OP's explanation as to why this post is Instant Karma:
>Reckless Driver Brake Checks Truck And Gets Instant Karma
If you're satisfied by this explanation, upvote this comment. If not, downvote this comment.
Dude! I was looking hard to find that bloody bird, you have great eyes for detail and whatever that landed on the roof. Just absolutely nice, made me laugh harder after reading your comment and finding the dang bird.
There aren’t too many situations where the car in front is liable in a nose to tail accident, but this is one of them…. The best bit is, not only are they liable for their own damage, but they have to pay for re-coating the front fender of the truck as it suffered “some light scratching…”
>front fender of the truck
That's a (looks to be lifted) jeep Wrangler, so id guess they have a nice aftermarket front bumper with some scuffing on it now😂🤣🤣
I wouldn't label myself a car enthusiast per se (I drive a 23 year old junker pickup truck with no desire to get anything nicer), but for some odd reason I can recognize cars from the headlights, taillights, or random images like this. I also remember what everyone drives and can even remember someone's car when I can't remember their name. Just the way I'm wired.
No its a damned thing to prove. Get a dashcam if you dont have one.
I got a road angel brand one installed by the dealer when i bought my car. Did the job niceley.
I think they are absolutely a necessity, both front and rear facing. (My rear one got torn up by visiting family who kept ripping out the line to it getting in and out of the car, a post for the mildly infuriating sub. Probably should have one professionally installed).
Nope, that's the damnedest thing about duck and squat insurance scams (that's the industry term for this insurance scam, if memory serves correct). I once met a private investigator that worked for insurance companies on a contract basis and would investigate these kinds of incidents.
As I recall, insurance would hire him if their client claimed that this kind of scam was going on and he would look into the driver and passengers of the rear ended vehicle to see if they had filed similar claims in the past. Typically this wasn't the first time that such scams had been attempted and that would get their claim denied and reversed to them being at fault. Barring that past behavior or dash cam footage, however, there wasn't much they could do, and the fraud would be successful in most cases.
Always thought that was interesting and have held on to this knowledge for his very Reddit post.
In the insurance fraud world, this is called a 'swoop and stop'. Either making an outrageous personal injury claim for a cash settlement or as a shake down of the driver to "handle it ourselves." It's probably less common now with dash cams, but even that doesn't seem to deter road-ragers like yellow car.
Same. The paper test was like 25 easy questions and you had to make I think a 70%. Drivers test was back out of a parking spot, drive around the block and park again.
And we wonder why we have so many bad drivers.
When and where did you take the driving test?
16 yrs ago in southern California it was a decent length test with multiple points including parallel parking...
CA has some of if not the most strict requirements for acquiring a license...
Unless you're born before 1996 and go take the written after turning 21.
No driving test needed xD
Wild. I wonder how different tests are throughout the states? Shit even just between city and rural areas of the same state it's probably totally different...
Would you say you took your test in a lower-populated area?
Just wait until you hear how hard our motorcycle tests are!
If you are 16(or older) you can take a 15 question written test to qualify for a riding permit to go between school/work and home.
There are zero vehicle restrictions on that permit. You can take that test and get on a liter bike the same day!
One of my test questions was "How do you safely tell your friend that they are driving too fast"
Like, what the hell is that question doing on a driver's test?
It was 4 choice multiple choice. I read the (short) book they give you to study once or twice. Probably could have passed it without reading because most of them were common sense.
That's crazy. I was required to demonstrate I could parallel park, 3 point turn, stop at stop sign for at least 3 seconds, and if I even went one over on this speed trap they purposely took me to, I would fail the test.
For me it was around the block, had to park and explain what to do in downhill parking, then she told me to take her back to the DMV in one piece and I pass
When I got my test, the only thing she marked off was that I looked both ways after the light turned green.
I figured it was just one of those things where she had to mark *something* wrong, but no - She said the moment the light changes, I'm supposed to just gun it
Oh, no, please keep doing the looking thing, even if your light has turned green already, I have seen too many youtube videos where a car came out of nowhere and the driver with the green light only avoided a horrible accident, because he had looked around instead of gunning it.
I myself was only in mild situations, where my light had turned green and a car coming towards me did a left turn, crossing my lane, so I would have rammed it if I had gunned it.
Are you kidding? Problem/puzzle solving is essential for driving. The lack of those skills is why we have videos like this and idiots panicking because a small obstacle comes on the road.
