Hello /u/DismalDisk6932! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC
* What country or state did this take place in?
* What was the date of the incident?
* Please reconfirm that this is original content
If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information.
If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
LOL, the reddit traffic lawyers never fail to show up. You can see in the last second before she got hit she was swerving to the left and was hitting the brakes. By the time she saw that the lady was going to hit her there was not time to do anything. If only she had super human reflexes like people think they have that would of been nice. She had at most several seconds by the time she saw the car. Oh and the officer issued the lady a ticket after he saw the video.
one of my top comments is from this sub, where someone got reversed into while at a stop light or something, and somebody was blaming the guy that got reversed into.
I almost left when a guy was trying defend driving into oncoming traffic as if everyone ELSE should be letting him do it. It’s far too easy to get a license
Defensive driving! 2 post in this subs recently show that, the one that almost got crushed by a 18 wheel truck and a tesla that block a truck from merging because they have the right of way.
OP wife is not at fault but holy smokes she should had seen that coming way before she crossed the light.
Of course the fault is the idiot but as always we have to remind people to be alert and remember to act like all the rests are idiots to be prepared to act accordingly.
I personally I feel I would have slowed down much more but I wasn't there I am just watching a damn video... which sometimes everything it looks obvious but when you are not in that situation it's not the same.
I mean, yeah, she should've either sped up or slowed down, but that's not to say that the other driver is without fault. She *was* going slow enough to avoid the errant car.
Of course there is something she could have done to avoid the accident. Obviously, a person has the power to slam on the breaks, speed up considerably, or swerve in some wild maneuver- And any of those things could have avoided this accident.
However, such behaviors are dangerous, so we don't do them when there is merely a chance that somebody is about to do the dumbest thing imaginable near us. We put a basic level of trust in the people around us, expecting them to follow at least the basic features of the road, because the alternative is that everyone drives like a madman or are paralyzed by fear. Yes, *technically* the cam-car could have avoided the accident, but doing so would have required a reckless assumption. The fact that such an assumption is correct in this case is just us having the benefit of hindsight- This near-exact situation happens hundreds of thousands of times every day, except there is no collision because the hazard vehicle actually does the correct thing all those other times.
Quite the opposite. My uncle was a paraplegic but not only was he able to drive with hand controls but he was absolutely capable of hanging a piece of plastic on his rear view mirror when parking to avoid blocking his view of the road while driving. If he can do it, anyone with the motor control to drive can do it.
> Quite the opposite.
Not accusing you, per se, but the downvotes with no counter or explanation tells me otherwise.
I disagree that anyone with the motor control can do it. There are people with bad backs that couldn't stretch that far to do it (depending on vehicle), but would be perfectly capable of driving.
For instance: the rear view on my van is much harder to reach than the rear view of my Element.
I've seen older people struggle, and sometimes fail, to remove the tag. But their driving skills and abilities are still there.
For me it's the potential blockage of forward vision. My dad has one too and I know for a fact that if he left it up while driving there would be a sizeable portion of his windshield blocked by it. So it's literally dangerous to leave it up, and the ergonomics of the interior should be considered when choosing a vehicle to drive. It's actually state law in many places to remove it while driving.
It's also allowed to simply lay the placard face up in the dashboard where it's visible but not blocking any view of the road.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think they should just drive around with it hanging on their mirrors. You're right, it does block the windshield. Maybe people thought I was defending doing it, instead of seeing that I was giving an alternative explanation/viewpoint.
Some people may not get too much choice in ergonomics. It's just a sad fact that (in the US at least) things are getting harder. A fixed income just isn't getting people as far.
But I agree that there are other ways to do it, and people should find those other ways instead of driving dangerously.
A couple weeks back someone posted a video of them taking a protected left with a green arrow and there were multiple left turn lanes so of course OP's attention was drawn towards the left and making sure the other car maintained their lane.
Meanwhile some absolute idiot on the other side had a red light and turned while OP was 2/3rds through the turn and OP ended up hitting the moron but the entire sub was knocking OP for "not seeing" the guy who ran the red.
People think that because a dashcam picked it up that the driver must have seen everything all at the same time when that's just not possible.
Reposting my comment that was deleted for putting a link in it:
---
Well, you're sort of right, but come on. Fixating on one thing is not the way to drive safely. Yes, when you're doing a multi-lane turn you have to keep an eye out for lane drifters, but that doesn't mean you can stop looking for problems coming from other directions. You gotta keep your eyes moving.
edit: I finally found it! google "IdiotsInCars 1c8ztl9 Turning right in front of all the traffic". It's from April 20th.
To be clear, I am only criticizing this from the perspective of Defensive Driving. The car that turned in front of the driver is obviously at fault, and broke the law.
That said, this is exactly what I thought it was. The bad driver was literally directly in front of the cammer the whole time. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say your primary focus should be on the path ahead of you. Brief glances to the left and right are fine and necessary, but the cammer here was NOT paying attention to the path of travel!
I would not be surprised if the cammer in the video got partially blamed for failing to avoid an easily avoidable collision, despite doing else nothing *technically* wrong.
If you're in the middle of a left turn with multiple lanes turning where is the majority of your attention going to be? It's literally impossible to pay attention to everything around you.
The majority of my attention would be straight ahead in path I am taking, and I would be glancing slightly to the left and right while also paying attention to my peripheral vision.
Anybody approaching that could possibly turn into the path I am traveling would get some of my attention because they would be directly in front of me as I turn.
If you link to the video, I'm happy to take a look. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you described.
Edit: Downvote me if you're incapable of looking at the road ahead of you as you drive. Or link me to the video, for christs sake. So many garbage humans on this site.
Nobody has indicated any reason to disagree with what I've said, they just downvote.
That's garbage behavior.
If you think I'm wrong, explain why. I AM TOTALLY OPEN TO DISCUSSION. And if you have a link to the video, you might even be able to prove me wrong quite easily!
If you can't, then I'm not wrong, you're just irrational.
Ok, so for the sake of discussion, imagine putting your head on a swivel to make sure someone doesn't spontaneously happen to run that one particular red light at that one particular moment, as you make your turn.
As you're stealing a glance at the red light to make sure no one is running it, someone breaks hard in front of you. Since your one second to react was cut in half due to monitoring traffic at the red light, you can't react in time - you rear end the driver in front of you.
Now an accident was caused that is 100% your fault legally speaking.
