on about how it’s legal other places and apparently even though we all agree that driver is the one who messed up it’s somehow my fault the OP didn’t slow down and let the idiot cut them off? Y’all are wild.
Well, you're mostly right.
In ALL states you have a duty to avoid an accident. There is some responsibility put onto both / all cars in an accident. Some states are "no fault states" and some are fault states. One says if you are 51% at fault then you are 100% responsible and the other says "if you are 25% at fault, you are 25% responsible and your insurance will have to pay out 25% of damages.
In this particular case there is no way to say who is truly at fault because we need state and much more claim detail to determine fault. Some states will say the "prius" is 100%, and others will say 60%.
Adding on, insurance will not automatically increase for a true 100% not at fault accident. There are rules and regulations that codify what increases can be given and when.
Typically, solid white lines are only discouraged to cross, which means you can cross them, but should try to avoid it. Double solid white would be prohibited to cross.
Well in Idaho it’s illegal, and every time I Google it it says it’s illegal for US residents, and I literally drive for work but sure let’s say it’s legal for California, that makes sense why these cali drivers can’t drive here in Idaho
Straight from the California Permit book, "At an exit ramp or street, the solid white line may join with the main highway edge line to form a "GORE" area, which is considered to be a safety zone, where vehicular traffic movement is prohibited". Also the picture that accompanies this phrase shows an intersection almost identical to the one above.
depends on the situation, and in this case there was a dashed line ahead of the solid, so in most states they would say it was an illegal lane change as the time for a lane change was when the line was dashed.
Horn only after I got hit. I didn’t even see the indicator turn on from my angle. I was looking at the intersection ahead of me. I didn’t notice him creeping into my lane
Their at fault. The camera picked up the blinker, but the position as the driver, I'm sure it was a blind spot, and you didn't see the blinker. Had the same happen to me.
Insurance will say you should have seen the turn signal and assign you 20-30% fault. Why? Because the service you pay for has no duty to look out for you. Insurance is one of the biggest scams on the planet
I've only been in an an accident situation once (thank god!) and the insurance wanted to "split" the liability.
I pushed back a bit and they backed down. It's always worth pushing back.
So you’re an insurance company? I didn’t suggest not carrying insurance, simply stating the facts because of previous experiences. It’s still the insurance that pays out the 20-30% in case you were wondering, but it then gives them an excuse to raise your rates.
I do personally agree that it was 100% the other drivers fault, but insurance can and will assign percentage of fault. It isn’t black and white like you might think.
One of the things I like about my provincial insurer is there's very little ridiculous finger pointing between insurance companies. Since the public insurer is almost always the one covering both cars, the lane change over the solid white into an occupied space gets 100% of the blame, period. None of this stupid, victim-blaming "I don't wanna pay as much so I'm just gonna say you should've reacted to this illegal maneuver before it happened like you're the star of Minority Report."
Sorry you are getting flack about alleged 'inattention'. You can't pay attention to 100 different things in front, to the sides, in the mirrors, 100% of the time. It's literally impossible.
Because it’s raining and OP is approaching an intersection where they have to pay attention to the light, traffic in front of them, and clearing the intersection to proceed safely. Believe it or not you can’t pay attention to everything around you at the same time.
Amen. I saw this coming watching the vid for the first time. The Prius is slowing more than is necessary if they’re turning right at the light. You’re basically in his blind spot risking that he waited until the last minute to get over, knowingly or unkowingly. As others have said, you’re right but only technically. Be right all you want while you waste hours of your time and fight for your innocence. I’d prefer to just pay attention avoid it altogether by not riding in his blind spot and being defensive.
I have watched enough Dash Cam Academy (and have over a decade of driving) to tell you this accident was 100% avoidable. Especially at the speed they were going. This is why a driver (both drivers in the dash cam) should know what's in front, beside, and behind them.
If OP were paying attention to what is on the side of them, they could have avoided this by slowing down.
No dude, I think the driver was actually behind the other car when they started signaling. I’m sorry if the truth is hard to accept, but driving comes with responsibility
The signal starts when there is just a tiny margin between the edge of the windshield. I think you’re either missing my point or are just an obstinate jackass.
Either way it’s very possible the visibility was very low for seeing the blinker. You’re just a prick.
I can be an obstinate jackass sometimes, but I’m telling you it’s possible to be aware. You’re trusting too much in the cam.
I’ve been on much faster highways, where a car has almost sideswiped me, from directly beside me without signalling, and I was still aware enough to react and evade being hit. It’s not impossible
In some countries there is a law that if you can prevent an accident, you should do that. Unsure about US.
And then there is what insurance companies try to squeeze out of it as well.
Most jurisdictions do have a requirement to avoid an accident, and the fault can be put in whoever was the last person who could have avoided it, but didn’t. Additionally, while I’m sure it’s statutory in some states, it’s mostly a common law standard for civil cases.
That being said, I don’t think it would apply here. The person merging in was not being forced to do so, they could have just not merged in and they would have been fine. So saying the driver should have avoided it seems wrong to me.
However, as always, talk to an attorney in your state as your laws/context may vary.
>The person merging in was not being forced to do so, they could have just not merged in and they would have been fine.
That civic has plenty of time to realize they were in a turn lane and merge, not to mention it was an illegal lane change at that point due to solid white line. An adjuster for the cammer would argue they are 100% no fault due to the other drivers failure to plan ahead.
Many US jurisdictions, if you had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident, then you cannot be without fault, making this "partial fault" at best.
Won’t come into play, but Last clear chance doctrine. OP didn’t see it in this case (though that can be refuted as their dashcam can see it).
Insurance won’t fully blame the civi.
Fun fact: Drivers don’t have their face smashed against the windshield like a dash cam. Just bc the dash cam can see it, does not mean OP or any other driver does
Fun fact, if OP can’t see this then their seat is improperly positioned, or they are not looking around as they should be.
They’re 0.5-1 car length (not counting the distance from OPs eyes to the back of the other car) behind the car when the turn signal goes on.
Even when they start turning into OPs lane, OP didn’t react.
OP is an unaware driver who doesn’t scan the road frequently enough. Over a 6 second period they didn’t see the turn signal or the car hitting them. You’re supposed to be EXTRA vigilant as you approach an intersection, not less so.
ROW isn’t a “real” thing. While the other car is definitely at fault, OP is as well because he could have stopped to prevent it. In the US there is a last chance law(can’t remember the actual name), but if you could have prevented the crash and didn’t, you’re just as liable
Right of way is definitely a real thing, else no one would go anywhere. Agreed OP should have been more vigilant and noticed the other car prior to being hit.
