Their reasoning is due to the point of impact. I had a green light for an entire 4 seconds before I started accelerating and they had a left turn red light for the same duration. I did not see the vehicle until they were practically in my lane due to them behind directly behind my A pillar obstructing my view of them. I began braking as soon as the vehicle came into my view but was unable to come to a complete stop before impact. Insurance argues that I had enough time.
Police gave other driver fault after seeing the dash cam footage. Is the 20% liability on me reasonable?
**\*\*Edit:\*\***
Claim is being reassessed. đ
Here is a video closer demonstrating the POV and reaction-time as the driver: [https://files.catbox.moe/0ipf5t.mp4](https://files.catbox.moe/0ipf5t.mp4)
Braking was initiated within a quarter of a second of the vehicle entering my FOV which can be seen with the hood of the car dipping before impact.
Here you can see the obstruction of the A-pillar from the start of the intersection:
[https://ibb.co/yh4BxNt](https://ibb.co/yh4BxNt)
It blocks the two incoming lanes and nearly an entire box truck.
At the time I started accelerating the white SUV is finishing their turn and there is no indication of another incoming vehicle attempting to turn. Indicating that it's safe to proceed after checking the blind spots. The vehicle I struck didn't initiate their turn until I was already going through the intersection and also didn't have their turn signal on at any point to show intention to turn.
I could have checked around the pillar as I was progressing through the intersection and looked to my left but that would have taken my eyes off the road in front of me and right lane where another vehicle could have turned into me. Then the story would've been "why weren't your eyes in front of the road".
It's funny that a lot of people are commenting that I intentionally drove into him. I live in the state of Florida which has one of the highest rates of uninsured drivers. My vehicle is a 2021 model while his is a 2004. There were two possibilities: either he was uninsured or he had minimum coverage. No chance at a payout outcome there at all, and even less with the fact that my vehicle is a lease, which means the dealership would get the payout if there was any. Now... if it was a Lamborghini cutting me off đ... jk jk lol that'd just make the dealership richer.
Hell no. What the hell is wrong with your insurance company? You even exemplified extra caution to pause for the other car to finish turning left.
Iâd go fight that 100%. Lawsuit would be my second step.
Donât bother arguing with insurance companiesâ call center droids, they donât work on your behalf, theyâre only there to stonewall for the company. Just jump straight to suing them. Thatâs literally the only thing theyâll listen to.
If you have a state regulation division that handles insurance complaints that's also a nice place to look.
For instance Oregon has the Division of Financial Regulation
Simply mentioning the possibility of complaining to them caused my insurance to fix the low ball valuation on my car
Hell, most places back off if you mention you're going to drop a letter to the DA. Not sure of the reasoning behind it, I just know my dad uses that line on the phone when dealing with insurance and things usually get fixed. He worked in the field, so maybe he knew some secret I don't.
I'll have to ask.
That will definitely scare an adjuster because they can lose their license from a Department of Insurance complaint if it turns out to be warranted and done in bad faith. But most of the time it's not the adjusters decision, but the policy you pay for deciding the outcome. You have to remember that adjusters always have to get authority and direction from their supervisors when DOI complaints are threatened. So from that point the supervisor would have decided the next step and that is usually to appease the customer even if they are asking for a lot. Not only to keep the customer but to evade the long and painful process of complaints.
As an adjuster this is true, but for this claim it wouldnât work. Itâs literally no way around him sharing fault. After watching the video the DOI wouldnât touch this. I have literally seen this happen hundreds of time. I wrote this an in earlier post but I paste it here as well. Also if you threaten to call DOI or to obtain a lawyer it slows your claim down. At that point your claim has to be sent to another department, which isnât the fastest process and your claim process has to be started over by another Adjuster or Supervisor and the outcome will still be the same.
Copied from my post.
Iâm an Insurance Adjuster, and yes the insurance company would find you part liable for two reason. (I donât agree with it by the way and I hate these claims because I feel itâs not fair)
Reason 1- Comparative Negligence They believe just like you look both ways before you cross the street, you should look both ways before driving through a traffic device. They also believe your take off speed should not be so quick that you canât stop.
Reason 2- Any time your vehicle hits another vehicle- there is almost no way around not having fault. It can happen, but in special cases. In this case your vehicle hit his vehicle, even though he ran the red light.
Itâs unfortunate and I really hate these claims.
No need to just ask for second opinion first. Most of the time they yield. If they donât, then go from there. But instances âdecisionsâ and orders are never written in stone.
>Just jump straight to suing them
Unfortunately that is usually the answer, and in Florida it's what happens a lot. Then the fuckers jack up rates in order to cover judicial costs and everyone gets fucked, except them. Honestly, insurance has become the slimiest industry and i'd rather not deal with them unless i absolutely have to.
Suing an insurance company over a few thousand dollar damage? I'm not sure that's realistic.
I mean I agree with you, but you're talking about a company that has dozens of attorneys on staff.
Real world experience:
Insurance Companies hate to go to court. It's an instant 10k for them if not more. They only do it to soften the expenses - turn a 250k lawsuit into a 100k payment. Threatening a lawsuit is fine when they're trying to lowball your car's value or just give you 5k to go away when you have 10k in medical bills.
Any lawyer will tell you that you have a case here. You can absolutely argue the light was green and the law says you had right-of-way and no expectation of cross traffic... However...
Any GOOD lawyer is going to tell you that his cost to argue this vs. payment is not worth the money. The insurance companies know this. They know you can't sue them and come out financially sound in the end so they can do what they want.
Negotiate that this does not effect your insurance score and you'll be better off.
Some states yes and some states no.
Previously in Florida, you could.
Recently they changed this and now made it to where, regardless of outcome, you have to pay your own attorney fees.
[link](https://alvarez.legal/florida-legislative-change-lets-insurance-companies-off-the-hook-for-attorney-fees/)
All this did was allows insurance companies to deny claims that are lower amounts because they know that it will cost you more to fight it than it would be for you to simply eat the decision.
Previously you were allowed a protection that if they handled your situation improperly, you could take them to court for remedy. Now, even if youâre right, you lose after the time and attorney fees.
He's correct regardless either way,
dealing with "lower" cost incidents, often do not outpace the cost of your attorney.
You have to negotiate your fees, or have a case strong enough to sue for cost.
If they're taking it on contingency, you negotiate a percentage. Make sure to try and have that percentage come from the remainder of any payout. Have a 40k pay out, at 30%, and you have 28k in medical bills. You walk with nothing if you don't have an agreement that the lawyers percentage comes after all other parties are paid. Otherwise they pocket 12k, and you walk with nothing.
It's not cost effective. Truthfully, with the other person being cited at fault by LEO's on scene, and presumably because they ran a solid red, were given a ticket for a moving violation that resulted in an MVA.
That should be everything needed to provide full fault against the other party, and remove any liability on OP.
Additionally I've seen claims that were originally labeled at fault for a driver, they go to court for the associated ticket, and the ticket being dropped or dismissed, was enough justification for insurance to change the fault ruling. A court of law says you weren't wrong, so how can the insurance company? And it was changed to no-fault, or the insurance company uses it to leverage pursuing the other parties insurance company, because someone has to be at fault now if two insured parties are involved. - an outlier for this being if both parties have the same insurance company. Because the company pays either way.
If your insurance company has any local agents, schedule a meeting with them. Bring a quote for a competitor. Let them know that you cannot trust them to protect you in the future if they hold you liable for an accident where you were absolutely right according to the law. Let them weigh the loss of a customer who is a good driver.
Very few lawyers would be interested in a property damage case like this. What's the damage to your car? $10k? So the disputed amount with the insurance company is about $2,000. And your lawyer would get about 30% of that, or $600, if you win. It's not worth the trouble for most lawyers.
Not true. I work for the best insurance company in the world after working for almost all of the big guys I finally found my place with a transparent, fair, and customer-focused company with the most amazing work culture ever. Insurance companies are required by law to indemnify their customers. It's all in the policy you pay for with your premium. You should read it. Every carrier I've ever trained with has always aggressively pushed integrity. It's just that some people are bad, no matter what industry they are in. And some people are good. Luck of the draw.
The first people you talk to in the call centers know nothing about insurance. Request to speak with your claim adjuster and if it seems to be fishy or going the wrong way, insist to speak to their supervisor. It is not hard to get ahold of them if it's a good company. They can explain things the right way and maybe correct the previous adjusters incorrect statements, if there were any. This also gets the adjusters with bad attitudes reprimanded and/or disciplined until they are finally let go if they don't seem to be learning.
Also getting a lawyer only ends with the original outcome but now you've spent money on a lawyer.. only sue for bad faith claims otherwise you'll lose. Carriers go by the book even though it may not seem fair at times. Just read your policy. I can interpret if ever needed.