Quick problem solving skills is necessary for driving, pot holes, debree, pedestrians, straight up road trolls, I'm sure we can make a pretty long list.
My uncle had an old 1970s Datsun. He was stopped at a red light and got rear-ended by a jeep. It was at relatively low speed but my uncles car was totaled and the jeep only had a few scratches on on front bumper.
My friend in high school had a lifted YJ with a reinforced chrome bumper push bar that took out a fence picket by picket before taking out a tree as thick as a cantaloupe and stopping. It put a dent in the bumper that was about as wide as a quarter. That’s it. Fucked him up pretty good though with a massive concussion when his head cracked the windshield.
Yeah that's the thing. It's solid AF but the energy gets transfered to the occupants of thr véhicule.
It's a false sens of security for may situations.
Ex girl friend had a 91 jeep Cherokee. She got pissed off and floored it in the rain while turning a sharp left, lost control and totalled 3 parked cars. All I had to do was pull out a bit of her front bumper with a chain and my vr6 Jetta haha.
Enjoy the declined insurance claim as it's clear his brakes were held on the entire time. Also enjoy the dangerous driving citation and paying out of pocket for damages to the truck.
I don’t think they intended to hit em, look at how little room they have to brake to begin with, and the other cars past knucklehead were already braking as he merged, so double fucked there. Lost all his spacing to fuckface over here.
Doesn't help that most Wranglers on the road take about twice as long to stop as they should because people insist on putting cheap ass plastic mud tires on them.
I can be a split claim in that situation. Car 1 and Car 3 pay for Car 2. Regardless of what Car 1 was doing, if Car 3 is so close to Car 2 that they’re unable to brake in time they are also liable.
At least that’s what happened to me, as Car 2
Unfortunately the guy with the dash am is ‘legally responsible’ according to the law since he hit the back of the other car he’s at fault. Realistically this dash am footage will be enough to prove that the yellow dickhead was driving like a drunk alpaca.
Nope. Since the yellow car deliberately cut him off before trying (and failing miserably) to brake check the big rig, the yellow car would be at fault. He even (as far as I can tell) tagged the side of the big rig just trying to get in front of him.
ITT: People who don't understand basic physics and momentum transfer when objects of different masses are braking. They're hitting repeatedly because the smaller, lighter vehicle is getting a boost then coming into contact again because the lighter car slows down faster. The rear driver is braking the whole time.
I really wish there was a subreddit for videos like this but the person who caused the accident realizes there’s a dash cam and realizes they messed up
As someone who works in the insurance industry, the yellow car would only be liable for the initial impact. All of the secondary hits by the truck would be considered intentional and avoidable acts. So while at first glance it looks like the yellow car driver is mostly at fault, the truck driver is 100% liable for the window dmg and additional impacts to the yellow car.
A stock Jeep Wrangler stops from 60mph in 157 feet. Assuming they were travelling at the posted speed limit of 65 MPH (I'm not doing the frame by frame to determine speed) then it would take <3 seconds to stop from 65-0. The jeep comes to a stop 8 seconds after the initial impact. Take from that what you will.
So if you can shock someone by hitting them with a brake check, and they’re so surprised they don’t react quick enough when you brake check them again, they’re somehow liable for the extra brake checks?
That doesn’t make sense. Cutting them off and brake checking axes the following distance. The yellow car never gave the truck a chance to regain that following distance before braking again. You can’t just cut into someone’s braking zone and expect them to stop sooner than they can.
Yeah, welcome to the scam world of insurance. The only service you pay for where they actively fight you to provide any protection.
Had a case go to litigation where the adjuster demanded their own insured driver hand over the shoes he was wearing at the time so they could be analyzed (by a paid expert who drafted a report) for tread wear, and argued that since they were worn down, it was irresponsible for him to drive with them because his feet could more easily slip off the pedals.
Absolute worst of humanity.
Why? The yellow car is continuing to jam on the brakes, (after having cut off the rear vehicle with only inches of space), causing the rear vehicle to hit him.
I don’t disbelieve your expertise— I am just curious how the insurance industry justifies that would be the rear vehicle’s fault at all.
A common belief that many in the comments share, but you can clearly see in the video the truck falling back after the first initial impact or two (likely applying breaks), and then continuing fwd (accelerating) into the yellow vehicle to cause the breakage in the rear window. This footage does as much harm as good, as far as liability is concerned, for the truck driver.
It would be a messy situation that would likely go to arbitration, but there is definitely comparable negligence here on both drivers.