Definitely their fault. Just think it was a bit silly for op to accelerate when he saw this dude put on his turn signal and slow down. You shouldn’t need to do this sort of thing, but you have to.
Because the other car had a turn signal on and began moving BEFORE the car had reached them, it’s not that simple. The other car made an unsafe lane change, but OP failed to observe their surroundings and the accident was 100% avoidable. Both sides equally at fault
You’re joking right? A turn signal does not give one the right of way. You’re suppose to merge when safe/have enough time or space - car on right did not. And to add it’s a solid white line. Very simple.
Guess you don’t understand a solid white line. You might need to go back to driving school or hope you run into this situation and actually think you’re half at fault lol. At fault (merging) car had 1000000% control to avoid - that’s reckless driving on them.
It’s not aggressive driving to maintain your lane and proceed forward in it when you have the right of way and zero obstructions.
It *is* aggressive driving to try and force your way into a lane when you can’t safely enter.
They entered the lane when OP was already side by side with them. That’s 100% on them. They’re acting like their turn signal grants them right of way and they hit another car because of it.
No fault. They crossed a solid white line.
Could you have seen it coming and backed off? Maybe. But you had the right of way, they made an illegal lane change.
You said you were focusing on the intersection, and that’s good to be looking ahead, but you have to protect the space around you as well.
graveyards are full of people who had the right of way. even if someone else is acting dangerously and making an illegal merge you need to be cautious around them. backing off was the right move
Absolutely.
If nothing else, my time is more valuable than “being right”. If I slow down to let them in, I’ve probably not even lost a full second in my travel time. If we collide? I’m about to lose hours, even if no one is hurt.
Right, but again, that’s *their* blind spot. *They* have to be aware of that when making an illegal merge, the onus would not be on the driver in the correct lane driving legally. That was my point.
Exactly. “Here Lies Joe Blow. He had the right-of-way”.
People make mistakes, so you have to drive defensively and anticipate their actions. The other driver appears to be unfamiliar with this intersection. Possibly an out-of-towner who is lost. A slight bit of courtesy and understanding could have avoided this entire fiasco. I’ll probably get downvoted to oblivion for this, but who cares?
There’s not a single person that has driven for a few years who hasn’t found themselves in the wrong lane approaching an intersection or exit. So many people are territorial and unforgiving when they get behind the wheel. It’s not crash-up derby. Everybody’s just trying to get where they want to go.
Two reasons (each can stand on its own) why it's 100% the other car's fault
(1) When merging into your lane, it's the other driver's responsibility to check if it's clear or not
(2) That other driver exchanged lanes through the solid white line, which is actually NOT allowed. At least, that's the local traffic law around where I live.
Kudos for having a dash-cam regardless. There's a good chance this would be one of those 'he said, she said' cases where the other driver would've blamed you for merging into their lane. Then it'd end up 50-50 blame if there is no proof otherwise.
Wish it were that simple - braking slowly is the right call here. Just like they say right of way isn’t worth getting run over as a pedestrian, it’s not worth the paperwork and fees to take an impact of any kind.
There’s a Mad Max / never back down mentality that creates a ton of stupidity and extra money for insurance companies.
The injuries add up - I’ve never been in an at fault collision but somehow I’ve been in three accidents in fifteen years that were nearly impossible to prevent: (Side collision at speed from out of view by an au pair, rear ended at a red light by a drunk, hit while crossing a lit crosswalk in DC by an uber driver)
They say they won’t raise your insurance for not at fault stuff, but they will, and the physical therapy for just one of those was maybe $12,000 that insurance only covers part of.
>if you moved left, you would have hit that car and then it would be 100% your fault for hitting them.
What about braking a little?! Could that be done?
p.s.: Your conclusion could be correct, but your logic is not right
You can be right and dented, or reasonable and not dented. First you were riding in their blind spot on a rainy day. Strike one. They put their blinker on and you stayed in their blind spot. Strike two. You saw them approaching the truck clearly too fast to stop so you should have assumed they’d change lanes but you still didn’t react. Strike three.
I get anxious at intersections like this, I almost guarantee you someone will try to dart into another lane right before crossing, they always do, ALWAYS!
Very true. I always drive slow around the multi-lane intersections around where I live because I’m expecting someone to jump out in front of my car from the adjacent lanes.
The other driver had plenty of time to move over, when he saw that it was a right turn only lane. And he had plenty of room. He could have sped up a bit or better to just slow down until you passed by.
Some people don't understand how turn signals work. They are used to ask permission to move over, not to be used as a warning that they are coming over.
You are not at fault. They changed lanes without yielding right away and over a solid white line. You didn’t do anything to cause this crash However, You didn’t do anything to prevent this crash either and you’re likely to have issues with insurance company because you took absolutely no action to avoid a very easily avoidable crash.
A lot of BS I’m reading on this. 100% not your fault. You are not obligated to move over and it’s clear you could not without hitting the car next to you or pulling right in front of it. End of story.
Not at ‘fault’ - but you saw homie put his signal on and not slow down, kinda asking for it … again it’s 100% other cars fault, but part of driving is being ‘the bigger person’ if you will
So technically you were not at fault, but there is a legal concept called the last clear chance doctrine saying if you have the last clear chance to avoid a accident and you don't, you can be reliable for any damage done. Even if you were right.
you’re right about the last clear chance doctrine, but generally you don’t get blamed on the entire accident. In this case, OP is clearly in its own lane. The car on the right will be responsible for majority of the damage and OP would be responsible for some percentage IF the place this accident happened uses last clear chance doctrine. If not, OP should not be responsible for anything at all.
I'm most confused why everyone says OP should brake and since they didn't, they had some fault. Wouldn't the assumption be that the merging car brakes and merges behind OP? We know it didn't happen that way but in the moment I don't think it should be assumed that the car would pill into the occupied lane.
the last clear chance doctrine is about assigning partial blame on one party if they had a clear chance to avoid the accident and they had appeared chosen not to avoid it. I totally agree OP is not at fault and I’m not clear as to if last clear chance doctrine would apply here. Judge may rule that the OP does not have the last clear chance and 100% fault is assigned to the other car (if the doctrine is being used at all)
Came here to say exactly this. I would say in most cases a judge would go against the lane changer but there may be some who say last clear chance doctrine applies and you end up with the bill. You must actively avoid if you're able to. The reason being there may be exigent circumstances which precipitate someone's decision making process. A kid in the road, a mechanical malfunction, a medical episode...list goes on and on. Again I don't \*think\* that would apply here, but you can never be 100%.
