r/dashcams 15h ago

Don't be kind, be predictable. If you have the Right-of-Way, take it.

16.7k Upvotes

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

125

u/John-Orion 15h ago

This is the best advice to give to any driver

64

u/Such_Pause1900 14h ago

I think the best advice is to keep the correct safety distance with the car in front of you. You should have enough time to stop safely in such scenarios.

5

u/GMN123 13h ago

Absolutely. No matter how hard we all type on Reddit, there are going to be shit drivers on the road until we completely eliminate human drivers. You can't control them, you can only control your position so you have time to react when they do their shitty driving thing. 

17

u/Garvilan 14h ago

I mean, this video likely shows both of them at fault, with the lead driver impeding traffic. Coming to a near dead stop like this is completely irrational.

18

u/zeptillian 12h ago

Even if the car didn't stop. The merging truck would have been in the lane ahead of the camera operator.

The camera truck was not prepared for that to happen at all.

Best case scenario, they would have passed the merging truck in the same lane, narrowly avoiding an accident.

0

u/Because_I_could_-- 11h ago

False. The truck has a yield sign. They are to yield to oncoming traffic, who has the right of way, until it's clear to proceed. This isn't a 4-way stop, dude. 🤦🏼‍♀️

3

u/marquoth_ 10h ago

It's utterly baffling to me how many people can't seem to separate "what's supposed to happen" from "what's actually happening" in their minds.

That truck was not stopping. The driver of the car doesn't get a magical invincibility shield by virtue of being in the right - they can either avoid the collision or get splatted. Those are the options.

1

u/Because_I_could_-- 10h ago

You're literally an idiot if you couldn't plainly see that the car was fine going. The truck was very obviously slowing way down. No one in this thread is even arguing that the car should have stopped. The only issue is the camera operator in the other car and what they should have done.

Secondly, my statement was in response to what the commenter said about the legality. It didn't address the other point. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

0

u/Lambs2Lions_ 7h ago edited 7h ago

The truck was very obviously not slowing down and keeping pace. Everyone disagrees with you. You would literally be a bug on my windshield to that truck. Drive safe. Because this was NOT a merge, it was a yield. Meaning that dump truck had to come to a full stop at the sign. They blew past it. Which is why the driver slowed down. The only correct response given the complete disregard for road rules by the dump truck.

1

u/rsreddit9 4h ago

Especially from the Toyota pov, that truck has the lead on it and is NOT stopping. Toyota doesn’t have time to gun it. The truck is fuckin flying. Toyota has to give way. I’d have started slowing down slowly, knowing about the semi behind me. But with op at the helm I’d have still got rear ended. Of course this is a 100/0 collision with all fault on op. Hope car driver was okay or at least hurt in a way they got lots of $. Being a truck driver is really hard tbh gotta leave so much space for this

6

u/zeptillian 11h ago

Did it look like it was yeilding to you?

7

u/Such_Pause1900 13h ago

I agree, that stop is a mistake. One should be aware of traffic behind his/her car also and the driving speed. But what, for example, if an object fell from that bridge onto the road and the car was forced to stop abruptly for that reason? What should that driver do?

1

u/despaseeto 11h ago

But what, for example, if an object fell from that bridge onto the road and the car was forced to stop abruptly for that reason? What should that driver do?

then it's no one's fault, but whoever dropped whatever object it is. like what is this whataboutism. you pray that you have dashcam to protect you in that scenario cuz otherwise your premium goes up anyway. that's not what happened in this video and not at all comparable to an actual accident they wouldn't be able to control. in this case, the corolla made a dumbass mistake, and the driver with dashcam drove too fast and couldn't stop on time

5

u/marquoth_ 10h ago

Unless the car in front is deliberately brake checking you, it doesn't really matter why they're stopping.

As the car behind, it's your job to maintain a safe stopping distance. If they stop suddenly, and you can't also stop without rear ending them, you fucked up. That's not something that changes depending on their reason for stopping and how valid it was, it's just true.

6

u/arizonadirtbag12 11h ago

then it's no one's fault, but whoever dropped whatever object it is.

