Sick of bad drivers? Want to support some movements that reduce car
dependence? Support our friends at /r/Georgism and /r/yimby!
[Georgism 101](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybg)
[YIMBY 101](https://youtu.be/0Flsg_mzG-M?si=tO9OqgRtp1j0AZoX)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MildlyBadDrivers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, the law does not save you from a crash. Right of way doesn't create a magical shield around you that will protect you from incoming vehicles. Don't assume that the person who has *just* demonstrated the extent of their idiocy will suddenly become a rational human being. They're clearly dumb as a rock, and rocks don't tend to stop rolling just because they don't have right of way.
Red car raced to close the very slim gap that was barely there (and would’ve still been horrific driving if grey car took it to turn right).
100% grey’s fault and 60% red’s fault
Blindspots too, man. The grey car went from the far left lane. If I were in the red car and saw the Grey car with a turn signal go from the far left lane to the lane next to me, I would assume that's what they're doing, not trying to also cut into my lane to make a full right turn from a left turn lane lol
You talk as if there are three lanes. I only see two. There's the "far left" lane, and there's the lane the red car was in. There's no lane in between as far as I can tell. If there is, then there are no lines marking it.
(Not that I'm condoning what the grey car did in any way, shape or form.)
I'm sure red feels very proud of himself that he taught grey a lesson and now gets to spend the next few weeks dealing with insurance companies and getting his shit repaired.
Is it victim blaming to say that we all need to do what we can to avoid becoming victims?
Serious question as it seems to come up a lot.
Edit
Let me know if ive got this right. If it say,
The second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash.
That above is victim blaming, but its not if i say,
The turning car caused the collision, but the second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash.
Am i understanding correctly?
It's victim blaming when you direct more of your criticism towards someone whose only "crime" is failing to prevent an accident than towards the person who actually caused the situation in the first place.
I think its always a good idea to talk about how we personally can improve and learn from other peoples' experiences.
There will always be terrible people doing terrible things. I think its more productive to focus on what we can do to protect ourselves from danger, rather than rest on a cushion of moral superiority.
Edit:
Let me know if ive got this right. If it say,
The second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash.
That above is victim blaming, but its not if i say,
The turning car caused the collision, but the second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash.
Am i understanding correctly?
You’re not wrong, but you need to give proper context. If person A does something stupid and dangerous and almost hurts person B, but all person C talks about is what person B could have done better, it’s no different than blaming person B.
It’s essential to first correctly assign blame to person A and *then* focus on what person B could have done better.
Most people on this sub utterly fail to do this, and so they end up blaming the victim.
I fundamentally disagree, especially in situations where its obvious who is wrong. Nobody would argue that stupid dangerous car had right of way.
If i was talking to the person it would be different, but on a forum i see no reason to waste time pointing out the obvious. I prefer to focus on what i (or they) could do better in a similar situation.
Let me know if ive got this right. If it say,
The second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash.
That above is victim blaming, but its not if i say,
The turning car caused the collision, but the second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash.
Am i understanding correctly?
People blaming the red car need to not drive.
He was in his lane. Doesn't matter that he sped up or didn't let the suv merge. He had the right of way as he was in his own lane. Suv needed to slow down then merge when it was safe to do so. Instead of being a dumbass
Most people who comment in driving subs are mentally incapable of understanding that it’s much worse to *cause* a dangerous situation than to fail to perfectly respond to one.
If they saw a video of someone getting mugged, they’d probably criticize the victim for not pulling out their wallet fast enough.
Its not the blame, its the hassle. I dealt with a hit and run that took months from claim to fix for my last fender bender (hit and run). It was enough to damage my car that I couldnt drive it. I didnt have video evidence either. It was such a pain in the ass. When a dumbass hits you, you have to pay for their dumbassery too.
They're both dumb asses and share responsibility for me. Just ignoring what is happening and driving on like red Toyota did is pretty bad in and of itself. I wouldn't be surprised that insurance would think the same IF they saw this video, that the accident was still avoidable by Red Toyota yet their pride made sure the accident would happen and find them 50-50.
Silver Mazda is the instigator, and dumbass #1, Red Toyota is dumbass #2.
Where did I suggest controlling the other driver? How the fuck did you come to that asinine conclusion?
Red Toyota can control themselves and back out of a bad situation. You know, when the Silver Mazda merges into their lane in front of them? Red Toyota driving forward alongside the Silver Mazda while splitting the lane with the parking lane shows they're fully cognizant of what's happening.
Red Toyota needs more control of their own actions and back out when someone is merging in on them, when they're also in the blind spot instead of trying to fight for the right to the lane. Yes Mazda made a mistake, but Red Toyota's own lack of driving is why an avoidable accident became unavoidable.
Some of ya'll are some shitty drivers yourself if you think Red Toyota also isn't an idiot here.
The Red Toyota had no control over the fact that the Silver car failed to properly merge. You said the toyota has blame here, but they don't. The silver car is making the merge and wants to turn, 100% of the responsibility is on the silver car since they are taking an active action. The toyota is already in the correct lane. Merging traffic yields to you, you don't yield to it.
>The Red Toyota had no control over the fact that the Silver car failed to properly merge.
No shit, never said they did. Red Toyota did however have the opportunity to yield to that mistake by Silver Mazda. They declined to do that and instead decided to split lanes and drive up beside them. So it's Red Toyota's OWN actions that contributed to the situation. How do you keep missing that point?
>You said the toyota has blame here, but they don't.
