Okay, who was it?

[guybo]

The Jeep driver is a moron. If someone's in the left lane doing something dumb, let them go. Better to let someone be who MIGHT cause an accident rather than put your own dumb self in the way and cause one for sure.

Yeah the 86 driver was a fucktard too. I hate drunk drivers.


The kid at 1:00- sounds awesome.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Eh. I don't know what the driver of the Jeep's could see, but I'm assuming that the headlights of the car behind them obscured vision from the side mirror.

Also the FR-S left the front end in the middle of the road so the DRLs might not even have been on the car anymore. Then look at the severity of the impact. The FR-S had to be carrying a lot of speed. It also appears to go under the Jeeps and toss it. Wrap that all with the Asphalt color and nobody could see it coming.

Maybe it was a bad decision on the Jeep's part, but if I'm the Jeep driver I'm thinking that I have a big vehicle and maybe I can get some sense into someone who might be panicking.

A normal person doesn't anticipate stuff like this because it never happens. Who flees an accident then speeds at night without headlights in the emergency lane? You just assume the other person WILL see your brake lights and slow or stop.

Oh well, the FR-S did pretty okay considering they hit two people. Credit the low mounting position of the engine and high bumper of these trucks. If the FR-S had been going slower, I bet it would have survived the Jeep strike.

That's the lesson here, folks.

The commentary in the video makes it pretty clear that the Jeep driver knew exactly where the car was.

[mazeroni]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The commentary in the video makes it pretty clear that the Jeep driver knew exactly where the car was.

Watching it again, I see that it says he saw the car moving up the lane - running from the accident. Still doesn't seem he was aware that the car was approaching as such a great speed. Given how slowly the Jeep moved into the lane, and subsequently out of the lane, I'm just gonna give him more props for the move since the FR-S had plenty of time to see a car there - if he wasn't shit faced.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Watching it again, I see that it says he saw the car moving up the lane - running from the accident. Still doesn't seem he was aware that the car was approaching as such a great speed. Given how slowly the Jeep moved into the lane, and subsequently out of the lane, I'm just gonna give him more props for the move since the FR-S had plenty of time to see a car there - if he wasn't shit faced.

Well I there is a very good chance someone is shit faced if they are dumb enough to flee the scene of a crime. Best to just let them go and let the cops deal with it.

[shiumai]

Originally Posted by ermax

Best to just let them go and let the cops deal with it.

That's assuming they get caught by the cops. What the Jeep driver did was dangerous (to himself and his passenger), but at least the drunk was stopped before he did more damage. I'm sure the first truck he struck was also glad that he was stopped.

It can go either way. What if the Jeep driver had done nothing to block the FR-S, and then a minute later the video showed the FR-S plowing into the stopped police vehicle and killing the officer?

Don't get me wrong - I'm more of an advocate of following while calling the cops and reporting the license plate and reporting what's going on than getting more involved. But I can't really fault the 'very brave but stupid' individuals who take it upon themselves to not sit back when they see something wrong.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but I'd assume that the sooner a drunk driver is stopped, the less risk he'll pose to others. Left unchecked, he could have caused even more damage than he did.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Watching it again, I see that it says he saw the car moving up the lane - running from the accident. Still doesn't seem he was aware that the car was approaching as such a great speed. Given how slowly the Jeep moved into the lane, and subsequently out of the lane, I'm just gonna give him more props for the move since the FR-S had plenty of time to see a car there - if he wasn't shit faced.

He had just witnessed it run into another car and flee. If not drunk they were at least panicked and irrational.
He commented how fast it was coming up the emergency lane.
He moved in front of it at a very slow speed to attempt to "slow it down.
We have no clue how close the car was behind when he did it so can not say there was "plenty of time".
He knew there was a cop right ahead and could simply have told him (if he even needed to which I doubt) and had the same result that ultimately happened without putting himself and all the drivers nearby at risk.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by shiumai

That's assuming they get caught by the cops. What the Jeep driver did was dangerous (to himself and his passenger), but at least the drunk was stopped before he did more damage. I'm sure the first truck he struck was also glad that he was stopped.

It can go either way. What if the Jeep driver had done nothing to block the FR-S, and then a minute later the video showed the FR-S plowing into the stopped police vehicle and killing the officer?