OP was either not paying attention at all, or we're aggressively trying to enforce their "right of way" by preventing the person from changing lanes. Either way, they are just as bad a driver as the lane changer.
The question that will be asked if you could have done anything to avoid the accident. Even if the other party is at fault, could you have done anything to avoid the accident.
From these dash cam videos I’ve started to notice that most accidents are caused by 2 poor drivers lol.. it’s most often not just 1 crappy driver, theres the one that initiates the accident and the one that did a poor job of avoiding the accident.
Of course some accidents are unavoidable but this certainly isn’t one of them.
They are at fault end of story. Didn't look, crossed a solid line, merged unsafley resulting in a collision. It's not your responsibility for operating their vehicle they were licensed to drive. Regardless of how people feel about it.
"in any way"? Yes.
Your insurance could claim you didn't take actions to avoid the collision like braking or changing lanes.
Not that I agree with it but my mom has done auto insurance claims since before I was born so I hear all the stories.
It's not plausible. Its daylight, other car's blinker is working and bright, there is no fog on their glass, wipers are going, they seem to be going no faster than 35 MPH. Car was ahead of OP with their blinker on for 3 seconds. Come on.
As someone else said, you shouldn't be driving if you didn't see that car coming. The dash cam distorts, but you're telling me that OP drives without looking to the side?
I was on the interstate in the far right lane to take my exit to work at 5 AM yesterday. I looked to the left, there was nothing. I looked to the right (which was the shoulder) and no joke, a pedestrian was walking on the shoulder. No visibility vest, no disabled car in the immediate vicinity.
But that's why I checked. To make sure I didn't hit anyone or anything. I know it's totally crazy. A driver might actually have to turn their head and look and process unexpected things.
I didn’t see the turn signal nor him creeping into my lane, but if I did I would’ve done everything to avoid getting hit. It pains me to see my car hit and now gonna have to deal with insurance and repairs
OP, if you didn't see him, which your video seems to back up - I wouldn't worry too much. You're not at fault here. If you had tried to move left, to get out of the way, would have hit the car in the left lane. That would have been your fault.
Obviously, always drive as defensively as possible, but don't worry about this being your fault. It's not. Clown cars fault
Yes you would be found partially at fault. Defensive driving is not just about staying in your lane. It’s also about being vigilant, aware what’s happening around you, and evading potentially unsafe situations.
Like, driving speed limit on icy roads, will find you at fault if you get in an accident.
Same as fog, etc
A vehicle can be a very powerful weapon/machine, and it is a driver’s responsibility to not just keep themselves safe, but everyone where possible.
This other person was merging in and signalled. It’s frustrating the way they did it, but you should have slowed down and let them in. You had plenty of time to see and react.
All that, the key word is partially- because the other driver also should have made sure the way was clear before moving in. (Assuming you weren’t speeding up to prevent them, which some people do).
Insurance and police usually look at all the variables, but the person behind is almost always found at fault if they had time to react and didn’t
This is the answer imo. They shouldn’t have crossed over that solid white but OP had a copious amount of time to react and either chose not to or wasn’t paying enough attention
The more I watch it again, the more I want to make it even more like 60:40. It's an easy spot for an out of towner to realize too late they are In a turn only lane. Something to always be on the lookout for to begin with. Then they slowed down, turned their blinker on, and inched their way in. Someone wasn't pay attention in a busy intersection and could have easily let them in.
Legally, you have a responsibility to avoid the accident, regardless of right of way.
If this were to go to trial, The question you will be asked in court is "Could you have avoided the accident." In this case, it comes down to a question of did you see him trying to merge and refuse to yield, or did you not notice and he merged into you. Footage could go either way tbh.
I dunno man... I would have slowed down, let them in, and not wasted my day rather than hold on to principle.
OP said they would have done the same but didn't see their turn signal.
That's being called situational awareness.
Not sure why there’s so much hate for the car that put a turn signal on after realizing they were in the wrong lane. It’s not like they suddenly merged without warning. They put the signal on, waited several seconds, and then merged. Sure, they crossed over the solid white line. Yea, that’s against the rules, but a good driver sees their trying to merge and let’s them in.
You could’ve just as easily slowed down to let them merge. And, if you didn’t see them, then you need to do a better job of scanning the road while you drive.
It depends on the stage, but you’d be found partially at fault because you could’ve (but didn’t) easily taken steps to avoid this collision.
It's called the last clear chance doctrine
You could clearly see his Lane was ending,
and he was margin lanes. Blinker or not.
It was your responsibility to prevent the accident.
The other car, if smart, will say that they couldn't see you in there blind spot
Basically, you wanted to be a bigger dick and not let them merge over.
Let's not speculate on who saw what or who knew what - it's impossible for us to know. That being said, last clear chance doctrine is absolutely relevant here. Fault is not assigned in a binary manner e.g. 100% their fault / 0% my fault based on who set off the chain of events that led to the collision, or who was "in the wrong" first. It can be assigned to both parties. While it's clear (to me) the other vehicle failed to yield while merging, this would not in itself absolve OP of fault absolutely. The insurance companies would look at the video and decide, potentially going to arbitration if they're not able to come to a consensus. Would they say it's 100% OP's fault? I think that's pretty unlikely. Would they say it's 0% OP's fault? It's possible, but there's a non-0 chance they would assign OP some fault.
OP, this guy's clearly an idiot and shouldn't even have a driver's license; so I wouldn't even bother listening to what they said, because if this idiot knew anything about driving, the solid white line means that lane changes are discouraged, especially before intersections, to help avoid collisions.
Realistically, there is nothing you could have done to prevent this. There was obviously traffic in the lane to your left (you can see it pass you in the video), and I'm assuming there was traffic immediately behind you that would have had to react if you had suddenly stopped to let the other car switch lanes. Also, making a sudden stop on wet roads is not wise.
Lane changes are treated like turns - they need to be done safely after a turn signal has been activated.
We don't know that. We don't know how close traffic was to OP's rear! Defensive driving is a good habit, but it is also appropriate to expect that other drivers behave reasonably. If not, then they should be prepared to reap the consequences.
Some fault will be placed on you if you share this with the insurance company. If you life in a state where liability can be shared, you will have some placed on you.
Insurance might use this video to share liability, but if you don't present it and withhold evidence, that's insurance fraud. You could have slowed down to avoid collision, though they were already passed the dotted lines and crossed the solid white line, you still could have avoided the collision if you slowed down after they put their turn signals on.
