Toronto Dashcam Catches Near rollover

Dramatic dashcam footage of rollover

Truck driver Tim Gordon caught some startling footage of a collision and near rollover on May 5th, in a video that should remind you to always be aware that anything can happen on the highway. Traveling northbound on May 5th on highway 27, just north of the 401 in Toronto, Gordon captured the puzzling actions of a Ford Explorer sideswiping a Chevy Cruze, causing the Cruze to spin and roll.

At about 35 seconds in, the driver of the grey Explorer decided that it was a good time to make a sudden illegal U-turn from the right hand lane and slams in to the passenger side of the Cruze, sending it spinning across the highway and onto its roof before finally landing on its wheels. Fortunately, according to Gordon’s blog, timsbitz.com, the driver suffered only minor injuries, but it certainly could easily have been worse. The driver of the Cruze appeared to try and steer around the Explorer, but ran out of time and space. Here at the autoTRADER offices, we debated the best way the Cruze driver could have avoided the collision, but there’s really no good way other than the Explorer driver exercising due care and attention. So stay safe out there, and watch out for those who aren’t. And maybe look at getting a dashcam of your own, in case of drivers like this.

 

Share
The following two tabs change content below.
Evan Williams

Evan Williams

Evan is based in Halifax, and has been a car nut for as long as anyone can remember. He autocrosses, does lapping days and TSD rallies, breaks cars and then fixes them again.
  • King Troll

    crazy people thinking they own the roads.

  • Dave C

    I don’t think there was much the Cruse could have done to avoid getting hit, other than not pass the guy. Once he had been hit, he then spun. Not sure exactly what he did, but he could possibly have “saved” the spin. I am guessing he probably said something to the effect of “Oh s#/t”, and slammed the brakes. Rather than try to steer out of the spin. Then again, most drivers do not know how to control a car at the limit.

  • mailswaps

    Turn look signal in that order. See it all the time.

  • Adam Siltanen

    This is a good video to teach defensive driving. First, there is a sign in the video saying the limit is 80 kph on this road. The dash cam driver is doing 20 over and the cruze passes him; therefor took away his own time to react. Second, though the driver of the SUV of clearly ‘at fault’ I don’t care, I still have responsibility to keep myself and my car safe. Though the cruze comes around the dash cam car and can see the SUV only for a few seconds, the behavior of the SUV was suspect. It had slowed down already then moved into the middle of the road while his brake lights came on. At this point the cruze decides to put itself(quite assertivly) into that uncertain passing situation anyway, and gets hit. If you gamble you will lose eventually. Drive safe!
    Not saying I would have not passed myself, i’d like to think so; I did take a course on this stuff to get my insurance rates down as a young fella.

  • Ctak

    To me it looks like SUV was going to make a U-turn from the centre lane.

  • Anne_Regent

    Obviously you weren’t watching closely enough. The speed drops when you pass under the bridge and it goes from the old 427 expressway to the undivided 27 north. The truck driver was slowing down at that point if you watched the speed indicator. There are intersections and stop lights on this road from Toronto to Barrie. I know this section well, I got a photo radar ticket myself about 20 years ago on this stretch. For someone who is unaware that they have missed the exit for the 427 extension, the sudden drop in speed limit catches them by surprise as it did the Cruze driver. My guess is that the Ford was attempting to turn around and find the road that he should be on but didn’t realize that ‘he couldn’t get there from here’ by making a U turn.

  • Adam Siltanen

    I don’t at all know this stretch of highway, did not know the limit was 100 at the start, was suprised to see an 80 sign. My point is that the cruze made the choice to pass at the critical moment, not hit the brakes and figure out what the heck this guy is doing.

  • marco hizon

    That STUPID FORD explorer driver is not fuckin’ paying attention to his driving! He thinks he own the road.

  • marco hizon

    Nobody can save that Cruze in that kind of situation because the driver of the Explorer swerved to the left at the same time the Cruze was passing on the Explorer’s left side since they are both speeding!

