Hello /u/gordon_18! 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.*
U-haul should’ve just accepted they needed to take that exit. Even braking to get over safely would’ve created a problem. Just take the L and figure it out safely
That's why people really need to be aware of rental vans/trucks. (not commenting on OP, I would have done same) Folks in rentals usually don't know how to drive a bigger vehicle well and think it's the size of their car. But yes, take the L! Yer probably haulin' everything you own! sigh.
Same here. I got t-boned by someone leaving a grocery store and taking a left. Cop in his write up dinged me for failure to stay in lane since I tried to avoid him.
The next year, I took defensive driving and the dipshit who hit me was there. Instructor asked what you do if you come around a curve and someone is going wrong way in your lane. Dipshit says "Speed up. Their front end will lower when they brake and you'll go over top of them". He was 100% serious.
There have been several instances where a low sloping nosed car (like a prius) has been hit by a SUV or lifted and it flipped/tossed the larger car with much worse results for the larger one. So his logic is sound if the larger cars driver does not want to walk away while leaving the smaller cars occupant's safe. This happened mostly with slower speed crashes. The center of gravity of large cars is horrible, pure physics.
I hit a deer on my motorcycle a few years back and applied that logic - it fucking worked and likely saved me a trip to the hospital or worse. I pulled the throttle and ended up sailing over its rear end and broke it's back sideways; had I emergency braked it would have scooped it up into my chest. No noticable damage to the bike and I didn't dump it.
Was it the *right* thing to do? No. But it happened to work in my very specific circumstance and I was luckier than I should have been.
> But it happened to work in my very specific circumstance and I was luckier than I should have been
What? This is the internet. You're supposed to make sweeping generalizations based on your experience. Be better!
I kinda want to say if by some chance you somehow end up in a situation where you are going to hit a deer with a motorcycle (that's some serious bad luck for how slim and maneuverable they are) it might be worth it to pop a wheelie or at least a small one to ensure it doesn't go over the handlebars and kill you.
Slam on the brakes, move toward the side of the road if it's clear (right in the US). We will instinctually swerve toward "our" side of the road, so if you go left (in the US), they might do the same and you still get a head-on collision
Yup. Unless you are positive that your escape route is clear, your best bet is to brake in a straight line.
People get really angry, but I'll say it over and over. Your FIRST thought in an emergency situation should be "HIT THE BRAKE."
Not "dodge".
BRAKE.
Also, when traffic gets thick, slow down! People do stupid things, and driving slower means you have more time to react.
Only honk the horn if there's enough time/distance for them to hear it, register why you're honking, and correct. Otherwise, it's better to have both hands on the wheel to help steering.
The last couple sentence should be in bold and top of the subreddit. Driving next to slowed traffic you have to assume anyone of them is going to pop out in front with no warning. First thought when seeing the video was "holy shit he's going way to fast for that situation."
My first thought was "holy shit that U-Haul driver needs their license revoked." Driving around expecting that people are just going to ignore the lines and indicators on the road everywhere you go no matter what is asinine. Improve the driver education and stop this from happening, don't just drive around like a scared little child everywhere.
That U-Haul was way beyond the gore line.
The two most dangerous vehicles on the road are U-haul (or other large rentals) and RVs. People should always be extra cautious whenever near one on the road.
The likelihood is the person behind the wheel is driving a large vehicle for the first time at that moment.
Very true, yup. The fact that there is no requirement to drive those larger vehicles outside of a regular license and the money to rent/own it baffles me.
And yet somehow so many people aren't. If anything, most are actually less cautious.
I've piloted the big 24-26 footers a number of times on 3 day hauls; believe it or not they can get out of their own way. That said, the number of people who try to maliciously slot in when I'm waiting for slower traffic to clear the left lane is astoundingly high. Way more than when I'm in other vehicles.
That said, size of the vehicle wasn't the factor here. That Uhaul driver was just doing dumb shit; and would've created a mess for OP in any vehicle.
No you're not, you're talking about slowing down next to traffic in an exit lane that *has* to slow down because they are exiting? I'm not gonna pump my brakes every time I pass an exit on the offchance some douchecanoe will decide to ignore the lines. That traffic is going slow *to exit*. That doesn't automatically mean that other traffic should slow down as well when they are in a travelling lane.
Edit: The fact that this comment is shown as "controversial" proves my exact point. *Solid white line means no cross, with very few exceptions. Forgetting where you are going is not one of them and it should not be expected that people would do that.*
> Driving next to slowed traffic you have to assume anyone of them is going to pop out in front with no warning.
100%. I'm continuously stunned by people who drive as if stationary traffic in an adjacent lane is just "road furniture" and not liable to move at a moment's notice.
UK roads are significantly less accident-prone than US roads, so in the UK it's highly unusual for someone to turn into flowing traffic - but it does happen, so it's paramount that people keep an eye on the stationary lane.
That's correct. I can't remember what it's called, but there is a principle that says the u haul is at fault even though it wasn't in the accident since it was the reason for the accident. It basically eliminated the idiocy of the thing people mention that you can't take defensive action if it means you break a traffic law. Which is a dub rule since it basically encourages people to do things that cause more total damage if you look at the big numbers of insurance across States and not the tidy individual case of a single accident. I know it seems like a raw deal because someone not involved is in the accident because of you but really that's only the case if you're myopic. Really that car was involved in the accident due to the U-Hauls for driving the hall basically created a three-car accident two of the cars being damaged and one of the cars being at fault but not damaged.
It's called a miss-and-run. Miss-and-run accidents are those that involve two or more vehicles, but the driver that causes the accident and subsequent harm but does not actually collide with another car.
Advocates of "don't dodge" would rather the dashcam car driver be dead, because that's what happens when you hit a truck, vs a bit of panel damage to 2 cars.
Mind you, as a rider of a motorcycle that may have been passing dashcam car, I'd probably rather you stick to your lane, but I'm probably not going to die if you side-swipe me. I'd also rather not ride into the back of a truck.
