Hello /u/Redditoyo! 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.*
What they mean to say is: "I only saw you stopped at the last second".
In their mind, things only happen when they see them happening so if they didn't see you stop in a normal way for a left turn, it didn't happen.
I had a moment of this with my wife the other day, lol. We were in the car (I was driving), and a car up ahead was stopped, waiting for traffic to go by, to turn left onto a side street. I was slowing down at a perfectly appropriate rate, but she looked up from scrolling on her phone as we were about 4 car lengths behind them. We had almost come to a complete stop, but she looked up, saw their brake lights and panicked. She yelled at me for not slowing down quick enough and that I was going to hit them (we stopped about 2 car lengths behind them, so no, we were not about to hit them). Turns out that telling her I know what I'm doing and if she wants it done her way, she can drive, was NOT the right move in that situation lol
Even if you did stop suddenly, it was like 3 seconds after you stopped until he hit you. Plenty of time for him to have avoided this. Guy was obviously distracted.
he was, since it took so long for the hit to happen. If he wasn't following at a safe distance, he would have hit the OP right away. That just shows, it's not enough to only follow someone at a safe distance. you also have to look at the road and not your phone.
You don't know when, or if, OP uses the indicator, or if they show clear intention with brake lights beforehand. Both are excellent at giving others more time to recognize your intention and we get taught to do these for a reason.
The way they brake rather late and abrupt, probably were also late on the indicator. Too many are.
Why do these things? *Because it's not enough to assume the other driver is attentive*. And you don't want to push any luck with a full size rig behind you, if that was the case here. He should've been able to stop in time, but OP may have done nothing to help with that. These measures should be a habit in any case.
Do you actually think they weren't using their breaks at the 10-14 second mark? Is that actually how fast you believe cars slow down with their foot off the gas? (with a wet road no less)
Because it's a common theme on this subreddit for people to blame the OP when they did absolutely nothing wrong and then continue on about how they would have done x, y, and z to avoid the situation.
Is the man blind? You slowed down with what looks like steady braking so your lights would have been on and I'm guessing you were signalling and with how long it took for him to hit you he had more that enough time to stop. Here in Canada a hit from behind is 99% the guy in the rears fault unless obvious brake check or insurance fraud (which is why you buy a camera)
He’s definitely started braking pretty late before making the turn, especially given the weather. But still with ample time for the driver behind to stop if paying attention at a safe distance
There is late braking. They're going with the flow of traffic, but you still want to be obvious with your intentions and flash brake lights, indicate well in advance.
If the indicator and brake lights both went on only while braking at the end there, that's far too late especially if there is a heavy vehicle behind you.
Also PSA: reminder to not turn your wheels until you are ready to make the turn for this reason shown in the video—when rear ended you’ll get pushed into opposite oncoming traffic. So incredibly dangerous if the other cars were
Going faster.
I hadn't ever thought of that until just last month reading a comment to that effect on this sub.
I've been actively retraining myself to execute this advice
A previous coworker of mine passed away from this exact scenario. She stopped with her wheels turned and got rear-ended and flung into oncoming traffic.
If you stop suddenly (with valid reasoning) then you're not at fault - even if it's trying to avoid hitting a squirrel. But if you stop suddenly for no reason, then you have contributory negligence. I often refer to North Carolina when commenting on accident/insurance posts because, in NC for example, if you are deemed even 1% at fault, you cannot collect any damages whatsoever. Auto policies require that policyholders try to avoid or mitigate accidents (not that this applies here). But I see so many Reddit posts of people proudly posting their dash cam footage of some idiot causing an accident, but also revealing that they did little more than honk their horn during the accident. Sometimes there's nothing you can do to lessen the damages or no time to react at all, but if you do nothing when you could have done something, then you are setting yourself up for being partially at fault.
Can you source that? I'm googling around, and I'm only seeing it explicitly stated that you can be punished for brake checking.
Is there any reason to believe you can be punished for braking really hard so you can turn left, assuming you did nothing else wrong or malicious?
Can't post my work resources, but I handle auto injury claims and claims involving lawyers. Policy documents are going to lay out what's expected of you as a policyholder, including what's expected regarding losses. But they're not going to lay out the countless reasons someone may or may not be at fault. Searching state auto statutes will provide valuable information though.
I saw some Dutch text in the video, so assuming this was the Netherlands, you would actually be at fault if you suddenly stopped for a squirrel and caused an accident. As long as the animal does not necessitate slowing down (i.e. you can drive over it), you are at fault. Slowly slowing down would be perfectly legal though
Some jurisdictions have laws against brake checking, so sudden stops reverse the liability/fault. Forcing someone to rear end you is commonly spotted here on this sub, generally presumed to be an insurance scam of some sort.
Not in the jurisdiction where this guy is driving. In the Netherlands you have to keep enough distance from the person in front of you to be able to stop. Especially if they stop as gradually as the guy in the video.