  • Dave C

    No question that the Cruze can’t avoid contact. I’ve seen some pretty amazing car control in my time rallying and at road races. Make the wrong move when you are hit…. we saw the consequences. But keep calm, and make the right moves, it may have been recoverable. Maybe not, but I would not agree that there was no chance that it could be saved by a skilled driver.

  • harvey

    the first few speed signs are 100, then there is an 80 ahead, then just before the accident, there is the 80. The truck is slowing by then and the car passes him then. He would also have been in the way of the car’s being able to see that 80 sign.

  • harvey

    the car was in the left lane and had the right of way. The SUV was way below even the 80 limit in order to make his u-turn.

  • CatsEyeView

    I want to hear the rest of the radio program…..

  • twp007

    I came up with similar numbers – 109 for the trucker and 140 for the car – I’d say the ‘victim’ was at least partly responsible for his own trouble.

  • twp007

    I think your numbers are probably more carefully derived. I was just roughly counting dashes. Looked like the Cruze was doing about 30% faster.

  • Johny Wong

    Many people blame the speed, I call it SB (reverse). This accident happened because that Ford was trying to make a U-turn. Even if the saloon went 60km/h, still accident would happened.

  • jos ant

    I hardly ever drive the 427, I always thought it was 100 km, the same as the 401. Next time i’ll pay more attention.

  • Reality Thinker

    Illegal u-turn with no signal. SUV fully at fault

  • Jason Trealout

    unbelievably stupid too!

  • why-r-people-in-such-a-hurry

    Dumb distracted driver – probably took the wrong ramp off of Eglinton and headed north instead of south, would love to know if a cell was in use at the time… so instead of carrying on to the next exit 2 seconds further along (visible on the horizon in the video) they pulled a U turn… this behaviour (along with other dangerous U turns, using merging lanes to pass on the right, and illegal turns at intersections) is why driver re-tests should be mandatory for license renewals & after accidents… driving is a privilege not a right.

  • Noel Sutherland

    Stupid distracted drivers who I’m sure have no clue what they just did. No signal, incorrect lane, and illegal turn. These are the things that our police need to start enforcing. There could have been a child in the back of the cruz. That was just dumb!!!

  • orilliaman

    how can you expect the Police to be ” onsight ” when something stupid like this happens, if someone got the Lic.plate number their is sufficient evidence in the video to take to Court

  • Kevin Montgomery

    When #drivists say “SUVs are safer!” :S

  • Randall Semrau

    I agree with your point about enforcement, but not your other concern. How is a child’s life worth anything more than an adult’s, or an elderly person’s? Everyone in the car would have been unwilling, innocent victims of someone else’s stupidity, and suffered the same.

  • Randall Semrau

    This, and last-second lane changes are another error which self-driving cars will eliminate. When people don’t know where they are going, anything can happen.

  • Randall Semrau

    As a driver, you rarely expect the sort of move we witnessed here. But yeah, the Explorer drifted slowly enough into the inside lane, that the Chev had time to significantly reduce speed. We never did witness a brake light in the left lane, which indicates the Chev driver had only time on his mind.

    I tend to speed. But what I can take away with me after watching this video, is this: If your agenda is causing your right foot to hesitate from moving away from the throttle, well, you possibly have impaired your own ability to prevent the preventable.

  • Rob

    You can see the 80 sign when the cruze is well past the truck driver. If we extrapolate that the Cruze had been doing the speed limit, they would have all the time in the world to react to the idiot Explorer. Here is an example of stupidity coupled with speeding gets you!

  • John McNab

    I have some thoughts. People are unwilling to slow down for anything. Some drivers think they have the right to not be slowed down for anything. If the Chevy would have began braking as soon as the Ford started to move into its lane. The outcome of the dumbass pulling the u-turn would have been different. Just b/c you have the right of way, doesn’t mean you will live. If the light is green and you have the right of way, and a truck runs the red. You are still dead, even thought you had the right of way. Dead is dead. It may cost you a few more minutes to get to where you are going safely, but tell me it isn’t worth it ?