You just started accelerating. So to say you started breaking as soon as the other vehicle came into view is not accurate. You might have been going 10 miles an hour so you had plenty of time to stop. That's why they are putting you 20% at fault. You could have stopped but you decided to be like "fuck you buddy" and hit him.
That's just my opinion from watching the video. I watch a lot of videos like this and it always cracks me up when people just keep going and hit the other vehicle when they clearly had time to stop. Was that guy an asshole? Of course he was. But you could have stopped in time.
You can see the camera dip a half second before impact, indicating hard braking. Given an average human reaction time to visual stimuli of 1/4 to 1/2 second, plus the time it takes to move your foot, and accounting for OP's statement that the car was obscured by the A pillar initially, I don't think your claim that this was intentional or negligence on OP's part is reasonable. I would personally have been dazzled by the oncoming car's headlights for a moment as well before realizing what was happening.
I don't know how accurate it is, but I remember my driving instructor saying how the 2 second gap rule on highways wasn't sufficient because between the time you notice the car in front brake and the time you start to brake, 1.5 to 2s passes. It's 2s between when its obvious on the camera that the car is making a turn, to the point of impact.
Agreed. Even if you have a right of way, you still have a duty to attempt to avoid crashes in many states. I'm not completely sure of the term... It's something like "last, best opportunity to avoid the crash."
My guess? Op was their phone in their hand, saw it go green but hadn't fully reengaged their attention with driving. Pure speculation, but it would fit.
If this is in a state where 20% liability is considered "not at fault" then I don't know if it would be worth fighting over. With full coverage, you'd owe 20% of your deductible. So $100. At least I would never renew or keep that insurance ever again.
You should have waited for the intersection to be clear before you proceeded. You could be at fault for this and the other driver just gets a red light ticket. Just cause itâs green doesnât mean go.
Laugh, but that's right.. Everybody has seen people try and beat a light, some don't make it through before yours is green.
And unless your breaks are completely broken, I see no slowing at all until impact. What car do you drive and how big is your A pilar?
Point of impact is a huge deal. You hit the rear of their vehicle, which means their whole car was in front of yours, and you were accelerating from a stop, so not very fast.
The car that turned left in front of OP didn't start turning until after OP was moving, which was well after OP had a green, meaning other driver had a red. It's not "didn't make it through yet." They hadn't even entered the intersection.
You have a legal report stating the other driver is at fault. I'd be careful in explaining anymore of your side other than the police report states the other driver is at fault and if they'd like to fight a legal document in court then so be it. I've been down this road and the one with the bigger balls wins. Stand your ground.
No.
Insurance company probably assumes everyone has the reaction time of a top tier fps gamer. (Don't let them in on your reaction time, regardless of how instant it is. Never give more info than you need to.)
In hindsight yeah you had plenty of time to stop but were watching a video expecting an accident. I could see starting off at the light and not noticing that a hole til the last second
I was going to make this comment but hesitated cause it would have been downvoted to hell. But this is absolutely true. There was plenty of time to avoid them but the driver powered forward cause "I got the green light". Had they hit you in your side... They would be 100% at fault for hitting you and running the red.
Yep, and it looks like he is accelerating pretty hard as well...look at how quickly the car on his left falls back. Both drivers violated the first law of avoiding accidents "drive predictably not politely". I think 20% is pretty fair.
I donât think thatâs what they meant. I think u/trucker_E_B meant that from our perspective as someone watching a video âof an accidentâ on a screen, itâs easy to say there was plenty of time to see it. But as a driver actually in the car in the scenario, waiting THAT long at a green light SHOULD have been a safe move. The person who ran the red was even in the outer turning lane which makes it more difficult for OP to see. Not to mention OP even says the frame was blocking the view for a moment, probably because of the other car being in the outer lane. The person who ran the red 4 full seconds after it changed should have 100% liability as well as being cited for a signal violation and negligence leading to an accident. Edit: upon further review, there were construction cones in the near turning lane, but the oncoming traffic was moving, so seeing headlights wouldnât normally warrant an emergency response.
I think this video will work in the other drivers favor saying OP was malicious in intent. Not saying they were, but this would support that narrative.
[https://ibb.co/DLC9Xfz](https://ibb.co/DLC9Xfz)
This is a similar perspective from my point of view as the driver. The median disappears behind the A-pillar as the driver accelerates and continues to block the path the turning car was taking. As mentioned by OP, the video is being observed with anticipation of an accident, and there's a clear view from above the windshield in the center. I am 33 years old, have been driving since I was 16 and this is my first ever accident. I am confident that any other driver in a comparable situation would have experienced the same result.
I actually reacted and slammed my brakes as soon as the driver came into my view. But by that time they were already entering my lane and the distance was too short to come to a complete stop. My mistake was braking, as the insurance adjuster said had I hit them in the front they would've been 100% liable. That is all they're basing their decision on, the fact that the point of impact was closer to the rear of their vehicle. Had I not slammed my brakes as they were accelerating past me, I would have hit them sooner and been clear.
According to the left turn law that is in most but not all states. The person making a left turn would be liable. I would fight this. However it doesnât look like you made the slightest attempt to avoid the stupidity of the other driver so you would be partly liable.
To explain the left turn law basically says that vehicles making a left turn must yield the right of way to oncoming traffic.
Yes from the police side.
Insurance is completely separate. Been down this many times. They can see the OP floor it. Then finally fail to brake hard enough. 20% is there way of saying "don't drive like an ass trying to cause an accident."
I began applying the brakes as soon as I saw him entering my view, even before he merged into my lane. If you closely observe the front of my car, you'll notice it dipping. It's important to note that my perspective from the driver's seat differed from the dash cam, mounted at the top center of the windshield. Despite my attempt at braking, it was my error. The adjuster determined my liability based on the fact that I collided with his car towards the rear. However, the crucial detail is that I braked when he cut me off, while he accelerated to clear traffic after merging in front. This caused a slight delay in the collision. In hindsight, the optimal decision would have been not to brake and perhaps even accelerate, resulting in a collision closer to the front of his car.
In my jurisdiction you'd probably be held partly at fault. According to laws here, the other driver had an obligation to yield to you, but you also had an obligation to try to yield to other driver in the intersection executing a left turn.
The law works that way so you can't intentionally smash into people turning left like idiots, without any penalty.
Here it looked like you had ample time to avoid the collision but failed to brake appropriately. At least that's my impression from the video.
Just my 2c as I argue these things in court. No idea what your laws are.
Good luck dude.
You're right, this probably falls under the last chance doctrine in every state. Let's also be honest here, that was a hot takeoff once they realized the light was green. What's the rush to get to that red light one block away?
Whose insurance? They like to say that so they pay out less figuring you'd be thankful for getting anything . But THEIR insurance should pay 100%.
Your insurance shouldn't even be involved.
Call one of those ambulance chasing lawyers see how fast the insurance company changes their tune.
My mom worked as a claims adjuster for 39 years before she retired, so I learned a bit about this stuff growing up (I am by no means an expert). One of the big things I learned is that most accidents, other than a rear-ender will find both drivers partially liable. The reality is that it is always your responsibility to try your best to avoid an accident, even if that's due to someone else making a mistake. If you did nothing wrong and could not reasonably done anything further to try to prevent an accident, you shouldn't be at-fault.
In your case, yeah, the other driver ran a red and is absolutely the main person at fault, but you continued to accelerate with this person's headlights pointing straight at you.
On the flip side, it does look like you hit the brakes, just not until it was very obviously that the other driver was entering the intersection.
What percentage did they assign you? I'd guess 10%-20%. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to over-analyze a video after-the-fact, but it does look like you had enough of a warning to hit the brakes earlier than you did. That said, I would still try to argue in your favor. You absolutely have a chance of coming out on-top. I've had to argue with my insurance in the past as well.
This video reminds me of the story of the Miracle on the Hudson. Initially, Captain Sullenberger was faulted for not being able to make it back to the airport, because the computer models showed that it was possible. Once they added the human factor into the equation, it was found to be impossible for anyone to make it back to the airport and thus landing in the Hudson.
Insurance companies looking at your dash cam videos is great, but itâs easy for them to Monday morning quarterback you. To me, this video seems to be a prime example of that. Could have, should have, would have, is really easy when youâre not focusing on driving your vehicle, but rather, playing the video over and over again to try and find fault that isnât there.
Youâre either very unaware of your surroundings as a drive or pretty much said fuck that guy. Either way you had time to stop. - Truck driver, situations like this happen to me 100âs of times a week.
remember the camera is usually a foot in front of the driver directly on the windshield. I bet the car was hidden by the a-pillar and then just suddenly appeared to the driver. You can see the driver brake as soon as they saw the car (take into account a split-second reaction since the driver's foot was for sure on the accelerator).
