Who's at fault? | TheaterFire

[-]

Educational_Sock2409@reddit

Both wrong. But you went over by 5 kph to begin with. So you could be at fault because you were not following road speed. Now they'll check Reddit and quote you saying you hit her mirror and side

[-]

I’ve noticed I’ve started to stop trusting anyone approaching any lane that I’m in like this. I see it I’m coasting and or slowing down till I’m certain they see me. Too many ppl on these roads that don’t even belong on a fckn bicycle in the grass.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

So this isn't an on ramp, just a wide section of the shoulder, the car was parked and not moving, till well, it was moving lol.

[-]

L0quence@reddit

Yea I know this is a tricky one. I just mean more like if I see anyone aiming like they wanna come out into my lane I’m switching lanes and slowing down. Too many idiots out here man.

[-]

LuRkEr_ReKuL@reddit

Tell that lady she can kiss my A$$ for that maneuver.

[-]

tylerh369@reddit

The car for pulling out in a lane that wasnt clear.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

In Ontario that wouldn't work, because the OP changed lanes.

[-]

DFA_Wildcat@reddit

This is in BC. Regularly cars pull out in front of you, just expecting you to slow down for them to get up to speed. OP attempted to change lanes to avoid the car, not to hit the car. With this footage it's pretty easy to tell who screwed up.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

I'm not saying what this driver did was wrong, but it still resulted in a collision. However if he had hit the merging vehicle instead of the sideswipe, it would have been faultless. Because the ICBC fault determination rule 100% to the merging traffic.

By taking the initiative to try to avoid, and at the same time causing another vehicle to take an evasive action. (OP stated this in other replies) As they left their lane of travel and started to change lanes, and then drifted back right because of the traffic that they were impeding in the left; they picked up fault in which would have originally been a faultless collision if they had just maintained lane and braked hard.

[-]

psudo_help@reddit

Cite any case supporting your claim?

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

https://www.ontario.ca

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668: FAULT DETERMINATION RULES"

[-]

psudo_help@reddit

A “case” means a specific collision example explaining and supporting your claim.

Not repeatedly linking to the law text.

[-]

Dm-me-a-gyro@reddit

Nonsense.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

That's Canada, we don't have jury awards, we don't have ambulance chasing lawyers, we have a government that set out the fault determination rules that all insurance companies are mandated to follow.

If you leave your lane in an avoidance maneuver and you hit someone, or the vehicle you are trying to avoid. You share partial fault.

How was that not hard to understand

[-]

HurriedLlama@reddit

So if OP just blasted into the back of the turning car he'd be legally good, but since he moved to avoid her now he's at fault?

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Fault_Determination_Rules

[-]

psudo_help@reddit

I’m not convinced. Trucker is not changing lanes, they are swerving to avoid collision.

Have anything more specific to swerving to avoid?

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Avoiding or not the driver changed lanes, they changed lanes to avoid the accident yes but they were changing lanes. They never fully established themselves in the left lane, as they almost wiped out a driver in the left.

We are taught in Ontario. As soon as you leave your established lane, you assume the risk and liability.

Think of it this way.

You swerve to avoid a moose, you take the mirror off of the left vehicle. You were avoiding, but your actions caused that hit.

If you would just hit the moose, no fault.

Sadly this is exactly the scenario. It is entirely on the smaller, lighter, better accelerating, better maneuvering vehicle to get the fuck out of the way. The OP said they were hard on the brakes, even though the acceleration chart doesn't show that.

In reality the driver should have maintained the lane been on the horn and been hard breaking. By opting to change lanes they assumed partial fault, doesn't matter the reason why they changed lanes wasn't avoidance, they made the decision to change and go around the obstacle, they assume some of the liability, that's Canadian law.

[-]

psudo_help@reddit

Avoiding a Moos and colliding with another car isn’t the same at all. That innocent car bears no blame.

The fact you can’t spell brake wears down your credibility.

If you were taught this explicitly in drivers ed, you should be able to find a link explaining this.

[-]

ChoneFiggins4Lyfe@reddit

I’m not familiar with Canadian law, so I can’t honestly refute you, however, if that’s the case, that is one of the stupidest fucking things I ever heard.