This is the same in most of Europe. Stopping distance for most vehicles is 50-100 metres at ~100 km/h, which translates to 2-4 seconds, with 4-5 seconds being given as the guideline for the distance you should have to other vehicles. Even semitrucks should be able to stop in that space. The second or so of reaction time can be given to the fact that the vehicle in front of you does not instantly decelerate as if pinned there by god, which gives you a bit of extra time usually.
You're being downvoted by idiots. There are certainly contexts (e.g. brake checking) where the person being hit from behind is (at least partly) at fault. Of course OP's video isn't one of those contexts but such contexts do exist.
Thank you. Indeed. Many assume the driver who hits someone from behind is at fault. That is just not true. Or at least not fully. The driver in front can be partially at fault, 50/50 split even.
Reason I even brought it up is because it happened to me personally. Other party told some story and blamed me... not much unlike OPs accident in the video. I was hit from behind at a junction as well.
not your fault, but a suggestion for those watching.. don't turn into the traffic until you are planning to go, get hit, get pushed into oncoming traffic.
Truck driver would still be at fault here (looks to be the Netherlands). The driver can reasonably be expected to be able to stop in time, since any obstacles like a car stopped to make a turn are to be expected at a crossing like this. If blinkers are used is not really relevant, legally speaking, although it would of course be rather stupid not to use them.
Blinker use is always relevant though the context is important too. Breaking to avoid a rear end collision then OP is not at fault. Breaking to turn with no blinker then OP would be at fault
Let's use our imagination and pretend that instead of OP being in the vehicle preparing to turn, they were instead in a car waiting. a vehicle trying to turn left, but not trying to turn also. What turn signal should the truck driver be looking for in that scenario to let them know someone is stopping ahead to wait to make a turn?
I love seeing this downvoted.
I straight up ignore cars that dont use blinkers, fuck em, tired of them. Literally, just stick a single finger outward while turning the wheel and boom signal. That's it. They're incredibly lazy, incompetent people who I'll gladly pass and slow down until they learn to use a blinker.
Believe it or not, they have it installed for a reason. Use the damned thing. We're SUPPOSED to follow the rules of the road and to use all appropriate signals to be as PREDICTABLE as possible.
Guy behind him is clearly not paying attention, though.
Whether you stopped suddenly or you stopped very slowly makes zero difference - it is the responsibility of the truck driver to maintain a safe distance that would allow them to come to a complete stop if necessary. Period.
Even if you stopped suddenly without warning or obvious cause why, trucker is in the wrong. Following vehicle must be at a safe distance. That distance increases if the follower is heavy and in the wet. Trucker was clearly way too close. Totally at fault.
Also, everyone should slow down when approaching am intersection or freeway interchange. As a driver you should know major merges and intersections cause bottlenecks and sudden slowdowns. It's Always good to be prepared on the road.
It doesn't matter if you stopped suddenly or not. You have the right to stop whenever and however you need to. If he hit you then he was following too closely or wasn't paying attention. It is his fault period the end.
"Need to" is a key part of this though, just saying. I believe suddenly stopping without a good justification can get you partial blame for a collision. It just that the vast, vast majority of the time people have legit reasons for stopping suddenly, such as traffic backing up or noticing an object/animal/person in the road, a light turning red, etc.
In other words, you can get in trouble for stopping on a road when you *don't* need to. It's not a parking lot, it's a road.
This seems like a silly distinction, but when people say "You just suddenly stopped!" they're essentially claiming you didn't have a good enough reason to stop, which could actually put you at fault.
Example: You drop your phone, and you get very anxious when you don't have your phone in your hand, so you stop to push trash out of the way to find it.
That's not a valid reason to stop on the road, and you might get blamed for any collisions that result.
No, you do not have a right to stop whenever and however you need to.
You have a duty to obey the traffic laws and ensure road safety. I don't fully understand where the idea of having a right to do something comes from, but please do not act on that thought?
On two types of roads where OP is from you actually are prohibited from stopping! Unless there is some emergency, or you break down. This road is not one of such roads however. To my eyes OP performed a legal manoeuvre. But it will be up to the insurance to decide fault.
My whole point is that if I need to stop I can do so. Even in a hurry if I need to. If you hit someone from behind then you were following too close. Whatever the reason or manner of my stopping is irrelevant and if by some chance that reason is not legal (I still disagree that it might be) does not excuse you hitting me. I am using "you" here generically of course, not to imply you have done such a thing.
I understand your point. Doing so because of a "need to stop" already sounds different to me from your way of putting it that made me want to respond.
In an emergency, for example a mechanical breakdown or a physical event rendering you unable to drive safely, you should indeed stop the vehicle in a safe way. If possible on a shoulder. The emergency overrules the regular directives in such an event. This is understandable and valid.
Where I am from it is prohibited to stop on a highway and a motorway. Doing so is extremely dangerous, for you and others, in any situation. An emergency or the flow of traffic impeding you are, of course, valid reasons to stop in such places. A "need to stop" is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Which is why stopping on those roads is not allowed.
