What is your analysis on this?

"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat) 08/28/2017 at 19:35 • Filed to: None

0

15

(Video should start at the 5:21 mark should Kinja not behave). I think at this point the “wronged” asshat becomes the one responsible for the crash.

Chariotoflove > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 19:40

0

Looks like the typical “not in front of me” maneuver I see here all the time. He may have been in the merging car’s blind spot, or not. Either way, he could easily have avoided that collision but chose to hold his ground and be “right”.

jimz > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 19:42

1

The guy in the Jeep is responsible. Traffic traveling in the lane you want has right of way. You can’t just force your way in however the hell you feel like it. Yes, it’s a bit dickish to not let someone trying to merge in, but there’s no law against being an it of a dick. There is a law against striking another vehicle which had right of way.

My citroen won't start > Chariotoflove 08/28/2017 at 19:43

2

Camera guy didn’t want the Jeep to go in front of him but left a Jeep sized hole between them and the next car, then proceeded to PIT maneuver the Jeep.

Dsscats > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 19:45

2

The camera guy was 100% at fault. He easily could have slowed down and entirely avoided an accident but instead sped up guaranteeing one.

My citroen won't start > Dsscats 08/28/2017 at 19:47

2

Fully agree, what bothers me is that they left a gap for the Jeep and proceeded to pit maneuver the aforementioned Jeep.

Takuro Spirit > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 19:48

1

Both equally dumb, and at fault.

The Jeep driver for being blind/an asshole and forcing the issue

The cammer, for closing the gap and not avoiding the Jeep.

I am interested in the insurance company’s payout.....

Chariotoflove > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 19:48

0

Good luck with the scourging he’ll get from the insurance company. His front corner on the Jeep’s hind panel makes it look like his own fault. If he submits his dash cam footage to refute that, they will see that he could have avoided it. Either way, he’s paying a deductible at least. Hope it was worth it to him.

nermal > jimz 08/28/2017 at 19:49

0

From what I saw, the camera car seems to accelerate once the Jeep starts moving over. That changes the dynamic. Instead of the Jeep merging into the camera car, the camera car accelerates into the Jeep.

Still 100% preventable by camera car not being a dick and letting the Jeep merge, when they had a blinker on and a Jeep size space in traffic.

ttyymmnn > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 19:52

0

Did the camera guy sound his horn to alert the other vehicle that a crash was imminent? Or did he just slam the door after leaving a gap? Jesus, people, just be nice. It’s not that hard.

Urambo Tauro > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 19:57

0

Hm. That Jeep-sized hole looks more like normal following distance to me. Squeezing into that gap constitutes tailgating and failure to yield right-of way, cutting off the camera-car.

But I can’t place all the blame on the Jeep driver. Accelerating to make deliberate contact with that Jeep was an awfully aggressive thing to do. So much for due caution .

jimz > nermal 08/28/2017 at 20:14

0

I’ll note that this- like most dashcams- has a fisheye lens, so the actual distances are different than we’re seeing (just like the right rear view mirror saying “objects are closer than they appear.”) that said, I’m not sure it legally matters. If you’re trying to change lanes and the gap closes, you cancel your lane change. Doesn’t matter why the other car closed the gap. You (legally) can’t just barge in and hit someone.

TorqueToYield > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 20:37

0

Camera car was just being a dick and/or not paying attention on his cellphone. The merging car was trying to take the right exit, had good blinker on from the start and merged right slow enough to give plenty of warning.

The Jersey thing to do would be no blinker, accelerate and cut right into the small gap, leave only tiny gap with car ahead at same speed, and give camera douche no choice until you’re already in the space doing the same speed as both fore and aft cars.

Might make people grumpy but it’s actually safer.

His Stigness > Dsscats 08/28/2017 at 23:35

0

Not 100%, but maybe 50% (in which case it’s a wash). Might even be 51% at fault, in which case in CA it would go on his the camera’s record.

He had a duty to avoid a collision and didn’t, and actually hit him.

You can usually answer the “who’s at fault” by figuring out who hit who first. The camera car ran into the Jeep, making him at fault. If the Jeep had run into the camera, then it would be reversed.

Also: wow. What an asshole. Both of them really.

His Stigness > My citroen won't start 08/28/2017 at 23:38

0

Majority of fault goes to the camera car since his car struck the Jeep first. He also has a duty to take every possible action to AVOID an accident, which he obviously did not do.

If he had just closed the gap BEFORE he would have easily shut him out, and if the Jeep continued he would not have been at fault.

What an idiot.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > jimz 09/01/2017 at 15:04

0

Around here, legally speaking, if you could have done something to prevent an accident you can be held at fault. So yeah, accelerating to stop someone from getting in counts towards that.

No idea on the local laws in play here though.