|Submited on :||Thu, 16th of May 2019 - 09:52:40 AM|
|Post ID :||bp6prb|
|Post Name :||t3_bp6prb|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_3aimx|
Who was driving?
Old person? Teenager?
Were they just not paying attention?
An old lady born in 1947. She kept insisting it was my fault so I'm assuming she wasn't paying attention.
Another grand example of why past the age of 70 drivers should have to retake their exam every year.
edit: some context - 14 million americans stated they were a victim in a wreck caused by an elderly driver https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/07/report-shows-14-million-americans-were-involved-in-accidents-with-senior-drivers-this-past-year/index.htm
My grandpa who is in a wheelchair and can no longer get himself into bed by himself is still legally able to drive.
There's an 88 year old woman in the same building as my grandma and grandad. She spent 10 minutes looking for her car, to discover she was actually standing next to it, said "I can hardly see anything these days!" Then got in and drove off not exceeding 15mph by the look of things.
We asked her and she pays £400 a year for insurance with 2 low speed collisions on her record.
My first insurance at 21 was £3000 with no record. Ageism is very real
Her rates are that low because statistically old people driver very little individually, therefore their individual odds of getting in an accident are low
Aren't insurance rates based on the average cost to insure someone based on their demographics (e.g. sex, age, location, miles driven, parked on street or driveway, etc) and not prejudice based on their age? That's how it is in the US.
In my state they surcharge drivers over 65 now. Times are changing, data doesn't lie. Drivers younger than 26 and drivers that are elderly have the most claims.
Including age in a rating algorithm, as you pointed out, is prejudice based on age, but it’s actuarily sound. Gender, age, and driving record are the primary factors for determining insurance rates. The vehicle factors are next. The other bits and pieces are nominal, such as discounts. We wave discounts around, but we’ve accounted for them in the “base” rate applied to everyone.
The Google definitions for prejudice would mean that if something is actuarily sound, it's not prejudice.
"noun preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."
"verb give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased."
my grandmother who has ALS is still clear to drive, despite no longer being verbal anymore.
Old guy at work, 68 years old I think? had a stroke. He still drives to work even though he can't speak cuz half of his body doesn't work.....
You’d be amazed at how many people defend old drivers. Saying that any comments towards their driving ability is “ageist”. Which makes as much sense as saying “3 years not being able to drive is ageist”.
I just can’t imagine being able to defend an elderly driver that can’t handle a car. Don’t get me wrong not every senior citizen is a bad driver, but some are as dangerous as a drunk driver.
I had to take a driving improvement class one time and the teacher kept insisting that no age was too old to drive.
That’s because it’s not. Deteriorating ability is what makes you no longer able to drive, which inherently happens with age
I’d like to see if he would allow my 90 year old mother to drive right into his face
I had an old guy come in to my store once, I gave him his total and he opened up his wallet pulled out a $1 bill held it up to his face until it was touching his nose and starred for a second. He said "there's a 20 for ya" and threw it at me. I tell him its a $1 and he says sorry, takes it back and repeats with a $5 bill, and then a third time with another $1. That man got in his car and drove off. It never ceases to amaze me
I've ridden with my 87 year old grandmother before and every minute of that car ride was a living nightmare.
When my grandfather had a stroke and couldn't see out of one eye, his wife made him drive himself to the hospital.
It would only be ageism if the elderly still drove like they were 40 and you were saying they can't drive because of their age despite their good driving and competence.
Yeah and I paid tens of thousands on insurance from the age of 17 to 25. Is that not ageist?
Part of the problem is that we've built an entire society based on the assumption that each individual adult will own and operate their own vehicle. Investing in mass transit could go a long way towards getting elderly drivers off the road.
On the highway, if I have to pass someone going incredibly slow or erratically changing speed/Lanes, it’s always an old person or someone texting. Always.
One billion percent this. Young people are limited from driving and have to prove they have gained the ability to do it safely, old people should have to prove they haven’t lost it. Drives me insane.
Im all for mandatory retests every 10 Years, 5 after 60. Get all the morons who dont know the basic rules off the road too not just the elderly who cant safely drive.