Don't get me wrong - I'm more of an advocate of following while calling the cops and reporting the license plate and reporting what's going on than getting more involved. But I can't really fault the 'very brave but stupid' individuals who take it upon themselves to not sit back when they see something wrong.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but I'd assume that the sooner a drunk driver is stopped, the less risk he'll pose to others. Left unchecked, he could have caused even more damage than he did.

Good points.

[mazeroni]

Just to be clear, at this point I'm arguing a point because I think it is an interesting ethical and moral discussion. Getting to see how other people perceive the action or inaction of people in situations is insightful.

So just to clarify my own points:

He commented how fast it was coming up the emergency lane.


The commentary does not say 'fast,' just that he is moving up the emergency lane. I think this is an important distinction, and it goes back to my initial comment about it being dark and other headlights obscuring the situation. He does write 'slow him down,' but I will repeatedly justify that because...

"plenty of time"

I am saying the FR-S driver had plenty of time to slow down, stop, or avoid the object. I'm not sure that anyone can argue this point. It's driving 101.

Society assumes that other drivers will use reasonable judgement, such as recognizing safe stopping distances of your car, how to recognize what is a safe speed when around stopped or slow traffic, and the necessity to drive within the marked lanes and be aware of slow or stop for objects in the roadway or that might be entering the roadway.

Speeding down the emergency lane without flashers or awareness of lit objects in that lane doesn't seem like it should be a contentious point. The FR-S had no reasonable cause to be doing what he did.

It was reasonable for the Jeep to assume he could get him to slow or stop.

He knew there was a cop right ahead and could simply have told him .


Yea, that's a fair what-if.

Without putting himself and all the drivers nearby at risk.

That's a fundamental disagreement that won't be rectified. I can't see how it's a danger to himself or others, and the video is evidence of that. The only thing we can say for certain is the only risk is the FR-S driver who has now been the direct cause of two crashes, and fled twice. Replace the Jeep with a Kia Rio and I'm 100% changing my tune in regards to safety. But that is playing 'move the goalposts' and that's only fun for a little while.

[TorontoNat]

Dam the guy in the twin was in the wrong for sure however to swerve in front of someone last minute like that is fucked up and ppl should stop trying to be heroes. Your brain is not as big as your truck is. Retard in big cars is the scariest thing to me.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Just to be clear, at this point I'm arguing a point because I think it is an interesting ethical and moral discussion. Getting to see how other people perceive the action or inaction of people in situations is insightful.

So just to clarify my own points:

He commented how fast it was coming up the emergency lane.


The commentary does not say 'fast,' just that he is moving up the emergency lane. I think this is an important distinction, and it goes back to my initial comment about it being dark and other headlights obscuring the situation. He does write 'slow him down,' but I will repeatedly justify that because...

"plenty of time"

I am saying the FR-S driver had plenty of time to slow down, stop, or avoid the object. I'm not sure that anyone can argue this point. It's driving 101.

Society assumes that other drivers will use reasonable judgement, such as recognizing safe stopping distances of your car, how to recognize what is a safe speed when around stopped or slow traffic, and the necessity to drive within the marked lanes and be aware of slow or stop for objects in the roadway or that might be entering the roadway.

Speeding down the emergency lane without flashers or awareness of lit objects in that lane doesn't seem like it should be a contentious point. The FR-S had no reasonable cause to be doing what he did.

It was reasonable for the Jeep to assume he could get him to slow or stop.

He knew there was a cop right ahead and could simply have told him .


Yea, that's a fair what-if.

Without putting himself and all the drivers nearby at risk.

That's a fundamental disagreement that won't be rectified. I can't see how it's a danger to himself or others, and the video is evidence of that. The only thing we can say for certain is the only risk is the FR-S driver who has now been the direct cause of two crashes, and fled twice. Replace the Jeep with a Kia Rio and I'm 100% changing my tune in regards to safety. But that is playing 'move the goalposts' and that's only fun for a little while.

We still have no clue how close he was when the Jeep moved over at a very low rate of speed.
A totally attentive, sober and responsible driver may have hit a car moving into their lane with no warning and at such a low speed. It happens every day. In this case there was a drunk, scared, and bad driver involved so the Jeep driver had no clue what he was setting himself up for when he pulled into the lane. As you said hindsight is 20/20 and we have the advantage in knowing the results. The Jeep driver did not have the knowledge of what the full situation was when he tried to block.