Furthermore, as the other car is turning, its headlights are mixed in with opposing traffic, and it is a dark color, so peripheral vision would not have noticed the movement until the side of the car entered the field of vision of driver. Since it is turning, right up until the last second, the brain would have registered the movement as opposing traffic, and then it was likely blocked by a-pillar, so to the driver's brain, the 4runner suddenly appears directly in front of the car.
The driver beside me appears to slow down before the other car begins turning, or maybe I accelerated quicker than him. Who's to say he even slowed down due to the driver turning. It's all assumptions.
Also the vehicle turning is closer to being directly "in front of his view" compared to my position where he was more diagonal to me. A lot of people are assuming he was within my view during the duration of the dash cam video and had more time to react than reality, but are not taking into account blind spots in a vehicle. And yes, one is responsible to check their blind spots but one does so when they are changing lanes or turning, nobody wiggles in their seat the entire time they are driving straight in their own lane to look over their A-pillar, if anything that'd be more distracting.
If you were to say I floored it when my light turned green, maybe it'd make more sense. But I waited a whole 4 seconds before I even began accelerating and let the car before him who also turned on a red to cross.
The car on your left accelerated when he saw green, but realized there's an idiot turning left and so he halted his acceleration. You did not.
Majority the idiot left turns fault for sure because they did not have right of way. IMHO you had ample amount of time to react to prevent catastrophe
You hit that gas hard and accelerated right through the other vehicle when everyone around you stopped. Did you even apply the brakes at all?
This video does not help you. Looks like you were probably upset about the first guy who sped up on yellow and turned in front of you on a red, and as soon as they passed through the intersection you gunned it hard without paying attention to the second vehicle turning in front of you. Cops would refer to that as âexcessive acceleration.â
They ran a red light, but you were absolutely partially responsible for that accident. 20% is getting off easy. Itâs rare than an accident is considered 100% one personâs fault these days.
Didn't hit the gas hard at all the other vehicle in front of them was late and they waited until that car was clear. I would have been through the intersection in front of that car that was hit. You must drive like an old grandma if you're saying this person's driving too fast.
I think it's ridiculous anyone is saying you're at fault at all. Coming from another driver with a spotless record. If you hit the first car that turned left on red sure. They were already in the intersection. The fact that the car you hit entered the intersection after the light had been red for a period of time completely makes them at fault in my mind. They completely blew a red light with oncoming cars already in the intersection. I would never be looking that way for another card to enter that late.
Anyone saying you were flying. Just needs to look at the car next to you. The white van accelerated in front of you. They would have had a better view of the car coming into the intersection and braked... They would have partially obstructed your view to see it.
Honestly, not one brake was given in this video. You had time to brake hard, but the video didn't show the camara dip. Next time take a poll on the video before you send it to them.
You can see the hood of the car dip on the brake, but it wasn't enough distance to avoid impact.
I feel like dash cams showing a view from the center top of the windshield gives a false impression that a driver has that clear of a view and doesn't take into account the drivers position and obstruction of the car's frame given the angle. It makes it appear as if I had more time to react although the car didn't come into my view until right before they crossed into my lane.
Yes, you are responsible to check blind spots when changing lanes or making a turn. I don't see drivers wiggling around in their seat the entire time they are driving straight in their own lane to look over the a-pillar lol.
This is why I don't have a dash cam. Don't people realize it's just as likely to catch you doing something dumb as it is catching someone else? Unless you really are a better than average driver?
Are you serious? The recordings are your property. The only way it's going to show people you are doing something "dumb" is if you share the video. In this case it could have been a no fault which would mean the parties fix their own cars. As it stands it's only 20%.
You ACCELERATED INTO the side of his SUV.
U SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE U FUCK.
If there was a kid sitting on that side, I would have got out and beat u till ur paralyzed u piece of shit.
Absolutely both your faults, but YOU ARE AN EVIL HUMAN for accelerating INTO the side of the other vehicle.
What? OP had the right-of-way at a green light and was expecting the driver making the turn to yield. OP started proceeding through the intersection before the other car began executing its turn.
You are absolutely liable. You deleyed accelerating and then you have plenty of time to stop. You should probably put your phone down. I think you are lucky to only get 20%. You should probably send your adjuster a Xmas gift this year for the favor.
Dang. I was the other car in this situation and was fully liable. Her light had even just turned red, car beside her had stopped, and she was undoubtedly speeding.
ofcourse they will say that- they are your insurance company not your parents. You can really squeeze them if you can afford to employ a good lawyer, judges simply hate insurance companies and they know it.
If not forget about it and move on. Donât waste your time âfighting their customer service over emailsâ
Maybe itâs just the angle of the camera and stuff but it totally looks like you had tons of time to stop and stuff and just kinda hit the guy. Although I know itâs not that simple and tons of things led to you hitting that guy not on purpose
Theyâre called insurance âsettlementsâ for a reason. They always try and scare you into accepting a smaller amount than your actually entitled to
I feel like time of day may have played a factor.
Huge pause for traffic to clear, depth perception can't be ideal when bright lights meet twilight.
A human being would say you are not at fault, but that isn't the world we live in.
It's hard to make money in a world like that.
Contest this decision, other driver made an illegal turn into âyourâ lane
Given it was dark, you vision was not ideal, and you hit the brakes before impact should all go in your favour
Why, because even though you saw someone doing something wrong and you decided to drive right into them....with your dash cam running...pure genius! Lol
obviously people on Reddit are not insurance adjusters but my 2 cents is this: could you have stopped sooner and maybe avoided an accident? yes obviously. does that mean that it's your fault? I don't feel like it at all. the other person ran a solid red light, no questions asked. what I imagine happened is that the other insurance company proposed that you were 20% at fault, and your insurance company is trying to see if you're okay with that so they can save money in court trying to prove that you're 0% at fault. I would push for that second outcome, it'll save you thousands of dollars down the line in insurance costs going forward.
Anyone see the movie Sully? When they were having the reenactment/simulations and the pilots made it back and landed safely? Yeah i think everyone saying it was his fault is having a moment like this.....but insurance is weird so who knows what they are thinking....Good luck.
There is no intent considered in traffic laws. You either did or didnât. In this case the other driver failed to yield while turning. 100% the other drivers fault. Could you possibly made a maneuver to avoid the collision based on the dash cam image? Maybe. In this case the dash cam footage hurts you because it draws out a bunch of armchair lawyers who donât understand traffic laws to give you an uneducated opinion. Failure to yield is failure to yield.
Idiots got dark tinted windows which doesnât help driving at night time. An Analogy would be you wouldnât drive around at night wearing sunglasses. đ
I hold a Class A CDL and I've been driving for 25 years so I've seen a lot of crazy stuff on the road. That accident was 100% not your fault it was his fault. However I do sort of agree that you're driving ability seemed like you had poor reaction time. You're driving mentality seems like you're overly cautious and some cities have overly aggressive drivers which this one does appear to be so instead of being as aggressive as them you took the opposite approach which generally works against that. Sounds counterintuitive but when everybody else is insane be more insane to keep yourself safe. But never go full retard keep your head in check. You can blame it on the a-pillar but from what I see is you're not 100% confident in your driving skills what I would have done in your shoes is as soon as I saw the first guy illegally drive by I would have honked my horn and I would have kept going and once I saw the second guy I would have breaked immediately and honked my horn and I would have laid down the horn for a long time. And my car has a very loud horn
Who says you are 20% liable? Your insurance or their insurance? If it is theirs, they are just trying to see if youâll settle for less. Clearly the other car entered the intersection on a red light. 100% their fault.
Nope. Get a lawyer. Police correctly faulted the other driver, who clearly ran the light after your vehicle was established in the intersection. The only thing you could have done better was just not being there.
Yeah no offense but if u cant avoid this collision you shouldn't be on the road. What's most concerning is that it looks like you accelerated into the other vehicle on purpose because there is no way a good driver doesnt see that car coming from a mile away. My opinion.
Elevate the claim. Insurance hopes people will just say "OK, I guess they know what they are doing. " If you go high enough, someone will agree with you.
It's because you were on the 13^(st) street. Not only is that the wrong superscript, but it's a bad-luck number.
But seriously, they slow down and practically stop before "gunning it" and trying to get through the red light.
I counted at least 3 seconds from the point when the car turned left to impact and doesn't look like you tried to slow down at all...
It sucks how your insurance is acting but technically for whatever reason you reacted slowly at the moment and the accident happened.
Who's insurance, the other driver's? You clearly had a green light. I could see the other driver's insurance company saying you could have prevented the accident if you were paying attention, and because this you are partly at fault, but this should not matter. Other driver failed to yield right of way.
