Turn down the *&%^$!@ *%$!*%^ volume on the outro already!

Over 90. He was at 93-95 when the van cut back to the left.

Pls use @timestamps...

@5:35 95mph. But yeah the van is the one that almost caused him to rear end 🤣🤣🤣 Do these idiots think they are going to get support for their actions?

Everyone thinks they are a "good driver". They're completely oblivious to how dangerous they actually are, because nothing is their fault.

5:24 guy's hauling at 96mph on a 70mph highway at the butt crack of dawn while people sipping coffee on their way to work and has the balls to complain about a driver in the slow lane going speed limit and trying to avoid these two "contractors" racing to the job site. Dude needs his license revoked.

@@CapuletLeGrandTimestamp police? 😬

Yeah dude they clipped the video right where he got hit there's no way he survived.

@@iraqifoodcart8447That's how you can say "No one was hurt"

I think he survived but probably had some complaints

Like why was there someone walking in the rain on the interstate in the 1st place. It looked like the pickup and the was both moving. Really bad the driver didn't see they were moving slow until it was too late

hope not, they caused the accident

I think they were trying to get out from in front of the pickup, but then the pickup changed lanes too. Probably was surprised there was a second speeding idiot behind the pickup.

yeah pretty much. He was almost doing 90mph riding the guys bumper in front of him. Save that speed for when the traffic is clear and there's nobody around you.

Its never their fault. The fact that nobody is expecting a 95mph asshat speeding up behind them never crosses the mind of these idiot racers.

@@dcsteve7869 Or save it for ... never, since there's no place I'm aware of (in the U.S.) where 90mph is within the law.

@@alekhidell3644 actually there is unregulated sections of highway in several states. That said are you telling me you never drive over 55mph? Please spare me the high road bull

Yeah, they edited out the kablooey part.

I think it was fake.

There was absolutely a person in the road. 😢

@ge2623 They cut it out, hitting him, because they can’t show it.

this video was not marked as lunch meat

Or if you do buy the car make sure you live in a gated community

@@swatmaster859 And carry. Oh wait that's Kali.

​@@spamlessaccount the guns here aren't too bad from what I heard

Why are blacks and hispanics so obsessed with chargers/challengers that they willing to risk their lives or go to prison for them🤔 you rarely hear of a white person carjacking someone for their challenger/charger

​@@spamlessaccountYou don't even know what you're talking about. Many counties in California are very gun friendly. The whole state is not San Francisco. 🙄

Go to police station

@@Rattrap007 Yep. Or just circulate in traffic until they give up.

Probably didn’t notice untill the car pulled up behind him.

I know someone who had this happen. It took the form of what initially looked like a road repair crew. When a flagger motioned her to drive towards a box truck, she turned left instead. The flagger jumped in front of her car and she ran over him. When she was home, she called the police that she ran over someone pretending to be a road worker and it turned out no one had reported such an accident. The next morning, the car was stolen out of her garage. The people who did this, knew where she lived, the route she took to and from work and when she drove it. The police suspected that there was a specific order made for that specific car.

Only if you live in a blue city.

​@@LordFalconsword Turlock is a _"red"_ city. It has a two-term Republican mayor. It has a Republican board. It has voted for the Republican candidate for President at every election for at least 50 years. It's part of Stanislaus county, which in 2022 voted over 70% Republican for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, US Senator, etc, etc, etc. Do you want to change your bullshit story?

@@paulkennedy8701He's not intelligent enough to read that.

@@LordFalconswordnot the city, it’s THEM.

​@@paulkennedy8701 the basketball/ smoke detector Americans commit this crime nine times if not ten times out of ten. I am not white, and I don't support either party because I am not American (and I think that American politics is a circus with lots of clowns and bipartisan politics are nonsense). I am an international student who was called a b******* cracker by a black man for no reason so, I have a very bad impression concerning these people. Moreover, I worked at a dealership for a year and during that time a gang of black folks stole a Dodge Challenger Hellcat Redeye off our lot plus a couple of Dodge Challenger + Charger Scatpacks from the neighboring dealerships. In total they stole about 15-20 cars that night from the street the dealerships were on. Black folks are known for stealing Dodge Chargers and Challengers in many states across the US and even the black people who worked at my dealership said a bunch of bad things about the black people who steal cars. Heck, every African international student I talked to told me that they despise African Americans. Blue and Red are two sides of the same coin and you people are foolish to think that your votes mean anything lol

Not really true about not paying attention. It looks to me like the driver was fully aware but assumed the van which began merging into the right lane would continue thus the cammer continued at his excessive speed thinking he would time it perfectly. However, once the van came back in to the original lane, the cammer had to brake.

