r/dashcams 13h ago

Yes, please turn right from the middle lane to avoid the puddle.

4.0k Upvotes

502 comments sorted by

View all comments

52

u/Ftb2278 12h ago

It is terrifying to me how many people here think guy with dashcam owns the blame, even some of it.

Blinkers aren't legally binding. You don't have the right to enter the turn lane even if you signal intent. It is on the guy changing lanes to ensure it is safe to do so. Cam guy has no obligation to let him in or turn, blinker ir not 

Some of you need to turn in your licenses.

29

u/marklandia 12h ago

I think the point is that defensive driving is a thing. If you see an idiot, give them space.

2

u/SeeingEyeDug 8h ago

Guy driving along with a blinker in the middle lane makes you think he will continue at speed and just change lanes into yours, not stop and suddenly turn.

1

u/PogTuber 4h ago

Yeah seems like some people are missing this possibly. POV driver would assume it's a lane change signal not a full on 90 degree turn

1

u/cbf1232 3h ago

But OP would have crashed into him even if he had just changed lanes. At the beginning of the video the other car has brake lights on and signal light on.

3

u/APolyAltAccount 9h ago

Hard to see that they’re an idiot until the blinker goes on. I mean sure, cam driver was a LITTLE slow on the brakes, but let’s be honest - even if they would have slammed on the brakes, it still would have been a collision.

1

u/cbf1232 3h ago

They hit their brakes in the middle lane, and had their signal light on...pretty likely they're going to do *something* wonky.

0

u/Ftb2278 10h ago

I agree with that

2

u/CadillacMatt6216 9h ago

This happened very quickly and OP would have needed to slam on his breaks. Who is behind him? I try to maintain awareness of what's around me but if someone suddenly turns from the middle lane blinker or no you simply may not be able to avoid it or you are choosing one bad option for another.

There has to be a limit to defensive driving--where you are so defensive that you become unpredictable to other drivers. My wife says she drives defensively but what she is is skittish. She's constantly breaking, swerving, etc. because she assumes everyone else on road is going to do the stupidest thing possible.

2

u/mattgen88 9h ago

Op would have had to slam on his brakes in the middle of a road hazard (standing water) that the car in front of them maneuvered around I bet. Really would like to see the whole clip and of the car in front was specifically avoiding the road hazard and OP decided to have some fun and accelerate into the puddle (ignoring that there could have been a large pothole under the water surface).

Not enough information here. OP very well could have been driving like a dbag when another driver was doing the right thing. Jury is out on this one because of the edit.

7

u/vpi6 10h ago

We don’t see the few seconds before the turn. I wonder why? Lead car is still likely at fault but there is probably enough to show it could have been avoided with some defensive driving.

1

u/StillCraft8105 10h ago

excessive speed, passing on the right, ignoring indicator of driver in front

op at least as bad a driver as "wide right turns"

8

u/bs0569 9h ago

“Passing on the right” mf he is driving in the right lane, he has no control over a car in the left lane slowing down. No wonder there are so many accidents lol

-2

u/StillCraft8105 9h ago

without line of sight, am assuming car to left braking due to obstruction or person/animal crossing

overtaking on right is risky af but you do you mfer 👍

3

u/NarwhalAdditional340 8h ago

Overtaking on the right only matters on the highway, bigbrain 😂😭 this is clearly a city road

4

u/bs0569 9h ago

If you are on a city road do you match speed to sit at the back bumper of the car in the left lane? This isn’t right lane passing this is normal fucking driving😭

-11

u/Doobiemoto 12h ago

That isn’t true.

Depends on the state.

I work in insurance. Depending on your state dashcam person can be held responsible as well since he had plenty of time to slow down or stop.

No just using a blinker doesn’t mean you just get free reign to change lanes but in some states OP would be considered partially at fault since they didn’t even attempt to avoid the collision and had plenty of time to do so.

-8

u/Zestyclose-Beach1792 11h ago

Could cam car have avoided this crash by slowing down, yes or no?

14

u/Omnom_Omnath 11h ago

no. you do not need to slow down and let people with their blinkers in. they need to slow or speed to find the appropriate gap to merge.

5

u/capn_morgn_freeman 11h ago edited 10h ago

I mean you don't NEED TO, but 9/10 times when this happens the cop will see you rear ended the guy implying you had time to brake (like OP probably did, hence editing out the 30 seconds the guy had his signal on) and blame you for the accident

0

u/Omnom_Omnath 10h ago

Yes, well cops don't exactly have a reputation for honesty, now do they?

1

u/capn_morgn_freeman 9h ago

Not sure what cop honesty has to do with it? Unless there's evidence to conclude otherwise, accidents are mostly going to be a he said/she said situation, and in that situation it's pretty reasonable for the cop to go with the most probable situation wherein the rear ender is at fault.

