Ashley's Analysis | Accept You're Responsible
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2021
- Our Cammer thinks that emerging without a care for the cars on the main road is acceptable as they should be able to stop for him.
Social Media
www.ashleyneal.com
/ ashleynealdrivinginstr...
ashleysanalysis@gmail.com
/ lessontracker
The Apps
Pupils - apps.apple.com/gb/app/driving...
ADI - apps.apple.com/gb/app/lesson-...
Amazon Links
Sony a6400 Camera - amzn.to/2xVCrn0
Sony FDR X3000 Action Camera - amzn.to/2YVoPDh
Vantrue N4 - amzn.to/2PiYmxd
VIOFO 4K Dash Cam A129 Pro Duo - amzn.to/3fEouLg
DJI Osmo Action - amzn.to/2WN7BWg
Joby Suction Cup Mount - amzn.to/2YYQ68a
RODE Wireless GO Microphone - amzn.to/3cmSBEZ
Vantrue N4 - amzn.to/2PiYmxd
#drivinglesson #drivingtest #education
A bit like the old "I've never been in an accident" but I see a lot in my rear view mirror.
precisely
haha nice 1
🤣😎😆
You knew my Dad!
Cammer is a complete bellend, the driver of the other car was really calm fair play to him.
The other driver handled this very well and controlled his lovely fiancé
@@123MondayTuesdayHow do you know they’re engaged? lol
agreed, at the point where he said they had to go slow enough to stop if someone pulls out I probably would have just called him an idiot. for that to work everyone would have to slow down to a crawl at every junction in case someone decides to pull out in front of someone.
But the advice we always get is never to admit fault even when you know you are to blame.
@@dtz1000 who advises to not admit fault?
Cammer was 100% at fault. Did he even check left before pulling out?
Jeepers
I suspect he did check left, his view obstructed by the car in front and/or a pillar and he failed to compensate & recheck.
I would hope he would be less sure about being right had he not looked at all
How would anyone here know whether he checked left or not? Does the camera show he's head looking left or right? No it clearly doesn't... What a stupid thing to say 😂
Hopefully he did, but he couldn't see much because of the car in front that just turned left. Classic case of a driver (cammer in this instance) not knowing what he can't see. It's very important to know the limitations of your observations (due to obstructed view)
@@ashleybean1318 I don’t think it matters whether he checked a little or not at all, the point is he definitely didn’t do proper observations
Another deluded dashcammer. Fair play to the other guy he calmed the situation down.
Most dashcam drivers are the worst out there, they think everyone is a manic when really it’s just they can’t drive.
@@user-uo5jj6st9y It starts on a 30/30/30 split of whether the dashcammer is at fault/not/shared, but then the dashcammer often thinks "I'm in the right" when someone is pulling out in front etc, so they brake later or even speed up to "nearly" cause an accident to show how bad the other driver is. This causes accidents. They wouldn't put themselves in this situation if they didn't have the dashcam and insurance sees them at shared responsibility "you could have slowed down way sooner, any normal driver in your situation wouldn't have crashed" so this shifts it to more like 30/20/40 because the not fault moves into shared fault. Numbers are approximate.
There's nearly always a share of blame. But I would say in this case the blame of the driver on the major road is minimal to zero. The driver emerging from the minor road should have checked it's safe. He didn't. It wasn't. And he couldn't see the road was clear enough because he closely followed the first car whose left turn obscured the view of the approaching traffic. The driver of the damaged car on the major road can hardly be to blame if he couldn't see a car which shouldn't have emerged. I don't get Ashley's criticism for the cammer not apologising. 'Don't say anything' - is the best policy. Check nobody's hurt - swap details - take photos - then clear the road and leave it to the insurance companies.
I'm astonished that someone turning right, at a giveway line, didn't properly check both ways were clear before emerging, and then had the gall and audacity to tell the other person, that they should have been going slow enough to stop for him. To make it worse he didn't seem to realise he was 100% at fault, until you essentially told him he was. That means he originally sent this clip to you, still believing what he's saying in the video.
Which I find the most unbelievable
@@faultychip Its like someone saying "I'm a crap driver and I'm sending in this video to prove it".
I think the car turning left in front must have obscured the vision and its quite a narrow road.
@@alanrobertson9790 but if view is obstructed surely you wait till view is no longer obstructed
@@alanrobertson9790 I think if your vision is obscured by a car turning left you should wait and not pull out until you can see the road is clear. I think he wasn't concentrating and just followed the vehicle out.
There’s a lot going on here, but interesting that the cammer requests anonymity for himself but doesn’t ask for the same for the innocent couple in the car. They have done nothing wrong yet find themselves presented on TH-cam for the world to judge.
Very relevant comment Jason. I agree with you 100%. Another oversight by the cammer?
No doubt cammer sent this in hoping the comments would see it in his favour
He was at fault for the near-miss. But at least he stayed calm while the woman was being aggressive to him.
@@goodyeoman4534 when you’ve just had a near miss like that, and there could have been a telegraph pole in that bush they went through,she’s pumped up, angry and it might actually be her car, and the hubby/ boyfriend was driving. And when the person who’s caused this is saying you should have stopped when you saw me pulling out, I think she was pretty restrained.
@@highdownmartin She was hysterical in my opinion.
Massive respect to the other driver for his calmness and firm but forgiving attitude. Many would be furious, hurling abuse, but he called the cammer "brother" right at the start in an attempt to defuse the situation.
"Brother" is often used ironically, a bit like "mate." That's the reason why many people don't like being called "brother" or "mate."
@@33LB Maybe, though you could tell he wasn't being ironic in this case.
@@33LB Well, it's still better the using Meathead or similar, which would have been more appropriate (with specific reference to only this 1 incident)!
Agree, he had to deal with both the in denial cammer and the lady with him being (understandably) upset and angry.
being calm? he looks more beaten down and given up due to his GF lol
I'm pretty sure the driver of the Seat *could* stop in the distance he could see was clear ...
