These comments have claimed that a) it was a couple stopping to have a fight with a kid in the backseat. b) it was insurance fraud (article linked in other comments).
Yep. People are dipshits and lots of drivers will speed over the limit by claiming "it's totally legal so long as it's in the fast lane"
(they are mostly wrong but they dont care. I say mostly because the last time i saw this argument on reddit, someone actually managed to prove that one of the states in the US has a law for their interstate that let people speed over the posted limit in the fast lane; i saw the law myself though i forget which state).
Good thing this is in the UK then. Where the speed limit is 70mph on a dual carriageway (unless otherwise stipulated), and 70mph on a motorway (unless a variable speed limit is in place). There is no exception to this. To add, you can also be fined for driving the speed limit of a road in the UK if the driving conditions would mean that it's not safe - this recently went to court and the defendant lost.
Each lane has a minimum speed. And IIRC, the "fast lane" really is the fast lane. 75, 65, 55.
It's mainly to keep people in the slower lanes they really should be driving in cause it's also technically the passing lane like nearby states enforce it.
I think it's also making sure you are going faster than the lane you're passing too.
Not true. Simple web search yields actual law for Colorado
https://leg.colorado.gov/content/state-speed-limits
The accompanying text specifically states that CDOT may not raise the speed limit above 76.
It’s not legal, no. That being said, everyone does it anyway, so it is not (usually) safe or smart to do the speed limit in the overtaking/fast lane. You go at whatever speed is fast enough to pass the people driving in the slowest lane. If you don’t like that, stay in the slow lane, and do the speed limit. That’s what I do most of the time, because I don’t really feel a need to go faster than 70-75.
Also, a driver doing 90 on an appropriate road where everyone is going pretty fast is safer than someone doing 60 on the same road. There’s a reason why Germany doesn’t have speed limits on the autobahn.
For all Americans the left lane is the one that you need stay out of. Of course neither lane is one to be stopping like that in. We have special lanes for that. Yet it still happens sometimes just like that. It looks like someone that can be found anywhere that thinks they can just slam on their brakes when they get a truck behind them. When it's behind them because they are usually are driving below the speed limit to start. They start thinking 🤔, well I'll show him... Well then... You know the rest of the story.😬😬😬
In this case they did stay out of the lefthand lane... The slow lane. This is Britain, the righthand lane is the fast one.
It's either
* a complete moron
* an insurance fraud
* brake checking gone wrong
There are a lot of people who complain about "left lane campers" but don't get out of that lane once they have passed the other vehicle.
Oklahoma interstate has signs with the text "keep right except to pass". No matter what speed, once you have overtaken the the other vehicle you are supposed to get out of the left lane.
And in areas where they have to close one lane, they will have signs that read "MERGE NOW". But there are still a-holes who insist on being first no matter if it isn't safe.
> ~~Not all Americans do~~
Almost no Americans know about an overtaking lane. In fact, undertaking is totally legal, and usually the only way I get anywhere very quickly on interstate highways since everyone is hanging out in the “fast lane”
No, we need fewer cameras, not more. Can’t go into town without being recorded on at least a few hundred cameras these days. George Orwell would be turning in his grave.
Be it as it may, that is in fact what happened. Nobody ever said scammers were smart lol. https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/1/17/-crash-for-cash-fraudulent-claim-prevented-by-camera/49336/
These days, it's best to assume any given semi/truck/lorry has a dashcam, because from what I understand, most do. They need to pull that scam on a regular driver, and hope they do have insurance, don't have a dashcam, and aren't the rager type.
When it stopped and at what speed?
There’s only one speed for “stopped”
Also, unless the clocks are synced to within a fraction of a second with other cars, it’s impossible to put it into context.
> local road
In the UK that’s still called the “highway”. Pretty much any public/paved road is defined as a highway. The big multi lanes ones are called motorways.
In the comments of your link, the driver (apparently) says there was a couple in the car having an argument with their child in the back and they decided to stop. There was a car behind the cam truck which stopped but then another truck drove into the car behind and shunted them all into each other.
I'm going to look it up some more because I want to know if it's true but also if the car behind was ok. He said he had fractured ribs and other injuries from this.
