What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who's at fault? (1 Viewer)

TheIronSheik

TheIronSheik

SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
No.  This isn't a customer service story.  I've seen a heated debate on Facebook about this and I have to say, my interest is piqued.

First, watch this video.  It's short and to the point. (I've watched it without sound, so I'm not sure if there's anything bad in the audio or not.)

Most people are blaming the truck and saying that if you rear end someone, it's always your fault.  Maybe not 100%, but a lot of insurance agents (or at least people stating they are) are saying that the truck's insurance would lose to the car's insurance company and the car driver would not be found at fault.  This is mind blowing to me.  Car cuts across three lanes of highway to try and make an illegal U-turn from the passing lane.  

Discuss.

 
Depends. At first glance, I say the car.

But when I start seeing brake lights like that and a car moving over, I am slamming on my brakes as a defensive driving move. Not sure the truck did that.

 
ChiefD said:
Depends. At first glance, I say the car.

But when I start seeing brake lights like that and a car moving over, I am slamming on my brakes as a defensive driving move. Not sure the truck did that.
Click to expand...
Trucks don't stop like cars, though.  Even if he slammed on the brakes, I'm not sure he could have stopped.  The car hadn't even started its turn before it was hit.

 
Truck.  And that's not cutting across three lanes.  He was in the right lane and crossed one lane and then was in the left lane.  He cut across one lane.  And he may have wanted to make an illegal u turn, but he didnt.  He hit his brakes. 

 
TheIronSheik said:
Trucks don't stop like cars, though.  Even if he slammed on the brakes, I'm not sure he could have stopped.  The car hadn't even started its turn before it was hit.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. That's why I believe the car is mostly at fault here. But it's hard to tell from that video if that truck took measures to try and stop. Tough one to judge.

Edit to add: I mean, the car did pretty much 98% of the wrong here. Cut across traffic. Slammed on his brakes in the fast lane. Tried to make an illegal U-turn. I gotta believe any insurance company would look at this and give fault to the car driver.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By any measure of common sense, the car is at fault.  (Not sure if that's how the insurance companies will hash things out).

 
Hov34 said:
How could it not be the car?
Click to expand...
The logic used is that if you rear end someone, it's always your fault.  You are not in control of your vehicle.  And while I agree with that in most cases, it doesn't seem to make sense here.  But the consensus from all of the (so-called) insurance people is that the truck would be at fault.

 
If you've ever driven a large truck or RV you're watching this video hoping that the car driver gets the firing squad.

Typical day behind the wheel of a large vehicle.  

 
Aren't some trucks not allowed in the left lane of highways?
I'm pretty sure NJ has that law on some hwys.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The sign at the turn around can't be legibly seen in the video, but aren't those turnarounds for emergency vehicles only?  

 
Jayrok said:
The sign at the turn around can't be legibly seen in the video, but aren't those turnarounds for emergency vehicles only?  
Click to expand...
As -fish- pointed out he didn't actually go into the turn around.  So, that is an irrelevant point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are going to use the turn lane which not supposed to do get on the shoulder at very least. The car driver was probably freaked out because they missed an exit or realized they were going the wrong way. Instead of waiting for next exit they cause major accident with bad rash decision. Lucky the truck has dash cam to show what happened or he would probably be screwed.

 
TheIronSheik said:
Trucks don't stop like cars, though.  Even if he slammed on the brakes, I'm not sure he could have stopped.  The car hadn't even started its turn before it was hit.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that driving tests for trucks require more distance between vehicles in order to stop.  Just like the six second rule (or however many seconds it is), no one follows it though.

I personally blame the driver, but it is both of their faults.  

 
The car is more at fault, but they are both at fault.  If you focus on just the railing to the left to gauge the speed, the truck doesn't seem to slow down at all prior to impact.  I counted 2+ seconds from when the car entered the left lane until the truck actually hit the car.  While I highly doubt he could have stopped in time, he has to be paying enough attention to slow down with 2 seconds of reaction time, especially driving a big truck at that speed and passing another vehicle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Car probably looked over his shoulder saw no one in the left lane and figured he would be able to make it after he cleared the middle lane.

Car driver is a huge ##### and at fault but would be curious to know the law on that road regarding trucks in the left lane and how fast truck was travelling.

 
I can't see your pole.

Car is easily at fault.  Nothing should be 100% one way or the other when it comes to auto accidents.

 
I guess I could argue that the truck driver, being so high up, should have seen the car long before he entered the left lane. 

 
TheIronSheik said:
There's a minimum speed requirement on highways.  How about we focus on that one then?
Click to expand...
Oh, there is a lot of wrong going on in that video by the driver.  Just reaffirming that he didn't actually do the illegal U-turn even if that was his intent.

 
I guess I should point out, when I ask "Who's at fault here?", I mean in insurance terms.  It's fairly obvious that the car is at fault.  But the question was more of which insurance would have to pay or if the truck driver would have to pay at all?