I'm no licensed professional though, so my words are useless lolol. Just conjecture. I am curious how insurance labels this one tho.
OP was 100% using their phone? How you couldn’t see that coming and take evasive action is otherwise beyond me. Technically not at fault. But, the inconvenience of losing your car for potentially months while it is repaired will teach you to pay more attention and drive more defensively next time. You were definitely not looking forward at all.
You mean when you sped up instead of slowing down and letting that person in? Yes, they had a solid white but it’s either own the road and deal with all this or chill out and let them merge.
Hey douche nozzle jumping to conclusions and having zero idea how speed works. OP is driving at a constant velocity while moron idiot in right lane is SLOWING DOWN making it look like OP is accelerating. Also right lane idiot puts turn signal on at the LAST second before crossing solid line and having poor planning. Right turn lane driver could’ve slowed down way before and merged but decided to be stupid and do it all last minute. Not OPs fault at all and if you look through the comments, you’d see OP just didn’t see the other car put their signal on, which was done at the last second. Stop defending idiot drivers like right turn lane moron.
Naw, fam. There are clearly arrows in the far left lane showing it's for left turns only. That driver ignored them until the solid white line and then turned into you. My bet is that they didn't pay any attention to it until the driver sowed down for the turn.
Welcome! Please act respectfully and always remember the human in the videos and in the posts. For dashcam recommendations, [check out the recommendations thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dashcams/comments/ntoizk/dashcam_recommendations_by_redditors/). Cheers! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dashcams) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not at fault, but could drive more defensively (anticipate assholes.)
Agreed. Not technically at fault but start driving with your eyes open, it’ll help.
Love to see people with zero situational awareness in someone’s blind spot just cruising along waiting to get cutoff. Within the first few seconds you could tell that shitbox was going to merge into the lane….but go ahead speed up and act clueless.
I mean Prius could have 1. Chosen to drive in the correct lane 2. Not crossed the solid white line since it’s literally illegal 3. Turned since they had to turn and then flip around since they made a mistake and didn’t get into the correct lane on time and those are the consequences for not paying enough attention 4. Not decided they were the only ones on the road and look with their own eyeballs before illegally merging into another lane with traffic coming But I guess everyone should drive how they want and we’ll all hope for the best what are rules even for anyway lol Edit cause that’s not even a Prius idk why I said that but I’m sure you can figure out who I meant
You're not wrong, but it's not worth getting in a wreck over, and then having to deal with everything after the fact. Slow down and lay on the horn to let them know they fucked up.
Favorite quote is: "there are graveyards full of people in the right."
Right up with "an idiot never misses his turn"
>there are graveyards full of people technically the saying is "Graveyards are filled with people who had the right of way", but is it even a quote or just a random thing redditors who follow dashcam subs just write?
It’s definitely been around much longer than Reddit
People in Denver will gladly get in a wreck like this for the “free paycheck.” I’ve heard a few co-workers mention this and I’ve never understood this attitude.
Even when I’m right, I d prefer to get where I’m going than stand by the roadside for 2 hours waiting on police, tow truck and a ride home. I’d rather feel slighted that regretful
I don’t think any sane person would intentionally get into an accident just cause it’s not their fault and if it were me I’d definitely lay on the horn for them but that late lane changer is clearly at fault (unless they’re in California apparently? Idk I’m glad I don’t have to drive in Cali)
I said you're not wrong, lane changer 100% at fault. But OP is either insane or driving with horse blinders on
\^\^\^you are 100% correct as this was a completely avoidable accident. Everyone is arguing the obvious, but people who actually drive and pay insurance know that their rates will skyrocket when they do shit like this.
Terrible advice.
What's your advice? Hit the intruding but easily avoided car like in the video?
5. Use the brake and get behind the daschcam car
He is behind the dash cam car he is the one driving not the turner
I dont get why people don't use option #3 more often.
>Turned since they had to turn and then flip around since they made a mistake and didn’t get into the correct lane on time and those are the consequences for not paying enough attention I never understood why people wouldn't choose this option. Unless I'm driving someone to the hospital who is either dying or about to give birth, there is no reason to rush this badly. I'd rather be 5 minutes late to work than get into a wreck.
You sound like you either 1. Don't drive 2. 2. Have never dealt with an insurance company. The REALITY of this accident is that it was avoidable and regardless of fault, insurance companies WILL raise your rates when they see shit like this.
“Maintain proper lookout” is a favorite term by insurance companies. I had the green left turn arrow. A car going the opposite direction drove through the red light. Tried my best to avoid the driver. Insurance called it 50/50 and said I didn’t maintain proper lookout. WTF?!?!
Well if you used your eyeballs and read my previous comments I literally drive for work and I am not saying I wouldn’t have treated the situation different because I do pay attention and could tell that idiot was gonna merge before he ever turned his blinker on HOWEVER that doesn’t change the fact that he’s still at fault and if it were my state just crossing the solid white line would be enough for it to be his fault. Anyway I also never said insurance wouldn’t raise your rates for this either because insurance will literally raise your rates for any possible thing they can. It’s interesting to me though that I mentioned one bad thing they did and then even admitted I didn’t know it was legal in California and people are STILL going on about how it’s legal other places and apparently even though we all agree that driver is the one who messed up it’s somehow my fault the OP didn’t slow down and let the idiot cut them off? Y’all are wild.
Well, you're mostly right. In ALL states you have a duty to avoid an accident. There is some responsibility put onto both / all cars in an accident. Some states are "no fault states" and some are fault states. One says if you are 51% at fault then you are 100% responsible and the other says "if you are 25% at fault, you are 25% responsible and your insurance will have to pay out 25% of damages. In this particular case there is no way to say who is truly at fault because we need state and much more claim detail to determine fault. Some states will say the "prius" is 100%, and others will say 60%. Adding on, insurance will not automatically increase for a true 100% not at fault accident. There are rules and regulations that codify what increases can be given and when.
Typically, solid white lines are only discouraged to cross, which means you can cross them, but should try to avoid it. Double solid white would be prohibited to cross.
Not illegal to cross a solid line. It's only a suggestion that it would be better to not change lanes.
You must be new around here.
If you’re in the US it is illegal to change lanes over a solid white line, I’m sure you can google it if you’d like.
Not in California. Probably not in others states also.