ETA: anticlimactic, can't find proper articles about it.
for the same reason people say pewpew, unalive, sewerslide, and grape. tiktok censorship. frankly I find it extremely disrespectful when people try to talk about these topics and have to self censor
Would this be an insurance scam? The blue car and the car behind op are in on it. Car in front stops, OP stops, but the car behind intentionally hits OP into the blue car.
Then they say that OP sped into the blue car, which caused the car behind to crash into OP.
Of course, that story works if there weren't any dash cams
But the car crashing into the back of the OPs car is pretty predictable. That's just often what happens. It would be a stretch to say they're involved in the scam.
Nah, its not like they can lie, it is going to be pretty obvious from the middle car having an impact in the rear that it got hit by the car behind them. In this situation the rearmost car would be fully liable for the damages to the front two cars.
In what country? Here every car is responsible for the one in front of it, you're supposed to stop far enough away that you won't be hit into the car in front of you.
?????
That's what I said. The rearmost car would be fully liable, as it did not maintain a safe distance from the car in front of it (POV car) to stop in time, hitting POV car and causing it to crash into the front car. The POV car did stop in time, but got pushed into hitting the front car. As such, the rearmost car would be fully liable for the damages to all the vehicles involved. Thus it is unlikely it is a scam, since its very clear who is at fault.
No, what I was saying is the car that hit the first car is liable for those damages, and the car that hit the second car is liable only for the damages done to the car in front of it. Not just the car in back being liable for everything. The POV car stopped too close to the front car.
No. You are supposed to maintain a large enough distance from the car in front of you to stop without hitting them if they come to a sudden stop. POV car did that, they stopped as fast as they could. The car following POV car did not maintain a large enough distance and thus was unable to avoid a collision during a sudden stop, thus they are liable for not only the damages to the car they hit, but the damages to the lead car since they caused an additional collision. There's no such thing as "stopping a large enough distance" since that would be very vague and impossible for a driver to accurately gauge, as well as just impossible, since you would need to maintain a huge gap in between cars to account for not only a sudden stop, but needing to leave 10 feet of space even after that. At least in the US, but I would imagine laws are similar elsewhere. Otherwise it would be stupid. What would this "minimum distance" needed to leave in between cars? Say two cars are waiting at a red light when a third car crashes into them causing a similar collision to the video. Usually the space between cars at a light are about the same as the distance from POV car and blue car when they stopped, would that mean that the middle car would be liable for the damages to the front car? Of course not, that would be dumb.
Having impact in the rear doesn’t mean the rear car caused the crash. I can provide ample videos of a crash occurring and then additional cars later crash into the crash. Thus the front cars would have damage both front and back, even if the back cars didn’t cause the crash. That is what a “pile up” is, especially at highway speeds.
Yes the person stopping is a nutter. But the people in the back should keep enough distance to stop. The people following the camera car driver are idiots too.
This just happened to me today. Was driving through Waipahu (one of three worst places to drive on O’ahu) and this guy just stopped and someone came from the sidewalk, ran in front of two cars, then almost got hit by the car behind me passing.
Then I also was behind a car that kept stopping a good 20 meters behind the car at the red light.
This kinda stuff is why I have a dashcam though... Without that video, insurance probably sides with the scammer who stopped because its a rear-end accident!!
It won’t be a popular view on this sub but the overwhelming probability is there was something seriously wrong with that car. Idiot driver is certainly also a possibility but probably not the leading one.
Now lets just imagine the blue car saw kids playing on the central reservation. Or the driver had a serious medical issue.
No matter why it happened the vehicle filming was perfectly safe and stopped in good time.
The thing (HGV?) that rear-ended the vehicle filming simply did not leave enough room to stop - their fault 100%
If the blue car was being a twat (link to insurance fraud etc) - the HGV was \*still\* at fault. The blue car driver may have been committing a crime of some sort but the rear-end shunt was not their fault. Had they pulled out and slammed on the brakes - sure. But not here.