Nobody said the FRS should have been speeding down the lane the way he was. The fact is that he was and at that point there was no real hazard until the Jeep pulled over. There are of course many "what if" scenarios that could be thrown out there if the Jeep hadn't pulled over but we know what happened so conjecture is just that. Until the Batman wantta be tried to block him there had only been one accident not two. The Jeep's action directly contributed to the second one.


Doesn't matter what vehicle was being used to block it could have resulted in a serious incident. The wrong impact could have spun out a Jeep or even a transport as easily as it could a Kia. The FRS could have bounced out into traffic, flown over the wall into oncoming or any one of a thousand different scenarios ( all still conjecture of course). If such a thing did happen then all the other cars on the road would have been at risk as well. No it did not happen in that case but the potential was still there.


I am not blaming the Jeep driver for any of the incident but simply stating that his actions did not resolve anything. They actually escalated it by adding a second crash and could have had much worse results then they did.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

That vigilante crap actually caused some problems during the mass migration north during the Hurricane Irma evacuation. I was in that herd stampeding north on I-75 before the storm. During a hurricane evacuation, you're supposed to use all the available lanes AND the shoulders to move as much traffic volume as possible. Fewer people were using the shoulders than the normal lanes, and as a result those lanes were moving faster. People in the normal lanes didn't like seeing people pass them, so some of them would pull out into the traffic on the shoulders to block them.

I didn't really want to drive on the shoulders because of the increased risk of picking up nails or screws in my tires or having garbage slung up into my windshield by the car in front of me, but seeing people whizzing by made me start thinking of pulling on out there to make better time. I dropped that idea after seeing a few near misses from white knights pulling out in front of people. You take 6 million people who never go anywhere and don't know how to travel, make them pack up all their shit in a panic and throw them all out onto the same road, you're going to end up with people behaving like children. Shaving half an hour off my trip wasn't worth the risk of antagonizing them further.

That's really sad. I hate SJWs

[shiumai]

Originally Posted by TorontoNat

ppl should stop trying to be heroes.

Is that a general statement or applicable to this particular instance only? I think that most people who do 'heroic' things aren't trying to be heros. They just react and do what they think is the right thing to do. Later on, their acts might be deemed heroic.

When should people try to be heroes? Only when a kid falls into an icy river? Or do you just try to stop anyone from saving him and yell 'you could get hurt trying to save that kid, you idiot!'.

[PandaSPUR]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

It was reasonable for the Jeep to assume he could get him to slow or stop.

Its not reasonable or advisable to assume anyone who just performed a hit and run, will act reasonably.

That's a fundamental disagreement that won't be rectified. I can't see how it's a danger to himself or others, and the video is evidence of that. The only thing we can say for certain is the only risk is the FR-S driver who has now been the direct cause of two crashes, and fled twice. Replace the Jeep with a Kia Rio and I'm 100% changing my tune in regards to safety. But that is playing 'move the goalposts' and that's only fun for a little while.

Couple of ways:
1. Cut into the left lane at too much of an angle and get hit at the wrong time = driver's side door gets smashed in.
2. Twin is going faster than Jeep expects and Jeep cant brake quickly enough to avoid rear-ending the person in front.
3. Either driver or passenger could get whiplash if they werent expecting to be hit. Especially bad if ones got their head turned around trying to look at the car.

And really, what did this guy accomplish?
The Twin hit the Jeep, Jeep got out of the way, and the Twin just kept speeding off.

Eventually, both cars pass by a cop stationed at a lane closure/merger.

The twin was a bashed in smoking mess traveling down the shoulder, I'm pretty sure the cop would have stopped the guy anyway.

If the cop wasnt there, what would the Jeep do? Just keep chasing the Twin? That sounds like a bad idea too...

[TorontoNat]

Originally Posted by shiumai

Is that a general statement or applicable to this particular instance only? I think that most people who do 'heroic' things aren't trying to be heros. They just react and do what they think is the right thing to do. Later on, their acts might be deemed heroic.

When should people try to be heroes? Only when a kid falls into an icy river? Or do you just try to stop anyone from saving him and yell 'you could get hurt trying to save that kid, you idiot!'.

Haha, not general statement. Save the children.