#1 Fargin' Idjit. What the hell is so important that you thought rummaging around was more important than driving? He better have insurance since all of that got caught on tape. Rolling a truck in perfectly straight, empty, dry road in beautiful, sunny weather. He's gonna have to declare bankruptcy.
#7 sure, this guy cant really see while going on a bike and he wears no helmet. Still, hes trying EXCEPTIONALLY hard to avoid using a car. the other person could have checked before entering his lane. I rly feel sorry for both of them. They are making complete jokes out of themselves just bc they refuse to use a dumb car like everybody else.. I wanna salute them for at least trying.
It's not always about issues of not wanting to use a car, licenses cost a fortune, and then you need to pay a fortune to have a parking space for the car while living in a city, and not everyone can afford that. But that scene is a perfect example how few cyclists know how to be act while cycling, including not knowing that you need to look both ways for traffic. Nobody specifically teaches this unless your parents do but watching how others act while cycling should help learn this basic stuff.
The sheathing wasn't put on yet, which is what you need to handle sheer forces instead of just top-down loading. They probably had some strong winds come through and the wind started pushing the framing over like that.
there is no way that something that flimsy can be fixed with sheating, that thing is already leaning over with way less than its finished weight, i would be terrified of living in that death trap
Normally I'd say with no sheathing the wind load should be practically nonexistent, but... there's no permanent bracing. All that diagonal lumber looks like temporary stuff they put up after it started shifting. You'd have to have corner braces where I live, and that may have been enough to prevent this.
total bullshit, there have to be diagonals in the frame work for stability, to prevent exactly something like shown here...absolute lunacy to leave them out and assume that would work...
Sure but how many houses have you seen be framed like that? Unless they're using SIPs I really only see the framing go up first and sheathing come after. But I do live in an area that isn't prone to really strong winds.
Probably! You guys are used to storms happening all year round, right? I'm in California where storms are pretty rare except for a few weeks out of the year!
Same here, also in Canada. Built houses for 5 years and 99% of the sheathing was on before standing the walls. (Makes it easier to square the walls off.) The only exceptions I can remember were some odd pockets or angled bits.
I'm sorry but... wtf? A house is supposed to be strong WITHOUT the sheathing. Sure it's extra strenght, but the strutcture should hold it's own weight. Wind barely has any grip in an open structure like that, if it bends it, it was a shitty construction to begin with.
The structure does hold it's own weight just fine, but it's only strong in the top-down dimension, not side to side. Sheathing doesn't help bare the weight of the building but helps it not move side to side. And you wouldn't think that the wind has much grip, but there's a lot of exposed surface area and there aren't actually many unobstructed paths straight through the building. Interior framing interrupts air passing through adding constant pressure in the building as well as on the exterior.
the cheapest contractor we can find... they been cited thousands of times, cant operate in these states but they can here so we went with them because we rather have profit then quality
Nope. As soon as the construction is done they sell the assets to another shell company and let the original LLC burn. Rinse and repeat at the next site.
Not really. Big trucks like that don't stop quickly, especially if they have a heavy load in back. There also doesn't appear to be enough shoulder there that would have allowed him to be out of the travel lane.
That said, it didn't look like something that couldn't have waited until he could stop safely. So your final conclusion is spot on. Hopefully there was no one outside of the cameras view and it was a single moron incident.
To some, they treat 20 seconds more precious than a lifetime. Running stop signs and red lights, cutting through traffic, tailgating and flashing high beams at others already over the speed limit... I used to be like that to some extent, now I just simmer down, take my time, and do my best to be predictable and stay out of others' way if I can safely do so.
#1 Rolled his truck on a dry, deserted, perfectly straight road and caught it all on video. I hope the insurance company sent him a fruit basket or something for all the money he saved them.
I saw first one and scolled to the bottom to see if any comments roasting him am glad there is. Seriously though the guy is driving a heavy truck and is stupid enough to unfasten their seatbelt then use their wheel as a leverage!?!? I legit mumbled "you stupid prat".
I saw first one and scolled to the bottom to see if any comments roasting him am glad there is. Seriously though the guy is driving a heavy truck and is stupid enough to unfasten their seatbelt then use their wheel as a leverage!?!? I legit mumbled "you stupid prat".
