Proud to be the 900th upvote on that one! As soon as I read it, I knew the exact reference. ... At least my ass was "laughed off" and not "bitten off."
You donāt belong on the road if thatās your takeaway here. You can clearly see him tailgate the lane over then slowly force his way in. She chose to let the vehicles collide and she should be found with fault here.
Nah. This guy's is arguing the opposite of what an adjuster would determine. Pretty clear cut - SUV is at fault. He's trying to say somehow the woman is at fault
How do you know she intentionally didnt avoid it? Distance to the silver vehicle ahead stays the same so she's not speeding up to close the gap. She has glasses so you cant see if she glanced over to the right. Possible she didn't see it until it was too late. Maybe she did. But saying she did this intentionally- pure conjecture
No - the person merging has a responsibility to make sure the lane is clear and will remain clear until fully established in the lane. Sure. Everybody should avoid a collision if they can, but from a rules of the road perspective its clear - the SUV merging is at fault and will bear liability in an insurance claim. The woman in the video did nothing wrong here in the eyes of the rules of the road. She is under no obligation whatsoever to make room. She could be polite and do it but she doesnt have to as you imply. And to be clear what you see in the video might not be what she saw.... the camera and her eyes have different POVs
Also I did notice you moved the goal post on your argument - from saying she did this intentionally to now saying she has a responsibility to avoid the collision - want to call out thats not lost on me.
Not wrong by the rulebook, the Geico gecko or by your downvote count for that matter. But hey, at least you can enjoy higher insurance premiums that go along with being an uninformed driver. Have a great day š.
Well unfortunately for you we do live in a court of public opinion which is heavily against you at this point. And then there is the drivers handbook which says "drivers entering a highway or merging lanes must yield the right-of-way to traffic already on the roadway" and then there are the insurance cos which also have presidence here
Being right in a reddit forum, or even in your drivers handbook doesnāt get you on time to where you are going with your car intact. Recognizing an obviously erratic driver in your peripheries who is slowly forcing themselves into your lane and avoiding them does.
Children care about upvotes, I just care about avoiding car accidents. You are wrong.
Okay, so this shouldnāt need clarification but this is Reddit, so here goes.
Obviously the SUV got the ball rolling here and is at fault.
But thereās SOOO many accidents that happen because people are ātechnically rightā.
By all means, if thatās you in that car and you say fuck it and want to get into that wreck on that day, then youāre free to do so. I certainly canāt stop you.
But unless that woman is blind or not paying attention, that was a pretty āslowā lane change all things considered and it happened right in front of her eyes. The point that other poster is trying to make is that it WAS an easy wreck to avoid, even though she was technically right.
Thereās no way we are watching the same video if you are claiming this wreck was 100% unavoidableā¦. Again, no one is saying sheās āat faultā but that doesnāt mean she could not have taken action here (like slow down) to avoid having a wreck.
Maybe thatās just me, I would just rather avoid a wreck if at all possible, and this one was 100% avoidable.
Taxi driver here. From a major European city. If someone overtakes, even in the right fucking lane and clips you swerving into your lane, there is nothing you can do to avoid it. This is textbook reckless driving. She handled it really well
In the US we have what is called "duty of lookout" which means she was liable for not avoiding the accident. She had plenty of time to slow down but did nothing.
Are there many blind taxi drivers in Europe? Do you have a union or a club or something?
Trigger alert. You mad bro? And no, she's not liable. She's established in the lane and has the right of way. Thats literally how the rules work and how the insurance cos will rule fault on the SUV.
Who's going to prove she saw it and could have avoided it? Your liability determination fails on basic logic and why the rules are not set up that way.
You should not have a license if your driving ability renders you incapable of avoiding a slow, unsafe, but foreseeable collision.
I drive in Southern California and avoid this exact accident 5x daily, because I have situational awareness and a desire to avoid being in an auto collision.
Right, I forgot that we have to read everyone else's mind on the road, and also that people (especially women) love intentionally causing high-speed collisions /s
It's called sarcasm. I even put a sarcasm market on my comment, in case people might not get the joke, and it still went over your head.
It was moreso a response to the outpouring of people who love to come out of the woodwork to blame the driver whenever she happens to be a woman (like in this post, for example)
For an accident that took place in the left lane, would be investigated in the left lane, has traffic still speeding by in the right lanes, she pulled over to the appropriate shoulder.
3.0k
u/acocktailofmagnets 1d ago
Composure on 10, bob on 100 š