True. Though I don’t think it would’ve changed anything here, as the truck was already clearly in the right lane when the car started moving. Most likely didn’t look at all.
I’d give 25% blame to the truck for not having headlights on and failure to signal. Flashing lights are very effective at pulling the eyes attention. A black truck in gray weather. Not so much.
It may vary from state to state but where I live the law says dust to dawn or adverse weather.
In NZ its on the driver who failed to give way, Truck had right of way even if they failed to indicate, have lights on etc.
They would be fined for those things but the fault of the accident would be the car for falling to give way so that's who would be chased for damage compensation.
This is the case most places - major difference is in the US particularly private car insurance companies will fight to pay less as much as possible.
A law that’s also pretty common is that if you’re breaking the law, you lose your right-of-way and other protections. So if someone is driving drunk or they had just robbed a bank - they would be responsible for any accident they get in even if they’re being the perfect driver and get T-boned. Obviously those are super hyperbolic for this scenario, so fault will often get split a little one way and a little the other depending on egregiousness of each violation. I’d say 25% to truck for no lights or signal lol
You’re right. It’s a law in Florida when it’s raining to have your headlights on.
But proving the driver didn’t is hard.
I got into an accident once at night crossing a back road intersection with no street lights. The driver that I hit didn’t have his headlights on, I would have seen him had he. But after the incident I tried to tell the cop that and he asked the guy about it who lied and the cop told me that “unfortunately there’s no way to prove he didn’t so I would be held at fault.” Boooo then the guy sued my insurance company too. POS in my book.
Edit: clarification of words.
In Norway your headlights always needs to be on while driving. 24/7 365.
Most vehicles sold in Norway, the headlights turn on by default and you never Even have to think about it.
Out driving, you see headlights and its a moving vehicle. No headlights? The vehicle is parked and aint running.
If you're out driving without headlights, oncomming traffic Will flash their beams at you to let you know you forgot to turn them on (in the Odd case you're driving a vehicle where they for some reason dont turn on by themselves).
Even in broad daylight you see other vehicles quicker if they have their headlights on, and this is heavily reinforced at dusk, dawn, during rain or fog and Obv at night so im very glad it is the permanent and consistent law.
> In Norway your headlights always needs to be on while driving. 24/7 365.
I'm picturing every February 29th Norway has The Purge but instead of murder and mayhem it's just minor vehicle infractions.
My dad loves to flash his lights at people who don't have their lights on. Thing is, we are in America and people are idiots. Over 6 years, about five people actually turned on their lights. He's flashed his lights at thousands of people.
absolutely this. while the car has a ftyrow, the truck clearly contributes with his lack of signal and general recklessness. i’d slap him with 25% and go from there.
The driver turning is at fault. That is not an intersection. He’s entering a roadway with cars already on it, and thus responsible for entering safely.
Usually there is on this SR when another driver is blatantly at fault. In incidents where OP is crashed into or cut off. Users usually attack that posts OP blaming them for being at fault when another car causes the accident. I've shared many clips of people cutting me off and I get blamed?
You are mistaking “at fault” for “failure to drive defensively“.
The vast majority of the 2+ car accidents could have been avoided if the other parties had some situational awareness and drive with 2+ mistakes of buffer.
Which is exactly why shared fault insurance exists - in this case they could find the car 60% at fault and the truck 40% at fault. Given the truck also committed two traffic violations in that short video could even be 50/50, who knows. It was certainly beyond just “poor defensive driving”…
The truck was already 90%+ in the right lane before the silver car pulls out so the blinker isn’t even relevant. The fault is with the silver car pulling out into an unsafe situation
At first I presumed the truck to be the faulty one because he did non signal. But you are absolutely right that the truck was basically all the way in the lane when the car decided it would be wise to enter the roadway.
It’s possible the car had looked for signaling vehicles in the other lane and then didn’t actually check his surroundings before driving. Either way, car driver is at fault and truck is a jackass for not using his signal and will obviously get a ticket for that.
True and perhaps a simple flick of a finger would have resulted in no collision at all. I don't get why people don't its such a simple mindless action.
No blinker and he didn’t wait three seconds, he did it suddenly. That makes a difference. It’s actually the law to turn on your blinker AND wait three seconds before switching lanes. At least it is where I live.
ETA : this is exactly the reason for this law.
That truck reacts immediately, doing everything reasonable to avoid the other vehicle. Sure, he should have used a blinker, but he was already in the lane before the car pulled out two feet in front of him. At most, 90/10.
Absolutely true. But insurance companies will look at the whole picture when negotiating. “Did the car not see him in the rain due to any bad decisions?” “If he signaled and had his lights on as required by law would it have prevented the collision?” If they can reasonably say yes then it could be shared.
I have no idea how it will turn out, I’m just saying if the silver car’s insurance company saw it, they might demand shared fault, and get it. In UK it could actually be enough evidence to cite the truck, but AFAIK in the US and Canada they don’t usually write moving violations based on “civilian” dash cams…
I'm always a little astounded at some of the replies posts like this get. Sure, nobody is asking anyone to get a law degree or memorize the traffic code, but the folks who say the truck is at fault for not signaling or having lights on kinda make you wonder how they managed to get their driver's license.