Until the cammer pulled out right in front of him!
That’s what I was going to say aswell! Does he not realise how stupid he sounds saying that.
Spot on. An apology could have calmed everything down.
@@sensibledriver933 I was in a similar situation. I was the one merging into a road. Suddenly had a car behind me beeping and flashing the lights. I am still to this day pretty sure he was driving way to hard as I did check both way before merging. Visibility is not great, but if someone is doing the speed limit there is plenty of room for a safe merge. However people tend to drive to fast there. There is a reason they turned it into a roundabout.
He was angry and raging when he put his car next to me at the parking light. The moment I apologized he completely inflated and his anger was pretty much gone. I might have been correct, or maybe I did make a mistake. Either way, what is the point of not apologizing. I have better thing to do then have a discussion that ain't going to end up anywhere.
sorry but you've missed the point. you need to anticipate people appearing out of blind junctions too.
the cammer was in the wrong but the other drive could have anticipated this happening.
drive like you're expecting children to run out of the trees and hedgerows at any moment.
@@skellious if I were expecting children to run out at any point I'd drive no faster than 20 ever. I do think the seat was driving a bit fast, but not dangerously so
The fact he is even trying to justify his mistake, I can see why some people get road rage with this level of ignorance.
That emerge was frankly scary.
The cammer would've been at fault if the Seat hit him, he's still at fault here. It's a shame people can't admit fault when they're clearly at fault.
That’s a lot of faults.
However don't know how it works in the UK However here if you admit fault the insurance company might not be willing to pay the part that they don't agree on so let's say they find it a 80/20 fault you might be out of pocket the 20% and the self risk
@@Mira_linn I believe that's the same over here. It might have been why the cammer didn't want to admit it, particularly if that's on camera. I'm not saying that's the right thing to do but it might explain it.
@@MartinParnham i mean one could atleast be nice about it I mean the time it have happened to me I have said that we should let the insurance company figuer it out however im sorry if my actions have lead to any damage.
@@Mira_linn that certainly not true in the UK. Doesn't matter what you say the scene.
Theres a urban myth that if you admit fault at the scene it'll affect the insurance claim buts it's purely that
So on every dual carriageway, you have to slow from 70mph to 3mph at every side junction, in case someone emerges and you have to be able to stop. Unbelievable that these people exist.
Spot on, you can't judge how fast the Seat was going, unfortunately, because in avoiding the cammer he may have just ignored the brakes or even accelerated if he felt he could get in front. But what this guy is proposing is stopping at every junction because he couldn't be arsed to look left.
Additional to this, you loose some control while breaking heavily. So pulling to the left was always going to be a better, choice for the SEAT. And they literally had a second to react. I think if they slammed on the break there would have been a higher chance of a colission. Cammer is 100 per cent at fault.
That’s not what the cammer said though. I think it was a bad emerge on their part but he said, “on this road” so he was referring to those specific circumstances, which is a narrow country lane with reduced sightlines, not every junction on every road
@@servicekid7453 got it. You must stop on rural roads where you have right of way in case some idiot wants to join without looking.
3mph is too fast. To be able to stop in a distance of 0 you must drive at no greater than 0mph past junctions!
So the Cammer is anonymous while the people being not hit can be identified?
The woman probably overreacted (you can understand why), and might not want that to be seen, after all it ceratinly wasn't her fault.
Agree with this. Cammer had the choice to stay anonymous while they did not and did nothing wrong.
True, I'm also surprised that he never blurs out the number plate. A German dashcam channel would not keep it visible.
@@trismegistus2881 Different rules apply in the UK - though they still have a right to privacy, and Ashley would have to take the clip down and reload it with their faces (and number plate) blurred.
Just because the Germans (and other confused people) are some sort of talibans regarding "privacy" does not mean they're right. The clip is from a public place, anyone who wants complete privacy should stay at home! What's next, should I drive with my eyes closed so I don't see the "private" number plate or the "private" face of other drivers?
Maybe but she is understandably pissed off and i do not blame her. Having to deal with insurance is a pain in the ass. Rather just take phone number and pay to get the damaged fixed. The thing is i have heard about stuff like this even when not at fault you lose no claims bonus.
That Seat driver was calm, you're very lucky you caused an accident with someone like him....
Imagine if that was Ronnie Pickering
Yeah yeah.
@@rubenTR309 who......?
My uncle once got out of the car and pushed somebody into a wall!
@@rubenTR309 😂😂😂
I learned an important lesson from this, “Never reason with an idiot.”😂
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
The lesson I learnt was make sure you hit someone when they pull out on you like that rather than throwing yourself off the road, then there will be no leg the cammer can stand on.
There is a give way line at the junction. It's the cammers responsibility to check for traffic. The cammer is very much at fault for driving without due care and attention.
Even if there wasn't he is still at fault
Yeah there's just one problem there's only so far you can see from a junction even when there's no visible traffic, how do you know how fast a car is going when you cannot see it because its coming around a bend towards you ?
You forgot to mention the gigantic SLOW sign across the full width of the road on the approach to the junction.
@@marklittler784 " how do you know how fast a car is going when you cannot see it because its coming around a bend towards you ?"
Is that the case here? Is the junction located in a blind spot from on coming traffic? I doubt it.
@@gdwnet The SLOW sign certainly wasn't just for decoration
Well done to the cammer for sharing this for everyone's learning.
Though
"If you would have stopped, I could have passed you" is a very poor mindset, and is absolutely indicative of (unfortunately) many with large cars.
People that buy SUVs clearly have a lack of judgement anyway lol
@@pjflippy I hope your driving is as defensive as your commenting
@@wabznasm9660 Manford Thirty- Sixborough
@@MartinParnham this guy gets it
This wasn't a case of the cammer realising they were at fault and sharing the video for education - he thought he was in the right and it was a "look at these idiots" video.
