He strikes me as a guy who wants to capture "bad driving" on camera so he seeks out or contributes to situations where he'll get something he considers worthy on camera. The yield is a prime example. He doesn't have to gun it just because he's got the right of way.
It's pretty obvious the guy could have yielded had he not sped up so he causes an unwarranted dangerous situation.
Having said that, I'm not sure he's at fault for some other ass hat pulling in front of him and coming to a complete stop.
I also recently got a dashcam for my truck after my brother was hit by a hit and run driver. I've pulled one clip in the 3 months I've had it that I would consider dumb driving. How does this guy get 2-3 per day?
Half the stuff he is showing isn't even bad driving other than on his part. Just makes himself look like an idiot.
My favourite is the white SUV clearly signalling to get in the right lane before the exit, he just snorts at him or something not letting him in so SUV speeds up and goes in front of the next car so he laughs. Meanwhile SUV got onto the exit ramp with ample room to spare.
I caught another clip of his from 2012 that shows him engaged in an accident. Watching the clip, I figured him to not only be at fault, but that he'd likely have picked up a "driving too fast for conditions" ticket in the process. He clearly shouldn't be calling other folks bad drivers until he gets his own skills in order.
I'm confused how someone turning left in front wouldn't be at fault.
I'm confused how someone turning left in front wouldn't be at fault.
It'd likely end up as a 50/50 accident (keep in mind I'm no insurance adjuster). The vehicle turning left shouldn't have...but did. He'd have made the turn except the car in the far right sped up, forcing the van to stop. Our "hero" is speeding up quite a bit too, you can hear his engine revving as he guns it after the truck moves out of his way. At that point, he's going too fast for conditions, so when the suv stops in front of him, he is unable to react quickly enough to prevent the collision.
As the SUV was allowed to go (the driver figured he had enough time to make it, and would have if the car in the left hand lane woudn't have sped up) he did his due diligence when entering a roadway.
So it'd likely have ended up being a 50/50 accident. But with insurance, who knows. But you look at our hero, and his accelerating caused his part of the accident. By the time he realized he needed to stop, he wasn't able to.
The Following User Says Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
I don't think he's at fault, the Porsche stopped right in the middle of the intersection to not hit the silver car on the right.
He might have been able to avoid it, that stretch is 60 though and I don't think he was going over 60, I think the reaction time seems slow (more than a second) maybe because he was focused on the truck that was turning left that he seemed to get a little close to.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Our "hero" is speeding up quite a bit too, you can hear his engine revving as he guns it after the truck moves out of his way. At that point, he's going too fast for conditions, so when the suv stops in front of him, he is unable to react quickly enough to prevent the collision.
That's definitely not how it works. That accident is 100% the fault of the turning vehicle, no questions asked.
OP is only guilty of not being a proactively good driver and anticipating the fact that the turner couldn't see around the corner.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
This guy is seriously grasping at straws at these so-called bad drivers. I think he's just being anal about it. "Oh, look at that loser, he changed to the left lane but he didn't turn left until two intersections after. I hope he dies".
He needs to unwind.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
You are right that defensive driving would have prevented that accident. Based on his other videos, you could almost argue that he did not take action to prevent that accident because he knew fault would lie solely with the other driver. An "I told you so" type of exposé, if you will. This dude is whack.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
That's definitely not how it works. That accident is 100% the fault of the turning vehicle, no questions asked.
OP is only guilty of not being a proactively good driver and anticipating the fact that the turner couldn't see around the corner.
Not passing judgement on the accident, but kind of dbaggish to be traveling in the left lane, especially with virtually no one in either of the two right lanes.
That guy is an awful driver. That accident video is a perfect example as he accelerates right as the truck is trying to get into the left lane and barely misses him. The accident is the Porsche's fault for sure but he was a dbag when accelerating by the truck.
Also, check out 5:56 of the Herald video. The van is trying to merge onto the offramp and their lane ends right away. This guy decides to accelerate and cut off the van so they have nowhere to go. How is that showing that the van is a bad driver?
Also, check out 5:56 of the Herald video. The van is trying to merge onto the offramp and their lane ends right away. This guy decides to accelerate and cut off the van so they have nowhere to go. How is that showing that the van is a bad driver?
In that example, the van has a yield. I agree that he drives around hoping for a little drama to catch on his dash cam, but in that instance, the van needs to be looking and not proceeding if another car is coming.
But in general, the dude sits on a rather high horse.
I was going to respond before you edited post, but anyway, I am familiar with the area and there is basically no other left turn available after that intersection for a long time.
Unrelated to the Porsche incident, but some of Bon Joeys videos around Beddington - those right lanes before Hidden Valley Link are stupid. There is really no warning that each lane ends. It's messed up. I can't blame people who are in the right lane, and don't know the area to not be confused.
This guy decides to accelerate and cut off the van so they have nowhere to go. How is that showing that the van is a bad driver?
Because a yield sign is effectively a stop sign which you're allowed to roll through if nobody is coming. OP 100% has the right of way and that van needs to be looking at OP the entirety of the way down the ramp and adjust accordingly to either be well ahead or slot in behind even if OP decides to accelerate to prove a point.
Van driver completely disregarded a stop sign and is therefore a bad driver.
The ignorance of most Calgary drivers about the difference between a yield and a merge, and how to merge properly, is reason enough to warrant mandatory driving exams every five years.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
This is why I'm not an insurance adjustor.