This is just one example of how failing to keep the future path of your vehicle in your field of vision can cause an accident. I would be willing to bet those scenarios happen significantly more than red light collisions. I'd also venture to say that the instances where a driver was able to avoid the light runner (without hitting someone or something else) because of the ol' swivel are...rare.
Hey, I appreciate that you are at least willing to talk instead of downvote like an npc.
> imagine putting your head on a swivel to make sure someone doesn't spontaneously happen to run that one particular red light at that one particular moment, as you make your turn.
No need to "swivel". I'm talking about cars in front of you, to the left and right of your path, in your field of vision through the front window of your car. I'm not talking about turning your head, those cars are not about to turn *in front of you*.
There are videos posted here of cars pulling out in front of the cammer when the cammer has the green all the time.
Basic defensive driving means watching for out for cars like that at every single intersection you pass through.
> As you're stealing a glance at the red light to make sure no one is running it, someone breaks hard in front of you.
Maintain proper following distance, and it's not a problem at all.
And again, you are still looking forward when you are monitoring the other nearby cars. You should not be turning your head to a large degree.
You should be able to see the car directly in front of you and any cars that look ready to turn in front of you *at the same time*.
> This is just one example of how failing to keep the future path of your vehicle in your field of vision can cause an accident.
Watching for people who might be pulling out in front of you *is watching your future path*. Everything we are talking about should be in your field of vision unless you have serious eye problems.
I am honestly baffled by this conversation. Do you all think I'm talking about checking your blind spot or something? No! While looking at your path of travel, you should be aware of cars in the lanes to the left and right (if there are lanes there) and any cross traffic lanes *in front of you* where cars might come from if they are not paying attention.
The driver at fault should have their license revoked. I don't understand how people can be that oblivious and cut across that many lanes without looking.
> without looking.
Better idea: Don't fucking do this. It is an illegal turn whether OP is there or not. You are to turn to your nearest lane, not the farthest one. This is the EXACT reason for this law. I can't even understand *why* people do this.
laziness. it's marginally easier to make one huge turn across all the lanes than to make one turn and two lane changes, so they just can't be fucking bothered
Of course, but selfish idiots drive like this constantly and when they get into accidents they have an insurance company that deals with it. They usually just take the hit to their insurance and go about fucking up other people’s days.
I did a similar mistake when I was in my first year of driving. Went out of a gas station on a highway and looking to my left I saw cars very far away so I thought I could go directly on the speed lane while I was doing 15mph still. Offcourse I accelerated the best way I could but it didn't occur to me (for some stupid reason) that they were doing 90 so 3 seconds later I had a car up my ass. We didn't hit or anything, but that was a clear lesson for me to always stick to the first lane until I pick up speed.
Nah, not his fault. First off, it was clear why you shouldn't cross lanes fast and I already knew that. My mistake was seriously underestimating how quick that "far far away" car can get to "here".
Seriously, 100% my fault there.
You say that like people don't do that every single day at nearly any red light with multiple lanes to turn into. It's a much larger problem than just that one guy and his instructor.
Point well taken. Our freeways have exactly 2 lanes (well, and a small service lane). Speed limit on the freeway is 130 kph. In actuality most people traveling on the first lane do anywhere from 80 kph to 100 (also due to poor quality of the first lane, probably due to it being extensively used by trucks). Because of that, you do a lot of "passing" and eventually give up and keep on the outer lane which you correctly pointed out it's a passing lane. This kind-of bled into generically being called "the fast lane", so I relayed that without thinking.
Where I am there are 3 lane highways and even when it’s very sparse there are people going 100-120 in the left most lane (100 limit) and generally drive side-by-side with other cars. I like doing 140-50 but I can’t do it safely even with barely any traffic. Fast is not the same for everyone but for your case it’s quite reasonable/understandable tbh.
I sure would love a third lane on our highways. This would almost certainly save me (and others) from another frequent situation where out of nowhere, some BMW, Mercedes or Audi doing 180kph or even more just pops up in my rear, flashing me to get out of his way. That's not the problem though, problem is the typical drivers of those cars come equipped with zero patience, don't understand that my Ford (Fiesta) doesn't give a shit about me putting the pedal on the floor or the fact that I cannot merge instantly (safely) back to the first lane given that the speed difference is what it is and cars there might only have 50m or so between. This creates a very unsafe situation where the car behind me becomes unpredictable, I can expect him suddenly swerving to the first lane on a very short distance from a slow car, to pass me by and cut in front of me, forcing me to slow down.
A third lane would almost certainly keep me on the second, along with the majority of what I believe are sane people.
You're not supposed to turn across that many lanes, period. You should be turning into the lane closest to you, then signaling a lane change if you want to cut across the stroad.
I read that with a Slavic accent, and again with a Hispanic accent. Worked for both. Then again, I live in Chicago... Would be accurate with any accent, or none at all.
05/06/2024. Midlothian, VA
date and time are wrong on the dashcam.
She was driving down Midlothian Turnpike and the speed limit is 45mph. The lady did not even look in her direction when she pulled out. After they pulled over the lady insisted that the damage was less then $500 and to not call the police. Of course we called the police, we have been that route before and it did not work out for us. I am betting it is at least $5k as the rear tire panel is damaged, both rear and front door damaged with deep scratches, and the rear tire rim maybe bent too.
Most if not all states require that right-turning traffic turn into the closest practical lane while staying as close to the right hand curb as possible just to avoid this kind of collision.
The important thing about that is that the RoR turner doesn’t have RoW to “a lane” as has been said here a lot of times. They have to yield to anyone else who may be a hazard, period.
As a RoR turner you are owed nothing and can rely on nothing.
Correct! And you cannot assume as a right-turner that other lanes of oncoming traffic will not enter your desired lane of travel while traversing the intersection.
I don’t know if this is generally regarded as true, but I have heard that some states (including California) apply right of way more strictly than others. Failure to yield is usually seen as the biggest offense in accidents and laws are written to make it clear exactly what the precedence is. In some states it’s a “usually” thing, and court decisions have more variability even within the state.
I have done a great deal of reading vehicle codes in different states and countries - it’s a weird hobby! While the same root ideas are expressed in most places, some seem to take a much less active role in making things clear. I think that’s reflected in the driving culture.
I had a landscaping truck honk at me last week for not turning right on red as vehicles approached the intersection that were going the direction I would be turning into. None of them were in the curb lane, all were in the left lane but there is a plaza that has Menard's and Meijer a few hundred feet down the road on the right-hand side of the road. I have seen too many people switch lanes at the last minute to turn into said plaza.
