I would've just braked to let him in and blew the horn and told him he's number one, but I also have untreated anger issues. You do you.
I would've just braked to let him in and blew the horn and told him he's number one, but I also have untreated anger issues. You do you.
lnlogauge said:In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
The law in Georgia is what I copied. Merging lane has to yield.
I found the following, is this incorrect?:
"
From here:
Georgia driver’s manual
Well, I guess you proved a point to satisfy yourself, but this is could very well cost you in insurance. As a GA resident and 25 year insurance claims veteran, this loss is both drivers fault...and I could argue that it's even more OPs. Yes, the other drivers' lane was ending. However, from what I could see in the video, he had clearly established himself as slightly ahead of OP and trying to merge in. He could have stopped and let OP pass. However, just as easily OP could have...and should have...just paused a half second and let the guy in. OP made a very conscious decision of "I'll show you" and let the collision occur. This wasn't an accident, it was intentionally poor decision making. If this claim claim came into my team, I'd probably pay at least something to get the claim settled. The video does NOT help OP at all, in fact it really hurts. OPs attitude in the initial post also clearly shows intent. Not good.
OP, a simple piece of advice...take it or leave it. Do NOT give that video to your insurance carrier or the other one. It will hurt you...badly.
In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
A few posts show intent, going as far as saying he wanted a new bumper cover because of previous damage.
As far as the video goes, in MD if you have a dash cam and delete footage the courts assume it was because it went against you, so it might be too late.
In reply to Slippery :
Georgia driver's manual is not the law. Also, onramps are not equal roadways.
I already gave the video to my insurance, and it went exactly as I thought it would. 2 different people saw the video, and both said obviously he didn't have room to merge. Worst case scenario is 250$ for uninsured driver's. Best case I pay nothing. Exactly the results I wanted.
I really don't understand the confusion. Legally this is cut and dry. There is no obligation to make room for merging vehicles. The end.
Most states have laws that say you must do your best to avoid a collision. This video doesn't show that.
It's not just about who has the right-of-way. The other guy could argue that he didn't see you and oops, then it's on you to prove you did your best to avoid the collision. I might keep this video on a secret cloud for a while.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Absolutely NOT true. If you swerve to avoid an accident, and you hit someone else in the process, that is on you. That's dangerous information to spread around. Legally speaking, it's better to plow into the offending vehicle than avoid.
Reality is I've avoided many accidents, but that is a risk I take. It's on my awareness and driving ability when I avoid an accident.
I didn't see him is not a defense. It's his responsibility to be aware of what's around him.
I'm with OP. Cases like these are becoming more murky because of expectation creep. This was clearly the merger's fault and his duty to merge safely. My local law is written the same way. Now we're (generally, not totally) being told to just get along and be cool to one another. Mergers will (generally, not totally) take that mindset and expect highway traffic to make way.
Frankly, there needs to be some federal and state budget freed up for continuing drivers' ed. I have no clue what it would entail but people are (generally, not totally) divorced from their training and the concrete rules that constrain that driving privilege.
Actually, it is true. I know, because I was the recipient of such a claim. Fortunately it went my way. I was turning right into a gas station in a 26' box truck. I got in the right turn lane. Seeing no one in the lane to my left, I squeezed left to make the wide right turn. Someone tried to buzz up on the right of me and got wedged under the truck when I turned in. If it hadn't been for witnesses, I would have been screwed.
From Driver Negligence and Car Accident Claims | Nolo : A driver must use reasonable care to avoid injuring other motorists, passengers, or pedestrians. If a driver is not reasonably careful, and someone is harmed as a result, the driver (and the driver's car insurance carrier) can be financially liable for that person's injuries and other losses (damages).
Negligence will come into play any time fault for a car accident is in dispute, whether as part of the insurance claim process, or in court.
From Auto Accident Attorney Explains Reasonable Caution - Thomas, Conrad & Conrad Law Offices (conradattorneys.com) : In an auto accident case, the injured plaintiff must show that the defendant was the negligent party and had a legal obligation to be reasonably careful or cautious. In determining whether a driver was sufficiently careful, the law compares the driver’s conduct with the conduct expected of a “reasonable person.” For example, stopping at red lights and watching out for pedestrians is considered reasonable behavior. If a driver fails to act as a reasonable person would have been expected to act, they have violated their duty of reasonable caution.