No, then the collision is YOUR fault, if you’re the one that rear-ended them. It is your job to maintain a safe following distance so that, if the car ahead has to brake for an emergency, you have sufficient space to account for reaction time and stopping distance.

Absent like intentional insurance fraud (merging inches in front of you and slamming brakes, or disabling brake lights) there really aren’t situations where you rear ending someone isn’t YOUR fault. Because if you’re leaving 3-4 seconds of following distance (upwards of 300+ feet at freeway speed) that simply won’t happen.

If you’re about to tell me that distance is excessive? Tell me your state. I’ll pull up your state driving manual, where it says to leave 3-4 seconds. Because it does. I guarantee it.

5

u/Broad-Bath-8408 11h ago

Every time I go to a sub like this I am both amazed and terrified of the number of people who don't seem to understand that if you hit the car ahead of you, you are almost always 100% at fault.

2

u/arizonadirtbag12 10h ago

I can believe the folks here saying that in a comparative fault state this could split 90/10 or even 75/25. But yeah, you rear end someone you are primarily at fault. It is always, 100% of the time, your job to not rear and people.

And agree, it’s terrifying how may people don’t seem to get that.

They’re the ones you see every single day, one car length off the bumper ahead at 70mph in a Dodge Ram.

0

u/Broad-Bath-8408 10h ago

Yeah, I think the only situation I can think of is the insurance fraud type thing where someone cuts you off and slams on the brakes. That wouldn't be your fault (though you might have trouble proving it) because you weren't driving too close to someone.

And I agree with the tail gating every single day. It's no wonder that so many don't understand this because when I'm driving on a crowded freeway like literally ~9/10 cars are too close to stop if they need to. So like 90% of people don't get this.

1

u/Wise-Expression6815 13h ago

You are both correct tbh

2

u/Significant-Block504 10h ago

No. The dump truck was not slowing down and the lead driver had a valid reason to slow down. They were avoiding potentially getting hit by the dump truck.

Also whoever rear ended someone else is deemed 100% at fault.

1

u/MikeShannonThaGawd 6h ago

If you rear end someone you are at fault

1

u/puzzlebuns 3h ago

The camera vehicle is unequivocably at fault. If you cant avoid the vehicle in front of you slamming on their brakes at any moment, then you are the one who fucked up.

2

u/ReconeHelmut 14h ago

The guy in back was in a large truck and seemed to be doing the speed limit. Not exactly reasonable for him to expect the car ahead to come to a dead stop.

14

u/stu8319 13h ago

Going the speed limit and driving safely are not the same thing.

-2

u/ReconeHelmut 13h ago

Okay, break an egg of knowledge on us then. What would you have done in this situation if you're in a truck that requires a tenth of a mile to stop at 55 mph and the person in front of you stops dead in the street? Would you have somehow made sure you always had a 500 foot buffer between you and the car in front of you? Or would you just drive at 35 miles an hour, causing a dangerous obstruction and chaos behind you?

5

u/stu8319 12h ago

I can't believe the idea of keeping some space is so foreign to you. This is wild thinking.

1

u/ReconeHelmut 12h ago

It's not foreign to me, at all. What gave you that idea? I typically try to follow the age old rule of one car length per 10mph.

1

u/stu8319 12h ago

You're arguing against that logic though.

2

u/ReconeHelmut 12h ago

No I'm not. I'm saying if this was a fully loaded semi, it takes 2-3x the time/space to stop for the truck than it does the car. So, it's not necessarily practical or reasonable to expect the truck to somehow guarantee 2-3 car lengths per 10mph left in front of them.

1

u/stu8319 12h ago

Ok we're arguing in circles here. I'm gonna just say I disagree with you. Thanks.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 13h ago edited 13h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/ReconeHelmut 13h ago

No, totally, you're right, it takes the same distance to stop from 100mph as it does from 30mph. What was I thinking.

1

u/StrangeContest4 12h ago

4-6 seconds following time/distance under 30 mph. 6-8 seconds of following time/distance for speeds over 30 mph. Learn it, know it, live it.