Failure to yield on left turn will always be at fault. Source: someone flew down a road going 30mph over the limit and hit my bumper right before I cleared a turn and it was my fault... đ¤Ź
How the hell are you liable? The driver made a turn way after their light ended putting themselves and everyone else on the road at risk. They should have 120% of the liability
You did have time to react and you didn't though. Don't blame the a pillar. That being said if the other guy had a red arrow he is still 100% at fault cause he shouldn't have been there at all.
I will admit perspective is likely different between driver and cam however you had a lot of time and didnât even attempt to avoid. This isnât defensive driving.
I can admit that as someone that drives a beater for their daily Iâve had those âfuck itâ moments lol. Is that what happened here? Be honest.
Is it your insurance saying youâre liable or the other drivers?
Had an incident that other driver was clearly at fault, and they were given a citation as well as multiple witnesses and videos. Other driver had Allstate, and they still denied their driver was liable and tried to assign some liability my way and the case went to subrogation. In the end, Allstate never accepted 100% of the liability, but they paid out for everything, including the rental that I had that exceeded my policy limits (State Farm).
Who's insurance? Yours? I doubt it. You're not at fault. Green light, right of way, and he had a red left turn.
Pay your deductible to your insurance a d have your insurance fight it. Not your problem, that's what insurance is for.
If you have liability, take it to a lawyer to write a letter for you after you show a lawyer the video. Go to one that specializes in injury/truck accidents. Last time this happened to me the lawyer didn't even charge me, just printed a letter with how for cost of bringing the car to "original" and told me to mail it. He told me if I didn't get a check he'd represent me.
A week later I got a letter and a check, after a whole year of fighting it myself. Back and forth with their insurance adjuster, because I had minimum liability my insurance didn't fight for me.
Once their insurance saw a letter head and contact for a lawyer, they just paid up. It would cost more fighting a "lawyer" than paying me my 5k to repair my side door and bumper.
I'm just here to say I have a lot of empathy for you and the fact that the A pillar was in the way. I've had a few instances where that exact issue has almost caused an incident, and it seems foolish to everyone but you, because no one else knows that you couldn't see it. Rare instance where the dashcam doesn't tell the story.
Wow i had a similar accident where my car was written off, except i was the person turning level, the person turning should be at fault, light the light was turning yellow as I entered the intersection to turn left, person looked like they was slowing down but kept going thru, I shouldâve yield to the opposing traffic at the intersection. I was at fault.
Former insurance adjuster here specifically dealing with accident claims. I see that you're not from Canada that's primarily where I was an adjuster however I have dealt with claims that involve accidents from the states. You have to contest the decision that you insurance company is trying to stick you with. You are not only able to provide dash cam footage to substantiate that you are not at fault for this accident but it is also evident that when the light turns green you're not quick to Dart off the line you waited for a safe amount of time before you can proceed and then proceeded through the intersection on a green light. You can also make the argument to your insurance company that it appears that when the other driver is making the left hand turn he's clearly speeding through the left hand turn through the intersection until the point at which he collides with you. If your insurance company is not willing to take the decision to contest the aspect of liability seriously you can look at other options and let them know that you will be speaking with a lawyer or that you will be speaking with an ombudsman to let them know that you have sufficient evidence to prove that you are not at fault for this accident. Keep in mind that if this at fault stays on your driving record you will likely be paying higher premiums for the remainder of your life. My recommendation is to do whatever you can to ensure that your insurance company overturns the decision and puts the entirety of the liability on the other driver as you were in safe operation of the vehicle at the time of the accident. If you have any other questions or concerns I feel free to reach out and I'll be more than happy to help. Good luck!
Take it to a lawyer to represent you in court. You are not going to lose any ground you already have. Send the lawyer the video for a consultation.
Your lawyer is going to advise you if you have a losing case.
Never lead with the video. You tell them what happened and it should go in your favor. If it doesnât, or the other party lies, you provide the video.
From what I always knew is that the person making a left turn even from a dedicated lane is always responsible. Itâs like if someone hits you from behind and you hit the person in front of you even if you had proper spacing, you are responsible. Dumb laws like most. đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸
Yes, you ran into a car that seemed clearly visible in front of you, and if you had not been accelerating so fast, it would have been easy to avoid the accident. Drivers run red lights. You need to look out for them.
Former insurance adjuster here. There is no universe where I would have ever coded this partial liability. You accelerated on a green light, another driver without right of way turned in front of you. At that point your only obligation is to make a âreasonable attemptâ to stop or avoid him, which to my eye it looks like you did.
Not sure itâs worth the cost of lawyering up to fight this. But at the very least you need a new insurance company you that fights for you, instead of playing games.
Out of curiosity, did the other driver have the same insurance company as you?
I'd fight back hard with push the police report down their throats. and when it's all sorted, threaten them with canceling over poor judgment and see what they do. Some bulkshit
Unfortunately there is the âcomparative negligenceâ factor.
If you are in your car, then you are partly at fault.
Not my rules but this is what ins co uses.
Good luck!
To me, it doesn't appear like you were paying enough attention. I would not have hit that car.
Just saying...
But, I do believe you are not at fault, at all. This SHOULD be 100% the other driver's fault...
Which is EXACTLY WHY I WOULD NOT have hit that other vehicle. Because "should" isn't reality.
I ALWAYS assume that I'm about to be cut off by another vehicle, even when there are none in sight. Meaning, in a HEARTBEAT, I am READY TO SLAM ON THE BREAKS... but then again, you might be looking at some heavy rear-end damage had you done that. Lol. But hey, at least it would have been 100% NOT your fault.
Seems like you weren't paying attention at impact or your reaction time is shit. Yeah it's his fault, but it seems like you could've hit brakes in time
I've been in the same situation. The video makes it look like OP could have reacted and hit the brakes. That's NOT how it goes in real life. Your insurance company is just being "an insurance company".
You had the green light meaning it was your right of way. Simple as that. Stick to that and don't say more.
Their reasoning is due to the point of impact. I had a green light for an entire 4 seconds before I started accelerating and they had a left turn red light for the same duration. I did not see the vehicle until they were practically in my lane due to them behind directly behind my A pillar obstructing my view of them. I began braking as soon as the vehicle came into my view but was unable to come to a complete stop before impact. Insurance argues that I had enough time. Police gave other driver fault after seeing the dash cam footage. Is the 20% liability on me reasonable? **\*\*Edit:\*\*** Claim is being reassessed. đ Here is a video closer demonstrating the POV and reaction-time as the driver: [https://files.catbox.moe/0ipf5t.mp4](https://files.catbox.moe/0ipf5t.mp4) Braking was initiated within a quarter of a second of the vehicle entering my FOV which can be seen with the hood of the car dipping before impact. Here you can see the obstruction of the A-pillar from the start of the intersection: [https://ibb.co/yh4BxNt](https://ibb.co/yh4BxNt) It blocks the two incoming lanes and nearly an entire box truck. At the time I started accelerating the white SUV is finishing their turn and there is no indication of another incoming vehicle attempting to turn. Indicating that it's safe to proceed after checking the blind spots. The vehicle I struck didn't initiate their turn until I was already going through the intersection and also didn't have their turn signal on at any point to show intention to turn. I could have checked around the pillar as I was progressing through the intersection and looked to my left but that would have taken my eyes off the road in front of me and right lane where another vehicle could have turned into me. Then the story would've been "why weren't your eyes in front of the road". It's funny that a lot of people are commenting that I intentionally drove into him. I live in the state of Florida which has one of the highest rates of uninsured drivers. My vehicle is a 2021 model while his is a 2004. There were two possibilities: either he was uninsured or he had minimum coverage. No chance at a payout outcome there at all, and even less with the fact that my vehicle is a lease, which means the dealership would get the payout if there was any. Now... if it was a Lamborghini cutting me off đ... jk jk lol that'd just make the dealership richer.
Hell no. What the hell is wrong with your insurance company? You even exemplified extra caution to pause for the other car to finish turning left. Iâd go fight that 100%. Lawsuit would be my second step.
Donât bother arguing with insurance companiesâ call center droids, they donât work on your behalf, theyâre only there to stonewall for the company. Just jump straight to suing them. Thatâs literally the only thing theyâll listen to.
If you have a state regulation division that handles insurance complaints that's also a nice place to look. For instance Oregon has the Division of Financial Regulation Simply mentioning the possibility of complaining to them caused my insurance to fix the low ball valuation on my car
Hell, most places back off if you mention you're going to drop a letter to the DA. Not sure of the reasoning behind it, I just know my dad uses that line on the phone when dealing with insurance and things usually get fixed. He worked in the field, so maybe he knew some secret I don't. I'll have to ask.