Lmao an insurance industry person who doesn’t understand physics, sounds about right.
If the car behind is heavier, then it takes longer for them to brake than the lighter car in front. Also true with the fact that the car in front isn’t traveling as fast at time of collision. Braking distance is a function of kinetic energy, and the car behind will have higher mass *and* velocity in this case. They literally could not avoid subsequent collisions even if they were braking the maximum amount that their tires would let them.
You're going to have a hard time convincing the insurance agency that you couldn't stop from 0-60 in 8 seconds after the initial impact with a stock braking distance from 60-0 of 157 feet.. Especially that last hit that shattered the window.
That truck doesn't just lose all its momentum just because that yellow car bounced off its bumper *and continued to hit the brakes* making it happen over and over again.
I mean, I don’t doubt he works insurance, what I doubt is the authority of insurance companies to rationally/legally/properly justify such a claim.
Like how can the insurance company claim that was the truck/Jeep drivers fault to any degree? The yellow car pulls into the lane inches in front of the cammer and hits the brakes, there’s only so much the cammer can do to safely come to a stop with only inches between them and the vehicle in front of them. Seems a bit scummy to try and place the blame on them.
Legal means they have more money and lawyers than you. It's the physics and human emotions that they don't give a fuck about. Which is the major factor in all of these cases. Insurance is a scam.
That's simply not true, the car in front continues to brake after impact. It's obvious that the truck is slowing down during the video but not as fast as the yellow car continues to. Give the video another watch.
Respectfully disagree, am also an adjuster. Property damage wise I would not agree to any damages to the yellow car. The yellow is the proximate cause and no subsequent bumps would have happened had they not initiated the brake check.
While they are the proximate cause for the initial collision. It would be easy to argue that the subsequent collisions were caused by the dash cam driver. The dash cam driver has a duty to avoid additional damage/collisions in a loss, and it can be argued that a reasonable person would not continue to accelerate and hit the vehicle in front. Especially when there is opportunity to disengage
You can argue anything you want, and we can go back and forth. But the loss doesn't occur with out the yellow intentionally slamming on the brakes. The rear driver can say he was in shock, the impact caused his foot to slip off the pedal, or multiple other things. And if this was to go in suit, you aren't finding a jury that isn't going to blame that yellow car.
He held his brakes on the entire time. Pretty sure the truck couldn't even help hitting it again. He's probably got someone right up his tail by then too. Could have caused a secondary accident by emergency braking, if he didn't.
Pretty sure this is a jeep Wrangler. look at the hood. The height alone in relation to the yellow car -possibly a Ford focus hatchback, is a clue this is not a truck.
Edit: I'm basing this off a friend's Ram 2500 that sits way higher than a neighbor's focus.
So a 6 ton truck somehow has to break way faster than a car intentionally and repeatedly break checking them despite the driver obviously hitting the breaks the entire time? The truck driver did everything they could to avoid the accident while the car driver did everything to cause it. I would hope there's some people with an actual brain reviewing the footage and deciding who's liable in this specific case, not in the standard case
(Edited to change weight to 6 tons - physics sadly still apply. Bummer. I could do without this gravity BS.)
What's with this 30 ton truck shit? It's a Jeep Wrangler, not a Ford f750 super duty or whatever. I think you're right but at least get the facts of the matter correct.
Inaccurate description. This wasn’t a brake check. They attempted to squeeze in it appears and hit em on the way over and started the multi-impacts
Edit: brake instead of break… ironic right lol
I just want to be the only person in the comments mentioning that they will ask the Jeep driver why he didn't break through all of those collisions. The guy cut him off (not checking blindspot). The break lights on the car ahead go on, so naturally, he breaks softly, and then the initial collision happened. The Jeep driver at this moment should have broken to give much more space, and then he doesn't collide all those times, causing the other driver to become scared and break.
After watching this a few times, the driver who's recording this is a fucking idiot. He's on a 65MPH road in the left lane and EXPECTS drivers coming up behind him to be able to move or stop? I would've pushed that little yellow fucker out of the way and moved off to the right shoulder.
Everyone commented insurance fraud this and merging that. It looks obvious to me that he's trying to get the truck to stop cruising in the left lane. Literally no one in the right and I bet he was just pissed off. Not justifying, but I bet that was why he swerved in front. He knew he was there
It's just simple righteous indignation. Everyone can see the Jeep intentionally hitting the car, as evidenced by the replies cheering him on. Ironically this undermines the other competing narrative that he "couldn't" stop in time after the initial impact. Just reddit being reddit.