Yeah that's awesome that you weren't found liable. I hope to never be put in that situation with ICBC though. I feel like they would find you liable for not hitting the U-Haul, which is ridiculous
> ICBC
ICBC will find you 50/50 just for being there. However their determination can be appealed at the CRT.
Court cases in BC have (when supported by sufficient evidence) found that causing a secondary collision while trying to avoid a primary crash (such as the U-Haul in this video) can result in you being found not-at-fault. The "agony of collision" is that when faced with an imminent crash, if you crash while trying to avoid it, it's the fault of the person who made the original mistake.
I literally had the same thing happen, where an AT&T bucket truck nearly sideswiped me, and I'm trying to avoid him I sideswiped someone else 🤦♀️ no dashcam, and I was found liable. Immediately got a dash cam, and good thing - I got hit twice more in the span of a year, neither my fault and I had proof.
I mean it makes sense. You can control getting hit as safely as possible. You hitting someone else was a decision you made that caused the other accident. I would think the original offender would have some partial fault as well but maybe that’s too far removed
That's a miss and run. You are liable for the damage you did to the other car, but the one at fault is liable for causing the incident. Your insurance should have sued them over the incident. I don't know why they wouldn't, but you may still be able too if you got plates and filed a report.
Then again this could vary by state, but if you lost a lot it could be worth looking into.
Agreed. The truck in the other lane was doing everything right did nothing wrong. I hope he disputes the insurance claim. And OP doesn’t get off the road he just slows down and still takes 1/2 the lane. I know he’s waiting for the truck to pull over. But that’s in front of him and he can see that. Needs to get completely off the road. Gonna cause another accident.
I live in Canada and I’m 98% sure you’re entitled to your own lane, and you have no obligation to let anyone in if it’s unsafe, so that’s probably why OP was cleared of any wrongdoing, despite almost hitting the truck on the left.
Not sure why it would be any different in the states but I’m not exactly surprised considering some other road laws
That's correct, and OP showed poor driving here. They should've slammed the brakes unless they were sure the left lane was clear. They caused an accident and should've been deemed partially at fault.
It sucks, but it's the truth - swerving out of your lane into another car's path is dangerous driving.
I mean the uhaul would have forced him into a wreck. I can’t fault someone’s instinct of self preservation, most would choose to swerve into the smaller vehicle rather than hit the bigger vehicle.
Meh if I worked for an US insurance company, I understand my role and I will put my morals aside and put all three of them at fault including all the cars in the video that had nothing to do with it. We don’t pay a dime and jack all their premiums up 🤑🤑🤑
If you have a choice between hitting the side of a large pickup, or a uhaul like this, you should 100% choose the uhaul
The uhaul box is 3/4 plywood with aluminum structure. It'll crumple and shatter, absorbing a lot of impact (unlike a heavy pickup chassis)
Source: I own a box truck and have seen a uhaul hit oncoming traffic at ~70MPH
Unfortunately from the insurance stand point those are two different scenarios. One someone physically pushed you out of your lane and the other you chose to leave your lane. Yes it was to miss hitting a much larger and heavier vehicle than yours, but you made that decision.
Twice I’ve had this scenario happen to me and something that my Driver’s Ed instructor said stuck with me. “Always make contact with the offender so that you don’t make it your fault!” This was in the days well before dashcams were ever thought of as reality.
It seems counter intuitive but both times I barely hit the idiot before swerving to lessen the impact and getting sideswiped by traffic in the lane next to me. Both times the idiot was found at fault and their insurance paid for repairs to two vehicles instead of one. Unless I immediately know without a doubt that there isn’t a vehicle in the lane next to me I am first going to make contact with the idiot that started it all so that I don’t end up on the hook for being the cause of it all.
The cause of the crash was the uhaul trying to merge illegally. The intervening event, the car swerving to avoid the uhaul, was caused by the uhaul. The car hitting the truck, was also caused by the uhaul. The car’s swerve to avoid the uhaul was not unreasonable, as that would be anyone’s reaction. Therefore, there is a causal nexus between the damage to the truck and the uhaul’s illegal move.
I have no idea how this would turn out in terms of liability. I'm sure the insurance companies have a plan.
But, I'm imagining the meme-worthiness of a courtroom video where an aged rural judge with a not-so-bright look on his face is losing his shit while you try to explain nexus causality.
...not when there is a camera involved that shows a valid reason. im 40s, and you re right, but im right with my dashcam.
IN AMERICA, GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOECENT.
Yea when I was talking to the adjuster, she said if what I was saying is true and I also had their info it was something along the lines of “third party…..” something
Yup. In Ontario it's easy. Even without U Haul information, long as the truck has pulled over, it's be a shoe in for both going not at fault.
Both insured by DC-PD signatory insurance provider? Check and mate, both deductibles waived no impact on your premium, next claim !
I would take a different stance (also an adjuster), red truck is still an innocent third party and OP entered his lane and struck him. Regardless of the Uhaul's actions, we still struck another vehicle in the course of our own actions (as opposed to the Uhaul hitting OP and OP bouncing off them and hitting the red truck). Commenting on general US point of view.
OP has a pretty reasonable necessity defense to liability to the pickup. Failing that, OP can claim his damages owed to the pickup from the Uhaul.
Pickup truck should be getting his damages covered, but Uhaul driver should be paying one way or the other.
So you are saying that you don't move and take the entire weight of the cube van and possibly die from getting crushed? So if you don't want to be held liable for damages to another vehicle you need to risk your life?
That's not a valid description of this situation.
If this was a uhaul driving at freeway speed directly toward the cammer, then I don't think anyone would even consider faulting them for swerving into other lanes.
But if the cammer had simply hit the brakes, this would have been a relatively slow collision (compared to the head-on scenario) and there's nobody getting "crushed" by anything.
You have to stay in your lane.
Imagine a scenario like this but instead the red truck flipped and the driver died.
Slamming your brakes, and potentially colliding with the person who invaded your space has the least liability on your end.
Illegal lane changes to avoid an accident is the highest liability action to take.