Insurance many deny the claim if you are "grossly negligent." I hear what you're saying, but there are legal definitions that trigger "gross negligence." Carelessness or failing to use reasonable care while driving is negligence, willful disregard for your safety or the safety of others is gross negligence. This ding dong was just "regular" negligent. Things like intentional drifting, street racing, driving 40MPH over in traffic, intentionally running multiple red lights, that's gross negligence
It'd be the same as anyone reaching into the back seat to get something, and getting into an accident. It absolutely does not meet the legal definition of "gross negligence". Maybe if you're using some no-name cut-rate insurance company that provides minimum insurance. I just read through my USAA policy and the only exceptions are: war/insurrection/revolution, nuclear reaction/radiation, leased to other people, racing, using a stolen vehicle, illicit trade or transportation, or intentional loss
Can confirm...sort of...When I was a kid, my parents (and thus me under their policy) were insured by PEMCO, who is known to only insure "safe drivers". They won't even offer a new policy unless your record is clean for the last 3 years... So, 1 accident (rear ender...wasn't paying attention) and a few speeding tickets later, my parents got a letter from PEMCO, telling them they didn't HAVE to remove me from their policy, but if they didn't, PEMCO would drop the entire policy at renewal.
The short answer is: "yes, if it is an 'accident'". An accident is generally defined as sudden, unexpected, and unintentional". General policies won't cover illegal use of a vehicle, criminal acts, intentional acts, racing, off-roading, and GROSS negligence. Otherwise a lapse in judgement...even if you roll your rig...is covered. Even reckless driving is USUALLY covered. So, DUI, Hit and Run, using the car while committing a felony, street racing, fleeing police...denied. This dumb-ass: covered.
#3 There's a legal concept called "Last Clear Chance." If you're the one who has the last clear chance to avoid the accident, even if someone else has done or is doing something wrong/illegal/stupid, you're the one who's liable. The gray car had the last clear chance and evidently wasn't paying enough attention..
This doesn't apply here. It's for cases when you could easily have avoided it or weren't paying attention to the highway code (or us equivalent). In this case, the car changed lane without enough clear space.
The black car pulled into the other lane extremely slowly. There was ample time for the gray car to react by slowing down or changing lanes. If the black car had been quicker, it could have easily completed the lane change. They're both idiots, but the gray car had plenty of time to avoid the collision.
In this scenario, the responsibility is very much on the person pulling out. We have no idea what happened behind the camera - there are any number of reasons their view could've been obscured or they were paying attention to a different, no less dangerous situation. You don't even start pulling out until the way is completely clear, and you certainly don't just slowly nose your front out so that the risk of not seeing you is pointlessly elevated.
I give more leniency to the driver that had the right of way, pretty much because the choices were "Stop or Avoid." Vehicles are big fast and heavy. You can't really react at a split second. Without more info can't really say they were trying to stop but realized the didn't have enough room or perhaps were trying to move lanes, but didn't have enough clearance on the white car we saw enter after the crash. When you pull out into traffic, that's you taking the risk sadly.
I give my two cents because I literally had to change my driving habits over a year ago to take a longer route that added an intersection because I got tired of the shorter route that cross at least 3 lanes of traffic because everytime oncoming drivers would see me try to pull out, they'd all speed up so they could get past me I instead of just either keeping their pace or tapping the breaks slightly. If I tried to dart out and an accident occurred I can tell you, I'd be 100% at blame.
#3, agreed. The car pulling out was the cause of the accident and at fault, but the other driver should have been able to see and avoid. (Unless there was a car in front of them that changed lanes at the last minute)
#9 because people are obsessed with others seeing what they're doing rather than just enjoying the moment themselves. Social media is a cancer on society.
I have a bad memory and wish I’ve taken more photos, even if it had to be selfies. I think instead of saying that you could argue people who can’t do anything without taking a selfie are, at the least, can be really annoying
Having been involved in a similar accident (driver turned into the road, cutting me off), unless there is evidence that the grey SUV was speeding or had also just crossed into the lane (in which case the car with better view of the situation must yield), the grey SUV is not at fault. They have the right to the lane and cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate a car entering their lane at that low of a speed.
