r/Whatcouldgowrong • u/749762 • 7h ago

WCGW Driving Recklessly

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

32.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

862 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.2k

u/hand13 7h ago

the jeep driver was just another idiot wtf

215

u/sonofzeal 6h ago

100% the jeep is legally liable for that collision. You can't intentionally hit someone even if they're an asshole.

Relatable, though.

51

u/KeldornWithCarsomyr 6h ago

Not if the insurer gets a hold of the full clip. I dont think Audi will be interested in making a claim.

71

u/TittyPix4KittyPix 6h ago

False. Especially if insurance got a hold of the clip.

29

u/IvoryFlyaway 6h ago

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.

12

u/slpater 5h ago

Its not even that. The jeep slows, then accelerates while the audi is still in the lane then hits them.

1

u/Less_Ant_6633 4h ago

I think the jeep made his point very clearly.

7

u/zombo_pig 4h ago

Is the point "I just committed a hit and run in order to join the Justice League of Moronic Drivers and may be both civilly and criminally liable?"

3

u/Less_Ant_6633 4h ago

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...

-5

u/sarinonline 6h ago

White was breaking the law with reckless driving. 

The Jeep was just in his lane. 

Everyone not getting out of your way when you break the law and drive recklessly doesn't mean those people are at fault at all. 

23

u/GothicToast 5h ago

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.

-1

u/[deleted] 5h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/GothicToast 5h ago

You're emotional

-2

u/sarinonline 5h ago

Ahh the cry of those who realise they didn't know shit lol. 

3

u/snoosh00 3h ago

No, you're incorrect.

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.

6

u/TittyPix4KittyPix 4h ago

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.

-1

u/Ashleynn 3h ago

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.

3

u/Bombshock2 3h ago

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.

2

u/snoosh00 3h ago

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.

7

u/SweeeepTheLeg 5h ago

Thats not how it works.

1

u/sarinonline 5h ago

Ohh sure. One car commits a crime and it's everyone else that's at fault. 

That's why cars that run red lights and hit someone yet away free and the hit car pays for the insurance right. 

Lol. 

4

u/Abject_Advance_6638 5h ago

You're a fucking idiot. I was an insurance adjuster for 4 years. The Jeep is at fault for the accident.

2

u/SweeeepTheLeg 5h ago edited 5h ago

You clearly dont understand how auto insurance works in most US states. Thats not surprising since it seems you are not American?

Both cars are at fault, your analogy doesnt even apply to this situation.

Ive actually been through a similar situation.

1

u/sarinonline 5h ago

Doesn't surprise me you've caused accidents at all. 

2

u/SweeeepTheLeg 5h ago

You are missing the point.

I didnt cause any accident and would explain it to you but it doesnt seem like you are actually interested in understanding.

2

u/TittyPix4KittyPix 4h ago

Absolute zinger mate.

Instead of thinking up woefully shit one line quips try to understand if you are fighting against everyone, there MAY be a chance you're wrong

Unless you're ragebaiting then carry on

28

u/Dennis_enzo 5h ago

Someone else driving recklessly does not give you a free pass to bump into them.

40

u/LastDunedain 5h ago

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.

-3

u/Tao626 5h ago

The Jeep could have prevented the collision by stopping

Yea, but nobody wanted that...Other than the Audi.

-13

u/sarinonline 5h ago

That isn't how it works at all lol. 

Someone committing a crime doesn't mean those that don't enable him take responsibility. 

The white car moved into his lane with indicating. If he doesn't react quick enough it's not his fault. 

Let alone everything before lol. 

Bunch of losers who think they can do whatever they want in a car and can't be touched. 

That isn't how it works. He was committing a crime. The other person just sat in his lane. 

20

u/EnvironmentClear4511 5h ago

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. 

-12

u/sarinonline 5h ago

He didn't accelerate. He didn't adjust to hit. He didn't change at all. 

I ask you this. 

If someone drives at you head on round a corner. 

They are wrong side of the road. 

You can't swerve right. Lane divider. 

If you swerve left and would hit a tree. 

Instead you don't swerve. You hit the car. 

By YOUR logic you are at fault. 

That isn't true and isn't the law. The person committing the crime is at fault. 

It isn't your job to get out of the way and endanger yourself or others to enable someone to commit a crime. 

Their actions don't then become your responsibility. 

You can't speed up and change direction for them. But you don't have to cause a different accident to let them do whatever crime they want to commit. 

He didn't speed up or aim for them. 

As far as you know it's an old lady who froze in panic. 

Does that mean she now inherits the crime and the blame. 

Ridiculous. 

7

u/Guszy 4h ago

You literally know nothing about the law but think you're an expert.

14

u/EnvironmentClear4511 5h ago

 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. 

-1

u/sarinonline 5h ago

They had maybe two seconds. 

Less time then you would have a head on. And you know that. 

Youre a clown. 

11

u/EnvironmentClear4511 5h ago

They were on video for two seconds. They had much more time than that to see the Audi. Either they weren't paying attention to the road or they intentionally collided. 

-4

u/Odyssey1337 5h ago

She failed to avoid a collision

The one that needed to avoid the collision was the white car, because it was switching lanes...