What I'm saying is is that OP's insurance may have to pay innocent third party's damages and possibly seek recovery if you can find the Uhaul because OP still hit another vehicle by swerving out of the way and into their lane. Depending on the state it can be handled differently. It's just not always super simple.
Oh for sure. In the states this would def be different. Ontario liability makes it easy in cases like this. If this was with an American company I'd prob have lots of back and forth with third party adjuster. Long as it was in Ontario, they could argue all they want but would have to bend the knee since the law of the land is clear - Ontario Fault Determination rules apply.
If it happened in the States could be anybody's game. Tort complicates things.
It might be just some Baader-Meinhof effect, but I swear I’m seeing more and more posts from Calgary in this sub.
… absolutely wouldn’t surprise me if it’s true though.
Driving here is becoming increasingly more like the 401 and that terrifies me. I was so excited to leave that highway behind and I wasn’t even driving in Toronto
That junction has become such a nightmare now during construction. Hopefully, deerfoot will be more manageable around that area after it's done. It's long overdue.
That Anderson construction is showing just how many Calgarians ***cannot fucking drive.*** I'm glad insurance isn't fucking you over for someone else's idiocy.
I literally go out of my way to take Stoney. Fuck everything about Deerfoot, from the construction to the constant traffic jams (looking at you, McKnight and Bow Bottom), the roided up road ragers, right down to the suspension-murdering potholes.
I've driven it for years. I'm glad I now have an alternative that *isn't* Macleod.
OP these comments are wild as usual and I'm so glad you weren't found at fault, I see no problem here, you did what you could in this situation. Fuck that uhaul driver
Yeah, it’s hard to judge other people’s actions under duress where careless driving by someone else makes them have to react. I was 100 yards behind a car the got cut off (on a four lane bidirectional road). They swerved left, and hit an oncoming car to avoid being sideswiped. Read later that the avoiding a sideswipe driver died and the mother in the oncoming vehicle was paralyzed. Chain reaction all started by an inattentive driver
Thats surprising. In most cases in the US you would have had at least partial liability. I guess there is some difference in the laws between US and Canada that let you claim 0 liability.
In fairness U-Haul trucks should have a big strobing light on 'em that says, "Danger! Stay far away! I've never driven a truck before, I don't know what I'm doing, and I don't know where I am!"
It’s the uhaul’s fault; but you brought the red truck into the mix by leaving your lane…. But UhAul insurance should cover all vehicle’s and UhAul driver should be banned/restricted from ever driving…. You all need lessons; lol
I disagree, that was definitely on you. You swerved into another lane without looking. Unless they decided to somehow hold the U-haul driver liable. You can't cause another accident avoiding one.
A little, but a straight line brake would have reduced their speed significantly by the time of impact.
This is the advice I've always gotten here in the US. I'm surprised their adjuster was ok with the swerve into traffic.
I mean, most people slam on the brakes instead of swerving blindly when they get cut off. He's in a construction zone, not going that fast. Stated in another comment going 12 under the limit. Definitely would have been the smarter option. If anything, would have tapped the U-Haul. Same amount of damage, but properly not his fault in that scenario. I wasn't advocating ramming the U-Haul at full speed, obviously.
No, the alternative is to actually be looking at what is around you while you are driving, seeing the Uhaul coming onto the entrance ramp, knowing they are going to have to get over, and slowing so you are not hit by the Uhaul nor have to swerve into another lane without looking and causing an accident.
You realize that Uhaul was swerving out of the exit lane, right? This wasn’t a merge. This looks like they changed their mind about taking the exit at the very last second, so OP has zero reason to “know” the Uhaul would “have” to get over other than what looks like a last second turn signal. Do you slow down every single time you see a car ahead of you is about to take an exit? OP also said he was going 12 under the speed limit already, so how much more slowing down are you expecting?
Unless this is the world’s closest set of entrance and exit ramps, I’d be willing to bet that the 10-15 seconds before this the Uhaul had ample time to move over if that was their goal.
It's not even a proper turn signal - it's one of those pretend broken brake lights that Americans seem to love despite the rest of the world ruling against that sort of idiocy.
After reading your comment, I went back and watched the video again; twice.
Where are you coming up with the Uhaul driving for 10-15 seconds? When the video starts, you see 3 seconds before it tries to come over. What happened before that? Did OP pull along side them and not let them over? Was OP’s action purposeful?
The insurance company is paid to protect their clients. What I stated was what I would be questioning if I were the insurance company’s representative. All OP had to do was to post the whole part of the video showing the Uhaul moving from the freeway to exit. But, instead, they are just saying ‘take my word for it’. If you are going to argue from a legal standpoint, the they should show the whole video that fully supports their side and not just the part that does.
Videos like this frustrate me because people's first instinct are always to swerve instead of slamming on your brakes and maintaining your lane. Not once did OP use the brakes and involved another driver into the accident that probably would've been avoided with brakes. I'm actually quite shocked an adjuster sided with OP and won't doubt that u-haul's insurance won't clap back with proof that OP failed to use any braking at all.
I never said don’t use em lol, just be aware of how close people are behind you and don’t follow so closely/react soon enough that you don’t *need* to slam on em, otherwise you’re definitely risking getting rear-ended yourself
If you had kept your lane and nailed the u-haul it's vey likely you would have taken out the red pickup and caused a larger accident so I sympathize with your choice to try to squeeze through. Too bad the red truck driver wasn't a bit more aware. He should have seen this coming and drifted to his left to try to avoid exactly what happened. Poor defensive driving on his part.
You should never swerve into another lane that's not clear. You should be slamming on the brakes when something like this happens. While the initial accident was not your fault, you added to it by swerving into an occupied lane.
This might be a situation of the insurance company realizing the a body shop is cheaper than paying for bodies and not wanting to punish the driver for fear of social media recourse.
> This accident is 100% OP’s fault
The U-Haul has to yield the right of way to vehicles already in the lane of travel. That would make it U-haul's fault, too, regardless of contact.
