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

But, why the click-bait methodology? My guess is, if you had used an accurate title, nobody would have even considered the legality aspect.

What the h*ll is inaccurate about the title? The title says nothing but "Car Vs Truck - Who Was Wrong?" - there's nothing wrong with that title at all. It's not clickbait, it's 100% accurate and a legitimate question that doesn't imply anything regarding legality vs expectations in the answers.

But, why the click-bait methodology? My guess is, if you had used an accurate title, nobody would have even considered the legality aspect.

What the h*ll is inaccurate about the title? The title says nothing but "Car Vs Truck - Who Was Wrong?" - there's nothing wrong with that title at all. It's not clickbait, it's 100% accurate and a legitimate question that doesn't imply anything regarding legality vs expectations in the answers.

Maybe instead of inaccurate I should have said "not specific enough". You, the OP, and all the Mods are correctly looking at this from the "what the driver did wrong" perspective. You are also disregarding/shaming any comments concerning what the VW did that was obviously illegal. A more accurate title, as I humbly suggested earlier, would have focused everyone on what you wanted us to consider. You are right that it does not imply anything regarding the legality angle, but it does not in any way exclude it. If nothing is implied in the expectations of the answers why are you guys so upset with answers concerning the VWs illegal actions?

Maybe we should discuss something less controversial: If Trump is driving the truck and Hillary the VW, then who's fault is it?

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.

Its not "tirade"....its an opinion.

"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?

Rick

In this case, there is no liability debate based on "what if"

The VW driver made an UNSAFE LANE change, and you all are somehow, assigning fault to the truck driver for the VW drivers behavior.

Being a PROFESSIONAL DRIVER does not automatically pass blame to PROFESSIONAL DRIVER, when the "non-professional" drivers make stupid moves.

As Bud A. said, "Was the truck driver an a$$? Yes. Was he legally at fault? No."...thats the GOLD right there. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not quick too pass blame.

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.

Thank you.

The sections underlined & boldened allow me to rest my case.

No Hypotheticals or "What-If's"

PURE GOLD BABY!

Maybe we should discuss something less controversial: If Trump is driving the truck and Hillary the VW, then who's fault is it?

That would be the fault of the way time and history works, for not giving us the scenario where Barry Goldwater is driving the truck.

The VW driver made an UNSAFE LANE change, and you all are somehow, assigning fault to the truck driver for the VW drivers behavior.

No, we're not assigning fault to the truck driver for the VW's behavior. No one said that. We're assigning fault to the truck driver for not handling his own rig like a professional. From the view of a professional driver it is the truck driver's fault that this accident happened. He shouldn't have been tailgating or aggressively blocking anyone from changing lanes. He should have had the proper following distance and he should have backed off when he saw the car was driving that aggressively. As a professional you don't allow yourself to stoop to that type of behavior. You rise above it. That's one of the many differences between a professional and an amateur. The professional is expected to do his job and handle themselves at a much higher standard than an amateur would. The truck driver should have known better and should have handled himself and his rig better.

Being a PROFESSIONAL DRIVER does not automatically pass blame to PROFESSIONAL DRIVER, when the "non-professional" drivers make stupid moves.

No, it doesn't automatically place blame and, once again, no one said that it does. But in this case the truck driver clearly is to blame in my opinion because he did not take the appropriate actions when confronted with an aggressive driver nor was he following at a safe distance to begin with.

As Bud A. said, "Was the truck driver an a$$? Yes. Was he legally at fault? No."...thats the GOLD right there.

I'm glad you think that's gold but it may in fact be entirely wrong. We don't know the truck driver won't be at fault to some extent. He was clearly following way too closely which is indeed illegal.

The sections underlined & boldened allow me to rest my case.

I honestly have no idea what your "case" is but I'm glad you're resting it. I guess your case is to argue that the truck driver is not legally responsible and you're free to debate that if you feel it's productive somehow. As someone trying to mentor new drivers I personally don't care about the legality of the issue because it's not a productive debate. I care about the highly unprofessional driving habits of the truck driver because they make for a great teaching opportunity.

I especially like the "sub-optimal driving" comment.

Didn't mean to start a "feces storm" here. But as a long time member - it was interesting (but not surprising) to see where positions fell out - with regards to time as drivers. Some of you guys sound like you need to go back for a SMITH SYSTEM REFRESHER.

Nor did I mean to start a legal discussion about who would have the better lawsuit (though you can bet the drivers company was sued - and based on this video, probably made a decent offer to avoid getting a bad jury).

I still stand by my "chain of events" - and the fact that OUR COMPANY will look at any incident as PREVENTABLE or NOT PREVENTABLE.

In this case - this was PREVENTABLE. Plain and simple. Actions on the part of the driver, made it that way.

This wasn't click bait (on my part) either. I wasn't looking for the "Perry Masons" to come on and try this as a legal case - even though I ended up participating in that trial myself.

This started as a post in a non-trucking-related facebook page - with a bunch of gun-nuts from all walks of life (except truck driving), that pretty much ALL TOOK THE VW DRIVERS SIDE - BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT TRUCK DRIVERS.

I suppose I rest my case too.

But word to the wise for some of y'all.

MAINTAIN YOUR FOLLOWING DISTANCES. BACK OFF WHEN PASSED to re-establish your gap. And for Gods sake, let the VW in - you're not going to get there ANY LATER by doing so (whether you think they are idiots or not) - but you are going to get there WAY LATER if you decide to accelerate and they continue to make an unsafe pass.

Rick

The thing is that in this situation, if someone had been injured, and that truck driver tried to use that video as evidence, a good prosecutor would hang him with it, because what the driver was doing was illegal, unsafe, and the jury would have seen that first hand. The driver's commentary in the video, and then him speeding up and tailgating even closer in an attempt to be an as*hat and prevent the merge would have every soccer mom in the universe out for blood.

They might have ALSO assigned some fault to the VW driver, but the trucker would have gotten hammered.

Anymore speculation in this thread and we will all need showers.