least common denominator, camaro causes the accident. You cannot deny that. You can say that the pickup driver was being passive aggressive for not letting him pass, but it was the camaro that took it unnecessarily too far. 1) by trying to pass on the shoulder/median and 2) by starting the initial confrontation of trying to cut the pickup off. Don't really see how you can argue anyone else's true fault... unless you have no soul.
In my mind the Camaro driver was at fault the moment he illegally got on the road drunk. None of this probably happens if that dumba** doesnt drive intoxicated.
Camaro is by far the biggest a-hole here. The truck should have been the mature adult and passed the semi. I know it is tempting to do what he did because that Camaro driver is such a POS but it wasn't smart. Both trucks should have let this moron speed past them and they would have driven home unscathed. The situation was completely caused by the Camaro but the pickup and semi (especially the pickup) could have resolved it. People saying the pickup is more wrong must drive like jackasses. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x8062QEFk5g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not defending the Camaro driver but the pickup guy was the root cause. He was sticking it to the Camaro for trying to cut him off. The truck driver was in on it too. I want to feel bad for them but they sure do make it difficult to pass them. When I was younger I tried to teach people lessons on the road but now I think about how stupid that is. 30 secs of pride..can become very costly.
This is absurd. It's like saying if I don't let someone cut in line and then chide them for it and then he pulls out a gun and shoots me in the face, that I was the root cause. Actually...more accurately, it's like saying someone bumps into me while trying to cut in line and almost pushes me over a bridge potentially resulting in my death...I chide them for it and maybe push them back...he then proceeds to push me again but this time hard enough to make me go over the bridge. Was I the root cause?
Its like some blatantly drunk dude cutting you in line, and then both of you starting to scrum and then you and him launch yourself, the offender, and some random bystander over the bridge. Yeah the DUI guy is in the wrong. That being said, is it worth it to keep it real and possibly get people killed? Just call him an ******* and let him speed past. Not everything in life is worth fighting over, and definitely not worth possibly endangering the lives of others over. I just shake my head whenever I see instances of road rage on the daily. People are moronic and stupidly prideful. The day you decide you want to "get back" at other drivers is most likely the day you die or you kill someone else doing it.
Not only that, but the pickup truck is not just holding up the Camaro, but every car behind too. Did the driver think he was only affecting the Camaro? That brake check was a terrible response and that was when dashcam man put himself at a distance because two (really three) crazy drivers are having a royal rumble.
I think reading responses, especially those chiding the pickup driver, is interesting. I think a lot of people are identifying with the pickup driver and are applying a higher standard of conduct to him than to the camaro driver as a result. Implicitly, the camaro driver is just the object of a sentence -- this immutable drunk and dangerous driver -- and the subject of the sentence is this pickup driver and how he should have optimally acted given the situation. Every argument of 'let assholes be assholes' or 'its not worth risking your life over' is equally applicable to both camaro driver and pickup driver. The pickup driver should have let the ******* by; well the camaro driver should have let the ******* bottle him in. The pickup driver shouldn't have risked his life to teach that punk camaro driver a lesson; well the camaro driver shouldn't have risked his life trying to get over on the pickup driver. It's the same, but we expect more from the pickup driver. On a different point, the pickup driver might have saved some lives. This camaro driver was drunk and driving recklessly. He ended up getting in an accident with 2 vehicles large enough to protect their drivers and no one was seriously hurt. What if the pickup driver let camaro through and he got into a different accident later? Would the cars in the next accident be as large, the terrain as open? Or, what if the drunk driver arrived safely at his destination and was affirmed in his belief that he could drive drunk and nothing bad would happen, so he continues in his pattern of reckless behavior until something bad does happen. Regardless of who is being a jerk here, this is just about the best outcome you could hope for -- a drunk and dangerous driver gets his comeuppance without causing death or serious injury to himself or others.
Good point, this Camaro probably would have ended up wrecking his car eventually regardless of what happened with the pickup. He was way too drunk, aggressive and reckless to make it home without crashing into someone. Luckily everyone was okay.
Why don't people have patience when driving? Why put everyone's life at risk so you can get to your location 5 minutes earlier? Why risk not getting there at all, or killing someone else so you can drive aggressively? Some say the truck should have sped up to allow the Camaro to pass on the left, but the Camaro had no right to tail someone like that -- even if he is being annoying and won't let you speed. That being said, the driver with the camera was too close as well. You're supposed to leave a car-length for every 10mph of speed. If people actually did this, there would be far fewer accidents because you would have enough time to react. But because people like to tail people to try and get them to go faster, they end up causing accidents. Doesn't help that the jackass was intoxicated either.
That was just a confluence of bad decisions all around, with the camaro making the worst one of the three. The truck speeding up to prevent the camaro from cutting into the lane was a total dick move. slow driving and purposefully blocking the passing lane was also a dick move. however, dick move does not equal dangerous. The semi has got to be more aware of the situation and slow down a bit. He drives semis fro a living, he's got to realize these kinds of potential hazards. however, ignorance does not equal dangerous. The camaro was just a dangerous driver. drunk, driving aggressively, no regard for other people.
That's why you call the cops instead of escalating an issue. Saved lives here. It's a miracle no one was hurt by the combined actions of the two drivers.
Yeah and what if that Camaro crashed into a vehicle that was stolen and had a dead body being transported in the trunk. Now the Camaro is a hero and the pickup is also for letting him through.
Highly disagree here and sorry for the triple post. Blocked the passing lane is dangerous and ignorance can definitely be dangerous. You can't claim ignorance at trial.
And we saw how successful the truck driver did in his attempts to police the Camaro's driving. He's lucky he's not dead.
I definitely didn't see it that way, and rewatched to confirm. Immediately after the Camaro switches to the left lane (after trying to move into the truck's lane before he was out of the way) he speeds up. Then starts going side to side as if trying to see who is in front of the truck, all while tailing the guy. I put tailgating > left lane blocking in order of most douchebaggy. Yes, the left lane is for passing. It is not, however, for speeding. The Camaro not only wanted to pass the truck, he wanted to speed through traffic. Obviously the Camaro was being the most dangerous -- not to mention he was intoxicated.
Blocking the passing lane isn't dangerous. It's rude and annoying. You don't get in accidents because someone wouldn't let you pass another person. You get in accidents because you speed, drive too slow, change lanes without looking, etc, but not from driving in the left lane. Driving in the left lane is not inherently dangerous. I totally disagree with your statement. What is dangerous is boxing people in. That being said, if people didn't get so close to each other on the road as if they're in a race to get to their location fastest, there would be far fewer accidents.