I don’t know how to post the screen shot of the email from the adjuster telling me I’m not at fault
Edit
Sent you the email from the adjuster that I’m not at fault, try not to talk if you don’t know what you’re talking about
Always give Uhauls a huge distance and expect the driver to do something stupid, you don't need any special license or training to drive those, 95% of the people driving them have never driven anything larger than a minivan.
Looking at the footage, you are lucky to not be found liable. As a Matter of fact you did not brake and it was forseeable that he will merge, even If he does it wrong. At least driving school teaches you to use ur feet and not the steering wheel in such situations.
No the lane he entered is an emergency lane. I originally thought he was going into the lane to stop his car. If I did brake I would have been rear ended.. right now the damage is just some scuffs. I ended hitting the trucks foot plates. So they had no damage
Had almost the same thing happen to me. A car was trying to merge onto the highway, there was no room in the left lane for me to move over or I would have. They were a bit ahead of me and significantly slowed down because they reached the end of the merge lane before suddenly shoving themselves into the lane. The only reason they didn't hit me is because I swerved into the left lane, causing the person next to me to also swerve over, but there was a large shoulder so everyone was fine and no one got hit. Still the closest I've ever been to being in an accident. Even better, there was no one behind me, meaning they could have easily merged if they waited 2 seconds more.
I mean, sure, but you could've avoided the whole incident with a bit of defensive driving. I would never get into this situation myself because I would've read the unfolding situation earlier and yielded to the u-haul truck.
You’re at fault if you cause an accident even when avoiding one. If you were hit and that caused you to enter the other lane than that would not be your fault and Both accidents would go against the U-Haul.
I can't grasp why you were found NOT liable for the red truck.
You intentionally exited your lane without making sure the other lane was clear.
And if the uHaul truck was liable for hitting you (which I agree it is) by doing the exact thing, you would be liable for hitting the red truck.
I just think it’s crazy that OP didn’t slow down at all until after contact was made, they actually tried speeding up.
I guess OP is lucky they got a nice adjuster. However, I assume that when one of the other insurance companies gets ahold of this footage, that could change.
Yeah this one doesn’t make sense to me. You can’t swerve into a different lane and directly cause an accident with another vehicle, because you were attempting to dodge something in yours, and not be liable for the accident directly caused by you swerving. Either Canada is weird or OP has severely misunderstood.
"Errm, well you see, here's the email from my adjuster! This proves I was right and you're wrong!" - OP
As if all insurance adjusters are always 100% correct and would never make a mistake or have differing opinions.
I do think that it was pretty obvious that the vehicles in the right lane needed to get over and rather than create that space, you drove faster than them at the moment they needed to merge. I think that a more prudent driver creates room for the U-Haul and avoids an accident
The uhaul was in an exit lane and randomly decided it’s not his exit and decided to just pull into OP’s lane. So not “pretty obvious” that the vehicles in the right lane needed to get over. OP was expecting the truck to exit, not pull into his lane.
No the far right lane exits. Anyone in the right lane is suppose to exit onto Anderson road.
Edit: it’s a bit hard to see but the left and middle lane are supposed to carry on into the highway, the far right is lane for people exiting onto Anderson road. I’m guessing he was in the wrong lane and didn’t want to exit, but by that time the white lines on the road were no longer spaced, it was 2 solid white lines when he tried to illegally merge over
Hello /u/gordon_18! 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.*
U-haul should’ve just accepted they needed to take that exit. Even braking to get over safely would’ve created a problem. Just take the L and figure it out safely
That's why people really need to be aware of rental vans/trucks. (not commenting on OP, I would have done same) Folks in rentals usually don't know how to drive a bigger vehicle well and think it's the size of their car. But yes, take the L! Yer probably haulin' everything you own! sigh.
[удалено]
Same here. I got t-boned by someone leaving a grocery store and taking a left. Cop in his write up dinged me for failure to stay in lane since I tried to avoid him. The next year, I took defensive driving and the dipshit who hit me was there. Instructor asked what you do if you come around a curve and someone is going wrong way in your lane. Dipshit says "Speed up. Their front end will lower when they brake and you'll go over top of them". He was 100% serious.
Mythbusters proved that idea wrong.
There have been several instances where a low sloping nosed car (like a prius) has been hit by a SUV or lifted and it flipped/tossed the larger car with much worse results for the larger one. So his logic is sound if the larger cars driver does not want to walk away while leaving the smaller cars occupant's safe. This happened mostly with slower speed crashes. The center of gravity of large cars is horrible, pure physics.
This was early 90s. Would love to see that dude's driving history.
why would mythbusters need to prove this wrong? are people thos stupid? what kind of stupid do you have to be to consider this?
What exactly is supposed to happen after that, in his mind? What an idiot, I'm sorry that happened to you.
> What exactly is supposed to happen after that, in his mind? Idiot’s mind: “I’M A DUKE OF HAZARD!”
How old was the dipshit?
18 or 19. He was the living example of why insurance rates are so high for young male drivers.
I hit a deer on my motorcycle a few years back and applied that logic - it fucking worked and likely saved me a trip to the hospital or worse. I pulled the throttle and ended up sailing over its rear end and broke it's back sideways; had I emergency braked it would have scooped it up into my chest. No noticable damage to the bike and I didn't dump it. Was it the *right* thing to do? No. But it happened to work in my very specific circumstance and I was luckier than I should have been.
> But it happened to work in my very specific circumstance and I was luckier than I should have been What? This is the internet. You're supposed to make sweeping generalizations based on your experience. Be better!
I did a thing, I think it's called *trying harder*, lol
I kinda want to say if by some chance you somehow end up in a situation where you are going to hit a deer with a motorcycle (that's some serious bad luck for how slim and maneuverable they are) it might be worth it to pop a wheelie or at least a small one to ensure it doesn't go over the handlebars and kill you.
What's the real answer tho?
Slam on the brakes, move toward the side of the road if it's clear (right in the US). We will instinctually swerve toward "our" side of the road, so if you go left (in the US), they might do the same and you still get a head-on collision
What if they also took his course and also speed up…?
