yeah, it's immediately apparent that the problem here is that the car filming is traveling too close to the car in front for the speed it is going.

​@boredfilms578 insurance ruled it a no-fault because the cammer caused the accident and there was no other parties insurance involved because the pickup driver did not stop. If the pickup driver HAD stopped, the cammer would have been ruled 100% at fault.

​@boredfilms578 I can't control how close the car ahead of me drives to the car ahead of them, but I can control how close I am to the car ahead of me.

Hi

Yeah but not to brake like an idiot, she didn’t have to brake that hard she overreacted

@@Misshighness444 yeah you women are a menace behind the wheel

@@Misshighness444 All the more reason to not tailgate and pay more attention. This was easily avoidable had the cammer been following at a safe distance and actually paying attention.

​@@Misshighness444I always blame the car in front of me when I follow them to closely and I react slowly.

@@Misshighness444 Incorrect, look down the left side of the pickup. The pickup almost runs into the rear end of the car in front because they weren't paying attention either.

Yeah she didn’t can clearly see she had enough room not to brake like that

When the cammer's car swerved to the right, it's clear to see the cars in front of that pickup had slowed. The cammer was obviously tailgating. Why any insurance company (other than the cammer's, of course) would see this as a 'no one at fault' accident is beyond me.

no she did not when she slammed on her brakes it was becasue the car infrpont of her slammed on their brakes. the cammer was also clearly not paying enough attention hence why the cop said no fault on either of them @@Misshighness444

@bigbill2444 I assume it's a non-fault state. Honestly, I have no idea how that works. I wouldn't be happy if I had to pay my deductible if someone hit me.

@menareawasteofspace when someone isn't paying attention and look up to see they're quickly approaching stopped traffic, they will sometimes brake harder than necessary due to panic.

This is the very reason I don't like to leave a gap. But when I do, at least I have the courtesy of warning the cutting driver to oncoming traffic since I'm obscuring their visibility.

Very ambiguous caption.

Glad it wasn't just me. I'm saying to myself: HUH?

They have a history of making utterly stupid calls on crashes, probably baiting extra comments. I can't say it doesn't work...

It's obvious whose fault it is. The only difference between this accident and the ones you see every day where a driver is "let in" to make a left turn into a parking lot by the guy in the left lane only to get nailed by someone in the right lane is that this was a U-turn. Don't rely on people letting you in unless you can see the people in the right lane stopped as well.

@@eauhomme Obvious, yes. But cammer will get blamed in these comments.

WTF is wrong with people "My spot" "No, My spot" "My spot" "No, My spot" cammer passes white truck on the shoulder and the other driver couldnt be satisfied with the spot the cammer had and wanted the cammers new spot.

when 2 children meet

_"...there was also no reason for you to risk your life to fight him for the spot."_ More to the point, there was no reason to potentially risk the lives of anybody who could have easily been in the opposing lane at that time.

"probably" is NOT a viable arguement... 🤦🏽‍♂️

then, that would be hydroplaning

hydroplaning requires standing water. surface looked only a little damp. that's as the above comment states - worn tires and going too fast. Actually a much more likely scenario is that the flat he got was actually what caused the accident; and not the other way around.

In a hydroplane, he would’ve gone off the left side of the road.

😂 when you have too much bass and the track says "swerve"

loading the stuff he stole from home depot into his car, obviously

Car was out of gas by what the guy had

@@Shinigamiusmc No, it was just one of the things he stole from Home Depot.

Most likely has no insurance and thinks they’re going to get away with it.

May have avoided a wreck all together

Cammer was probably on his/her phone...

The old man pulling into the proper lane would also have avoided the whole incident.