If she had planned better on keeping her phone getting a selfie picture completely upside down would probably be a pretty cool picture to look back on.
#3 is also a great example of indecision kills. They had committed to pulling out of the lane but didn't go. They should not have been pulling out at all, but they had plenty of time to go if they had just gone instead of being indecisive.
#3 There's somewhere between 3 and 4 seconds between the jeep suddenly popping out of a turning lane and the minivan hitting it. The light for the minivan was green, as shown by the gif, and that's not a small road... Assuming 40 mph, it takes roughly 6 seconds (1 second reaction, 5 seconds to brake) to come to a stop. There were cars to the right of that minivan, no avoiding it. CARS ARE BIG, AND TAKE TIME TO STOP. Even at 30mph, there's basically no time to spare.
Okay, some people apparently aren't picking up on this -- my mistake, I failed to communicate it effectively -- so to spell it out: This is intended to be absurd. I'm saying that it's silly to criticize the woman for enjoying the ride in a way different from how you would.
So yes, in fact I very much considered that. What I said was a deliberately absurd reversal of the comment I replied to, and my point - just like yours - is that people aren't all the same, and so, criticizing this woman for wanting to use her phone on the ride is silly.
Huh. I thought my point would get across, but it seems to have whiffed. Okay, I'll spell it out. Has it ever occurred to you that people might like using their phones and making videos and that using their phones might be part of enjoying the ride?
I was always saying the different thing. You misunderstood it as the first thing. I take responsibility for the miscommunication; my sarcasm clearly was not thick enough. But sarcasm it was. You griping about it now won't change the fact that we agree. You're stuck with me, pal.
#3 nah crossing a solid white, basically parking across two lanes, more than enough to be 100% at fault. When margining, oncoming traffic has right of way, though that could vary state to state.
Yup, my friend got a ticket for exiting a turn lane. Once you are in the turn lane, you are committed to turn, at least according to the police officer that gave her the ticket
Your first duty is not to cause a collision. All rights are secondary to that duty, so if you get into an avoidable collision while in the right, you are in the wrong.
You're right about this. Like, if you back into someone who is parked illegally, you're at fault. I know this, cause it happened to me! Who's at fault in this #3 video, I'm not sure.
Both - first car for doing a dangerous maneuver across a solid line, other car for not having any idea what's going on despite having plenty of time to do so.
But the other one was way too fast and apparently didn't observe traffic at all, no braking is visible. Both need to be charged criminally, the first one is responsible for the damages.
You apparently have no idea how good you can deduct what speed difference the cars had by their damage. And there is literally a video of it that can be used to fairly accurately calculate the speed.
80thousand85
#10 the "can't miss" shot had me rollin
SoopahFly
#1 Fargin' Idjit. What the hell is so important that you thought rummaging around was more important than driving? He better have insurance since all of that got caught on tape. Rolling a truck in perfectly straight, empty, dry road in beautiful, sunny weather. He's gonna have to declare bankruptcy.
mcglirkymeow
#1 What was so important he had to have right then and there?
deetatron
#4 hello, my names korg, i drop people off high places, and I’m made out of rocks!”
arajad
#8 Looks like yet another case of a grownup overloading a swing built for a child's weight.
hydrocarbon82
And looks like she got knocked the AF out for it
thedubbedgifyouwerelookingfor
#7 sure, this guy cant really see while going on a bike and he wears no helmet. Still, hes trying EXCEPTIONALLY hard to avoid using a car. the other person could have checked before entering his lane. I rly feel sorry for both of them. They are making complete jokes out of themselves just bc they refuse to use a dumb car like everybody else.. I wanna salute them for at least trying.
MaleProstateMilker88
It's not always about issues of not wanting to use a car, licenses cost a fortune, and then you need to pay a fortune to have a parking space for the car while living in a city, and not everyone can afford that. But that scene is a perfect example how few cyclists know how to be act while cycling, including not knowing that you need to look both ways for traffic. Nobody specifically teaches this unless your parents do but watching how others act while cycling should help learn this basic stuff.
VitaminJay
#1 motherfucker it can wait!
malachilenomade
#4 That guy is enjoying his job. You'd never get me on one of those; SHOULD it happen, I'd like someone like him doing the release.