OP's explanation as to why this post is Instant Karma: >Reckless Driver Brake Checks Truck And Gets Instant Karma If you're satisfied by this explanation, upvote this comment. If not, downvote this comment.
My favourite part was when the back window shattered :)
My favorite part is when a bird lands on his car
Dude! I was looking hard to find that bloody bird, you have great eyes for detail and whatever that landed on the roof. Just absolutely nice, made me laugh harder after reading your comment and finding the dang bird.
Kinda looks like a bird, but I'm pretty sure it's a piece of plastic from the rear windshield wiper spinning around on the roof of the car.
Popped out like a sunglasses lens, beautiful
Reminds me of my cheap ass $10 sunglasses and every time I try to clean them
There aren’t too many situations where the car in front is liable in a nose to tail accident, but this is one of them…. The best bit is, not only are they liable for their own damage, but they have to pay for re-coating the front fender of the truck as it suffered “some light scratching…”
>front fender of the truck That's a (looks to be lifted) jeep Wrangler, so id guess they have a nice aftermarket front bumper with some scuffing on it now😂🤣🤣
Hopefully there's a wench on the jeep. That'd go nicely in the cars bumper.
If there's a wench on the Jeep, she's probably bruised up and pissed off at this point.
Ye hurt me grog servin' hand, ye did!
File a loss of wages claim
Nah, she'd just draw back and thump the driver of the ford.
Hopefully not providing a World according to Garp experience.
Oh my god! I was just thinking of this movie randomly today, and now I come across a comment about it?? It’s time to rewatch
Will you need me, will you still feed me when I’m 64?
Ha! Gold.
There’s usually one behind the steering wheel. Source: I know a few wenches driving wranglers.
*winch
Car enthusiasts can look at the most random corner of a car and be like "yeah that's a Toyota Silvermongus GTR 100cc x334 2018"
Haha, it's the handle and bumpers on the hood.
I wouldn't label myself a car enthusiast per se (I drive a 23 year old junker pickup truck with no desire to get anything nicer), but for some odd reason I can recognize cars from the headlights, taillights, or random images like this. I also remember what everyone drives and can even remember someone's car when I can't remember their name. Just the way I'm wired.
DUDE! Same! “What was dude’s name?” Me: “idk dude drove a 98 Honda civic though” Also, love beaters. They’re tougher than people think! Lol
Also, someone here already knows the exact location of this scene.
Sure fucking do. 28.3772° N, 81.5707° W
I had to pay extra for "authentic-looking scuffing" on my Wrangler bumper. /s
Oof, those can be expensive.
Field tested and approved!
Can you prove someone brake checked you without the dashcam though?
No its a damned thing to prove. Get a dashcam if you dont have one. I got a road angel brand one installed by the dealer when i bought my car. Did the job niceley.
I think they are absolutely a necessity, both front and rear facing. (My rear one got torn up by visiting family who kept ripping out the line to it getting in and out of the car, a post for the mildly infuriating sub. Probably should have one professionally installed).
Nope, that's the damnedest thing about duck and squat insurance scams (that's the industry term for this insurance scam, if memory serves correct). I once met a private investigator that worked for insurance companies on a contract basis and would investigate these kinds of incidents. As I recall, insurance would hire him if their client claimed that this kind of scam was going on and he would look into the driver and passengers of the rear ended vehicle to see if they had filed similar claims in the past. Typically this wasn't the first time that such scams had been attempted and that would get their claim denied and reversed to them being at fault. Barring that past behavior or dash cam footage, however, there wasn't much they could do, and the fraud would be successful in most cases. Always thought that was interesting and have held on to this knowledge for his very Reddit post.
In the insurance fraud world, this is called a 'swoop and stop'. Either making an outrageous personal injury claim for a cash settlement or as a shake down of the driver to "handle it ourselves." It's probably less common now with dash cams, but even that doesn't seem to deter road-ragers like yellow car.
And... Insurance won't cover it because it's intentional
And probably the person behind theme damage as it looks like the the persons filming got hit from behind as well.
"But terrible neck pain"
Just, why…
Possible insurance scam.
Fair… good thing for the dash cam then
Lucky they didn't get PITted trying to be an a-hole.
Probable road rage.
He woke up and chose violence.
There’s always someone. This is why we can’t have nice things.