Impressed with the seat driver . Calm & rational even though his vehicle has been damaged through no fault of his own. Cammer is symptomatic of today's attitude of blame someone else.
It is always smart to deny responsibility, refuse to comment and then if possible give false details (your phone number wrong by one digit for example if your number is 0713etc say "zero seven thirty" that way you can just claim they misheard and didn't get you to check it) and other such stuff, if you really want you can mock up an insurance letter in a pre-prepared false name or again just give your policy number incorrectly using a "14" rather than a "40" somewhere or telling them 370 when actually it is 870 (because you could claim you showed them, rather than reading it out, and they copied it down wrong by their mistake). Because if they don't take proof it was you there, in that car, at that time then good luck getting your insurance off of Miss Jane Smith, Number 10, Oak Lane, (Whatever city is nearby but not so close it is likely the person knows it well.)
Had they been recording (from a sneaky rear dash cam or such), even an apology could later be used against you in an insurance claim and civil trial.
Conversely from the point of view of the person not in the wrong, this is why you should use smartphones to verify all information given (call their phone number and check it is correct, photograph any documents they show you, photograph them there with the car (licence plate fully in view), look up their address on Google maps to check it is at least a real address not obviously fake. Try to ask for as much information as possible, even stuff they don't legally have to give such as their occupation/place of work, things that might be useful to know.
Never admit fault, never apologise. Do not concede any ground.
@@esmeecampbell7396 misplaced satire?
@@ribbonsofnightnah, "never admit fault" then ride off into the sunset was fairly common advice pre smartphone era.
Cammer totally in the wrong here. I see this kind of thing a lot in my job as an insurance claims handler and it’s a worryingly common misconception. In court, as long as the judge deems that you are the “proximate cause” of an incident, you are liable. There is no requirement to actually HIT the other car in order for this to apply.
Glad to hear the cammer has been receptive to your advice though, that’s the main thing!
I'm just wondering if I could ask you in which country you work with insurance claims, and whether you're willing to shed some light into how an insurance claim made by the cammer in this kind of situation would 'usually' be handled by someone like yourself depending on whether or not the cammer admitted fault or refused to do so?
There seems to be an inordinate amount of comments that say the cammer here only chose to refuse admitting fault so that his insurance might cover the damages he caused, whilst he would be personally liable to pay for damages if he did admit fault and his insurance company would be likely to refuse taking on the expense if he did admit fault - is that about right? :)
@@GronTheMighty no, that's not right. You shouldn't admit liability at the scene so that insurers can then battle it out later. If there's a lack of evidence then they'll often agree to settle 50/50 between your insurers and the Third Party's. That will of course reduce the value of the claim on your record.
Admission of fault at the scene doesn't necessarily mean you are 100% at fault; but if they can prove your admission then it would likely help tip the scales of fault your way.
There can be contributory factors in any incident - say for example the Seat in this clip was speeding, that could be seen to have worsened the situation, and the claim might be settled e.g. 80/20.
@@BhraonainOr admit fault if it is your fault and save everyone hassle. I don't like the inherent dishonesty in your advice.
Causing an accident whilst not "hitting" anything or anyone does not absolve you of that responsibility. The comment that the other driver is at fault because he couldn't stop in time to avoid needing to take the course of collision avoidance is incredible. This is the sort of bloke who pulls out on a motorway causing pandemonium and just drives off when 4 or 6 cars run into each other because of his lack of observation and / or consideration.
If you're travelling too fast to avoid an accident it kind of is entirely your fault, especially when it involves passing people at high speed on a road which is too narrow for you to comfortably pass on which from the markings seems to be single lane.
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 a driver failing to check the road in which they are emerging onto is entirely at fault for anything that happens. The other car DID avoid a collision with the cammer at the expense of their own car getting damaged.
@@dandotvid If you're going to waste my time by replying to me, don't make your replies garbage.
Look, here's the situation; He emerged onto a single lane road knowing that the other direction on the single lane road was blocked by a car travelling in the opposite direction.
The incident driver either;
A) Passed the car which emerged a couple of seconds (by his own words) before the cammer dangerously at high speed and luckily got away with it.
B) Passed the car which emerged a couple of seconds (by his own words) before the cammer at a safe speed but then for some reason gunned his engine to a dangerous speed despite being able to see that the cammer was emerging.
The other driver is entirely at fault for his own accident. The cammer did make a mistake in that he wasn't expecting any dangerous idiots to be driving dangerously, which is something you should always expect, but that does not make him responsible for the accident.
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 If you watch the clip carefully, I think that the cammer simply didn't look. If you drive and are doing so at an appropriate speed for the road then there is going to come a point where someone doing this (emerging without looking) will cause a collision or necessitate emergency evasive action. I really don't think that this was grossly disproportionate speed on the part of the car which hit something else in avoiding the no look emerge. Just look at the footage again. Even at 30, or 20 or even 10 mph you will be "on top of someone doing something "stupid" like this and pulling out without looking. The cammer simply didn't look and really is entirely responsible for the other guy hitting something else in avoiding him )the emerger).
He (the cammer) made a mistake. We are all human beings - we all make mistakes. By telling the guy who swerved to avoid him, hitting something else that it was all his fault for his speed and that he must have been guilty of speeding as though pulling out without looking is only minorly a part of the problem was a complete wind up and insult to injury. Understandable why the girl lost it; and it has to be said that the other motorist exercised great restraint.
The other guy wasn't travelling at an excessive speed for the road and that is borne out by looking at the film. this wasn't 50 or 60 mph, more like 25 or 35 top whack. Nope, the car with right of way was on top of the cammer when he just pulled out and the best the other motorist could do was steer around him. He did a good job and he should be compensated the costs of having his car should be fixed and loss of time.
@@paulfaulkner6299 Your post is garbage my man.