Snooj
#10 If you scratch on the 8 ball you lose.
mintvis
#3 No signal, crossing the white line with blind spot issues. What an idiot…
GuerrillaschaukelnInDerTodeszone
#2 Well, at least they won't have to save for college
WellWhatTheHeck
#9 Well, at least they won't have to save for college
hyptosis
How much money do you think they made on the fight?
GWJYonder
Yeah, that kid's getting an athletic scholarship for sure.
Vebrandsson
#10 look guys, I sympathize with you, I'm that bad at that game too.
Klaxun
#9 What, the ROLLERCOASTER isn't interesting enough to distract you from your phone?
LawFiveGuy
#4 I like all of these but I think "now you see me, now you don't" is the best, followed closely by "3 2 1 are we going on 1 or aft..."
slipvyne
What does the letter A sound like?
KaJuN
My fav is "Want to know a fun fact about gravity?"
JockoV
#5 This is what happens when a lien is put on a house.
lrateyourrig
Geef me und klaap papa
Nikolai5
#1 I wonder if he ever got what he was reaching for, I bet it was totally worth it.
KalliJ
If there’s any justice in the word it landed on his head
Bigemedic
#4 This guy is my new favorite person in the world.
coastsouth
Check out AJ Hackett Bungy
BrokenAnimal
#5 Was that house built by two of the three little pigs?
RevRagnarok
Structural drywall.
pierceeze
All I know is I wouldn’t be standing as close as that guy
vilikke
Especially not inside the little alcove with walls on each side. Human sandwich
Gatorjon
No, just the one lowest bidder.
nothingunused
I'm pretty sure the framer was my aunt Eileen.
twelvoclocklevel
Plywood IS expensive, innit
westPAguy
That's Daves handiwork if Iv'e ever seen it.
helyx
Is Dave's specialty a lean-to?
CgnCalling
Fucking Dave…
HillOfBeans
Classic Dave.
theskepticinme
https://media0.giphy.com/media/03ZduhRk2Gj86ksym2/giphy.mp4?cid=65b91fbe3l2595yw5ni6g1owwn2mrmoxe823p4h1jftmgz28&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.mp4&ct=g
davdeMoonQueen
Hey!
CgnCalling
Dave, really! Like I said: NO day drinking !
MisterLemons
It's a lean-to
sinskittles
The sheathing wasn't put on yet, which is what you need to handle sheer forces instead of just top-down loading. They probably had some strong winds come through and the wind started pushing the framing over like that.
WhatTheHellIsGoingOnBob
Wouldn't worry about, next fire will sort it.
xzinik
there is no way that something that flimsy can be fixed with sheating, that thing is already leaning over with way less than its finished weight, i would be terrified of living in that death trap
server1a
You don't fix it with sheeting, you put the sheeting on before standing it up because it's easier and prevents this.
phobosorbust
Normally I'd say with no sheathing the wind load should be practically nonexistent, but...
there's no permanent bracing. All that diagonal lumber looks like temporary stuff they put up after it started shifting. You'd have to have corner braces where I live, and that may have been enough to prevent this.
BestRivenSupport
They ever heard of blocking?
JimJim11
Blocking has nothing to do with it. This is why you see sheer walls. Plywood installed on the wall to provide structure against sheer forces.
BestRivenSupport
That’d be better but both would be better
RecurringNightmare
total bullshit, there have to be diagonals in the frame work for stability, to prevent exactly something like shown here...absolute lunacy to leave them out and assume that would work...
Velv3tThunder
That's why you put the sheathing on the wall before you stand it up.
server1a
Build wall with bottom plate facing exterior. Sheet the wall. Lift the wall. Fasten to subfloor. Rinse and repeat.
Megamastermetamememaker
Or use bricks...or concrete...like in civilized countries...?
sinskittles
Sure but how many houses have you seen be framed like that? Unless they're using SIPs I really only see the framing go up first and sheathing come after. But I do live in an area that isn't prone to really strong winds.
HarperLee
They could have also installed bracing before starting on the second floor - sheathing or not
Velv3tThunder
I spent a year framing houses. We always sheathed the exterior walls before standing them up. Maybe we just do it different in Canada though.
sinskittles
Probably! You guys are used to storms happening all year round, right? I'm in California where storms are pretty rare except for a few weeks out of the year!