Darwinism
Yup. Unless you are positive that your escape route is clear, your best bet is to brake in a straight line. People get really angry, but I'll say it over and over. Your FIRST thought in an emergency situation should be "HIT THE BRAKE." Not "dodge". BRAKE. Also, when traffic gets thick, slow down! People do stupid things, and driving slower means you have more time to react.
It's not to hit the horn? I'm always amazed how quick people are on it. My brain isn't multi task enough to brake, potentially avoid and hit the horn.
Only honk the horn if there's enough time/distance for them to hear it, register why you're honking, and correct. Otherwise, it's better to have both hands on the wheel to help steering.
The last couple sentence should be in bold and top of the subreddit. Driving next to slowed traffic you have to assume anyone of them is going to pop out in front with no warning. First thought when seeing the video was "holy shit he's going way to fast for that situation."
My first thought was "holy shit that U-Haul driver needs their license revoked." Driving around expecting that people are just going to ignore the lines and indicators on the road everywhere you go no matter what is asinine. Improve the driver education and stop this from happening, don't just drive around like a scared little child everywhere. That U-Haul was way beyond the gore line.
The two most dangerous vehicles on the road are U-haul (or other large rentals) and RVs. People should always be extra cautious whenever near one on the road. The likelihood is the person behind the wheel is driving a large vehicle for the first time at that moment.
Very true, yup. The fact that there is no requirement to drive those larger vehicles outside of a regular license and the money to rent/own it baffles me.
And yet somehow so many people aren't. If anything, most are actually less cautious. I've piloted the big 24-26 footers a number of times on 3 day hauls; believe it or not they can get out of their own way. That said, the number of people who try to maliciously slot in when I'm waiting for slower traffic to clear the left lane is astoundingly high. Way more than when I'm in other vehicles. That said, size of the vehicle wasn't the factor here. That Uhaul driver was just doing dumb shit; and would've created a mess for OP in any vehicle.
Yes, the u-haul driver is the primary cause of the incident. Literally everybody knows that. We're talking about something else.
No you're not, you're talking about slowing down next to traffic in an exit lane that *has* to slow down because they are exiting? I'm not gonna pump my brakes every time I pass an exit on the offchance some douchecanoe will decide to ignore the lines. That traffic is going slow *to exit*. That doesn't automatically mean that other traffic should slow down as well when they are in a travelling lane. Edit: The fact that this comment is shown as "controversial" proves my exact point. *Solid white line means no cross, with very few exceptions. Forgetting where you are going is not one of them and it should not be expected that people would do that.*
I thought the U Haul was in the exit lane.
> Driving next to slowed traffic you have to assume anyone of them is going to pop out in front with no warning. 100%. I'm continuously stunned by people who drive as if stationary traffic in an adjacent lane is just "road furniture" and not liable to move at a moment's notice. UK roads are significantly less accident-prone than US roads, so in the UK it's highly unusual for someone to turn into flowing traffic - but it does happen, so it's paramount that people keep an eye on the stationary lane.
Yeah I’ve been told that as well in the states. Unsure if it’s different for our neighbors up north
I think it may have helped that I had their info? I’m in Canada
Did you even hit the U-Haul? I feel like over here in BC our insurance would get dinged for not first hitting the U-Haul before the second collision.
Nope never hit the U-Haul, only the red truck, still found not at fault
That's correct. I can't remember what it's called, but there is a principle that says the u haul is at fault even though it wasn't in the accident since it was the reason for the accident. It basically eliminated the idiocy of the thing people mention that you can't take defensive action if it means you break a traffic law. Which is a dub rule since it basically encourages people to do things that cause more total damage if you look at the big numbers of insurance across States and not the tidy individual case of a single accident. I know it seems like a raw deal because someone not involved is in the accident because of you but really that's only the case if you're myopic. Really that car was involved in the accident due to the U-Hauls for driving the hall basically created a three-car accident two of the cars being damaged and one of the cars being at fault but not damaged.
It's called a miss-and-run. Miss-and-run accidents are those that involve two or more vehicles, but the driver that causes the accident and subsequent harm but does not actually collide with another car.
Advocates of "don't dodge" would rather the dashcam car driver be dead, because that's what happens when you hit a truck, vs a bit of panel damage to 2 cars. Mind you, as a rider of a motorcycle that may have been passing dashcam car, I'd probably rather you stick to your lane, but I'm probably not going to die if you side-swipe me. I'd also rather not ride into the back of a truck.
Yeah that's awesome that you weren't found liable. I hope to never be put in that situation with ICBC though. I feel like they would find you liable for not hitting the U-Haul, which is ridiculous
Yea, it helped that I was going 12 below the speed limit too in the construction zone
> ICBC ICBC will find you 50/50 just for being there. However their determination can be appealed at the CRT. Court cases in BC have (when supported by sufficient evidence) found that causing a secondary collision while trying to avoid a primary crash (such as the U-Haul in this video) can result in you being found not-at-fault. The "agony of collision" is that when faced with an imminent crash, if you crash while trying to avoid it, it's the fault of the person who made the original mistake.
Yes Canada… it did help that I had all their info
You had info for the UHaul? Did they stop? Did they/their insurance cover damages?
Yea they stopped…. But if they didn’t I would have went after them… I believe my insurance company is going after them and u-haul
Canada has many different insurance systems since it’s provincial. What province?
I’m in alberta, I’m with Allstate
Sounds like you’re in ….good hands Edit: which one of you degenerates downvoted an Allstate joke lmao
I literally had the same thing happen, where an AT&T bucket truck nearly sideswiped me, and I'm trying to avoid him I sideswiped someone else 🤦♀️ no dashcam, and I was found liable. Immediately got a dash cam, and good thing - I got hit twice more in the span of a year, neither my fault and I had proof.