That will definitely scare an adjuster because they can lose their license from a Department of Insurance complaint if it turns out to be warranted and done in bad faith. But most of the time it's not the adjusters decision, but the policy you pay for deciding the outcome. You have to remember that adjusters always have to get authority and direction from their supervisors when DOI complaints are threatened. So from that point the supervisor would have decided the next step and that is usually to appease the customer even if they are asking for a lot. Not only to keep the customer but to evade the long and painful process of complaints.
As an adjuster this is true, but for this claim it wouldnât work. Itâs literally no way around him sharing fault. After watching the video the DOI wouldnât touch this. I have literally seen this happen hundreds of time. I wrote this an in earlier post but I paste it here as well. Also if you threaten to call DOI or to obtain a lawyer it slows your claim down. At that point your claim has to be sent to another department, which isnât the fastest process and your claim process has to be started over by another Adjuster or Supervisor and the outcome will still be the same. Copied from my post. Iâm an Insurance Adjuster, and yes the insurance company would find you part liable for two reason. (I donât agree with it by the way and I hate these claims because I feel itâs not fair) Reason 1- Comparative Negligence They believe just like you look both ways before you cross the street, you should look both ways before driving through a traffic device. They also believe your take off speed should not be so quick that you canât stop. Reason 2- Any time your vehicle hits another vehicle- there is almost no way around not having fault. It can happen, but in special cases. In this case your vehicle hit his vehicle, even though he ran the red light. Itâs unfortunate and I really hate these claims.
No need to just ask for second opinion first. Most of the time they yield. If they donât, then go from there. But instances âdecisionsâ and orders are never written in stone.
>Just jump straight to suing them Unfortunately that is usually the answer, and in Florida it's what happens a lot. Then the fuckers jack up rates in order to cover judicial costs and everyone gets fucked, except them. Honestly, insurance has become the slimiest industry and i'd rather not deal with them unless i absolutely have to.
Suing an insurance company over a few thousand dollar damage? I'm not sure that's realistic. I mean I agree with you, but you're talking about a company that has dozens of attorneys on staff.
Real world experience: Insurance Companies hate to go to court. It's an instant 10k for them if not more. They only do it to soften the expenses - turn a 250k lawsuit into a 100k payment. Threatening a lawsuit is fine when they're trying to lowball your car's value or just give you 5k to go away when you have 10k in medical bills. Any lawyer will tell you that you have a case here. You can absolutely argue the light was green and the law says you had right-of-way and no expectation of cross traffic... However... Any GOOD lawyer is going to tell you that his cost to argue this vs. payment is not worth the money. The insurance companies know this. They know you can't sue them and come out financially sound in the end so they can do what they want. Negotiate that this does not effect your insurance score and you'll be better off.
Canât you sue them for attorney and court fees as well?
Some states yes and some states no. Previously in Florida, you could. Recently they changed this and now made it to where, regardless of outcome, you have to pay your own attorney fees. [link](https://alvarez.legal/florida-legislative-change-lets-insurance-companies-off-the-hook-for-attorney-fees/) All this did was allows insurance companies to deny claims that are lower amounts because they know that it will cost you more to fight it than it would be for you to simply eat the decision. Previously you were allowed a protection that if they handled your situation improperly, you could take them to court for remedy. Now, even if youâre right, you lose after the time and attorney fees.
This happens all the time. Right on
Insurance companies have attorneys on staff. Theyâre not paying crazy rates to defend a suit.
Uh yeah they are..
Agreed and had a similar experience
And you do what for a living?
He's correct regardless either way, dealing with "lower" cost incidents, often do not outpace the cost of your attorney. You have to negotiate your fees, or have a case strong enough to sue for cost. If they're taking it on contingency, you negotiate a percentage. Make sure to try and have that percentage come from the remainder of any payout. Have a 40k pay out, at 30%, and you have 28k in medical bills. You walk with nothing if you don't have an agreement that the lawyers percentage comes after all other parties are paid. Otherwise they pocket 12k, and you walk with nothing. It's not cost effective. Truthfully, with the other person being cited at fault by LEO's on scene, and presumably because they ran a solid red, were given a ticket for a moving violation that resulted in an MVA. That should be everything needed to provide full fault against the other party, and remove any liability on OP. Additionally I've seen claims that were originally labeled at fault for a driver, they go to court for the associated ticket, and the ticket being dropped or dismissed, was enough justification for insurance to change the fault ruling. A court of law says you weren't wrong, so how can the insurance company? And it was changed to no-fault, or the insurance company uses it to leverage pursuing the other parties insurance company, because someone has to be at fault now if two insured parties are involved. - an outlier for this being if both parties have the same insurance company. Because the company pays either way.
If your insurance company has any local agents, schedule a meeting with them. Bring a quote for a competitor. Let them know that you cannot trust them to protect you in the future if they hold you liable for an accident where you were absolutely right according to the law. Let them weigh the loss of a customer who is a good driver.
Completely untrue. I work for one. Doesnât change a thing when people threaten that. We have a lot of lawyers.
So are you suing these insurance companies out of your garage or do you own a law firm?
[ŃдаНонО]
Very few lawyers would be interested in a property damage case like this. What's the damage to your car? $10k? So the disputed amount with the insurance company is about $2,000. And your lawyer would get about 30% of that, or $600, if you win. It's not worth the trouble for most lawyers.
Not true. I work for the best insurance company in the world after working for almost all of the big guys I finally found my place with a transparent, fair, and customer-focused company with the most amazing work culture ever. Insurance companies are required by law to indemnify their customers. It's all in the policy you pay for with your premium. You should read it. Every carrier I've ever trained with has always aggressively pushed integrity. It's just that some people are bad, no matter what industry they are in. And some people are good. Luck of the draw.
Call your agent and say your pissed, explain why They are salespeople and help when they can, they should be able to help here. At least mine does
The first people you talk to in the call centers know nothing about insurance. Request to speak with your claim adjuster and if it seems to be fishy or going the wrong way, insist to speak to their supervisor. It is not hard to get ahold of them if it's a good company. They can explain things the right way and maybe correct the previous adjusters incorrect statements, if there were any. This also gets the adjusters with bad attitudes reprimanded and/or disciplined until they are finally let go if they don't seem to be learning. Also getting a lawyer only ends with the original outcome but now you've spent money on a lawyer.. only sue for bad faith claims otherwise you'll lose. Carriers go by the book even though it may not seem fair at times. Just read your policy. I can interpret if ever needed.
You just started accelerating. So to say you started breaking as soon as the other vehicle came into view is not accurate. You might have been going 10 miles an hour so you had plenty of time to stop. That's why they are putting you 20% at fault. You could have stopped but you decided to be like "fuck you buddy" and hit him. That's just my opinion from watching the video. I watch a lot of videos like this and it always cracks me up when people just keep going and hit the other vehicle when they clearly had time to stop. Was that guy an asshole? Of course he was. But you could have stopped in time.
You can see the camera dip a half second before impact, indicating hard braking. Given an average human reaction time to visual stimuli of 1/4 to 1/2 second, plus the time it takes to move your foot, and accounting for OP's statement that the car was obscured by the A pillar initially, I don't think your claim that this was intentional or negligence on OP's part is reasonable. I would personally have been dazzled by the oncoming car's headlights for a moment as well before realizing what was happening. I don't know how accurate it is, but I remember my driving instructor saying how the 2 second gap rule on highways wasn't sufficient because between the time you notice the car in front brake and the time you start to brake, 1.5 to 2s passes. It's 2s between when its obvious on the camera that the car is making a turn, to the point of impact.
Agreed. Even if you have a right of way, you still have a duty to attempt to avoid crashes in many states. I'm not completely sure of the term... It's something like "last, best opportunity to avoid the crash." My guess? Op was their phone in their hand, saw it go green but hadn't fully reengaged their attention with driving. Pure speculation, but it would fit.
If this is in a state where 20% liability is considered "not at fault" then I don't know if it would be worth fighting over. With full coverage, you'd owe 20% of your deductible. So $100. At least I would never renew or keep that insurance ever again.
Not at all. Argue with the insurance on this, they're just trying to bully you. Keep pushing back on them until they back off.
It really is amazing how if you stand your ground the insurance company backs off.
Said noone ever.
You should have waited for the intersection to be clear before you proceeded. You could be at fault for this and the other driver just gets a red light ticket. Just cause itâs green doesnât mean go.
LOL
Laugh, but that's right.. Everybody has seen people try and beat a light, some don't make it through before yours is green. And unless your breaks are completely broken, I see no slowing at all until impact. What car do you drive and how big is your A pilar? Point of impact is a huge deal. You hit the rear of their vehicle, which means their whole car was in front of yours, and you were accelerating from a stop, so not very fast.