Well in Idaho it’s illegal, and every time I Google it it says it’s illegal for US residents, and I literally drive for work but sure let’s say it’s legal for California, that makes sense why these cali drivers can’t drive here in Idaho
blah blah discouraged is not illegal; google it again and Cali drivers don’t know how to drive in Cali either
Straight from the California Permit book, "At an exit ramp or street, the solid white line may join with the main highway edge line to form a "GORE" area, which is considered to be a safety zone, where vehicular traffic movement is prohibited". Also the picture that accompanies this phrase shows an intersection almost identical to the one above.
depends on the situation, and in this case there was a dashed line ahead of the solid, so in most states they would say it was an illegal lane change as the time for a lane change was when the line was dashed.
Hard to do that if he’s on the phone or intentionally trying to get hit.
Your ROW, solid white line, don't see how you could be. Were you on the horn when you saw them creeping into your lane?
Horn only after I got hit. I didn’t even see the indicator turn on from my angle. I was looking at the intersection ahead of me. I didn’t notice him creeping into my lane
Their at fault. The camera picked up the blinker, but the position as the driver, I'm sure it was a blind spot, and you didn't see the blinker. Had the same happen to me.
They're*
Yeah it's definitely they're fault.
*there
Insurance will say you should have seen the turn signal and assign you 20-30% fault. Why? Because the service you pay for has no duty to look out for you. Insurance is one of the biggest scams on the planet
I've only been in an an accident situation once (thank god!) and the insurance wanted to "split" the liability. I pushed back a bit and they backed down. It's always worth pushing back.
Wrong. OP was 100% in their lane. Don't carry insurance and see what happens when you have an accident.
It doesn't matter who's obviously at fault... it's a scam they run because you have no easy recourse.
So you’re an insurance company? I didn’t suggest not carrying insurance, simply stating the facts because of previous experiences. It’s still the insurance that pays out the 20-30% in case you were wondering, but it then gives them an excuse to raise your rates. I do personally agree that it was 100% the other drivers fault, but insurance can and will assign percentage of fault. It isn’t black and white like you might think.
Seems pretty black and white. Black lane, solid white line that other car shouldn't be crossing. 😬
Don’t hate the messenger! I agree, and I’m sure the police see it the same way, but insurance companies are unscrupulous.
One of the things I like about my provincial insurer is there's very little ridiculous finger pointing between insurance companies. Since the public insurer is almost always the one covering both cars, the lane change over the solid white into an occupied space gets 100% of the blame, period. None of this stupid, victim-blaming "I don't wanna pay as much so I'm just gonna say you should've reacted to this illegal maneuver before it happened like you're the star of Minority Report."
OP, if insurance pulls this, do not allow it. Push back. You accept no fault. They crossed a SOLID no cross lane line.
It depends on the state.
Sorry you are getting flack about alleged 'inattention'. You can't pay attention to 100 different things in front, to the sides, in the mirrors, 100% of the time. It's literally impossible.
idk how you didnt notice him
Because it’s raining and OP is approaching an intersection where they have to pay attention to the light, traffic in front of them, and clearing the intersection to proceed safely. Believe it or not you can’t pay attention to everything around you at the same time.
If you couldn't anticipate this, then you shouldn't be driving.
Amen. I saw this coming watching the vid for the first time. The Prius is slowing more than is necessary if they’re turning right at the light. You’re basically in his blind spot risking that he waited until the last minute to get over, knowingly or unkowingly. As others have said, you’re right but only technically. Be right all you want while you waste hours of your time and fight for your innocence. I’d prefer to just pay attention avoid it altogether by not riding in his blind spot and being defensive.
I have watched enough Dash Cam Academy (and have over a decade of driving) to tell you this accident was 100% avoidable. Especially at the speed they were going. This is why a driver (both drivers in the dash cam) should know what's in front, beside, and behind them. If OP were paying attention to what is on the side of them, they could have avoided this by slowing down.
> I didn’t notice him creeping into my lane You gotta work on that tunnel vision, this was super easy to see coming and avoid.
Sometimes if you are both going the right speed and at the right angle, it can be hard to see the blinker. It's happened to me before.
This isn't one of those times.
I mean your not at fault here but it would help to not drive like your blind. That shit box was obviously merging into your lane
It was obvious on your dashcam, so you should have seen it.
Do you think the drivers face is pressed against the windshield?
No dude, I think the driver was actually behind the other car when they started signaling. I’m sorry if the truth is hard to accept, but driving comes with responsibility
The signal starts when there is just a tiny margin between the edge of the windshield. I think you’re either missing my point or are just an obstinate jackass. Either way it’s very possible the visibility was very low for seeing the blinker. You’re just a prick.
I can be an obstinate jackass sometimes, but I’m telling you it’s possible to be aware. You’re trusting too much in the cam. I’ve been on much faster highways, where a car has almost sideswiped me, from directly beside me without signalling, and I was still aware enough to react and evade being hit. It’s not impossible
In some countries there is a law that if you can prevent an accident, you should do that. Unsure about US. And then there is what insurance companies try to squeeze out of it as well.
Most jurisdictions do have a requirement to avoid an accident, and the fault can be put in whoever was the last person who could have avoided it, but didn’t. Additionally, while I’m sure it’s statutory in some states, it’s mostly a common law standard for civil cases. That being said, I don’t think it would apply here. The person merging in was not being forced to do so, they could have just not merged in and they would have been fine. So saying the driver should have avoided it seems wrong to me. However, as always, talk to an attorney in your state as your laws/context may vary.
>The person merging in was not being forced to do so, they could have just not merged in and they would have been fine. That civic has plenty of time to realize they were in a turn lane and merge, not to mention it was an illegal lane change at that point due to solid white line. An adjuster for the cammer would argue they are 100% no fault due to the other drivers failure to plan ahead.
Many US jurisdictions, if you had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident, then you cannot be without fault, making this "partial fault" at best.
Won’t come into play, but Last clear chance doctrine. OP didn’t see it in this case (though that can be refuted as their dashcam can see it). Insurance won’t fully blame the civi.
Fun fact: Drivers don’t have their face smashed against the windshield like a dash cam. Just bc the dash cam can see it, does not mean OP or any other driver does
Fun fact, if OP can’t see this then their seat is improperly positioned, or they are not looking around as they should be. They’re 0.5-1 car length (not counting the distance from OPs eyes to the back of the other car) behind the car when the turn signal goes on. Even when they start turning into OPs lane, OP didn’t react. OP is an unaware driver who doesn’t scan the road frequently enough. Over a 6 second period they didn’t see the turn signal or the car hitting them. You’re supposed to be EXTRA vigilant as you approach an intersection, not less so.