If, for instance, someone pulls out in front of you and you say "screw it, I'm going to hit them," things like lack of rubber deposits on the road, lack of scrubbing on your tires, lack of brake lights activated on your ECM (if applicable) can make it squarely your fault.
I'm not saying it won't go your way, I'm simply saying that there are both laws AND legal precedent for this. Perhaps not in your state, but in many. I'm with you, man. That guy was a dick, I'm just offering some personal experience.
lnlogauge said:In reply to Slippery :
Georgia driver's manual is not the law. Also, onramps are not equal roadways.
I already gave the video to my insurance, and it went exactly as I thought it would. 2 different people saw the video, and both said obviously he didn't have room to merge. Worst case scenario is 250$ for uninsured driver's. Best case I pay nothing. Exactly the results I wanted.
I really don't understand the confusion. Legally this is cut and dry. There is no obligation to make room for merging vehicles. The end.
It's not cut and dry at all. In fact, as I said from watching the video this is more your fault than his. How would this be uninsured? If your carrier denies liability, this would likely wind up in what's called arbitration forums. I am a panelist (judge) there. I can tell you, your chances of winning completely would be slim. Partly, maybe, but completely... not a chance.
When you watch the video, there are many seconds that pass before the collision occurs. The other driver is slightly ahead of you and clearly in your line of sight. Was his Lane ending? Yes, absolutely. However, did you have the last clear chance to avoid the collision? Without a doubt, yes, and you intentionally chose not to. You even said as much in your original post. This would not play well. Just because his Lane was ending and you legally had the right of way, does not mean you can all but intentionally run into him. You have every opportunity to just pause half a second and avoid this crash. You decided not to. That puts a significant amount of liability on you. Like it, don't like it, whatever. I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt I know I'm right as far as the insurance law standpoint goes.
Steve_Jones said:Your insurance company is supposed to take your side. His might see it different, especially if they know there was existing damage. Not your battle.
I have no idea why you'd even contact your insurance, as good chance your rates go up no matter who is at fault.
That is one of the biggest misconceptions of insurance, and a reason people get frustrated. The insurance company is not supposed to take your side blindly. Their job is to indemnify and protect their insured from exposure. If they recognize a potential for exposure against their policyholder, their job is to settle it and indemnify their insured so that they don't have any personal exposure. That is very different from strictly taking a defensive position no matter what. In this particular case, I recognize potential liability. I don't have my negligence sheet in front of me since I'm not at work, and I handle a ton of states. However from my recollection in Georgia the negligence law is 51% bars recovery. That means if each driver is equally at fault, then they can collect from the other carrier. Having watched this video, I would feel the op is definitely 50% at fault, if not more.
I guess that because I ride a motorcycle I am used to driving more defensively than offensively.
It almost sounds like you are proud of what you went through there ... not sure I agree. One day you are going to find a guy with a bigger dick than yours, especially in Georgia. Its not worth it.
In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
I'll be sure to update you how it plays out. Georgia law states what I said. I find it extremely hard to believe that insurance "law" takes precedent over state law.
also, running into him would infer that I drove my vehicle into him. I drove my vehicle as far to the left of my lane as safely as possible, as he was entering my lane. Avoidance, while paying attention to the car in the middle lane. It's really odd that if one car is going straight, and another car is driving into the path of straight car, you could call the car driving straight "intentionally running into him".
lnlogauge said:In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
I'll be sure to update you how it plays out. Georgia law states what I said. I find it extremely hard to believe that insurance "law" takes precedent over state law.
also, running into him would infure that I drove my vehicle into him. I drove my vehicle as far to the left of my lane as safely as possible, as he was entering my lane. Avoidance, while paying attention to the car in the middle lane. It's really odd that if one car is going straight, and another car is into the path of straight car, you could call the car driving straight "intentionally running into him".
So answer this question for me. Did you see him before the crash? Could you have simply let off the gas for about 1 second and avoid the crash? Did you intentionally choose not to do that?
I am quite familiar with the laws, I deal with them everyday. What happens with this is anybody's guess, because there is a lot of subjectivity in it. I'm simply telling you that from my experience, this would not look good for you at all.
In reply to lnlogauge :
Not braking is intentionally running into him, especially since you state you wanted a new bumper.