Can vouch. Lady ran stop sign and I hit the side front quarter of her car. Florida is no fault for crashes, so she was cited for running the stop sign. Bad part is I have permanent injuries from the crash as it affected my back and neck. Constant pain in my back shoulder area (I've learned to ignore) as well as neck and headaches (can't always ignore). Unfortunately both doctors came to an agreement that they couldn't do anything more for my pain, so I'm basically taking otc pain relievers for the rest of my life.
That is why i want self driving cars to drive the elderly by simply just ordering a car to come by push of a button one day they will only be passengers. One day one day
Teens are also typically atrocious statistically
born in 1947
Me: “Dude, that’s only five years older than my m— oh.
I remember when being born in 1947 meant you were in your 40's or 50's. My dad was born in '49 and he still drives like he always had before when I was a kid. Now being born in '47 means they are now in their 70's. Man I am getting older.
I had a similar thought- actually that is exactly my mom's age.
Makes me wonder if she was driving like this her whole life.
Had this same exact thing happen to me. Old lady just out of the hospital for heart surgery driving at 7am with puppies in the car doing an illegal uturn and blamed it on me....what?!
I remember overtaking an old lady going about 10kph under the speed limit (wasn't a hugely fast road) and got back into that lane several car lengths in front of her while increasing the gap. She flashed her lights at me like it was an unsafe move.
I wouldn't be surprised if this lady here thought you must have been going too quick, or else you wouldn't have hit her.
Your caption alone made this post
It's a good title, but let's try to remember that pulling out is a terrible prevention method
Studies have actually shown that it's roughly as effective as condom use. One peer reviewed study from 2014 in with a sample of 4000 women:
The perfect-use failure rate for withdrawal is 4% compared to 3% for condoms; similarly, within the first year of use, 18% of couples relying on withdrawal will experience a pregnancy, comparable to the 17% of couples using male condoms .
I'm not suggesting it's ideal, but I definitely think it's more effective than our high school health teachers led us to believe.
I think most of this comes from people that do it wrong, you have to pull out before you finish. It sounds stupidly obvious but you'd be very surprised at how many people pull out WHILE finishing. Source: I've had a lot of stupid co-workers that got one night stands pregnant lol
Oh, before you finish? that makes alot more sense now.
best practice to prevent birth is to pull out while wearing a rubber when your partner is on birth control. and a dude.
“If done correctly” is a huge fucking IF. Like warding off pregnancy with incense and chanting. Y’all wild.
The study also compared "typical usage" failure rates of condoms vs. withdrawal and again found them to be roughly equal (and obviously less than the "perfect-use" rate of either). The non-perfect use numbers (18% and 17%) are right there in the quote.
dramatic eye roll
yeah, thanks Buzz Killington...
I mean it’s like 80% effective. Good not great.
Depends what you're pulling out of.
Yup, better wrap it before you tap it, don't be silly and wrap your willy, always remember to never go diving with out a wet suit, you can't go wrong with wrapping your dong...
Condoms are 85% effective, pulling out 78%. They're actually pretty close.
Every time I see something about the effectiveness of condoms the number is always different. I also feel like the failure rates stated for condoms are due to people either not using them properly or misreporting. I'm not saying it's impossible, but 85% just doesn't seem possible unless you're actively poking holes in the things.
When talking about birth control efficacy, it's the percentage of couples using them properly over the course of a year will get pregnant. It's not that you have a 15% chance of pregnancy every time you have sex.
So using just condoms properly every time 85% of couples will (edit: not) get pregnant over the course of a year. 78% for pulling out properly.
Of course one is easier to properly perform than the other at times.
Asking because I am curious, not to assume you’re at fault, what was your speed?
Dashcam should say but I'm thinking around 50-55
It was a fraud. They wanted to get hit to sue
Also, what urban planner decided that 56mph is safe on a road with all of those driveways?
I mean it is a four lane road, so you’d assume anyone traveling that fast would be using any of the other three lanes to avoid side traffic.
Careful, you're getting dangerously close to implying that OP was at fault.
OP was definitely partially at fault. The woman was driving recklessly though and shouldn't have pulled out. OP was going too fast, and if you're going to go that fast in the right line you NEED to be keeping an eye out for people that pull out assuming you're traveling the speed limit.
Lol, this is the bane of my existence. Every road in my city is at least 50mph and you have to turn onto highways from a standstill.
That's a Kia Rio, she might not have had a choice to go any speed but slow.