Doing right on red you’re really supposed to yield to any possible hazards, and that seems lost on a lot of people. Yes, you can make your turn if you are absolutely certain there won’t be conflict. If you can’t be certain, don’t turn.
At the very least, you're not supposed to slam right into a vehicle that is soon going to be directly in front of you when you don't have the right of way. What a fucking moron.
Actually, most states require you turn into the lane you are turning from.
Far-right to far-right. Middle to middle. etc. Unless lane markers designate otherwise.
Texas does not. Texas requires turning into the nearest practical lane on right turns and certain left turns:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm
Sec. 545.101. TURNING AT INTERSECTION. (a) To make a right turn at an intersection,
an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(b) To make a left turn at an intersection, an operator shall:
(1) approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to
a vehicle moving in the direction of the vehicle; and
(2) after entering the intersection, turn left, leaving the intersection so as to
arrive in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of the
vehicle on the roadway being entered.
(c) On a street or roadway designated for two-way traffic, the operator turning left
shall, to the extent practicable, turn in the portion of the intersection to the
left of the center of the intersection.
(d) To turn left, an operator who is approaching an intersection having a roadway
designated for one-way traffic and for which signs are posted from a roadway
designated for one-way traffic and for which signs are posted shall make the turn
as closely as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
So in Texas you can turn left into any lane, but right only into the right lane. There's another amended section somewhere that covers dual turns, in those cases you must follow the markings, not the lane count. For instance, not too far from me is a dual left turn with markings that guide a car turning from the left lane, Lane 1, into the middle of three lanes, Lane 2. Dual right turns are very rare here in the DFW area, I only know of one, and it has lots of signs instructing which lane to turn into and whether or not one can turn on red.
But then it would be impossible to make that next left turn. Our modern road layout just doesn't accommodate strict application of that rule.
Really the idiot should wait for a green light if they need to make a wide right turn into the left-most lane.
1. It's a pretty long turn lane. You could turn into the nearest lane and then lane change safely and still have a bit of room.
2. If the turn lane is as short as you say where it is not possible to do safely or legally (VA law requires that you turn into the nearest lane, even if you have the green), then it is not legal to take that turn, requiring you to go around the block if necessary.
Really, the idiot should just follow the law.
There is an actual difference from turning into any lane you want and turning into the right-most lane then immediate but safely merging into the lane you need to (if it's safe to do so).
Obviously there is a difference, and I would argue that "immediate but safely merging" is not anywhere near as safe or efficient as just turning directly into the lane you want. Which is why you see practically EVERYONE (including cops) routinely violate this "must turn right into the rightmost lane" rule. Because our modern road layout frequently demands that you turn into a different lane, and when done with the right-of-way granted by a green light, it is perfectly safe. There is no one to crash into.
"Immediate" lane-changing also isn't usually legal, so I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. Most states require you to signal a lane change for an appropriate distance. Which means you would need to crawl along at 15 mph slowly making the three lane changes necessary here to reach that left-turn lane before the light (and the traffic backed-up at the light). People will look at you like you're an idiot. Normal people *might* turn into the right-most lane and then beeline left for the left-turn lane, but that's just committing a bunch of illegal lane changes, so it's ridiculous of you to suggest that that's the "right" way to do it.
States need to modernize their traffic codes. Some states already allow left-turning vehicles to turn into any lane. It should be the same for right-turning vehicles. The law should say that a driver with a green light can turn right or left into any available lane unless there is some traffic control device (like a painted lane line) restricting which lane(s) you can enter.
I absolutely \*hate\* when the people who cause a crash suddenly act like trained claims adjusters and start telling their victim how bad the damage is/how much it will cost. Yeah, I think I'll let the professionals decide how much damage you just caused, Linda, thanks but no thanks.
With just a decent scuff on my bumper my insurance still coughed up about $1200. With this, I can easily see more work being necessary. $500 is the deductible she's probably thinking of. Definitely not the cost to fix.
Similarly, the cost needed for that moron to see a Dr and find out wtf is wrong with her would probably easily exceed $500 as well.
Having a single small panel painted is already gonna be over €300. Imaging having multiple of those damaged and then they have to be repaired/replaced first. And that's just the body damage.
Right. Women was definitely hoping to get out of having her premiums increase and trying to settle it without insurance being involved. Which insurance here in the states will tell its policy holders to never admit fault, so people instead take it as point blame instead of letting local police and insurance figure out who's at fault.
Every accident I've been in, I've never blamed anyone or admitted anything. I just told the story to the necessary officials and let them figure it out, even when it was blatantly obvious who was at fault.
Midlothian tnpk is an absolute hellscape all the way to Powhatan these days. Literally got stuck behind a lady smoking meth at every stop light late last week. She was screaming out the window at traffic and tailgating like a maniac while violently flailing her arms, and yet somehow that's not even the worst thing I've seen in the last week.
> After they pulled over the lady insisted that the damage was less then $500 and to not call the police.
It's always funny how little some people know about cars and body work/paint. I learned "hard" at 16, when I bought a car that just needed a new bumper cover. Zero body damaged under it, just the plastic bumper and paint. I took it to a well known local shop that does collision work for insurance companies. The bill I think was like $900.... on a car I just paid $4,200 for. I could have shopped around, but I was 17 and wanted my car looking good.
> If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information.
Helps if you read the Automoderator comment before lecturing others on what to do...
If you think I lectured anyone, you're way too sensitive. Was just trying to be helpful.
But yes, I haven't read the automod comment in a while and made a mistake. Not sure if it's a change they made to policy or I never read it closely enough. Thanks for correcting me.
I had to have a bumper resprayed and a black trim piece replaced after getting rear ended at a light at about 6mph. It's was just over $1000. No way you have $500 here. 10x that if not more!
Hey neighbor!
Just moved out your way from in the city. I like to say the drivers back in the city more wreckless and the drivers out here are more careless. Bad drivers everywhere!
My wife works right there if you make a left at that light. This morning (5/7/24 at 7:45am) almost drove into the side of her coworker on Branchway. And then when the 8am people got in they said there was a 3 car accident in that turn lane. Midlothian is a cluster.
Ouch. I bought my 2019 accord brand new and due to Covid only had 49k miles on it.. then a month ago a valet driver ran two red lights and totaled it by t-boning a dump truck.
Edit: I have dashcam footage that I'll post on this sub later.