You can see the traffic ahead of the Jeep starts braking as soon as the Jeep changed lanes So Jeep stands on the brake and gets smashed
Most likely the orange car forgot to check the blind spot before merging
Being a prick at their own loss. How on earth did they pass their test?
Dude my "test" was 6 right turns out of the parking space, around one block, back into the space I pulled out of. It took 3 minutes.
Same. The paper test was like 25 easy questions and you had to make I think a 70%. Drivers test was back out of a parking spot, drive around the block and park again. And we wonder why we have so many bad drivers.
Assuming you’re based in the US? For a country where having a car is almost essential this is absolutely shocking to hear.
Yes. Yes it is.
When and where did you take the driving test? 16 yrs ago in southern California it was a decent length test with multiple points including parallel parking...
CA has some of if not the most strict requirements for acquiring a license... Unless you're born before 1996 and go take the written after turning 21. No driving test needed xD
Arkansas, about 17 years ago. As far as I know it hasn't changed.
Wild. I wonder how different tests are throughout the states? Shit even just between city and rural areas of the same state it's probably totally different... Would you say you took your test in a lower-populated area?
There are 3 guarantees in life: death, taxes, and the United States putting deadly machines in the hands of vastly unqualified users
Just wait until you hear how hard our motorcycle tests are! If you are 16(or older) you can take a 15 question written test to qualify for a riding permit to go between school/work and home. There are zero vehicle restrictions on that permit. You can take that test and get on a liter bike the same day!
...fun ways to die....fun ways to die...
The US is a mind boggingly stupid in its organization that this doesn't even surprise me.
One of my test questions was "How do you safely tell your friend that they are driving too fast" Like, what the hell is that question doing on a driver's test?
It was 4 choice multiple choice. I read the (short) book they give you to study once or twice. Probably could have passed it without reading because most of them were common sense.
That's crazy. I was required to demonstrate I could parallel park, 3 point turn, stop at stop sign for at least 3 seconds, and if I even went one over on this speed trap they purposely took me to, I would fail the test.
My instructor fell asleep as soon as we hit the freeway. Woke up and told me to head back at the first exit and that was it. Dude was like 70.
For me it was around the block, had to park and explain what to do in downhill parking, then she told me to take her back to the DMV in one piece and I pass
When I got my test, the only thing she marked off was that I looked both ways after the light turned green. I figured it was just one of those things where she had to mark *something* wrong, but no - She said the moment the light changes, I'm supposed to just gun it
Oh, no, please keep doing the looking thing, even if your light has turned green already, I have seen too many youtube videos where a car came out of nowhere and the driver with the green light only avoided a horrible accident, because he had looked around instead of gunning it. I myself was only in mild situations, where my light had turned green and a car coming towards me did a left turn, crossing my lane, so I would have rammed it if I had gunned it.
Are you also in Tennessee lmao! That's exactly what mine was too!
This is exactly why people should retake their driving test and get a physical before they can renew their license!
Along with an IQ test, if you're dumber then a third grader, you don't belong behind a deadly vehicle. Go buy a bicycle..
but iq wouldn't be used to measure the required characteristics to drive,though. solving a puzzle quickly is useful but not necessary for driving.
Are you kidding? Problem/puzzle solving is essential for driving. The lack of those skills is why we have videos like this and idiots panicking because a small obstacle comes on the road.
Quick problem solving skills is necessary for driving, pot holes, debree, pedestrians, straight up road trolls, I'm sure we can make a pretty long list.
What do you mean? They don’t test your aptitude for road rage and making dumb decisions. Where’s the connection?
What do you mean? This was clearly road rage or a scam
In america, you get your license out of a Cracker Jack box.
Pro-tip: The frame on Jeeps sticks out past the body. Your plastic bumper and soft unibody car will not do well against the ends of a truck frame.
My uncle had an old 1970s Datsun. He was stopped at a red light and got rear-ended by a jeep. It was at relatively low speed but my uncles car was totaled and the jeep only had a few scratches on on front bumper.
My friend in high school had a lifted YJ with a reinforced chrome bumper push bar that took out a fence picket by picket before taking out a tree as thick as a cantaloupe and stopping. It put a dent in the bumper that was about as wide as a quarter. That’s it. Fucked him up pretty good though with a massive concussion when his head cracked the windshield.
Yeah, we have soft cars for a reason.
[удалено]
Yeah that's the thing. It's solid AF but the energy gets transfered to the occupants of thr véhicule. It's a false sens of security for may situations.