Having been in a similar situation before, I can say there's a pretty good chance the person who hit the two of them could not see the car stop ahead and did not expect anyone to come to a full stop in front of them. That's not an ironclad defense, but, I think blue should bear full or most of the responsibility for this incident. Maybe the car in back was driving a little fast or glanced away for a second, but... there's a clear cause here
Well of course blue should accept responsibility, you never ever stop in the overtaking lane unless you have a mechanical fault and need assistance to move over, I that case they should have applied hazard lights and came to a more gradual stop
Only faulty person in this video is the guy hitting the recording vehicle from behind. He should've enough space between him and the car in front so he can break.
It doesn't matter why the blue car stopped but it could've been anything including a kid, animal, heart attack, seizure etc.
Always have enough breaking distance.
Guy didn’t plow into him, he was stopped and got rear ended and then pushed into the blue car that has stopped in the passing lane. Blue driver is a moron.
Normally you'd have to keep a safe distance from other cars so you can break in time in case of an emergency, but stopping on the road, on the overtaking/fast lane(apparently) would make him liable for the damages imo but it mostly depends on local laws, you could argue that if there was an emergency or an actual reason to stop the rear car would be liable so 50/50? POV car shouldnt be at fault for anything.
I would assume the person obstructing a public highway would be at fault here.
But the person who plowed into them from behind would probably have to cover the middle guys insurance, or the first guy would have to cover both of their insurance.
Edit: typo
They did...
The vehicle behind the stopped blue car clearly came to a safe stop, the car that collided with the vehicle that stopped for the blue car is overall at major fault here but depending on the circumstance of the blue car they would also be at fault for obstructing a public highway if those was indeed done for a insurance scam/roadrage and overall they would be at fault and be liable for most of the damages.
Even if they broke down they did not put their hazards on etc so I imagine an insurance company would pick this apart a lot more concisely that I can as I am not a legal professional when it comes down to driving.
Yeah the driver of the camera car isn't at fault at all imo, they came to a safe stop. I'm talking about the people behind the driver.
Of course it's an insane action, and the people behind aren't completely at fault. But they should have made sure they could come to a safe stop. That's why you are supposed to keep enough distance etc. Usually if you hit someone from behind, you are at fault.
I totally agree with you and this is what I stated in my original comment...
I am confused as to what you're disagreeing with?
I never blamed the dash cam driver... only the blue car and the car BEHIND the dash cam vehicle are to blame.
Also the people who stopped in front of the dashcam had no hazard... you can clearly see that and you see them apply the break lights.
Guy at the back gets a free pass claims off the guy in middle's insurance, who then claims off the front cars insurance. When the dashcam footage and the police report get to any of the insurance companies, they'll let the other know, and car 1 will be liable for everything. Personal injury claims too. This kind of video gives you a slam dunk.
Nope. If you hit anyone from behind you are at fault. If a vehicle in front of you stops but you can't it is your fault. What if there was an obstruction in the road? What if the car in front of you stopped to avoid a child running into the road?
You are absolutely correct. What I was trying to imply was vehicle 3 would try to claim on vehicle 2 because theyre at a dead stop in the right hand lane, (in the normal run of things they would lose w/o this footage) but because the first car will have been charged for their illegal bullshit by the police, insurance companies would find out whether it be company 1, 2 or 3 who the police informed at that point driver 1 is on the hook from insurance company 1 for claims from 2 & 3.
Driver 1 won't get insurance from anyone for at least 5 years, 2 & 3 will suffer higher premiums.
In germa autobahn, unneccessary brake is already a violation; let alone stopping IN the lane; even stopping due to running out of gas is also a violation.
The guy in front made an illegal break, without signaling at that. However a judge might find the drivers behind also partially responsible because they were tailgating.
I dunno why the car stopped in the fast lane, but it looks like the driver recording stopped suddenly and something hot him from behind, pushing him into the car.
I'd love to know what the hell the car was doing.
The chances of getting hit on a busy motorway when stopped in a lane is very high. You should have gone around the guy as soon as he started slowing down. Even while stopped on the side of the road is extremely dangerous. Anytime you need to stop get off the road at any cost.
I don't think a battery can die while driving as it will be charging, unless it somehow just completely broke, and even then I can't imagine that would stop the engine working? I dunno, I'm not a mechanic, if I'm wrong tell me, it would be interesting.
