Smart Car
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
117 comments displayed.
#73
-
jkrule [OP](03/04/2015) [+] (4 replies)
For the mentally challenged people, who don't understand a basic joke. This picture is for you. Yes, its a Kia Picanto Dumb *****
stickied by jkrule
#99 to #74
-
alecmason (03/04/2015) [-] Except that's wrong. The smart car was likely illegally driving and trying to pull out by crossing (presumably) through multiple lanes, not to mention there is obviously no lane going left to right, there for is crossing lanes illegally, and the driver of the smart car is completely at fault.
#84 to #7
-
anon (03/04/2015) [-]
It varies, my dad pulled out into traffic (in a medium sized work truck) and a guy speeding smacked into. The cop at the scene gave my dad the ticket.
The scenario was similar to this, traffic was backed up on one side and my dad was trying to pass to the other side.
In my opinion it was the guy driving the van whose at fault, he had a clear line of sight and probably wasn't paying attention.
Posting as anon cause all the hate, sorry mate.
The scenario was similar to this, traffic was backed up on one side and my dad was trying to pass to the other side.
In my opinion it was the guy driving the van whose at fault, he had a clear line of sight and probably wasn't paying attention.
Posting as anon cause all the hate, sorry mate.
#123 to #7
-
fiveblackmen (03/05/2015) [-] In America, what the little car is doing would most likely be considered reckless driving. He or she cut off oncoming traffic and caused an accident so he or she would be at fault. Obviously this particular incident didn't happen in America so the laws may be different but I feel it is safe to assume, based on this evidence, that the driver of the small car is still at fault.
#38 to #12
-
mattygosling (03/04/2015) [-]
nope, im going to say say same rules would apply as pulling out on someone, if you pull out on someone because they were indicating and they hit you its your fault for going before they started to turn
#21 to #12
-
undeadmaus (03/04/2015) [-] No, legally too the white car. You can't jsut do **** like that.
#46 to #23
-
PubLandlord (03/04/2015) [-] He wasn't merging lanes on a motorway.
It's the equivalent pulling out at junction or roundabout and getting hit by someone travelling at a constant speed.
It's the equivalent pulling out at junction or roundabout and getting hit by someone travelling at a constant speed.
#64 to #23
-
anon (03/04/2015) [-]
The smart car was trying to take a left and go across the double solid line which you can also see was a left hand turn lane for the oncoming traffic. So he is cutting sideways across traffic and making a u turn onto the left hand turn lane across the solid lines. There is no place in the world this is allowed. It goes against all the rules, the lines are there for a reason, not to suggest traffic laws
#11 to #8
-
kbvskoolaid (03/04/2015) [-] Not true, In most places if you hit someone with your car then your at fault.
example: your driving on the road and someone is tailgating you, you slam on the brakes because **** that dude. Guess what, they are at fault for hitting you.
example: your driving on the road and someone is tailgating you, you slam on the brakes because **** that dude. Guess what, they are at fault for hitting you.
#37 to #35
-
kbvskoolaid (03/04/2015) [-] thats exactly how it works, hate to break it to you. the law would say you should have been cautious when he swapped into your lane and been prepared to stop.
#69 to #39
-
toosexyforyou (03/04/2015) [-] It is true in the US and any European country as well, the smart car would always be at fault. You are wrong and stupid.
#71 to #70
-
toosexyforyou (03/04/2015) [-] I apologize. It looked like you were replying to the other guy. kbvskoolaid, read my other comment.
#43 to #39
-
davidteninch (03/04/2015) [-] In Minnesota, most insurance can't blame just one party.
For example, I was hit on my bicycle by a driver that had just started to move but hadn't seen me. If I hadn't been there, there would have been no accident. If he hadn't been there, there also would have been no accident. Meaning we were both to blame even though I was technically the victim.
For example, I was hit on my bicycle by a driver that had just started to move but hadn't seen me. If I hadn't been there, there would have been no accident. If he hadn't been there, there also would have been no accident. Meaning we were both to blame even though I was technically the victim.
#117 to #37
-
anon (03/05/2015) [-]
Uh, no. That implies if they're changing lanes while you're both driving in the same direction, not if they're cutting a perpendicular line through traffic.
It was ALSO illegal for him to try to go that way in the first place--he appears to want to turn left, which would mean he intends to use the shared turn lane as a merge lane (which is also illegal.)
Dear god I hope you don't have a driver's license.
It was ALSO illegal for him to try to go that way in the first place--he appears to want to turn left, which would mean he intends to use the shared turn lane as a merge lane (which is also illegal.)
Dear god I hope you don't have a driver's license.
#40 to #11
-
gothiczombie ONLINE (03/04/2015) [-] In the UK if someone rear ends you 99% of the time they are to blame, this is because you should always drive with a large enough distance between you and the car in front to break. If a car breaks and you crash into them you are tailgating or not showing due attention.