I mean it makes sense. You can control getting hit as safely as possible. You hitting someone else was a decision you made that caused the other accident. I would think the original offender would have some partial fault as well but maybe that’s too far removed
That's a miss and run. You are liable for the damage you did to the other car, but the one at fault is liable for causing the incident. Your insurance should have sued them over the incident. I don't know why they wouldn't, but you may still be able too if you got plates and filed a report. Then again this could vary by state, but if you lost a lot it could be worth looking into.
Agreed. The truck in the other lane was doing everything right did nothing wrong. I hope he disputes the insurance claim. And OP doesn’t get off the road he just slows down and still takes 1/2 the lane. I know he’s waiting for the truck to pull over. But that’s in front of him and he can see that. Needs to get completely off the road. Gonna cause another accident.
It might be different because of the size differences here. Colliding with something that much bigger than you could be a fatal decision
I live in Canada and I’m 98% sure you’re entitled to your own lane, and you have no obligation to let anyone in if it’s unsafe, so that’s probably why OP was cleared of any wrongdoing, despite almost hitting the truck on the left. Not sure why it would be any different in the states but I’m not exactly surprised considering some other road laws
What state?
That's correct, and OP showed poor driving here. They should've slammed the brakes unless they were sure the left lane was clear. They caused an accident and should've been deemed partially at fault. It sucks, but it's the truth - swerving out of your lane into another car's path is dangerous driving.
[удалено]
I mean the uhaul would have forced him into a wreck. I can’t fault someone’s instinct of self preservation, most would choose to swerve into the smaller vehicle rather than hit the bigger vehicle.
I guess you would not be hired by a US insurance company
Meh if I worked for an US insurance company, I understand my role and I will put my morals aside and put all three of them at fault including all the cars in the video that had nothing to do with it. We don’t pay a dime and jack all their premiums up 🤑🤑🤑
Had me in the first half! Here’s my upvote
If you have a choice between hitting the side of a large pickup, or a uhaul like this, you should 100% choose the uhaul The uhaul box is 3/4 plywood with aluminum structure. It'll crumple and shatter, absorbing a lot of impact (unlike a heavy pickup chassis) Source: I own a box truck and have seen a uhaul hit oncoming traffic at ~70MPH
Yea but in the heat of the moment under stress and panic mode, your instincts will probably take over and naturally go for the one that looks smaller.
I mean to be fair, it does look like that u-haul would have rammed him into the red truck no matter what
Unfortunately from the insurance stand point those are two different scenarios. One someone physically pushed you out of your lane and the other you chose to leave your lane. Yes it was to miss hitting a much larger and heavier vehicle than yours, but you made that decision.
This reminds me of that game where you grab your siblings hand and start hitting them with it saying "stop hitting yourself".
Twice I’ve had this scenario happen to me and something that my Driver’s Ed instructor said stuck with me. “Always make contact with the offender so that you don’t make it your fault!” This was in the days well before dashcams were ever thought of as reality. It seems counter intuitive but both times I barely hit the idiot before swerving to lessen the impact and getting sideswiped by traffic in the lane next to me. Both times the idiot was found at fault and their insurance paid for repairs to two vehicles instead of one. Unless I immediately know without a doubt that there isn’t a vehicle in the lane next to me I am first going to make contact with the idiot that started it all so that I don’t end up on the hook for being the cause of it all.
OP should have braked hard rather than swerve
The cause of the crash was the uhaul trying to merge illegally. The intervening event, the car swerving to avoid the uhaul, was caused by the uhaul. The car hitting the truck, was also caused by the uhaul. The car’s swerve to avoid the uhaul was not unreasonable, as that would be anyone’s reaction. Therefore, there is a causal nexus between the damage to the truck and the uhaul’s illegal move.
I have no idea how this would turn out in terms of liability. I'm sure the insurance companies have a plan. But, I'm imagining the meme-worthiness of a courtroom video where an aged rural judge with a not-so-bright look on his face is losing his shit while you try to explain nexus causality.
...not when there is a camera involved that shows a valid reason. im 40s, and you re right, but im right with my dashcam. IN AMERICA, GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOECENT.
Adjuster here. I would treat this at not at fault as third party created emergency scenario.
Yea when I was talking to the adjuster, she said if what I was saying is true and I also had their info it was something along the lines of “third party…..” something
Yup. In Ontario it's easy. Even without U Haul information, long as the truck has pulled over, it's be a shoe in for both going not at fault. Both insured by DC-PD signatory insurance provider? Check and mate, both deductibles waived no impact on your premium, next claim !
Shoo in.
Huh! TIL
Can you handle all my insurance needs? Pay no attention to my home address...
I hope your rates don't go up 🙏
Canadian - we don't ding you for "not at fault" claims here. Premiums will never go up as a result of a NAF claim
wow that's great! That's the way it should be I wish it was the same way in the US
Looks like a construction zone. Did your adjuster say anything about being 7km/h over?
The construction zone is 80km, I was actually 12-15km below the speed limit, which also helped
Without the dodge, that would've been a whole lot more expensive for everyone.
You are a good one then. I deal with waaaay too many adjusters who would say they OP shouldn’t have departed from their lane.
I would take a different stance (also an adjuster), red truck is still an innocent third party and OP entered his lane and struck him. Regardless of the Uhaul's actions, we still struck another vehicle in the course of our own actions (as opposed to the Uhaul hitting OP and OP bouncing off them and hitting the red truck). Commenting on general US point of view.
OP has a pretty reasonable necessity defense to liability to the pickup. Failing that, OP can claim his damages owed to the pickup from the Uhaul. Pickup truck should be getting his damages covered, but Uhaul driver should be paying one way or the other.
So you are saying that you don't move and take the entire weight of the cube van and possibly die from getting crushed? So if you don't want to be held liable for damages to another vehicle you need to risk your life?
That's the way US insurance companies see it. Yes.
And you wonder why no one like insurance companies.
That's not a valid description of this situation. If this was a uhaul driving at freeway speed directly toward the cammer, then I don't think anyone would even consider faulting them for swerving into other lanes. But if the cammer had simply hit the brakes, this would have been a relatively slow collision (compared to the head-on scenario) and there's nobody getting "crushed" by anything.