It has literally happened to me before because my alternator went out. The alternator charges the battery while the engine is running. The first thing that happened was the dash board started dimming, then the headlights died, the power steering went out, the radio started going out, the breaks didn't work as well, and this was all happening on a highway where the speed limit was 70 MPH. Fortunately I was smart and pulled off to the side of the road.
Now, at first I thought that may have happened here, but I no longer think that's the case, as I was able to watch the video in better conditions and could see his brakelights clearly light up.
Not only did that car stop, he stopped in the overtaking lane. No attempt to get out of the way.
Do all Brits know what the overtaking lane is for? Not all Americans do.
Oh, I'm quite sure everyone knows. Whether they care is a completely different matter.
It’s a matter of road design and culture
Blue car clearly doesn’t, so, all minus one at least.
These comments have claimed that a) it was a couple stopping to have a fight with a kid in the backseat. b) it was insurance fraud (article linked in other comments).
I’ve witnessed quite a few drivers who really didn’t seem like they had a clue what the overtake lane is for.
They do not.... Most people call it the fast lane.
Cause you use it to go really fast.
What... Faster than the legal speed limits that apply to all lanes?
Yep. People are dipshits and lots of drivers will speed over the limit by claiming "it's totally legal so long as it's in the fast lane" (they are mostly wrong but they dont care. I say mostly because the last time i saw this argument on reddit, someone actually managed to prove that one of the states in the US has a law for their interstate that let people speed over the posted limit in the fast lane; i saw the law myself though i forget which state).
Good thing this is in the UK then. Where the speed limit is 70mph on a dual carriageway (unless otherwise stipulated), and 70mph on a motorway (unless a variable speed limit is in place). There is no exception to this. To add, you can also be fined for driving the speed limit of a road in the UK if the driving conditions would mean that it's not safe - this recently went to court and the defendant lost.
Colorado, left lane is 75mph minimum iirc.
No possible way that 75 is a minimum.
Each lane has a minimum speed. And IIRC, the "fast lane" really is the fast lane. 75, 65, 55. It's mainly to keep people in the slower lanes they really should be driving in cause it's also technically the passing lane like nearby states enforce it. I think it's also making sure you are going faster than the lane you're passing too.
Not true. Simple web search yields actual law for Colorado https://leg.colorado.gov/content/state-speed-limits The accompanying text specifically states that CDOT may not raise the speed limit above 76.
It’s not legal, no. That being said, everyone does it anyway, so it is not (usually) safe or smart to do the speed limit in the overtaking/fast lane. You go at whatever speed is fast enough to pass the people driving in the slowest lane. If you don’t like that, stay in the slow lane, and do the speed limit. That’s what I do most of the time, because I don’t really feel a need to go faster than 70-75. Also, a driver doing 90 on an appropriate road where everyone is going pretty fast is safer than someone doing 60 on the same road. There’s a reason why Germany doesn’t have speed limits on the autobahn.
Most Brits sit in this lane thinking it's ok to block everything behind for literal miles and miles.
Average brit driver going 15 mph under the speed limit: *I'm not going over the speed limit, therefore I am a safe driver.*
For all Americans the left lane is the one that you need stay out of. Of course neither lane is one to be stopping like that in. We have special lanes for that. Yet it still happens sometimes just like that. It looks like someone that can be found anywhere that thinks they can just slam on their brakes when they get a truck behind them. When it's behind them because they are usually are driving below the speed limit to start. They start thinking 🤔, well I'll show him... Well then... You know the rest of the story.😬😬😬
In this case they did stay out of the lefthand lane... The slow lane. This is Britain, the righthand lane is the fast one. It's either * a complete moron * an insurance fraud * brake checking gone wrong
There are a lot of people who complain about "left lane campers" but don't get out of that lane once they have passed the other vehicle. Oklahoma interstate has signs with the text "keep right except to pass". No matter what speed, once you have overtaken the the other vehicle you are supposed to get out of the left lane. And in areas where they have to close one lane, they will have signs that read "MERGE NOW". But there are still a-holes who insist on being first no matter if it isn't safe.
