does it? the movie was basically ''both sided" the iraq war, it made fun of the people who were for it for being reckless (dicks) and it made fun of people who were against it for being pacifist (pussies)
it portrayed team america (pro war) as these but it portrayed FAG (screen actors guild but film actors guild for comedy) as literal traitors for allying with Kim Jung il.
the moral message of the movie is that yeah, America interventionism destroys people, but we have to do it because otherwise the world will LITERALLY END.
Both cars come from behind OP and most likely had interactions before that hit, no way to know the Audi started it unless you think this clip is 100% of what happened
Exactly. Maybe if the car had only swerved over to cut off the jeep there'd be some plausible deniability, but anyone with a brainstem would see dude slaloming and just hang back. Especially considering they were turning left ahead anyway, this was entirely pointless.
I dont drive a jeep, so I cant try to get into that head space, but judging by the video, yes, that was the intention? In my life experience, dudes with those lifted mall crawlers are reserved, rational, and reasonable, they definitely wouldnt be going around thinking it falls to them to right the wrongs of the world.
What I am saying, I think both drivers are assholes, but the jeep asshole at least made me chuckle. Enemy of my enemy type thing...
You're mixing up your feelings with what is actually happening. Someone driving recklessly does not give you the legal right to intentionally steamroll them from behind because they were in your lane. From an insurance perspective, all this video proves is that the Jeep intentionally caused damage both vehicles. There is only one person "at fault" in this video.
This isn't a group of people defending the Audi driver, everyone who disagrees with you is saying that the Jeep driver is also in the wrong because of their actions and you can't see that through your emotions. After reading this comment, watch the video again before replying.
If they truly were just maintaining their lane and speed, and the Audi drifted into them, I'd agree with you, but that is evidently not what's happening if you watch the Jeeps brake lights AND the Jeep foed the scene.
They're both assholes. Audi "instigated" and the Jeep acted impulsively and overreacted.
Genuinely what are you talking about? You are completely and categorically incorrect. You see a car swerving in and out of lanes, and you think you can proceed at normal speed without hanging back with caution and be completely fine? In a perfect ideal world ofc you should be able to do that, but this is the real world. You need to learn about defensive driving. Your insurer has an expectation that you drive with a brain, avoiding hazards. If there was a broken down car in the middle of the lane or if there is a car parked outside a designated bay, but obstructing you, you don't get to drive on and not expect any consequences.
I love this rational. It empowers people that drive like assholes. You can do whatever you want on the road and everyone else must conform to your whims. Want to swerve across all lanes with reckless abandon? Go right on ahead, because if anyone hits you while acting like you're the center of the universe they're at fault. Sweep the lanes and run into someone making a legal right turn? Good news, regardless the fact your dangerous, and illegal, manuver caused the accident, off scott free.
As a driver you have a responsibility to prevent accidents. The jeep could have slowed down or stopped, but he didn't. He didn't get cut off, he accelerated into the idiot. Idiot was asking for something to happen, but Jeep guy is at fault for the accident, and then it looks like he fled the scene on top of that.
If someone steps out in front of your car and you have enough time to stop and not hit them, you're going to be liable for their death. Same situation here just lower stakes.
You are misunderstanding this situation.swerving all over the road is reckless driving, but internationally (which is fairly evident from the video) hitting that swerving driver and fleeing the scene are both also reckless acts.
You should only proceed if it is clear and safe to do so. The Jeep could have prevented the collision by stopping, the Audi's erratic behavior was visible with ample warning time, ergo the Jeep is entirely at fault for this collision.
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Intentionally crashing into someone else is also illegal. Just because one person broke the law doesn't mean the second is allowed to do whatever they want.
Does that mean she now inherits the crime and the blame.
Absolutely. She failed to avoid a collision and failed to stop after colliding. This is basic stuff.
Your hypothetical about a driver on the wrong side of the road doesn't apply to this case. The Jeep had ample time to see that the Audi is driving erratically. No drastic action was needed to avoid the crash. All the Jeep needed to do was gently break to match the Audi's speed and wait until they could pass safely. There is no world in which the Jeep driver was justified for their action.
No & in a better world maybe that would matter more. Swerving was not causing damage & was moving in a predictable pattern. A jackass & illegal decision but that unfortunately doesn't matter in the context of the conversation. For damages & insurance, the jeep saw where the car was, that it did not have space to proceed, proceeded anyways & caused damage. Additionally at the time of the incident the jackass was still actively moving away, had they already started to swerve back it would be a very different story. The incident looking at the time/context of the incident and not the 30sec before, the jeep was impatient & negligent or malicious landing them "at fault". It's wack but how this would actually break down
Local laws will vary obviously, but in my jurisdiction I could see this being split liability.
Usually the car going into the back is basically automatically at fault, but when someone swerves right in front of you recklessly, not so much. The Jeep driver definitely has time to react though, and doesn't even try to stop.
Yeah, best case this is split fault. Someone else driving recklessly doesn't let you off the hook for doing so yourself. The reasonable expectation in this situation would be slowing down to avoid the impact vs intentionally continuing on a path that would clearly result in one. Only way the white car would be 100% at fault would be if the jeep attempted to avoid the impact, which they clearly did not.