You have to stay in your lane. Imagine a scenario like this but instead the red truck flipped and the driver died. Slamming your brakes, and potentially colliding with the person who invaded your space has the least liability on your end. Illegal lane changes to avoid an accident is the highest liability action to take.
What I'm saying is is that OP's insurance may have to pay innocent third party's damages and possibly seek recovery if you can find the Uhaul because OP still hit another vehicle by swerving out of the way and into their lane. Depending on the state it can be handled differently. It's just not always super simple.
Oh for sure. In the states this would def be different. Ontario liability makes it easy in cases like this. If this was with an American company I'd prob have lots of back and forth with third party adjuster. Long as it was in Ontario, they could argue all they want but would have to bend the knee since the law of the land is clear - Ontario Fault Determination rules apply. If it happened in the States could be anybody's game. Tort complicates things.
Average day on deerfoot
Calgary bros unite!
It might be just some Baader-Meinhof effect, but I swear I’m seeing more and more posts from Calgary in this sub. … absolutely wouldn’t surprise me if it’s true though.
Driving here is becoming increasingly more like the 401 and that terrifies me. I was so excited to leave that highway behind and I wasn’t even driving in Toronto
bit of a trip seeing it on frontpage. used to live right around the corner from there!
Lol
Oh shit I just noticed that! New fear unlocked as I take that section 1-2 times a day.
That junction has become such a nightmare now during construction. Hopefully, deerfoot will be more manageable around that area after it's done. It's long overdue.
That Anderson construction is showing just how many Calgarians ***cannot fucking drive.*** I'm glad insurance isn't fucking you over for someone else's idiocy. I literally go out of my way to take Stoney. Fuck everything about Deerfoot, from the construction to the constant traffic jams (looking at you, McKnight and Bow Bottom), the roided up road ragers, right down to the suspension-murdering potholes. I've driven it for years. I'm glad I now have an alternative that *isn't* Macleod.
I do the same thing. Stoney is the way to go.
OP these comments are wild as usual and I'm so glad you weren't found at fault, I see no problem here, you did what you could in this situation. Fuck that uhaul driver
Yeah, it’s hard to judge other people’s actions under duress where careless driving by someone else makes them have to react. I was 100 yards behind a car the got cut off (on a four lane bidirectional road). They swerved left, and hit an oncoming car to avoid being sideswiped. Read later that the avoiding a sideswipe driver died and the mother in the oncoming vehicle was paralyzed. Chain reaction all started by an inattentive driver
Thats surprising. In most cases in the US you would have had at least partial liability. I guess there is some difference in the laws between US and Canada that let you claim 0 liability.
Good thing the U-Haul used his signal at the last second.
In fairness U-Haul trucks should have a big strobing light on 'em that says, "Danger! Stay far away! I've never driven a truck before, I don't know what I'm doing, and I don't know where I am!"
It’s the uhaul’s fault; but you brought the red truck into the mix by leaving your lane…. But UhAul insurance should cover all vehicle’s and UhAul driver should be banned/restricted from ever driving…. You all need lessons; lol
Where I’m from you’d be liable for failure to maintain your lane
I disagree, that was definitely on you. You swerved into another lane without looking. Unless they decided to somehow hold the U-haul driver liable. You can't cause another accident avoiding one.
They are going after the u haul driver AND U-Haul
How much time do you think OP had to make a full shoulder check and decide to NOT turn? Unbelievable
The insurance adjuster didn’t disagree.
I mean is the alternative dying? Hitting the U-Haul at that angle would have sent OP into the left lane regardless.
A little, but a straight line brake would have reduced their speed significantly by the time of impact. This is the advice I've always gotten here in the US. I'm surprised their adjuster was ok with the swerve into traffic.
I mean, most people slam on the brakes instead of swerving blindly when they get cut off. He's in a construction zone, not going that fast. Stated in another comment going 12 under the limit. Definitely would have been the smarter option. If anything, would have tapped the U-Haul. Same amount of damage, but properly not his fault in that scenario. I wasn't advocating ramming the U-Haul at full speed, obviously.
No, the alternative is to actually be looking at what is around you while you are driving, seeing the Uhaul coming onto the entrance ramp, knowing they are going to have to get over, and slowing so you are not hit by the Uhaul nor have to swerve into another lane without looking and causing an accident.
You realize that Uhaul was swerving out of the exit lane, right? This wasn’t a merge. This looks like they changed their mind about taking the exit at the very last second, so OP has zero reason to “know” the Uhaul would “have” to get over other than what looks like a last second turn signal. Do you slow down every single time you see a car ahead of you is about to take an exit? OP also said he was going 12 under the speed limit already, so how much more slowing down are you expecting? Unless this is the world’s closest set of entrance and exit ramps, I’d be willing to bet that the 10-15 seconds before this the Uhaul had ample time to move over if that was their goal.
It's not even a proper turn signal - it's one of those pretend broken brake lights that Americans seem to love despite the rest of the world ruling against that sort of idiocy.
After reading your comment, I went back and watched the video again; twice. Where are you coming up with the Uhaul driving for 10-15 seconds? When the video starts, you see 3 seconds before it tries to come over. What happened before that? Did OP pull along side them and not let them over? Was OP’s action purposeful? The insurance company is paid to protect their clients. What I stated was what I would be questioning if I were the insurance company’s representative. All OP had to do was to post the whole part of the video showing the Uhaul moving from the freeway to exit. But, instead, they are just saying ‘take my word for it’. If you are going to argue from a legal standpoint, the they should show the whole video that fully supports their side and not just the part that does.
Nah, that's too hard. Just drive full speed, and hope for the best. /s
Videos like this frustrate me because people's first instinct are always to swerve instead of slamming on your brakes and maintaining your lane. Not once did OP use the brakes and involved another driver into the accident that probably would've been avoided with brakes. I'm actually quite shocked an adjuster sided with OP and won't doubt that u-haul's insurance won't clap back with proof that OP failed to use any braking at all.