  • Randall Semrau

    You’d be surprised by who survives trauma. Often, adults are far more seriously injured because they tense up, and because they are far more brittle. Just look at the number of young children or babies that ‘mysteriously’ survive air crashes and building collapses.

  • Wayne Wilkie

    Dude in the Explorer could have NOT planned to carry out an illegal u-turn. Chevy driver should have been hard on the brakes.

  • Wayne Wilkie

    Bottom left corner tells you the trucker’s exact gps speed dropping from 104 in the 100 down to 92 just into the 80 at the time of collision.

  • twp007

    Yes, I can see that now – I had skipped over the left numbers when I saw Lat Long – didn’t notice speed. As you can see from my other comment I was just trying to estimate using the dashes on the road…and using the bottom right corner for time. I acknowledged that I was probably high and 10% off for my first estimate of that sort isn’t bad. But of course the actual numbers are much better 😉

  • azzurri

    so people should just start braking at green lights to let people who have no respect for the rules to do what they please? People these days just do whatever they want with no regard for the consequences. What you just stated is more true for cyclists and motorcyclists as even a small fender bender could be fatal.

  • John McNab

    I can only speak for myself. I’ve driven over two million miles without incident.
    In a bunch of big trucks, 10 different cars, and 6 motorbikes. Plus 2 bicycles… It’s just called safe driving. I always look both ways when going through a green light. It has saved me 20 x’s…

  • Randall Semrau

    You’re a miracle on the road. So much so, that you seem to even have power over others which prevents them from rear-ending you.

  • Randall Semrau

    There’s a misunderstanding here. Some don’t have respect for the rules, and whether you stop or don’t stop, is profoundly, forever irrelevant to their mindset. You’re just simply going to end up in their path, at you and your family’s, expense. They don’t care about your principles, and your principles can’t stop a 3000 lb projectile. So unless you’re driving an armoured personnel carrier, you’d better to get used to that fact sooner, rather than later after the funeral and the grieving are over.

  • John McNab

    I’m sorry for the way you feel. I hope you stay safe on the road.
    Best wishes !

  • Daniel Libich

    What if the insurance bureau has a copy of the dashboard camera as the driver of the explorer tries to file a claim as even the EDR has vital information pinning them 110% guilty of the collision after they decided to make an illegal U-turn and sideswiped a cruze spinning it across the highway before hitting the berm in the shoulder and flipping once.

  • rider8

    I chuckle a bit at all the comments below who say it was the Cruze’s fault if they were “harder right away on the brakes”. To react to the SUV, at that point, it was too late.

    I agree with whoever below who said contact was unavoidable. THE ONLY WAY for contact to be avoidable, was for the Cruze to notice the SUV looked “sketchy” and slow down WAY before it happened. Admittedly, most people are not trained these days in defensive driving because with the exception of a few schools (who admittedly cost too much more than others for people to really consider) our schools in Toronto don’t care about defensive driving – just to pass the test.

    But a defensive driver would spot the sketchiness (SUV looked close to the centre and just seemed too slow) and if they were to pass they would carefully pass while watching the front wheel to see if it turned and therefore have a faster CHANCE of stopping. I say chance because the SUV turned way too abruptly to not make contact unless someone was already expecting it.

  • Daryl Rybotycki

    An unavoidable accident unless the Cruze driver decided to stay home that day…

  • FourOneSix

    Growing up in the GTA, being through defensive driving courses, and working for emergency services, I’ve seen my fair share of dumb drivers.

    I could tell ahead of time that this Explorer wasn’t “right” and was about to make an unannounced lane change just based on the video dash cam footage. Could this accident have been prevented? Did the Cruz have time to slow down? Absolutely. Would it have prevented a collision? Maybe not, but it wouldn’t have been so severe causing a rollover. Instead he tried to overtake the Explorer which was clearly encroaching into the passing lane.