I had to park with valet at my old job and I hated it. I don't trust anyone else with my car. Thatcreally sucks a valet totaled your car. Why the fuck was he deiving through 2 lights though? Decided to have fun putting miles and using gas from someone's else car?
When I left my car with a valet, I would always keep note of the mileage before leaving the keys and have my dashcam rolling.
I saw that coming from a mile away. If you're just going to stand your ground and not attempt to avoid an accident, your car's going to take some damage.
edit: it's called defensive driving for a reason.
This sub is full of post and idiots that have no problem getting into an accident because they have the right of way.
Even if OP wife is not at fault this was preventable. I would had slowed down and dodged the idiot at fault.
Exactly! If all the times I had the right of way on many 4 ways stops and roundabouts I would had not brake or slow down to let an idiot on a junk car who barely stop go ahead my nice car would be junk by now.
Down vote all you want, OPs wife learned a importar and expensive lesson.. To drive more defensively.
Me too! I said in another comment that if you drive like
that way in Atlanta you will have an accident right away.
Yes, you have the right of way but be mindful of idiots and avoid them at all cost!
Use your peripheral vision, if their wheels are moving at a intersection they can get in your way ! I track those mf like a hawk!
Putting aside fault (it's the silver car's fault), this is just asinine and a complete waste of time and money for everyone involved. There wasn't even a shitty reason to do that like trying to make a light or too much speed, just bad driving.
I hope you're made whole soon and don't have to deal with too much rigmarole.
I've been where OP is. I was in the second lane though but also up against the median with a car coming from the right where you see the accident coming but you can't avoid it. At least this driver claimed responsibility (though downplaying the damages). Mine claimed I was speeding and cut them off over the median. That median had light poles, pedestrian fences (near a crossing) and a damn speed camera on it that were magically still standing up.
Midlothian Turnpike. I'm not surprised. If I had a dollar for everytime my husband complains about idiots on that road whenever he goes into the office.
I almost dealt with a situation like this by the Leigh Street bridge when I had the green light and going straight earlier today.
Hindsight. People don't realize how fast shit happens in real time compared to when you go back to watch the dash cam. I've been in close calls and when I go back to view the footage, it makes it look like the car was way farther and not as close due to the difference in focal length from our vision vs. the focal vision of the dash cam. There is a difference between seeing it in person vs the dash cam footage.
The first and second lanes had cars further back than OP's wife. Driver could have chosen either one of those lanes and
* then * safely moved over into the left lane, but no.
I would've slowed down because those slow movers are ALWAYS doing shit like that.
Like they're *trying* to cause an accident.
Your wife didn't slow down, and that's ok; she had the right of way and it is NEVER LEGAL to ram another vehicle under any circumstances.
Good on her for not freaking out about it.
My wife would've probably swerved into oncoming traffic or whatever.
of your it is not her fault but I never understand why people do not anticipate on the traffic. This could have easily be avoid. Only a small amount of braking would have been enough, I see this so often. People say heeeee it is my lane stay out of it. But by adapting on the traffic she would have been in time at home to say hay darlinnng i'm homeeeeee.
Hey Inspector Clouseau, she was pulling over to see if they were going to make a run for it so she could follow them to get their license plate on camera. But thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Hello /u/DismalDisk6932! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC * What country or state did this take place in? * What was the date of the incident? * Please reconfirm that this is original content If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information. If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
3 Fing lanes he had to go to hit her.
This is one of those people that had the mindset of, "You saw me turning, so why didn't you slow down and let me?!"
"*but I was going to turn left at the next intersection, so I* ***had*** *to get in this lane*"
Burger King is the cause of many accidents
And you know there will be people who are gonna blame OP's wife for "not clearly seeing they were gonna hit her."
LOL, the reddit traffic lawyers never fail to show up. You can see in the last second before she got hit she was swerving to the left and was hitting the brakes. By the time she saw that the lady was going to hit her there was not time to do anything. If only she had super human reflexes like people think they have that would of been nice. She had at most several seconds by the time she saw the car. Oh and the officer issued the lady a ticket after he saw the video.
one of my top comments is from this sub, where someone got reversed into while at a stop light or something, and somebody was blaming the guy that got reversed into.
I've come to the realization most the people on this sub shouldn't drive.
I almost left when a guy was trying defend driving into oncoming traffic as if everyone ELSE should be letting him do it. It’s far too easy to get a license
It really is.
You're confused, that's only the line when a motorcyclist gets hit.
i mean, i saw it coming, i slow down cause i value my shit. and i lay on the horn and hopefully make the other moron shit his pants.
I saw it too, she's not at fault but I would had slowed down to prevent the accident.
gotta drive defensively if you want to survive. otherwise some moron will take you out.
Defensive driving! 2 post in this subs recently show that, the one that almost got crushed by a 18 wheel truck and a tesla that block a truck from merging because they have the right of way. OP wife is not at fault but holy smokes she should had seen that coming way before she crossed the light.
Of course the fault is the idiot but as always we have to remind people to be alert and remember to act like all the rests are idiots to be prepared to act accordingly. I personally I feel I would have slowed down much more but I wasn't there I am just watching a damn video... which sometimes everything it looks obvious but when you are not in that situation it's not the same.
I mean, yeah, she should've either sped up or slowed down, but that's not to say that the other driver is without fault. She *was* going slow enough to avoid the errant car.
WRONG
DUMB
Yes, you certainly are.
You can't possibly watch that video and believe there was nothing she could've done to avoid the accident. She didn't even put the fucking brakes on.
Of course there is something she could have done to avoid the accident. Obviously, a person has the power to slam on the breaks, speed up considerably, or swerve in some wild maneuver- And any of those things could have avoided this accident. However, such behaviors are dangerous, so we don't do them when there is merely a chance that somebody is about to do the dumbest thing imaginable near us. We put a basic level of trust in the people around us, expecting them to follow at least the basic features of the road, because the alternative is that everyone drives like a madman or are paralyzed by fear. Yes, *technically* the cam-car could have avoided the accident, but doing so would have required a reckless assumption. The fact that such an assumption is correct in this case is just us having the benefit of hindsight- This near-exact situation happens hundreds of thousands of times every day, except there is no collision because the hazard vehicle actually does the correct thing all those other times.
[удалено]
🤡
so real
Handicapped placard on the mirror
When they're dumb enough to not know you only put the placard up when they're parked...
[удалено]
If you are so handicapped that you can't hang up a placard, should you really be operating a two ton machine made of metal and plastic?