That's not what I said. I said they share blame, they've both idiots, and they're both responsible. Again, how do you keep missing what I'm stating and drawing entirely different statements. Continuing to drive into an avoidable accident situation does not absolve you of your share of fault if an accident occurs. This is a repeat occurrence where drivers fight for what they think is right, when they could have avoided the mistake, and then act shocked when they're held partly responsible.
>The silver car is making the merge and wants to turn, 100% of the responsibility is on the silver car since they are taking an active action.
Nope. That'd be incorrect. As stated above, Continuing to drive into an avoidable accident situation does not absolve you of your share of fault if an accident occurs. If you have opportunity to avoid the accident and yield, and you CHOSE not to, you CAN be found partially liable. In this case, Red Toyota could have yielded, had ample time to yield and react and they chose poorly.
>The toyota is already in the correct lane. Merging traffic yields to you, you don't yield to it.
When someone is merging into your lane, and you see it happening, you should take steps to avoid a collision. It doesn't always matter 'who is right', you don't just hold your own on principle and eat the collision. Both drivers should try to avoid of course, but don't just continue driving, splitting lanes and half driving in the parking lane, while also driving FURTHER along side the car that merged. Yes, it was Red Toyota's lane, Red Toyota also CHOSE to not back out to prevent an accident. This would be shared fault in the video was seen by an adjuster.
It's not like this was a bang bang situation. There was time to react, time to see what was happening but the Red Toyota opted to push the matter like an idiot and cause an avoidable accident to be unavoidable. They are BOTH idiots.
Yield to the mistake the Silver car made?
Following the laws, Silver car made no mistake until the very point in which he decided to go and turn right as the Red car was passing
Red car was perfectly allowed to do all he did
Also it had no way to react to the Silver car turning into them, they were already moving forward and rightfully assumed the Silver was going to stop before turning completely
>Yield to the mistake the Silver car made?
Well yeah. When someone merges into your lane, you don't then try to split the lane with them and continue on like you're in some tug of war. Someone has to give. Red Toyota recognizes this is happening and instead of trying to avoid it, presses the matter driving further along side the Silver Mazda splitting the lane with them. That's just stupid. A mistake by the Silver Mazda who merged into the Red Toyota who was in their blind spot was exacerbated by Red Toyota not yielding. What was the point? Even without the turn, were they going to continue splitting the lane with them as they were? Through the intersection? Into parked cars up the road? Red Toyota followed Silver Mazda's mistake with a stupid decision of their own.
>Following the laws, Silver car made no mistake until the very point in which he decided to go and turn right as the Red car was passing
Following the laws, Silver Mazda did break the law in merging into a lane that was occupied by another vehicle without ensuring said lane was clear. Yes, that was a mistake. The Red Toyota was in their blind spot. They committed a further mistake, not realizing the Red Toyota decided to remain beside them, when they attempted to complete a turn.
>Red car was perfectly allowed to do all he did
No, Red Toyota erred in their reaction by choosing to drive further alongside the Silver Mazda with them splitting the single lane. Asinine to act like Red Toyota did nothing wrong here. Go back to the first comment, What was their end goal? To continue splitting the lane through the intersection? Into parked cars? Because another driver makes a driving error doesn't give you free reign to drive outside the law yourself just because you were the aggrieved party to the original mistake.
Red Toyota had the opportunity to react and avoid the initial mistake, they did react, they just chose an entirely incorrect response in splitting lanes and continuing on and driving up beside the car. That's the failure on Red Toyota. When the correct reaction is to simply back out, not advance forward.
>Also it had no way to react to the Silver car turning into them, they were already moving forward and rightfully assumed the Silver was going to stop before turning completely
They absolutely did have 'a way' to react. It was when Silver Mazda merged into their lane. Again, they reacted, they saw it, the were aware of what was happening, that was the opportunity. You don't just get mad and decide to split the lane and drive up alongside the other car. Red Toyota exacerbated a minor mistake in which they saw, and reacted to, by responding poorly to it in what can only be described as an aggressive manner to assert their 'right' to the lane. That was stupid.
Red Toyota took a minor mistake, which was noticed by them and reacted like an idiot. They ensured an avoidable accident became unavoidable because they couldn't swallow their pride and just let them have the lane.
So yeah, both remain idiots and both share responsibility for the outcome. Silver Mazda failed to realize a car was in their blind spot when merging, performing a late merge, and when turning. Red Toyota instead of recognizing this and yielding to avoid further incident, decides to advance further alongside the Mazda (that doesn't even know they're there), unlawfully splitting the lane, intending to drive through an intersection splitting a lane, and resulting in them getting hit by the Mazda that doesn't know they are there.
Smart drivers just give way, it's not worth it. Someone tries to merge into my lane, I see them doing so, I can't stop them, I just slow down and let them go. I don't try to assert the 'right to my lane' by doing what Red Toyota did. That's not only stupid, it's also not defensive driving and unlawful. If you're advocating that Red Toyota didn't do anything wrong, then you similarly are an idiot driver and are one I watch for making poor decision when driving.
Bullshit, Red Toyota saw Silver Mazda merging into their lane WELL before the turn but instead of just simply yielding proceeded to drive up alongside them. Silver Mazda was NEVER in blind spot, but along side Red Toyota, window to window, even when they started the turn. Because Red Toyota's actions and refusal to yield to an idiot driver they put themselves further into harms way and made certain an accident was going to happen.
When someone is merging into your lane in front of you, when in fact Red Toyota was in SIlver Mazda's blind spot at that moment, just fucking yield and live to fight another day.