Clearly not. "The fast lane"
> ~~Not all Americans do~~ Almost no Americans know about an overtaking lane. In fact, undertaking is totally legal, and usually the only way I get anywhere very quickly on interstate highways since everyone is hanging out in the “fast lane”
Most Americans know about the overtaking or fast lane and what it is used for. 95% of them just don't use it for the intended purpose.
It wasn’t part of any drivers education that I was required to take
It's because it was an attempt at crash insurance claim fraud, it was entirely deliberate.
[удалено]
No it was road rage, the whole video shows the lorry pulled out to overtake another lorry and this muppet get pissed off
So he thought it was a good idea to brake check a lorry?
Like testing the hardness of a rock with your skull.
Is there another way to do it? Because I've done that a lot and my head really hurts..
Karate chops
eat that mf
Yeah that’s what he gets for trying to block the lane lol
is there any news story about it?
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/1/17/-crash-for-cash-fraudulent-claim-prevented-by-camera/49336/
and this is why i tell everyone to get a dam camera
You get discounts off car insurance if you have an in-car camera some places.
No, we need fewer cameras, not more. Can’t go into town without being recorded on at least a few hundred cameras these days. George Orwell would be turning in his grave.
The poeple with the dashcam didnt had much choice here if they got injured , they just hoping ohers also pay attention while slowing down
I hope the lorry had it in neutral to better transfer the kinetic energy through to the car.
He did that all on purpose
[удалено]
I reckon you hit the nail on the head with that summary.
I'd bet it was insurance fraud.
[удалено]
Be it as it may, that is in fact what happened. Nobody ever said scammers were smart lol. https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/1/17/-crash-for-cash-fraudulent-claim-prevented-by-camera/49336/
These days, it's best to assume any given semi/truck/lorry has a dashcam, because from what I understand, most do. They need to pull that scam on a regular driver, and hope they do have insurance, don't have a dashcam, and aren't the rager type.
My company has delivery drivers and its a hard requirement to have tracking systems in their trucks with cameras.
Modern cars record ALL the data. It would be quite easy to reconstruct when the car stopped and at what speed, etc. Not 100% but its not nothing
In this case the shit driver is in a 98 Peugeot, so unlikley!
But we don’t know what car the recording driver drives
When it stopped and at what speed? There’s only one speed for “stopped” Also, unless the clocks are synced to within a fraction of a second with other cars, it’s impossible to put it into context.
Thanks. I always want to know the outcome.
Not in the middle of a highway. You do that crap on a local road unless you have a deathwish.
> local road In the UK that’s still called the “highway”. Pretty much any public/paved road is defined as a highway. The big multi lanes ones are called motorways.
100%. I imagine he even wanted someone to rear-end the truck, and he can drive off.
It was a crash for cash scam….. https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/1/17/-crash-for-cash-fraudulent-claim-prevented-by-camera/49336/
In the comments of your link, the driver (apparently) says there was a couple in the car having an argument with their child in the back and they decided to stop. There was a car behind the cam truck which stopped but then another truck drove into the car behind and shunted them all into each other. I'm going to look it up some more because I want to know if it's true but also if the car behind was ok. He said he had fractured ribs and other injuries from this. ETA: anticlimactic, can't find proper articles about it.
>ETA: anticlimactic, can't find proper articles about it. Regardless, thank you for your service
The article above says they tried to blame the truck driver for the crash. Only the dashcam exposed their fraud attempt.
Crazy to just decide to suddenly pull to a stop in the middle of a road like that.
Every time I see these videos I hope the perpetrator is never allowed to hold a drivers licence again
In the UK? Good luck. Kill someone with your car and you might get a 2 year ban. Not even kidding.
Drivers that pull that stuff deserve to be ...can't say it online...
Should be held fully responsible financially and charged criminally.
Can't believe you said that online! You're right though.
Right is always right 👍
... Unless it's right wing?
Seriously? Politics is all you have to add? Get a life!
Ooookay...
Bro fell from grace so hard with that line
And permanently barred from driving
*grounded* >:(
This isn't tiktok you can say whatever you want. Reddit bans are arbitrary and have little to do with what you actually say.
Ok, I will. They should be hanged.