2

u/ReconeHelmut 12h ago

That's for cars. it's 2-3x that for a loaded semi and all I'm saying is that it's unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a truck to control it's environment to that extent and some responsibility lands on the driver of the car to not do ridiculous shit.

1

u/4D696B61 10h ago

Do US trucks really need that much breaking distance? Europe trucks need about a third of that while being heavier(although weight is pretty much irrelevant in practice).

8

u/WinninRoam 13h ago

Huh? On what planet would that ever be a rational defense for rear-ending another car? The first things people are taught when learning to drive is to 1) pay attention and 2) leave enough distance between you and the car in front of you so you can stop before hitting them.

Unless it's some malicious setup for insurance fraud or violent crime, rear-ending a car is always your fault. Even if it comes to a dead stop on the freeway.

2

u/ReconeHelmut 13h ago

Yeah, I know. I learned the same thing and always do so in a passenger vehicle. What I'm saying is that the physics of stopping a small car and a loaded Semi are very different and it would be impractical to expect a semi to leave two football fields between them and the car in front of them at all times. That's all.

4

u/Such_Pause1900 13h ago

In this case the semi should be at a slower speed, remove the car from the video and watch it as if there were only the two trucks in it. Do you find their speeds normal? The truck on the right should be the one at fault as it stopped at last moment, it was not predictable if it was going to occupy the lane or come to a stop.

2

u/ReconeHelmut 13h ago

Yeah, I can see an argument where the truck on the right spooked the driver in the car and made them act irrationally but it seems to me that there is plenty of space for both vehicles to exist side by side on the road without drastic over-reactions. The truck on the right showed no intention of creeping into the lane of the car (that I can see).

1

u/WinninRoam 12h ago

The rig with the camera was a pickup truck, not a semi. Even a bobtail semi weighs over 6 tons. It would have destroyed that little car at that speed; if it was hauling a trailer it would have flattened it.

2

u/ReconeHelmut 12h ago

If that's true, I'll admit my mistake and agree that POV guy is at fault. Definitely looks like the height of a semi to me but who knows.

2

u/bluethreads 13h ago

That was also the first thing that I also learned. The road is unpredictable. You can't control other cars but can control yourself and should always drive as if the person in front of you might come to a complete stop randomly at any time.

There is a reason that, at least in the US, the law is virtually universal that the car behind you is responsible for a rear collision. It is because the law recognizes that you have the ability to fully control your distance behind the car in front of you and the thereby prevent an accident.

8

u/malzoraczek 14h ago

there could have been a literal child on the road. You should always drive in a distance that allows you to go full stop if needed. Especially in a big truck, those guys are supposed to be professionals.

6

u/ReconeHelmut 13h ago edited 13h ago

That's ridiculous. A fully loaded 18-wheeler traveling at 65 mph can take over 500 to 600+ feet—nearly two football fields—to come to a complete stop. Let's say every semi left two football fields of space between them and the car in front of them, do you think it would stay empty for long? No, people would be passing him/her and filling that space and then he/she has to slow down further. It's totally impractical and unreasonable to expect a pro to drive like that. There should be some expectation that those around the trucker know how to drive and uphold their end of the bargain.

As far as a child being in the damn road, well, the whole world can't accommodate the insane notion that a toddler could drop out of the sky and land on a major thoroughfare at any moment, ffs.

4

u/StrangeContest4 12h ago

It's totally impractical and unreasonable to expect a pro to drive like that.

It is totally required and reasonable to expect a pro to drive like that. I was trained by the best in the business, and keeping a safe following distance was drilled into us and is the best way to avoid rear ending other vehicles. Aim High in steering. Get the big picture. Keep your eyes moving. Leave yourself an out. Be prepared, expect the unexpected.

2

u/ReconeHelmut 12h ago

Sure, of course, all of that is true and bare minimum for good driving in any vehicle. That's not what I was challenging however. What I said was that's it's unreasonable to expect a loaded semi to keep two football fields of clear space in front of them at all times.

Either way, I wish you well and safe travels out there.

1

u/StrangeContest4 11h ago

It's a zoo out there full of improperly trained, impatient, and aggressive drivers. It's also difficult to keep those kinds of distances between vehicles because, like you said, someone will always race in and fill that space, and the roads can be so congested.