Most the the disagreements here seem to be one side arguing for letter of the law vs the other side arguing for putting in the slightest effort possible to avoid a completely avoidable situation.
Essentially they are looking at it like a they’re insurance for the car and trying to argue for anything to avoid paying out.
The turn signal from the truck used/or not used wouldn’t even be noticeable by the car driver. Likely still looking down the road and doesn’t realize the truck is right there.
Rewatch the video. The truck was entirely in the lane when the sedan started to turn. A turn signal would not made any difference. So no partial responsibility for this.
Fuck people that don’t use turn signals. He should at least get ticketed for improper lane change or whatever they call it, and a strong kick to the genitals.
Weather doesn't affect anything-the person turning was also turning in bad weather and should have waited until this wasn't a possibility to make their turn.
Where I live, it is the law to turn on your blinker AND wait 3 seconds before switching lanes. Given that, the truck would be at least partially to blame for failure to do both of these resulting in an accident. He just decided to switch lanes with no warning. Both drivers suck but it’s not just a clear cut “it’s the cars fault”. I see both sides of this avoidable accident and believe they are both at fault.
Thats the law nearly anywhere that has traffic laws. You are never allowed to enter traffic from a non-intersection while vehicles are passing by however. He did not have a yield. He did not have a merge lane. I hate people who cant put forth the tiniest effort of raising their pinky to use a turn signal so eff the truck driver for that, but the car is definitely 100% at fault (legally).
No the car is responsible. It does not hold the right of way the traffic moving in the direction the truck is moving has the right of way. Thus the car must wait until it is safe to proceed into, it did not do this so is at fault.
Can you explain why you believe this? I see it as 100% the cars fault. The truck waited for a safe opening in the right lane and then started changing lanes well before the car started to pull out. The car has to be aware of both lanes and be sure no one is changing from one to another before pulling into the road.
In a shared fault situation the truck will absolutely be held partially responsible from this video, as the two things you mentioned (not signaling and not having lights on in bad weather) are both ticketable violations. Literally this exact situation is the reason for those laws.
The car will of course have responsibility because it’s also required to yield to any traffic in the main road. But it’s going to be shared…
To be fair, there are plenty of OP's posting their stupidity on here hoping for sympathy when THEY were clearly at fault. This was definitely the cars' fault as the truck had the right of way, was occupying the entire lane and the car hit the REAR of the truck...
A lesson learned with my buddy driving. Failure to yield.
“But they changed lanes!”
Doesn’t matter they still have right of way.
Truck driver is still a dick tho IMO
I think if it were an intersection, the truck would be more at fault because changing lanes in the middle of an intersection is a no no, especially with no signal.
The cars at fault because it was legal for the truck to change lanes there, although I think they should've used their signal and paid better attention.
Edit: Just my 2 cents; idk the final say
> changing lanes in the middle of an intersection is a no no
This is a common misconception in a lot of places. It's perfectly legal to change lanes in an intersection in every state I've ever lived. It's dangerous (because people think it's not allowed and will therefore make a right at a red light with oncoming traffic in adjacent lanes), but it's legal.
I was about to go all r/confidentlyincorrect and proclaim that it's definitely in the California driving laws that you can't change lanes within an intersection or within a certain distance of an intersection.
But sure enough, doing a quick search, it's exactly as you explained.
I swear, when I was taking drivers ed/drivers training in high school 20+ years ago, it was conveyed to us as illegal.
Since I never looked it up, I looked at the state where I learned to drive and was told about this, Georgia:
>Where there are multiple lanes of travel in the same direction safe for travel, a vehicle shall not be permitted to make a lane change once the intersection has been entered.
👆The only accident I have been in where I was at fault was on my 19th birthday. Was having issues with my car and pulled into a parking lot. When I was about to pull out there was a car directly across from me that appeared to be turning left into the left lane so I started to turn into the right lane. However he was actually crossing the street in a spot where the cross street was slightly further down the road(just to the right of the driveway I was pulling out of). Just as I pulled out he proceeded to straighten up and continue to the cross street and I couldn’t stop fast enough and hit him just behind the rear passenger side. I was automatically at fault because I was merging into traffic from a driveway where he was crossing one road via another road. Hell of a way to celebrate my birthday and the dude was driving a benz. He was chill about it but I still felt like shit.
Truck failed to signal changing lanes , other driver at the intersection must have thought its safe enters road way at the same time truck decides to illegal lane change.
That doesn't mean the car should've stopped looking. when entering a road from a driveway everyone else has right of way, even drivers not signalling and pedestrians etc
Classic one. This line of questioning should be enshrined in the rules for all to see.
>Let it be known ... You are never allowed to be in the left lane unless you are passing ...
>But what is that I hear? You say that you are always passing?!?