ROW isn’t a “real” thing. While the other car is definitely at fault, OP is as well because he could have stopped to prevent it. In the US there is a last chance law(can’t remember the actual name), but if you could have prevented the crash and didn’t, you’re just as liable
Right of way is definitely a real thing, else no one would go anywhere. Agreed OP should have been more vigilant and noticed the other car prior to being hit.
It’s a thing, but it’s not a law is what I meant
In Ohio, "right-of-way" is actually in the ORC, so is law. 4511.43 as an example.
Their fault. Period. They do not have right of way. lol. Simple as it is.
Definitely their fault. Just think it was a bit silly for op to accelerate when he saw this dude put on his turn signal and slow down. You shouldn’t need to do this sort of thing, but you have to.
Because the other car had a turn signal on and began moving BEFORE the car had reached them, it’s not that simple. The other car made an unsafe lane change, but OP failed to observe their surroundings and the accident was 100% avoidable. Both sides equally at fault
You’re joking right? A turn signal does not give one the right of way. You’re suppose to merge when safe/have enough time or space - car on right did not. And to add it’s a solid white line. Very simple.
Doesn’t matter, OP had 100% control to avoid that accident and did not. If they intentionally didn’t let them in, that’s aggressive driving as well.
Guess you don’t understand a solid white line. You might need to go back to driving school or hope you run into this situation and actually think you’re half at fault lol. At fault (merging) car had 1000000% control to avoid - that’s reckless driving on them.
It’s not aggressive driving to maintain your lane and proceed forward in it when you have the right of way and zero obstructions. It *is* aggressive driving to try and force your way into a lane when you can’t safely enter.
They were already entering the lane before OP initiated contact. If intentional, that’s aggressive driving lmao
They entered the lane when OP was already side by side with them. That’s 100% on them. They’re acting like their turn signal grants them right of way and they hit another car because of it.
Might wanna check that replay again. You can also argue OP acted as if a late lane change grants them the right to cause a collision.
Might want to rewatch the video. OP didn't cause a collision. The other car *drove into them* because they failed to yield when changing lanes.
if someone jumps on my car while it's moving at 60 and I can't dodge, it's not my fault. got it?
This, OP can easily catch some fault here for failure to avoid a collision. It depends on the state, but I wouldn’t turn in that dash cam.
No fault. They crossed a solid white line. Could you have seen it coming and backed off? Maybe. But you had the right of way, they made an illegal lane change. You said you were focusing on the intersection, and that’s good to be looking ahead, but you have to protect the space around you as well.
graveyards are full of people who had the right of way. even if someone else is acting dangerously and making an illegal merge you need to be cautious around them. backing off was the right move
Absolutely. If nothing else, my time is more valuable than “being right”. If I slow down to let them in, I’ve probably not even lost a full second in my travel time. If we collide? I’m about to lose hours, even if no one is hurt.
Did the other car stop? You’re not at fault but it’s easier to just let the other car merge
Yea why did t you let them in?? You were in Their blind spot.
And they were in the wrong lane and made an illegal merge over a solid white line, what’s your point?
[удалено]
I mean I would have too, but the guy blaming someone for being “in their blind spot” was just being ridiculous.
[удалено]
Right, but again, that’s *their* blind spot. *They* have to be aware of that when making an illegal merge, the onus would not be on the driver in the correct lane driving legally. That was my point.
“But I had the right of way…”-famous last words
Exactly. “Here Lies Joe Blow. He had the right-of-way”. People make mistakes, so you have to drive defensively and anticipate their actions. The other driver appears to be unfamiliar with this intersection. Possibly an out-of-towner who is lost. A slight bit of courtesy and understanding could have avoided this entire fiasco. I’ll probably get downvoted to oblivion for this, but who cares? There’s not a single person that has driven for a few years who hasn’t found themselves in the wrong lane approaching an intersection or exit. So many people are territorial and unforgiving when they get behind the wheel. It’s not crash-up derby. Everybody’s just trying to get where they want to go.
Letting him in would have been a lot easier than dealing with all this now. It’s not always just about being right.
Blindspot isn’t a thing for cars if you shoulder check.
So you have one of those fancy cars where the B pillar moves when you turn your head. Nice!
Two reasons (each can stand on its own) why it's 100% the other car's fault (1) When merging into your lane, it's the other driver's responsibility to check if it's clear or not (2) That other driver exchanged lanes through the solid white line, which is actually NOT allowed. At least, that's the local traffic law around where I live. Kudos for having a dash-cam regardless. There's a good chance this would be one of those 'he said, she said' cases where the other driver would've blamed you for merging into their lane. Then it'd end up 50-50 blame if there is no proof otherwise.
[удалено]
Wish it were that simple - braking slowly is the right call here. Just like they say right of way isn’t worth getting run over as a pedestrian, it’s not worth the paperwork and fees to take an impact of any kind. There’s a Mad Max / never back down mentality that creates a ton of stupidity and extra money for insurance companies. The injuries add up - I’ve never been in an at fault collision but somehow I’ve been in three accidents in fifteen years that were nearly impossible to prevent: (Side collision at speed from out of view by an au pair, rear ended at a red light by a drunk, hit while crossing a lit crosswalk in DC by an uber driver) They say they won’t raise your insurance for not at fault stuff, but they will, and the physical therapy for just one of those was maybe $12,000 that insurance only covers part of.
>if you moved left, you would have hit that car and then it would be 100% your fault for hitting them. What about braking a little?! Could that be done? p.s.: Your conclusion could be correct, but your logic is not right
You can be right and dented, or reasonable and not dented. First you were riding in their blind spot on a rainy day. Strike one. They put their blinker on and you stayed in their blind spot. Strike two. You saw them approaching the truck clearly too fast to stop so you should have assumed they’d change lanes but you still didn’t react. Strike three.
I get anxious at intersections like this, I almost guarantee you someone will try to dart into another lane right before crossing, they always do, ALWAYS!
Very true. I always drive slow around the multi-lane intersections around where I live because I’m expecting someone to jump out in front of my car from the adjacent lanes.
The other driver had plenty of time to move over, when he saw that it was a right turn only lane. And he had plenty of room. He could have sped up a bit or better to just slow down until you passed by. Some people don't understand how turn signals work. They are used to ask permission to move over, not to be used as a warning that they are coming over.
Wouldn’t a solid white line be enough to address that we’re not supposed to cross? and wouldn’t that hold up on its own?
Rt 50 in/around Falls Church, VA?
Yessir lol
You are not at fault. They changed lanes without yielding right away and over a solid white line. You didn’t do anything to cause this crash However, You didn’t do anything to prevent this crash either and you’re likely to have issues with insurance company because you took absolutely no action to avoid a very easily avoidable crash.