#93 to #11
-
anon (03/04/2015) [-]
Your example is a REAR END collision, and the car behind is always at fault in a REAR END collision only. If I were at a 4-way stop and started to go, a car ignoring the stop sign and flooring it would be struck by my car in their driver side door. It would also be their fault for ignoring the stop sign.
#30 to #11
-
Mintberrycrunsh (03/04/2015) [-] No its not true (your example is but pls look at hamplanet and his comments)
If you take someones right of way and slamm inot his care, YOU are the one to blame and are fully liable.
But if someone rear-ends you and you hit the brakes, you are semi-liable and are treated likewise in court.
its allmost in every country that way.
If you take someones right of way and slamm inot his care, YOU are the one to blame and are fully liable.
But if someone rear-ends you and you hit the brakes, you are semi-liable and are treated likewise in court.
its allmost in every country that way.
#28 to #11
-
SteyrAUG (03/04/2015) [-] But that's because the car behind is required by law to maintain a safe following distance. In the case shown above the person inching out into traffic and expecting everyone in the world to get out of their way is at fault because they failed to yield the right of way to the cars currently in the road.
#13 to #11
-
hamplanet (03/04/2015) [-]
No. In most countries, you would also be at fault because you have to check the rear mirror before slamming ylour breaks. If you break too sudden and someone crashes into you, you are to blame as much as them.
And here, it's the same. He just drove into the street without being able to see if it's free, so he is to blame for the crash. Don't make up **** .
And here, it's the same. He just drove into the street without being able to see if it's free, so he is to blame for the crash. Don't make up **** .
#18 to #13
-
drahkreher (03/04/2015) [-]
almost all the time LEGALLY the person who rear-ends someone is at fault, even if they did nothing wrong
#17 to #13
-
kbvskoolaid (03/04/2015) [-] you dont have to check rear mirrors before you break incase of unexpected scenarios. such as a deer jumping infront of your car or a tree falling. You make up what ever reason you want for breaking.
#50 to #48
-
theruinedsage (03/04/2015) [-] No, but you can clearly see:
There are three lanes, at the least
He is coming from the one one the right
Traffic is at a standstill
He is moving sideways through traffic
He is either doing it to do a U-turn, changing lane, or crossing the street entirely
All of which would make him the one entirely responsible, without a doubt, in any country that has even slightly sane traffic rules.
There are three lanes, at the least
He is coming from the one one the right
Traffic is at a standstill
He is moving sideways through traffic
He is either doing it to do a U-turn, changing lane, or crossing the street entirely
All of which would make him the one entirely responsible, without a doubt, in any country that has even slightly sane traffic rules.
#51 to #50
-
andrz (03/04/2015) [-] That's true. Im just saying at first glance, i didnt notice this was on a road consisting of several lanes. You're completely right, dont get me wrong, im just saying he dosent deserve to be thumbed -40 for asking a question.
Just like gothiczombie said, "In the UK if someone rear ends you 99% of the time they are to blame"
Just like gothiczombie said, "In the UK if someone rear ends you 99% of the time they are to blame"
#53 to #51
-
theruinedsage (03/04/2015) [-] It's a stupid question that shows he doesn't have a drivers license Neither does gothiczombie, if he thinks the person at fault is the guy keeping his lane And if they do, they don't deserve it.
#55 to #53
-
andrz (03/04/2015) [-] I disagree with you there. Asking a question because you don't know something is the opposite of being stupid. It shows interest and he wants to learn about it. I doubt you know what country this footage is from, and i also doubt you know the laws of traffic in every country. Some countries have pretty ****** up rules. Anyone can see that the smartcar-driver is a dick, but seeing he didnt have knowledge about the laws of traffic that applied to this situation, he simply asked. Bashing on someone for wanting to learn, is pretty much the dumbest thing you can do, in my opinion.
#56 to #53
-
gothiczombie ONLINE (03/04/2015) [-] Does that look like he got rear ended? I didn't say the person pulling out isn't in the wrong, he obviously is, however with due attention the crash could have been avoided.
Laws are made to be generic and cover a lot of things and some can apply to situations that they shouldn't, I don't know the legal aspects of this situation because I don't need to, it's a ******* stupid thing to do, I would never do it. This makes it in my opinion a fair question.
Laws are made to be generic and cover a lot of things and some can apply to situations that they shouldn't, I don't know the legal aspects of this situation because I don't need to, it's a ******* stupid thing to do, I would never do it. This makes it in my opinion a fair question.
#127 to #56
-
theruinedsage (03/05/2015) [-] I seem to have confused your comment with number 11, my bad
#125 to #50
-
ThekidsTEN (03/05/2015) [-]
Not if the other driver is breaking the law, then anything he hits is his fault. MI here, idk about other laws
#110 to #50
-
anon (03/05/2015) [-]
if you look closely it looks like the car that hit the smart car was coming in at an angle so i think he tried to pull a left turn and into that last lane and if both cars were merging the case could be made that it was the other one at fault for making the left turn. there's a small gap in the cars to allow a left turn through and the car later crashes into the truck, either way the minivan was over the dividing line.