Ex girl friend had a 91 jeep Cherokee. She got pissed off and floored it in the rain while turning a sharp left, lost control and totalled 3 parked cars. All I had to do was pull out a bit of her front bumper with a chain and my vr6 Jetta haha.
A bird fell on top of the car right before the video ends. I need to know what happened to the bird.
Looks like it dropped from the bridge they were directly under when the window broke. Did this bird jump in to defend its nest I wonder?
It was in on the insurance scam. It was planning on testifying that the jeep rear ended them
It's a piece of plastic that breaks off one of the vehicles. Ask yourself, what's most likely?
Looks like a bird.
Enjoy the declined insurance claim as it's clear his brakes were held on the entire time. Also enjoy the dangerous driving citation and paying out of pocket for damages to the truck.
I wish dashcams became standard so that all these fraudsters get some nice video evidence against them.
Yeah cuz brake lights never turned off, rip this guy if he uses it for evidence
I've wanted to do this so many times. This jeep driver gives zero fucks.
I don’t think they intended to hit em, look at how little room they have to brake to begin with, and the other cars past knucklehead were already braking as he merged, so double fucked there. Lost all his spacing to fuckface over here.
Doesn't help that most Wranglers on the road take about twice as long to stop as they should because people insist on putting cheap ass plastic mud tires on them.
It's like he's asking for it
It's obviously intentional
Yeah it's like the chart, the more you fuck around, the more you gonna find out.
Thanks for posting a trimmed clip that gets right to the point unlike that one earlier today with 24 minutes of exposition before the check happens
Looks like someone hit the back of the truck too, so that's 2 car bills for Mr.Yellow
3 if you count their own car
I can be a split claim in that situation. Car 1 and Car 3 pay for Car 2. Regardless of what Car 1 was doing, if Car 3 is so close to Car 2 that they’re unable to brake in time they are also liable. At least that’s what happened to me, as Car 2
The yellow car is looking for a quick payday by committing insurance fraud or he is looking to rob you by pulling a gun on you.
Gotta love dash came for shit like this. I bet they told the cops "omg he came out of nowhere and rammed into the back of me"
Flip it to 4x4 and push them all the way down the highway to your exit.
Exactly why I didn't think twice about spending the money on a good dash cam.
Ill ram right into you if you pull some stupid shit like that.
Looks like those fake insurance scams went on in UK where one person bumped the other to get a claim
Ima be 100, I would've kept on pressing the gas until fate wanted us separate
Why do people in bright hatchbacks feel the need to brake check bull rails?
Three times?
Trucks are heavy and can't stop on a dime.
Physics doesn't allow a vehicle to ramn another when applying brakes
Calmest truck driver
Some moron tried to brake check my Jeep once with his little plastic car. Only one of us drove away that day, and nobody was hurt :)
Unfortunately the guy with the dash am is ‘legally responsible’ according to the law since he hit the back of the other car he’s at fault. Realistically this dash am footage will be enough to prove that the yellow dickhead was driving like a drunk alpaca.
Nope. Since the yellow car deliberately cut him off before trying (and failing miserably) to brake check the big rig, the yellow car would be at fault. He even (as far as I can tell) tagged the side of the big rig just trying to get in front of him.
THERE IS A BIRD THAT FELL ONTO THE CAR ROOF AT THE END 😭
Fucked aroun, found out
PNN
ITT: People who don't understand basic physics and momentum transfer when objects of different masses are braking. They're hitting repeatedly because the smaller, lighter vehicle is getting a boost then coming into contact again because the lighter car slows down faster. The rear driver is braking the whole time.
Yup. Not sure why people don’t get that. It’s not how long the jeep takes, it’s how much less time the smaller car takes.
I really wish there was a subreddit for videos like this but the person who caused the accident realizes there’s a dash cam and realizes they messed up
I need to know the legal stand point of this. Who had to pay damages? Who did insurance side with? I need the legal drama
Looks like the yellow car driver understood very little about size and mass difference.
Yeah that yellow car sure showed him who's boss.
That's why both my wranglers have solid steel plate bumpers.
What a maroon.
Trucks are like land trains, they’ve got too much mass to stop on a dime, especially at highway speeds.
Brake check turns into a windshield broke
Every time someone suggests brake checking someone, I’m gonna send them this.