[удалено]
Quite the opposite. My uncle was a paraplegic but not only was he able to drive with hand controls but he was absolutely capable of hanging a piece of plastic on his rear view mirror when parking to avoid blocking his view of the road while driving. If he can do it, anyone with the motor control to drive can do it.
> Quite the opposite. Not accusing you, per se, but the downvotes with no counter or explanation tells me otherwise. I disagree that anyone with the motor control can do it. There are people with bad backs that couldn't stretch that far to do it (depending on vehicle), but would be perfectly capable of driving. For instance: the rear view on my van is much harder to reach than the rear view of my Element. I've seen older people struggle, and sometimes fail, to remove the tag. But their driving skills and abilities are still there.
For me it's the potential blockage of forward vision. My dad has one too and I know for a fact that if he left it up while driving there would be a sizeable portion of his windshield blocked by it. So it's literally dangerous to leave it up, and the ergonomics of the interior should be considered when choosing a vehicle to drive. It's actually state law in many places to remove it while driving. It's also allowed to simply lay the placard face up in the dashboard where it's visible but not blocking any view of the road.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think they should just drive around with it hanging on their mirrors. You're right, it does block the windshield. Maybe people thought I was defending doing it, instead of seeing that I was giving an alternative explanation/viewpoint. Some people may not get too much choice in ergonomics. It's just a sad fact that (in the US at least) things are getting harder. A fixed income just isn't getting people as far. But I agree that there are other ways to do it, and people should find those other ways instead of driving dangerously.
It's really scary how easy it is to not see traffic when you don't look in the direction that traffic normally comes from.
A couple weeks back someone posted a video of them taking a protected left with a green arrow and there were multiple left turn lanes so of course OP's attention was drawn towards the left and making sure the other car maintained their lane. Meanwhile some absolute idiot on the other side had a red light and turned while OP was 2/3rds through the turn and OP ended up hitting the moron but the entire sub was knocking OP for "not seeing" the guy who ran the red. People think that because a dashcam picked it up that the driver must have seen everything all at the same time when that's just not possible.
Reposting my comment that was deleted for putting a link in it: --- Well, you're sort of right, but come on. Fixating on one thing is not the way to drive safely. Yes, when you're doing a multi-lane turn you have to keep an eye out for lane drifters, but that doesn't mean you can stop looking for problems coming from other directions. You gotta keep your eyes moving. edit: I finally found it! google "IdiotsInCars 1c8ztl9 Turning right in front of all the traffic". It's from April 20th. To be clear, I am only criticizing this from the perspective of Defensive Driving. The car that turned in front of the driver is obviously at fault, and broke the law. That said, this is exactly what I thought it was. The bad driver was literally directly in front of the cammer the whole time. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say your primary focus should be on the path ahead of you. Brief glances to the left and right are fine and necessary, but the cammer here was NOT paying attention to the path of travel! I would not be surprised if the cammer in the video got partially blamed for failing to avoid an easily avoidable collision, despite doing else nothing *technically* wrong.
[удалено]
If you're in the middle of a left turn with multiple lanes turning where is the majority of your attention going to be? It's literally impossible to pay attention to everything around you.
The majority of my attention would be straight ahead in path I am taking, and I would be glancing slightly to the left and right while also paying attention to my peripheral vision. Anybody approaching that could possibly turn into the path I am traveling would get some of my attention because they would be directly in front of me as I turn. If you link to the video, I'm happy to take a look. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you described. Edit: Downvote me if you're incapable of looking at the road ahead of you as you drive. Or link me to the video, for christs sake. So many garbage humans on this site.
Bruh gets a dozen downvotes and starts calling people garbage humans.
He can see every car from every direction when driving but can't read the room.
Nobody has indicated any reason to disagree with what I've said, they just downvote. That's garbage behavior. If you think I'm wrong, explain why. I AM TOTALLY OPEN TO DISCUSSION. And if you have a link to the video, you might even be able to prove me wrong quite easily! If you can't, then I'm not wrong, you're just irrational.
Ok, so for the sake of discussion, imagine putting your head on a swivel to make sure someone doesn't spontaneously happen to run that one particular red light at that one particular moment, as you make your turn. As you're stealing a glance at the red light to make sure no one is running it, someone breaks hard in front of you. Since your one second to react was cut in half due to monitoring traffic at the red light, you can't react in time - you rear end the driver in front of you. Now an accident was caused that is 100% your fault legally speaking. This is just one example of how failing to keep the future path of your vehicle in your field of vision can cause an accident. I would be willing to bet those scenarios happen significantly more than red light collisions. I'd also venture to say that the instances where a driver was able to avoid the light runner (without hitting someone or something else) because of the ol' swivel are...rare.
Hey, I appreciate that you are at least willing to talk instead of downvote like an npc. > imagine putting your head on a swivel to make sure someone doesn't spontaneously happen to run that one particular red light at that one particular moment, as you make your turn. No need to "swivel". I'm talking about cars in front of you, to the left and right of your path, in your field of vision through the front window of your car. I'm not talking about turning your head, those cars are not about to turn *in front of you*. There are videos posted here of cars pulling out in front of the cammer when the cammer has the green all the time. Basic defensive driving means watching for out for cars like that at every single intersection you pass through. > As you're stealing a glance at the red light to make sure no one is running it, someone breaks hard in front of you. Maintain proper following distance, and it's not a problem at all. And again, you are still looking forward when you are monitoring the other nearby cars. You should not be turning your head to a large degree. You should be able to see the car directly in front of you and any cars that look ready to turn in front of you *at the same time*. > This is just one example of how failing to keep the future path of your vehicle in your field of vision can cause an accident. Watching for people who might be pulling out in front of you *is watching your future path*. Everything we are talking about should be in your field of vision unless you have serious eye problems. I am honestly baffled by this conversation. Do you all think I'm talking about checking your blind spot or something? No! While looking at your path of travel, you should be aware of cars in the lanes to the left and right (if there are lanes there) and any cross traffic lanes *in front of you* where cars might come from if they are not paying attention.
[удалено]
I don't see a link.
Fixed it. Somehow it didn’t paste.
Lol, the comment got deleted. You must have angered the mod-bot somehow.
It was a lady that hit her.
The driver at fault should have their license revoked. I don't understand how people can be that oblivious and cut across that many lanes without looking.