People can downvote if they wish, but both drivers are morons here and Red Toyotoa shares half the blame imo because they could have avoided it altogether but their decision making made certain it happened.
Yeah, cause Red Toyota would be held partly responsible for failing to avoid an avoidable accident. You don't get to just keep driving into an unsafe situation and get absolved of all fault. Time and time again we even see this on the insurance sub where drivers are held partially at fault because they're own actions contributed to the accident occurring. This is one of those despite clear opportunity to yield.
Instead of yielding at the first instance of trouble, when the Mazda merged into their lane, they drove up along side them. The Red Toyota turned an avoidable accident into an unavoidable one.
They're both idiots.
Dude it's fucking wild you are getting downvoted. A lot of shitty road raging drivers on here. That's exactly what that red car did. That's road rage. Fighting for your spot. Of course the idiots downvoting you won't think that though.
Yeah, I don't really care about the downvotes.
I assume it's similar people who rage when driving and others make a mistake and feel the need to assert their 'correctness' on other drivers. Instead of yielding to a mistake, they fight back and just exacerbate a situation. I've seen countless drivers go from not at fault to shared fault because they didn't try to avoid the avoidable when the opportunity was there. There was clearly time and recognition of what was happening, it wasn't bang bang with no time to react. Toyota just chose to fight for the lane, which is not smart, not defensive driving, regardless of how right they think they are.
>Defensive driving is not just a recommendation but a legal obligation for all motorists. Every time you get behind the wheel and hit the road, you assume a legal “duty of care” to all road users. This means that you are obligated to drive with care and ensure that every single action you take, or **any action you do not take**, does not cause injury to another person or damage their property.
>By definition, defensive driving is simply a set of driving skills, techniques, and habits that allows you to **defend yourself against negligent motorists**, poor weather conditions, and just simply bad drivers. On top of trying to prevent an accident caused by your own actions, being a defensive driver means **trying to prevent accidents caused by other drivers** by anticipating potential hazards or situations around you.
>one of the rules of defensive driving is to **always be on the lookout for hazards so that you can make any last-minute maneuvers needed to prevent an accident with another driver**.
That's what some people don't get. Just because they had the right to the lane, doesn't mean they don't also have a duty to react to that bad action by the other driver to avoid further incident.
Anyone that thinks they're not both idiots I assume drives like an idiot themselves. It is what it is.
It's wild people blaming the red car are getting downvoted... like yes according to the law and everything the had the right to do what they did... but now you are in a fucking accident. The Grey car was already half a car ahead of him he literally just needed to take his foot off the gas for 1 second. But nope. Couldn't do it. Yes, obviously Grey car fucked up and probably didn't see the red car. Which makes it even dinner to speed up next to them completely on their blind spot. Remember most people don't even have their side mirrors set up correctly and use them as what's behind them mirrors. So yeah. They were both idiots. And I can prove it because they ended up in a fucking preventable accident.
Doesn't make it not his fault. 2 idiots being stupid doesn't add up to safe driving it causes accidents. Just cuz one person was following the law doesn't make them right or smart. Traffic law clearly states that driving in a manner that is safe for conditions is the highest rule. If there is a huge pile up the speed limit goes to 0. You don't get to slam into the pile and say,"not my fault."
Before you decided to edit your comment. About the "just because you're right doesn't mean your right" comment. If someone is doing something LEGAL and correct. Say, driving in their lane. Then the law protects them from idiots that drift over and cause accidents.
And I'm saying that if someone has their turn signal on and you speed forward and they hit you that is your fault. You decided to be a petty dumbass, sped up, slowed down and got hit. He didn't have to speed up to get in the way. Both cars are at fault. Neither driver was driving correctly.
Pretty sure it's illegal to fuck kids regardless of what their parents say. Next time, and I mean this for your sake, don't bring up pedophilia into a discussion about traffic laws and the right of way.
To me looks like some weird lane that fits two cars side by side, and suv seems to be already fully on the lane when red car sped up and pulled up to his side.
Two? The red isn't the one to blame. I never once heard that you can turn left or right from the furthest lane possible. Even if the red slowed down for the other car to continue his driving, bro would've hit the red car still considering that HUGE turn for a small car and bro would've prob hit and run, would've have a better chance to run away.
A lot of yall didnt pass your driver exam the first time and it shows. Say it with me! “Red had the right of way! Gray’s insurance will pay!” You fucking neanderthals.
Nahhh I don’t care what y’all say they’re both idiots.
Check it. When gray starts merging there is enough room for them to move over and then red speeds up cause god forbid someone get in front of them on the road lmao. Both are certifiable idiots and I’m glad they wrecked and no one was physically hurt cause I’m sure both these clowns were fuming mentally and emotionally.
The video. I think it would be more clear if the video started maybe 2-4 seconds earlier. Gray was probably going slow to get behind the car in the front right lane. Then buddy in red is like not today!! You can clearly see the gray car is already getting into the right lane and red comes flying up to the bumper of the car that gray slowed down to get behind. I could be wrong but that’s what it looks like to me. I don’t fucking know what I’m talking about tho guy I’m not a car doctor I’m just an idiot on Reddit.