  • FourOneSix

    Tend to agree… while the driver of the Explorer was clearly at fault for causing the whole accident, the driver of the Cruz could have taken defensive driving measures to lessen the impact of that collision, resulting in the rollover. Overtaking a vehicle on the shoulder who is encroaching in your lane while driving slower…. is not the answer.

  • azzurri

    Bring on the driverless cars then!

  • Tim G.

    Checkout my latest 401 ca-b-q video http://wp.me/p4OVF1-3V

  • JohnnyQD

    Firstly, I observed the Cruze be operated at speed significantly faster than the

  • Ryan

    Open your eyes. The Explorer went form the far right to do an illegal Uturn, and yes the Cruze tried to avoid him but the Explorer hit the rear end (hence the bumper coming off) and put it into a spin. If you think the cruise is at fault, you are the reason why people shouldn’t be driving on the road today. Open your eyes and don’t be an idiot.

    Also when you say the the cruze was operating at a speed that was significantly faster, you’re now assuming that the car with the dash cam and the Explorer we actually doing the speed limit, nothing shows proof of that, they could have been doing 30km below the limit. Stop assuming things.

  • Qassem McQue

    Good analysis sir, except that if you watch the video again, you’d realize the the explorer seemed to want to get on the yellow lane to make a U-turn

  • JohnnyQD

    The motivation or intent of the Explorer driver could very well have been to make a U-Turn; however I did not observe the Explorer actually make a U-Turn in the video and so I chose not to speculate on that point in this brief post.

    I did observe the Explorer make an unsafe lane change from the right lane without any regard for traffic that might be approaching in the left lane and in due course cause a collision with the Cruze.

    This remains Careless Driving with or without speculating about the intentions of the Explorer driver or the Cruze driver.

  • Marcel Den Drijver

    An experienced driver will even see a rear ender coming and if you leave space in front, you can avoid that too. A driver should be aware of his surroundings all around at all times.

  • http://piercingtatooandbodyjewelry.com onroad

    @JohnnyQD:disqus QD Your account of what transpired is not all together correct; !st. there are two forward lanes, left of the overtaking car is a solid yellow line which indicates the shoulder, the driver of the car (cruze as you’ve identified it) should not be concerned about veering into the path of “oncoming” traffic left of that point. considering further that you seem to be accusing him of careless and excessive speeding. not saying that some of your observations are not on point but all can’t be, and that’s why lawyers make such easy work of ripping some potentially good witnesses apart

  • mike

    Only a true twat would blame the person who got hit. You are that person

  • Andrew

    agreed!!! Explorer tried to do unsafe lane change, cruze did not brake even though Explorer’s left side was partially on left lane already

  • pstephenson@telus.net

    it is better to look before changing lanes.On the European roads they have all this down
    Halifax isn’t quite as evolved in most things so why would driving be any better
    I hope my grammar is ok but I usually don’t worry about it considering the audience

  • captain_pudding

    What does halifax have to do with anything?

  • Cheryl Anne Marie Buwalda

    They never have car accidents in Europe, lol. Check your grammar too…idiot.

  • SL320

    Did anyone notice that the guy in the dashcam car just kept on babbling even after witnessing a collision and a vehicle rollover (not a near rollover) in which people were possibly severely injured?
    I guess he must really love the sound of his own voice….

  • Donna Lynn Ayres

    If you listen it was a talk show he was listening to on the radio. he turned it off just as he was pulling over

  • SL320

    I watched it again (twice) and agree with your conclusion.
    It just sounded so clear the first time that I discounted it coming from the radio. Mea culpa.

  • Robert

    utter rubbish. The SUV was completely at fault.

  • Whitey

    Halifax isn’t evolved … Ummm, it’s 350 years old, has 2 universities and is one of the most important harbours in North America. Have you ever left the golden roads and F1-class drivers of Europe?

