|
0rganDonor posted:
Soiled pants in that van. (That said, you want to be careful with that stuff. You could have had some percentage fault due to not assuming he was a fuckhole.)
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
0rganDonor posted:Bonus; Have a stop sign runner calling my bluff and nearly losing badly; Heh, you can see the exact moment when he looks over and sees nothing but grill out his window, and decides yielding is the better part of valor. I bet he's used to being the bigger vehicle. Right of weigh indeed  Bonus bonus, saw this in the Dallas subreddit this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oJzPT8wdi0 Obviously the van turning into an oncoming green light is at fault, but I just don't get how, if you're looking forward, you can not see that coming. It was from a stop too so it's not like anybody was up to speed, the car to his left brakes in plenty of time. My best guess is that he wasn't really paying attention, saw the van out of his peripheral and subconsciously assumed it was oncoming traffic from the other direction, not noticing it was actually in front of him until it was too late.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Takes No Damage posted:Obviously the van turning into an oncoming green light is at fault, but I just don't get how, if you're looking forward, you can not see that coming. It was from a stop too so it's not like anybody was up to speed, the car to his left brakes in plenty of time. My best guess is that he wasn't really paying attention, saw the van out of his peripheral and subconsciously assumed it was oncoming traffic from the other direction, not noticing it was actually in front of him until it was too late. I could see how the driver of the camera car could be held at fault, as by law you must not enter an intersection if it's not clear, and as you noted, this was from a red light and the van was easily observable coming into the intersection. Local laws could obviously vary, and it could also be considered 50/50, or completely the left turners fault depending on how the cops/judge felt that day or decided to interpret things. It was easily avoidable though, absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
nm posted:In the US, it would be 100% fault of the blazer. You need to be able to stop for any vehicle putting on the brakes. If he had been paying attention and had a proper following distance he'd been fine. The stopping guy is an rear end in a top hat who shouldn't drive, but would not be at fault. From what I know, it is very hard to not get 100% fault if you rear end a vehicle, especially in Texas. You can do stupid poo poo like park on an exit ramp and get none of the blame for an accident that you cause by doing so (this happened to my cousin, woman parked on an exit ramp to yell at her kids, there's no way to stop quickly enough even when you leave the road at the posted exit speed). I wouldn't be surprised if OrganDonor had pancaked the Blazer and got the majority of the fault.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I could see how the driver of the camera car could be held at fault, as by law you must not enter an intersection if it's not clear, and as you noted, this was from a red light and the van was easily observable coming into the intersection. At 0:05 when the light changes, the intersection is clear. Both the camera car and the van enter the intersection at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
EightBit posted:From what I know, it is very hard to not get 100% fault if you rear end a vehicle, especially in Texas. You can do stupid poo poo like park on an exit ramp and get none of the blame for an accident that you cause by doing so (this happened to my cousin, woman parked on an exit ramp to yell at her kids, there's no way to stop quickly enough even when you leave the road at the posted exit speed). I wouldn't be surprised if OrganDonor had pancaked the Blazer and got the majority of the fault. Where I live a rear ender is instant 100% at fault for the one doing the rear ending. I was in an accident a while back where someone backed their car up an offramp and rear ended me backwards and the insurance company rep laughed because it was an situation that the thousands of pages of fault determination rules hadn't anticipated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:At 0:05 when the light changes, the intersection is clear. Both the camera car and the van enter the intersection at the same time. One question for fault is who had the last clear chance to svoid. Re: rear-ending. In the us it is a muth that the rear-ender is always at fault though it is astrong presumption with an admission, video, or witness in most cases. The semi would not be at fault against the blazer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Takes No Damage posted:Bonus bonus, saw this in the Dallas subreddit this morning: Really looks like the driver filming was distracted. Impossible to miss otherwise. It was almost like watching cyclists cams where you see what's going to happen long before it actually happens, and the cyclist obviously didn't pay attention or (also likely) isn't willing to slow down or back down, and they get hit. When I drive/cycle, if I see even a hint of someone about to turn in front of me, I slow down / get ready to brake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
It's more important who is at fault in the eyes of the insurance company, not judge/police. I'm PA, a forward moving vehicle is 100% to blame for striking another in the back. The logic behind it, is that you're supposed to be traveling at a safe stopping distance. No idea how they accommodate for situations where someone pulls out into the 65 mph traffic lane, while going 10.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:It's more important who is at fault in the eyes of the insurance company, not judge/police. I'm PA, a forward moving vehicle is 100% to blame for striking another in the back. The logic behind it, is that you're supposed to be traveling at a safe stopping distance. No idea how they accommodate for situations where someone pulls out into the 65 mph traffic lane, while going 10. Some places also have rules about cars having a duty to avoid obstacles regardless of right-of-way or a duty to yield the intersection to obstructing traffic even if you have the green light so it's possible they got some % of fault regardless just because the video shows that is was relatively preventable. I'm not saying they should be and I don't like to armchair these things but it definitely looks like the van driver was distracted somehow by not noticing the crossing car, but he may have just been tunnel visioned in front of him or maybe the car next to him blocked his vision but not that of the cams since it's usually positioned much farther forward in the car than the driver is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