Jaysen
Same here, also in Canada. Built houses for 5 years and 99% of the sheathing was on before standing the walls. (Makes it easier to square the walls off.) The only exceptions I can remember were some odd pockets or angled bits.
MapleSyrupMafia
I'm sorry but... wtf? A house is supposed to be strong WITHOUT the sheathing. Sure it's extra strenght, but the strutcture should hold it's own weight. Wind barely has any grip in an open structure like that, if it bends it, it was a shitty construction to begin with.
sinskittles
The structure does hold it's own weight just fine, but it's only strong in the top-down dimension, not side to side. Sheathing doesn't help bare the weight of the building but helps it not move side to side. And you wouldn't think that the wind has much grip, but there's a lot of exposed surface area and there aren't actually many unobstructed paths straight through the building. Interior framing interrupts air passing through adding constant pressure in the building as well as on the exterior.
RooGryphon
the cheapest contractor we can find... they been cited thousands of times, cant operate in these states but they can here so we went with them because we rather have profit then quality
Darkspire
Yeah that shit is going to fall over as prophesied, and then they will go with quality.
WarThunderLeakedMySpecs
Nope. As soon as the construction is done they sell the assets to another shell company and let the original LLC burn. Rinse and repeat at the next site.
RooGryphon
no, no they wont. trust me they will never think like that and no they wont take any accountability for what happened either
punknoodles0
#10 Actual footage of me playing pool
demolitionlover09
#6 That “Rogerrrr” cracked me up. “I’m not mad, just disappointed.”
Moonthatspellsmoon
#5 future post by @AlphaStructural
Sheldonian
#2 USA gov right now
LawFiveGuy
that's pretty good
OhIfIMust
fcib
The last one is so good.
Kateness
Some alcohol may have been involved.
whooshby
Nice palate cleanser after getting angry at the stupid ppl.
HermitBean
You know it's good when you can't even stand up when laughing so hard
SocoFox
Just a good time. Though my friends wouldn't have let the scratch on the 8-ball go and would take the win. Ruthless.
HillOfBeans
Off topic but as you are a hermit bean I wondered if you’d like to join us.
HermitBean
I don't know, I'm kind of an outsider. Maybe if your hill had a nice quiet cave to ponder my orb in peace.
HillOfBeans
Of course it does! You can kind of dig your own safe space.
Beanholio
There's a club?!?
HillOfBeans
Yep! Join my hill.
KellyCrazyCatLadyinTraining
This entire comment thread has me hungry.
ididntgetthejobatfruitloops
#1 It would've taken him 20 seconds to pull over... bellend
MaleProstateMilker88
Or on an empty road he could have just stopped for a second or slowed down to almost stopping if he needed something that takes only a second to grab.
iamgnat
Not really. Big trucks like that don't stop quickly, especially if they have a heavy load in back. There also doesn't appear to be enough shoulder there that would have allowed him to be out of the travel lane.
That said, it didn't look like something that couldn't have waited until he could stop safely. So your final conclusion is spot on. Hopefully there was no one outside of the cameras view and it was a single moron incident.
Vergenbuurg
To some, they treat 20 seconds more precious than a lifetime. Running stop signs and red lights, cutting through traffic, tailgating and flashing high beams at others already over the speed limit... I used to be like that to some extent, now I just simmer down, take my time, and do my best to be predictable and stay out of others' way if I can safely do so.
boobsalot
This .
moreSaucePlease
#5 Is this Ilene’s house?
daytimepajamas
manyslayer
The HOA put a lien on it.
Johwin
#1 Rolled his truck on a dry, deserted, perfectly straight road and caught it all on video. I hope the insurance company sent him a fruit basket or something for all the money he saved them.
lewdev
I would hope self-driving would help with long and straight stretches of road and then drivers should handle everything else.
Onlyhereforthelaughs
So glad they unbuckled first...
hyptosis
most expensive sandwich ever
Gatorjon
"I need to reach something in the back. Let me unbuckle and pull violently on the wheel for leverage while I get it."