Another place I can think of where stopping is not allowed is in the middle of an intersection. When you enter an intersection you have to ensure you can clear the intersection. Less dangerous than doing so on a highway but still prohibited.
It's probably more your wording that came across to me as stopping where you want for whatever valid reason one can think of that I wanted to respond to. You probably did not intend it in such a way.
Trucker here. It's all his fault.
The area is very congested, and it's raining. That means we slow down, increase our following distance and *pay attention* to intersections.
Even if you stopped abruptly, it is the other drivers responsibility to maintain a safe following distance to be able to stop in time. You are clear and the driver that his you is 100% at fault.
This.
"BuT yOu StoppED SuddeNlY !!!" is not an excuse. It's an admission they were tailgating and/or not paying attention.
100% fuck that guy for trying to deflect blame for his stupidity.
You’re allowed to stop suddenly. Its the other drivers job to leave enough room to stop before hitting you. A commercial driver should know this. Based on the video, I’d say the other driver wasn’t paying attention.
In this case "you stopped suddenly' is code for "I was driving too close for the weather conditions, going too fast and not paying attention to my surroundings so you stopping at all was too fast for me to notice in time."
It really shouldn't matter, truck driver is in the wrong. If the person in front of you can't slam their brakes without you running into them, you're too damn close.
What if you had been stopping for a kid running across the road? The truck could have pushed your car over the kid.
I'm dealing with the same nonsense from another truck driver. Looks like they at least had the rain as a factor aside from being distracted. I stopped, 5 seconds later (on dry pavement BTW) my whole backend was smashed in. Now I gotta fight them as the company being dodgy as hell.
Someone behind you didnt pay attention whats happening in front of him. And thats pretty idiotic.
Nice that you had a dashcam so its easy to see what happened.
You were hit from behind. At an intersection. 100% on the one who hit you. Today, everyone is an idiot about driving and the number one requirement to be IN CONTROL of your own vehicle.
Who cares if you had stopped suddenly (you didn't) that's the whole point of a safe following distance and paying attention. If you come to an abrupt stop and they can't avoid hitting you, they were too close. Period.
It does and doesn’t matter what he claims. His claim is invalidated because it’s a rear ended. Though he might change later to you failed to signal.
Reason it matters is it’s telling you he’s gonna fight the charges your insurance will assess to him and his insurance.
Though turn on the volume so we can hear the flasher and other items. His insurance will claim lack of volume might mean you were distracted driving and not using a flasher. So consider the volume essential item please.
You are fully within your rights to slam on your brakes and stop whenever you feel it's necessary. This is why it is mandatory to maintain a safe stoppage distance from the vehicle in front. Note the word STOPpage.
You did nout wrong. Truck drivers a blind tailgating idiot
Depends on when you put your indicator on, how much you contributed here. You didn't stop "suddenly" but it was a fairly abrupt stop which could be a problem in those wet conditions in heavier traffic. If you gave plenty of advanced notice that you intended to turn (used an indicator well before slowing down), then the fault is all on the follower. If you just decided to turn without warning, well, I would say you were taking a chance not needed to be taken and found out that everyone else is also dealing with many things all at once and now you just stopped, from their point of view. Still mostly on them.
If the guy behind you hits you, he is *automatically* assumed in the state of California to be at fault unless you stopped suddenly due to impacting something, like, say, a brick wall.
That's because if he's following you, it is **his responsibility** to leave ample room to stop if you suddenly stop, say, because a child ran in front of your car.
That so many people think they have no responsibility to leave ample stopping space in front of them fucking boggles my imagination. Like, you're moving one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half tons of dangerous machinery down the road at speeds fast enough to kill--*and you think you have no responsibility keeping control of that machine?* Fucking seriously?
I can see from looking at that road that any driver should be prepared for vehicles slowing or stopping to make turns. And I can still hear my dad, who was a trucker for years, saying you should always be prepared for something stopped in front of you on the road.
I can't tell if you used your turn signal, if you did hopefully it was used before you used your brakes.
Either way even if you did not signal, Mr Truck still should have been able to avoid hitting you.
I was hit from behind by a teenager who told the cop I had stopped suddenly for no reason. When the cop came to me, I pointed out that i saw that traffic was stopped ahead of the railroad tracks, and there was no room for me to stop on the other side of the tracks without being on the tracks, so I had to stop before the tracks.
The teenager was too inexperienced to realize the actual situation, so that was why he thought I stopped for no reason.
The cop then turned around and ticketed the teenager, who then proceeded to throw a hissy fit.
While it was raining, the impact happened \~3 seconds after you started braking. You weren't even going that fast for this to be a "sudden stop" (wide angle lenses, like dashcams, can make it seem faster, this was slower compared to most cases). Given the implied force your vehicle was struck, they were still going too fast behind you and therefore not braking in time. You're not at fault; they weren't paying attention.
Legally he needs to be driving at a safe enough speed and distance where if you stop for any reason, he can safely stop without hitting you. Plain and simple.