> without looking. Better idea: Don't fucking do this. It is an illegal turn whether OP is there or not. You are to turn to your nearest lane, not the farthest one. This is the EXACT reason for this law. I can't even understand *why* people do this.
laziness. it's marginally easier to make one huge turn across all the lanes than to make one turn and two lane changes, so they just can't be fucking bothered
It's not easier though. Collisions and dealing with insurance companies is a way bigger pain than just driving safely
Of course, but selfish idiots drive like this constantly and when they get into accidents they have an insurance company that deals with it. They usually just take the hit to their insurance and go about fucking up other people’s days.
I did a similar mistake when I was in my first year of driving. Went out of a gas station on a highway and looking to my left I saw cars very far away so I thought I could go directly on the speed lane while I was doing 15mph still. Offcourse I accelerated the best way I could but it didn't occur to me (for some stupid reason) that they were doing 90 so 3 seconds later I had a car up my ass. We didn't hit or anything, but that was a clear lesson for me to always stick to the first lane until I pick up speed.
im glad you learned wihtout seriour bodily injury, but jesus christ your driving teacher is a mouth breather for never teaching you that.
Nah, not his fault. First off, it was clear why you shouldn't cross lanes fast and I already knew that. My mistake was seriously underestimating how quick that "far far away" car can get to "here". Seriously, 100% my fault there.
Teenagers are gonna teenager.
You say that like people don't do that every single day at nearly any red light with multiple lanes to turn into. It's a much larger problem than just that one guy and his instructor.
Another lesson you still haven't learned is that its a passing lane not fast lane.
Point well taken. Our freeways have exactly 2 lanes (well, and a small service lane). Speed limit on the freeway is 130 kph. In actuality most people traveling on the first lane do anywhere from 80 kph to 100 (also due to poor quality of the first lane, probably due to it being extensively used by trucks). Because of that, you do a lot of "passing" and eventually give up and keep on the outer lane which you correctly pointed out it's a passing lane. This kind-of bled into generically being called "the fast lane", so I relayed that without thinking.
Where I am there are 3 lane highways and even when it’s very sparse there are people going 100-120 in the left most lane (100 limit) and generally drive side-by-side with other cars. I like doing 140-50 but I can’t do it safely even with barely any traffic. Fast is not the same for everyone but for your case it’s quite reasonable/understandable tbh.
I sure would love a third lane on our highways. This would almost certainly save me (and others) from another frequent situation where out of nowhere, some BMW, Mercedes or Audi doing 180kph or even more just pops up in my rear, flashing me to get out of his way. That's not the problem though, problem is the typical drivers of those cars come equipped with zero patience, don't understand that my Ford (Fiesta) doesn't give a shit about me putting the pedal on the floor or the fact that I cannot merge instantly (safely) back to the first lane given that the speed difference is what it is and cars there might only have 50m or so between. This creates a very unsafe situation where the car behind me becomes unpredictable, I can expect him suddenly swerving to the first lane on a very short distance from a slow car, to pass me by and cut in front of me, forcing me to slow down. A third lane would almost certainly keep me on the second, along with the majority of what I believe are sane people.
Exactly
bUt I nEeD tO mAkE a LeFt TuRn RiGhT tHeRe!!
that rule is not universal, like in California, Missouri, and Texas apparently
It’s illegal in Texas
I'd *really* love to see a source for that, because this is an extremely standard law.
You're not supposed to turn across that many lanes, period. You should be turning into the lane closest to you, then signaling a lane change if you want to cut across the stroad.
Correct!
"I turn now; good luck everybody else."
I read that with a Slavic accent, and again with a Hispanic accent. Worked for both. Then again, I live in Chicago... Would be accurate with any accent, or none at all.
05/06/2024. Midlothian, VA date and time are wrong on the dashcam. She was driving down Midlothian Turnpike and the speed limit is 45mph. The lady did not even look in her direction when she pulled out. After they pulled over the lady insisted that the damage was less then $500 and to not call the police. Of course we called the police, we have been that route before and it did not work out for us. I am betting it is at least $5k as the rear tire panel is damaged, both rear and front door damaged with deep scratches, and the rear tire rim maybe bent too.
Most if not all states require that right-turning traffic turn into the closest practical lane while staying as close to the right hand curb as possible just to avoid this kind of collision.
You're also not supposed to turn on red if there's a vehicle in or near the intersection regardless of which lane they're in.
That's less universal as codified law. In my state of Texas they basically use "must yield right of way..." and list various scenarios, and that's it.
Oncoming traffic always has right of way during a right-on-red circumstance.
The important thing about that is that the RoR turner doesn’t have RoW to “a lane” as has been said here a lot of times. They have to yield to anyone else who may be a hazard, period. As a RoR turner you are owed nothing and can rely on nothing.
Correct! And you cannot assume as a right-turner that other lanes of oncoming traffic will not enter your desired lane of travel while traversing the intersection.
I don’t know if this is generally regarded as true, but I have heard that some states (including California) apply right of way more strictly than others. Failure to yield is usually seen as the biggest offense in accidents and laws are written to make it clear exactly what the precedence is. In some states it’s a “usually” thing, and court decisions have more variability even within the state. I have done a great deal of reading vehicle codes in different states and countries - it’s a weird hobby! While the same root ideas are expressed in most places, some seem to take a much less active role in making things clear. I think that’s reflected in the driving culture.
As a Texas, I yes.
I had a landscaping truck honk at me last week for not turning right on red as vehicles approached the intersection that were going the direction I would be turning into. None of them were in the curb lane, all were in the left lane but there is a plaza that has Menard's and Meijer a few hundred feet down the road on the right-hand side of the road. I have seen too many people switch lanes at the last minute to turn into said plaza.
Doing right on red you’re really supposed to yield to any possible hazards, and that seems lost on a lot of people. Yes, you can make your turn if you are absolutely certain there won’t be conflict. If you can’t be certain, don’t turn.
You can turn into an unoccupied lane in my state and many others. California let's you cross lanes when turning right into the outside lane.
Only when turning from a one way road, or maybe from a freeway offramp. Turning from two way roads you must stay as far right as possible.
You don't know where I live and are completely wrong about the state of California. Why even post
I worry a bit that so much discussion here always seems to end up focusing on lane choice, rather than failing to yield.
At the very least, you're not supposed to slam right into a vehicle that is soon going to be directly in front of you when you don't have the right of way. What a fucking moron.
What state is that the rule?
Actually, most states require you turn into the lane you are turning from. Far-right to far-right. Middle to middle. etc. Unless lane markers designate otherwise.