@@varist0rb Indeed. However the cammer could have done more to avoid incident

You'll notice at the very start of the clip that the intersection is at the top of a hill. And due to the hill's curve the cammer is actually out of sight about the time the old man would've looked to his left before pulling out. So the old man probably thought there was no traffic coming from the left, which is why he was pulling out so slowly (waiting for traffic in the left turn lane to clear). Remember, it takes two to tango. Yeah the old man could've avoided an accident by not blocking traffic lanes. But cammer could've avoided it too by slowing down before it was too late to stop. Instead he trusted his car (and his life) to the old man, hoping he saw cammer coming and would stop. I dunno about you, but I prefer to keep my fate in my own hands when driving, rather than trusting it to the competence of others.

Who blocks a road with a shopping cart? This is a level beyond the vast majority of entitled people.

...just a daft moron. Made 0 sense

More importantly why didn’t the put the stuff in the buckets and carry them back to the car or even park in the HD parking lot?

Avoid avoidable accidents!

I see someone about to block my path, so obviously I continue driving. I've got it all on dash cam.

Not even a little. And his company accepted liability immediately. They actually know what they're seeing.

@@mickaleneduczech8373 attitude like that your asking to get into more wrecks. Stay safe dear

@@haroldthefrog Yeah, sure mom.

Yes. All three drivers at fault to some extent. And the government is at fault as well. Who puts a bus stop 20 feet after a traffic light. Poor design in my opinion

@@vijayjayaraman5990this is something I hadn’t considered

@@vijayjayaraman5990 Cammer too for flashing brights

Two birds stoned at once.

To say it in the style of George Carlin: what is behind me, does not concern me - Keep Movin! George Carlin: Complaints & Grievances - Traffic Accidents-Keep Movin'!

At least he put the Jersey barrier back up.

And?

I'm pretty sure it's the channel (Mega Driving School) which speeds up the video. They've sped up part of clips I've submitted.

I was wondering what was going on, not many would just lose there shit like that

I think only cammer's direction had a stop sign. I couldn't see a stop sign for traffic coming from the right. And cammer's direction actually has 3 stop signs (one on the left, and two on the right one above the other) with orange posts, which suggests this location has a history of people going in cammer's direction ignoring the stop sign. As cammer rolls through the stop, he cuts off a pickup coming from the left. That's probably the pickup that raged. That would also explain why it took so long for the pickup to catch up to cammer - he had to turn around and chase him by illegally passing other cars.

@@solandri69 That's exactly what happened. If you slow it down the pickup is right there on the left as he rounds the corner. That's also why it was sped up so it was hard to see.

Good catch. Cammers that try to cleverly edit the footage to confuse the issue are punks. _Stop at your stop sign._

regardless what silly traffic issue it was, its extra dumb to get out of your car to yell or be aggressive with another driver. Just get over it & move the hell on. You don't know what someone else is capable of especially in those situations.

Vehicles creep slowly into the roadway all the time. It means that they can see you and are waiting for you to go by. Why the sedan kept creeping until he caused a collision is something that couldn't reasonably be predicted.

@@mvpfocus Thanks. And he didn't just creep. He paused and gunned it when I got there.

Probably that guy each time too lol

You are correct. Challenger was trying to fly by and couldn't wait for the car to fully change lanes.

All 3 had an element of fault here. Yes, the Challenger had the most fault but the other 2 had smaller elements of fault for not noticing someone else changing into the same lane they were. That's why you need to shoulder check too. The mirror won't show that.

@@richdiddens4059 Yeah, there is a bit of confusion with their flubs, but their situation straightened itself out without causing a collision. IMO, that is not fault or recklessness causing the secondary incident, all fault is on the impatient Charger.