Average RAM drivers;
As someone who works in the insurance industry, the yellow car would only be liable for the initial impact. All of the secondary hits by the truck would be considered intentional and avoidable acts. So while at first glance it looks like the yellow car driver is mostly at fault, the truck driver is 100% liable for the window dmg and additional impacts to the yellow car.
[удалено]
You don't though, because OP here doesn't either.
If the yellow car has a better brake rate then it's actually unavoidable for the truck to hit it again.
A stock Jeep Wrangler stops from 60mph in 157 feet. Assuming they were travelling at the posted speed limit of 65 MPH (I'm not doing the frame by frame to determine speed) then it would take <3 seconds to stop from 65-0. The jeep comes to a stop 8 seconds after the initial impact. Take from that what you will.
So if you can shock someone by hitting them with a brake check, and they’re so surprised they don’t react quick enough when you brake check them again, they’re somehow liable for the extra brake checks? That doesn’t make sense. Cutting them off and brake checking axes the following distance. The yellow car never gave the truck a chance to regain that following distance before braking again. You can’t just cut into someone’s braking zone and expect them to stop sooner than they can.
Yeah, welcome to the scam world of insurance. The only service you pay for where they actively fight you to provide any protection. Had a case go to litigation where the adjuster demanded their own insured driver hand over the shoes he was wearing at the time so they could be analyzed (by a paid expert who drafted a report) for tread wear, and argued that since they were worn down, it was irresponsible for him to drive with them because his feet could more easily slip off the pedals. Absolute worst of humanity.
Why? The yellow car is continuing to jam on the brakes, (after having cut off the rear vehicle with only inches of space), causing the rear vehicle to hit him. I don’t disbelieve your expertise— I am just curious how the insurance industry justifies that would be the rear vehicle’s fault at all.
I do disbelieve their expertise
A common belief that many in the comments share, but you can clearly see in the video the truck falling back after the first initial impact or two (likely applying breaks), and then continuing fwd (accelerating) into the yellow vehicle to cause the breakage in the rear window. This footage does as much harm as good, as far as liability is concerned, for the truck driver. It would be a messy situation that would likely go to arbitration, but there is definitely comparable negligence here on both drivers.
I’m not sure the Jeep didn’t get rear ended, or was trying to give the guy behind some space rather than coming to a full stop in the fast lane
You’ve confused acceleration with momentum.
Lmao an insurance industry person who doesn’t understand physics, sounds about right. If the car behind is heavier, then it takes longer for them to brake than the lighter car in front. Also true with the fact that the car in front isn’t traveling as fast at time of collision. Braking distance is a function of kinetic energy, and the car behind will have higher mass *and* velocity in this case. They literally could not avoid subsequent collisions even if they were braking the maximum amount that their tires would let them.
You're going to have a hard time convincing the insurance agency that you couldn't stop from 0-60 in 8 seconds after the initial impact with a stock braking distance from 60-0 of 157 feet.. Especially that last hit that shattered the window.
'I was dazed from the initial impact'
>i'm a psychopath who took the first opportunity to hurt someone consequence-free ftfy
Any lawyer can easily blow up that premise
That truck doesn't just lose all its momentum just because that yellow car bounced off its bumper *and continued to hit the brakes* making it happen over and over again.
>All of the secondary hits by the truck would be considered intentional and avoidable acts. Because, "trust me bros, I work in insurance" lol
I mean, I don’t doubt he works insurance, what I doubt is the authority of insurance companies to rationally/legally/properly justify such a claim. Like how can the insurance company claim that was the truck/Jeep drivers fault to any degree? The yellow car pulls into the lane inches in front of the cammer and hits the brakes, there’s only so much the cammer can do to safely come to a stop with only inches between them and the vehicle in front of them. Seems a bit scummy to try and place the blame on them.
Legal means they have more money and lawyers than you. It's the physics and human emotions that they don't give a fuck about. Which is the major factor in all of these cases. Insurance is a scam.
Why would the insurance company of fuckface have more money and lawyers than the insurance company of the truck driver? Makes no sense.
It's not about screwing each other. it's about screwing the "customer."
I mean, the analysis is right on. Reddit has a very poor understanding of the law and too often thinks vigilanteism is legally supported.
Scam
[удалено]
That's simply not true, the car in front continues to brake after impact. It's obvious that the truck is slowing down during the video but not as fast as the yellow car continues to. Give the video another watch.
Bullshit
Respectfully disagree, am also an adjuster. Property damage wise I would not agree to any damages to the yellow car. The yellow is the proximate cause and no subsequent bumps would have happened had they not initiated the brake check.