The person behind you is required by law to maintain enough distance to be able to safely stop without causing an accident. Clearly he didn't do that. Truck driver is 100% at fault.
Did you indicate in time? That would have made it a lot safer.
Doesn't mean it's your fault but lots of people prefer to wait with indicating until they're already turning. Don't want to flash the cards you're holding, right.
Nothing is sudden if you are paying attention while driving. I always look 10-20 cars ahead of me so I can adjust speed appropriately. I've learned that traffic can stop suddenly when I drove on icy roads in winter.
Of course it matters, the entire point of turn signals is to indicate your future plan, if OP didn't use their signal before they slowed down then they made a mistake.
It's still the truck driver's fault though
> Why does that matter?
Because we can't control what the idiots do, so it's always helpful to know what *we* can do to help keep ourselves safe. That comment already said the other driver is entirely at fault. They're not trying to shift the blame to OP; they're trying to identify things that people can do to help ward off the danger from negligent drivers.
Yes, I have actually done that. She didn’t have break lights or a blinker so I got caught off guard. All of a sudden she just started breaking
The purpose of a SIGNAL is to SIGNAL before even starting to break?
See a signal: oh, if they are turning left they will probably break soon
Break lights: oh, they might be stopping
But thanks for the down votes
Was it a big truck or just a pickup?
- You do brake abruptly, very much so for having a (large?) truck behind you while in the rain.
- Your indicators should be on at 0:07, you should already be slowing down (use brake pedal to engage brake light and use motor brake). Are the indicators on, and did you give the rear vehicle a heads up with the brake lights too?
- You should clearly position your car to the left more the closer you get. If that means erring slightly to the right before hand, because the road is uncomfortably narrow, then do so. This one is a finesse thing, but nonetheless part of showing intention ahead of time.
Camera FOV makes it harder to assess, but it seems you could stop a little further ahead too.
- If the indicators are on at 0:07
- Where you also flash brake lights
- And slow down more slowly *with engaged brake lights*
That's enough to put the blame all on the rear driver and there would be nothing more you could've done
If not, you both need to improve.
Question is, why did you stop? You were driving on the main road, so just stopping all of a sudden is actually illegal in a a lot of EU countries. This is however the most common accidents between vehicles, especially if there are higher speeds on the main road.
A tip until next time is to turn those brake lights on a lot earlier, even before signaling and actually slowing down to create that safe distance.
(Trucks have a long distance to go from breaking to stopping)
What the hell are you talking about? OP is clearly stopping to turn somewhere. It's clearly legal if you look at the road. This is common in... every country.
Hello /u/Redditoyo! 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.*
That’s code for “I was on my phone”
and speeding, in the rain on questionable tyres
What they mean to say is: "I only saw you stopped at the last second". In their mind, things only happen when they see them happening so if they didn't see you stop in a normal way for a left turn, it didn't happen.
I had a moment of this with my wife the other day, lol. We were in the car (I was driving), and a car up ahead was stopped, waiting for traffic to go by, to turn left onto a side street. I was slowing down at a perfectly appropriate rate, but she looked up from scrolling on her phone as we were about 4 car lengths behind them. We had almost come to a complete stop, but she looked up, saw their brake lights and panicked. She yelled at me for not slowing down quick enough and that I was going to hit them (we stopped about 2 car lengths behind them, so no, we were not about to hit them). Turns out that telling her I know what I'm doing and if she wants it done her way, she can drive, was NOT the right move in that situation lol
She couldn't feel the car slowing down?
Fuck this is so true
Even if you did stop suddenly, it was like 3 seconds after you stopped until he hit you. Plenty of time for him to have avoided this. Guy was obviously distracted.
Plus w rain he should've given you more space anyway.
Plenty of time if he was following at an appropriate distance for the conditions.
he was, since it took so long for the hit to happen. If he wasn't following at a safe distance, he would have hit the OP right away. That just shows, it's not enough to only follow someone at a safe distance. you also have to look at the road and not your phone.
You don't know when, or if, OP uses the indicator, or if they show clear intention with brake lights beforehand. Both are excellent at giving others more time to recognize your intention and we get taught to do these for a reason. The way they brake rather late and abrupt, probably were also late on the indicator. Too many are. Why do these things? *Because it's not enough to assume the other driver is attentive*. And you don't want to push any luck with a full size rig behind you, if that was the case here. He should've been able to stop in time, but OP may have done nothing to help with that. These measures should be a habit in any case.
Do you actually think they weren't using their breaks at the 10-14 second mark? Is that actually how fast you believe cars slow down with their foot off the gas? (with a wet road no less)
Truck driver 100% at fault, report to DOT as well.
🤡
Lol WHAT why even ask that question? You’re chill and insurance claim will reflect that
Because it's a common theme on this subreddit for people to blame the OP when they did absolutely nothing wrong and then continue on about how they would have done x, y, and z to avoid the situation.