You mean to tell me, it’s better for you to stay in your lane and potentially kill someone, than to try and avoid the collision? What legal incentive would someone ever have in this scenario to avoid a collision?

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Fault determination rules are nothing about safety, they are all about accountability.

The driver even said in other comments that there was a vehicle in the left lane that had to take an evasive action to avoid him.

[-]

ChoneFiggins4Lyfe@reddit

So, let the people in the car die because they are stupid. What a great philosophy they have!

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

It's not about avoidance.

It's about who is wrong and what severity of wrong. That's it.

If the driver had a rear-ended that vehicle, it wasn't a rear ending, it was a 7.2 in the determination rules. As a vehicle was still entering the highway, it is not considered a rear ender.

By making the avoidance maneuver and still hitting the vehicle, that changed from a 7.2 which would put all the fault on the merging driver. To either a 10.2 or a 10.3 which is an automatic 50/50 to both drivers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Fault_Determination_Rules

It's in black and white.

[-]

Wookieman222@reddit

I mean to be honest that is still stupid. And doesn't even make logical sense. The law is poorly written. If that is the case. It doesn't even tale proper accountability of who is at fault.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

How's it not taking proper accountability?

If the driver of the rig had hit the merging vehicle, the merging vehicle would have been a 100% fault.

By swerving the driver's own actions contributed to the collision, thus they share some of the responsibility of the collision.

By OP's own words in this thread. They almost smoked a car that was in the left, that car almost lost control on the inside shoulder. Per the OP own reply. That would have been 100% on the rig driver had they had a collision, injury, death.

[-]

Wookieman222@reddit

Obviously in this specific case almost hitting the other car was not the right move.

But that car is 100% at fault. No matter what the truck did THEY caused the event to happen.

Putting any blame of them getting hit because of their own actions on the driver trying not to kill them is beyond stupid. I'm sorry but your law is wrong. It is poorly written and puts blame on the wrong person.

If the car had not created the event nothing would have happened. You can't blame others for your stuff getting messed up and an accident occurring because YOU did something wrong and illegal.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

First place it's not my law, it's been on the book since 1990 and hasn't been updated. It was brought in to limit court proceedings and provide a baseline for fault in collisions.

No one is disagreeing that the vehicle entering the highway was in the wrong. However as soon as the driver makes an effort to change lanes in avoidance, they accept some of the fault.

The driver couldn't hard over to the left lane, because there was another motorist there, and that motorist had to go to the inside shoulder to avoid getting hit by the cammer.

[-]

ChoneFiggins4Lyfe@reddit

I can agree, you don’t leave your lane if it puts an innocent bystander at risk. But if you and the car merging onto the road are the only two vehicles in the area, the truck should have every right to avoid a collision.

I know you said it’s not about safety, but that’s just fucking stupid. The people who make that law, will support that law, until their child or grandchild is killed in the backseat because of that law.

You can defend it all you want, you can point out how that is their system all you want. It will never change the fact that it’s stupid as fuck.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Before dash cams these regulations fucked over a lot of drivers.

It's from 1990, there hasn't been any compelling case for the government to update them.

[-]

ChoneFiggins4Lyfe@reddit

That’s usually how it goes in America. Something like that gets ignored, until someone of prominence gets severely injured or killed, and then it’s suddenly reviewed.

[-]

bananataskforce@reddit

The law does has a caveat that's it's for the "large majority" of cases, outside of which a case gets decided in a court room. This seems like exactly the sort of thing that would go to court (semi-truck at highway speed, car cuts close in front at very slow speed, oncoming traffic in the other lane).

[-]

_Roba@reddit

I do think you're looking at this a bit wrong way around.

Let's say Truck is vehicle A, and car is vehicle B.

B comes to the lane A is driving, ignoring right of way. A does not switch lanes towards B to cause the accident, but away from B to try to avoid an accident. B is at fault 100%.

If A changed lanes to avoid accident, and thus caused an accident by hitting C (car on the other lane, passing A), then A would be 100% at fault.

Without a camera, it could be difficult to determine if both drivers statements to police were conflicting, and would likely then be a 50/50 situation.

[-]

Dm-me-a-gyro@reddit

We have contributory negligence in the United States as well, it’s not an alien form of law making unique to the frozen north.

If you leave your lane in an avoidance maneuver and you hit someone, or the vehicle you are trying to avoid. You share partial fault.