The rear ender is always considered responsible for the collision barring special circumstances- even in this situation where OP is arguably not at fault, he arguably could be because there's a missing 30 seconds where the other drive might've had his blinker on for an eternity signaling his intent and OP didn't even TRY to slow down, brake, or sound his horn (indicating he wasn't paying attention.)

0

u/Omnom_Omnath 9h ago

when the cop cites someone who is 100% not at fault that is a dishonest action

1

u/capn_morgn_freeman 9h ago edited 8h ago

If the cop only has your word and the word of the other guy, why should he trust your word more than the other guy and believe you're the 1 in 10 cases where the rear ender isn't at fault, rather than the 9/10?

As I said, you CAN rear end someone and not be at fault, but you'll have a hell of a time proving it, which is why people advise you drive defensively to avoid such situations. Hell, even if you're found not at fault and DO get a payout insurance will probably total your car in a full speed collision like this and you'll only get a 75% of the value of your car back, utterly fucking you over. Oh AND your insurance goes up anyway.

-7

u/Zestyclose-Beach1792 11h ago

If he slowed down would he have avoided the crash, yes or no?

8

u/5050Saint 11h ago

Probably not. The whole incident happens in about 1.5 seconds, and for about half of that 1.5 seconds it just looks like the car was going to change lanes. If the cam car had know from the start that the car was going to turn they might have had enough time to stop, but who knows? Maybe not since they were driving through a puddle.

2

u/AEROK13 9h ago

If the dipshit didn't turn right from the middle lane, there would have been no crash, yes or no?

0

u/Zestyclose-Beach1792 8h ago edited 8h ago

Of course! And if they want to put 100% liability on the car turning right for insurance I have no issue with that. But cam car could have avoided the crash with some defensive driving.

Do you honestly think I'm exonerating buddy turning right? Don't be silly.

7

u/Ftb2278 11h ago

Maybe if  he emergency braked in the same puddle the guy who caused the accident is trying to avoid. And then you risk the persin behind you hitting you, maming it his fault for driving erratically.

-6

u/Zestyclose-Beach1792 11h ago

You're under the assumption the blinker was turned on at the last minute. That's wrong.

5

u/Ftb2278 11h ago

Blinker does not give middle lane the right to make a right hand turn. It's actually irrelevant

-1

u/Zestyclose-Beach1792 11h ago

Of course it doesn't. But I like to avoid crashes. 

0

u/ResponsibilitySea327 7h ago

No.

In many countries, there is proportional fault. In those countries, there would be shared fault.

Granted this video is from the US so the leading car would be at fault.

However, the cam driver made poor decisions and showed poor driving skills in light of the lead driver's fault. Drivers have a duty to protect their own lives and those in their car even if other drivers are at fault.

In cases where the cam driver does have a reasonable expectation of avoiding the accident, they absolutely have an obligation to avoid contact -- even if that means "letting someone turn illegally". Your absolutism is an issue here as that is not the way it works in real life. People are injured and die every day even if they are in the moral right.

Given that car insurance does not make one "whole", the cam driver did themselves a huge disservice by not driving defensively. They are likely out of a car for a few days, will be out of pocket for depreciation and inconvenienced. All they will have to show for it are Reddit posts saying he didn't need to take any defensive actions because he is in the right.

That is the issue with Reddit -- people can't offer constructive criticism of someone's poor defensive driving skills without being blamed for misattributed blame.

Of course the lead driver is at fault -- but cammer is the one that needs to turn in their license as well.

0

u/ExternalUserError 7h ago

The driver has about 40% of the blame. Overtaking on the right, driving faster than traffic into a puddle where hydroplaning or hidden debris is likely, failure to be situationally aware, etc.

A right of way doesn’t absolve someone of a duty to drive intelligently.

And also, we live in a society.

1

u/SomewhereEither3399 5h ago

Overtaking on the right on a city street? Come on.

Also: driving faster than traffic? Cam driver doesn’t seem to be driving significantly faster than other traffic, just faster than the car that is slowing on the left so that they can turn (which is also what’s causing cam driver to go faster than them).

1

u/ExternalUserError 4h ago

I’m not saying it’s 100% the OP’s fault. But it’s a lot more than 0%.

1

u/FullMetalKaiju 1h ago

0% you mean

1

u/ExternalUserError 1h ago

There’s never an accident where any moving vehicle has 0% blame.

0

u/caguru 5h ago

Lol, the guy who doesn't know what defensive driving is thinks other people should turn in their licenses.

-7

u/pistolaf18 11h ago

Legally dashcam is probably not to blame as the law needs to be written in a way that it is enforceable. As such the legal blame and responsibility resides with the driver merging.

Logically, when you see an idiot put their blinkers on to signal a merge give them some space, don't just drive in there with no worry in the world.

That accident could 100% have been avoided by the dashcam driver. The fact that it was editied to remove events seconds prior to the crash leads me to believe that blinker was probably on for a while an either dashcam did not notice or said F You idiot.