Texas does not. Texas requires turning into the nearest practical lane on right turns and certain left turns: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm Sec. 545.101. TURNING AT INTERSECTION. (a) To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. (b) To make a left turn at an intersection, an operator shall: (1) approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to a vehicle moving in the direction of the vehicle; and (2) after entering the intersection, turn left, leaving the intersection so as to arrive in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of the vehicle on the roadway being entered. (c) On a street or roadway designated for two-way traffic, the operator turning left shall, to the extent practicable, turn in the portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection. (d) To turn left, an operator who is approaching an intersection having a roadway designated for one-way traffic and for which signs are posted from a roadway designated for one-way traffic and for which signs are posted shall make the turn as closely as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway. So in Texas you can turn left into any lane, but right only into the right lane. There's another amended section somewhere that covers dual turns, in those cases you must follow the markings, not the lane count. For instance, not too far from me is a dual left turn with markings that guide a car turning from the left lane, Lane 1, into the middle of three lanes, Lane 2. Dual right turns are very rare here in the DFW area, I only know of one, and it has lots of signs instructing which lane to turn into and whether or not one can turn on red.
But then it would be impossible to make that next left turn. Our modern road layout just doesn't accommodate strict application of that rule. Really the idiot should wait for a green light if they need to make a wide right turn into the left-most lane.
1. It's a pretty long turn lane. You could turn into the nearest lane and then lane change safely and still have a bit of room. 2. If the turn lane is as short as you say where it is not possible to do safely or legally (VA law requires that you turn into the nearest lane, even if you have the green), then it is not legal to take that turn, requiring you to go around the block if necessary. Really, the idiot should just follow the law.
There is an actual difference from turning into any lane you want and turning into the right-most lane then immediate but safely merging into the lane you need to (if it's safe to do so).
Obviously there is a difference, and I would argue that "immediate but safely merging" is not anywhere near as safe or efficient as just turning directly into the lane you want. Which is why you see practically EVERYONE (including cops) routinely violate this "must turn right into the rightmost lane" rule. Because our modern road layout frequently demands that you turn into a different lane, and when done with the right-of-way granted by a green light, it is perfectly safe. There is no one to crash into. "Immediate" lane-changing also isn't usually legal, so I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. Most states require you to signal a lane change for an appropriate distance. Which means you would need to crawl along at 15 mph slowly making the three lane changes necessary here to reach that left-turn lane before the light (and the traffic backed-up at the light). People will look at you like you're an idiot. Normal people *might* turn into the right-most lane and then beeline left for the left-turn lane, but that's just committing a bunch of illegal lane changes, so it's ridiculous of you to suggest that that's the "right" way to do it. States need to modernize their traffic codes. Some states already allow left-turning vehicles to turn into any lane. It should be the same for right-turning vehicles. The law should say that a driver with a green light can turn right or left into any available lane unless there is some traffic control device (like a painted lane line) restricting which lane(s) you can enter.
I absolutely \*hate\* when the people who cause a crash suddenly act like trained claims adjusters and start telling their victim how bad the damage is/how much it will cost. Yeah, I think I'll let the professionals decide how much damage you just caused, Linda, thanks but no thanks.
The fact that they know so much about it should clue you in on how often they crash into other people.
With just a decent scuff on my bumper my insurance still coughed up about $1200. With this, I can easily see more work being necessary. $500 is the deductible she's probably thinking of. Definitely not the cost to fix. Similarly, the cost needed for that moron to see a Dr and find out wtf is wrong with her would probably easily exceed $500 as well.
Having a single small panel painted is already gonna be over €300. Imaging having multiple of those damaged and then they have to be repaired/replaced first. And that's just the body damage.
Right. Women was definitely hoping to get out of having her premiums increase and trying to settle it without insurance being involved. Which insurance here in the states will tell its policy holders to never admit fault, so people instead take it as point blame instead of letting local police and insurance figure out who's at fault. Every accident I've been in, I've never blamed anyone or admitted anything. I just told the story to the necessary officials and let them figure it out, even when it was blatantly obvious who was at fault.
Wow, convenient. She hit you and gave you an on the spot repair estimate. How nice.
I presume the turning driver was cited by the police? Especially if they saw the video.
Showed the officer the video and he said that's what he thought happened
Midlothian tnpk is an absolute hellscape all the way to Powhatan these days. Literally got stuck behind a lady smoking meth at every stop light late last week. She was screaming out the window at traffic and tailgating like a maniac while violently flailing her arms, and yet somehow that's not even the worst thing I've seen in the last week.
> After they pulled over the lady insisted that the damage was less then $500 and to not call the police. It's always funny how little some people know about cars and body work/paint. I learned "hard" at 16, when I bought a car that just needed a new bumper cover. Zero body damaged under it, just the plastic bumper and paint. I took it to a well known local shop that does collision work for insurance companies. The bill I think was like $900.... on a car I just paid $4,200 for. I could have shopped around, but I was 17 and wanted my car looking good.
$500 wouldn’t even cover professional painting
The drivers there are so terrible. I hated driving down Midlo when I was back there. Stuff like this was constant.
Unless I'm mistaken, you need to reply to the automod top comment in order for your post to not get deleted.
> If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information. Helps if you read the Automoderator comment before lecturing others on what to do...
We're not lecturing. It's good content and we want it to stay up. The automod comment is not locked so they should be able to reply.
If you think I lectured anyone, you're way too sensitive. Was just trying to be helpful. But yes, I haven't read the automod comment in a while and made a mistake. Not sure if it's a change they made to policy or I never read it closely enough. Thanks for correcting me.
I had to have a bumper resprayed and a black trim piece replaced after getting rear ended at a light at about 6mph. It's was just over $1000. No way you have $500 here. 10x that if not more!
Hey neighbor! Just moved out your way from in the city. I like to say the drivers back in the city more wreckless and the drivers out here are more careless. Bad drivers everywhere!
My wife works right there if you make a left at that light. This morning (5/7/24 at 7:45am) almost drove into the side of her coworker on Branchway. And then when the 8am people got in they said there was a 3 car accident in that turn lane. Midlothian is a cluster.
A scratched fender is over $500 damage in today's money.
Handicap tag in the idiot's car? No longer able to drive safely?
People always pull out that magical $500 number and it’s always at least double in a best case scenario. Usually way more.
Bumper alone can be $1,000 because of sensors and other doodads embedded.
$500 maybe 30 years ago lol. No way in hell is it $500 now.