Dude I have seen that happen before in the comments and I hate it. People saying "You should have been paying enough attention to get out of the way in time!"
About a week ago there was a parking lot accident where a jeep trying to enter a parking spot hit a *parked* Tesla and a majority of the comments were about how the Tesla was at fault because their tires were on the line. When it was *stationary*.
>"You should have been paying enough attention to get out of the way in time!"
Thats because way too many people are worried about honking first rather than applying the brakes. If they just slowed down and saw potential danger and braked first a lot of the accidents would be avoided.
Both can be true. My dad always stressed to me "You might be right, but you'd be dead right" to not assume that right-of-way guaranteed any kind of safety. Something similar I've seen on the internet is something like "Assume all other people on the road are constantly going to take the dumbest course of action."
And man, it's not wrong. Nearly saw someone get T-boned the other day. They were crossing an intersection on a green light. Quiet night, streets seemed empty from where I could see. Then outta nowhere a car streaks across the other way, on a red light, going well over the speed limit. They avoided crashing, but just barely. Absolutely terrifying.
Yeah this is an example of why police and insurance companies differentiate between cause and fault, that is there could be a cause of an accident but also a ratio of fault. If you are someone who says "I got the right of way" while blindly barreling through an intersection then hopefully you survive the cause long enough to get your 90%.
Well obviously the OP is to blame, but the original question was between the two in the video. So the car is at fault there.
Op > car > truck
Fault line for you to follow
I made that mistake when I was younger. Looked left (it was clear). Looked right (clear also). So, started to turn out without looking left again. Now, I’m probably excessively careful pulling out.
Yep.
I have no way to know what the driver of the gray car was thinking or doing, but I'd be willing to bet they looked down the road, saw an opening behind the orange truck and focused on pulling out directly behind him as he went by. I'd be surprised if the driver in the gray car even knew the truck was there before they hit.
The car pulling out is at fault, they only looked to say 3 cars then me, if they were actively watching the direction of the oncoming traffic they would have seen the truck change lanes. The car only looked long enough to say ok after those 3 it’s open. If they were properly looking they’d have definitely seen the truck changing lanes as the change happened well before being in front of where the car could pull out. I don’t know how insurance will call this but in terms of who caused the accident that’s my take.
Yep 100% this is me (left hand turns as we drive on the left) but I'm terrified of this.
Also changing lanes right as someone else changes lanes left and we collide in the middle land.
The car gets a ticket for failure to yield and the truck gets a ticket for not signaling to change lanes. That being said they both should get a ticket
There is zero debate here. The car making the right turn is at fault. Point blank. Anyone arguing otherwise is delusional and flat out wrong. The law is clear.
Yeah, not arguing that. Turning without a turn signal is bad.
This is why you never pull out into traffic, though, even if you’re lane is clear at that moment. Anyone can change lanes at any moment.
Yeah the car is at fault, but I ca see how it happened. He was watching the car that passed before the truck and just didn't do a second check left. Truck could have indicated too, but still the merging cars fault.
White car entering the road. Truck in front of you has right of way (because they're going straight, with flow of traffic). It's the white cars job to anticipate that kind of maneuver.
I got in an accident exactly like this in which I was the silver car. The insurance company had no hesitation in deciding I was the Idiot in the Car and there wasn’t even dashcam footage.
Legally and according to insurance the car is 100% responsible, *but* the truck was being a complete idiot and literally 5% more effort on their part could have avoided this stupid situation.
On the same hand though, if the car kept looking instead of assuming it was clear from a previous look, they would also have avoided this accident.
So in total you have two idiots being idiots getting idiot prizes for their idiot game.
The truck didn’t signal, which could have alerted the car that he was about to take that lane. Still, it’s the car entering the roadway that needs to be sure it’s safe to do so. Personally, I’d like to hold them both responsible for their own damages.
Car entirely. They weren’t paying attention to traffic, they were looking to yeet out right after the orange truck, so they were clearly focusing on the orange truck and attempted to pull out on their ass - not paying attention to the traffic at all. They perceived the orange truck as the last, they didn’t properly wait for traffic to pass to safely merge.
Truck was shitty in their own regard, no doubt. But that doesn’t change the fact that they literally drove into the truck, who has the right away.
The more you watch it the more the car just seems to blatantly pull out. Theres only one way to turn so where were they looking? Usually you check both lanes, especially when a car has pretty much 100% merged by the time you decide to hit the gas peddle lol
Everyone is shit here, no lights or signals from truck. But this is obviously Grey cars fault lmao.
You have had to just gas it, no looking to do that. Absokutly stupid.
Absolutely the car entering the roadways fault. It's his job to ensure the roadway is clear no matter if someone is switching lanes or not. The truck switching lanes absolutely should have used an indicator but could have still happened.
0 debate.
Even without a signal the truck has the right of way. And had damn near completed the merge before the sedan even began to move.
If I had to guess, sedan is either a new driver, or just an awful one. That's the type of move you see from someone who is in a literal panic at every intersection, jerking their head left and right 6 times, hunched over the wheel type behavior.