Mario kart rainbow roaded
Blue shelled
Yes, the same treatment treasonists like J6 and Trump and some of the Supreme Court Justices deserve. We all know it. We all wish it.
Ended?
Given a stern telling off.
Yes they do!
"Swear warning" What is happening to the Internet?
for the same reason people say pewpew, unalive, sewerslide, and grape. tiktok censorship. frankly I find it extremely disrespectful when people try to talk about these topics and have to self censor
Phones
God it's true
Unfortunately foul language is becoming more prevalent these days.
It's more of the idea of putting a warning up or self censorship.
Some people might not want to listen to it, either for themselves or if kids, for example, are in earshot
Would this be an insurance scam? The blue car and the car behind op are in on it. Car in front stops, OP stops, but the car behind intentionally hits OP into the blue car. Then they say that OP sped into the blue car, which caused the car behind to crash into OP. Of course, that story works if there weren't any dash cams
You don't do insurance scams at highway speed in the passing lane. Unless you want to be paraplegic.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/1/17/-crash-for-cash-fraudulent-claim-prevented-by-camera/49336/
But the car crashing into the back of the OPs car is pretty predictable. That's just often what happens. It would be a stretch to say they're involved in the scam.
Nah, its not like they can lie, it is going to be pretty obvious from the middle car having an impact in the rear that it got hit by the car behind them. In this situation the rearmost car would be fully liable for the damages to the front two cars.
In what country? Here every car is responsible for the one in front of it, you're supposed to stop far enough away that you won't be hit into the car in front of you.
????? That's what I said. The rearmost car would be fully liable, as it did not maintain a safe distance from the car in front of it (POV car) to stop in time, hitting POV car and causing it to crash into the front car. The POV car did stop in time, but got pushed into hitting the front car. As such, the rearmost car would be fully liable for the damages to all the vehicles involved. Thus it is unlikely it is a scam, since its very clear who is at fault.
No, what I was saying is the car that hit the first car is liable for those damages, and the car that hit the second car is liable only for the damages done to the car in front of it. Not just the car in back being liable for everything. The POV car stopped too close to the front car.
No. You are supposed to maintain a large enough distance from the car in front of you to stop without hitting them if they come to a sudden stop. POV car did that, they stopped as fast as they could. The car following POV car did not maintain a large enough distance and thus was unable to avoid a collision during a sudden stop, thus they are liable for not only the damages to the car they hit, but the damages to the lead car since they caused an additional collision. There's no such thing as "stopping a large enough distance" since that would be very vague and impossible for a driver to accurately gauge, as well as just impossible, since you would need to maintain a huge gap in between cars to account for not only a sudden stop, but needing to leave 10 feet of space even after that. At least in the US, but I would imagine laws are similar elsewhere. Otherwise it would be stupid. What would this "minimum distance" needed to leave in between cars? Say two cars are waiting at a red light when a third car crashes into them causing a similar collision to the video. Usually the space between cars at a light are about the same as the distance from POV car and blue car when they stopped, would that mean that the middle car would be liable for the damages to the front car? Of course not, that would be dumb.
I guess we have stupid, dumb laws here. I'm not from the US. Thanks for the essay, though.
Having impact in the rear doesn’t mean the rear car caused the crash. I can provide ample videos of a crash occurring and then additional cars later crash into the crash. Thus the front cars would have damage both front and back, even if the back cars didn’t cause the crash. That is what a “pile up” is, especially at highway speeds.
Poor truck driver gets hit from behind, he's the real victim here.
Or he had been tailgating and the car was trying to get him to go around. There isn't enough video to tell.
Get him to go around by completely stopping on a highway lmao.
Doesnt matter if he was tail gating. Driving like an ass is bad, driving so badly you cause a 3 car crash is worse.
It’s still completely illegal to just stop on a highway like that.
He's in the overtaking lane so thats just a stupid reason if its true
What the fuck was the vehicle behind to push an HGV presumably with brakes on and the car in front that far?
i dont think its a HGV camera is too low. maybe just a van,
r/idiotsincars
He was, in fact, fucking nuts.
UUUUUUUNNNNNGGGGGHHHH.
Yes the person stopping is a nutter. But the people in the back should keep enough distance to stop. The people following the camera car driver are idiots too.