I would put a lot of negligence on the car pulling forward. It's clear as days what's happening and the car beside them is able to avoid the accident, which doesn't bode well for a defense that you did everything you could to avoid the accident. Hell it looks like they never even braked and were trying to play chicken. Edit: ok they braked, but there is almost a solid 3 seconds between the van turning before they brake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:It's more important who is at fault in the eyes of the insurance company, not judge/police. I'm PA, a forward moving vehicle is 100% to blame for striking another in the back. The logic behind it, is that you're supposed to be traveling at a safe stopping distance. No idea how they accommodate for situations where someone pulls out into the 65 mph traffic lane, while going 10. This is why I now have a dash cam. In the case of someone pulling out in front of you, it's a his word (I was in that lane for a long time officer, I just slowed down for <insert animal/child here>) vs. your word unless you have some sort of proof that the other guy was an idiot, and the dash cam can provide this. To me, it's like buying insurance, except I only have to pay a fairly small amount, and only one time, rather than an ongoing expense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
EightBit posted:From what I know, it is very hard to not get 100% fault if you rear end a vehicle, especially in Texas. You can do stupid poo poo like park on an exit ramp and get none of the blame for an accident that you cause by doing so (this happened to my cousin, woman parked on an exit ramp to yell at her kids, there's no way to stop quickly enough even when you leave the road at the posted exit speed). I wouldn't be surprised if OrganDonor had pancaked the Blazer and got the majority of the fault. TRANSPORTATION CODE TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD CHAPTER 545. OPERATION AND MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES ... Sec. 545.061. DRIVING ON MULTIPLE-LANE ROADWAY. On a roadway divided into three or more lanes and providing for one-way movement of traffic, an operator entering a lane of traffic from a lane to the right shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle entering the same lane of traffic from a lane to the left. Sec. 545.058. DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER. (a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only: ... (2) to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic ... Source: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm Since it's legal to use the shoulder to accelerate in Texas, and merging traffic must yield to travelling traffic the video would have shown in court and to insurance companies that the blazer both failed to yield right of way, and did not do everything he could have to avoid the accident.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:It's more important who is at fault in the eyes of the insurance company, not judge/police. I'm PA, a forward moving vehicle is 100% to blame for striking another in the back. The logic behind it, is that you're supposed to be traveling at a safe stopping distance. No idea how they accommodate for situations where someone pulls out into the 65 mph traffic lane, while going 10.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEvcvD9xeLI
drukqs fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Feb 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Technically crossing a single white line, absent any signs to the contrary is not illegal if done safely in CA. A double white line is different. Still a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Ahhhh yeah, I had a feeling that was the case. Ooo well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdPbEzQ0mVw
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
https://gfycat.com/AntiqueScientificBlackrussianterrier http://kxan.com/2016/02/26/truck-carrying-gravel-flies-off-fm-2222-after-crash/
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
`Nemesis posted:https://gfycat.com/AntiqueScientificBlackrussianterrier I saw that pop up on my phone earlier today. The video posted on the KXAN website was almost 2 minutes long, with about 1.5 minutes worth of the driver practicing Spanish using one of those CDs for learning a language.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
The article talks about maintenance of the truck but from the video it seems like the truck doesn't even have their brake lights lit up until they're more or less on top of the Honda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
8ender posted:The article talks about maintenance of the truck but from the video it seems like the truck doesn't even have their brake lights lit up until they're more or less on top of the Honda. Saw this pop-up in my Facebook feed from some of my family in Texas. Word is the driver of the dump truck has a prior record of being involved in accidents and generally not operating commercial vehicles safely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo8gKeriCRg
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a truly reliable dash cam? I've read reviews of the G1W and while the price is nice, it seems to die after a year of use. I'm looking for something that just works and handles extreme weather fluctuations (Ontario, Canada). In the winters it can get to ~ -25C, and in the summers it can get to 40C+ while parked outside. I also do a fair bit of driving year-round (45,000 Km in 12 months). Would a rear-camera option be suggested or will a front camera only be OK?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Furcifer posted:Can anyone recommend a truly reliable dash cam? I've read reviews of the G1W and while the price is nice, it seems to die after a year of use. I'm looking for something that just works and handles extreme weather fluctuations (Ontario, Canada). In the winters it can get to ~ -25C, and in the summers it can get to 40C+ while parked outside. I also do a fair bit of driving year-round (45,000 Km in 12 months). Would a rear-camera option be suggested or will a front camera only be OK? I can't speak on long term reliability but I'm from identical circumstances (Ontario, lots of Kms, etc) and my A118C hasn't let me down yet even in super cold. I've had it since this past summer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