Honestly though, they can move faster than that at least. It's not like I haven't driven sub 130hp cars before and as long as you actually use the gas pedal they'll move quick enough. You just have to not be afraid of seeing the tach go over 3000rpm. It's not a fast car by any means (10 second 0-60, oof) but if she had actually gunned it to merge with traffic she could have lengthened the gap, but no, people are terrified of actually hearing the engine.
10 second zero to 60 isint even that bad when you consider the typical cars in america are big SUV's and trucks that are probably around 10 or higher.
Hell, I drove a 1995 Lincoln Town Car for 3 years as my first car. It's 0-60 time is a speedy 11 seconds* and I never once came close to getting rear ended after pulling out.
Edit: *Actually, Automobile-Catalog has it listed as 9.5 seconds, I think it was Ford's official time that was 11 seconds. The thing is though most cars have a faster 0-40 or even 0-50 than you might think. They have the 95 Town Car listed at 0-50mph in 7 seconds; that means that last 10mph is 2.5 seconds by itself.
I'm still pretty young and had been driving around this 2002ish ford taurus that had cylinder misfires on 3-4cylinders for the past 5ish months I think? Maby less. Anyway I did everything except for the injectors to fix the misfire and none of it fixed the problem and I wasnt about to sink more money in to get injectors and finally fix the issue cause the car wasnt worth the cost of injectors. So the result of this cylinder misfire was a REALLY slow car, I'm talking like probably more than 30 second zero to 60. Sometimes I couldn't even do 60, I would cap out at like 55. Thankfully I dont drive on the freeway often so it wasnt an issue really but I also never even came close to anything like this
I have a 95hp polo, it’s not that fast but 0-30 km/h is very fast and even up to 60 km/h is fast. Much more than plenty fast.
You really never end up in a situation where you accelerate that slowly.
North America is a little different, our roads are designed around more powerful cars. There are highway on-ramps with stop/yield signs at the start then 100m to get up to 100km/h. Merge lanes are typically very short and the speed of traffic is pretty high.
We used to have a 2007 Rav4 with the little 4 cylinder engine. It was slow as dirt when passing people at 40+ mph but the first two gears were so short that it got moving up to 40 in a hurry. Hell I spun the tires numerous times just trying to leave the driveway because it puts a lot of torque down quick in first gear. I was never worried about merging into traffic with that thing.
You made me laugh and I woke up the entire family. This blood is on your hands.
This is issue #1 near me in Mass. Everyone just throws themselves out into the lane and says “GOOD LUCK YOU GUYS IM GOIN IN.” The number of times I’ve almost T-boned someone because they decided last minute to jump out into an intersection in front of me are terrifying.
You natively from Mass or a transplant?
Not who you replied to but I am a Mass native. I have to say, I've nearly been t-boned in soooo many rotaries because people don't understand them.
But are we surprised? At all? Lol I too am a native and I knew getting in a car it was going to be a shit show here
I'm only surprised in the sense that I cannot fathom how people can be so bad at driving so consistently. No one knows how to merge. No one knows what a yield sign means. It is fascinating.
Transplant from Georgia. I thought Georgia drivers were bad but they’re nothing compared to Massholes.
A portion of us are good drivers, sans the speeding, but yeah a lot of drivers here just don’t fucking pay attention and act entitled,switching lanes and creating their on flow of traffic, pulling out like OPs video. When you get pissed off at them they act like you were in the wrong
Good reactions, could have been lot worse
It sucks I still hit them though. Very minor damage but I'm really thinking to not call insurance. It's not worth it, my rates will go up no matter what.
crazy to think that we live in a world where people are scared to call their insurance companies for small things like this. (btw not bashing u im bashing the insurance conpanies)
My rates went up almost 100% because I got rear ended while sitting in traffic. The reason being "since the car that hit you was stolen you had to file the claim so now we need to raise your rates since you filed a claim"
So basically the insurance payout was a loan that will never really be paid off.
Some insurance companies may charge little to no extra for the accident. It's always worth contacting an insurance broker every couple of years and see who the cheapest company is.
I've switched about every two years cause a different company has now become the cheapest, even with the same or better coverage.
Luckily in my country there is a separate fund covering this kind of accidents, as long as you are legal to drive yourself that is. So stolen vehicle or driver without license (insurance won't cover them), community service takes over. It's still a painful and terrible process though.