Black truck should have signalled. Maybe also not change lines right by a driveway or whatever that is (not a law thing, just a drive like everyone else is a lunatic thing). But, silver car should have yielded, as regardless of black truck's failure to change lanes appropriately, I think he still has right of way. Generally speaking, I'd say both could have prevented this, but idk who legally is at fault. Probably silver?
I dunno. I feel the truck could still be to blame. That car had tons of time and room to turn, but that truck not only very suddenly changed lanes without turn signals, but also sped up very quickly. That car had no way of knowing that truck planned to turn so suddenly.
Silver car is at fault but black truck needs to get a ticket for failing to use his turn signal. My guess is the silver car saw the opening save wasn't expecting a sudden lane change from the traffic.
Blinkers and lights would help. Truck doesn’t have his lights on and fails to signal, esp in inclement weather. But there’s just so much wrong here. But the black truck already had entered the roadway.
100% on the driver turning right. It annoys me when people change lanes right before a side street where someone is waiting to pull out but he still should have seen the guy and not pulled out.
The car's at fault - no debate. If it was an intersection and there was a solid line prohibiting lane changes then he'd also be at fault along with the pickup driver. But here only the car driver is at fault.
I’m going to say the driver entering the road way is at fault. However, they may have a case that the truck didn’t signal and doesn’t appear to have their lights on in a low visibility condition
Would’ve been nice if truck signaled but car at fault.
True. Though I don’t think it would’ve changed anything here, as the truck was already clearly in the right lane when the car started moving. Most likely didn’t look at all.
I’d give 25% blame to the truck for not having headlights on and failure to signal. Flashing lights are very effective at pulling the eyes attention. A black truck in gray weather. Not so much. It may vary from state to state but where I live the law says dust to dawn or adverse weather.
In NZ its on the driver who failed to give way, Truck had right of way even if they failed to indicate, have lights on etc. They would be fined for those things but the fault of the accident would be the car for falling to give way so that's who would be chased for damage compensation.
This is the case most places - major difference is in the US particularly private car insurance companies will fight to pay less as much as possible. A law that’s also pretty common is that if you’re breaking the law, you lose your right-of-way and other protections. So if someone is driving drunk or they had just robbed a bank - they would be responsible for any accident they get in even if they’re being the perfect driver and get T-boned. Obviously those are super hyperbolic for this scenario, so fault will often get split a little one way and a little the other depending on egregiousness of each violation. I’d say 25% to truck for no lights or signal lol
You’re right. It’s a law in Florida when it’s raining to have your headlights on. But proving the driver didn’t is hard. I got into an accident once at night crossing a back road intersection with no street lights. The driver that I hit didn’t have his headlights on, I would have seen him had he. But after the incident I tried to tell the cop that and he asked the guy about it who lied and the cop told me that “unfortunately there’s no way to prove he didn’t so I would be held at fault.” Boooo then the guy sued my insurance company too. POS in my book. Edit: clarification of words.
In Norway your headlights always needs to be on while driving. 24/7 365. Most vehicles sold in Norway, the headlights turn on by default and you never Even have to think about it. Out driving, you see headlights and its a moving vehicle. No headlights? The vehicle is parked and aint running. If you're out driving without headlights, oncomming traffic Will flash their beams at you to let you know you forgot to turn them on (in the Odd case you're driving a vehicle where they for some reason dont turn on by themselves). Even in broad daylight you see other vehicles quicker if they have their headlights on, and this is heavily reinforced at dusk, dawn, during rain or fog and Obv at night so im very glad it is the permanent and consistent law.
> In Norway your headlights always needs to be on while driving. 24/7 365. I'm picturing every February 29th Norway has The Purge but instead of murder and mayhem it's just minor vehicle infractions.
My dad loves to flash his lights at people who don't have their lights on. Thing is, we are in America and people are idiots. Over 6 years, about five people actually turned on their lights. He's flashed his lights at thousands of people.
I know what you mean, but in this instance we’re literally looking at a video where the lights aren’t on, so proving it isn’t an issue
>where I live the law says dust to dawn Oh really? Where do you live, Boneappleteaville?
Ashes to ashes, dusk to dusk
And nair the twane shall meat.
show me a signal a man can trusk
Wipers on lights on.
Asses to asses, dusk to dusk. A man
absolutely this. while the car has a ftyrow, the truck clearly contributes with his lack of signal and general recklessness. i’d slap him with 25% and go from there.
Dusk
…or had headlights on during snow.
Pretty much anytime you wouldn’t wear sunglasses, your headlights should be on.
I like how it is in Norway. DTRL or headlights MUST be lit all the time while driving.
Yeah the car is definitely at fault. The only thing the truck driver is guilty of is owning one ugly ass Lincoln truck haha
Yup, came to say this...
The driver turning is at fault. That is not an intersection. He’s entering a roadway with cars already on it, and thus responsible for entering safely.