If it was a red light camera, the ticket would have been sent to the registered owner. Lots of luck to them getting the “close” person to pay it.

@@garysakamoto4007 Small claims court. Fine plus expenses. If they were truly close, they'd pay what they owed in the first place.

City of Chicago in this case. The warning sign is one they typically use.

owner's (bad) choice. Can't believe people are stupid enough to give keys to people they have no clue what they'll do with their cars. As Seinfeld would say: "yeah, better get me insurrance! I'm gonna beat the hell out of that car!" Do you expect anyone but you to drive you car properly?

@@steveroyer1628 Honestly, nowadays, I don't expect the owners to drive properly either.

That's a common misconception. The statute actually says that drivers, "shall drive as *nearly as practical* entirely within a single lane." Which means, you can only control one lane at a time, and it's the lane that you're, "nearly as practical entirely within;" in other words, _mostly in._ That said, the cammer appears to be speeding, which is a separate matter.

@@mvpfocus It is nice that you can interpret a statute to fit your view, but that has nothing to do with the fact the vehicle was still part way in the lane. They were not driving there, they were changing lanes. My point stills stands as accurate. If they are not out of the lane, they are still in the lane. I did not try to say they were controlling the lane, but they were still physically present in the lane.

@@Tomcatt817 The point is that if you get mostly into another lane, you now have the right-of-way in that lane, assuming you didn't cause a collision, as you have relinquished the other lane. The law clearly says that you can only control a "single lane." Therefore, if you straddle two lanes and weave back and forth, and cause a collision, you will be at fault for an unsafe lane change, because you cannot use the defense that you controlled both lanes.

@@mvpfocus Yes, I got that. I already said I got that. I also said, that was never my point. My point is that you should not try to pass in a lane that still has another vehicle physically in it. It was never about control.

@@Tomcatt817 Well, your OP had the responsibility the wrong way around. Rather, you should only change lanes when it's safe. If you change lanes and cause a collision, in either lane, it was obviously an unsafe maneuver, and you are at fault. No one should have to slow down or take evasive maneuvers for you to change lanes. Moving traffic driving along minding their own business, is the innocent party. So, pick a lane, when it's safe, and stick to it. If someone else forces you out of your new lane, they will be at fault, if you take the contact. But if you abruptly switch back without looking, you have now caused a collision of your own volition.

I was not expecting this comment. Did not disappoint.

Do you like Jon Korea? 🤔

@@CapuletLeGrand Timestamps do not require "@"

@@spamlessaccount noted, thanks!

Yeah usually you have to yield to traffic on the interstate. The entrance becomes an exit for the next one and semi was exiting. I believe it has the right of way. Cammer needs to lay off the horn.

​@@Rattrap007 Neither of them was any more on the interstate than the other. That's a pure cloverleaf interchange with no connection to surface streets, and both vehicles had were on a connection roadway from one highway to the other. The car was going from NE to SE. The truck was going from NW to NE.

@@paulkennedy8701 Truck was already on the highway, cammer has to yield. Please tell me you don't drive like the cammer?

@@warlocc-paul Neither of them was on the highway. They had both just _left_ the highway they were on. They were both about to enter the _other_ highway. Both were at exactly the same point in their respective moves. Both of their lanes continue-there is no merge. However, they have to swap lanes to get where they're going. The truck driver tries to do it without giving way.

You guys are smoking crack. That semi crosses two solid white lines, which is a violation in every jurisdiction in the country. Secondly, they both are in a separate lane and neither of their lanes ends. Thus, there is no forced merge. Both have right of way for their own lanes. Nobody has to yield to any other vehicle ... unless they want to make a lane change. The semi needs to make a lane change and, in doing so, **AFTER** he clears the solid white lines, he needs to yield to cars in the right lane to move over. 8:48 is the better time stamp.

Judging from the camera angle, he might be a meteorologist.

THIS

You're right IMO the black sedan had partialy obstructed view because of the white pickup on the right but saw the front end of the LR inching ahead, When he tought the LR was stopped, he went on but the idiot in what he believed is a tank assumed he could go.