How was that not hard to understand

Probably because it’s untrue.

The person that changed lanes is the driver that merged without ensuring he could do so safely. The truck driver would only be partially at fault if his lane change caused him to hit someone that WASNT already negligent in their duty.

[-]

unlikely_intuition@reddit

alternative was killing rear passengers (if any) of the offending vehicle... I'm so sick of canadian drivers in the US. obstructing traffic in the middle highway lane like they were all trained to do so. get the fuck over.... to the right... eh

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Instead your avoidance wipes out a school bus following behind you and you kill/injure a dozen or so innocents.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

I wish people wouldn't down vote you for simply stating the law.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

I agree, technically and legally staying in my lane, panic breaking was the right call, in this case my panic swerve worked out of everyone, but that same panic swerve could have done way more damage. Almost the train question, do you pull the lever, I pulled the lever and got lucky.

[-]

unlikely_intuition@reddit

is that what this exact situation was? no. was there a school bus in the left lane next to the trailer? no. was the truck driver aware of that? yes. nothing in this post mentioned that. professional drivers have a higher level of situational awareness than all the little 4 wheelers fucking around on their phones all day because they actually have to spend several hours of every day maneuvering 70+ feet of 80,000 lb vehicle successfully even when morons pull jack moves like this. professional drivers are always checking their mirrors and staying aware of the situations unfolding in front of them and their way out of them if they get hairy. professional drivers' decisions save lives on the road. usually in the form of giving themselves... or you... a way out

[-]

tylerh369@reddit

Trying to avoid rearending that person

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

You are missing the point. I understand that they were trying to avoid the collision, they still got in a collision even with the avoidance. They also could have sideswiped or caused additional accidents by their quick evasive.

[-]

PropaneAccessoryGuy@reddit

If every “could have” situation resulted in legal damages we’d all be fucked. That’s not how the law works. The driver SAFELY attempted to avoid a collision with the car that pulled out without checking, and due to several factors they were unable to avoid that collision but didn’t cause another in the process. The fault is entirely on the car that pulled out when it was unsafe to do so.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Not in Canada.

Fault determination rules. The driver that changes lanes has some partial responsibility. It sucks but that's the regulations.

Sometimes there's no innocent driver in a collision.

[-]

PropaneAccessoryGuy@reddit

Except there is, and you’re just wrong.

According to your own fault determination guidelines a vehicle merging from the shoulder into the path of another vehicle is almost always found 100% at fault, because under your Motor Vehicle Act section 151(c) prohibits drivers from changing lanes unless it is safe to do so. The car merging from the shoulder failed to ensure that it was safe to merge into the lane of travel. Section 156 allows a driver to enter or leave a highway ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY AND WITHOUT UNREASONABLY AFFECTING OTHER DRIVERS. Same as before, the merging car failed to ensure that their actions wouldn’t be unreasonably affecting other drivers.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Exactly so if the vehicle was hit, rule 7.2 would determine the fault to the merging driver.

By making an avoidance effort, it now goes from a 7.2 to a 10.2 or 10.3 which is an automatic 50/50.

[-]

PropaneAccessoryGuy@reddit

https://www.icbc.com/claims/crash-responsibility-fault/crash-examples/lane-change-crash

https://www.icbc.com/claims/crash-responsibility-fault/crash-examples/highway-merge-crash

Please show me the link that justifies what you’re saying. These are both situations directly from your ICBC that put 100% fault on the merging driver, I fail to see how a driver taking evasive action in an attempt to avoid a collision but being unable to do so makes them at fault in any way whatsoever.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Go watch the video again and watch the trucks lane position.

They never fully established in the left lane, because their emergency action caused another vehicle to go to the inside shoulder, so they started to straddle both lanes.

In your example of the lane change crash they in fact would be vehicle A in your diagram. The truck drifts left and then drifts right, there was no establishment.

[-]

PropaneAccessoryGuy@reddit

They never fully established in the left lane because there was a car there. They were forced to straddle the lanes because of the actions of the car merging onto the highway in front of them in an unsafe manner.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

So then by your own examples, if they had collided with that vehicle merging it would have been 100% in the merging vehicle, by changing lanes they assumed some of the fault.