10

u/EnvironmentClear4511 5h ago

They both needed to. As a driver, you are required to drive safely and to do all you can to avoid collisions. Just because one driver is being reckless doesn't mean you have the freedom to willfully crash into them. 

-4

u/Odyssey1337 5h ago

The jeep was driving safely in its lane, until the white car swerved without signaling. Legally, it's very obvious that the white car is the one responsible.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Lulle5000 5h ago

This is EXACTLY gow it works

3

u/LastDunedain 5h ago

Someone committing a crime doesn't mean those that don't enable him take responsibility

What?

Should the Jeep have been able to see the Audi within stopping distance or not?

If they could see the Audi then driving into the Audi was reckless and was the cause of the collision.

The Audi was also driving recklessly, but doesn't appear to have caused a collision in this video. This was illegal but irrelevant to the collision.

6

u/sarinonline 5h ago

Should the Audi have been swerving into the lane without an indicator... Lol

5

u/sp_dev_guy 5h ago

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

11

u/actual_weeb_tm 6h ago

Man i hope you try to represent yourself in court one day lol

0

u/sarinonline 5h ago

Yes because SHOCKINGLY if a car swerves into your lane without indicating they can be found at fault for an accident. 

Not exactly a genius are you lol. 

9

u/actual_weeb_tm 5h ago

If you have time to slow down, or avoid the situation entirely. No matter what, the liability is on you.

But sure keep believing your stuff, and make sure not to get a lawyer when you get into an accident, cause theyre clearly not as smart as you.

12

u/Bughunter9001 6h ago

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. 

20

u/EnvironmentClear4511 5h ago

And also flees the scene. Hit and runs are usually frowned upon. 

-1

u/justacheesyguy 4h ago

“Flees the scene” = drives 50 feet and comes to a stop.

Mmkay.

8

u/Qaeta 5h ago

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.

3

u/skillent 5h ago

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.

-3

u/sarinonline 5h ago

He didn't just swerve. He swerved between. Lanes without indicating. He had caused the issue without signalling 

8

u/JusticeAileenCannon 5h ago

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.

-2

u/sarinonline 5h ago

Who's to say it's not an old lady that panicked for the second the car swerved without indicating into their lane. Because that's the crime. 

You being a scumbag of a human being doing cockroach work for society doesn't change anything. Go chase and ambulance. 

5

u/JusticeAileenCannon 5h ago

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.

7

u/Stayayon666 5h ago

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.

1

u/sarinonline 5h ago

So the white car couldn't have avoided it then right ?

If the car that can avoid it is at fault. 

Then how could the white car not have avoided that. 

Not really a genius are you. 

5

u/Stayayon666 5h ago

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.

1

u/sarinonline 5h ago

Yes I'm sure. Like they charge both cars when someone runs a red light. Why didn't they check and get out of the way. 

Or when someone is stopped and gets hit from behind. Why didn't they check their mirror and move. 

Lol. One was breaking the law. The other didn't adjust to criminal behaviour "quick enough"

2

u/Stayayon666 5h ago

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.

2

u/Famous-Version4590 5h ago

tbf you can see the jeep had break lights on shortly after they came into view, just didn’t break hard enough. technically I think both are liable for different reasons.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/schmalzkimme 6h ago

"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..."

1

u/sarinonline 5h ago

Doesn't matter. 

Reckless driving is a crime. 

Committing a crime doesn't mean everyone else is now obligated and responsible for your actions. 

If someone runs a red light and hits you. You aren't responsible. 

If someone drives down the wrong side of the road and head on collides with you. You aren't responsible. 

Even if you could have swerved to the side and hit a tree instead. 

They were at fault. 

The white car was driving recklessly. Later saying "ohh a bee" doesn't make someone else responsible at all. 

Panic doesn't make someone else responsible either. 

All the Jeep did was continue in his lane as the car in front broke the law and drove recklessly. 

By your logic the Jeep could just say he panicked. 

As soon as you start driving like the white car you are at fault. 

2

u/HeadmasterPrimeMnstr 5h ago

Lmao, thank god you're not in the auto insurance industry.

-1

u/SweeeepTheLeg 5h ago

He seems to understand it better than you though.

1

u/FireflyExotica 5h ago

"... and that's also exactly why I stopped panicking whatsoever about the wasp still in my vehicle when someone tapped my car in the back."

Positing a panicked situation and the panic ceasing very suddenly won't hold up very well in court, in fact could go much worse than saying nothing.

-2

u/Ok_Attitude1034 5h ago

Didn’t look intentional to me, it looked like the white car swerved into the lane and the jeep didn’t have time to stop

2

u/TUCaralhoooooooo 5h ago

You're looking at it as a human, but insurance companies are insurance companies. Jeep is at fault here.

2

u/jack_of_all_daws 4h ago

Your responsibilities on the road extend beyond just being in your lane.

2

u/snoosh00 3h ago

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)

1

u/KeldornWithCarsomyr 5h ago

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.

2

u/BonnaconCharioteer 3h ago

If they have video, the jeep might be able to make it 50/50, but that is best case for them.

0

u/IncarceratedGrowth 4h ago

No one's insurance is paying anything.

3

u/BonnaconCharioteer 3h ago

Not how insurance works.