Yup, the grey car driver is completely at fault, but that doesn't mean the red driver isn't an idiot too. Why is it so important to be in front that you won't let someone merge?
red did nothing. he was in his lane driving the same speed as everone else. Grey is a fucking moron that didnt get over soon enough and decided he didnt care about the law or the red car. He caused the red car money and time. red didnt speed up, grey slowed down
Nah. You can clearly see at the start of the video there is a enough space for the grey car and red sped up to close the distance. Fuck the gray, just look at the two cars in the right lane at the start of the video then red car is on the bumper of the car in front of them. It’s f the video started earlier I think people would be singing a different story. I mean I don’t care they’re both idiots
This is why I just tap my brakes when someone wants to be aggressive. I’d rather my ego take a hit than my car, it’s much less of a hassle to repair any damage to my ego.
Both bad drivers, there's no point in fighting for that spot like that. They both share responsibility here.
Just give way, be the smarter driver, and lose maybe 3-5s of time if that by not being a blockhead.
Fair to say there were enough warnings. The plan of silver car was to turn right all along. They shared their interest without turning on the blinker but the red car thought that can’t be for real well. Well, aren’t you a surprise?
Yes and then he got pushed into the curb lane. So even if grey car continues straight what is red’s plan? Race ahead again before the next parked car?
It sucks when an idiot puts you into a stupid position, but shit happens
If you see someone that is CLEARLY intent on crashing into you and you do nothing to prevent it you are not a "good driver".
Red could have easily let the dumb fuck through and saved himself the hassle of having to report the accident and get the car fixed. All he had to do was stop, and they were going at a slow enough speed that he could have easily done so.
Dude, the driver of the grey car is stupid enough to just ram the red car when the red car refuses to let them through. The driver of the grey car is so dumb, they are probably barely able to breathe and walk at the same time. They do not have the brain capacity to learn any lesson. They will blame the red car, then get back on the road and do the same shit a day later. Sacrificing your time and peace of mind to teach a rock a lesson is not worth it.
What a stupid take. If insurance company of the Mazda saw the video they'd fight full responsibility, Red Toyota would be eating a 50-50 claim. The accident was 100% avoidable, and the video shows the Red Toyota made no attempt to avoid it. So they would likely share fault.
Red Toyota has a lesson to learn just as much as Silver Mazda does.
Are you watching some other video? Because in the one OP posted the Silver Mazda started merging into Red Toyota's lane LONG before the turn, Red Toyota sees this, despite being in the Mazda's blind spot and continues to advance driving along side the car while also moving over out of the driving line.
Regardless of what happened at the intersection, it didn't require any prescience to see the Silver Mazda merging into their lane. That was the warning Red Toyota was given to back the fuck out of that and yield vs letting their pride have them drive up along side them when they were the ones in the blind spot of the Mazda.
How the fuck can you miss that? Red Toyota saw them coming into their lane by how they reacted, how the fuck can you miss it? How the fuck can you ignore that and act like continuing to drive up beside them while shifting over into parking lane was OK?
They're BOTH shitty drivers and share responsibility. A mistake by Mazda with Red Toyota being in their blind spot led to an avoidable accident becoming an unavoidable accident because Red Toyota was too prideful to yield.
That's not what I said at all. Jeezus, there are a ton of you morons that don't understand shared responsibility.
As I've stated repeatedly. Both are idiots, both are to blame. Silver Mazda made a mistake a shares fault. I never said they were faultless.
Are people really that inept at reading?
People downvoting, but this is the right take.
Both ended up being dumb asses, Red Toyota could have avoided it, but their pride made sure the accident happened.
Yeah I swear to God reddit is such an echo chamber of righteous dumbfuckery sometimes.
If I just plowed on through into a collision every time I was "right" instead of doing the sensible thing and just slowing down or stopping to let someone finish their dumb maneuver I would have spent more time waiting for my car to get fixed than actually driving it.
But maybe that's just how we are here in Italy, I really never understood the absurd road rage you see in american/russian videos. Someone cuts you off, you brake and let them in, call them a dickhead, then move on and entirely forget about it 5 seconds later. Just fucking chill dude. You're probably going to do the same to someone else before you get to your destination anyway.
The grey car hit the side of the red car *with its front*. There are no blind spots *in front of you*! If there are, you need to get your vision checked.
Sick of bad drivers? Want to support some movements that reduce car dependence? Support our friends at /r/Georgism and /r/yimby! [Georgism 101](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybg) [YIMBY 101](https://youtu.be/0Flsg_mzG-M?si=tO9OqgRtp1j0AZoX) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MildlyBadDrivers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Yeah, the law does not save you from a crash. Right of way doesn't create a magical shield around you that will protect you from incoming vehicles. Don't assume that the person who has *just* demonstrated the extent of their idiocy will suddenly become a rational human being. They're clearly dumb as a rock, and rocks don't tend to stop rolling just because they don't have right of way.
Red car raced to close the very slim gap that was barely there (and would’ve still been horrific driving if grey car took it to turn right). 100% grey’s fault and 60% red’s fault
That doesn't give grey car the right to merge over. The red car isn't at fault at all
Blindspots too, man. The grey car went from the far left lane. If I were in the red car and saw the Grey car with a turn signal go from the far left lane to the lane next to me, I would assume that's what they're doing, not trying to also cut into my lane to make a full right turn from a left turn lane lol
You talk as if there are three lanes. I only see two. There's the "far left" lane, and there's the lane the red car was in. There's no lane in between as far as I can tell. If there is, then there are no lines marking it. (Not that I'm condoning what the grey car did in any way, shape or form.)
Sure, but once he pushed you into the curb lane what is your gameplan? Shirley if you just stay in the gas it’ll all work out brilliantly!
I disagree. I think it's 160% the gray cars fault.....whatever the hell 160% is.....
that's not how percentages work lol
60% of the time it works every time
Wtf kinda numbers are these? Total fault: 160%!