It would be correct if he were emerging into a TWO LANE road, because then there is the potential for traffic going both ways. This however was a ONE LANE road. He emerged directly behind a vehicle which had safely emerged going the opposite direction. As such any car that passed it should have been slowed to the point where it would not have had a risk of collision.
If the cammer is reading this ... grow up and pay these people what you owe them. There is no way in hell you would accept "I didn't touch you so its not my fault" if the roles were reversed.
I did exactly this at the end of our road a while back. I pulled out turning right without looking just as a car went past coming from the left. We both stopped because neither of us were sure if contact had been made. Difference is I immediately got out and apologised profusely offering them all my details. They were extremely nice about it. In fact, I think they could see I was really shaken and were dead nice to me. I simply could not grasp that I'd actually done what I did. I couldn't believe it. It turned out I had slightly scraped their car. I paid for the repairs with no question.
Back story, I was actually on the way to hospital to get the results of a biopsy to find out whether or not I had cancer. You were not allowed to have people with you because of Covid so I went alone. Big mistake. I should have let me wife drive me. Never underestimate how stress and worry can affect your driving! You're not aware of when you're not being aware!! (PS I found I did have cancer so all in all a pretty shit day. I'm doing OK now and am probably in remission, fingers crossed.)
The only crash I had in the UK (I was 100% responsible for) was when I was going to visit my dying nephew. Even now I have no idea why I even considered myself fit to drive. Thankfully nobody was hurt. But maybe we as a populace do need education about these decisions before we even get in the car. I know pilot training does include these things in go/no go scenarios and given the orders of magnitude higher danger in a car...
I'm glad you're doing a bit better now.
Get well soon!
Fair play to the Seat driver, a very good natured gentleman. For the cammer to deny any fault and sit in his car blaming the other driver... Well some people would of turned aggressive and violent at that point.
you make a huge mistake like that the first thing you do is hold your hands up and say "I am sorry....100% my fault...are you ok?" That solves 90% of the problem. You stil lget your aggressive Chavs that can't understand or accept.
Would've, not would of.
@@hughjaanus6680 would've, not Would've
@@tomg6333 would've, not "would of".
@@hughjaanus6680 ‘would have’ no need to be lazy!
I'm in disbelief that he's pinning blame on them for not being able to stop in time. Did he expect them to roll out a red carpet for him to emerge onto (unsafely) from behind the give way line, as well? Surely its common sense that if you're emerging, then you're responsible for looking for spaces rather than just pulling out and expecting everyone else to stop for you?
Fair play to the driver of the other vehicle managing to keep a level head. I'm not sure I could have been so good, as nothing winds me up more than a "nuffin to do with me!" attitude. I can even understand the female passenger's anger as she was on the side the damage happened and probably got a bit of a fright.
You have to wonder if visibility had been perfect at that junction, would the cam car driver have pulled out at all? - clearly the Seat was very close, if the answer to that is 'no' that answers the blame question.
I also seem to remember, 'if your driving causes another driver to change speed or direction you aren't doing it right'.
@@mrhuffler9791 not doing it right and then becoming the hazard
@@mrhuffler9791 The seat got there very soon whether it was very close is another question A doesn't prove B
It is always smart to deny responsibility, refuse to comment and then if possible give false details (your phone number wrong by one digit for example if your number is 0713etc say "zero seven thirty" that way you can just claim they misheard and didn't get you to check it) and other such stuff, if you really want you can mock up an insurance letter in a pre-prepared false name or again just give your policy number incorrectly using a "14" rather than a "40" somewhere or telling them 370 when actually it is 870 (because you could claim you showed them, rather than reading it out, and they copied it down wrong by their mistake). Because if they don't take proof it was you there, in that car, at that time then good luck getting your insurance off of Miss Jane Smith, Number 10, Oak Lane, (Whatever city is nearby but not so close it is likely the person knows it well.)
Had they been recording (from a sneaky rear dash cam or such), even an apology could later be used against you in an insurance claim and civil trial.
Conversely from the point of view of the person not in the wrong, this is why you should use smartphones to verify all information given (call their phone number and check it is correct, photograph any documents they show you, photograph them there with the car (licence plate fully in view), look up their address on Google maps to check it is at least a real address not obviously fake. Try to ask for as much information as possible, even stuff they don't legally have to give such as their occupation/place of work, things that might be useful to know.
Never admit fault, never apologise. Do not concede any ground.
cammer logic: You can pull out at a junction without checking properly, its okay to do this as long as they don't hit you, and they cannot hit you because they have to be able to stop in time. Therefore you can pull out of a junction without looking properly, because it's their fault if they hit you.
That sounds like bmw or Audi drivers highway code
Yes, going by his logic, if the other car had not taken avoiding action and hit him he would presumably have believed that they were the ones at fault not him.
I'd be interested to know whether the cammer asked to be kept anonymous before or after Ashley told him he was at fault.
I think we all know the answer to that one
Yeah....pretty obvious.
As an introvert, this is one of my biggest fears whilst driving
It's actually pretty alarming that the cammer seems to have no idea how bad their judgement was. Just like one of your recent videos where (I think) a Golf driver emerges from a blind junction and hits an oncoming car, this could have ended badly. I would be mortified and so apologetic if I did this but the cammer brushes it off like "we didn't crash so what's the big deal."
It is always smart to deny responsibility, refuse to comment and then if possible give false details (your phone number wrong by one digit for example if your number is 0713etc say "zero seven thirty" that way you can just claim they misheard and didn't get you to check it) and other such stuff, if you really want you can mock up an insurance letter in a pre-prepared false name or again just give your policy number incorrectly using a "14" rather than a "40" somewhere or telling them 370 when actually it is 870 (because you could claim you showed them, rather than reading it out, and they copied it down wrong by their mistake). Because if they don't take proof it was you there, in that car, at that time then good luck getting your insurance off of Miss Jane Smith, Number 10, Oak Lane, (Whatever city is nearby but not so close it is likely the person knows it well.)