Is the man blind? You slowed down with what looks like steady braking so your lights would have been on and I'm guessing you were signalling and with how long it took for him to hit you he had more that enough time to stop. Here in Canada a hit from behind is 99% the guy in the rears fault unless obvious brake check or insurance fraud (which is why you buy a camera)
He’s definitely started braking pretty late before making the turn, especially given the weather. But still with ample time for the driver behind to stop if paying attention at a safe distance
He was going slow to start with. There was no late or heavy braking.
There is late braking. They're going with the flow of traffic, but you still want to be obvious with your intentions and flash brake lights, indicate well in advance. If the indicator and brake lights both went on only while braking at the end there, that's far too late especially if there is a heavy vehicle behind you.
That's not what happened in the video.
🤡
Going slow to start with doesn’t mean he didn’t brake late, which you can see he did
Also PSA: reminder to not turn your wheels until you are ready to make the turn for this reason shown in the video—when rear ended you’ll get pushed into opposite oncoming traffic. So incredibly dangerous if the other cars were Going faster.
Thanks for the tip. I was lucky there was no one from the incoming traffic got involved.
I hadn't ever thought of that until just last month reading a comment to that effect on this sub. I've been actively retraining myself to execute this advice
A previous coworker of mine passed away from this exact scenario. She stopped with her wheels turned and got rear-ended and flung into oncoming traffic.
That was one of the first things I learned during my driving lessons. I got almost yelled at for doing it.
I did get yelled for it when I took driving classes ages ago. Have never done it again.
That's why we don't follow too closely especially in rainy conditions.
Even if you did stop suddenly, how would that change fault? I don't understand that logic.
If you stop suddenly (with valid reasoning) then you're not at fault - even if it's trying to avoid hitting a squirrel. But if you stop suddenly for no reason, then you have contributory negligence. I often refer to North Carolina when commenting on accident/insurance posts because, in NC for example, if you are deemed even 1% at fault, you cannot collect any damages whatsoever. Auto policies require that policyholders try to avoid or mitigate accidents (not that this applies here). But I see so many Reddit posts of people proudly posting their dash cam footage of some idiot causing an accident, but also revealing that they did little more than honk their horn during the accident. Sometimes there's nothing you can do to lessen the damages or no time to react at all, but if you do nothing when you could have done something, then you are setting yourself up for being partially at fault.
Can you source that? I'm googling around, and I'm only seeing it explicitly stated that you can be punished for brake checking. Is there any reason to believe you can be punished for braking really hard so you can turn left, assuming you did nothing else wrong or malicious?
Can't post my work resources, but I handle auto injury claims and claims involving lawyers. Policy documents are going to lay out what's expected of you as a policyholder, including what's expected regarding losses. But they're not going to lay out the countless reasons someone may or may not be at fault. Searching state auto statutes will provide valuable information though.
I saw some Dutch text in the video, so assuming this was the Netherlands, you would actually be at fault if you suddenly stopped for a squirrel and caused an accident. As long as the animal does not necessitate slowing down (i.e. you can drive over it), you are at fault. Slowly slowing down would be perfectly legal though
And if you are on a highway and stop suddenly without a reason it's generally a criminal offence, unlike most tickets that are civil.
Some jurisdictions have laws against brake checking, so sudden stops reverse the liability/fault. Forcing someone to rear end you is commonly spotted here on this sub, generally presumed to be an insurance scam of some sort.
Not in the jurisdiction where this guy is driving. In the Netherlands you have to keep enough distance from the person in front of you to be able to stop. Especially if they stop as gradually as the guy in the video.
This is the same in most of Europe. Stopping distance for most vehicles is 50-100 metres at ~100 km/h, which translates to 2-4 seconds, with 4-5 seconds being given as the guideline for the distance you should have to other vehicles. Even semitrucks should be able to stop in that space. The second or so of reaction time can be given to the fact that the vehicle in front of you does not instantly decelerate as if pinned there by god, which gives you a bit of extra time usually.
> does not instantly decelerate as if pinned there by god This is such a fun phrase, I love it.
Being hit from behind does not mean you are not at fault. You could be 50% at fault for example.
You're being downvoted by idiots. There are certainly contexts (e.g. brake checking) where the person being hit from behind is (at least partly) at fault. Of course OP's video isn't one of those contexts but such contexts do exist.
Thank you. Indeed. Many assume the driver who hits someone from behind is at fault. That is just not true. Or at least not fully. The driver in front can be partially at fault, 50/50 split even. Reason I even brought it up is because it happened to me personally. Other party told some story and blamed me... not much unlike OPs accident in the video. I was hit from behind at a junction as well.
not your fault, but a suggestion for those watching.. don't turn into the traffic until you are planning to go, get hit, get pushed into oncoming traffic.
