Truck Versus Car Incident - Who Was Wrong, & Could It Have Been Avoided?

Guys, were going to have to agree just to disagree, and agree that the VW was a moron. K?

Exactly lol. People keep arguing that the driver of the truck is still legally at fault and is somehow liable for the accident though and the simple fact is that he isn't.

A lot of missing info here.

I say the VW was at fault coz of the unsafe lane change. just because the blinker is on does not mean right of way is automatic.

we have no idea how heavy the tractor trailer was, therefore stopping distance my not have been enough

also, notice how the tractor trailer veers into the shoulder? methinks slamming on brakes would have been worse than steering to avoid

it could also be a tanker, so the momentum kept the truck pushing forward and a FINALLY as I remember in the CDL handbook, they advice its better to steer away from obstacle than slam on brakes due to potential jackknifing

conclussion?...tractors take longer to stop than 4 wheelers....therefore 4 wheelers beware!!!!

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party here.

First of all I have no interest in debating who is legally responsible for what. Makes no difference to me. The accident never should have happened in the first place and the truck driver could have prevented the entire thing if he would have been handling his rig like a professional. That's all I care about.

When it comes to the way you handle your rig, a driver is not to be judged relative to all other drivers on the road. A truck driver is to be judged based upon his or her driving standards alone, regardless of what anyone else out there is doing. In other words, just because other people are doing stupid things doesn't make it ok for you to do stupid things. As a professional you're expected to rise above the level of the amateurs around you, not sink to their level.

Handling your rig like a professional means you're making far more informed and disciplined decisions than most people would make. You're more aware of your surroundings, you're taking defensive driving precautions above and beyond what most people would feel is necessary, and you're ready for anything at all times.

The moment this video started the truck driver was in the wrong for following way too closely. I hated to even waste a minute of my life watching the rest of it because I immediately knew who was going to be in the wrong. Then he's blabbing away on the phone and you guys heard him say, "She doesn't realize I've got this on camera. " To me, that's terrifying because he clearly believes he was handling his rig properly and is going to be vindicated by the video. It's like following distance isn't even a concern in this guy's mind. The fact that he was 20 feet off the bumper of the four wheeler ahead of him at about 70 mph doesn't even cross his mind. In my mind following distance is the most important thing when it comes to operating safely out there and to this guy it doesn't even matter.

I'm telling you guys, at some point the trucking companies and insurance companies are going to say enough is enough. They're going to put cameras in every single rig on the road and they're going to use the collision avoidance system to trigger the dash cam when you're following too closely to the vehicle ahead of you. That's going to put a stop to a lot of this tailgating.

So in my mind the truck driver was 100% at fault for this entire thing. I couldn't care less what anyone else on the road was doing or who was technically at fault legally. If a real professional had been driving that rig there wouldn't have been an interesting video to watch in the first place.

Thanks Brett.

Exactly the point myself and a few other long-timers here were trying to make.

We ALL agree the VW driver was an azz. We just don't all seem to agree that the truck driver was just as much of one - and this accident was 150% PREVENTABLE. This is not like GuyJax's - where the vehicle flew across 3 lanes and there was no avoiding it.

And what surprises me here - and part of the reason I started this discussion - was to gauge the ATTITUDE AND PERCEPTION of the members here. And some of you guys, I'm just really shocked at how some of you perceived this. I expected the weird responses from the FB Gun Forum that I saw this posted in originally - they've never driven an 18 wheeler. Some of the stuff posted here have me sadly disappointed.

"Following Too Closely" is considered a serious/major offense when operating a CMV - and accidents like this are the reason why.

4 wheelers (especially ones that have never driven an 18 wheeler) are going to do stupid stuff. They have no idea that we take over a 200' to stop at highway speeds (in ideal conditions). They have no idea that a quick whip of the steering wheel (to avoid a dog/deer/etc.) can jackknife or roll a rig. They drive around figuring that everyone can maneuver as rapidly as they do. And we're not even talking about the real idiots that try and go up against a rig - looking for a payday (like brake checking a rig).

Rule of thumb on following distance is "to allow enough room for other vehicles to pass" - basic rule - without getting into "seconds per foot of vehicle. 70' rig over 40 mph - this guy should have had at least 8 seconds of following distance. He had pretty much the correct distance, before the first car passed. Didn't open the gap back up when he got passed (Basic Defensive Driving), and closed it even further to PREVENT BEING PASSED.

If we're going to drive around, figuring that we're the big boys and we can command the lane and not let those pesky little VW's get in front of us - one of us is going to end up in an accident similar to this one.

And if he had (God forbid) rolled this car, or killed the driver/occupants - based on the following too closely (and aggressively accelerating to block the other car off) - he would have been looking at VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CHARGES.

Rick

Well, let me clarify that I was not advocating that we drive like the guy in the Pete. I don't drive like that, and I don't recommend that anyone else do that either.

But the question was, "Who's at fault?" And the answer is, legally, the idiot in the car who turned into the truck. In that sense, it's identical to the idiot who turned into guyjax.

Again, you can argue that morally the guy in the truck was wrong, since he saw it coming and maybe could have backed off. But the car driver is morally culpable, too, since it was a very aggressive move that didn't have to be made.

Moving beyond just this incident, I understand the idea that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. But when a collision happens, it's not always clear to those involved exactly what happened and why. I would hate for one of the new drivers here to become convinced that it's always their fault (legally) if their truck collides with another vehicle.

The tendency for responsible people is to assume fault, especially in the immediate aftermath of a collision. But if one of us were involved in a collision, it would be a huge mistake to jump out of your truck and say, "I'm sorry, it's all my fault."