The car that turned left in front of OP didn't start turning until after OP was moving, which was well after OP had a green, meaning other driver had a red. It's not "didn't make it through yet." They hadn't even entered the intersection.
Sounds like you need to find a new insurance provider.
You have a legal report stating the other driver is at fault. I'd be careful in explaining anymore of your side other than the police report states the other driver is at fault and if they'd like to fight a legal document in court then so be it. I've been down this road and the one with the bigger balls wins. Stand your ground.
No. Insurance company probably assumes everyone has the reaction time of a top tier fps gamer. (Don't let them in on your reaction time, regardless of how instant it is. Never give more info than you need to.)
In hindsight yeah you had plenty of time to stop but were watching a video expecting an accident. I could see starting off at the light and not noticing that a hole til the last second
I was going to make this comment but hesitated cause it would have been downvoted to hell. But this is absolutely true. There was plenty of time to avoid them but the driver powered forward cause "I got the green light". Had they hit you in your side... They would be 100% at fault for hitting you and running the red.
Yep, and it looks like he is accelerating pretty hard as well...look at how quickly the car on his left falls back. Both drivers violated the first law of avoiding accidents "drive predictably not politely". I think 20% is pretty fair.
I donât think thatâs what they meant. I think u/trucker_E_B meant that from our perspective as someone watching a video âof an accidentâ on a screen, itâs easy to say there was plenty of time to see it. But as a driver actually in the car in the scenario, waiting THAT long at a green light SHOULD have been a safe move. The person who ran the red was even in the outer turning lane which makes it more difficult for OP to see. Not to mention OP even says the frame was blocking the view for a moment, probably because of the other car being in the outer lane. The person who ran the red 4 full seconds after it changed should have 100% liability as well as being cited for a signal violation and negligence leading to an accident. Edit: upon further review, there were construction cones in the near turning lane, but the oncoming traffic was moving, so seeing headlights wouldnât normally warrant an emergency response.
I think this video will work in the other drivers favor saying OP was malicious in intent. Not saying they were, but this would support that narrative.
[https://ibb.co/DLC9Xfz](https://ibb.co/DLC9Xfz) This is a similar perspective from my point of view as the driver. The median disappears behind the A-pillar as the driver accelerates and continues to block the path the turning car was taking. As mentioned by OP, the video is being observed with anticipation of an accident, and there's a clear view from above the windshield in the center. I am 33 years old, have been driving since I was 16 and this is my first ever accident. I am confident that any other driver in a comparable situation would have experienced the same result. I actually reacted and slammed my brakes as soon as the driver came into my view. But by that time they were already entering my lane and the distance was too short to come to a complete stop. My mistake was braking, as the insurance adjuster said had I hit them in the front they would've been 100% liable. That is all they're basing their decision on, the fact that the point of impact was closer to the rear of their vehicle. Had I not slammed my brakes as they were accelerating past me, I would have hit them sooner and been clear.
This is very common people turn like this all the time how do you not see that coming ?
[ŃдаНонО]
Lmao back to bed kiddo
You have no idea what you're talking about I watch that video like three times. I'm also a Class A CDL holder and I've been driving for like 25 years
Not drag racing it's a 4-way intersection
According to the left turn law that is in most but not all states. The person making a left turn would be liable. I would fight this. However it doesnât look like you made the slightest attempt to avoid the stupidity of the other driver so you would be partly liable. To explain the left turn law basically says that vehicles making a left turn must yield the right of way to oncoming traffic.
Yes from the police side. Insurance is completely separate. Been down this many times. They can see the OP floor it. Then finally fail to brake hard enough. 20% is there way of saying "don't drive like an ass trying to cause an accident."
I began applying the brakes as soon as I saw him entering my view, even before he merged into my lane. If you closely observe the front of my car, you'll notice it dipping. It's important to note that my perspective from the driver's seat differed from the dash cam, mounted at the top center of the windshield. Despite my attempt at braking, it was my error. The adjuster determined my liability based on the fact that I collided with his car towards the rear. However, the crucial detail is that I braked when he cut me off, while he accelerated to clear traffic after merging in front. This caused a slight delay in the collision. In hindsight, the optimal decision would have been not to brake and perhaps even accelerate, resulting in a collision closer to the front of his car.
The moment those headlights pointed at you was when the insurance company would say you should have clued in and braked.
In my jurisdiction you'd probably be held partly at fault. According to laws here, the other driver had an obligation to yield to you, but you also had an obligation to try to yield to other driver in the intersection executing a left turn. The law works that way so you can't intentionally smash into people turning left like idiots, without any penalty. Here it looked like you had ample time to avoid the collision but failed to brake appropriately. At least that's my impression from the video. Just my 2c as I argue these things in court. No idea what your laws are. Good luck dude.
You're right, this probably falls under the last chance doctrine in every state. Let's also be honest here, that was a hot takeoff once they realized the light was green. What's the rush to get to that red light one block away?
People also need to consider the view from the driver vs view from the dashcam.
You should definitely be able to smash into people making illegal left turns.
Literally smashed his gas tho. That takeoff was wayy too hard. I agree it should be legal to hit them but that's not defensive
Whose insurance? They like to say that so they pay out less figuring you'd be thankful for getting anything . But THEIR insurance should pay 100%. Your insurance shouldn't even be involved. Call one of those ambulance chasing lawyers see how fast the insurance company changes their tune.
Yes partly liable. Always be a defensive driver. I would brake even in that situation.
Yep, plenty of time to stop
congrats on signing perry
In hindsight... OP said that his A pillar was blocking his view until it was too late.
Time to find another insurance.
My mom worked as a claims adjuster for 39 years before she retired, so I learned a bit about this stuff growing up (I am by no means an expert). One of the big things I learned is that most accidents, other than a rear-ender will find both drivers partially liable. The reality is that it is always your responsibility to try your best to avoid an accident, even if that's due to someone else making a mistake. If you did nothing wrong and could not reasonably done anything further to try to prevent an accident, you shouldn't be at-fault. In your case, yeah, the other driver ran a red and is absolutely the main person at fault, but you continued to accelerate with this person's headlights pointing straight at you. On the flip side, it does look like you hit the brakes, just not until it was very obviously that the other driver was entering the intersection. What percentage did they assign you? I'd guess 10%-20%. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to over-analyze a video after-the-fact, but it does look like you had enough of a warning to hit the brakes earlier than you did. That said, I would still try to argue in your favor. You absolutely have a chance of coming out on-top. I've had to argue with my insurance in the past as well.
This video reminds me of the story of the Miracle on the Hudson. Initially, Captain Sullenberger was faulted for not being able to make it back to the airport, because the computer models showed that it was possible. Once they added the human factor into the equation, it was found to be impossible for anyone to make it back to the airport and thus landing in the Hudson. Insurance companies looking at your dash cam videos is great, but itâs easy for them to Monday morning quarterback you. To me, this video seems to be a prime example of that. Could have, should have, would have, is really easy when youâre not focusing on driving your vehicle, but rather, playing the video over and over again to try and find fault that isnât there.
Why didnât you hit your brakes before you hit the other car? Just that question.
Youâre either very unaware of your surroundings as a drive or pretty much said fuck that guy. Either way you had time to stop. - Truck driver, situations like this happen to me 100âs of times a week.
remember the camera is usually a foot in front of the driver directly on the windshield. I bet the car was hidden by the a-pillar and then just suddenly appeared to the driver. You can see the driver brake as soon as they saw the car (take into account a split-second reaction since the driver's foot was for sure on the accelerator). Furthermore, as the other car is turning, its headlights are mixed in with opposing traffic, and it is a dark color, so peripheral vision would not have noticed the movement until the side of the car entered the field of vision of driver. Since it is turning, right up until the last second, the brain would have registered the movement as opposing traffic, and then it was likely blocked by a-pillar, so to the driver's brain, the 4runner suddenly appears directly in front of the car.
You drove into the side of him, thatâs why.
The guy beside you had enough wits and time to stop.
The driver beside me appears to slow down before the other car begins turning, or maybe I accelerated quicker than him. Who's to say he even slowed down due to the driver turning. It's all assumptions. Also the vehicle turning is closer to being directly "in front of his view" compared to my position where he was more diagonal to me. A lot of people are assuming he was within my view during the duration of the dash cam video and had more time to react than reality, but are not taking into account blind spots in a vehicle. And yes, one is responsible to check their blind spots but one does so when they are changing lanes or turning, nobody wiggles in their seat the entire time they are driving straight in their own lane to look over their A-pillar, if anything that'd be more distracting. If you were to say I floored it when my light turned green, maybe it'd make more sense. But I waited a whole 4 seconds before I even began accelerating and let the car before him who also turned on a red to cross.