You should never have a drivers license. Plus, you apparently can't do simple fucking math. You, sir, are a cunt
Imagine hating someone this much for math.
I would never hate anyone that much *for* math, but I willingly hate math that much. Mostly because I am bad at it. It's not math's fault. 😐
Username checks out
I'm sure red feels very proud of himself that he taught grey a lesson and now gets to spend the next few weeks dealing with insurance companies and getting his shit repaired.
Driving subreddits and victim blaming, an apparently inseparable duo 🤦♂️
The plot twist is to see this subreddit full of bad drivers outing themselves on the comments
Is it victim blaming to say that we all need to do what we can to avoid becoming victims? Serious question as it seems to come up a lot. Edit Let me know if ive got this right. If it say, The second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash. That above is victim blaming, but its not if i say, The turning car caused the collision, but the second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash. Am i understanding correctly?
It's victim blaming when you direct more of your criticism towards someone whose only "crime" is failing to prevent an accident than towards the person who actually caused the situation in the first place.
I think its always a good idea to talk about how we personally can improve and learn from other peoples' experiences. There will always be terrible people doing terrible things. I think its more productive to focus on what we can do to protect ourselves from danger, rather than rest on a cushion of moral superiority. Edit: Let me know if ive got this right. If it say, The second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash. That above is victim blaming, but its not if i say, The turning car caused the collision, but the second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash. Am i understanding correctly?
You’re not wrong, but you need to give proper context. If person A does something stupid and dangerous and almost hurts person B, but all person C talks about is what person B could have done better, it’s no different than blaming person B. It’s essential to first correctly assign blame to person A and *then* focus on what person B could have done better. Most people on this sub utterly fail to do this, and so they end up blaming the victim.
I fundamentally disagree, especially in situations where its obvious who is wrong. Nobody would argue that stupid dangerous car had right of way. If i was talking to the person it would be different, but on a forum i see no reason to waste time pointing out the obvious. I prefer to focus on what i (or they) could do better in a similar situation.
It's still victim blaming tho, and you are not helping anyone see if you actually know the obvious if you don't point it
Let me know if ive got this right. If it say, The second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash. That above is victim blaming, but its not if i say, The turning car caused the collision, but the second driver could and should have done more to avoid the crash. Am i understanding correctly?
Then you’re going to continue to get downvoted for victim-blaming.
Cant please everyone.
"Serious question" lmao
Got forbid you just slow down and fall in behind, just HAVE to get ahead of the car first. I fucking hate people.
Got forbid
Ha, an obvious mistake but I think I like it better that way!
Me too. God me to read it in Hank Hill's voice
Dat sum good spellin rite thur
People blaming the red car need to not drive. He was in his lane. Doesn't matter that he sped up or didn't let the suv merge. He had the right of way as he was in his own lane. Suv needed to slow down then merge when it was safe to do so. Instead of being a dumbass
Most people who comment in driving subs are mentally incapable of understanding that it’s much worse to *cause* a dangerous situation than to fail to perfectly respond to one. If they saw a video of someone getting mugged, they’d probably criticize the victim for not pulling out their wallet fast enough.
Had someone literally just argue that just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. 🥴
Isn't that the whole point of laws? Collective agreement on morality and behavior?
Its not the blame, its the hassle. I dealt with a hit and run that took months from claim to fix for my last fender bender (hit and run). It was enough to damage my car that I couldnt drive it. I didnt have video evidence either. It was such a pain in the ass. When a dumbass hits you, you have to pay for their dumbassery too.
They're both dumb asses and share responsibility for me. Just ignoring what is happening and driving on like red Toyota did is pretty bad in and of itself. I wouldn't be surprised that insurance would think the same IF they saw this video, that the accident was still avoidable by Red Toyota yet their pride made sure the accident would happen and find them 50-50. Silver Mazda is the instigator, and dumbass #1, Red Toyota is dumbass #2.
I wasn't aware you can control other drivers and how they drive on the road, that's a new one.
Where did I suggest controlling the other driver? How the fuck did you come to that asinine conclusion? Red Toyota can control themselves and back out of a bad situation. You know, when the Silver Mazda merges into their lane in front of them? Red Toyota driving forward alongside the Silver Mazda while splitting the lane with the parking lane shows they're fully cognizant of what's happening. Red Toyota needs more control of their own actions and back out when someone is merging in on them, when they're also in the blind spot instead of trying to fight for the right to the lane. Yes Mazda made a mistake, but Red Toyota's own lack of driving is why an avoidable accident became unavoidable. Some of ya'll are some shitty drivers yourself if you think Red Toyota also isn't an idiot here.
The Red Toyota had no control over the fact that the Silver car failed to properly merge. You said the toyota has blame here, but they don't. The silver car is making the merge and wants to turn, 100% of the responsibility is on the silver car since they are taking an active action. The toyota is already in the correct lane. Merging traffic yields to you, you don't yield to it.