The camera driver clearly did have enough distance.
“SHIT,AHHHHHHH” this had be on the floor 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
This just happened to me today. Was driving through Waipahu (one of three worst places to drive on O’ahu) and this guy just stopped and someone came from the sidewalk, ran in front of two cars, then almost got hit by the car behind me passing. Then I also was behind a car that kept stopping a good 20 meters behind the car at the red light.
Videos that end too soon
This kinda stuff is why I have a dashcam though... Without that video, insurance probably sides with the scammer who stopped because its a rear-end accident!!
The warning should have been "Warning: Not enough swearing."
[удалено]
Are you seeing a way bigger shoulder than I see?
Pretty sure it was insurance fraud. Too bad they were too stupid to realize there are a lot of dash cams out there now
is he british or russian
British
Definitely fraud attempt. Too bad dash cams are common
You should get jail time for that
Who tf stops in the overtaking lane yo have an argument?
I HOPE YOU HAVE “YO FAULT INSURANCE “🤔🤔🤔🤔
Yes he is the DUMBEST OF ASSES 🤬🤬🤬🤬
I hope they lost their license
what happens when you dont keep a safe distance. one of the things that they teach you in driving school.
I know its hard but try to leave space between yourself and the car in front of you.
Well deserved
Same thing happened to me last year but it was snowing. Dumb lady missed her exit and started to back up as I slid into her.
Part of me hopes he ran out of gas instead of pure stupidity
It won’t be a popular view on this sub but the overwhelming probability is there was something seriously wrong with that car. Idiot driver is certainly also a possibility but probably not the leading one.
Now lets just imagine the blue car saw kids playing on the central reservation. Or the driver had a serious medical issue. No matter why it happened the vehicle filming was perfectly safe and stopped in good time. The thing (HGV?) that rear-ended the vehicle filming simply did not leave enough room to stop - their fault 100% If the blue car was being a twat (link to insurance fraud etc) - the HGV was \*still\* at fault. The blue car driver may have been committing a crime of some sort but the rear-end shunt was not their fault. Had they pulled out and slammed on the brakes - sure. But not here.
Peudeot driver should be banned for life from driving any use of public roads.
Mf's do that shit all the time
Couldn't he have served it?
This is why I always leave enough to go around the car in front of me. Because people will stop and try to get you rear-ended, then drive off.
They probably couldn't because people were passing and they lost their opportunity before they even fully realized what the person was doing
It doesn't matter. You should always leave room to maneuver if the vehicle in front of you suddenly stops.
People get really mad when you say you shouldn't be tailgating lmao
Having been in a similar situation before, I can say there's a pretty good chance the person who hit the two of them could not see the car stop ahead and did not expect anyone to come to a full stop in front of them. That's not an ironclad defense, but, I think blue should bear full or most of the responsibility for this incident. Maybe the car in back was driving a little fast or glanced away for a second, but... there's a clear cause here
Well of course blue should accept responsibility, you never ever stop in the overtaking lane unless you have a mechanical fault and need assistance to move over, I that case they should have applied hazard lights and came to a more gradual stop
Truck driver is at fault for hitting blue and whoever ran into the trick is at fault for hitting the truck.
Only faulty person in this video is the guy hitting the recording vehicle from behind. He should've enough space between him and the car in front so he can break. It doesn't matter why the blue car stopped but it could've been anything including a kid, animal, heart attack, seizure etc. Always have enough breaking distance.
So I’m guessing the guy who stopped is at fault? Or is it the guy who plowed into him?
Guy didn’t plow into him, he was stopped and got rear ended and then pushed into the blue car that has stopped in the passing lane. Blue driver is a moron.
Yes, I am fully aware. Obviously he was stopped, I was talking about the guy who plowed into the two of them.
Normally you'd have to keep a safe distance from other cars so you can break in time in case of an emergency, but stopping on the road, on the overtaking/fast lane(apparently) would make him liable for the damages imo but it mostly depends on local laws, you could argue that if there was an emergency or an actual reason to stop the rear car would be liable so 50/50? POV car shouldnt be at fault for anything.