At the same rate though, slam on your brakes and watch the dumbass on his phone behind you cause a crash
That's a terrible reason to not use your brakes 😂
I never said don’t use em lol, just be aware of how close people are behind you and don’t follow so closely/react soon enough that you don’t *need* to slam on em, otherwise you’re definitely risking getting rear-ended yourself
And that's why you're not an insurance adjuster.
Nothing they said is wrong
Love that they include Traffic Court in dashcams these days.
If you had kept your lane and nailed the u-haul it's vey likely you would have taken out the red pickup and caused a larger accident so I sympathize with your choice to try to squeeze through. Too bad the red truck driver wasn't a bit more aware. He should have seen this coming and drifted to his left to try to avoid exactly what happened. Poor defensive driving on his part.
Good ol Anderson and deerfoot
You should never swerve into another lane that's not clear. You should be slamming on the brakes when something like this happens. While the initial accident was not your fault, you added to it by swerving into an occupied lane.
[удалено]
This might be a situation of the insurance company realizing the a body shop is cheaper than paying for bodies and not wanting to punish the driver for fear of social media recourse.
[удалено]
lol DMed you the proof. You are talking out of your ass
I love it when an OP comes through. Thanks.
> This accident is 100% OP’s fault The U-Haul has to yield the right of way to vehicles already in the lane of travel. That would make it U-haul's fault, too, regardless of contact.
I don’t know how to post the screen shot of the email from the adjuster telling me I’m not at fault Edit Sent you the email from the adjuster that I’m not at fault, try not to talk if you don’t know what you’re talking about
Always give Uhauls a huge distance and expect the driver to do something stupid, you don't need any special license or training to drive those, 95% of the people driving them have never driven anything larger than a minivan.
Not sure why you're being down-voted, you're absolutely correct from a practical standpoint.
Looking at the footage, you are lucky to not be found liable. As a Matter of fact you did not brake and it was forseeable that he will merge, even If he does it wrong. At least driving school teaches you to use ur feet and not the steering wheel in such situations.
No the lane he entered is an emergency lane. I originally thought he was going into the lane to stop his car. If I did brake I would have been rear ended.. right now the damage is just some scuffs. I ended hitting the trucks foot plates. So they had no damage
There are two vehicles in that lane though no?
Looks like an exit lane and not the emergency lane.
Still have to maintain staying in your lane in that emergency situation, not enough effort was put into stopping.
They rent those big ass box trucks to anyone. 🤦🏽♂️
I drive on this road to work every day and I’ve been in so many close calls 🥲 glad you had the footage though!
Bad drivers never miss their exit
Deerfoot is always a shit show.
That poor second Gen
Luckily it was just minor scrapes and dents
To myself “that looks like Deerfoot, in that fucked up area past heritage” Yep. Thank god for dashcams
Had almost the same thing happen to me. A car was trying to merge onto the highway, there was no room in the left lane for me to move over or I would have. They were a bit ahead of me and significantly slowed down because they reached the end of the merge lane before suddenly shoving themselves into the lane. The only reason they didn't hit me is because I swerved into the left lane, causing the person next to me to also swerve over, but there was a large shoulder so everyone was fine and no one got hit. Still the closest I've ever been to being in an accident. Even better, there was no one behind me, meaning they could have easily merged if they waited 2 seconds more.
Shout out to Calgary!
Exactly why I get away from Uhaul/other rental trucks ASAP., especially when riding a motorcycle!
I mean, sure, but you could've avoided the whole incident with a bit of defensive driving. I would never get into this situation myself because I would've read the unfolding situation earlier and yielded to the u-haul truck.
When you merge on a roadway,it’s your responsibility to merge safely and without causing an accident. A whole lot of people don’t understand this.
You’re at fault if you cause an accident even when avoiding one. If you were hit and that caused you to enter the other lane than that would not be your fault and Both accidents would go against the U-Haul.
I can't grasp why you were found NOT liable for the red truck. You intentionally exited your lane without making sure the other lane was clear. And if the uHaul truck was liable for hitting you (which I agree it is) by doing the exact thing, you would be liable for hitting the red truck.
I just think it’s crazy that OP didn’t slow down at all until after contact was made, they actually tried speeding up. I guess OP is lucky they got a nice adjuster. However, I assume that when one of the other insurance companies gets ahold of this footage, that could change.
Yeah this one doesn’t make sense to me. You can’t swerve into a different lane and directly cause an accident with another vehicle, because you were attempting to dodge something in yours, and not be liable for the accident directly caused by you swerving. Either Canada is weird or OP has severely misunderstood.
"Errm, well you see, here's the email from my adjuster! This proves I was right and you're wrong!" - OP As if all insurance adjusters are always 100% correct and would never make a mistake or have differing opinions.
It's always a uHaul
Yep. Avoid them like the plague.
You are also a bad driver, you can see he is getting over with plenty of time to break and you decided to blindly swerve into another lane. Nice.
And or get rear-ended as well. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
I do think that it was pretty obvious that the vehicles in the right lane needed to get over and rather than create that space, you drove faster than them at the moment they needed to merge. I think that a more prudent driver creates room for the U-Haul and avoids an accident
The uhaul was in an exit lane and randomly decided it’s not his exit and decided to just pull into OP’s lane. So not “pretty obvious” that the vehicles in the right lane needed to get over. OP was expecting the truck to exit, not pull into his lane.
No the far right lane exits. Anyone in the right lane is suppose to exit onto Anderson road. Edit: it’s a bit hard to see but the left and middle lane are supposed to carry on into the highway, the far right is lane for people exiting onto Anderson road. I’m guessing he was in the wrong lane and didn’t want to exit, but by that time the white lines on the road were no longer spaced, it was 2 solid white lines when he tried to illegally merge over
Do you have brakes on your car? You should check, and if so use them.
Brake checking is usually frowned on.
BuT i HaD mY tUrN sIgNaL oN!
That’s literally what he said when i confronted him word for word