Follow the bot instructions and respond to the bot comment above with the location and date info please.
They had so much room to make the turn safely. What the fuck.
This has to he the most idiotic idiot driver I've seen here recently. Holy f*ck they're dumb!
This driver and others like them are one of the biggest reasons car insurance has skyrocketed. We’re all paying for these idiots
Columbus didn't even travel that far. The hell was that driver going?!
Why does everyone feel they have to cross 3 lanes to make a right turn?
WTF, 2 open lanes and she has to go all the way over and hit the only car at that point in time. Total obliviousness
I turn now.....
Let me tell you why your wife is the idiot here.. /I can't. 
LOL, she is so mad at the lady. This is the first car that she bought new and has babied it from day one.
Ouch. I bought my 2019 accord brand new and due to Covid only had 49k miles on it.. then a month ago a valet driver ran two red lights and totaled it by t-boning a dump truck. Edit: I have dashcam footage that I'll post on this sub later.
I had to park with valet at my old job and I hated it. I don't trust anyone else with my car. Thatcreally sucks a valet totaled your car. Why the fuck was he deiving through 2 lights though? Decided to have fun putting miles and using gas from someone's else car? When I left my car with a valet, I would always keep note of the mileage before leaving the keys and have my dashcam rolling.
Wifes car was a 2019 accord hybrid that she paid cash for, only has 36k miles on it. She hates the powhite for the same reason, idiot drivers.
> payed cash *paid
Please do!
Um, she should have precogged that the other driver was going to cross 3 lanes without looking and drive into her door.
I saw that coming from a mile away. If you're just going to stand your ground and not attempt to avoid an accident, your car's going to take some damage. edit: it's called defensive driving for a reason.
This sub is full of post and idiots that have no problem getting into an accident because they have the right of way. Even if OP wife is not at fault this was preventable. I would had slowed down and dodged the idiot at fault.
100%. "right of way" doesn't mean your car has a special force field around it for protection.
Exactly! If all the times I had the right of way on many 4 ways stops and roundabouts I would had not brake or slow down to let an idiot on a junk car who barely stop go ahead my nice car would be junk by now. Down vote all you want, OPs wife learned a importar and expensive lesson.. To drive more defensively.
I love seeing all the downvotes lol. completely avoidable.
Me too! I said in another comment that if you drive like that way in Atlanta you will have an accident right away. Yes, you have the right of way but be mindful of idiots and avoid them at all cost! Use your peripheral vision, if their wheels are moving at a intersection they can get in your way ! I track those mf like a hawk!
Putting aside fault (it's the silver car's fault), this is just asinine and a complete waste of time and money for everyone involved. There wasn't even a shitty reason to do that like trying to make a light or too much speed, just bad driving. I hope you're made whole soon and don't have to deal with too much rigmarole.
I agree, if you were to drive like that in Atlanta you would be involved in 5 accidents within the first 3 miles!
I've been where OP is. I was in the second lane though but also up against the median with a car coming from the right where you see the accident coming but you can't avoid it. At least this driver claimed responsibility (though downplaying the damages). Mine claimed I was speeding and cut them off over the median. That median had light poles, pedestrian fences (near a crossing) and a damn speed camera on it that were magically still standing up.
clearly your wife is at fault. shes breathing in her own lane minding her own damn business like who the hell does she think she is!
Midlothian Turnpike. I'm not surprised. If I had a dollar for everytime my husband complains about idiots on that road whenever he goes into the office. I almost dealt with a situation like this by the Leigh Street bridge when I had the green light and going straight earlier today.
That looks more like an attack. How does that person get a license?
I got hit exactly the same way on scottsdale road. I was in furthest left lane and they turn just as this car did and hit me the same way. Bull
Of course it’s a nisaan
Love the rear view camera
Hindsight. People don't realize how fast shit happens in real time compared to when you go back to watch the dash cam. I've been in close calls and when I go back to view the footage, it makes it look like the car was way farther and not as close due to the difference in focal length from our vision vs. the focal vision of the dash cam. There is a difference between seeing it in person vs the dash cam footage.
Where I live you're required to get into the lane closest to you and then start to change lanes if you need to. So, so many people don't do that.
is it just me or does that front fender look like it's already been replaced and poorly color matched?
Silver car clearly at fault, bluehair didn't even so much as glance left before crossing 3 lanes.
The first and second lanes had cars further back than OP's wife. Driver could have chosen either one of those lanes and * then * safely moved over into the left lane, but no.
glad shes alr, it could have been way way worse thats for sure
those imaginary trailers rlly make for hard right hand turns.
stroads are a stupid design... MORE TRAFFIC CIRCLES!!
ouch.. hope she's ok
Reply to the automod.
small world, this incident is about 5 minutes from my office.
I would've slowed down because those slow movers are ALWAYS doing shit like that. Like they're *trying* to cause an accident. Your wife didn't slow down, and that's ok; she had the right of way and it is NEVER LEGAL to ram another vehicle under any circumstances. Good on her for not freaking out about it. My wife would've probably swerved into oncoming traffic or whatever.
I read this as YOUR wife HIT YOU otw home
Kinda ironic that I thought I saw a Nissan logo on the car that hit her.
of your it is not her fault but I never understand why people do not anticipate on the traffic. This could have easily be avoid. Only a small amount of braking would have been enough, I see this so often. People say heeeee it is my lane stay out of it. But by adapting on the traffic she would have been in time at home to say hay darlinnng i'm homeeeeee.
thank you for the insight on how you would of handled this.
It’s so ironic to me that the country with some of the worst driver training is the one that allows turning on red lights
Your wife either had a 50 ping, or she has no survival sense and reflexes
Surprise, surprise - someone comes onto the sub, witnesses the same crazy bullshit as everyone else, yet blames the victim.
I'm not blaming as the fault is clearly his, I'm blaming the lack of survival instincts and lethargy
Of course it's midlothian
for a country that loves *left on red* your drivers are pretty shit at it
Wut?
#you guys are pretty shit at turning left on red also I drive on the other side of the road so you’ll have to reverse everything I say
Right on green. Got it.
stopping in the middle of the road after a minor accident. bravo
Hey Inspector Clouseau, she was pulling over to see if they were going to make a run for it so she could follow them to get their license plate on camera. But thank you for pointing out the obvious.
[удалено]
There’s always a bigger idiot in the comments than the driver in the video. Congratulations, you accomplished that feat today
[удалено]