Witness testimony alone can impact a fault determination, in a different way than video footage, which is far more precise. Here's what the law actually says: 545.060 (a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic: (1) shall drive *as nearly as practical* entirely within a single lane;  and (2) *may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely.* So, in other words, you cannot occupy two lanes at once. The lane that you are "as nearly as practically" within, is the only lane that you can control at one time. In this case, the beige compact clearly had established "as nearly as practical" within the middle lane, before getting spooked by the abrupt lane change of the burgundy SUV. The burgundy SUV *could* have been at fault, but the beige compact foolishly made a second unsafe lane change back to the left lane, which they had just relinquished "as nearly as practical," moments earlier, and caused a collision of their own making. The beige compact is therefore at fault, according to law. The black coupe is a victim of getting cut off unsafely; because rear-ending is only for situations in which your right-of-way doesn't don't get cut off. Again, the beige compact could not reasonably expect to occupy both the left and middle lane, without knowing that they might cause an incursion into someone else's right-of-way. The beige compact was obligated to check each time they decided to change lanes, and failed to check that the "movement could be made safely" when swerving back over. It's an unfortunate way to be at fault, but the only motorist truly taken off guard here was the black coupe, just minding his business coming through an intersection. Which is another factor against the beige compact. Changing lanes in an intersection is arguably unsafe, and attempting to do so, twice, is an unreasonable expectation. The "fully left the lane" argument falls flat when reading the plain language of the law. It's the lane that you are _mostly_ in that you control. Otherwise, someone could swerve back and forth and block the whole roadway, claiming that they 'never fully left their lane.' The poor decision here, was the initial unsafe lane change, in an intersection, just before a bus, with a pinned vehicle behind the bus. It was an doomed maneuver from the very start, and they couldn't expect to save it by swerving back across, thus occupying two lanes.

I earlier cited Texas, the scene of the incident. But the law is almost word for word in Michigan: 257.642 Roadway divided into 2 or more marked lanes; applicable rules; designation as HOV lane; restrictions; exceptions; designation as automated vehicle roadway or lane; violation as civil infraction. (1) If a roadway is divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules in addition to all other rules that are consistent with this act apply: (a) *A vehicle must be driven **_as nearly as practicable_** entirely within a single lane and must not be moved from the lane until the operator has first ascertained that the movement can be safely made.* In other words, the onus is on the lane changer to make safe movements, which does not interfere with the right-of-way of other motorists. Occupying two lanes simultaneously cannot very well fit within those legal requirements. A lot of people, including some patrol officers, engage in common misconceptions. Cops aren't lawyers. But if you had to go to court for running into someone that cut you off, they wouldn't be able to use the, 'I wasn't done changing lanes' excuse. _That_ is not the incursion. The incursion is trying to swerve back without checking if your second choice is safer than your first choice -- _which you already began executing._

@@mvpfocus here's the issue with how you fasely interpreted the law (part a). Driver could not safely merge into the center lane due to another vehicle attempting to occupy it. So they went back to their original lane. You can not pass a vehicle that is partially occupying a lane. This is on the challenger for failing to pass safely

@@entarr2604 You haven't cited any alternative legal text. The compact still chose to change lanes, whether they could safely do so or not. That's why they are at fault. The coupe did not attempt to "pass" anyone. They were minding their own business when the compact swerved and _cut them off._ 257.642 (a) *A vehicle must be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and must not be moved from the lane until the operator has first ascertained that the movement can be safely made.* The law makes no room for your "interpretation." The law clearly says that you can only control a "single lane," not two. Straddling two different lanes is therefore an at-fault action, unless safe. The coupe was the victim because the compact's *unsafe* movement impinged upon the coupe's right-of-way, and the coupe had nowhere to go, not in either of the two lanes. That's why you can't be at fault for rear-ending someone that is straddling two-lanes. Because the onus is one the one changing lanes not to cause an incursion from that position.

@@mvpfocus They never relinquished their lane. They never made a lane change to the left. They had to cancel their lane change right. The Challenger basically did the same are rear ending a car that was just driving down the lane.

love the (convenient) cut to the front camera haha; the driver in the white gmc is probably thinking that both those drivers are complete assholes.

Sure he would.

🤣🤣thats what I thought too!