Huor
"WHY IS MY AMAZON PACKAGE STUCK TEN MILES OUT OF TUSCALOOSA???"
cryborg
Heh. That's funny.
Aintlurkingnomo
That shit scares me. I get that truckers bring pets on the road for company but if they get hurt when this stuff happens..x.x;
TheDevilsSon
I saw first one and scolled to the bottom to see if any comments roasting him am glad there is. Seriously though the guy is driving a heavy truck and is stupid enough to unfasten their seatbelt then use their wheel as a leverage!?!? I legit mumbled "you stupid prat".
jerusalemspider
Insurance companies: "Do a barrel roll!"
HEARTS0FSPACE
It's crazy how fast it stopped.
TheDevilsSon
I saw first one and scolled to the bottom to see if any comments roasting him am glad there is. Seriously though the guy is driving a heavy truck and is stupid enough to unfasten their seatbelt then use their wheel as a leverage!?!? I legit mumbled "you stupid prat".
gablestout
I mean...insurance pays anyway, assuming he has collision insurance, which would be insanely foolish not to have as a commercial driver
Beelsebooob
Nope - insurance will pay out to third parties, but they will not pay out to the policy holder if they were negligent.
gablestout
Insurance many deny the claim if you are "grossly negligent." I hear what you're saying, but there are legal definitions that trigger "gross negligence." Carelessness or failing to use reasonable care while driving is negligence, willful disregard for your safety or the safety of others is gross negligence. This ding dong was just "regular" negligent. Things like intentional drifting, street racing, driving 40MPH over in traffic, intentionally running multiple red lights, that's gross negligence
Beelsebooob
I'm 100% sure that an insurance company is going to argue that getting out of the damn drivers seat while the truck is moving is grossly negligent.
gablestout
It'd be the same as anyone reaching into the back seat to get something, and getting into an accident. It absolutely does not meet the legal definition of "gross negligence". Maybe if you're using some no-name cut-rate insurance company that provides minimum insurance. I just read through my USAA policy and the only exceptions are: war/insurrection/revolution, nuclear reaction/radiation, leased to other people, racing, using a stolen vehicle, illicit trade or transportation, or intentional loss
dcostanza1
Even if you're doing something illegal? Not questioning you just curious.
DorkJedi
Yes. You will have a lot of difficulty obtaining further insurance if that driver stays on the payroll.
gablestout
Can confirm...sort of...When I was a kid, my parents (and thus me under their policy) were insured by PEMCO, who is known to only insure "safe drivers". They won't even offer a new policy unless your record is clean for the last 3 years... So, 1 accident (rear ender...wasn't paying attention) and a few speeding tickets later, my parents got a letter from PEMCO, telling them they didn't HAVE to remove me from their policy, but if they didn't, PEMCO would drop the entire policy at renewal.
gablestout
The short answer is: "yes, if it is an 'accident'". An accident is generally defined as sudden, unexpected, and unintentional". General policies won't cover illegal use of a vehicle, criminal acts, intentional acts, racing, off-roading, and GROSS negligence. Otherwise a lapse in judgement...even if you roll your rig...is covered. Even reckless driving is USUALLY covered. So, DUI, Hit and Run, using the car while committing a felony, street racing, fleeing police...denied. This dumb-ass: covered.
dcostanza1
TIL. Thank you!
gablestout
CouldntCakeLess
#6 Roger. Are you okay?
scr1bbl3
Is this who the cat was named after?
DragonBjorne
A rare excellent use of added music.
derrymerbles
…yeah.
TeslaSupreme
I am, thank you for asking. Its been a few rough months but im hangin in there!
CouldntCakeLess
That’s awesome, keep it up Roger!
SJSHARPei
He’s fine
DefinitelyaHumanNotanAlien
Michael Jackson's lesser known hit
totaleclipseofdescartes
You’ve been hit by, you’ve been hit by, a smooth corner post
nonopenah
Rogerrrrrrrrrr.
gablestout
Pretty sure Roger's still going...
overfedlonghairedleapinggnome
Roger.
