There are days when it seems like 1 out of every 4 cars around me are pulling stunts like this, so it's no surprise to catch more than one idiot in a single video clip.
Just so weâre clear⊠the red car went straight from the left-turn lane across the intersection, cut off a transport truck, and then got cut off by a Ford Edge whose driver didnât check their blind spot?
One of those rare lose-lose situations for the two idiots involved, but a win for everyone watching.
It's entirely possible the Ford driver did check his blind spot which would have been the lane he was trying to enter and it was empty. By the time he actually made his move the red card had accelerated quickly from the left turn lane.
While not exactly the same, I've had a similar situation almost happen to me when I was changing lanes into a lane that was an on ramp. It was clear, but as I went to turn, someone accelerated across the shoulder into my blind spot. This happened in less than two seconds.
I mean, you're absolutely right, as Ford was making the right, he saw the big truck was the first vehicle in line, and so assumed that was the only vehicle that he had to worry about, but he clearly didn't check his blind spot as he was making the lang change itself, red was in that lane long (> 2s) before Ford initiated his lane change.
These sort of collisions are why I've become _super_ cautious about making lane changes in congestion.
I saw one video from BC where the lane changer (vehicle A) started his lane change to get out of a congested lane, _then_ a vehicle (B) farther back approaching (and likely speeding) the congested lane did a super fast lane change and crashed into the poor A. But per the ICBC, that made it A's fault, even though B litererally wasn't in the lane when A started changing lanes.
That's true, but I need to say the Edge was not that bad. From his point of view there was no traffic coming from anywhere. And TBH maybe they gave a quick look at the time of starting to switch lanes, but then they look forward into the lane they are merging into. So yes, maybe they didn't check their blind spot but still I think it's more on the red car.
That's true, but also it's not reasonable for a driver to have a full view of every direction at all times. I think it is safe to assume the driver checked behind him, saw that there was a physical impossibility for any vehicle to be in the next lane within the next 5 seconds, and then took his time making a lane change.
You can't account for people driving across multiple lanes of traffic to be going down a road they shouldn't even be on...
You can't account for people driving across multiple lanes of traffic to be going down a road they shouldn't even be on...
But you can check your blindspot before actually changing lanes. What red did was foolish and subjectively careless, but any hypothetical charges wouldn't stick.
The cause of the loss is strictly related to the lane change of the Ford and their inattentiveness. The overwhelming consensus on this thread is that others' would have made similar assumptions, given the scenario.
The problem is that y'all are making assumptions where the expectation of good driving is to not make assumptions when moving towards an area that you do not have line of sight on. Get convex mirror stickers, they're like $10.
It was improper lane use and against Ontario highway code. It wasnât just careless. You canât do what either of these cars did. Both 50% at fault. If the red car had been in the proper lane, then yes, black car 100% at fault. The bad actions of both bad drivers splits this.
Red car shouldnât have been in that lane though. Doesnât negate that the black car made an unsafe merge (definitely wasnât far enough from the corner to legally change lanes) but the red car came from an illegal lane change to where it was. If heâd have been travelling in the opposite direction and just moved over into his lane would it still be your stance? Both cars improperly ended up in the same space.
Red car shouldnât have been in that lane though.
It's irrelevant to determining fault, in this scenario.
Regardless of how red entered that lane, it isn't the cause of the accident. The onus is on the merger to determine if the maneuver is safe enough to perform the action.
If we were in the US, I'd agree with you, but that's not how we determine fault in Ontario
What is an acceptable length of time from the moment you check whether the coast is clear, to when you begin to move into the lane?
In the video it was ~3 seconds, if we assume the Ford checked right before the red driver took off and entered the intersection. Is that time delay acceptable? My personal opinion is that it is probably stretching the bounds of what is reasonable, but at worst is a borderline case.
What is an acceptable length of time from the moment you check whether the coast is clear, to when you begin to move into the lane?
There isn't any acceptable amount of time to grant an exception. Just because you can empathize with the situation doesn't absolve the lane changer's responsibility.
This is the exact sort of situation they'd teach you in driving school under the banner of "never assume a lane is clear" and then play this exact video.
But this applies for the whole lane, including ahead. The driver can't keep looking the blind spot while they are driving forward, at some point they have to look ahead.
Red car did an illegal maneuver to get where it was. That places half the fault on them. Improper lane use. But black car also had improper lane use. Itâs equal fault.
Sorry, but no. The fault determination rules don't say that. You can't be at fault because you previously did something wrong, as that act is over. If you could still be held at fault, the question would become, "How long after the illegal maneuver do you remain at fault for anything that happens?"
If the black car changed lanes 3 seconds later than it did, would you still think it's the red car's fault? What about 10 seconds later? Three minutes? Or is it always the red car's fault because it exists in a place where it wouldn't normally be if not for the previous illegal move?