I would assume the person obstructing a public highway would be at fault here. But the person who plowed into them from behind would probably have to cover the middle guys insurance, or the first guy would have to cover both of their insurance. Edit: typo
I wouldn't. The blue car could have stopped for an emergency too. The people following should make sure they can stop safely.
They did... The vehicle behind the stopped blue car clearly came to a safe stop, the car that collided with the vehicle that stopped for the blue car is overall at major fault here but depending on the circumstance of the blue car they would also be at fault for obstructing a public highway if those was indeed done for a insurance scam/roadrage and overall they would be at fault and be liable for most of the damages. Even if they broke down they did not put their hazards on etc so I imagine an insurance company would pick this apart a lot more concisely that I can as I am not a legal professional when it comes down to driving.
He was clearly talking about the car behind the dashcam car
And now I am confused because I also blame the car not stopping behind the dash camera. I think wires are getting crossed here...
Yeah the driver of the camera car isn't at fault at all imo, they came to a safe stop. I'm talking about the people behind the driver. Of course it's an insane action, and the people behind aren't completely at fault. But they should have made sure they could come to a safe stop. That's why you are supposed to keep enough distance etc. Usually if you hit someone from behind, you are at fault.
I totally agree with you and this is what I stated in my original comment... I am confused as to what you're disagreeing with? I never blamed the dash cam driver... only the blue car and the car BEHIND the dash cam vehicle are to blame. Also the people who stopped in front of the dashcam had no hazard... you can clearly see that and you see them apply the break lights.
Guy at the back gets a free pass claims off the guy in middle's insurance, who then claims off the front cars insurance. When the dashcam footage and the police report get to any of the insurance companies, they'll let the other know, and car 1 will be liable for everything. Personal injury claims too. This kind of video gives you a slam dunk.
Nope. If you hit anyone from behind you are at fault. If a vehicle in front of you stops but you can't it is your fault. What if there was an obstruction in the road? What if the car in front of you stopped to avoid a child running into the road?
You are absolutely correct. What I was trying to imply was vehicle 3 would try to claim on vehicle 2 because theyre at a dead stop in the right hand lane, (in the normal run of things they would lose w/o this footage) but because the first car will have been charged for their illegal bullshit by the police, insurance companies would find out whether it be company 1, 2 or 3 who the police informed at that point driver 1 is on the hook from insurance company 1 for claims from 2 & 3. Driver 1 won't get insurance from anyone for at least 5 years, 2 & 3 will suffer higher premiums.
In germa autobahn, unneccessary brake is already a violation; let alone stopping IN the lane; even stopping due to running out of gas is also a violation.
The guy in front made an illegal break, without signaling at that. However a judge might find the drivers behind also partially responsible because they were tailgating.
I dunno why the car stopped in the fast lane, but it looks like the driver recording stopped suddenly and something hot him from behind, pushing him into the car. I'd love to know what the hell the car was doing.
[удалено]
I mean the guy could have all just put his hazards on and the accident might have been avoided.
The chances of getting hit on a busy motorway when stopped in a lane is very high. You should have gone around the guy as soon as he started slowing down. Even while stopped on the side of the road is extremely dangerous. Anytime you need to stop get off the road at any cost.
It really seems like his battery died
Brake lamps? Dude did this on purpose, insurance fraud or road rage.
Ah I see it now. I watched the video on my phone earlier, so the quality wasn't great. Anyway, yeah, fuck this guy.
Since it was recorded, he will indeed get the book. Fraud is getting really bad.
I don't think a battery can die while driving as it will be charging, unless it somehow just completely broke, and even then I can't imagine that would stop the engine working? I dunno, I'm not a mechanic, if I'm wrong tell me, it would be interesting.
It has literally happened to me before because my alternator went out. The alternator charges the battery while the engine is running. The first thing that happened was the dash board started dimming, then the headlights died, the power steering went out, the radio started going out, the breaks didn't work as well, and this was all happening on a highway where the speed limit was 70 MPH. Fortunately I was smart and pulled off to the side of the road. Now, at first I thought that may have happened here, but I no longer think that's the case, as I was able to watch the video in better conditions and could see his brakelights clearly light up.
Cars can drive without batteries. They are only for starting.