ExplosionFish
What’s the clearance, Clarence?
michiyl
PlacentaEaters
#3 Both are at fault I think. Dude shouldn't have been driving out but the other car should have had MORE then enough time to stop/avoid
#9 Why the hell was she on her phone in the first place? You're on a ride you should enjoy the ride
electrajet
#3 There's a legal concept called "Last Clear Chance." If you're the one who has the last clear chance to avoid the accident, even if someone else has done or is doing something wrong/illegal/stupid, you're the one who's liable. The gray car had the last clear chance and evidently wasn't paying enough attention..
Theory89
This doesn't apply here. It's for cases when you could easily have avoided it or weren't paying attention to the highway code (or us equivalent). In this case, the car changed lane without enough clear space.
electrajet
The black car pulled into the other lane extremely slowly. There was ample time for the gray car to react by slowing down or changing lanes. If the black car had been quicker, it could have easily completed the lane change. They're both idiots, but the gray car had plenty of time to avoid the collision.
Theory89
In this scenario, the responsibility is very much on the person pulling out. We have no idea what happened behind the camera - there are any number of reasons their view could've been obscured or they were paying attention to a different, no less dangerous situation. You don't even start pulling out until the way is completely clear, and you certainly don't just slowly nose your front out so that the risk of not seeing you is pointlessly elevated.
arajad
She was hoping to record the person recording her dropping their phone.
Theory89
Someone had to film her doing that. It was probably an old, dead phone and she was just doing it for likes.
Tjitso
#3 the other guy may have been distracted. This accident would not have happened without the guy pulling out.
TheAlteredWitch
*than
npcburner8888
I give more leniency to the driver that had the right of way, pretty much because the choices were "Stop or Avoid." Vehicles are big fast and heavy. You can't really react at a split second. Without more info can't really say they were trying to stop but realized the didn't have enough room or perhaps were trying to move lanes, but didn't have enough clearance on the white car we saw enter after the crash. When you pull out into traffic, that's you taking the risk sadly.
npcburner8888
I give my two cents because I literally had to change my driving habits over a year ago to take a longer route that added an intersection because I got tired of the shorter route that cross at least 3 lanes of traffic because everytime oncoming drivers would see me try to pull out, they'd all speed up so they could get past me I instead of just either keeping their pace or tapping the breaks slightly. If I tried to dart out and an accident occurred I can tell you, I'd be 100% at blame.
Geek13
#3, agreed. The car pulling out was the cause of the accident and at fault, but the other driver should have been able to see and avoid. (Unless there was a car in front of them that changed lanes at the last minute)
OhIfIMust
THE RIDE ALWAYS WINS.
Snooj
There's a reason some theme parks make you put your phone in a locker and still run you through security to ensure you don't have a phone on you.
Illinifan88
#9 because people are obsessed with others seeing what they're doing rather than just enjoying the moment themselves. Social media is a cancer on society.
WazertFromBlueSky
#9 probably wanted to get a video or maybe a selfie
MrsHowVeryDareYou
I was just in Dollywood and they have lockers in front of the big rides and signs that say no loose items like phones are allowed.
Subtilico
Again one for the evidence case: only morons take selfies.
sirwolfyy
I have a bad memory and wish I’ve taken more photos, even if it had to be selfies. I think instead of saying that you could argue people who can’t do anything without taking a selfie are, at the least, can be really annoying
Subtilico
How does making a photo of your face help you remember something? Just make a pic of what you want to remember...
WazertFromBlueSky
people have taken pictures of themselves for as long as cameras have existed, before that, they commissioned paintings
Subtilico
Proves my point: You don't even know the difference between a portrait and a selfie...
zsefvgb
Lanyards. Are. Your. Friend
GRaffted
On IG. To announce that she’s on a ri
gablestout
Having been involved in a similar accident (driver turned into the road, cutting me off), unless there is evidence that the grey SUV was speeding or had also just crossed into the lane (in which case the car with better view of the situation must yield), the grey SUV is not at fault. They have the right to the lane and cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate a car entering their lane at that low of a speed.
tzahtman
If she had planned better on keeping her phone getting a selfie picture completely upside down would probably be a pretty cool picture to look back on.
Ecxusemeisthisnametaken
#3 is also a great example of indecision kills. They had committed to pulling out of the lane but didn't go. They should not have been pulling out at all, but they had plenty of time to go if they had just gone instead of being indecisive.