I guess the question then is: which illegal moves create this situation where someone is at fault for future collisions? What if the red car was speeding by 10 km/h? Still at fault because they shouldn't have been there? What if they rolled through a stop sign earlier in the day? These questions would need to be addressed in law or by a court.
The law usually tries to avoid ambiguity for a reason.
Seems like that should absolve everyone of any responsibility for a collision then though. Because as soon as the act is over, itâs no longer a factor? I cut you off a half second prior, but that was then?
And let's not forget the Mitsubishi who thought 2 km/hr was an appropriate speed and quite possibly was the reason to start this chain of events... even though the other two drivers were at fault.
Regular occurrence at this intersection, people avoiding the queue and illegally turning to bypass the line. Why always with the tinted windows too ? đ
Imagine trying to explain that to your insurance ... "So you were in the left-turn lane, then you cut off a transport truck ... and drove straight for 150m ... and then a car cut you off? And you think it's their fault..."
Another view. The accident is on the right of the screen. Iâm turning right from Tomken north , turning onto Courtney park west. The trucks turning in front of me have an advanced from Tomken south. Two lanes can turn left in this direction. But then notice the ford transit come from nowhere ? This guy was not in a turn lane coming south on Tomken but decided to make the turn anyway and force hjmsef into the mix at the same intersection as the existing accident. All this to jump the left turn queue. Happens on the daily at this intersection. Complete disregard for the rules of the road, people just making it up as they go.
Iâm 64 perfect driving record . Driving for 48 years . My insurance went up on an almost 8 year old car not down . My insurance told me it is because of all the claims people make . I shopped it same thing . At the end of the day I got a few bucks taken off for being a loyal customer . It is because of this bullshit . Iâm retired and barely drive but still pay the most I ever have because of these ultra maroons .
It pisses me the fk off. I have to pay 500 a month and Iâve been driving 20 years in Brampton. Every day I avoid an accident. Yet insurance goes up. I swear when my car starts giving serious issues Iâm gonna pull a claim just to get my money back. The amount I pay is more than my car payment
Range Rover driver is an absolute tool. Id give the benefit of the doubt that Ford checked blind spot, saw 2 trucks at a red light and made the move.
Range Rover decides to do a mad dash after Ford likely checked his blindspot.
Personally, only thing I'd assume is behind me is a person taking a u-turn, someone like the Acura trying to get ahead or obviously the trucks... but someone coming from a left turn like Range Rover would not cross my mind lol... guess I need to add that.
I don't know who's legally responsible but I'd blame the red car.
When Ford made the lane change right after turning, he probably saw the two trucks in both lanes and figured it's safe to change lanes. His problem is that he did it way too slowly/leisurely. Took his damn time. However, I don't know if anybody could reasonably expect red car to do what it did to swipe right in from the left-turn lane.
Yeah, Iâd be equally surprised if I was the Ford. But I think under the fault rules you still have to check before you enter lane. But I also wouldnât blame it. 100% on the Ford. The red car is at at least 50% to blame.
Itâs quite possible he checked, if you see he had already started making his move into the other lane when the red car sped through the intersection and didnât slow down when he saw the car or maybe he didnât see the car because he was speeding.
Yeah but he turned into the lane that was occupied. Normally I think 100% fault would be with the FOrd ... but under these circumstances I think it would be 50/50.
I had to rewatch the video a few times because I didn't even see where the red car came from. There was way too much going on. I honestly don't think the Ford driver had any clue either.Â
ppl who drive like red car are absolute monkeys behind wheel, dodging traffic with illegal right lane change from left turning lane. Sudden lane change that Ford made thinking itâs an empty lane is also lacking situational awareness.
People turn on the flasher and change lane at the same time forgetting that when changing lane you have to make sure it is safe. On the other hand people going over the speed limit makes it hard to estimate the time you have to change lane
I'm actually curious how this would play out. Probably a 50/50 right? Red car shouldn't have cut across from turning lane and the other car needs to make sure way is clear before changing lanes. Although it would have been the safe assumption that the lane was clear considering the light was just red with an 18 wheeler in that lane.
Shouldn't have been there and being there are 2 completely different things. The fact is that red was there and the onus is on the Ford, no matter how red ended up in that lane. Once the lane is established, the onus shifts.
Ah. I didnt see what red buddy did. Thanks for the clarification. Now looks 50/50. Without police seeing your vid tho, lane change guy gonna buy all blame
Fault determination rules would normally give the fault to Grey. Unless Red was charged with an indictable offense such as stunt driving or reckless driving for that lane jump maneuver. Depends how much investigation the cops did/if Grey has a dashcam that maybe caught the lineup on his left before he made the turn.
I kinda feel bad for Grey because I would have probably done the same thing, knowing both those semi trucks in the straight lanes would be taking a while to accelerate.