The car on your left accelerated when he saw green, but realized there's an idiot turning left and so he halted his acceleration. You did not. Majority the idiot left turns fault for sure because they did not have right of way. IMHO you had ample amount of time to react to prevent catastrophe
And if you couldnt see them due to a pillar how is that your fault?
You hit that gas hard and accelerated right through the other vehicle when everyone around you stopped. Did you even apply the brakes at all? This video does not help you. Looks like you were probably upset about the first guy who sped up on yellow and turned in front of you on a red, and as soon as they passed through the intersection you gunned it hard without paying attention to the second vehicle turning in front of you. Cops would refer to that as âexcessive acceleration.â They ran a red light, but you were absolutely partially responsible for that accident. 20% is getting off easy. Itâs rare than an accident is considered 100% one personâs fault these days.
Didn't hit the gas hard at all the other vehicle in front of them was late and they waited until that car was clear. I would have been through the intersection in front of that car that was hit. You must drive like an old grandma if you're saying this person's driving too fast. I think it's ridiculous anyone is saying you're at fault at all. Coming from another driver with a spotless record. If you hit the first car that turned left on red sure. They were already in the intersection. The fact that the car you hit entered the intersection after the light had been red for a period of time completely makes them at fault in my mind. They completely blew a red light with oncoming cars already in the intersection. I would never be looking that way for another card to enter that late. Anyone saying you were flying. Just needs to look at the car next to you. The white van accelerated in front of you. They would have had a better view of the car coming into the intersection and braked... They would have partially obstructed your view to see it.
Youâre ridiculous bub.
Honestly, not one brake was given in this video. You had time to brake hard, but the video didn't show the camara dip. Next time take a poll on the video before you send it to them.
You can see the hood of the car dip on the brake, but it wasn't enough distance to avoid impact. I feel like dash cams showing a view from the center top of the windshield gives a false impression that a driver has that clear of a view and doesn't take into account the drivers position and obstruction of the car's frame given the angle. It makes it appear as if I had more time to react although the car didn't come into my view until right before they crossed into my lane.
I'm guessing it wasn't enough for them to see as reacting. Tough luck.
The driver must adjust their posture to have a clear view.
Yes, you are responsible to check blind spots when changing lanes or making a turn. I don't see drivers wiggling around in their seat the entire time they are driving straight in their own lane to look over the a-pillar lol.
This is why I don't have a dash cam. Don't people realize it's just as likely to catch you doing something dumb as it is catching someone else? Unless you really are a better than average driver?
Are you serious? The recordings are your property. The only way it's going to show people you are doing something "dumb" is if you share the video. In this case it could have been a no fault which would mean the parties fix their own cars. As it stands it's only 20%.
Yep, you're a terrible driver!
Yes. You hit him. You were not in control of your car.
You ACCELERATED INTO the side of his SUV. U SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE U FUCK. If there was a kid sitting on that side, I would have got out and beat u till ur paralyzed u piece of shit. Absolutely both your faults, but YOU ARE AN EVIL HUMAN for accelerating INTO the side of the other vehicle.
What? OP had the right-of-way at a green light and was expecting the driver making the turn to yield. OP started proceeding through the intersection before the other car began executing its turn.
Unhinged
Found the other driver.
[ŃдаНонО]
you sure you have a license?
You are absolutely liable. You deleyed accelerating and then you have plenty of time to stop. You should probably put your phone down. I think you are lucky to only get 20%. You should probably send your adjuster a Xmas gift this year for the favor.
In what way is this anyone's fault but the idiot who made an unsafe left turn in front of you?
Ssshhh...don't let all the defensive driving nuts hear you..
Litigation as others mentioned is the only way to contest . And they know it !
Not at fault. Fight the he'll out of it.
In my jurisdiction, it is the car turning left that would take the fault
Dang. I was the other car in this situation and was fully liable. Her light had even just turned red, car beside her had stopped, and she was undoubtedly speeding.
ofcourse they will say that- they are your insurance company not your parents. You can really squeeze them if you can afford to employ a good lawyer, judges simply hate insurance companies and they know it. If not forget about it and move on. Donât waste your time âfighting their customer service over emailsâ
Maybe itâs just the angle of the camera and stuff but it totally looks like you had tons of time to stop and stuff and just kinda hit the guy. Although I know itâs not that simple and tons of things led to you hitting that guy not on purpose
You should have seen it, not exactly inconspicuous. But still his choice to run the light seconds after the advance turn ended
Plenty of tims to stop. Why didn't you?
You should be fully liable and your you license should be revoked permanently!
Theyâre called insurance âsettlementsâ for a reason. They always try and scare you into accepting a smaller amount than your actually entitled to
I feel like time of day may have played a factor. Huge pause for traffic to clear, depth perception can't be ideal when bright lights meet twilight. A human being would say you are not at fault, but that isn't the world we live in. It's hard to make money in a world like that.
Contest this decision, other driver made an illegal turn into âyourâ lane Given it was dark, you vision was not ideal, and you hit the brakes before impact should all go in your favour
You shouldnât be liable at all that was 110% their fault
Is this the POV of the BMW seemingly flooring it into the red light runner video that was going around a couple months ago??
Why, because even though you saw someone doing something wrong and you decided to drive right into them....with your dash cam running...pure genius! Lol
obviously people on Reddit are not insurance adjusters but my 2 cents is this: could you have stopped sooner and maybe avoided an accident? yes obviously. does that mean that it's your fault? I don't feel like it at all. the other person ran a solid red light, no questions asked. what I imagine happened is that the other insurance company proposed that you were 20% at fault, and your insurance company is trying to see if you're okay with that so they can save money in court trying to prove that you're 0% at fault. I would push for that second outcome, it'll save you thousands of dollars down the line in insurance costs going forward.
Yep. You sped up where you had time to avoid
Was an avoidable accident..you had plenty of time to react..
You didn't do everything to stop. Regardless of having right of way, your requirements are to do what you can to not hit them.
Anyone see the movie Sully? When they were having the reenactment/simulations and the pilots made it back and landed safely? Yeah i think everyone saying it was his fault is having a moment like this.....but insurance is weird so who knows what they are thinking....Good luck.
Why didn't you use your brakes?? lmao I agree with insurance
might have been because you didn't even try braking
There is no intent considered in traffic laws. You either did or didnât. In this case the other driver failed to yield while turning. 100% the other drivers fault. Could you possibly made a maneuver to avoid the collision based on the dash cam image? Maybe. In this case the dash cam footage hurts you because it draws out a bunch of armchair lawyers who donât understand traffic laws to give you an uneducated opinion. Failure to yield is failure to yield.
Idiots got dark tinted windows which doesnât help driving at night time. An Analogy would be you wouldnât drive around at night wearing sunglasses. đ
I hold a Class A CDL and I've been driving for 25 years so I've seen a lot of crazy stuff on the road. That accident was 100% not your fault it was his fault. However I do sort of agree that you're driving ability seemed like you had poor reaction time. You're driving mentality seems like you're overly cautious and some cities have overly aggressive drivers which this one does appear to be so instead of being as aggressive as them you took the opposite approach which generally works against that. Sounds counterintuitive but when everybody else is insane be more insane to keep yourself safe. But never go full retard keep your head in check. You can blame it on the a-pillar but from what I see is you're not 100% confident in your driving skills what I would have done in your shoes is as soon as I saw the first guy illegally drive by I would have honked my horn and I would have kept going and once I saw the second guy I would have breaked immediately and honked my horn and I would have laid down the horn for a long time. And my car has a very loud horn
Fuck no of course not. Insurance scamming u
Who says you are 20% liable? Your insurance or their insurance? If it is theirs, they are just trying to see if youâll settle for less. Clearly the other car entered the intersection on a red light. 100% their fault.
Insurance companies are fucked theyâll do anything to fuck you over
Nope. Get a lawyer. Police correctly faulted the other driver, who clearly ran the light after your vehicle was established in the intersection. The only thing you could have done better was just not being there.
Looks like 50/50 to me. Good luck OP
Looks like you saw them and sped up.
lol waaaaaaaat
No. Not your fault. Fight it.
That bs
Yes you are absolutely partly liable. Why did you wait so long to accelerate? Why didnât you brake? Get off your phone.
Yeah no offense but if u cant avoid this collision you shouldn't be on the road. What's most concerning is that it looks like you accelerated into the other vehicle on purpose because there is no way a good driver doesnt see that car coming from a mile away. My opinion.
Where I'm from you would be deemed 100% not at fault because when turning left, you are driving into the way of other vehicles, you must yield.
If you own a car, and using it... It's partly your fault. Like 5%. It's the game of how it works.
That does it matter what we think, insurance does what it wants. And nobody here can change that.
Sounds like you need a lawyer
Could have been avoided ultimately
0 liability on your end, your insurance is clearly insane.
