Papa's Kia Stinger CRASH

[SKStinger]

Crazy thing with that video is the suv driver was either going to be Tboned by the car beside Papa or hit head on by Papa. Maybe next time he will stop at the red arrow?

 

[P22Tyler]

Crazy thing with that video is the suv driver was either going to be Tboned by the car beside Papa or hit head on by Papa. Maybe next time he will stop at the red arrow?

Probably not, sadly. The type of people that would actually try to blame the other person for something like that, typically don't learn.

 

[NS_Stinger]

In the US where they don’t have no fault insurance it’s super useful. Here both drivers are covered for damage and medical regardless of fault. It might save you the deductible or from getting sued but that’s about it.

I guess I just don't get your logic, personally for me not being sued would be nice. I also prefer if my insurance company is aware that an accident wasn't my fault so my premiums aren't affected in anyway. To me either of those things easily covers the cost of a dashcam in my books.

 

[SKStinger]

I guess I just don't get your logic, personally for me not being sued would be nice. I also prefer if my insurance company is aware that an accident wasn't my fault so my premiums aren't affected in anyway. To me either of those things easily covers the cost of a dashcam in my books.

Go for it. They have come down in price and are pretty neat. I’ll stick with my radar detector as those incidents are way more common here!

 

[falanger]

Along with greed, racism, lack of common sense, stupidity, and selfish entitlement, lying about fault after an accident is an american epidemic. I watch a lot of wreck compilations on youtube and I have yet to see one that didn't contain at least one clip where an at-fault driver lied and blamed the innocent driver, much like the douchenozzle that collided with Papa.

I'll never understand it. It's like, grow some balls, a backbone, a conscience, whatever it takes to accept some damn responsibility for your actions.

Anyway, if anyone is looking for a cam now, I highly recommend the Kenwood DRV. It's wide screen, good clarity, and you can view your clips on your phone via the app.

 

[turboAWD]

for anyone who sees this and realizes how important a dashcam is, the one I have is on amazon for $45, and it works great. No need for a super expensive one. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07DLG9GFG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Is that one front-only? I've always thought if I do get one, get one that does front and back? Or is front-only good enough for 95%+ of the situations?

 

[eflyguy]

It's possible the oncoming driver did not have a red light/arrow.

At least here in GA, and many other states I've driven in, many left turn lanes allow turns after opposing thru lanes go green. The light changes from green arrow (right of way) to flashing amber (yield right of way.)

They are obviously still in the wrong - you treat it like any other left turn, yielding to oncoming traffic.

 

[87and66]

Is that one front-only? I've always thought if I do get one, get one that does front and back? Or is front-only good enough for 95%+ of the situations?

Yeah it’s 1 direction. You could buy another and have it face the rear. In my state, if you rear end someone, you’re automatically at fault, so there’s less need for rear facing for me.

 

[mtuckeruk]

Would have been nice for the driver in the adjacent lane to stop and act as a witness!

 

[ecko04]

Would have been nice for the driver in the adjacent lane to stop and act as a witness!

+1 for dashcams

 

[falanger]

Would have been nice for the driver in the adjacent lane to stop and act as a witness!

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a dashcam and excitedly exclaimed "oh I caught that wreck on camera!" as they hurry home to post it to YouTube instead of stopping to see if help is needed.

 

[westcoastGT]

 

[STNGRGT-Ontario]

This is a video uploaded on youtube by Vivid Visual on 22 JULY 2020.

I'm glad Papa is okay!! God bless brother!

 

[BCeagle08]

The comments section is instructive: how anyone could look at that dashcam footage even once and come away asserting, "The Papa could have prevented that accident by not accelerating into it", is mind boggling. Clearly, the light went green, he paused long enough to see the intersection had cleared in front, then accelerated in perfect safety: until an ultra maroon literally steered directly in front of him, and TURNED INTO him. No time to register anything but WTF??!! and maybe lift the gas foot, that's it; nowhere to dodge and no time anyway. A complete, perfect FUBAR.

It's true though that he could have prevented the accident if he was a defensive driver and did not accelerate that quickly. I am an attorney that litigates motor vehicle accidents. Of course the driver that failed to yield has the majority of the blame, but it would not be uncommon to see a percentage of the blame attributed to Papa Fell, somewhere between 10 and 40% would be possibilities in my opinion.

I'll use New York as an example. The oncoming SUV failed to yield to a car with the right of way, but Papa Fell failed to observe that the intersection was unsafe and arguably recklessly accelerated. Here is a case that summarizes the law on this situation:

"It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield. See VTL 1142(a). Nevertheless, a driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection... but, rather, is bound to use such care to avoid a collision as an ordinarily prudent motorist would have used under the circumstances... [a motorist has a duty] to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident." Brooks v. Davis, 2020 WL 4033795.