If you’re referring to the UK then that company is the Motor insurnace bureau or MIB. Every insurance policy contributes something along the lines of £50 to the MIB. so these twats driving around illegally cost everyone quite a bit over the years.
I'm across that bit of a channel. Looking from Belgium on the opposite side of 'Ze frenzj'.
Here it is called the 'waarborgfonds motorverkeer' which would be the 'Motor traffic guarantee fund' if you Googlise it to English. But it works the same way.
I got rear ended by a bitch with a suspended license and no insurance. My rates went up. Yaaay.
How can they raise your rates when you weren't at fault?
Afaik (at least where I live), your rates always go up after filing a claim because you're 'more likely' to be in an accident.
Yep. Got hit by a deer going into work one morning (no I’m not kidding, it actually hit my rear passenger door and caved it in) so they raised my rates about 50% because of “environmental factors” and “driving habits” that increased my likelihood of a crash. AKA an early morning commute and living in the sticks. Nevermind that I’ve been driving for 15 years with no accidents and no tickets whatsoever. Nevermind that they knew where I lived and my driving habits when they first wrote the policy.
They did it to me, rates went up 33%, effectively making me pay off the money they paid out over the time of the rate increase. Fucking bullshit
TIL that insurances in France aren't that bad compared to others countries..
Seriously. We'd never get that kind of bullshit here. If you're not reponsible, you're getting 0% malus. Even if the car that did the accident was stolen or not.
Insurance companies are like the modern world's slave traders.
Nope. Cause the rest of my family didn't want to switch. And as long as we keep all our cars registered at the same address the discounts I get are still cheaper than most of the competitors I called
Contact an insurance broker that will run quotes through many companies. Sometimes they've found cheaper prices than I did by myself.
I had the same thing happen to me - got bumped while sitting at a red light. No visible damage and I decided not to file a claim or even call police because I didn't want to risk my rates going up. Even though someone hit me... insurance companies are so fucked up
I had a similar accident to OP. Old lady went from a lane that was a near dead stop into the carpool lane where traffic was going 55+. I had no dash cam and tapped the person that hit the old lady, caused no damage to the persons car. He wanted me to stick around to explain what happened to the officer. Lady didn't move her car at all until the police came causing a huge traffic delay on a regular morning commute and the officer had to shout instructions for 5+ minutes over the speaker to get her to move and pull off the freeway. My insurance rates doubled, because I said that I tapped the person in front of me.
Better regulations could definitely be had. Situations like in the OP, where there is concrete evidence that the insured did nothing wrong, should be protected. They should be allowed to file claim without fear of any sort of consequence. It's what they paid for.
I came out of work to find someone had sideswiped my car but remained parked next to me (Pure luck). This is my first "accident" after having my license 11 years. Sent a report to his insurance and my insurance got a copy of the report. They then tried to raise my rates. Like how the fuck is it my fault this guy hit a parked car? The officer didn't find me at fault and they tried to say it's a thing they do for everyone in an accident. BUT I WASN'T IN A FUCKING ACCIDENT THO, so frig you Allstate
I wouldn't call for something like this because me deductible is high enough that they probably wouldn't pay anything anyway.
I got in an accident that was my fault, but all the damage was on my car and was mostly cosmetic, so I really didn't want to call my insurance. The next day I got a call from the guy I hit saying he wasn't going to report it to not raise my rates. Probably the luckiest I've ever been.
Had an accident with a cyclist. We initially reported the damages to the insurance company but decided to settle privately. Rates went up anyway, asshole company. Dumped them immediately.
This is not the case for insurance companies in every country. I don't know about the U.S. but here if you get the other drivers details and they are more than 50% at fault you aren't penalised in any way, no excess paid and no changes in rates due to the accident.
I have state minimum car insurance, always have. I save the rest of the money I would have given them and invest it. I admit if something happens now I could be screwed, but at least I've always been a careful driver. In a few years though I'll be better protected than insurance would have, with money that can be used for other things if needed, that invested grows on it's own.
The part you're not considering is if yourself or someone else gets severely hurt in an accident you're fucked.
I said if something happens right now I'm screwed, but other than that, I should be covered for quite a bit in a couple years. It's not only this insurance I'm saving against, but many other types as well, in 7 or 8 years I should have over a million in there. There might be some insurances that cover that well but frankly I doubt it. And it's a pool of all the money, as opposed to let's say I have car insurance, if my house burns down I can't use it for that.