There's a big difference between what you "could" do and what you "should" do. Plenty of people who had the right of way are in the cemetery.
In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
You didn't answer my points.
Driver 1.
moved to the far edge of the lane to avoid driver 2. didn't slam on brakes.
Driver 2.
Merging into a onramp, must yield to vehicles on highway already
has space to safely merge behind driver 1.
speeds up outside of the merging lane, to cut in front of the non existant gap.
proceeds to come into lane, where driver 1 is already in lane.
Yep. fully see how this is my fault completely.
I probably also worded my prior post poorly. The state laws and an insurance law are really the same thing. What I'm trying to say is that state law and negligence are not always one and the same. For example, if a car is parked and unoccupied but parked illegally and you crash into it whose fault is it? From a legal standpoint the car was parked where it shouldn't be. However from a negligence standpoint, it would be 100% on the person running into the parked car.
lnlogauge said:In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
You didn't answer my points.
Driver 1.
moved to the far edge of the lane to avoid driver 2. didn't slam on brakes.
Driver 2.
Merging into a onramp, must yield to vehicles on highway already
has space to safely merge behind driver 1.
speeds up outside of the merging lane, to cut in front of the non existant gap.
proceeds to come into lane, where driver 1 is already in lane.
Yep. fully see how this is my fault completely.
Glad we're on the same page then. Don't really care how you want to spin it. Yes, he had the duty to yield and violated it. From there, the rest was on you. You had every opportunity in the world to avoid this, and intentionally chose not to. That makes you every bit as liable as him, if not more. Like it, don't like it, agree, don't agree. I don't give two E36 M3s. As someone who does this for a living, I know what I'm talking about. Two wrongs don't make a right. You were both being douchebags. I've seen this exact scenario play out literally thousands of times. You can make any argument in the world that you want, but there is no way that you can honestly argue that you didn't see him and didn't have a chance to avoid it.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to lnlogauge :
Not braking is intentionally running into him, especially since you state you wanted a new bumper.
There's a big difference between what you "could" do and what you "should" do. Plenty of people who had the right of way are in the cemetery.
The planets and stars must have all aligned perfectly because I, for once, agree with Steve in this. Two posts above stated the OP wanted new bodywork for free so he just drive into him. The video bears it out. I don't live in Ga, so no worry to you, but you wouldn't likely want me in a jury.
From a moral high-ground, the merging vehicle does not have the right of way.
Drove an MG Midget for enough years that I developed the defensive driving skills needed to avoid that kind of damage regardless of who would be at fault.
When I become (somewhat) Benevolent Dictator of the World, cars that are parked illegally and that fail to properly yield right-of-way will be open targets. See a car parked on the wrong side of the road? You may purposely smash right in to it and the owner of the parked car is 100% liable for the damage to your car. Somebody decides to play chicken with you when they are required to yield? Same thing. Those become problems that solve themselves pretty quickly.
Until then, however, that is right up next to "play stupid games win stupid prizes". I'm not gonna lie: driving an old truck means that most people think that I'm less afraid of losing a game of chicken when it comes to right-of-way, but if they're really determined, I would prefer to not be featured on the news as the latest victim of a road rage shooting. Maybe the law's on your side here, maybe it's not. In my opinion, the law should be on your side and I hope you don't have to pay for the damage on the other car. But there was a decent chance that instead of open palms saying what the hell, man? one of those hands could have be gripping an implement that would have wrecked a couple lives. All because two guys wanted to be first in line to sit in traffic.
Gentlemen, this thread has devolved into a pissing contest, IMO.
docwyte said:I'm not interested in winning. I don't want my car damaged and lifting off the gas to let someone in, even if I'm right and they're wrong, just isn't that big of a deal.
This is actually exactly why I *don't* have a dashcam. Because I know if I did I'd do this kind of "technically probably in the right but clearly being a dick" stuff all the time and my car would be in the body shop like every other week.
The thing I would probably have done in this situation is give exactly one car length of space, with a lot of horn action to go with it. Then...not have to spend any time on the side of the road or at a body shop or explaining things to the police or insurance.
Looks like two douches met on a highway. Easily avoided by either one.
Ignoring legalities, inexcusable behavior from both drivers.
You'll need to log in to post.