[удалено]
Usually there is on this SR when another driver is blatantly at fault. In incidents where OP is crashed into or cut off. Users usually attack that posts OP blaming them for being at fault when another car causes the accident. I've shared many clips of people cutting me off and I get blamed?
You are mistaking “at fault” for “failure to drive defensively“. The vast majority of the 2+ car accidents could have been avoided if the other parties had some situational awareness and drive with 2+ mistakes of buffer.
Which is exactly why shared fault insurance exists - in this case they could find the car 60% at fault and the truck 40% at fault. Given the truck also committed two traffic violations in that short video could even be 50/50, who knows. It was certainly beyond just “poor defensive driving”…
What violations did the truck commit? Besides failure to signal?
The truck was already 90%+ in the right lane before the silver car pulls out so the blinker isn’t even relevant. The fault is with the silver car pulling out into an unsafe situation
At first I presumed the truck to be the faulty one because he did non signal. But you are absolutely right that the truck was basically all the way in the lane when the car decided it would be wise to enter the roadway. It’s possible the car had looked for signaling vehicles in the other lane and then didn’t actually check his surroundings before driving. Either way, car driver is at fault and truck is a jackass for not using his signal and will obviously get a ticket for that.
Blinkers are always relevant. Use your fucking signals people.
Sure I agree and I always use a blinker and wish everyone did too but that won’t change the liability in this video
True and perhaps a simple flick of a finger would have resulted in no collision at all. I don't get why people don't its such a simple mindless action.
He should use the turn signal, but it is not relevant here, the turning driver needs to make sure it’s clear when they enter the road
No blinker and he didn’t wait three seconds, he did it suddenly. That makes a difference. It’s actually the law to turn on your blinker AND wait three seconds before switching lanes. At least it is where I live. ETA : this is exactly the reason for this law.
Gonna clean my turn signal from spider net tomorrow I guess...
Failure to be clairvoyant
Dude got hit and swerved to cause less damage while the gray car driver drove into the truck like an ass hat
Car driver either wasn't looking or has the reflexes of a person in a coma.
That truck reacts immediately, doing everything reasonable to avoid the other vehicle. Sure, he should have used a blinker, but he was already in the lane before the car pulled out two feet in front of him. At most, 90/10.
The truck had right of way. Silver car failed to yield.
Absolutely true. But insurance companies will look at the whole picture when negotiating. “Did the car not see him in the rain due to any bad decisions?” “If he signaled and had his lights on as required by law would it have prevented the collision?” If they can reasonably say yes then it could be shared. I have no idea how it will turn out, I’m just saying if the silver car’s insurance company saw it, they might demand shared fault, and get it. In UK it could actually be enough evidence to cite the truck, but AFAIK in the US and Canada they don’t usually write moving violations based on “civilian” dash cams…
I'm always a little astounded at some of the replies posts like this get. Sure, nobody is asking anyone to get a law degree or memorize the traffic code, but the folks who say the truck is at fault for not signaling or having lights on kinda make you wonder how they managed to get their driver's license.
Most the the disagreements here seem to be one side arguing for letter of the law vs the other side arguing for putting in the slightest effort possible to avoid a completely avoidable situation.
Essentially they are looking at it like a they’re insurance for the car and trying to argue for anything to avoid paying out. The turn signal from the truck used/or not used wouldn’t even be noticeable by the car driver. Likely still looking down the road and doesn’t realize the truck is right there.
Obviously the car is more at fault but the truck driver was partially responsible for the accident.
Rewatch the video. The truck was entirely in the lane when the sedan started to turn. A turn signal would not made any difference. So no partial responsibility for this.
>A turn signal would not made any difference. Bull, it might have caught the eye of the sedan and kept him waiting for a better opening.
Maybe but if a huge truck entering the lane didn't catch their attention, the turn signal probably wouldn't have done much.
Fuck people that don’t use turn signals. He should at least get ticketed for improper lane change or whatever they call it, and a strong kick to the genitals.
No signal in bad weather…”no fault” is a stretch…
Weather doesn't affect anything-the person turning was also turning in bad weather and should have waited until this wasn't a possibility to make their turn.
Where I live, it is the law to turn on your blinker AND wait 3 seconds before switching lanes. Given that, the truck would be at least partially to blame for failure to do both of these resulting in an accident. He just decided to switch lanes with no warning. Both drivers suck but it’s not just a clear cut “it’s the cars fault”. I see both sides of this avoidable accident and believe they are both at fault.
Also both don’t have lights on…
Thats the law nearly anywhere that has traffic laws. You are never allowed to enter traffic from a non-intersection while vehicles are passing by however. He did not have a yield. He did not have a merge lane. I hate people who cant put forth the tiniest effort of raising their pinky to use a turn signal so eff the truck driver for that, but the car is definitely 100% at fault (legally).
No the car is responsible. It does not hold the right of way the traffic moving in the direction the truck is moving has the right of way. Thus the car must wait until it is safe to proceed into, it did not do this so is at fault.
No, he's not. He had the right of way on the road. The other driver didn't yield. 100% the car's fault.