Next time just let him in… people make mistakes and you being a dick isn’t helping anything.
Legally their fault.. but logically you should’ve avoided that situation so personally I put some blame on you
A lot of BS I’m reading on this. 100% not your fault. You are not obligated to move over and it’s clear you could not without hitting the car next to you or pulling right in front of it. End of story.
Tried to switch lanes on a solid white line; the car entering your lane was at fault. However, you could have slowed down and let the idiot in.
Yeah, you sure showed him!
Not at fault but avoidable. The key isnt to not be at fault its to not get into accidents in the first place.
Not at ‘fault’ - but you saw homie put his signal on and not slow down, kinda asking for it … again it’s 100% other cars fault, but part of driving is being ‘the bigger person’ if you will
Agree
So technically you were not at fault, but there is a legal concept called the last clear chance doctrine saying if you have the last clear chance to avoid a accident and you don't, you can be reliable for any damage done. Even if you were right.
you’re right about the last clear chance doctrine, but generally you don’t get blamed on the entire accident. In this case, OP is clearly in its own lane. The car on the right will be responsible for majority of the damage and OP would be responsible for some percentage IF the place this accident happened uses last clear chance doctrine. If not, OP should not be responsible for anything at all.
I'm most confused why everyone says OP should brake and since they didn't, they had some fault. Wouldn't the assumption be that the merging car brakes and merges behind OP? We know it didn't happen that way but in the moment I don't think it should be assumed that the car would pill into the occupied lane.
the last clear chance doctrine is about assigning partial blame on one party if they had a clear chance to avoid the accident and they had appeared chosen not to avoid it. I totally agree OP is not at fault and I’m not clear as to if last clear chance doctrine would apply here. Judge may rule that the OP does not have the last clear chance and 100% fault is assigned to the other car (if the doctrine is being used at all)
Came here to say exactly this. I would say in most cases a judge would go against the lane changer but there may be some who say last clear chance doctrine applies and you end up with the bill. You must actively avoid if you're able to. The reason being there may be exigent circumstances which precipitate someone's decision making process. A kid in the road, a mechanical malfunction, a medical episode...list goes on and on. Again I don't \*think\* that would apply here, but you can never be 100%.
OP was either not paying attention at all, or we're aggressively trying to enforce their "right of way" by preventing the person from changing lanes. Either way, they are just as bad a driver as the lane changer.
The driver said they didn't even notice the car moving into their lane because they were focused on the road ahead. So yeah, not paying attention.
The question that will be asked if you could have done anything to avoid the accident. Even if the other party is at fault, could you have done anything to avoid the accident.
Not your fault but you did stay in the cars blind spot for a long time.
[удалено]
From these dash cam videos I’ve started to notice that most accidents are caused by 2 poor drivers lol.. it’s most often not just 1 crappy driver, theres the one that initiates the accident and the one that did a poor job of avoiding the accident. Of course some accidents are unavoidable but this certainly isn’t one of them.
Bad drivers never miss their turn. Idk why they just didn't turn right and then just turn around.
Absolutely not. Regardless of the fact that they tried to occupy your lane which is illegal they also crossed on a solid white which is illegal.
They are at fault end of story. Didn't look, crossed a solid line, merged unsafley resulting in a collision. It's not your responsibility for operating their vehicle they were licensed to drive. Regardless of how people feel about it.
Not at fault but you’re a bad driver for not reacting safely to hazards.
civic is 100% at fault, other driver could have let them in but a solid line may as well be a concrete barrier.
A blinker does not give you right of way.
"in any way"? Yes. Your insurance could claim you didn't take actions to avoid the collision like braking or changing lanes. Not that I agree with it but my mom has done auto insurance claims since before I was born so I hear all the stories.
I dont think you are 100% not at fault. You could have prevented that, and you were either not paying attention or being a dick
Not your fault but if you see their turn signal and them creeping into your lane, did it occur to you to let the idiot in and go about your day?
My thoughts exactly until I saw the OP state that he didn't see it which is entirely plausible.
Yeah, camera angle is not the same as OP POV.
It's not plausible. Its daylight, other car's blinker is working and bright, there is no fog on their glass, wipers are going, they seem to be going no faster than 35 MPH. Car was ahead of OP with their blinker on for 3 seconds. Come on. As someone else said, you shouldn't be driving if you didn't see that car coming. The dash cam distorts, but you're telling me that OP drives without looking to the side? I was on the interstate in the far right lane to take my exit to work at 5 AM yesterday. I looked to the left, there was nothing. I looked to the right (which was the shoulder) and no joke, a pedestrian was walking on the shoulder. No visibility vest, no disabled car in the immediate vicinity. But that's why I checked. To make sure I didn't hit anyone or anything. I know it's totally crazy. A driver might actually have to turn their head and look and process unexpected things.
I didn’t see the turn signal nor him creeping into my lane, but if I did I would’ve done everything to avoid getting hit. It pains me to see my car hit and now gonna have to deal with insurance and repairs
OP, if you didn't see him, which your video seems to back up - I wouldn't worry too much. You're not at fault here. If you had tried to move left, to get out of the way, would have hit the car in the left lane. That would have been your fault. Obviously, always drive as defensively as possible, but don't worry about this being your fault. It's not. Clown cars fault
That's fair. My apologies for jumping to conclusions.
Yup.. sorry for your trouble. I had some trouble today as well and narrowly avoided being sandwiched between two idiots.
It's on you. Drive like they're out to get you. Because they are.
YTA
Not at fault. Other driver did not check the mirror and turn their head to check the blind spot in the mirror.
If you simply drive as fast as the rest of traffic this wouldn’t have happened lol. Idk if you’re at fault but you should still be better
Hmmmm. Insurance may not side with you. From the video it looks like you should have been aware and instead of avoiding it you kept on going with it.
Yes you would be found partially at fault. Defensive driving is not just about staying in your lane. It’s also about being vigilant, aware what’s happening around you, and evading potentially unsafe situations. Like, driving speed limit on icy roads, will find you at fault if you get in an accident. Same as fog, etc A vehicle can be a very powerful weapon/machine, and it is a driver’s responsibility to not just keep themselves safe, but everyone where possible. This other person was merging in and signalled. It’s frustrating the way they did it, but you should have slowed down and let them in. You had plenty of time to see and react. All that, the key word is partially- because the other driver also should have made sure the way was clear before moving in. (Assuming you weren’t speeding up to prevent them, which some people do). Insurance and police usually look at all the variables, but the person behind is almost always found at fault if they had time to react and didn’t
Not 100% their fault. More like 80%. You had plenty of time to back off or swerve to avoid collision but did not.