Had they been recording (from a sneaky rear dash cam or such), even an apology could later be used against you in an insurance claim and civil trial.
Conversely from the point of view of the person not in the wrong, this is why you should use smartphones to verify all information given (call their phone number and check it is correct, photograph any documents they show you, photograph them there with the car (licence plate fully in view), look up their address on Google maps to check it is at least a real address not obviously fake. Try to ask for as much information as possible, even stuff they don't legally have to give such as their occupation/place of work, things that might be useful to know.
Never admit fault, never apologise. Do not concede any ground.
@@esmeecampbell7396 lol, so no ethics, nobody owes anybody anything. nice world view you have there. good thing most people are decent and don't imagine the world as some hobbesian nightmare.
@@oibara2 me living in reality upsets you.
@@esmeecampbell7396 that's not reality. Most claims are settled peacefully because most people don't excuse themselves from basic decency out of a deluded belief that they're some Machiavellian. You're selfish is all
@@oibara2 I never said I was Machiavelli, I said it was a pretty obvious old trick to do.
Keep your morals, they are piss. Remain upset.
tarted
This push out and expect folk to brake in time happens way too often these days, I'm currently a bus driver and it happens quite a few times a day, including pedestrians/cyclists/scooter riders as well, 'oh look a bus they're slow I shall cut them off' but an 8+ ton bus doesn't stop that well, most idiots don't realise that, the law will only protect them so far, end of life will take over.
Hi pal
@@will4may175 Exactly. Self preservation doesn't appear to enter the heads of so many now.
His comment about "you should be going slower so you can stop" is nonsense too. You're not required to slow from 50-60 to 10 at every junction on a main road just so you can better avoid hitting the idiot that might do an unsafe emerge and then blame it on you.
@@xClarke welcome!
I think this is what my instructor calls a "peep and creep" situation. When the view is not clear I'm supposed to edge forward slowly so that both parties have a chance to see each other and react. It looks like this guy's MO was "jump out and we'll see"...
The insurance company has the evidence that he didn't look left, he's assumed that there was space based on the wider vehicle emerging left.
Honestly insurance companies would most likely toss that case out.
The camera was fixed so you couldn't see if the cammer looked left or not. It was plainly obvious that his observation was at fault because it soon became apparent that the road was not clear.
@@TheRip72 I agree we can't say for definite that he didn't look left but I don't think there's any way he would've been able to see properly around that people carrier, so he should've stopped. He even admitted that "there was a van in the way" and you can see from the clip that the cammer just pulled out. There's no way he could've had a proper look in that time and I suspect (and this is just my opinion) that he'd probably done that on that junction before and was familiar with that road.
Personally, I suspect folks buy and install dashcams in their vehicles so they have video evidence of other drivers fault in the event of an accident. If there's an an accident and the cammer is clearly at fault, I suspect the dashcam in that case was 'unfortunately nor working/ not recording or similar' !!
@@MartinParnham I think he was familiar with most using that lane at speeds taking into account the junction and the SLOW signs.
“Have I hit you?” no, He would have hit you, had he done so the camper would have still blamed the other driver for no stopping for him, unbelievable.
I don't think it was a camper . Looked like an ordinary car from the height of the dashcam.
@@dennisphoenix1 predictive spelling, it should have been cammer.
@@ericmilligan3 ahhh. I see
Tricky situation if the Seat didn't have a dashcam as some form of evidence for insurance company
TBH that looks to be an awful junction with vehicles from all directions needing to be careful !
Kudos to the Seat driver for actually avoiding a collision and being rightly agrieved at cammers poor driving/responsibilty
One would like to think the cammer might learn from seeing this & the comments on here !
I hope It's just heat of the moment, but it's worrying how cammer behaved there.
The idea that you should be able to stop whatever is in front of you is ok to an extent, but doesn't account for sudden changes to what is in front of you. I wonder if cammer drives past all junctions at 5mph just in case someone pulls out as he is passing...
His own rules don't apply to him; only to everyone else.
To be honest without knowing what the junction looks like first hand it's hard to say who's in the wrong and in the right. If its a blind corner for instance then the seat should only been travelling as fast as he/she could see and be able to stop at a short distance. Im not saying the cammer isn't in the wrong. But I've had it personally down country roads were a blind corner or junction is free and some tool suddenly comes speeding around at above 30 mph and can't stop in time.
Well.. He didn't give way to traffic already on the road.
That's the way the police and insurance would see it.
Unless the cammer was police or expolice
@@iwalker3809 Did Ashley say where this was, hopefully not Cheshire.
Glad you posted this video something some people can learn from. Just because you didn't hit someone doesn't mean you didn't cause damage.
🥇 🏆here is your gold medal and trophy
Is he suggesting he’d only be at fault if he’d hit them?
I'd love to see what his excuse would be if the Seat drove into him instead of the bushes/trees.
I would want to know what he would say if the roles were reversed and someone pulled out in front of him.
That would be the most telling.
I think he's saying he's not at fault as the other driver should have stopped for him pulling out and because he didn't stop its the SEAT's fault.
Yea..... baffles the mind.
@@mikewilton4872 He thinks because they didn't make contact with eachother somehow that makes him innocent 😂
@@mikewilton4872 it's not in the video but a charitable explanation would be that there was a blind corner to the left of the junction. The driver of the camera car might have felt that the driver came around that corner at a speed which didn't account for finding a stopped vehicle, a horse rider or a fallen tree across the road. It would have been interesting to see that junction on Google maps / street view.
That said, if the vision was obstructed to the left the driver should have taken more care to try to ensure nothing was approaching. For example, stopping and rolling down the windows to try to listen for an approaching vehicle is sometimes worth while when there is a restricted view.
Kudos to the other driver, amazingly calm attitude, even calms his mrs down despite her very rightful anger 👌
This person was probably a "it's just a prank, bro" type of person...after the victim was in a near-injury, near-death experience. If they are learning from their mistakes and taking constructive criticism, though, that is great.