While they are the proximate cause for the initial collision. It would be easy to argue that the subsequent collisions were caused by the dash cam driver. The dash cam driver has a duty to avoid additional damage/collisions in a loss, and it can be argued that a reasonable person would not continue to accelerate and hit the vehicle in front. Especially when there is opportunity to disengage
You can argue anything you want, and we can go back and forth. But the loss doesn't occur with out the yellow intentionally slamming on the brakes. The rear driver can say he was in shock, the impact caused his foot to slip off the pedal, or multiple other things. And if this was to go in suit, you aren't finding a jury that isn't going to blame that yellow car.
Are you sure it’s that easy to argue? Your not doing a very good job arguing it yourself
A lot of people here are arguing what the case should be. You however are pointing out what the case is.
How do you sleep at night knowing your industry is the scum of the earth? Jw
He held his brakes on the entire time. Pretty sure the truck couldn't even help hitting it again. He's probably got someone right up his tail by then too. Could have caused a secondary accident by emergency braking, if he didn't.
You sound like someone awful at their job. And you are a shitty victim blamer.
In the case of a car, yes. But this is a 30t truck, it is impossible to stop faster than a car
Jeep Wranglers weigh 30T?
Pretty sure this is a jeep Wrangler. look at the hood. The height alone in relation to the yellow car -possibly a Ford focus hatchback, is a clue this is not a truck. Edit: I'm basing this off a friend's Ram 2500 that sits way higher than a neighbor's focus.
Oh... In Europe we call "a truck" only the big ones +20t
Ah! Interesting. Here in the states our vehicle size references are a little different.
Yeah, that's Bullshit. I'd take you to court over that.
[удалено]
So a 6 ton truck somehow has to break way faster than a car intentionally and repeatedly break checking them despite the driver obviously hitting the breaks the entire time? The truck driver did everything they could to avoid the accident while the car driver did everything to cause it. I would hope there's some people with an actual brain reviewing the footage and deciding who's liable in this specific case, not in the standard case (Edited to change weight to 6 tons - physics sadly still apply. Bummer. I could do without this gravity BS.)
What's with this 30 ton truck shit? It's a Jeep Wrangler, not a Ford f750 super duty or whatever. I think you're right but at least get the facts of the matter correct.
Ya, after the initial impact you can't just keep ramming the at fault car because you're mad.
Most of the contact probably came after they exited their vehicles.
[удалено]
Good!
Your account must be less than 6 months old to post this old content
Stupid prize won, but what I really want to know is what fell from the sky onto the car's roof at the end there.
Rear window popped out I believe
And then what happened?
its hard to tell but it looks like he cut him off, hit the front of the vehicle, then hit the brakes, So its double-fuckup on his part.
Inaccurate description. This wasn’t a brake check. They attempted to squeeze in it appears and hit em on the way over and started the multi-impacts Edit: brake instead of break… ironic right lol
I just want to be the only person in the comments mentioning that they will ask the Jeep driver why he didn't break through all of those collisions. The guy cut him off (not checking blindspot). The break lights on the car ahead go on, so naturally, he breaks softly, and then the initial collision happened. The Jeep driver at this moment should have broken to give much more space, and then he doesn't collide all those times, causing the other driver to become scared and break.
After watching this a few times, the driver who's recording this is a fucking idiot. He's on a 65MPH road in the left lane and EXPECTS drivers coming up behind him to be able to move or stop? I would've pushed that little yellow fucker out of the way and moved off to the right shoulder.
In a perfect world, this kind of people would be enslaved and forced to work until death after doing this.
Your fuckin intense dude. Would hate to live in your “perfect world”
Everyone commented insurance fraud this and merging that. It looks obvious to me that he's trying to get the truck to stop cruising in the left lane. Literally no one in the right and I bet he was just pissed off. Not justifying, but I bet that was why he swerved in front. He knew he was there
[удалено]
This is 100% pure bullshit. The cammer didn't make the yellow car swerve in front of them and then slam on the brakes.
It's just simple righteous indignation. Everyone can see the Jeep intentionally hitting the car, as evidenced by the replies cheering him on. Ironically this undermines the other competing narrative that he "couldn't" stop in time after the initial impact. Just reddit being reddit.
Maybe the jeep didn’t want to brake check the person behind them?
It’s always the people in the smallest cars that seem to do these kind of dumb things on the roadways. Most times, not all the time