 
People that are voting truck here are probably the same morons that 1) don't pull into an intersection to make a left hand turn, 2) merge into traffic way too early, and 3) travel at cruising speed in the passing lane.

Yo

 
TheIronSheik said:
The logic used is that if you rear end someone, it's always your fault.  You are not in control of your vehicle.  And while I agree with that in most cases, it doesn't seem to make sense here.  But the consensus from all of the (so-called) insurance people is that the truck would be at fault.
Click to expand...
There's an insurance scam people do very similar to this.  Basically, they load car A with 4 or 5 people, get car B to go to the side of the semi so it cant swerve away and then car A gets in front and slams on the breaks to get hit and then all the people in car A have back and neck "injuries".  That's one of the reasons a lot of these trucks have these cameras now.  The car is 100% at fault here and I'd bet my left testicle (it's the bigger one) that the court sees it that way as well.

 
Here is what I will say the vehicle code favors the car and it is almost always the fault of the one rear ending. If there was no dash footage there is a 100% chance that the truck is put at fault. Without the footage the car tells the story "I was slowing to make a turn" and there is nothing to refute it. 

With the footage the car is as fault. 

Former auto insurance investigator. Truck not at fault. 

Auto 100% at fault for unsafe lane change/ merging.

 
Loan Sharks said:
Here is what I will say the vehicle code favors the car and it is almost always the fault of the one rear ending. If there was no dash footage there is a 100% chance that the truck is put at fault. Without the footage the car tells the story "I was slowing to make a turn" and there is nothing to refute it. 

With the footage the car is as fault. 

Former auto insurance investigator. Truck not at fault. 

Auto 100% at fault for unsafe lane change/ merging.
Click to expand...
How do you justify "slowing to make a turn" when you are on the highway in the passing lane?

 
Kanil said:
There's an insurance scam people do very similar to this.  Basically, they load car A with 4 or 5 people, get car B to go to the side of the semi so it cant swerve away and then car A gets in front and slams on the breaks to get hit and then all the people in car A have back and neck "injuries".  That's one of the reasons a lot of these trucks have these cameras now.  The car is 100% at fault here and I'd bet my left testicle (it's the bigger one) that the court sees it that way as well.
Click to expand...
Its called the swoop and squat. A fake cut off so the victim car can honestly claim they had to slam brakes in front of a commercial vehicle for the fake claim the third phantom car is corroberated by the trucker and then speeds from the scene. I looked to see if there was a swoop car in front of the stopper and  there isn't this isn't a staged accident this is a dispirit making a unsafe lane change. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The car, obviously.  Even a normal car going that fast would have had a tough time braking that fast to avoid plowing into some jackass who basically came to a stop after cutting across two lanes, but a truck?  No chance of stopping that quickly. 

 
TheIronSheik said:
I guess I should point out, when I ask "Who's at fault here?", I mean in insurance terms.  It's fairly obvious that the car is at fault.  But the question was more of which insurance would have to pay or if the truck driver would have to pay at all?
Click to expand...
If I had to guess...truck driver's insurance will pay at least 50% to avoid court costs.

 
Cjw_55106 said:
I guess I could argue that the truck driver, being so high up, should have seen the car long before he entered the left lane. 
Click to expand...
Not saying that it isn't the car's fault, but the truck driver has some fault because it appears they were not paying attention whatsoever.

 
TheIronSheik said:
The logic used is that if you rear end someone, it's always your fault.  You are not in control of your vehicle.  And while I agree with that in most cases, it doesn't seem to make sense here.  But the consensus from all of the (so-called) insurance people is that the truck would be at fault.
Click to expand...
Say at the :08 second mark in the video the SUV cuts over one lane to the left and his rear-ended by the truck.  Truck still at fault?

How is the car any different?

 
TheIronSheik said:
No.  This isn't a customer service story.  I've seen a heated debate on Facebook about this and I have to say, my interest is piqued.

First, watch this video.  It's short and to the point. (I've watched it without sound, so I'm not sure if there's anything bad in the audio or not.)

Most people are blaming the truck and saying that if you rear end someone, it's always your fault.  Maybe not 100%, but a lot of insurance agents (or at least people stating they are) are saying that the truck's insurance would lose to the car's insurance company and the car driver would not be found at fault.  This is mind blowing to me.  Car cuts across three lanes of highway to try and make an illegal U-turn from the passing lane.  

Discuss.
Click to expand...
I have driven that stretch of highway many times and it is very clear that the car is at fault.  The sign where the car tries to make the U turn probably states for emergency vehicles use only.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Senor Schmutzig
What kind of lawyer do I need?
Replies
15
Views
582
fatness
fatness
Anarchy99
Obscure Records That You Think You May Hold
2
Replies
76
Views
1K
rockaction
rockaction
FiredMartz
New Fad in SoCal....stopping 2 or 3 cars behind at a stoplight...
Replies
36
Views
1K
shuke
shuke

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top