SomethingCatchyLater
gigitty
totaleclipseofdescartes
Also, I see brake lights but no turn signal; there’s a chance the front turn signal could’ve helped catch the attention of the other driver sooner
ElbowDeepinaTinyOctopus
#3 There's somewhere between 3 and 4 seconds between the jeep suddenly popping out of a turning lane and the minivan hitting it. The light for the minivan was green, as shown by the gif, and that's not a small road... Assuming 40 mph, it takes roughly 6 seconds (1 second reaction, 5 seconds to brake) to come to a stop. There were cars to the right of that minivan, no avoiding it. CARS ARE BIG, AND TAKE TIME TO STOP. Even at 30mph, there's basically no time to spare.
Corrodias
Why are you on Imgur? Site sucks. You're in a life; you should enjoy your life.
Corrodias
Okay, some people apparently aren't picking up on this -- my mistake, I failed to communicate it effectively -- so to spell it out: This is intended to be absurd. I'm saying that it's silly to criticize the woman for enjoying the ride in a way different from how you would.
lackadaisycull
Correct—they should be rightfully mocking her for her blatant disregard for the workings of gravity.
Corrodias
Yes, that would at least make sense, if be a bit of pointing out the obvious.
foreverinchains
Has it ever occurred to you that someone who isn't you might think Imgur doesn't suck, and that being here is part of enjoying their life?
Other people are not the same as you, nor should they be.
Corrodias
So yes, in fact I very much considered that. What I said was a deliberately absurd reversal of the comment I replied to, and my point - just like yours - is that people aren't all the same, and so, criticizing this woman for wanting to use her phone on the ride is silly.
Corrodias
Huh. I thought my point would get across, but it seems to have whiffed. Okay, I'll spell it out. Has it ever occurred to you that people might like using their phones and making videos and that using their phones might be part of enjoying the ride?
foreverinchains
Your point appeared to be that Imgur sucks, and people should stop using this site and go do other things.
That's just your opinion, and it only applies to you. If you think Imgur sucks, why don't you go outside and "enjoy your life"?
Now you're trying to say something completely different.
Corrodias
I was always saying the different thing. You misunderstood it as the first thing. I take responsibility for the miscommunication; my sarcasm clearly was not thick enough. But sarcasm it was. You griping about it now won't change the fact that we agree. You're stuck with me, pal.
lrateyourrig
#3 nah crossing a solid white, basically parking across two lanes, more than enough to be 100% at fault. When margining, oncoming traffic has right of way, though that could vary state to state.
imakesoap
Yup, my friend got a ticket for exiting a turn lane. Once you are in the turn lane, you are committed to turn, at least according to the police officer that gave her the ticket
imakesoap
That’s in CA at least
tankerofquetzals
Your first duty is not to cause a collision. All rights are secondary to that duty, so if you get into an avoidable collision while in the right, you are in the wrong.
lrateyourrig
and if you swerve to avoid a collision and get into another collision you are also in the wrong
tankerofquetzals
Well, there was the option of looking at the road and slowing down...
lrateyourrig
Well its a good thing there are laws which determine fault and its not left up to us not commenters on image boards.
MarsIsAfire
You're right about this. Like, if you back into someone who is parked illegally, you're at fault. I know this, cause it happened to me! Who's at fault in this #3 video, I'm not sure.
tankerofquetzals
Both - first car for doing a dangerous maneuver across a solid line, other car for not having any idea what's going on despite having plenty of time to do so.
PolitiCat
But the other one was way too fast and apparently didn't observe traffic at all, no braking is visible. Both need to be charged criminally, the first one is responsible for the damages.
lrateyourrig
You can't prove the speed, you can prove the idiot merging crossed a solid white and parked their car between two lanes
PolitiCat
You apparently have no idea how good you can deduct what speed difference the cars had by their damage. And there is literally a video of it that can be used to fairly accurately calculate the speed.
lrateyourrig
Ok exactly how fast were they going? Please show your work.
MarsIsAfire
You 100% can determine the speed to the same level of certainty as the person crossing the solid white line. It's literally all on video.
lrateyourrig
Ok. Exactly how fast was the person going? Please demonstrate how you were able to determine this.