A lawyer who graduated last in his class at the worst law school in the country would win this case with ease for the sedan driver.

​@@pierredaigneault5615 That's correct too. The idiot driver was already halfway into the road. He had already crossed the lane that cars were parked in and was threatening to enter the next lane. The driver _in_ that lane slowed to make sure he was actually going to stop. When he did, the driver continued on. But the idiot thought it was all about him and that everyone else was letting him do what he wanted.

.. I think they skipped that part for a reason..... I think they removed where the person was hit in my opinion

That dude is mist

@@showstealer1829 Like Stephen Kings novel.

Did you notice he was driving at 95 mph?

Be thankful you are not a part of it!

The weird thing about that roundabout is that it's been there for almost a decade, it has some of the best line of sight of ANY roundabout in the whole city and the cops are always around in that Church parkinglot....and that exact same situation still happens about once a month to me.

Yep.

That works.

And, the only reason the sedan slowed so much was because the SUV was creeping out into the intersection.

they really not that hard, I was taught by my dad as a kid.

You should learn that in driver's ed, before you even take the test to get your license.

And I might hit Powerball despite not buying a ticket

If that person did die, is the cammer not at fault and should be prosecuted? Cammer was not slowing down at all. Then again, it might just indeed have been an accident that could not have been avoided.

It would be interesting to know why the man was on the highway. Some people commit suicide that way. :( @@Extremaduur

@@Extremaduur It might be an accident or it might not be? Brilliant analysis.

Some people blame others for their own mistakes, this is one such case.

Cammer had no yield; she had her own lane that the truck infringed on. Plenty of room to just go about her business, though.

Not on the first one. As said, she didn't have a yield because she had her own lane and the truck driver didn't make sure it was safe before changing lanes.

​@@ghost_stars2307Some people comment without paying attention to the video. You're one such case.

@@elizabethbarnett4273 Took you over four hours to think of this, and it wasn't even a good comeback. Weird that i was living rent free in your head.

Great catch! I went to the Detroit auto show that year and kept the pamphlet for the Bullit. Was such a great looking Mustang.

Because truck drivers are just like the rest of us, they're entitled asshats

Green light doesn't matter - truck unsafely (marginally) changed into the cammer's lane.

*camera *ran

Didn't read the caption? The owner of the car lent it to a friend and found out this had happened.

@@petrilampela i know, but the average viewer overlooks…

There's no way he couldn't see cars and a truck suspiciously not moving on the highway. A smart person would slow down. I'm betting the trucker was texting...

Wow what a bootlicking comment if I’ve ever seen one. The truck driver will have a long time to think about it in prison tho

@@k.o.h3599 a smart person turns on their hazards when being stopped on the highway to warn traffic

@@DJJumpdancer Dude they stopped suddenly because a PERSON was running across the highway. No time for hazards, unfortunately he got pasted by the semi.

@@Vampyrr you can turn on the hazards while stopping while getting out etc it doesnt take much time you just press a button

Not a candidate....

The truck would be found at fault every time. You don’t get to force yourself into someone elses lane. Regardless of if they speed up (they didn’t) the truck legally has to yield to the right of way to who is in the lane. Truck is wrong. Not cammer.

Zero evidence the cammer sped up. Watch the van in front.

@@zarndt2134 I didn't say the cammer was wrong, I was just saying that it wouldn't have been so close had they not sped up. You can hear the engine speed increase.

I thought so too, but at the end you can see movement around the steering wheel.

@@spamlessaccount I think that was trim from the rear of the car.

"I know nothing!"

You keep saying that over and over. You will not like my comments because I very rarely use them...LOL @@CapuletLeGrand

Guy got hit, can't show that on here.

@@blackjackal2156 I assumed obviously, just want to know did they survive? Etc

@@xSylveRSpydeRxunlikely

Insurance fraud is the big one, especially when it comes to he/she said with no witnesses or camera footage of the incident

Prior accident, disabled vehicle? Could be anything; doesn't matter.

@@spamlessaccountIt sure seemed to matter here. Move to the shoulder.

Someone was walking on the highway... The minivan missed them and the pickup stopped before hitting him. The Semi did not miss him or the other 2 vehicles.

​@@aboyd1988Good idea. "Let's all move to the shoulder instantaneously before some speeding in the rain jackass plows into us!"

@@pazuzu7119 In our disabled vehicle.

Pls use @timestamps...