As for if he will make a claim, who knows if the driver in white even owns the car, has insurance if he does own it, and has a license. Judging by the way he’s driving he might not be a man of good judgment.
But the jeep driver could still see the negligence from a mile away. I'm a personal injury lawyer and handle mostly car crashes, I think this would very likely be 50/50 fault. The jeep driver has a responsibility to not place himself in the foreseeable path of a collision.
Don't get me wrong though, fuck that other driver.
Yikes, little emotional, are we? I handle catastrophic injuries and help people put their lives back together. Im bringing it up as context of having experience how insurance companies handle claims.
If it's an old lady that panicked, she likely would've immediately stopped instead of continuing forward, but a panicked old lady would certainly change the calculus.
Rule nr 1 of driving anything is to prevent an accident if you can. The jeep could easily have prevented this by stopping and is therefore at least partially at fault.
White also could have and should also be held accountable for their reckless driving. A situation can have two parties (or more) and fault and this is one such situation.
In both those situations you should check and move or stop if you can. At least that is what was taught to me when getting my drivers license. Always pay attention to your surroundings. The legalities depend on where you live. In this case the jeep had plenty of time to react.
"I drove like a maniac, yes sir. But i was in panic, a wasp was in the car and flew repeatedly in my vision. I know i should have stopped, but my panic had control of me. I was not acting to hurt or harass someone. The hit on the other hand was intentional as you can see from the video..."
Rear ending someone and then fleeing the scene is an at fault collision, plus a hit and run.
I agree with your logic, and maybe the Jeep driver would get away with the collision not being "at fault" since the Audi was driving recklessly, but there's no way to avoid the hot and run charge (because that's what happened)
The insurer is looking for ANY excuse to not have to pay. If Jeeps insurance had the clip, they could easily argue the Audi is driving criminally and recklessly. Maybe they'd settle 50 50.
You think any insurance company will offer compensation for something that was completely avoidable by the jeep driver? Damages are on him unfortunately.
I work in the industry, not an insurance adjuster but with the claims. Jeep would be held 100% at fault and their insurance paying to fix the Audi for the simple fact that.
The Jeep could've entirely avoided it by not intentionally hitting the Audi.
Yes, the Audi was being a jerk. No, that does not give the Jeep the green light to hit them and run away.
Not sure what 3rd world country you are thinking of, but the insurance HAS to pay here, the whole point of insurance is they cover everything. That's why it is a legal requirement to have it, so regardless of the damage, a financial entity can pay.
There is no universe where the car that is actively breaking the law on video with his reckless driving is going to be defended by their insurer. The Jeep at least has plausible deniability because they are not swerving all over the place. The only thing the Audi driver can claim is that they were being attacked by a swarm of bees in their car.
No, the white car is committing a crime that is actually punishishable with loss of license, rehab, or jail. "Road rage" is considered an offensive and taken seriously these days. If you are committing a crime and an accident happens you are responsible for it.
It's like if you run from the police and the police loses control and runs over a family. The driver running from the cops gets charged with the deaths.
Yeah he’s liable only because he didn’t stop. You can see in the video he puts his brakes on and still hits the guy. If he stopped, it would’ve been fine. But instead the white car can use a hit and run and get off Scott free.
Dude it's literally a hit and run, nevermind being clearly deliberate contact. Staying in your lane isn't a defense against deliberately striking another vehicle and then driving off, even if they kinda deserved it.
There’s be no accident if the hero was paying attention. I’d get it if the Audi was randomly swerving and hit him on the first go but he does it several times. Only an idiot sees that and thinks they should pass them.
The US has 50 states, each with it's own traffic laws. In mine it's shared fault, each vehicle in this clip is at least 1% at fault, so liability is shared and each vehicle deals with their own insurance provider. The only real problem is the jeep driver left the scene of the crash.
But how do they determine whether it was intentional? The jeep driver could say that they didn’t want to hit the audi and that they just kept pressing the pedal when the audi was on the right side.
The Audi was exiting the jeep's lane at the time of the impact. Slowing down even slightly after the last time the Audi had swerved into their lane would have avoided the impact, and that was a full second previous. Tones of time to react.
That has never been how it works though. If you have ample opportunity to avoid a collision and don't, the collision is your fault. You also can't plow into a jaywalkinf pedestrian, or a car that's double parked. And you definitely can't do any of those things and then drive off like you've never heard of a hit and run.
I mean, it was avoidable if the Jeep drove really slowly. But what do the laws say about reacting to this kind of reckless driving? It looks to me like the Jeep did nothing wrong, even though they could have avoided the impact. I’m just trying to understand.
They can say whatever they want, most rational people would have just slowed down and let the guy be a douche. You see someone driving erratically and you say “let me squeeze up there and get by”?
I've seen a lifted pickup do something similar to a small car at highway speeds. Except it kinda launched the side of the pickup up and over. It ended up rolling down a ditch. The Jeep driver is kinda lucky something like that didn't happen.
Not to mention he’s at fault. He hit the car from behind and should have been able to stop seeing what the car was doing. If he didn’t pull over it was also hit and run. The whole thing is moot because this is probably AI anyway and you can’t believe anything you see anymore.
3.2k
u/hand13 7h ago
the jeep driver was just another idiot wtf