The advice I was given was never admit liability and let the insurance company sort it out.
That doesn't mean blame the other party though or act like an idiot
I'm not sure what is more scary, the bad driving or the driver being oblivious to his bad driving.
Its not even like junctions are a grey area. The person pulling out is almost always going to be at fault if there is a collision or near collision.
People make mistakes but not to recognize you have is way more scary.
To be fair, insurance does advise you not to admit liability at the scene.
I'm glad someone has mentioned that👏
Not supposed to accept liability, even when it’s obvious.
It's doesn't make any difference if you admit liability or not. It's urban myth that any admission at an accident has any effect Von the final outcome.
Cammer attitude was unbelievable!!!
And yet so many on here trying to apportion blame to the couple and saying her reaction was disproportionate. Denies all wrong doing and tries to blame them, her reaction was spot on.
Full marks for the Seat driver, as he kept his cool during the entire situation. Top notch, that! As you said: as soon as he realised that the cammer was not going to be forthcoming, there's no point in hanging on.
Nice driving by this gent.
I have recently been driving to the maximum speed that I can safely stop in narrow Devon roads, and am shocked at the tailbacks behind me of others who feel they can stop instantly should they meet an oncoming vehicle! I was even more afraid I would meet such people myself coming in the other direction which led me to slow even further..to the great annoyance of those behind me.
Looks to me like the Seat driver WAS able to stop within the distance he could see. He just wasn't able to stop within the suddenly reduced distance caused by the cammer jumping out into his path without so much as a glance to the left. No different to any other T junction.
100 percent cammer fault. I'm surprised at the cammer letting you upload this even with his face blurred.
How could he think for a second he was not to blame just because the Seat driver took the safest route that caused least damage for all concerned?
If it wasn't for the Seat drivers great decision of avoidance it could have been a hospital trip for someone.
How do you know the seat driver wasnt speeding? This would change everything you just said.
Please don’t show my face. Guilty as charged
Cammer, regardless what happened, the first words out of your mouth should have been "Are you ok?". You caused this situation, you have to be the one to show empathy.
It would have had zero effect on the woman, who had set her mind to being confrontational.
Your mindset is the same as the cammers. Sad.
@@realdanielmaclean No, you just need to believe that, because it makes it easier for you to write off my different opinion.
@@goodyeoman4534 Again sad. Best watch more of Ashley's videos. It'll take time, but you'll get the point. Good luck.
@@goodyeoman4534 haha I knew I’d find you again slathering about the woman
He effectively forced them off the road and caused the damage to their car.
Having the mindset of "if you'd just stopped in time I could have gone and there would have been no issue" is basically the same as saying "if everyone drives really slow, I can always pull out in front of people and have right of way over everyone else and the roads are mine"... ridiculous!
Did the cammer force the Seat driver off the road … or did the car turning left already do that? Only the Seat driver would know if they went further left again to avoid the cammer’s car or they were already so far over damage was already being sustained?
I think that the problem here is that insurance companies always tell you never to admit liability for anything. That is precisely what your cammer was doing.
There are ways to not admit liability without being such an ass about it.
For instance, you could say: " Well this is unfortunate, and I'm sorry you have damage. Here's my footage; the insurance companies will sort it out." That would have been a lot better than how this cammer reacted.
In the driving job I've had we were told to behave similar to the cammer. Offer no apology or admission of liability, exchange insurance or management details and leave it to the lawyers. Yes he and I would have appeared a jerk but those were the instructions. If the cammer has had similar training, his behaviour is explained. Even now as a private driver I'd behave similar to him.
Even if you're not at fault, if a car has shot through a red light and hit you. Going "Oh I'm sorry" especially on film will work against you in the insurance company's view
He didn’t leave it to the lawyers, he litigated it right there, chopping up reality in front of the man’s eyes. I think his patronising teacherly tone adopted from the start will be familiar to many who have experienced similar circumstances. No excuses for this arsehole.
You are obliged by law to provide your personal details if you are involved in a road accident; insurance details must be provided (by law) if there are any injuries. I am pretty sure that if you got professional driving training they would have told you that.
On the admission of liability (and the fact that even an apology can be treated as such), there are quite a few cases where the Courts took the stance that apologising or even admitting liability at the time of the accident is not the same as actually being liable - even in part. But I accept that procedures and training often tell you not to admit or apologise because this could be construed etc.
There is a big difference between not admitting liability, and blaming the other person. Just gather evidence, exchange details and report to insurance or police.
I love it when people send you clips showing incidents which the cammer believes are 100% not their fault, that they are the best driver ever, that all other road users are morons, and then you so calmly point out their flaws. I'd love to see the expressions on their faces.
This situation reminds me of the video 'Ashley's Analysis | Failed to Look Left!'. And to think 'Oh well, I didn't hit you so I'm not responsible for anything that happens while you have to dodge me.' is foolish and a sentiment I hear way too often from people. Good on the cammer though for taking the criticism well, hope he's learned something from this and keeps up his high standard of driving!
Has he taken it well?
No one is responsible for anything anymore
If the cammer is correct then there would be basically no car accidents. Everyone should just be able to stop and let the other party do what they like... I mean, why do we even paint give-way and stop lines on junctions if everyone can just pull out and others should stop for them... Cammer is a moron in this situation and shows utter contempt for the rules of the road and established etiquette.
Got to say I cannot believe what the cammer said, "I've not hit you".
Its like saying its not my fault that I pulled out of a junction and caused a car to take avoiding action and hit something else instead, oh wait...
Eventually when the cammer figures out that their action caused and accident because the other car took avoiding action so they would not hit them, the sooner they may figure out that they were in the wrong for pulling out without clearly looking to ensure the road was clear in the first place.
The fact that they think accidents mean contact between vehicles also amazes me, and the lack of an apology... bad form.
To be fair i never saw the car hit the side bushes either. Maybe he didn't? At least he didn't try and beat them up or drive off etc?