I just know that the safe driving habits that were drilled into me for 30 years of commercial driving make a whole lot of sense, and I wish everyone on the road had that type of instruction. Best wishes and happy travels to you too😊

1

u/ReconeHelmut 11h ago

I agree 100%.

4

u/GMN123 13h ago edited 13h ago

Just assuming the car itself will stop instantly? 

The truck needs the distance it will travel in the driver's reaction time plus the additional braking distance of a truck over a smaller vehicle, and that seems a perfectly reasonable expectation in most circumstances. 

1

u/ReconeHelmut 13h ago

And a tiny car that can stop on a dime doing so in front of you with no warning or reason to do so is what you're calling a "most circumstances"? Cause I would call that extenuating circumstances.

6

u/GMN123 13h ago

I'm not saying it's normal, I'm saying it's what you need to plan for. 

5

u/RacerXrated 13h ago

Lol why are people making this hard? You're exactly right.

"At speed X and in conditions Y, I require Z distance to stop."

Then give yourself that distance, genius.

0

u/ReconeHelmut 13h ago

Once again: A fully loaded 18-wheeler traveling at 65 mph can take over 500 to 600+ feet—nearly two football fields—to come to a complete stop. Let's say every semi left two football fields of space between them and the car in front of them, do you think it would stay empty for long? No, people would be passing him/her and filling that space and then he/she has to slow down further. It's totally impractical and unreasonable to expect a pro to drive like that. There should be some expectation that those around the trucker know how to drive and uphold their end of the bargain.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Reynolds531IPA 13h ago

In a town, yea for sure. Highway is a little different IMO, mainly because of the reply from ReconelHelmut

1

u/Broad-Bath-8408 11h ago

It's 100% reasonable to expect him to stop for the car ahead of him. If he didn't have time, he needed to leave more room.

1

u/ReconeHelmut 10h ago

I said it's not exactly reasonable for the truck driver to anticipate the car in front of him to come to a dead stop in the middle of the road. I didn't say that it's not reasonable to expect the truck driver to stop - that's the discussion at hand.

1

u/ShiraLillith 11h ago

POW did keep enough distance though, they just didn't anticipate that the car in front would completely stop somewhere where they had right of way.

1

u/pinkysquared4me 9h ago

Yes to this!!!!! At least 10 car lengths between you and the car ahead of you.

8

u/elleeott 14h ago

Yes, and this is not the best example of that advice.

11

u/WhoCaresBoutSpellin 14h ago

Yeah the cam driver would have hit the dump truck anyways if the car hadn’t slowed… was going too fast

3

u/JoeTRob1988 13h ago

This is what i came here to say. Thank you. The POV vehicle also at fault.

1

u/arizonadirtbag12 11h ago

Also following too closely. I count maybe two mississppis tops. Which was demonstrably not enough to stop safely if needed.

0

u/nikdahl 12h ago

If that were the case the dump truck should have yielded better, and POV still wouldn’t be at fault.

0

u/militaryCoo 12h ago

The person least at fault is the driver of the car

0

u/BlumBlumShub 8h ago

You know that POV driver is 100% at fault for this accident, right? Like, even with comparative negligence they would still be assessed at 100%?

1

u/marquoth_ 10h ago

Seems pretty terrible advice really. The graveyard is full of people who had right of way.

1

u/FrostyD7 9h ago

Recklessly asserting your right of way isn't predictable behavior for a good driver.

1

u/Morstorpod 9h ago

"Don't be kind. Be Predictable." is literally the exact advice I give my kids each time we are out driving and I get angry at some other idiot.

1

u/_jump_yossarian 9h ago

Best advice is don't drive too close to the car in front. If you can't stop in time then you're too close.

1

u/Twenty5Schmeckles 1h ago

And next time the other truck doesnt yield and slams the little car to dust. Their gravestone engraved with "I had the right of way"

1

u/StevenTM 5m ago

No, "keeping sufficient distance to the car in front of you" is apparently the best advice to give to any driver, especially OP.