There is umbrella insurance you purchase separately from your auto and home insurance that would have that high of a liability cap but I'm not aware of any car policies themselves with that high of a limit.
A girl ran a stop sign and tboned another car which hit my boyfriend's parked car. Her father's insurance covered everything and his payment still went through the roof. Insurance is a scam.
That’s insane, it’s a freaking parked car, you could not be less at fault
Friend's last car was totalled that way. Apparently, his policy did not cover any damage to a stationary, parked (even legally) car - only in traffic, when moving. His previous (brand new) car was stolen and he only recovered some 2/3 of its cost. The guy now has a bike and rides city transportation, sometimes relying on friends (who totally understand him and help willingly), sometimes Uber.
That’s just fucked and really bad luck for your friend.
Insurance company: You parked in a spot too close to moving traffic
We have to decide if it's worth to have the insurance take care of it or if we can take care of it ourselves. We also gotta decide if the damage is worth fixing like "is it still drivable?" "Is it still safe to drive?" If it's just a slight dent, maybe it's not worth fussing over, especially if the paint is just chipped.
Your reaction time is fine, I saw a full stop in about three 3 seconds, and a cursory glance at Google states that it is reasonable to expect a safe full stop from 60-0 in about 5 seconds. These people who say your reaction time is bad are just people who fall into the "hindsight is 20/20" crowd.
Plus things always look different on camera. In my mind I started to brake a little sooner, but I ride a motorcycle so I'm hyper aware of this sort of thing, I don't take chances. His breaking was fine, the car is the one to blame
There is no shortage of drivers in this world who believe they can pull out as long as there is space in front of them without taking into account oncoming traffic.
Basically people who drive without thinking or analyzing or mentally processing what is going on around or ahead of them.
I call them point and click drivers.
That is why I slow down at intersections even though I have a green light.
I got hit twice last year both rear ends whilst I was waiting at a red light. My insurance went up £50.
From what people have said here it’s safe to surmise that insurance companies are like cartels. Whatever they can think of to make you a higher risk and charge more for it they will. Here in the UK insurance is a legal requirement so you’re stuffed either way.
Insurance is required in the U.S. as well but I imagine that since it's the U.S. they can be bigger dicks about it.
Damn someone pulled out in front of me the other day. Luckily it was a 35 zone and I was going around that speed so I had time to brake.
I was approaching an intersection in the left lane and this dumbass cut me off as I got to the intersection.
DAMN that could've been messy! You've got that A1 reaction time.
2014 Subaru Forester. I honestly never thought I'd love a crossover so much.
Hell yeah brother. Got a '09 (wife's) and a '14 (mine). Hope you had some aftermarket horns to blast him with.
Even on my '05 Impreza the ABS and EBD together are godlike. Stops straight even when the left half is on ice and the other is on dry pavement!
Did eyesight assist at all in this situation?
I fucking hate when people do this. Let me hurry up and pull out right in front of you, then proceed to go 10mph under the speed limit. Like why the hell are you in such a hurry to pull out then go slow as fuck?
That’s Admiral Wilson blvd. I know it well.
Thanks for confirming, I'm like this is definitely Camden, right? I drive this road everyday and know better than to travel quickly in the right lanes. People will pull out in front of you there and about 17 other locations.
There's a spot on my drive to work that is slightly bent, so the peole from the side assume they have the right of way even though there's signage indicating they need to yield.
The amazing thing about this is that where I live this would be the cammers fault as they rear ended the other vehicle.
This made my blood boil for some reason. OP it could’ve been worse you did good. I had a commercial passenger van that went from far left lane into far right lane (mine) at almost 90° angle I ended up smashing him on the side had my brake down couldn’t avoid it.
No big surprise that it was a kia driver.
Hey, I've never gotten into an accident or even pulled over. I hate my fucking car though.
Its in the genes, the father also failed at pulling out.
This is Jersey headed toward BF bridge?
Props to you for being aware of your surroundings and not swerving in front of the white car.
Going too fast on right lane, with a petrol station on sight. Driver is at fault too.
downshifts to 3rd, moves over to the left
So, Reddit insurance adjusters, who is at fault here?