A couple of 2fast2stupid idiots caused a bad wreck the other day. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/02/27/5-freeway-closed-in-commerce-after-crash-leaves-3-dead-5-injured/ I hope they get life. To lighten things up though, here is the most british compilation of bad drivers I have ever seen.  due to a lot of swearing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjUL8LwUsE&feature=youtu.be
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Lime Tonics posted:
6:44 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
I wouldn't have bother but I had to do it (The whole cam download/Youtube upload) for the next video and it happenned today too. Some further evidence of the "gently caress you I'm in a Truck!" attitude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_M6b-MhiBA A caravan driver doing a great job of keeping the knobs on Top Gear in business for a few more decades. swearing I know how much you like foriegn accents saying potty mouth stuff.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mdr1oywoDM But if you want actual smashing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rgMe8rxl0
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:I wouldn't have bother but I had to do it (The whole cam download/Youtube upload) for the next video and it happenned today too. Some further evidence of the "gently caress you I'm in a Truck!" attitude: I think the title of this video is supposed to be sarcastic, but actually it's just accurate. What did you want the truck to do? Slam on the brakes and lock up the wheels and slide into a tree, just because you feel uncomfortable pulling a little bit onto the shoulder of a narrow forest road? e: I watched your second video too and you are just a whiny peepants baby. That guy made a perfectly legal and safe merge into your lane and it pissed you off because...??? Heavy equipment and vehicles with trailers don't have to get out of your way. Get over it. e2: nice illegal pass around the trailer (you drove over the parking space lines, moron) because you can't wait five seconds for him to make the turn. The "loving asswipe" is you. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:I wouldn't have bother but I had to do it (The whole cam download/Youtube upload) for the next video and it happenned today too. Some further evidence of the "gently caress you I'm in a Truck!" attitude: Honestly, you drive like a bit of a twat. Stop it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I like how in the caravan video you start off coming around a curve, possibly meaning there was no way the guy could've seen you before he started that turn into the road. The first one is lovely, but at the same time, you've posted enough of them to prove that it's a regular thing and clearly something you're used to because you are not currently embedded in the grille of a logging truck. The attitude may be "gently caress you I'm a truck" but insisting on legally right may end with you very much dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
hahaha this thread is the best I need to get a dashcam because I was driving through Brooklyn over the weekend and ohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgod
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
 What kind of trailer is this? It looks like a tiny air-conditioned house, but I know AT&T can afford to use hotels. Also, I need to put my camera behind my mirror instead of on the dash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:
They do fiber splicing in those little trailers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Yeah, I like how in the caravan video you start off coming around a curve, possibly meaning there was no way the guy could've seen you before he started that turn into the road. Now that I'm on a computer...yeah, at the very start of that video, you can't see him and there's no way he can see you. By the time you see him he's already halfway across the road. How fast do you want him to take that turn into (if I'm reading that sign at the end right) a 40 km/h road that has curbside non-parallel parking that you drove through?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:The attitude may be "gently caress you I'm a truck" but insisting on legally right may end with you very much dead. This is like the rule of the sea. We call it the rule of Gross Tonnage. It doesn't matter if you're a WAFI (Wind Assisted loving Idiot, AKA sailboat), on a windward port tack, the 300T Tug and 160' Barge combo isn't going to change course, even if they technically have room. It's the same with OTR and Offroad trucks, and anyone towing. They can't always wait until the coast is entirely clear, and you had plenty of time to slow. I love your double-swerve move too... cute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
The first thing my dash cam taught me was that I was the menace more often than not. Then it taught me that I make lots of 'dad noises.' Here's a guy last night, I have no idea what exactly went wrong but he just demolished that sign and his car. Tried looping back and I was able to follow the trail of fluids to the dead end he'd limped it to, but I elected to skip driving all the way down there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1agwkQfsUM0
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
I'm going to go with "drunk or otherwise not competent", given that they also seem to have no lights on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Now that I'm on a computer...yeah, at the very start of that video, you can't see him and there's no way he can see you. By the time you see him he's already halfway across the road. How fast do you want him to take that turn into (if I'm reading that sign at the end right) a 40 km/h road that has curbside non-parallel parking that you drove through? The trucks. Yes they are bigger and yes I do go out of my way to get out of theirs. They are all breaking the speed limit for that road and the shoulder is in no way consistent. Nor is the width of the track. Now also look at what part of the road they were on in the blind corner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Cartoon posted:I wouldn't have bother but I had to do it (The whole cam download/Youtube upload) for the next video and it happenned today too. Some further evidence of the "gently caress you I'm in a Truck!" attitude: I'll see your videos and raise you. First one is a dude using his turn signal and coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. Next is an oncoming car staying in his/her lane. Last one is someone coming to a gentle controlled stop at a red light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMwah6dCK5g Also NSFW bad words.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 01:44
|
|