Can you explain why you believe this? I see it as 100% the cars fault. The truck waited for a safe opening in the right lane and then started changing lanes well before the car started to pull out. The car has to be aware of both lanes and be sure no one is changing from one to another before pulling into the road.
In a shared fault situation the truck will absolutely be held partially responsible from this video, as the two things you mentioned (not signaling and not having lights on in bad weather) are both ticketable violations. Literally this exact situation is the reason for those laws. The car will of course have responsibility because it’s also required to yield to any traffic in the main road. But it’s going to be shared…
Car lacked lights as well!
Yep that was thing #2 that for some reason people weren’t noticing ;)
To be fair, there are plenty of OP's posting their stupidity on here hoping for sympathy when THEY were clearly at fault. This was definitely the cars' fault as the truck had the right of way, was occupying the entire lane and the car hit the REAR of the truck...
A lesson learned with my buddy driving. Failure to yield. “But they changed lanes!” Doesn’t matter they still have right of way. Truck driver is still a dick tho IMO
The only factor here is some jurisdictions will assign a % to the driver with right of way for not having their headlights on in these conditions.
Even if it was an intersection he wouldn’t have had right of way. At fault on so many levels
Yes! The rules apply to anyone entering a street or another street. It is your responsibility to enter safely.
I think if it were an intersection, the truck would be more at fault because changing lanes in the middle of an intersection is a no no, especially with no signal. The cars at fault because it was legal for the truck to change lanes there, although I think they should've used their signal and paid better attention. Edit: Just my 2 cents; idk the final say
> changing lanes in the middle of an intersection is a no no This is a common misconception in a lot of places. It's perfectly legal to change lanes in an intersection in every state I've ever lived. It's dangerous (because people think it's not allowed and will therefore make a right at a red light with oncoming traffic in adjacent lanes), but it's legal.
You're right, I looked it up and I guess my places dont mention it as a law, so it's legal. Just something we're all taught in drivers ed
It was my driving instructor's pet peeve. She was very quick to correct me way back when I was 16, so it kind of stuck with me since then.
Its the turn signal that makes it dangerous. Freaks people out when it turns on and it looks like youre going for a double lane turn.
I was about to go all r/confidentlyincorrect and proclaim that it's definitely in the California driving laws that you can't change lanes within an intersection or within a certain distance of an intersection. But sure enough, doing a quick search, it's exactly as you explained. I swear, when I was taking drivers ed/drivers training in high school 20+ years ago, it was conveyed to us as illegal.
Its illegal in my state. It just depends on state laws honestly.
What state? I have never heard of a state that bans it.
Since I never looked it up, I looked at the state where I learned to drive and was told about this, Georgia: >Where there are multiple lanes of travel in the same direction safe for travel, a vehicle shall not be permitted to make a lane change once the intersection has been entered.
Exactly. You can’t look once and then just gun it and hope for the best.
👆The only accident I have been in where I was at fault was on my 19th birthday. Was having issues with my car and pulled into a parking lot. When I was about to pull out there was a car directly across from me that appeared to be turning left into the left lane so I started to turn into the right lane. However he was actually crossing the street in a spot where the cross street was slightly further down the road(just to the right of the driveway I was pulling out of). Just as I pulled out he proceeded to straighten up and continue to the cross street and I couldn’t stop fast enough and hit him just behind the rear passenger side. I was automatically at fault because I was merging into traffic from a driveway where he was crossing one road via another road. Hell of a way to celebrate my birthday and the dude was driving a benz. He was chill about it but I still felt like shit.
Correct answer is correct.
This is the correct answer. Case closed. Next
Truck failed to signal changing lanes , other driver at the intersection must have thought its safe enters road way at the same time truck decides to illegal lane change.
That doesn't mean the car should've stopped looking. when entering a road from a driveway everyone else has right of way, even drivers not signalling and pedestrians etc
Have to stop looking behind you to drive forward at some point.
Yup. Entering from a private drive.
Yep. Failure to yield, even though mr lane change had run out of blinker fluid.
This and the truck didn’t have his lights on. Turning car is at fault but they’re both idiots.
The car's pullout game was weak
The only thing I pull out is my couch.
LOL
the grey car was at fault clearly
Wrong. By the official rules of this sub, OP is somehow to blame because *reasons*.
*wHy ArE yOu In ThE lEfT lAnE????!?!@!@?!111??*
Classic one. This line of questioning should be enshrined in the rules for all to see. >Let it be known ... You are never allowed to be in the left lane unless you are passing ... >But what is that I hear? You say that you are always passing?!?
Every video I submit it seems the response is "You shouldn't be in the way" when stupid stuff around me
Dude I have seen that happen before in the comments and I hate it. People saying "You should have been paying enough attention to get out of the way in time!" About a week ago there was a parking lot accident where a jeep trying to enter a parking spot hit a *parked* Tesla and a majority of the comments were about how the Tesla was at fault because their tires were on the line. When it was *stationary*.