Agree. You could say the Challenger driving too fast for conditions as well, (the conditions being stop and go traffic impeded by a bus in the right lane). I'd go 70/30 or 80/20, Challenger most at fault.

I say corolla, changing lanes in an intersection is always a bad idea. It was just pure stupid to change lanes there, could have waited 3 seconds to be beyond the bus and less congested, and not in an intersection. I would give this one 50/50 challenger and corolla with honorable mention to the SUV trying to get around the bus.

@@rustyrebar123 I put the split between the Challenger and the guy changing lanes from the right who failed to yield.

depending where this is, changing lanes in an intersection can get you a ticket. the Corolla's actions precipitated the whole thing.

@@thugsdaddy4412 There is no state in the US where it's illegal. Only if it's unsafe - this condition was initiated by the car in the right lane, not the Corolla.

he looked down on his radio i belive twicw just a second before so he was distracted

still the other cars fault had an accident occured as they did not use a turn signal therfore made an unsafe lane change, without looking

Edge?

But according to some commenters on these channels, speeding doesn't cause accidents. It's us old timers who aren't "going with the flow" who are a danger and should be re-tested every five minutes.

I bet you're one of those who NEVER drive on the freeway and NEVER exceed 35MPH on any secondary road, even if the speed limit is 45 to 50MPH

Did you vote for Justin Trudeau?

@@CANNABISfreedomNOtaxesWhat’s the link between federal politics and swearing and road raging with a child in the car? 😅

@@AdamSSh I want to know if you support Justin. If you do, then the welfare of small children should be the last thing you worry about. Targeting unborn babies and taking away the rights of parents is priority on his and his supporters agenda.

Are you the son Lebanese immigrants?

He's about to pass it down to his children.

I’m not entirely sure what is on the dashboard but I can pretty safely say it’s definitely not weed lol.

@@adelerose7419looks like a succulent or a wash mitt, I don’t think this person has ever seen weed. Lmao

They are saying the dad was driving their vehicle and struck the woman in front because of following too close.

Doesn’t have to be standing water to cause hydroplaning, any wetness can cause it, it’s just easier with standing water

@@ShinigamiusmcI was debating someone about this, but I think they deleted their comment. - I think using the term hydroplaning to describe “simply losing control while driving on a wet road” downplays to danger of driving over standing water. Using this definition, it would stand to reason, that simply driving on a damp road is technically hydroplaning as the water laminates the road surface, effectively, a layer of water that reduces the shear force of adhesion between the tires and the road surface. - I believe the distinction is necessary because driving over standing water deeper than the tire tread at speed can physically lift the tires off the ground momentarily making any change of direction impossible until the tires are making contact with the road surface again. If the steer tires aren’t lined up correctly, this can whip the vehicle in a different direction than intended faster than most drivers can react. Furthermore, in extreme circumstances, it can also cause water to sheet over the windshield and side windows, temporarily blinding the driver and vehicles driving alongside them. -For those reasons I think using “hydroplane” as a means of describing a skid (do you call it aeroplane when you skid on dry ground?) downplays the danger of driving over standing water.

@@leolimabeans I’m just saying the road needs to be wet for the possibility of hydroplaning and agree that it’s easier to hydroplane with standing water, but road conditions are worse after a light rain

@@ShinigamiusmcI’m just saying that it is irresponsible to over use “hydroplane” and the distinction is necessary

If I had to arbitrate that, my vote for fault will be on the Charger and the Charger only. The two lane-changing flubbers did nothing contemptuous to cause the collision. The Charger did not observe clear distance, failed to yield, unassured clear distance, and caused a collision. The left-lane collision victim had full control of that lane and Charger did not respect that, causing the collision. Simple patience in the case of the Charger would've prevented that, IMO.

2:11 because the pedestrian is crossing illegally against the light. 8:51 Huh? Cammer didn't overtake anybody.

@@spamlessaccount You are correct. He crossed against the light. Emily Litella: Nevermind!

@@shreddder999 LOL

LOL