Well done SEAT driver. Handled it perfectly 👌. There was no point trying to reason with our cammer, who clearly lacks intelligence.
It's people like this that scare the living daylights out of me when I'm riding my motorbike, the amount of times I've had to emergency brake or swerve whilst passing a junction over the 2 years I've had my license is terrifying. Some drivers are so dumb, ignorant and completely oblivious to others on the roads, I come here to remind myself that not all drivers are like this and Ashley's tips are great advice to bikers and drivers alike.
Normally I agree 100% with everything you say Ashley but it’s ingrained into me as a professional driver to never admit liability at the roadside. In this case, If I was the cammer, I would have parked and secured my vehicle, asked if everyone was ok and if they wanted to exchange details given them mine. But no, I wouldn’t have apologised either as that can be taken as an admission of guilt. Who is at fault is down to the insurance companies to sort out.
I thought that upon the give way markings, if the view is restricted you should stop and observe like what the car in front did of the cammer
I'm sorry but if he's a regular viewer how on earth did he think people emerging on give way lines have priority? He just rolled right without stopping or observing.
'You should've stopped I could have just passed you?'
Like WTF?
This is why at junctions when i'm riding my bike whenever a CAR is turning out into the first lane.. there might be a car that's behind that car wanting to go into your path of trevel. They also think it's clear as that car will make other cars slow down, which just isn't the case, so anytime you see a juntion remember if that car is turning left... there might just be a car behind it going right into your path of travel :) slow down when you see cars at junctions or even for blind corners as they could also have junctions which should be noted with signs.
I've had a similar situation to this, almost identical to this situation, I was the "cammer" car. I looked right - clear, looked left - clear, looked right - clear, looked left and saw a car a decent distance away, however I didn't factor in the possibility of this car doing potentially 100mph in a 50 zone, I pulled out and the car swerved and ended up in a field. They were perfectly fine but they blamed it on me. Thankfully a car behind them stopped and they had a dash cam which showed the car overtaking them (they were doing 52 I believe) and the car swerving into the field and they gave me the video. There was also video footage from a scrap dealer which was able to prove they were doing over 100mph which caused them to receive a 6 month driving ban.
I was rather pleased with the outcome xD
I wouldn't consider that as being "almost identical", only similarity from what you described is that you pulled out of a junction.
@@programmer5855 Ehh well the only reason I said almost identical is because the area looks almost exactly like where mine occurred, my bad! I guess I was just trying to say that the cammer isn't always the one in the wrong in this situation. Although since it happened I just assume that every other car on the road is speeding.
Camera footage shows driver was too lazy to stop and look right down the road. He might have footage but it can also be used against you.
The cammer is a C. There's no other polite way to describe him.
Certified Undisputed National Treasure?! 🤭😅🍻
@@ollieb9875 Currently Undergoing No-brain Treatment too!
Lack in observational checks on a very damergous emerge, especially as cammer's left sided vision obscured by the VW MPV in front 🧐 and frankly this could've turned out alot worse, hope cammer realises this an learns alot from it
I think what's happened here is that because the first car at the junction turned left, the cammer assumed there was no way there was going to be room for a car to be coming in the opposite direction so it must be clear. Therefore, didn't check.
Golden rule in life, business and driving: never assume!
Unbelieveable that he tried to suggest the seat driver was at fault.
"Yea so what I pulled out on you, you should have have stopped. Oh your cars damaged due to you having to avoid me. Well my cars fine so tough shit"
That's how he comes across to me. It's so annoying and there are so many self entitled, can't do no wrong brats on the road these days.
When I had a bump (hit a parked car when reversing and pulled the bumper off and ruined the wing and light fixings), I left a note with my number. I paid for the car to be fixed £600.
That's called taking responsibility.
Someone did a similar thing to my car a few years prior to that. But just left my 3 month old car all scratched up and left. I thought to myself, I will never be one of those people.
0:30 The cammer's view to the left would have been obscured by the large VW turning, compounded by the narrow road. He should clearly have waited for that car to get some distance away before pulling out. Another example of impatience.
I think you hit the nail on the head, I bet too the first car pulling out blocked the seat.
2:25 if they had made contact he would probably have blamed them for damage to HIS car.
I swear the number one rule in driving is that if you cause another driver to change speed or direction when they have the right of way you are in the wrong.
I’m amazed how that ladies top defies gravity so well !
“If my cammer is still talking to me” 😂
Scariest thing for me is, I know I would not have reacted as calmly as the Seat driver did.
I was thinking the same. I thought the driver of the grey car showed remarkable restraint. The cammer was lucky he didn't get a hiding.
Running into the back of someone is usually your fault, except where breaking space has been compromised. Clearly pulling out in front of another car removes their breaking space.
I had an incident of a guy changing lanes right in front of me because further up he wanted to do a left turn. I was braking and wouldn't have hit him had he not brake checked me. Of course he drove off. He must have been so p***ed off after his insurance company accepted liability based on the dash cam footage. The joke was damage to me was minimal and had he stopped and offered cash I would have accepted but because he drove off I notified my insurance company.
Why did you accept the request for the cammers face to be blurred and yet still leave the other parties faces and number plate unblurred? I think this is out of order and the same level of anonymity should given to the victims as the perpetrator in this instance, unless you have been told they were happy to be unblurred.
Blurring faces in footage takes quite a long time, and there’s nothing that says you HAVE to do it unless specifically requested by the party 🤷♂️ it’s not fair but I reckon time constraint is the answer
Any moniticed channel need to censor anyone requesting it, basic stuff really.
you dont just emerge out like that, especially if you'e turning right you need to look both sides..
I don't know about the stopping in the distance you can see thing, if I slowed to the point where I could stop for every car at every junction that would make driving totally impossible. A car sat at a junction could pull out when I am one metre away from them, I would be unable to stop in time at any speed.