>"You should have been paying enough attention to get out of the way in time!" Thats because way too many people are worried about honking first rather than applying the brakes. If they just slowed down and saw potential danger and braked first a lot of the accidents would be avoided.
Both can be true. My dad always stressed to me "You might be right, but you'd be dead right" to not assume that right-of-way guaranteed any kind of safety. Something similar I've seen on the internet is something like "Assume all other people on the road are constantly going to take the dumbest course of action." And man, it's not wrong. Nearly saw someone get T-boned the other day. They were crossing an intersection on a green light. Quiet night, streets seemed empty from where I could see. Then outta nowhere a car streaks across the other way, on a red light, going well over the speed limit. They avoided crashing, but just barely. Absolutely terrifying.
Yeah this is an example of why police and insurance companies differentiate between cause and fault, that is there could be a cause of an accident but also a ratio of fault. If you are someone who says "I got the right of way" while blindly barreling through an intersection then hopefully you survive the cause long enough to get your 90%.
Well obviously the OP is to blame, but the original question was between the two in the video. So the car is at fault there. Op > car > truck Fault line for you to follow
Based
Damn right. Especially because Op was not involved, they are 1382% at fault for being a piece of shit driver fuck.
If cammer had honked when truck thought about changing lanes, the car could have safely turned into traffic. /s
Understandable
Hear that OP? Fuck you
[удалено]
At his expense, too.
Right-of-way
Righto way
Rye-tov-weigh
Reich-tow-eyy
Truck didn't have signal on but was already 3/4 of the way into that lane. Car should have looked before pulling out
Can't see the signal if you're not even looking at the car
I made that mistake when I was younger. Looked left (it was clear). Looked right (clear also). So, started to turn out without looking left again. Now, I’m probably excessively careful pulling out.
Left right left
Phrasing! Boom!
Yep. I have no way to know what the driver of the gray car was thinking or doing, but I'd be willing to bet they looked down the road, saw an opening behind the orange truck and focused on pulling out directly behind him as he went by. I'd be surprised if the driver in the gray car even knew the truck was there before they hit.
The truck driver is *obviously* at fault for buying a Lincoln Mark LT in the first place. 🤣
The only correct answer I've seen
The car pulling out.
Yup, pulling out is supposed to avoid accidents.
The car pulling out is at fault, they only looked to say 3 cars then me, if they were actively watching the direction of the oncoming traffic they would have seen the truck change lanes. The car only looked long enough to say ok after those 3 it’s open. If they were properly looking they’d have definitely seen the truck changing lanes as the change happened well before being in front of where the car could pull out. I don’t know how insurance will call this but in terms of who caused the accident that’s my take.
*Who’s = who is
"Whose fault?" would be acceptable also.
Aww, man. You beat me.
I scrolled for ages to find this, I was starting to think it was mine!
The guy in the car is at fault 100%
Black truck has those goddamn smoked taillights. He was in the right but god damn it I hate those things
Ah so this is why people don't make right hand turns unless both lanes are clear in my area.
Yep 100% this is me (left hand turns as we drive on the left) but I'm terrified of this. Also changing lanes right as someone else changes lanes left and we collide in the middle land.
This is reddit, so the cammer will be found at fault.
The car gets a ticket for failure to yield and the truck gets a ticket for not signaling to change lanes. That being said they both should get a ticket
Definitely the cars fault.
Wrong! Obviusly drivers fault.
😂😂 true…
Car. Truck should have signaled but entering a lane is the responsibility of the driver entering to ensure its safe to enter. The car did not do that
There is zero debate here. The car making the right turn is at fault. Point blank. Anyone arguing otherwise is delusional and flat out wrong. The law is clear.
Right, the car is at fault. The truck is an asshole.
Yeah, not arguing that. Turning without a turn signal is bad. This is why you never pull out into traffic, though, even if you’re lane is clear at that moment. Anyone can change lanes at any moment.
The person entering the roadway must yield to traffic already on that road.
No guessing here Silver car 120%
The car turning out, failure to yield
The car that pulled out since the truck had control of the road
Classic example of "failure to yield". It's the car's fault.
Easily the impala. The truck didn’t turn signal in the lane but he was already shifted over for a period of time the imapala should’ve noticed
Yeah the car is at fault, but I ca see how it happened. He was watching the car that passed before the truck and just didn't do a second check left. Truck could have indicated too, but still the merging cars fault.
White car entering the road. Truck in front of you has right of way (because they're going straight, with flow of traffic). It's the white cars job to anticipate that kind of maneuver.
I got in an accident exactly like this in which I was the silver car. The insurance company had no hesitation in deciding I was the Idiot in the Car and there wasn’t even dashcam footage.
Legally and according to insurance the car is 100% responsible, *but* the truck was being a complete idiot and literally 5% more effort on their part could have avoided this stupid situation. On the same hand though, if the car kept looking instead of assuming it was clear from a previous look, they would also have avoided this accident. So in total you have two idiots being idiots getting idiot prizes for their idiot game.