So we're in agreement perfect awesome.

[-]

PropaneAccessoryGuy@reddit

That’s not even close to what I said, and you still haven’t sited anything that says that performing evasive actions adds fault to the driver trying to avoid a collision. I would have made more progress trying to argue this point to a sack of rocks.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Fault_Determination_Rules

As soon as the driver changed lanes this went from a 7.2 to a 10.2/10.3

That's all I need to say. And I said it earlier.

Get some education son.

[-]

PropaneAccessoryGuy@reddit

Evasive action is not the same as trying to change lanes at the same time as someone else or straddling the line to closely while both vehicles are in traffic. This is a vehicle entering the highway unsafely, and is still therefore under 7.2.

You’re still wrong.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Okay dude I'm done with you, you're just trolling or dropped on your head as a child.

✌️ And 🖕

[-]

SmooveKJ@reddit

But they didnt…

[-]

HowlingWolven@reddit

Her fault. 100%.

[-]

NiceRaspberry9118@reddit

The dumb b1tch who was playing on her phone and didn't even look before throwing herself into traffic like a Kamikaze pilot. She not only endangered her life, but also yours due to the fact your mercy to protect HER life could've had you running into other people and thus injuring other people because she wasn't paying attention. Her license should be suspended. Well, at the very least, her insurance company is aware that she's a risk... and for good reason! Buys A BRAND NEW CAR and doesn't operate it with absolute care. Could be on some insurance fraud type activity. Who knows? One thing is for certain... AT SPEED LIMIT, she gave you no REASONABLE time to react, and she is TOTALLY at fault for being either absent-minded, or suicid@l.

[-]

deadpat03@reddit

You had 7 seconds to react. Not one attempt at slowing down. Dude 100% your fault on your side. As far as her 100% her fault on her side. So 100% you're both at fault. Neither of you made any attempt to avoid the crash.

[-]

CatfishCharlie1984@reddit

Should have grabbed that Left lane when you noticed a vehicle on the shoulder. Not your fault but that's why we do it. Idiots will do what idiots do and it seems like there's ALWAYS an attempt to pin it on the driver...or at least get you for "partial" fault regardless of the bone head shit people pull.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

There was a car in the left lane that I almost took out. They reacted very quickly and used the inside shoulder. So legally, I should have just locked my breaks and tear ended her. But instinct takes over all all that.

[-]

Dead_Namer@reddit

That video makes it look like you deliberately swiped them, you move to the left and then back to the right. Now I am sure it was because you locked up but it doesn't help you.

You'd regret it for the rest of your life if you deliberately drove into her so good choice there.

With disk brakes and ABS you would not have even made contact.

[-]

SomeMerc@reddit

I agree that Instinct is hard to kick. But all in reality you where in the right. I honestly have a dislike for people that think it's ok to just merge back on at non highway speeds. The emergency lane is there for a reason people. And same argument for people with flashers on in the travel lane. Seems like the average driver these days is afraid to to use the emergency lane.

[-]

L0quence@reddit

It’s like they don’t teach or stress this shit enough, especially merging into high speed traffic. You’d think that would get way more attention and teaching as you’re literally going to get yourself and others KILLED like this.. it isn’t a traffic circle where you’ll have a fender bender or medium dmg to your vehicle, you’ll be dead. Do better registries and driver trainers of the world.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

I'm sire glad the car in the left lane, beside me. used all of the inside emergency lane and didn't lose control, could have gone much worse. That car is the hero here.

[-]

SomeMerc@reddit

Yeah I'd take my hat of to that car for looking out. If it wasn't for that you'd be up shit creek and dumb dumb could have just driven away without a care in the world.

[-]

West_Imagination3237@reddit

People can become absent-minded and self-indulged when driving at the worst possible times, including myself. It's why I always give shouldered vehicles a lane of space if possible.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

We tend to get a bunch of abandoned cars on shoulders, usually a flat tire, seeing new cars don't have spares. I honestly just got caught of guard by one that popped up right infront of me.

[-]

That-one-guy12@reddit

Why did you pull over and stop? did you make contact with something?

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Yes I did, took of her mirror and left rubber dounuts on the side panles.