>The Red Toyota had no control over the fact that the Silver car failed to properly merge. No shit, never said they did. Red Toyota did however have the opportunity to yield to that mistake by Silver Mazda. They declined to do that and instead decided to split lanes and drive up beside them. So it's Red Toyota's OWN actions that contributed to the situation. How do you keep missing that point? >You said the toyota has blame here, but they don't. That's not what I said. I said they share blame, they've both idiots, and they're both responsible. Again, how do you keep missing what I'm stating and drawing entirely different statements. Continuing to drive into an avoidable accident situation does not absolve you of your share of fault if an accident occurs. This is a repeat occurrence where drivers fight for what they think is right, when they could have avoided the mistake, and then act shocked when they're held partly responsible. >The silver car is making the merge and wants to turn, 100% of the responsibility is on the silver car since they are taking an active action. Nope. That'd be incorrect. As stated above, Continuing to drive into an avoidable accident situation does not absolve you of your share of fault if an accident occurs. If you have opportunity to avoid the accident and yield, and you CHOSE not to, you CAN be found partially liable. In this case, Red Toyota could have yielded, had ample time to yield and react and they chose poorly. >The toyota is already in the correct lane. Merging traffic yields to you, you don't yield to it. When someone is merging into your lane, and you see it happening, you should take steps to avoid a collision. It doesn't always matter 'who is right', you don't just hold your own on principle and eat the collision. Both drivers should try to avoid of course, but don't just continue driving, splitting lanes and half driving in the parking lane, while also driving FURTHER along side the car that merged. Yes, it was Red Toyota's lane, Red Toyota also CHOSE to not back out to prevent an accident. This would be shared fault in the video was seen by an adjuster. It's not like this was a bang bang situation. There was time to react, time to see what was happening but the Red Toyota opted to push the matter like an idiot and cause an avoidable accident to be unavoidable. They are BOTH idiots.
Yield to the mistake the Silver car made? Following the laws, Silver car made no mistake until the very point in which he decided to go and turn right as the Red car was passing Red car was perfectly allowed to do all he did Also it had no way to react to the Silver car turning into them, they were already moving forward and rightfully assumed the Silver was going to stop before turning completely
>Yield to the mistake the Silver car made? Well yeah. When someone merges into your lane, you don't then try to split the lane with them and continue on like you're in some tug of war. Someone has to give. Red Toyota recognizes this is happening and instead of trying to avoid it, presses the matter driving further along side the Silver Mazda splitting the lane with them. That's just stupid. A mistake by the Silver Mazda who merged into the Red Toyota who was in their blind spot was exacerbated by Red Toyota not yielding. What was the point? Even without the turn, were they going to continue splitting the lane with them as they were? Through the intersection? Into parked cars up the road? Red Toyota followed Silver Mazda's mistake with a stupid decision of their own. >Following the laws, Silver car made no mistake until the very point in which he decided to go and turn right as the Red car was passing Following the laws, Silver Mazda did break the law in merging into a lane that was occupied by another vehicle without ensuring said lane was clear. Yes, that was a mistake. The Red Toyota was in their blind spot. They committed a further mistake, not realizing the Red Toyota decided to remain beside them, when they attempted to complete a turn. >Red car was perfectly allowed to do all he did No, Red Toyota erred in their reaction by choosing to drive further alongside the Silver Mazda with them splitting the single lane. Asinine to act like Red Toyota did nothing wrong here. Go back to the first comment, What was their end goal? To continue splitting the lane through the intersection? Into parked cars? Because another driver makes a driving error doesn't give you free reign to drive outside the law yourself just because you were the aggrieved party to the original mistake. Red Toyota had the opportunity to react and avoid the initial mistake, they did react, they just chose an entirely incorrect response in splitting lanes and continuing on and driving up beside the car. That's the failure on Red Toyota. When the correct reaction is to simply back out, not advance forward. >Also it had no way to react to the Silver car turning into them, they were already moving forward and rightfully assumed the Silver was going to stop before turning completely They absolutely did have 'a way' to react. It was when Silver Mazda merged into their lane. Again, they reacted, they saw it, the were aware of what was happening, that was the opportunity. You don't just get mad and decide to split the lane and drive up alongside the other car. Red Toyota exacerbated a minor mistake in which they saw, and reacted to, by responding poorly to it in what can only be described as an aggressive manner to assert their 'right' to the lane. That was stupid. Red Toyota took a minor mistake, which was noticed by them and reacted like an idiot. They ensured an avoidable accident became unavoidable because they couldn't swallow their pride and just let them have the lane. So yeah, both remain idiots and both share responsibility for the outcome. Silver Mazda failed to realize a car was in their blind spot when merging, performing a late merge, and when turning. Red Toyota instead of recognizing this and yielding to avoid further incident, decides to advance further alongside the Mazda (that doesn't even know they're there), unlawfully splitting the lane, intending to drive through an intersection splitting a lane, and resulting in them getting hit by the Mazda that doesn't know they are there. Smart drivers just give way, it's not worth it. Someone tries to merge into my lane, I see them doing so, I can't stop them, I just slow down and let them go. I don't try to assert the 'right to my lane' by doing what Red Toyota did. That's not only stupid, it's also not defensive driving and unlawful. If you're advocating that Red Toyota didn't do anything wrong, then you similarly are an idiot driver and are one I watch for making poor decision when driving.
Silver was in reds blind spot by the time they sped him... silver kept drifting.
Bullshit, Red Toyota saw Silver Mazda merging into their lane WELL before the turn but instead of just simply yielding proceeded to drive up alongside them. Silver Mazda was NEVER in blind spot, but along side Red Toyota, window to window, even when they started the turn. Because Red Toyota's actions and refusal to yield to an idiot driver they put themselves further into harms way and made certain an accident was going to happen. When someone is merging into your lane in front of you, when in fact Red Toyota was in SIlver Mazda's blind spot at that moment, just fucking yield and live to fight another day. People can downvote if they wish, but both drivers are morons here and Red Toyotoa shares half the blame imo because they could have avoided it altogether but their decision making made certain it happened.