  • JohnnyQD

    Analysis:

    Was the driver of the Cruze, operating his/her motor vehicle in an unlawful manner immediately prior to the collision and if so, did this wrongful conduct contribute to the collision?

    Yes he/she was. Speeding in excess of 30 KPH of the posted speed limit and the failure to make any attempt to slow down to avoid the collision or to lessen the impact.

    Therefore the Cruze driver is partially liable for the accident.

  • JohnnyQD

    The Cruze driver is partially at fault because he/she contributed to the collision while operating his/her vehicle in an unlawful manner.

    The Cruze was being operated in excess of 30 KPH of the posted speed limit and the driver took no steps to reduce this speed when the Explorer first started to veer over or at any other time. This amounts to Careless Driving.

    It is clear the driver of the Explorer is more at fault, but this does not diminish the legal obligation of the Cruze operator to drive with due care and attention or with reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
    .

  • JohnnyQD

    I’m not a witness. The video ‘speaks’ for itself. At trial the video would be viewed by the judge and he or she would form his or her own opinion.

  • JohnnyQD

    Attempting to make an unlawful U-Turn and failing to complete the U-Turn because of coming in contact with another car is Careless Driving, which is far more serious an offense.

  • anjichap

    s/he was being sarcastic 😀

  • anjichap

    And please check yours, thank you! Hint: a mistake in each sentence.

  • Adam

    Both driving like morons, IMO. The explorer obviously the blogger moron, but the cruze driver didn’t even slow down when the explorer started swerving into the lane, instead he tried to drive around it!! Nevermind the fact the the cruze looks like he was driving at least 120 in an 80, based on the speed on the dash cam. So… explorer still a total idiot, but cruze is not completely faultless.

  • NME666

    no idiot, the cruze driver was speeding, but the fault of the collision is 100% the exploder, and dangerous driving, a criminal offence is more appropriate for the exploder driver. If the cruze was doing the limit or even below limit, the “timing” would be the crucial ingredient. If the cruze had been doing 30 klicks faster than it was doing (about60 over limit) the contact would also have been avoided. Now quit trying to play keyboard lawyer!!

  • JohnnyQD

    The Cruze was being operated in excess of 16 KPH of the posted speed limit and in a careless manner as defined by the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

    Under these circumstances, the determination of fault follows the ordinary rules of law and not the rules as set out under the Ontario Insurance Act.

    Therefore, if the unlawful conduct of the Cruze driver contributed to the collision, the rendering of liability will be apportioned in accordance with the contributory negligence of the Cruze driver.

    I find the Explorer driver at fault to a larger degree in this matter, but I am abundantly satisfied that the actions and in-actions of the Cruze driver did, in fact, contribute to the collision or the severity of the collision.

    I submit 60% fault rests on the Explorer driver and 40% fault rests on the Cruze driver.

    R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668: FAULT DETERMINATION RULES under
    Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8

    20. (1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a driver is considered to be charged with a driving offence,

    (e) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is
    charged with exceeding the speed limit by sixteen or more kilometres
    per hour. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 20 (1).
    ——->

    (2) The degree of fault of the insured shall be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law, and not in accordance with these rules,

    (a) if the driver of automobile “A” involved in the incident is charged with a driving offence; and

    (b) if the driver of automobile “B” is wholly or partly at fault, as otherwise determined under these rules, for the incident. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 20 (2).

  • JohnnyQD

    I agree completely.

  • Adam

    Let bad drivers run into your car then, that’ll teach em.

    😐

  • JohnnyQD

    Your lack of understanding of law is how you arrived at that incorrect opinion.

    In this case, the Cruze driver is partially liable for the collision because of his/her contributory negligence.

    The Supreme Court of Canada adopted this test for contributory negligence:

    “A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into account the possibility of others being careless.”

  • JohnnyQD

    Explorer driver is mostly at fault; However, the Cruze driver is partially liable for this collision because of his/her contributory negligence.

    The Supreme Court of Canada adopted this test for contributory negligence:

    “A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to
    have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he
    might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into account
    the possibility of others being careless.”