[-]

AndromedanPrince@reddit

you are, i could see that coming

[-]

mistakemaker3000@reddit

Yeah why were they continuing to floor it the whole time? I would've been braking before the video even started, at least let off the gas

[-]

AndromedanPrince@reddit

i always do if a car is on the shoulder, and he was 5km over the limit. but i was trained that way so it varies between drivers

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

I don't disagree, we just have so many cars parked on the shoulders. As for the speed, I was the slowest vehicle on the road. Police openly say they don't inforse the speed limit till we are more than 20km over the speed.

[-]

AndromedanPrince@reddit

i get it man, i do the posted sign everywhere cuz thats how i was trained. sorry it hallened to ypu, the car was def in the wrong but it possibly could have been avoided. best of luck!

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Agreed

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Just to clear a small detail, not disagreeing that I'm not at least partially at fault, I did panic break before I got to her, left nice long black lines, the speed data is cellular and slow to update.

[-]

mistakemaker3000@reddit

Makes sense. Be safe out there!

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Also, who is down voting these comments, I'll update yours even if I disagree. I like seeing everyone's perspective, the dang reason I posted this.

[-]

DieselAndPucks@reddit

Both. Car for pulling out and truck for not reacting. 5.5 seconds between the car pulling out and you passing the car. Zero reaction other than swerving, speed stayed constant at 105. Considering the car was doing about 50 by the time you passed, you had time to brake and avoid this whole mess, maybe at the cost of a flat spot on your tires depending if you were empty or loaded.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Loaded super B (135LB), did flat spot the tires, left nice long black lines. The speed is updated by cell and lags a few seconds behind, guess I should have added that to the description.

[-]

DieselAndPucks@reddit

Gotcha. Good avoidance then. I'd be curious to have those brakes looked at though. Been a while I've had to really go full emergency brakes at highway speeds now that I've moved to teaching trucking instead of driving but I used to drive 4 axle tankers(127k lbs) and they'd brake much harder than what I'm seeing there.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

All the trailer breaks were replaced 2 months ago. You have very valid points though, I could have done things better, hind sight and all. I remember learning all this, I used to be a firefighter, in a defensive truck driving course, but learning it and practicing your defensive skills so your instinct reacts better is another thing.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

I can reference the Ontario fault determination rules.

They would call that a 50/50.

Neither of you were established in lane.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Yea, so if I had just rear-ended her and stayed in my lane, it would have been 100% her fault?

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

Hey man I didn't make the fault rules. But the smaller or maneuverable and faster accelerating vehicle should have made the avoidance, and the professional operator should have maintained their lead, engaged in panic breaking, and used their air horn.

You are the flowing traffic you have the right of way.

[-]

Questionoid@reddit

So no clear last chance considerations and avoidance maneuvers allowed? That’s harsh.

[-]

Pitiful-MobileGamer@reddit

By the driver's own statements in other replies there was a vehicle on their left, that vehicle had to avoid them coming over last minute and why they did a lazy left lane change not a fast change in a full avoidance.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

I concure

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Yea, I did panic break, left some nice black lines, and airhorn was singing. The speed drop off on the dash cam is GPS based and a bit slow to update. Was definitely an interesting few seconds.

[-]

FishermansPlatter@reddit

You were going to fast- it’s your job to be a professional

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

I up voted, someone not from my area wouldn't know that 20km over the speed limit is normal, and not enforced by the police. I was the slowest vehicle on the road.

[-]

dewky@reddit

Wow first time I've seen where I know the area!

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Nice, right next to Herrling Island, eastbound.

[-]

Barquebe@reddit

I’ve had a few close calls in that exact spot. The cops like to set up speed traps and pull people over there, then when they’re done writing the ticket the person pulls out without checking their mirrors as you’re coming around the bend.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

When I talked to the driver, they didn't seem to think it was their fault. Had no idea I was even there, thought a rig magically appeared and side swiped them.

[-]

PlastomaGaming@reddit

Well what do you expect? They basically give cdls to anyone so if it’s just a regular drivers license? It blows my mind these people get to keep their damn license but smash into a truck driver and the truck driver gets punished.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

Brand new car too, she had it just over a month looking at her insurance.

[-]

Juan_Rempel@reddit (OP)

You made me to check the video for a cyclist, 😆

[-]

iambrutal8@reddit

The guy pooping behind the tree in lower right corner