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

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.

This, is pure GOLD

Thanks you Sir.

Well Said.

When I try to determine who is at fault for something, I look at things logically.

In this case, the truck driver was tailgating before we ever saw the VW. There are laws against following to closely.

Following Too Closely Link

The truck driver's illegal driving behavior was the root cause of the accident. Therefore, he is at fault for the accident.

The VW driver should also be cited for failing to yield right of way, at the very least, and perhaps ALSO be considered at fault, but there is no possible scenario where the truck driver wouldn't be considered at fault, IMHO.

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.

This, is pure GOLD

Thanks you Sir.

Well Said.

Was it pure gold, really? Was it really well said? I'd say you're very easily impressed. Bud is an awesome dude to have around but I don't get the point of his tirade at all.

So you guys feel we're "promoting confusion about legal liability" because it makes us feel better? I mean, seriously? That's an incredibly odd statement. Yeah, you caught me - it's common to find me sitting here in the evening with an evil grin on my face, wringing my hands together, and laughing with a sinister laugh because I feel so d*mn good about confusing people about legal liability.

Bud and Xanax, I believe the point of this exercise was to determine who was at fault here and why. But I don't recall anyone mentioning that we're in a court of law or that any opinions about how things could have been handled better were being ruled out.

As I mentioned earlier I don't care one tiny bit who was legally at fault. I'm not a judge in traffic court so what do I care? I'm a mentor helping new drivers prepare themselves for a career in trucking and I want people to go into this career with the understanding that they are the professionals out there and it's their responsibility to rise above this type of ignorant behavior behind the wheel and handle their rig like a professional so they'll avoid these accidents in the first place. I'm not trying to give new drivers the idea that it's ok to go out there and act like an ignorant jerk because the law is technically on your side.

If you want to talk about confusing people, why don't we put up a video involving a truck driver making a whole series of obviously poor choices and then we'll all haggle about who is legally at fault instead of pointing out how it should have been done. Then people can go out there and make driving decisions based upon legal liability instead of common sense or accident avoidance, right?

I have tried to maintain some distance from this. My views on this video are very conservative and have everything to do with behaving and conducting oneself professionally and above all else, safely. Our Stupid-Trucker friend in the Petercar mixed it up with a cluster of traffic at highway speeds. What are we taught? What do our safety directors constantly being drum into our heads? His job is to avoid situations like this and not become an active participant and part catalyst for an incident. Instead of disengaging, he aggressively engaged the other drivers just to prove a point. Legality aside, he failed to do his job.

To Bud's point I doubt very much the truck driver in this example would jump out of his cab proclaiming full responsibility. Quite the opposite. His lack of prudent judgement could have cost lives, possibly his own.

Ok, not to be a flip flop here, because I'm not, but one angle I hadn't taken into consideration is that the vw, having recognized that the truck wasn't going to yield should have seen this and waited and merged behind the truck. That, I will say, changes things a bit.

While the truck, having seen what was going on, failed to slow down, the vw, also having seen what was going on failed to yield.

So in a legal argument, the vw could be cited for reckless driving, for trying to merge when they saw that there was no room. The truck could be cited for following too closely, and possibly aggressive driving for what appears to be speeding up to prevent the vw from merging.

However, all of this does not change the fact that the truck should have done the safe, and right thing and just let the vw in.

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.

This, is pure GOLD

Thanks you Sir.

Well Said.

Really???

This isn't "sub-optimal driving" - this was an example of DANGEROUS AGGRESSIVE DRIVING.

"What if" - the truck they were all passing, swerved to the left to avoid a tire tread (even though running onto the shoulder would be more "optimal") and the pickup truck had to brake to avoid?

Mr. "Sub-Optimal" would have eaten the car in front of him - because he was ALREADY TAILGATING.

Comments like this are actually FRUSTRATING - as if this is a true reflection of how ya'll feel - I would NOT WANT to ride IN A TRUCK or ANYWHERE NEAR a truck ya'll are driving.

And I don't want to turn this into an argument or name-calling - but - WOW GUYS - where are your heads at? I'm pretty sure we don't preach THIS KIND OF PROFESSIONALISM HERE...

Rick

We're all in agreement that the driver of the Pete should have done the right thing and this would have never happened. Unfortunately we have keyboard lawyers who want to argue what if this and what if that. Court cases don't work that way so I figured, just to put the legal liability aspect to rest, I'd address an actual attorney. Now, before anyone can question his credibility, he's been on both sides of the aisle and in practice for over 40 years with experience in traffic law, insurance and commercial real estate as well as criminal law. He's also a long time family friend and my own personal attorney, so I asked him how he would pursue it, were he the attorney representing the case.

He gave me both sides, as plaintiff and defendant and these are his findings.

In defending the truck driver. With the exception of no fault states, the actions of the truck driver, while uncalled for, might warrant a following too closely ticket. Unfortunately, his following too closely didn't cause the accident because he didn't hit the vehicle in front of him. In fact, the truck didn't hit anyone and again, even though he should have slowed down for safe distance, the Volkswagen at no point had enough room to constitute a safe pass. The Volkswagen was 100% at fault because traffic laws require a driver attempting to pass another vehicle to do it safely and in the event of contact with another vehicle, the assume full responsibility.

In defending the Volkswagen he said this. The truck driver was apparently trying to block the pass and following too closely to the Nissan which could constitute a violation but still does not make the truck liable for the accident. The Volkswagen had more than enough time to slow down and give up on the maneuver but they chose to continue to try to move left. The use of turn indicator can also be brought into question, Indiana requires a signal for 200' before initiating a turn or pass, 300' for speeds over 55mph.

In his more than professional opinion, he completely agrees as we all do, that the truck should have slowed down and it would have never happened. In the aspect of who is at fault for the contact, it's the Volkswagen, events leading up to the contact (tailgating) would be ruled out because the other vehicles were not involved.

Retitle this thread: Truck Versus Car - Could the driver have prevented it?

Because that is the point you want to make. I have no disagreement with it either. But, why the click-bait methodology? My guess is, if you had used an accurate title, nobody would have even considered the legality aspect. All here would have agreed the driver should have backed off.

Its Understandable how upset truckers can get when cars are to close. However it was very visible the car was trying to force her way in. In order to not have the accident, I would have slowed down to let the car in. I would have been mad and maybe have said some bad words, but I would have let the car in. However I do believe there needs to be more training that cars cannot move in front of a truck unless they have a certain amount of space.

The vehicle in the lane has right of passage end of, the vehicle entering the lane is at fault regardless of if the truck was following to close.

He never changed lanes she did. And to say "When I try to determine who is at fault for something, I look at things logically." is not how the rule of law works sorry.