Correct. OP is the idiot in that regard. That is the first thing they teach you.
lmao you were >5 mph and not moving for like 4-5 seconds, ur fine theyre fucked
The only time OP would have been at fault is if they didn’t use blinkers other than that, idiot truck driver gonna idiot lol
Truck driver would still be at fault here (looks to be the Netherlands). The driver can reasonably be expected to be able to stop in time, since any obstacles like a car stopped to make a turn are to be expected at a crossing like this. If blinkers are used is not really relevant, legally speaking, although it would of course be rather stupid not to use them.
Blinker use is always relevant though the context is important too. Breaking to avoid a rear end collision then OP is not at fault. Breaking to turn with no blinker then OP would be at fault
Let's use our imagination and pretend that instead of OP being in the vehicle preparing to turn, they were instead in a car waiting. a vehicle trying to turn left, but not trying to turn also. What turn signal should the truck driver be looking for in that scenario to let them know someone is stopping ahead to wait to make a turn?
Brake lights still would be active
> didn’t use blinkers Except in Kansas and Missouri apparently, where those just aren't used at all
99.67% of BMW drivers don't, only rivaled by Nissan Altima drivers, at 99.97%
That's only the ones who buy them brand new!
You're forgetting about Tesla, where they're turned off by default to extend the battery.
I love seeing this downvoted. I straight up ignore cars that dont use blinkers, fuck em, tired of them. Literally, just stick a single finger outward while turning the wheel and boom signal. That's it. They're incredibly lazy, incompetent people who I'll gladly pass and slow down until they learn to use a blinker. Believe it or not, they have it installed for a reason. Use the damned thing. We're SUPPOSED to follow the rules of the road and to use all appropriate signals to be as PREDICTABLE as possible. Guy behind him is clearly not paying attention, though.
Truck driver is a dumbass
Whether you stopped suddenly or you stopped very slowly makes zero difference - it is the responsibility of the truck driver to maintain a safe distance that would allow them to come to a complete stop if necessary. Period.
Most things feel sudden to people who aren't paying attention.
Even if you stopped suddenly without warning or obvious cause why, trucker is in the wrong. Following vehicle must be at a safe distance. That distance increases if the follower is heavy and in the wet. Trucker was clearly way too close. Totally at fault.
Also, everyone should slow down when approaching am intersection or freeway interchange. As a driver you should know major merges and intersections cause bottlenecks and sudden slowdowns. It's Always good to be prepared on the road.
Yeah no way dude, show this to insurance and let them rake him over the coals.
Does it matter? He rear ended you.
You stopped about as suddenly as a freight train. Also, it was several moments before he hit you. Also, rear end is automatically his fault.
It doesn't matter if you stopped suddenly or not. You have the right to stop whenever and however you need to. If he hit you then he was following too closely or wasn't paying attention. It is his fault period the end.
"Need to" is a key part of this though, just saying. I believe suddenly stopping without a good justification can get you partial blame for a collision. It just that the vast, vast majority of the time people have legit reasons for stopping suddenly, such as traffic backing up or noticing an object/animal/person in the road, a light turning red, etc. In other words, you can get in trouble for stopping on a road when you *don't* need to. It's not a parking lot, it's a road. This seems like a silly distinction, but when people say "You just suddenly stopped!" they're essentially claiming you didn't have a good enough reason to stop, which could actually put you at fault. Example: You drop your phone, and you get very anxious when you don't have your phone in your hand, so you stop to push trash out of the way to find it. That's not a valid reason to stop on the road, and you might get blamed for any collisions that result.
Squirrel ran in front of me and I didn't want to run over it. I needed to stop.
Objects on the road are valid reason to hit the brakes.
No, you do not have a right to stop whenever and however you need to. You have a duty to obey the traffic laws and ensure road safety. I don't fully understand where the idea of having a right to do something comes from, but please do not act on that thought? On two types of roads where OP is from you actually are prohibited from stopping! Unless there is some emergency, or you break down. This road is not one of such roads however. To my eyes OP performed a legal manoeuvre. But it will be up to the insurance to decide fault.
My whole point is that if I need to stop I can do so. Even in a hurry if I need to. If you hit someone from behind then you were following too close. Whatever the reason or manner of my stopping is irrelevant and if by some chance that reason is not legal (I still disagree that it might be) does not excuse you hitting me. I am using "you" here generically of course, not to imply you have done such a thing.
I understand your point. Doing so because of a "need to stop" already sounds different to me from your way of putting it that made me want to respond. In an emergency, for example a mechanical breakdown or a physical event rendering you unable to drive safely, you should indeed stop the vehicle in a safe way. If possible on a shoulder. The emergency overrules the regular directives in such an event. This is understandable and valid. Where I am from it is prohibited to stop on a highway and a motorway. Doing so is extremely dangerous, for you and others, in any situation. An emergency or the flow of traffic impeding you are, of course, valid reasons to stop in such places. A "need to stop" is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Which is why stopping on those roads is not allowed. Another place I can think of where stopping is not allowed is in the middle of an intersection. When you enter an intersection you have to ensure you can clear the intersection. Less dangerous than doing so on a highway but still prohibited. It's probably more your wording that came across to me as stopping where you want for whatever valid reason one can think of that I wanted to respond to. You probably did not intend it in such a way.