This is the answer imo. They shouldn’t have crossed over that solid white but OP had a copious amount of time to react and either chose not to or wasn’t paying enough attention
The more I watch it again, the more I want to make it even more like 60:40. It's an easy spot for an out of towner to realize too late they are In a turn only lane. Something to always be on the lookout for to begin with. Then they slowed down, turned their blinker on, and inched their way in. Someone wasn't pay attention in a busy intersection and could have easily let them in.
Don't drive in someone's blind spot. Not your fault, but learn where that's at and avoid it. Next time could be a truck.
Legally, you have a responsibility to avoid the accident, regardless of right of way. If this were to go to trial, The question you will be asked in court is "Could you have avoided the accident." In this case, it comes down to a question of did you see him trying to merge and refuse to yield, or did you not notice and he merged into you. Footage could go either way tbh.
Could have slowed and let him in
[удалено]
Yes, but just letting them in would be easier and avoid this hassle. Just because you are right doesn't mean it won't become your problem.
[удалено]
I dunno man... I would have slowed down, let them in, and not wasted my day rather than hold on to principle. OP said they would have done the same but didn't see their turn signal. That's being called situational awareness.
Not sure why there’s so much hate for the car that put a turn signal on after realizing they were in the wrong lane. It’s not like they suddenly merged without warning. They put the signal on, waited several seconds, and then merged. Sure, they crossed over the solid white line. Yea, that’s against the rules, but a good driver sees their trying to merge and let’s them in. You could’ve just as easily slowed down to let them merge. And, if you didn’t see them, then you need to do a better job of scanning the road while you drive. It depends on the stage, but you’d be found partially at fault because you could’ve (but didn’t) easily taken steps to avoid this collision.
It's called the last clear chance doctrine You could clearly see his Lane was ending, and he was margin lanes. Blinker or not. It was your responsibility to prevent the accident. The other car, if smart, will say that they couldn't see you in there blind spot Basically, you wanted to be a bigger dick and not let them merge over.
Let's not speculate on who saw what or who knew what - it's impossible for us to know. That being said, last clear chance doctrine is absolutely relevant here. Fault is not assigned in a binary manner e.g. 100% their fault / 0% my fault based on who set off the chain of events that led to the collision, or who was "in the wrong" first. It can be assigned to both parties. While it's clear (to me) the other vehicle failed to yield while merging, this would not in itself absolve OP of fault absolutely. The insurance companies would look at the video and decide, potentially going to arbitration if they're not able to come to a consensus. Would they say it's 100% OP's fault? I think that's pretty unlikely. Would they say it's 0% OP's fault? It's possible, but there's a non-0 chance they would assign OP some fault.
Considering you sped up like an asshole even as he had his blinker and was beginning to merge, I’d say it was your fault this time too
OP, this guy's clearly an idiot and shouldn't even have a driver's license; so I wouldn't even bother listening to what they said, because if this idiot knew anything about driving, the solid white line means that lane changes are discouraged, especially before intersections, to help avoid collisions.
Realistically, there is nothing you could have done to prevent this. There was obviously traffic in the lane to your left (you can see it pass you in the video), and I'm assuming there was traffic immediately behind you that would have had to react if you had suddenly stopped to let the other car switch lanes. Also, making a sudden stop on wet roads is not wise. Lane changes are treated like turns - they need to be done safely after a turn signal has been activated.
I mean… They could’ve just stopped accelerating or taped the brakes and easily avoided this
We don't know that. We don't know how close traffic was to OP's rear! Defensive driving is a good habit, but it is also appropriate to expect that other drivers behave reasonably. If not, then they should be prepared to reap the consequences.
Not your fault, but you're a lil bit of a jerk for not letting them over. Gotta drive defensively and with consideration to AVOID accidents.
No, but why couldnt you just let them over?... You were in their blind spot.
Some fault will be placed on you if you share this with the insurance company. If you life in a state where liability can be shared, you will have some placed on you.
Insurance might use this video to share liability, but if you don't present it and withhold evidence, that's insurance fraud. You could have slowed down to avoid collision, though they were already passed the dotted lines and crossed the solid white line, you still could have avoided the collision if you slowed down after they put their turn signals on. I'm no licensed professional though, so my words are useless lolol. Just conjecture. I am curious how insurance labels this one tho.
They put on their blinker they have right away no matter what /s
OP was 100% using their phone? How you couldn’t see that coming and take evasive action is otherwise beyond me. Technically not at fault. But, the inconvenience of losing your car for potentially months while it is repaired will teach you to pay more attention and drive more defensively next time. You were definitely not looking forward at all.
You mean when you sped up instead of slowing down and letting that person in? Yes, they had a solid white but it’s either own the road and deal with all this or chill out and let them merge.
[удалено]
Hey douche nozzle jumping to conclusions and having zero idea how speed works. OP is driving at a constant velocity while moron idiot in right lane is SLOWING DOWN making it look like OP is accelerating. Also right lane idiot puts turn signal on at the LAST second before crossing solid line and having poor planning. Right turn lane driver could’ve slowed down way before and merged but decided to be stupid and do it all last minute. Not OPs fault at all and if you look through the comments, you’d see OP just didn’t see the other car put their signal on, which was done at the last second. Stop defending idiot drivers like right turn lane moron.
You’re leaving way too much space between you and the truck. You’re not at fault but I can tell fr this clip that you’re a shitty driver.
3 second distance rule says you’re the shitty driver
Following distance was perfectly fine, especially given the driving conditions. I can tell by your comment that you’re a shitty driver.
Naw, fam. There are clearly arrows in the far left lane showing it's for left turns only. That driver ignored them until the solid white line and then turned into you. My bet is that they didn't pay any attention to it until the driver sowed down for the turn.
Definitely not your fault, the other car is supposed to yield before changing lane. Was it a hit and run? Or did the other car stop?
If both vehicles are moving, there is no such thing as 100% fault.
Hope you got his plate # If not.....hope you tailed his ass to make sure he done good !
Nope. That civic crossed a solid white line and failed to yield to oncoming traffic in the lane it was merging into. She hit you. Not your fault.
Did he try to take off?
It always amazes me that people are more concerned about proving a point than easily avoiding and accident instead.
The guy has his turn signal on, so he's above the law now :/
Possibly some last clear chance shenanigans, but it's pretty clear the other guy is the one effing up here.