  • azzurri

    Yeah my insurance would buy me a new one and my fake injury would be a great vacation…

  • Larry Jeffery

    Nonsense the Cruze had no time at all. The first milliseconds when you perceive another car is deliberately about to hit you the mind freezes for a split second not believing this could happen, disbelief and shock take milliseconds to process. Very very few drivers might be able to do anything. The first choice is to break or swerve more radically both extremely dangerous moves and while the brain is processing it assuming he wasn’t too focused on radio show or talking to some one for another split second he gets it.

  • JohnnyQD

    In the province of Ontario, when both drivers are operating their respective vehicles in an unlawful manner the division of fault in the event of a collision is based on the preponderance of the evidence.

    From the video, one is able to establish the Cruze driver is partially liable under the doctrine of contributory negligence.

    Furthermore, operating a motor vehicle at a speed greater than 16 KPH of the statutory limit and becoming involved in a collision of this sort, makes the speeding driver partially liable, regardless of the extent of the liability of the driver who primarily caused the collision.

  • William Malhas

    Cruze was travelling too fast, its 80km limit in that very spot and Cruze was doing about 100km, if was travelling 80 or less would give enough time to avoid the collision but the dumb ass on the explorer over all should have all the blame because decide to do the u turn on the highway soon the center wall diminish, I don’t even think he/she check the mirror or the blind spot before proceed for the turn…I use to drive for living, I have almost 2 million kms on the road and come across this kind U turners many times and my advice expect the unexpected at all times, Regards

  • John Davidson

    The SUV driver is fully at fault for not being sensible enough to go to the next exit and make the change in direction at that point. Everybody is entitled and in a hurry these days. U turn is illegal here and also is stopping unnecessarily in a traffic lane. The speed of the grey car is not relevant because no proof of speed is available. Guessing what the speed was is ludicrous. Guesses don’t count in court.

  • Truth

    While the SUV is entirely at fault. It is entirely poxxible to determine the speed of the car that rolled over

  • John Davidson

    Yes it is possible to find out the approximate speed but not the actual speed. A professional accident reconstruction team from the OPP could give an approximate speed but that was not the cause of the accident. They would not have sent out such a team because there were no deaths in this incident. Besides what is too fast in any situation. 100 kmph is the speed by law on the 401. Most drivers out there on this hwy are driving well in excess of that and do you think that that is too fast? If you say that driving in excess of 100 kmph is OK then you and all others that agree are condoning breaking the law. What does that make you?

  • John Davidson

    The speed limit by law on the 401 is 100 kmph or less at times when needed. I drive the posted limit and am being overtaken by 99% of all others going the same direction. Why is this? They are wantonly flaunting and disobeying the laws of this Province. Just because it is done by most does not make it OK.

  • Truth

    speeding makes me a anarchist…

  • Joe Mariconadas

    Why do some people always blame a driver based on his speed? How do people in forum measure the speed they were going? And as for MR Davidson, when 99% of drivers exceed a posted limit (troopers included), then the LAW you’re referring to is not reasonable and needs to be reviewed. Do 99% of drivers burn stops signs? So, if we post 30 mph on the 401 and I go 32, I am considered a dangerous maniac? Come on people, stop regurgitating and educate yourselves and think before just being a parrot.

  • Joe Mariconadas

    And how fast was he traveling at??? Did you measure his speed?? In this case, speed is irrelevant. The moron who slammed the brakes from the RIGHT LANE to make a U Turn?? He’s the idiot for being completely disconnected from was he’s doing and obviously didn’t check his mirrors or anything.

  • Joe Mariconadas

    How do you know the Cruze was going 30 over the limit? And how about the explorer who slammed the brakes to make an illegal U turn from the right lane without checking if someone is coming behind him? The Cruze didn’t do anything wrong ( at least logically).

  • JohnnyQD

    The Cruze and the Explorer are equipped with so-called “black-boxes” which would reveal the speeds of each respective vehicle at the point of impact.