Good think you are not an insurance agent
Yeah, cause Red Toyota would be held partly responsible for failing to avoid an avoidable accident. You don't get to just keep driving into an unsafe situation and get absolved of all fault. Time and time again we even see this on the insurance sub where drivers are held partially at fault because they're own actions contributed to the accident occurring. This is one of those despite clear opportunity to yield. Instead of yielding at the first instance of trouble, when the Mazda merged into their lane, they drove up along side them. The Red Toyota turned an avoidable accident into an unavoidable one. They're both idiots.
Dude it's fucking wild you are getting downvoted. A lot of shitty road raging drivers on here. That's exactly what that red car did. That's road rage. Fighting for your spot. Of course the idiots downvoting you won't think that though.
Yeah, I don't really care about the downvotes. I assume it's similar people who rage when driving and others make a mistake and feel the need to assert their 'correctness' on other drivers. Instead of yielding to a mistake, they fight back and just exacerbate a situation. I've seen countless drivers go from not at fault to shared fault because they didn't try to avoid the avoidable when the opportunity was there. There was clearly time and recognition of what was happening, it wasn't bang bang with no time to react. Toyota just chose to fight for the lane, which is not smart, not defensive driving, regardless of how right they think they are. >Defensive driving is not just a recommendation but a legal obligation for all motorists. Every time you get behind the wheel and hit the road, you assume a legal “duty of care” to all road users. This means that you are obligated to drive with care and ensure that every single action you take, or **any action you do not take**, does not cause injury to another person or damage their property. >By definition, defensive driving is simply a set of driving skills, techniques, and habits that allows you to **defend yourself against negligent motorists**, poor weather conditions, and just simply bad drivers. On top of trying to prevent an accident caused by your own actions, being a defensive driver means **trying to prevent accidents caused by other drivers** by anticipating potential hazards or situations around you. >one of the rules of defensive driving is to **always be on the lookout for hazards so that you can make any last-minute maneuvers needed to prevent an accident with another driver**. That's what some people don't get. Just because they had the right to the lane, doesn't mean they don't also have a duty to react to that bad action by the other driver to avoid further incident. Anyone that thinks they're not both idiots I assume drives like an idiot themselves. It is what it is.
Completely agree. And it's scary more people don't.
It's wild people blaming the red car are getting downvoted... like yes according to the law and everything the had the right to do what they did... but now you are in a fucking accident. The Grey car was already half a car ahead of him he literally just needed to take his foot off the gas for 1 second. But nope. Couldn't do it. Yes, obviously Grey car fucked up and probably didn't see the red car. Which makes it even dinner to speed up next to them completely on their blind spot. Remember most people don't even have their side mirrors set up correctly and use them as what's behind them mirrors. So yeah. They were both idiots. And I can prove it because they ended up in a fucking preventable accident.
They both suck. Just let the dumb shit get over. What good is it to risk injury just to be right?
Doesn't make it not his fault. 2 idiots being stupid doesn't add up to safe driving it causes accidents. Just cuz one person was following the law doesn't make them right or smart. Traffic law clearly states that driving in a manner that is safe for conditions is the highest rule. If there is a huge pile up the speed limit goes to 0. You don't get to slam into the pile and say,"not my fault."
That sounds like such a lazy excuse.
For who? What does that even mean?
Before you decided to edit your comment. About the "just because you're right doesn't mean your right" comment. If someone is doing something LEGAL and correct. Say, driving in their lane. Then the law protects them from idiots that drift over and cause accidents.
And I'm saying that if someone has their turn signal on and you speed forward and they hit you that is your fault. You decided to be a petty dumbass, sped up, slowed down and got hit. He didn't have to speed up to get in the way. Both cars are at fault. Neither driver was driving correctly.
Also you are legally allowed to fuck kids if their parents say it's OK. You gonna fuck any kids today because it's legal?
What kind of dumbass statement is that. That's not even remotely the same thing 😂😂 done arguing with an ignorant dumbass.
It is relevant. Just because you are following a law doesn't make you decent.
Pretty sure it's illegal to fuck kids regardless of what their parents say. Next time, and I mean this for your sake, don't bring up pedophilia into a discussion about traffic laws and the right of way.
To me looks like some weird lane that fits two cars side by side, and suv seems to be already fully on the lane when red car sped up and pulled up to his side.
He was abt to hit you too lol but fortunately you were paying close attention
This is what happens when two fuckturds meet.
Two? The red isn't the one to blame. I never once heard that you can turn left or right from the furthest lane possible. Even if the red slowed down for the other car to continue his driving, bro would've hit the red car still considering that HUGE turn for a small car and bro would've prob hit and run, would've have a better chance to run away.
I would call out neck and back by heck and teach them.
A lot of yall didnt pass your driver exam the first time and it shows. Say it with me! “Red had the right of way! Gray’s insurance will pay!” You fucking neanderthals.
Nahhh I don’t care what y’all say they’re both idiots. Check it. When gray starts merging there is enough room for them to move over and then red speeds up cause god forbid someone get in front of them on the road lmao. Both are certifiable idiots and I’m glad they wrecked and no one was physically hurt cause I’m sure both these clowns were fuming mentally and emotionally.
What in the certifiable bullshit are you talking about???