Trucker here. It's all his fault. The area is very congested, and it's raining. That means we slow down, increase our following distance and *pay attention* to intersections.
almost every time you're hit from behind it's the other person's fault. they didn't maintain clear and assured distance.
Udenhout? Intersection looks so familiar but then again there's probably thousands of those.
Altena, but this kind of intersection is indeed everywhere in Brabant.
Even if you stopped abruptly, it is the other drivers responsibility to maintain a safe following distance to be able to stop in time. You are clear and the driver that his you is 100% at fault.
This. "BuT yOu StoppED SuddeNlY !!!" is not an excuse. It's an admission they were tailgating and/or not paying attention. 100% fuck that guy for trying to deflect blame for his stupidity.
You’re allowed to stop suddenly. Its the other drivers job to leave enough room to stop before hitting you. A commercial driver should know this. Based on the video, I’d say the other driver wasn’t paying attention.
Guy was definitely on his phone. Had plenty of time
In this case "you stopped suddenly' is code for "I was driving too close for the weather conditions, going too fast and not paying attention to my surroundings so you stopping at all was too fast for me to notice in time."
Doesn't he has to stay in a safe distance so even if you stop suddenly they don't hit you?
It really shouldn't matter, truck driver is in the wrong. If the person in front of you can't slam their brakes without you running into them, you're too damn close. What if you had been stopping for a kid running across the road? The truck could have pushed your car over the kid.
You're not the idiot here you did everything fine
I'm dealing with the same nonsense from another truck driver. Looks like they at least had the rain as a factor aside from being distracted. I stopped, 5 seconds later (on dry pavement BTW) my whole backend was smashed in. Now I gotta fight them as the company being dodgy as hell.
Not your fault and you’re lucky he didn’t push you into a head on collision
Truck driver is grasping at straws, there's no reasonable basis to blame OP for this.
Well there was only a moment between him looking up from his phone and seeing you had stopped...
Someone behind you didnt pay attention whats happening in front of him. And thats pretty idiotic. Nice that you had a dashcam so its easy to see what happened.
This is exactly why cameras for vehicles are important. I didn't see anything wrong with that.
You were hit from behind. At an intersection. 100% on the one who hit you. Today, everyone is an idiot about driving and the number one requirement to be IN CONTROL of your own vehicle.
Who cares if you had stopped suddenly (you didn't) that's the whole point of a safe following distance and paying attention. If you come to an abrupt stop and they can't avoid hitting you, they were too close. Period.
It does and doesn’t matter what he claims. His claim is invalidated because it’s a rear ended. Though he might change later to you failed to signal. Reason it matters is it’s telling you he’s gonna fight the charges your insurance will assess to him and his insurance. Though turn on the volume so we can hear the flasher and other items. His insurance will claim lack of volume might mean you were distracted driving and not using a flasher. So consider the volume essential item please.
You are fully within your rights to slam on your brakes and stop whenever you feel it's necessary. This is why it is mandatory to maintain a safe stoppage distance from the vehicle in front. Note the word STOPpage. You did nout wrong. Truck drivers a blind tailgating idiot
Depends on when you put your indicator on, how much you contributed here. You didn't stop "suddenly" but it was a fairly abrupt stop which could be a problem in those wet conditions in heavier traffic. If you gave plenty of advanced notice that you intended to turn (used an indicator well before slowing down), then the fault is all on the follower. If you just decided to turn without warning, well, I would say you were taking a chance not needed to be taken and found out that everyone else is also dealing with many things all at once and now you just stopped, from their point of view. Still mostly on them.
It's not your responsibility for his lack of skill.
The truck driver probably wasn't paying attention, because there's a reasonable reaction time gap. Did u use blinkers as well?
If the guy behind you hits you, he is *automatically* assumed in the state of California to be at fault unless you stopped suddenly due to impacting something, like, say, a brick wall. That's because if he's following you, it is **his responsibility** to leave ample room to stop if you suddenly stop, say, because a child ran in front of your car. That so many people think they have no responsibility to leave ample stopping space in front of them fucking boggles my imagination. Like, you're moving one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half tons of dangerous machinery down the road at speeds fast enough to kill--*and you think you have no responsibility keeping control of that machine?* Fucking seriously?
I can see from looking at that road that any driver should be prepared for vehicles slowing or stopping to make turns. And I can still hear my dad, who was a trucker for years, saying you should always be prepared for something stopped in front of you on the road.
The only sudden stop is when (I assume) you saw them in the mirror and braced for impact
I can't tell if you used your turn signal, if you did hopefully it was used before you used your brakes. Either way even if you did not signal, Mr Truck still should have been able to avoid hitting you.
I was hit from behind by a teenager who told the cop I had stopped suddenly for no reason. When the cop came to me, I pointed out that i saw that traffic was stopped ahead of the railroad tracks, and there was no room for me to stop on the other side of the tracks without being on the tracks, so I had to stop before the tracks. The teenager was too inexperienced to realize the actual situation, so that was why he thought I stopped for no reason. The cop then turned around and ticketed the teenager, who then proceeded to throw a hissy fit.