There was no one on your left lane it seems. You could’ve just changed lanes and nothing would have been weird.
No way for OP to know that the Kia wouldn't have changed lanes too. I've seen plenty of people doing it before when they realize someone fast is coming up behind them.
Op had more than enough time to switch into the left lane.
True, and that's probably what OP should've done, but I can understand the hesitation to do that while witnessing someone that stupid. If they're willing to merge into traffic like that, what's to stop them from trying to dart over a couple of lanes at the same time? Growing up around Florida drivers, I've sure as shit seen that.
So you think he realistically had time to check his side view mirror for a clear lane and switch all within less than a second? Let me know what kind of drugs it takes to obtain these powers.
“I totally would have done this/that in this situation!” Bullshit. You’re armchair quarterbacking, without having been in the real life situation.
Yes, the Kia driver is terrible and had zero business pulling out into traffic here. Zero defense for that.
However, it seems like knowing your surroundings, could have prevented this accident altogether. Based on the video, there wasn't a vehicle to your left, and you could have safely moved into the left lane to avoid. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but still.
I’m quite impressed with your braking skills.
Seems to me like you had no intention of stopping.
Looks like the driver of the other car pulled out, looked in the mirror, and then froze because the car seemed to not move for a spit second before it sped away. Moron!
“If i were paying as much attention as you were, your brains would be liquid right now”
You’re obviously speeding, and in the slow lane. You goofed, dude.
Sees car clearly exiting has more than enough time still fucks it up nice. Speed cam on dash makes it look like you break legit 3 -4 m away.
Those are some slow ass reactions to literally watching the person pull out in front...tons of time to slow down and avoid hitting them.
That's not excusing them at all, 100% in the wrong, but damn sometimes the "idiots in cars" applies to both people.
I count about 3/4 of a second from the time you realize the driver pulled into the lane until the time he comes to a complete stop. This is not enough time.
Okay, so the driver is going 56 mph at the start based on the integrated gauge at the bottom right. I question firstly if OP is speeding, as not many roads with a gas station right on them without an exit or something would have a posted speed of 55+, so I'd imagine he's speeding to begin with, which makes his complaints harder to accept.
Secondly, from the start of the video, OP passes 7 white road lines before striking the car. White lines are 10 ft long with 30 ft between them, so for every white line you pass, you've traveled 40ft.
7 white lines with 6 spaces between would be 70 + 180 feet. That's 250 feet of stopping distance.
Per this chart, that's right on par with enough time to stop if you're paying attention.
So basically, assuming OP isn't speeding, which I would say is unlikely, he had enough time to stop if he was paying attention. He also didn't attempt at all to swerve while braking into another lane, and based on how long it is until we see another car pass him in the lane to his left, he had room to do so.
Edit: another comment confirms the location of this road and it is a 45 mph zone. Now I'm not going to get into the whole speeding debate, as I definitely generally flow with traffic which errs to the speeding side of things, but if going 45 mph, his reaction/stopping speed would have definitely given him time to stop without hitting them if he was paying attention. Sorry OP, can't side with you 100% on this one. You were speeding and reacted slowly/poorly and didn't attempt to do anything but stop in a straight line.
Dumb Action by the Kia driver, but honestly you could have braked way more earlier ^^'
Could have easily changed lanes though...
Honestly, it looks like you were the one not paying attention. Your reaction time was horrible.
What Dashcam? Sexy quality
Anker Roav C1 I believe. It's the one that records in 1440p
One blind driver pulling out, and one driver on their phone not breaking or evading for ages while a car is clearly halfway on their lane. Terrible driving on both ends really.
Was it entitlement that kept you from braking until it was too late?
Does it seem like the gps speed update is lagging to anyone else? To me, looking at the motion on the side it appears that he is slowing prior to the gps showing a drop. Also seems like this is a large vehicle.
LOL this caption. YES.
Admiral Wilson Boulevard?
This is one of my pet peeves. If you're going to pull out at least do it quickly, it's always people who have a shitty engine and the reactions of a wet cloth that do it
I don’t know if this is OC but congrats on paying attention and slowing down enough, that could’ve been bad.
I mean sure. Congrats for not making a bad situation worse when it could have been avoided in the first place.
Seeing that car in the driveway I would have checked to see if the left lane was clear, which it was according to the video, and moved over way before having to break.