  • JohnnyQD

    The speed of the Cruze can be approximated by viewing the speed of the Dash-Cam equipped vehicle which is revealed in the bottom-left corner of the screen.

    We can also see the road signs that reveal it is a 100 KPH zone that slows to an 80 KPH zone.

    For the purposes of apportioning partial fault on the driver of the Cruze, a speed of 16 KPH over the posted speed limit is sufficient.

    The Cruze is equipped with a “black-box” which would reveal with great accuracy its speed at the point of impact.

    The Explorer driver is substantially at fault, but the Cruze driver is partially at fault for driving carelessly and for speeding at least 16 KPH over the speed limit.

  • luvgh

    Cant believe how anyone can blame the driver of the Cruze. The SUV was making
    an illegal U-turn. Speed of Cruze is completely irrelevant. All who feel the Cruze had ANY blame…if it were you in that situation…would you readily accept any responsibility???…Come ONNN!!

  • luvgh

    And I’m sure if you were the Cruze driver…you’d readily accept responsibility. I sense that completely 😉
    Annnd…the Cruze driver had a death wish…always wanted to die on the highway in a rollover…that’s why he made no attempt to stop. He told me so…

  • luvgh

    You just said 30!! 16 above speed limit…hahahaha…isn’t that what everyone does??…right or wrong??!! The only reason the SUV was going any slower was because he was making an ILLEGAL U-turn. Based on his poor judgment in doing that…highly unlikely he does 100 in a 100 zone either.

  • luvgh

    He had a death wish. Who doesn’t want to die in the most violent way possible??

  • luvgh

    BETTER or ESSENTIAL?? Glad I haven’t met you on the road.

  • JohnnyQD

    My sense is the Explorer driver is at fault to a larger degree in this matter, but I am abundantly satisfied that the actions and in-actions of the Cruze driver did, in fact, contribute to the collision or the severity of the collision.

    I submit 60% of fault rests on the Explorer driver and 40% of fault rests on the Cruze driver, based on the preponderance of the evidence gathered from the video.

    Let me refer you to the section 20 of the Ontario Insurance Act and the Supreme Court of Canada’s test for contributory negligence:

    R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668: FAULT DETERMINATION RULES under
    Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8

    20. (1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a driver is considered to be charged with a driving offence,

    (e) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is
    charged with exceeding the speed limit by sixteen or more kilometres
    per hour. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 20 (1).
    ——->

    (2) The degree of fault of the insured shall be determined in
    accordance with the ordinary rules of law, and not in accordance with
    these rules,

    (a) if the driver of automobile “A” involved in the incident is charged with a driving offence; and

    (b) if the driver of automobile “B” is wholly or partly at fault, as
    otherwise determined under these rules, for the incident. R.R.O. 1990,
    Reg. 668, s. 20 (2).

    ————–>

    In Bow Valley, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the test for
    contributory negligence that was set out by Denning L.J. in
    Jones v. Livox Quarries

    [1952] 2 Q.B. 608
    (Eng. C.A.) as follows:

    Although contributory negligence does not depend on a duty of care, it does depend on foreseeability. Just as actionable negligence requires the
    foreseeability of harm to others, so contributory negligence requires
    the foreseeability of harm to oneself.

    A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he
    might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into account
    the possibility of others being careless.

  • luvgh

    I respectfully disagree that he was trying to overtake the Explorer. He may have thought the SUV had seen him and was going to slow down. He probably didn’t think he would actually keep coming at him and had checked his blind spot which the SUV did not. I’ve been driving for ages and have never even been in a fender bender because I always drive as if everyone is a bad driver and will at any point make a mistake. But…to be honest…this is one I would not have anticipated.

  • luvgh

    Agreed!!

  • luvgh

    Tell that to Mr. righteous JohnnyQD

  • JohnnyQD

    Explorer driver is mostly at fault; However, the Cruze driver is
    partially liable for this collision because of his/her contributory
    negligence.