@@jav.7611 yes, I agree. I think you're 100% right, all I'm saying is if someone just randomly pulls of a junction without looking, there can be sod all you can do about it.
Let’s get back to the man with the red flag.
Great defence from the cammer - if I pull out in front of you it’s your fault if you don’t manage to stop before hitting my car!
Cammer blatently pulled out thinking the car in front of him was ok so there isnt anything coming.
One of the first things my instructor taught me was if your driving actions cause someone to suffer damahe, you can be liable. Theres so many people that think no contact = no fault.
I really enjoy your channel Ashley, keep up the good work.
The emerge was poor, the attitude of the cammer was worse. I think if I found myself in that situation, the first thing I would have done is got out and apologised. Given the likely nature of the cosmetic damage on their car, it would probably be best to hand over your details and try to agree to pay directly for the repairs (probably a couple of hundred pounds) rather than the hassle and expense of going through insurance.
We all make mistakes, it's the way we handle them that matters.
How is the other car going to see him with the car that was in front exiting and blocking their view? Cammer is clueless. Just get the rego of people like that and let the insurance pursue them rather than lose brain cells
It's more fundamental than that. It's a condition of your insurance that you do not accept liability. If you do and "i'm sorry" can be construed as accepting liability, then the insurance company can refuse to cover. It's their job to weasel out of paying. In no way am I saying the driver didn't do the wrong thing, just that you should not accept liability if there's damage to claim unless you want to be wholly responsible for paying for it.
"If my cammer is still talking to me" said with a cheeky smirk.... hahaha love it.
Fair play to the other driver for being so calm and all I can say is sometimes it takes seeing it in a video and having it pointed out to you for you to actually understand whats blatantly obvious to everyone else but I have no doubt that the cammer will watch this and think that was an awful emerge by me perhaps I wasn’t right this time and that’s the main thing. And no one was hurt on this occasion so lets all just be thankful for that :)
You could kind of understand if he thought they were both at fault to some degree, but it's pretty crazy that he thinks you can just pull out into flowing traffic and expect them to slam their brakes on to avoid an accident.
I wonder if the other car had a camera. If not, this is a clear example why you should!
This happens more than people realise. A car turns left out of a junction and the car behind who is turning right just pulls out not waiting to see if a vehicle is in the blind spot caused by the vehicle that has just turned left.
Hearing the cammer try to explain himself really shook me, he's the reason why when a cop arrives you need to show all the footage. This easily could have been mis-sided without details
I think keeping calm is really important, I wouldn't want to exchange insurance details with someone shouting at me as I could feel threatened
The SEAT driver remained very calm. And you’re legally obliged to exchange details with the other party where there’s damage involved, arising from the incident. Not doing so is surely likely to make the other party more “shouty”?
@@RichardHartley65 I agree with your points but I was thinking of more extreme examples of being threatened, eg being insulted or physical
This has nothing to do with the people in the video but it came to my mind watching how the passenger behaved
This has popped up in my feed 2 years later but what I will also say is that there seems to be the instruction of "don't admit fault" and to let the insurance deal with it, since apparently if you admit fault at the scene, it can affect any insurance claim afterwards. I have no idea if that is true, but I can understand why people don't accept fault. As long as they comply and pass on details I do not see the problem
Remember - your insurance company's advice: NEVER admit liability. Trouble is - your insurance company isn't facing an irate driver that you've just carved up...
Hang on, so the cammer thinks they're in the right because it shouldn't matter how they drive, it's up to everyone else to keep out of their way? That's genuinely their defence here? What makes it even worse is that this isn't a heat of the moment take by them. They came home, downloaded the clip, watched it back and STILL thought they were entitled to pull out without looking at it's everyone else's responsibility to miss them. If they'd sent the clip saying 'this is what happens in the heat of the moment, sorry, I got it wrong' then yeah, everyone makes mistakes. But to look back at it after time for reflection and still think you're right, that's some special kind of entitlement.
The real mystery here is how did that car come from the left so fast given that the VW had turned into what looked like a road wide enough for one car?
The other important thing here is that both drivers views of each other would have been obscured by the first car that pulled out, which was even more reason that the cammer should have waited until he had a clear view of the road. I will say though, the woman passenger was of no help in this situation and had I been the cammer, I would have very quickly lost my patience with her, the incident needed to be dealt with by both drivers, not 1 driver and a hysterical passenger.
Big slow sign in paint across that road and they usually come in two's lets just ignore those slow signs and the junction hazard and not reduce our speed ready for anything attempting to pull out that doesn't have clear visibility.
He’s the proximate cause of the accident pulling out. He can still be held liable for the accident!
Could be a possibility that the cammer is refusing to admit fault because thats what insurance companies tell you to do?
The cammer came out too quick after the car in front of him. He either, thought that it was clear because the other car had gone out, or he couldn’t see because of the other car going out and blocking his line of vision to the left.
My dad taught me a valuable lesson after my mum wrote her car off trying to avoid a fox.
Generally unless 100% sure you can avoid safely just hit whatever it is.
This guy, I would have definitely ran into, no question.
In all seriousness, looking for fault isnt helping the situation, thats for the insurance companies and police to deal with. The whole reason why ashley posted this and why the cammer sent it in, is for learning purposes on what each party did right or wrong and how we can make sure it doesnt happen again in the future, for anyone.
We’re humans, we’re gunna judge.
So you are the driver in the clip then, after all only the driver knows the exact reason it was sent in....
@@kensukadventures628 I don't understand this ideology at all. By trying to nullify my statement you also nullify your own. Nobody knows the real reason of anything that anyone does. Apart from one thing when they send it in for Ashley's analysis what does he always do. Put his interpretation of the incident and see where we can all learn from it He literally explains this in some videos.. This isn't a court situation. Pipe down!
@@mikemonkeyz yeah you must be the original cammer :) same attitude cant accept when at fault...
@@kensukadventures628 Fault? Did you not read the comment?