In this instance Papa Fell immediately accelerates at a very high rate of speed once his light turns green. He does so from a roll. He does so while there is an oncoming car moving through the intersection ahead of him. The oncoming car obscures the view of the car that eventually hits Papa Fell. Papa Fell surprised the oncoming car who thought they had a clear intersection, or thought that Papa Fell would not move through the intersection so quickly. Papa Fell can see that the oncoming SUV is attempting to go through the intersection and continues to accelerate. A defensive driver would have stopped accelerating and at least put their foot over the brake. Papa Fell does not stop accelerating until the car is already fully in his lane.

Now of course the majority of the blame goes to the oncoming SUV's fault for not yielding, but Papa Fell is not 100% innocent in my opinion. Again, 10-40% liability is a possibility in my opinion.

Two final thoughts:

1) Being technically right is nice, but it doesn't bring your car back from the dead. Defensive driving from either of the motorists could have prevented this accident.

2) I'm saying this not to you in particular, but to other people who are misrepresenting what no fault insurance is. No-fault insurance only extends to medical care. No-fault does not mean that each motorist pays for their own collision and property damage. If you are 100% innocent in an accident, the other motorist's insurance should pay the damages. Sometimes they refuse and your own insurance covers your own damage, but your insurance company should then try to subrogate the damage (and your deductible) from the at fault insurance carrier. In that instance the insurance companies will arbitrate or agree upon a settlement on the proportion of the liability.

 

[jazzdabb]

Being technically right is nice, but it doesn't bring your car back from the dead.

^^^^^ THIS.

 

[MerlintheMad]

"It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield."

In this instance Papa Fell immediately accelerates at a very high rate of speed once his light turns green. He does so from a roll. He does so while there is an oncoming car moving through the intersection ahead of him.

Papa and the guy who ended up hitting him saw each other just fine. The other guy started into an illegal left turn to dash through ahead of Papa (the light was RED), then he saw the other car coming up on Papa's right and abandoned the turn. If Papa was dead stopped in the middle of the intersection he would probably have still been hit, just not nearly as hard. Did Papa do anything wrong? His acceleration was entitled by anticipation that the other guy would not break the law; Papa's position was completely justified and legal. We should be entitled to accelerate briskly. In this case it only made the impact harder, it did not cause it. The other guy broke the law and the fault lies entirely with him. Any argument to assign a subjective percentage of the blame to Papa is just gaming the system and shows what's wrong with America.

 

[Ozstung]

It's true though that he could have prevented the accident if he was a defensive driver and did not accelerate that quickly. I am an attorney that litigates motor vehicle accidents. Of course the driver that failed to yield has the majority of the blame, but it would not be uncommon to see a percentage of the blame attributed to Papa Fell, somewhere between 10 and 40% would be possibilities in my opinion.

I'll use New York as an example. The oncoming SUV failed to yield to a car with the right of way, but Papa Fell failed to observe that the intersection was unsafe and arguably recklessly accelerated. Here is a case that summarizes the law on this situation:

"It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield. See VTL 1142(a). Nevertheless, a driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection... but, rather, is bound to use such care to avoid a collision as an ordinarily prudent motorist would have used under the circumstances... [a motorist has a duty] to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident." Brooks v. Davis, 2020 WL 4033795.

In this instance Papa Fell immediately accelerates at a very high rate of speed once his light turns green. He does so from a roll. He does so while there is an oncoming car moving through the intersection ahead of him. The oncoming car obscures the view of the car that eventually hits Papa Fell. Papa Fell surprised the oncoming car who thought they had a clear intersection, or thought that Papa Fell would not move through the intersection so quickly. Papa Fell can see that the oncoming SUV is attempting to go through the intersection and continues to accelerate. A defensive driver would have stopped accelerating and at least put their foot over the brake. Papa Fell does not stop accelerating until the car is already fully in his lane.

Now of course the majority of the blame goes to the oncoming SUV's fault for not yielding, but Papa Fell is not 100% innocent in my opinion. Again, 10-40% liability is a possibility in my opinion.

Two final thoughts:

1) Being technically right is nice, but it doesn't bring your car back from the dead. Defensive driving from either of the motorists could have prevented this accident.

2) I'm saying this not to you in particular, but to other people who are misrepresenting what no fault insurance is. No-fault insurance only extends to medical care. No-fault does not mean that each motorist pays for their own collision and property damage. If you are 100% innocent in an accident, the other motorist's insurance should pay the damages. Sometimes they refuse and your own insurance covers your own damage, but your insurance company should then try to subrogate the damage (and your deductible) from the at fault insurance carrier. In that instance the insurance companies will arbitrate or agree upon a settlement on the proportion of the liability.

Im sure that wouldn't hold any water down here. Im pretty sure there is no grey area. The perpetrator should have given way full stop. There is either a give way rule or not. Can't see any % blame on Papa, is there really a rule about accelerating when you're driving on a straight road when you have right of way?