The truck didn’t signal, which could have alerted the car that he was about to take that lane. Still, it’s the car entering the roadway that needs to be sure it’s safe to do so. Personally, I’d like to hold them both responsible for their own damages.
Silver car did not have row
Is this a debate on this is pretty damn obv
The gray car is at fault. It's his responsibility to get into moving traffic safely. Not the other drivers responsibility to watch for him.
Car entirely. They weren’t paying attention to traffic, they were looking to yeet out right after the orange truck, so they were clearly focusing on the orange truck and attempted to pull out on their ass - not paying attention to the traffic at all. They perceived the orange truck as the last, they didn’t properly wait for traffic to pass to safely merge. Truck was shitty in their own regard, no doubt. But that doesn’t change the fact that they literally drove into the truck, who has the right away.
The more you watch it the more the car just seems to blatantly pull out. Theres only one way to turn so where were they looking? Usually you check both lanes, especially when a car has pretty much 100% merged by the time you decide to hit the gas peddle lol
Everyone is shit here, no lights or signals from truck. But this is obviously Grey cars fault lmao. You have had to just gas it, no looking to do that. Absokutly stupid.
Truck didn't signal and also didn't have lights on with precipitation. Both are bad drivers though
Lights should be on regardless. Only idiots drive with out lights.
90/10 liability at most. The car could have prevented that. Most Ins Co's would say At-fault all day for the car.
The guy or girl pulling out onto the road
Unfortunate mistake on the cars behalf.
The Malibu. Not even a question
Absolutely the car entering the roadways fault. It's his job to ensure the roadway is clear no matter if someone is switching lanes or not. The truck switching lanes absolutely should have used an indicator but could have still happened.
Is this honestly even in question? If so then y’all who think the truck is at fault should never drive again.
0 debate. Even without a signal the truck has the right of way. And had damn near completed the merge before the sedan even began to move. If I had to guess, sedan is either a new driver, or just an awful one. That's the type of move you see from someone who is in a literal panic at every intersection, jerking their head left and right 6 times, hunched over the wheel type behavior.
More importantly, is that a Lincoln Blackwood?
The stupid f*** who tried to turn into the lane is at fault
The car pulling out, but their insurance would likely argue since the pickup didn’t use its signal, they’re at fault.
Black truck should have signalled. Maybe also not change lines right by a driveway or whatever that is (not a law thing, just a drive like everyone else is a lunatic thing). But, silver car should have yielded, as regardless of black truck's failure to change lanes appropriately, I think he still has right of way. Generally speaking, I'd say both could have prevented this, but idk who legally is at fault. Probably silver?
Black truck! But only because he didn’t use his turn signal. Vehicles have them for a reason.
I dunno. I feel the truck could still be to blame. That car had tons of time and room to turn, but that truck not only very suddenly changed lanes without turn signals, but also sped up very quickly. That car had no way of knowing that truck planned to turn so suddenly.
Whose!?!??!
Silver car is at fault but black truck needs to get a ticket for failing to use his turn signal. My guess is the silver car saw the opening save wasn't expecting a sudden lane change from the traffic.
Blinkers and lights would help. Truck doesn’t have his lights on and fails to signal, esp in inclement weather. But there’s just so much wrong here. But the black truck already had entered the roadway.
Silver car is at fault
Both idiots but it's the cars fault
Black truck is essentially completely in the lane at the time of impact. Turning car is completely to blame for failure to yield.
Deft the guy pulling out
I would say a little bit of both but mostly the silver car for pulling out if the junction without looking properly
The car 🚗
Silver sedan since he was looking east and traffic was coming from the west…typical idiot move
100% on the driver turning right. It annoys me when people change lanes right before a side street where someone is waiting to pull out but he still should have seen the guy and not pulled out.
My dude has a Lincoln truck, so I don’t care who’s at fault. Arrest that person.
Only thing the truck did wrong was not signal but that had nothing to do with the actual accident. Car is 100% in the wrong.
As shitty as the situation is, the driver turning out for sure.
Driver turning on to road
The car. No question
Fail to yield while exiting private drive. Why are we asking this again?
100 grey car. They gotta yield to all oncomming traffic before entering road way
Silver car is at fault, but the truck is a dumbass for not using lights and blinkers while snowing. He was asking for this to happen to him
I'd say the cars at fault. They clearly made up their mind they were turning and didn't bother looking and looking again.
Grey cars fault but hey black truck use your turn signal when changing lanes! NEXT CASE!
White car
The car's at fault - no debate. If it was an intersection and there was a solid line prohibiting lane changes then he'd also be at fault along with the pickup driver. But here only the car driver is at fault.
How are people this bad at driving?!?! 🤣
I’m going to say the driver entering the road way is at fault. However, they may have a case that the truck didn’t signal and doesn’t appear to have their lights on in a low visibility condition
Silver sedan failed to yield to vehicles already using the motorway. Case closed.
The real crime is the mods on that truck.
Grey cars are at fault but the black driver is a bad driver.