First, you don't know that, since you don't have all the facts at that moment. (What if the other driver was driving under the influence, for example?)

Second, the world of lawyers and courts aren't so understanding as we try to be here. That statement will be used against you, and may mean the loss of your job, your career, your savings, and/or your liberty.

So please, if we're trying to teach new drivers how to avoid this kind of situation, great, point out what the truck driver did wrong. But don't muddy up the difference between suboptimal driving (we all have our days when we're just plain lucky, if we're being honest) and "fault."

Was the truck driver an a$$? Yes. Was he legally at fault? No. Being an a$$ is not something to promote, but neither is it worth promoting confusion about legal liability with real consequences, even if it makes you feel good.

Well, let me clarify that I was not advocating that we drive like the guy in the Pete. I don't drive like that, and I don't recommend that anyone else do that either.

But the question was, "Who's at fault?" And the answer is, legally, the idiot in the car who turned into the truck. In that sense, it's identical to the idiot who turned into guyjax.

Again, you can argue that morally the guy in the truck was wrong, since he saw it coming and maybe could have backed off. But the car driver is morally culpable, too, since it was a very aggressive move that didn't have to be made.

Moving beyond just this incident, I understand the idea that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. But when a collision happens, it's not always clear to those involved exactly what happened and why. I would hate for one of the new drivers here to become convinced that it's always their fault (legally) if their truck collides with another vehicle.

The tendency for responsible people is to assume fault, especially in the immediate aftermath of a collision. But if one of us were involved in a collision, it would be a huge mistake to jump out of your truck and say, "I'm sorry, it's all my fault."

First, you don't know that, since you don't have all the facts at that moment. (What if the other driver was driving under the influence, for example?)

Second, the world of lawyers and courts aren't so understanding as we try to be here. That statement will be used against you, and may mean the loss of your job, your career, your savings, and/or your liberty.

So please, if we're trying to teach new drivers how to avoid this kind of situation, great, point out what the truck driver did wrong. But don't muddy up the difference between suboptimal driving (we all have our days when we're just plain lucky, if we're being honest) and "fault."

Was the truck driver an a$$? Yes. Was he legally at fault? No. Being an a$$ is not something to promote, but neither is it worth promoting confusion about legal liability with real consequences, even if it makes you feel good.

Guess we can agree to disagree here.

Truck was following too closely - plain and simple. Had he left the required gap - the VW could have made it in with zero issues.

Not that I'm a cop - OR a lawyer.

But if I was the cop that rolled onto this scene - and the truck driver started waving his dashcam at me going "looky here, looky here" - BOTH drivers would have gotten cited.

VW for improper passing. Truck for following too closely, and depending on the attitude of the truck driver - reckless/aggressive driving for closing the gap and trying to block the VW from passing.

If I was a LAWYER, trying this case in front of a JURY - I would point out the same thing on the video - observe the driver following to closely, watch as this dangerous truck driver speeds up so my poor client was trapped. Wouldn't be a dry eye in the house.

We DO need to be "harder on ourselves" as (supposed) "professional drivers", because that's what we are - and how the rest of the world views us.

As much as we take for granted that folks on this board went to school to learn how to drive one of these beasts (and many of us were AMAZED that we actually COULD) - if it was THAT EASY to be an OTR Truck Driver, then EVERYONE would be doing it.

And the point is - we probably see this scenario ourselves out on the road at least a few times a day. Slower truck in right lane, bunches of cars trying to get by him.

Are YOU (not you in particular Bud) going to be the guy that says "F that guy trying to squeeze in" and speed up - potentially contributing to a preventable accident? In the eyes of your Safety Department - if the accident WAS PREVENTABLE - it was YOUR FAULT.

Rick

As much as I'm enjoying this conversation, I don't think anybody really disagrees that what the truck driver did was wrong and that he could have prevented the accident by simply slowing down. There are two conversations going on here: Was the accident preventable (on the trucker's end)? and Who was legally at fault?

Most everyone has acknowledged that the accident was preventable. I guess Rick and Bud are disagreeing a bit on the legal fault question, but it's not exactly a particularly simple scenario since both the VW and the Pete made mistakes.

I've really enjoyed the legal side of the discussion because it's really emphasized to me how important it is to make sure you're always following the rules of the road, even less "important" rules like using turn signals. Any rules/regulations you aren't following at the time of an accident can be used against you in court.

As far as we're concerned as truck drivers though, the trucker's behavior was totally unacceptable. Whether or not the trucker was at fault legally, he did not make the safe choice in this situation. All these percentages being thrown around don't make any sense the way they're being used. The truck driver was 100% responsible for his unsafe actions and the VW driver was 100% responsible for hers. As far as what percentage each driver was responsible for the accident itself, it's impossible to come up with an accurate number because either one of them could have avoided the accident at almost any point before contact was made. I agree with Bud that the VW driver was more liable, but I really think they both should be cited for their individual offenses.

In nearly all common law jurisdictions the vehicle already established in a lane of traffic has the right of way and the duty of care is on the merging driver to ensure that they can execute their maneuver without causing damage to persons or property prior to initiating that manoeuvre.

I would say they both were,

The guy in the rig should've slowed down and let the car merged though, it's not like the driver in the WV tried to merge without signalling(I've had that happen to me plenty of times.).

Of course the accident could've been preventable from both drivers because if you ask me the Trucker looked like he was speeding up to beat the WV. Chances are they came down on him harder because he's a professional, that word will get you all the time when something like this happens.

Honestly if that was me in his situation I would've just let the car merged and be done with it, it's not worth the headache of contacting safety and telling them the details of what happen and all that stuff.