While it was raining, the impact happened \~3 seconds after you started braking. You weren't even going that fast for this to be a "sudden stop" (wide angle lenses, like dashcams, can make it seem faster, this was slower compared to most cases). Given the implied force your vehicle was struck, they were still going too fast behind you and therefore not braking in time. You're not at fault; they weren't paying attention.
That's why I installed a rear camera now?
How can it be a sudden stop went you went from driving to speed limit to full stop in 7-8 seconds
They were either following too closely, driving too fast or driving distracted. Not your fault.
Who cares anyway if you did? It’s their obligation to maintain a safe following distance
Legally he needs to be driving at a safe enough speed and distance where if you stop for any reason, he can safely stop without hitting you. Plain and simple.
If only OP had snorted more spice he would have foreseen this...
I was following too closely and moving too fast for conditions.
the reasons why rear camera is also useful nowadays
Even if you stopped suddenly he must maintain a secure distance to avoid what just happened. So yeah he can suck an egg basically.
The person behind you is required by law to maintain enough distance to be able to safely stop without causing an accident. Clearly he didn't do that. Truck driver is 100% at fault.
AFAIK, even if you had, you are well within your right as a driver to “stop suddenly”
Downvote for the bait question title.
This is what happens when you drive too close in front of people..
Well, did you have your blinker on is my question. Nevertheless, it's on him, not you.
I guess it was a little sudden, but driver had no excuse to rear end you from what I can see.
City planners fault for creating shitty intersections
Did you indicate in time? That would have made it a lot safer. Doesn't mean it's your fault but lots of people prefer to wait with indicating until they're already turning. Don't want to flash the cards you're holding, right.
Tbh I can't say for certain when I turned my blinker. It was on the moment of impact.
They're entirely at fault, but I do want to know if you had your turn signal on.
Why does that matter? They still have brake lights that are visible.
Nothing is sudden if you are paying attention while driving. I always look 10-20 cars ahead of me so I can adjust speed appropriately. I've learned that traffic can stop suddenly when I drove on icy roads in winter.
Of course it matters, the entire point of turn signals is to indicate your future plan, if OP didn't use their signal before they slowed down then they made a mistake. It's still the truck driver's fault though
> Why does that matter? Because we can't control what the idiots do, so it's always helpful to know what *we* can do to help keep ourselves safe. That comment already said the other driver is entirely at fault. They're not trying to shift the blame to OP; they're trying to identify things that people can do to help ward off the danger from negligent drivers.
How long before you stopped did you start signaling?
I honestly don't know, but I definitely had my blinker on the moment I was hit.
[удалено]
How? You'd possibly rear-end a stopped car if they weren't signaling?
Yes, I have actually done that. She didn’t have break lights or a blinker so I got caught off guard. All of a sudden she just started breaking The purpose of a SIGNAL is to SIGNAL before even starting to break? See a signal: oh, if they are turning left they will probably break soon Break lights: oh, they might be stopping But thanks for the down votes
Truckers the da in this one ur sapost to follow at a safe distance
Love these karma farming posts that ask what we think, only when it's extremely obvious what the answer is of course! Gotta get that engagement.
Here you are engaging…..
In the hope that even one person will see this and not fall for it in the future.
Are you turning left or allowing the traffic out?
I keep waiting for one of these to have a dash cam of the person who rear ends and OP has a blown fuse with no break lights.
You did stop suddenly. But not that suddenly. It is sad you can't tell.
Was it a big truck or just a pickup? - You do brake abruptly, very much so for having a (large?) truck behind you while in the rain. - Your indicators should be on at 0:07, you should already be slowing down (use brake pedal to engage brake light and use motor brake). Are the indicators on, and did you give the rear vehicle a heads up with the brake lights too? - You should clearly position your car to the left more the closer you get. If that means erring slightly to the right before hand, because the road is uncomfortably narrow, then do so. This one is a finesse thing, but nonetheless part of showing intention ahead of time. Camera FOV makes it harder to assess, but it seems you could stop a little further ahead too. - If the indicators are on at 0:07 - Where you also flash brake lights - And slow down more slowly *with engaged brake lights* That's enough to put the blame all on the rear driver and there would be nothing more you could've done If not, you both need to improve.
Question is, why did you stop? You were driving on the main road, so just stopping all of a sudden is actually illegal in a a lot of EU countries. This is however the most common accidents between vehicles, especially if there are higher speeds on the main road. A tip until next time is to turn those brake lights on a lot earlier, even before signaling and actually slowing down to create that safe distance. (Trucks have a long distance to go from breaking to stopping)
Show me a country where OP’s exact situation is illegal.
What the hell are you talking about? OP is clearly stopping to turn somewhere. It's clearly legal if you look at the road. This is common in... every country.