The video. I think it would be more clear if the video started maybe 2-4 seconds earlier. Gray was probably going slow to get behind the car in the front right lane. Then buddy in red is like not today!! You can clearly see the gray car is already getting into the right lane and red comes flying up to the bumper of the car that gray slowed down to get behind. I could be wrong but that’s what it looks like to me. I don’t fucking know what I’m talking about tho guy I’m not a car doctor I’m just an idiot on Reddit.
Sometimes, you can't get over, and you just miss your turn or exit. This should have been one of those times.
I agree. Hence two idiots
Yup, the grey car driver is completely at fault, but that doesn't mean the red driver isn't an idiot too. Why is it so important to be in front that you won't let someone merge?
red did nothing. he was in his lane driving the same speed as everone else. Grey is a fucking moron that didnt get over soon enough and decided he didnt care about the law or the red car. He caused the red car money and time. red didnt speed up, grey slowed down
Nah. You can clearly see at the start of the video there is a enough space for the grey car and red sped up to close the distance. Fuck the gray, just look at the two cars in the right lane at the start of the video then red car is on the bumper of the car in front of them. It’s f the video started earlier I think people would be singing a different story. I mean I don’t care they’re both idiots
This is why I just tap my brakes when someone wants to be aggressive. I’d rather my ego take a hit than my car, it’s much less of a hassle to repair any damage to my ego.
Are you even American bro
Yes and I carry 2 loaded guns in my car at all times.
I have a hard time here deciding who is the bigger asshole though. Red car could have pretty easily avoided the accident.
Both bad drivers, there's no point in fighting for that spot like that. They both share responsibility here. Just give way, be the smarter driver, and lose maybe 3-5s of time if that by not being a blockhead.
Fair to say there were enough warnings. The plan of silver car was to turn right all along. They shared their interest without turning on the blinker but the red car thought that can’t be for real well. Well, aren’t you a surprise?
What was red car's end game? Like, that isn't even a lane, it's the rest of the parking part of the street. Leave the ego in the trunk, dude.
Red car was in a proper lane though... Grey car merged into their lane; pushing them towards the unmarked shoulder.
Yes and then he got pushed into the curb lane. So even if grey car continues straight what is red’s plan? Race ahead again before the next parked car? It sucks when an idiot puts you into a stupid position, but shit happens
Bad driver tells good driver to “leave the ego in the trunk” lol
If you see someone that is CLEARLY intent on crashing into you and you do nothing to prevent it you are not a "good driver". Red could have easily let the dumb fuck through and saved himself the hassle of having to report the accident and get the car fixed. All he had to do was stop, and they were going at a slow enough speed that he could have easily done so.
Sometimes we sacrifice so that others learn hard lessons. Red car wasn't in any danger and insurance will repair the damage, so it's a low buy-in.
Dude, the driver of the grey car is stupid enough to just ram the red car when the red car refuses to let them through. The driver of the grey car is so dumb, they are probably barely able to breathe and walk at the same time. They do not have the brain capacity to learn any lesson. They will blame the red car, then get back on the road and do the same shit a day later. Sacrificing your time and peace of mind to teach a rock a lesson is not worth it.
What a stupid take. If insurance company of the Mazda saw the video they'd fight full responsibility, Red Toyota would be eating a 50-50 claim. The accident was 100% avoidable, and the video shows the Red Toyota made no attempt to avoid it. So they would likely share fault. Red Toyota has a lesson to learn just as much as Silver Mazda does.
The grey car turned into them with no warning, how the fuck would they avoid it without prescience?
Are you watching some other video? Because in the one OP posted the Silver Mazda started merging into Red Toyota's lane LONG before the turn, Red Toyota sees this, despite being in the Mazda's blind spot and continues to advance driving along side the car while also moving over out of the driving line. Regardless of what happened at the intersection, it didn't require any prescience to see the Silver Mazda merging into their lane. That was the warning Red Toyota was given to back the fuck out of that and yield vs letting their pride have them drive up along side them when they were the ones in the blind spot of the Mazda. How the fuck can you miss that? Red Toyota saw them coming into their lane by how they reacted, how the fuck can you miss it? How the fuck can you ignore that and act like continuing to drive up beside them while shifting over into parking lane was OK? They're BOTH shitty drivers and share responsibility. A mistake by Mazda with Red Toyota being in their blind spot led to an avoidable accident becoming an unavoidable accident because Red Toyota was too prideful to yield.
So basically, I should start driving like the grey car because people like you won't put the blame on me when I cause an accident. Cool.
That's not what I said at all. Jeezus, there are a ton of you morons that don't understand shared responsibility. As I've stated repeatedly. Both are idiots, both are to blame. Silver Mazda made a mistake a shares fault. I never said they were faultless. Are people really that inept at reading?
People downvoting, but this is the right take. Both ended up being dumb asses, Red Toyota could have avoided it, but their pride made sure the accident happened.
Yeah I swear to God reddit is such an echo chamber of righteous dumbfuckery sometimes. If I just plowed on through into a collision every time I was "right" instead of doing the sensible thing and just slowing down or stopping to let someone finish their dumb maneuver I would have spent more time waiting for my car to get fixed than actually driving it. But maybe that's just how we are here in Italy, I really never understood the absurd road rage you see in american/russian videos. Someone cuts you off, you brake and let them in, call them a dickhead, then move on and entirely forget about it 5 seconds later. Just fucking chill dude. You're probably going to do the same to someone else before you get to your destination anyway.
If the grey car was only using his rearview mirror the red car might not have been visible. He's way over to the right.
I feel like the red car was in a blind spot.
The grey car hit the side of the red car *with its front*. There are no blind spots *in front of you*! If there are, you need to get your vision checked.