#102 to #48
-
xdiabolicx ONLINE (03/04/2015) [-] You sir, need to learn the laws of right-of-way. There's a set of rules to follow to make it EXTREMELY easy to claim who's at fault.
#105 to #102
-
andrz (03/04/2015) [-] Sure there is, but there are incredibly many traffic laws, and they're made to cover a lot of situations. However, some countries have certain rules with sort of loopholes where certain situations lawfully gets determined wrongly in court. It's not like "It's 100% car A's fault and you get a $2000 fine" If this was in UK the minivan would probably have some fault in the situation, seeing there are rules saying you should always drive so carefully/slowly that you're gonna be able to stop if something happens.
#124 to #106
-
ThekidsTEN (03/05/2015) [-]
He would be completely at fault. My friend was driving with only his parking lights on around an hour past dawn (there was about 60-75% daylight) and she got cut off. The guy was turning left onto a road (lowest right of way possible) and got rear ended. She got the ticket because she didn't have her lights on (at 830 in the morning)
#112 to #9
-
dracory (03/05/2015) [-] possible cause he's trying to turn out of a blocked driveway (to a business parking zone most likely, which is illegal to block) then this is proper exiting for making a left turn the smart car driver needs to slowly inch forward as he cant see past the cars the car that hit him was not paying attention to him and just blasted trough when he should have slowed down
#111
-
dawggz (03/05/2015) [-] I would like comps of stupid accidents but not with people dying, please.
#118
-
aloserlikeme (03/05/2015) [-] Drivers's face when. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that would have gone well.
#120 to #119
-
aloserlikeme (03/05/2015) [-]
I'm compensating for something. Yeah, that's right, I gotta huge heart
#14
-
thehandofgod ONLINE (03/04/2015) [-] *ahem* that's not a smart car *ahem*
What? I didn't say anything.
What? I didn't say anything.
#101
-
zephi (03/04/2015) [-] frankly, this **** needs to stop.
IMO, the car manufactures should (more like need to) input something similar to auto pilot for cars where the car drives itself to your desired destination by taking the quickest route possible, and there'll be fewer and fewer accidents, as well as dumb/disrespectful people trying to squeeze into the next lane while only a few yards away from the stop light when they could have done so before reaching the intersection thus avoiding a possible accident and/or ticket from the police.
IMO, the car manufactures should (more like need to) input something similar to auto pilot for cars where the car drives itself to your desired destination by taking the quickest route possible, and there'll be fewer and fewer accidents, as well as dumb/disrespectful people trying to squeeze into the next lane while only a few yards away from the stop light when they could have done so before reaching the intersection thus avoiding a possible accident and/or ticket from the police.
#108 to #101
-
civilizedwasteland (03/05/2015) [-] And how exactly do you intend they make that work?
#126 to #108
-
zephi (03/05/2015) [-] With a smart computer that controls the engine, steering, breaks and other parts of the car, a GPS system that sends info about the quickest path to take to said smart computer, and a little elbow grease.
got some engineers and computer wizzes working on autodriving cars out there in the world. i think it's time they start mass production on them.
"It's not that hard to come up with an idea, what's the hardest part is making that idea reality."
got some engineers and computer wizzes working on autodriving cars out there in the world. i think it's time they start mass production on them.
"It's not that hard to come up with an idea, what's the hardest part is making that idea reality."
#90 to #86
-
grimmwaters (03/04/2015) [-] Because when he crossed the line, his tire clipped off the edge forcing him to turn left.
If he didn't turn, he'd have gone offroad.
If he didn't turn, he'd have gone offroad.
#91 to #90
-
frenzyhero (03/04/2015) [-] I know. Going offroad for a few moments would have been much more preferable than possibly dying, though.
#87 to #86
-
improbablyyourdad (03/04/2015) [-] Starting going off the road to the right and jerked back.
#89 to #87
-
frenzyhero (03/04/2015) [-] that doesnt seem normal. Why wouldnt you just decrease your speed until you know you can bring the vehicle under control? It's not like the snow and cold were foreign concepts to them.
#97 to #89
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (03/04/2015) [-] Im gonna go with "Driver falling asleep at the wheel and jerking awake when he hears the sound of the tires going offroad"
#92 to #89
-
improbablyyourdad (03/04/2015) [-] Doesn't have to "seem normal", it's what happened. I have done this before too, its not always something you think about also. Sometimes its "oh **** , i am going off the road better turn back on quickly as possible".
#85
-
savagebadger (03/04/2015) [-] The van that crashes is the same as the one that goes by at the start