Based on the lane markings we can see, I see the Red Rover gun it through the intersection from the left turn lane on the opposite side. He's not visible when the cam car makes the turn, and only pops into view already in motion, appearing to accelerate through the left turn lane and then through the intersection, The he ducks under the nose of the oncoming furniture van (blinker on, notice!) and winds up in the left hand lane at precisely the same time as the grey Edge chooses -unwisely- to go around the slower camera car and the Mitsu behind it.
Other notes- Looks like traffic going away from the cam had an Advance Left Turn signal that went yellow, after which the green on the far side would have lit up, launching the Red Rover from a position very few folks would expect him to come from.
I think one's a 50-50. Edge neglected to check their blind spot and the Red Rover should never have been there in the first place- but he was, so.. I'd write 'em both up and let the insurance fight it out. (and fwiw, the Edge had it's left signal on as well!)
An indictable offence is a criminal charge. Criminal charges can be summary (less serious) or indictable (more serious). Stunt driving is a provincial offence, not a criminal offence. Reckless driving isn't the name of a charge in Canada or Ontario.
Every single person on video was wrong there. Red SUV making a lane change through an intersection from a left turn lane. The camera car was stopped obstructing a crosswalk, beyond the stop line. Not a single other vehicle came to a full stop before making a right on red...
To be fair to the Ford, thereâs an advanced left turn light and 2 big trucks at the front of the light. I would also think I was 99% safe aside from the possibility of a U-turner.
The last thing I wouldâve fucking expected would be a car in the left-turn lane to blitz straight through the intersection as soon as the advanced left light turned off.
Well they both made bad (illegal, in the case of red car) lane changes. I think its coincidence though, cause I dont see how the first bad lane change caused the accident. He was going a bit fast though. I think dark vehicle caused the accident with their no-look lane change.
I always think not shoulder checking is a more serious offence than holding a phone. Some other countries don't have this rule that's why we have to let everybody get used to it by increasing the penalty of not should checking.
Definitely the red SUV to start with the driver was waiting
For a left turn wen he decided to merge. Trust me I know this. I drive the 409 series everyday to commute (401,427and 403) thereâs ppl with absolutely no patience.
No one checks the blind spot in the gta. The dark car should have checked bc itâs leaving its lane regardless if the red was wrong or not ! You canât just jump into another lane without checking
If you're in a left turn lane with a dedicated turn signal, which is not green, while through traffic is green, and you blow by it and merge left in the intersection, it's kinda running a red light.Â
This would only be true if you were in a dedicated left turn lane. This is not a dedicated left turn lane where you have a green arrow that turns yellow and then red. There was no red light facing this car, so they never ran a red light. There's no "kinda" in the Highway Traffic Act.
However, once you're in a left turn lane, you have to turn left. You can't just do what they did and go straight through. That, is what they did illegally.
I would say the driver from our perspective on the right is at fault. Looked to me tjey were ina left turn only lane the person from our perspective on the left was in there own lane seen that no reasonable driver would be in thier left lane decided to merge. Albiet was a quick merge bit give the circumstances was clear when he checked. 100% fault on the right driver from video perspective.
Driver in yellow is planning already to move into left lane at this point as soon as possible quick check to his left he knows there isnt anyone comming car in purple is in a left turn lane only not allowed to legally go straight so at this point car in yellow circle thinks he had right away as there no chance of a driver intervining that purple car made an illegal manauver sped up to compansate. I mean i can go 75/25 but def not 50/50 and after seeing you're point yellow driver should have double checked but who could have predicted this after already checking and seeing it was clear
Driver in yellow can âplanâ to go there all they want. But as per the traffic rules they have to turn from the right lane theyâre in, into the rightmost lane of the road theyâre turning into, straighten out and maintained the lane and then safely signal and turn. They basically did a wide turn. I get that it âshouldâ be more the red cars fault. But legally this is 50:50
Im really rooting for yellow but your points are very valid. This shit pisses me off. Root of causality is the car that blew through intersection but as you said the traffic laws dont care about that. Youve changed my mind. Good points.
Yeah, unfortunately this is a case of someone doing something really stupid vs something weâve all
Done ourselves and donât really
Think is that bad but could come bite us.
The red car is responsible and this would really help one of those drivers out. The police will clearly see the guy speeding, cutting off a transport truck, illegal lane change out of the left turning lane, etc. you have the footage
Iâve been seeing more and more of similar behavior to the Acuraâs driver. Driving experience in the GTA has significantly plummeted over the years.
This will be a 50/50 split. Red car came across from the right turn only lane but the other vehicle was not far enough through hat intersection to make a legal
Lane change. also didnât ensure they had a clear lane to merge onto.
Good thing they're ripping out bike lanes so theres more room for all the shitty drivers to kill people đ„° /s seriously tho I see so many drivers everyday that should NOT have a license. I'm so exhausted that it's still the only way to get around in most of the GTA
297
u/Swakop41 4d ago
Was waiting for a convenient cop for the first guy, didn't expect two idiots in such a short time span.