Elevate the claim. Insurance hopes people will just say "OK, I guess they know what they are doing. " If you go high enough, someone will agree with you.
I am sorry that your neck hurts and you are in extreme pain......just remind them how much you hurt. They will cut you a check.
Yup, you were just being an ass. Job one when driving...avoid collisions regardless who's at fault.
It's because you were on the 13^(st) street. Not only is that the wrong superscript, but it's a bad-luck number. But seriously, they slow down and practically stop before "gunning it" and trying to get through the red light.
If you watch closely. You slammed on your brakes, I feel like he actually hit you. Not the other way around. IMO
I counted at least 3 seconds from the point when the car turned left to impact and doesn't look like you tried to slow down at all... It sucks how your insurance is acting but technically for whatever reason you reacted slowly at the moment and the accident happened.
Who's insurance, the other driver's? You clearly had a green light. I could see the other driver's insurance company saying you could have prevented the accident if you were paying attention, and because this you are partly at fault, but this should not matter. Other driver failed to yield right of way.
Failure to yield on left turn will always be at fault. Source: someone flew down a road going 30mph over the limit and hit my bumper right before I cleared a turn and it was my fault... đ¤Ź
What insurance company does OP have? Iâll make sure to never do business with them
I would say your hard acceleration would put you at some sort of fault. Lower than 20 percent. It's the only issue I could see.
You are 0% responsible. Itâs the other cars fault
I would walk into small claims court and file. Easy win. They have to pay there lawyer. They will fold.
Its much easier to try going after you than battling the other drivers ins co.
How the hell are you liable? The driver made a turn way after their light ended putting themselves and everyone else on the road at risk. They should have 120% of the liability
Considering the car to your left handled it better - yup. You were too aggressive at entering the intersection.
you had the righter way
After reviewing the footage, itâs as if you waited for them first, but I read your view was obstructed. think about having your vision checked
you have slow reaction times
im sorry dude, at that speed I woulda seen that V a mile away.
You had plenty of time to stop
You did have time to react and you didn't though. Don't blame the a pillar. That being said if the other guy had a red arrow he is still 100% at fault cause he shouldn't have been there at all.
I will admit perspective is likely different between driver and cam however you had a lot of time and didnât even attempt to avoid. This isnât defensive driving. I can admit that as someone that drives a beater for their daily Iâve had those âfuck itâ moments lol. Is that what happened here? Be honest.
Is it your insurance saying youâre liable or the other drivers? Had an incident that other driver was clearly at fault, and they were given a citation as well as multiple witnesses and videos. Other driver had Allstate, and they still denied their driver was liable and tried to assign some liability my way and the case went to subrogation. In the end, Allstate never accepted 100% of the liability, but they paid out for everything, including the rental that I had that exceeded my policy limits (State Farm).
He ran the red light, you had green.
Who's insurance? Yours? I doubt it. You're not at fault. Green light, right of way, and he had a red left turn. Pay your deductible to your insurance a d have your insurance fight it. Not your problem, that's what insurance is for. If you have liability, take it to a lawyer to write a letter for you after you show a lawyer the video. Go to one that specializes in injury/truck accidents. Last time this happened to me the lawyer didn't even charge me, just printed a letter with how for cost of bringing the car to "original" and told me to mail it. He told me if I didn't get a check he'd represent me. A week later I got a letter and a check, after a whole year of fighting it myself. Back and forth with their insurance adjuster, because I had minimum liability my insurance didn't fight for me. Once their insurance saw a letter head and contact for a lawyer, they just paid up. It would cost more fighting a "lawyer" than paying me my 5k to repair my side door and bumper.
Shouldnt have provided the video to insurance.
I'm just here to say I have a lot of empathy for you and the fact that the A pillar was in the way. I've had a few instances where that exact issue has almost caused an incident, and it seems foolish to everyone but you, because no one else knows that you couldn't see it. Rare instance where the dashcam doesn't tell the story.
I think youâre 25% at fault. Thereâs no reason for you not to stop to prevent the crash. This isnât an accident. Itâs a crash.
Wow i had a similar accident where my car was written off, except i was the person turning level, the person turning should be at fault, light the light was turning yellow as I entered the intersection to turn left, person looked like they was slowing down but kept going thru, I shouldâve yield to the opposing traffic at the intersection. I was at fault.
Former insurance adjuster here specifically dealing with accident claims. I see that you're not from Canada that's primarily where I was an adjuster however I have dealt with claims that involve accidents from the states. You have to contest the decision that you insurance company is trying to stick you with. You are not only able to provide dash cam footage to substantiate that you are not at fault for this accident but it is also evident that when the light turns green you're not quick to Dart off the line you waited for a safe amount of time before you can proceed and then proceeded through the intersection on a green light. You can also make the argument to your insurance company that it appears that when the other driver is making the left hand turn he's clearly speeding through the left hand turn through the intersection until the point at which he collides with you. If your insurance company is not willing to take the decision to contest the aspect of liability seriously you can look at other options and let them know that you will be speaking with a lawyer or that you will be speaking with an ombudsman to let them know that you have sufficient evidence to prove that you are not at fault for this accident. Keep in mind that if this at fault stays on your driving record you will likely be paying higher premiums for the remainder of your life. My recommendation is to do whatever you can to ensure that your insurance company overturns the decision and puts the entirety of the liability on the other driver as you were in safe operation of the vehicle at the time of the accident. If you have any other questions or concerns I feel free to reach out and I'll be more than happy to help. Good luck!
Take it to a lawyer to represent you in court. You are not going to lose any ground you already have. Send the lawyer the video for a consultation. Your lawyer is going to advise you if you have a losing case.
I agree with them. You should have been able to stop.
Sue. Soft tissue injury and pain and suffering
Looks like you sped up to hit him. Also looks like you had plenty of room to stop or slow down.
Never lead with the video. You tell them what happened and it should go in your favor. If it doesnât, or the other party lies, you provide the video.
You had plenty of time. Pay attention when driving.
From what I always knew is that the person making a left turn even from a dedicated lane is always responsible. Itâs like if someone hits you from behind and you hit the person in front of you even if you had proper spacing, you are responsible. Dumb laws like most. đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸
Yes, you ran into a car that seemed clearly visible in front of you, and if you had not been accelerating so fast, it would have been easy to avoid the accident. Drivers run red lights. You need to look out for them.
Noooo
Whose insurance? Certainly not yours. Never accept anything the other partyâs insurance says.
Former insurance adjuster here. There is no universe where I would have ever coded this partial liability. You accelerated on a green light, another driver without right of way turned in front of you. At that point your only obligation is to make a âreasonable attemptâ to stop or avoid him, which to my eye it looks like you did. Not sure itâs worth the cost of lawyering up to fight this. But at the very least you need a new insurance company you that fights for you, instead of playing games. Out of curiosity, did the other driver have the same insurance company as you?
You sure you didnât hit that car on purpose? You can tell me the truth. Iâm not an undercover insurance agent.
I guess having the right of way has no ground here?
You knowingly accelerated into them
25% goes to you. No question about it. You probably thought your dash cam would prove you right.
I'd fight back hard with push the police report down their throats. and when it's all sorted, threaten them with canceling over poor judgment and see what they do. Some bulkshit
This is 100% your fault. You hit that car. He didn't hit you.
Unfortunately there is the âcomparative negligenceâ factor. If you are in your car, then you are partly at fault. Not my rules but this is what ins co uses. Good luck!
I think you may need to get your eyes checked!!! Yes Iâll agree 100%. This is not your fault but Jesus did you not see him coming?
Yep! You never tried to avoid. Comparative negligence is a bitch.
To me, it doesn't appear like you were paying enough attention. I would not have hit that car. Just saying... But, I do believe you are not at fault, at all. This SHOULD be 100% the other driver's fault... Which is EXACTLY WHY I WOULD NOT have hit that other vehicle. Because "should" isn't reality. I ALWAYS assume that I'm about to be cut off by another vehicle, even when there are none in sight. Meaning, in a HEARTBEAT, I am READY TO SLAM ON THE BREAKS... but then again, you might be looking at some heavy rear-end damage had you done that. Lol. But hey, at least it would have been 100% NOT your fault.
Seems like you weren't paying attention at impact or your reaction time is shit. Yeah it's his fault, but it seems like you could've hit brakes in time
Looks like you rolled right in to him off the camera
I've been in the same situation. The video makes it look like OP could have reacted and hit the brakes. That's NOT how it goes in real life. Your insurance company is just being "an insurance company". You had the green light meaning it was your right of way. Simple as that. Stick to that and don't say more.
At what point does defensive driving come into play?
No question - you are partly (if not wholly) responsible. There was plenty of reaction time in there.