    “A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to
    have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he
    might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into account
    the possibility of others being careless.”

  • JohnnyQD

    LOL

  • JohnnyQD

    The Dash-Cam video provides an opportunity to study the lead-up to the collision, along with the collision itself.

    Clearly the Explorer is substantially at fault. That’s a no-brainer.

    What people miss when watching the video is that under the law, the Cruze driver is liable by way of the doctrine of “contributory negligence”. This means that some measure of fault for the collision, or the severity of the collision, ought to be apportioned against the Cruze driver.

    I’m going with 60% fault against the Explorer driver, 40% fault against the Cruze driver.

    Here’s the Supreme Court of Canada’s test for “contributory negligence”:

    “A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into account the possibility of others being careless.”

  • Rob Leger

    Its pretty obvious that the Explorer was making an illegal U-Turn and did not look to see if anything was coming, but I do agree that the Cruze looks like he was under the impression that the Explorer was simply changing lanes and tried to pass them before they did that, but gets surprised when the Explorer take a sharper turn to do the U-Turn, I would say that while the Explorer should not be doing U-Turns had the Cruze driver been a more courteous driver letting the Explorer Changes lanes as it clearer shows the Explorer veering to the left and it appears that the Cruze driver should have had enough time to slow down.

  • Davey Cee

    and what kind of crappy talk show was that??? lol

  • wayne

    I am wondering if it just could be that JohnnyQD is the driver of the SUV

  • Debbie

    I believe the conversation was a radio talk show

  • Frank Luzzi

    Bottom line; Explorer driver did a stupid thing- but accident would likely not have happened if Cruze driver was not speeding. Either Cruze driver would not have been where he/she was or they would have had a lot better chance of avoiding the crash.
    When will people stop making excuses for speeding? Without a doubt, speed was A contributing factor in this crash. So many accidents (your fault or not) could /would be avoided if people drove the proper speed.

  • William

    It was. As most people could tall with out any problem.

  • William

    Lets see now. The Cruze was in the left lane passing (right where he should be). The SUV changed lanes with out signaling or checking his/her blind spot. If the driver had signaled the Cruze would have at least known the SUV was about to change lanes and if the driver of the Cruze had bothered to check the blind spot they might have seen the SUV and waited. But nope, didn’t happen. Bang Crunch.

  • freaky68

    you must be a liar or a fool

  • JohnnyQD

    All newer cars, including the two involved in this collision, are equipped with ‘black boxes’ which are referred to as Event Recorders. These devices provide speed data before and at the time of impact. This data provides the forensic evidence of the speed of the vehicles.

    The video evidence shows that the Grey Vehicle was traveling at a rate of speed that contributed to the severity of the collision and that the driver did not apply his/her brakes before impact. It also shows that the driver of the Grey Vehicle attempted to drive around the Explorer prior to impact. All of which amount to Careless Driving and Contributory Negligence on the part of the driver of the Grey Vehicle.

  • http://batman-news.com cuckholddon

    When did Normally law abiding people decide they were Above the laws of the land?—–

  • http://batman-news.com cuckholddon

    we NEED photo radar Everywhere highways/city streets & even backroads—
    It would prevent a whole lot of suffering-

  • http://batman-news.com cuckholddon

    The Real reasons people speed are—1) unlikely to get caught 2) arrogance
    Photo Radar(everywhere) would sure save a lot of suffering & folks who respect Canadas laws would have Nothing to worry about—

  • B. Paps

    I know exactly where this happened as I drive through here everyday. This was on HWY 27 Northbound and they just crossed under the 401. This section transitions from a 100 KPH zone to an 80 KPH zone exactly where the median ends (i know this because it’s also a common Police speed trap). Cruze was not speeding. This was completely the fault of the SUV.

  • bumboclot

    English. Try it!

  • Sukhee Hong

    Was that grey car trying to attack the white car or something? I literally can see no other reason for that manuver​