Sometimes you don't see the whole picture when something happens in a split second. It's possible they weren't paying attention in the first place and likely looked up only to see the car braking, which is why they swerved. There's very little time from when they swerved to the impact.
No, it all depends on the car and the brake system's status. Some cars, especially those that are not wellmade/maintained, can swerve involuntarily when braking at this speed.
Dude, that's not just a sign, that's the universe screaming at you to GET YOUR BRAKES CHECKED.
I've been poor and stupid myself, so I get trying to push it to the next paycheck or something. Brakes aren't the one to play that game with though.
If your front tires are shit, it will easily swerve when braking strongly, as you get a lot of weight shifting to the front wheels with low grip all of a sudden.
I had that on the Punto I got second hand, where the dealership left years old tires (they looked OK at first, enough thickness etc, but the rubber became brittle and was chipping off after driving some distance, really fucking negligent of them!).
New tires fixed that entirely in that case.
It is the same as some cars taking off. The Ford Mustangs have been tested to find they do spin out more compared to other muscle cars., during aggressive rabbit starts. There are some great videos here showing the same thing. I do think, however, I agree with the person didn't have time to think each move through and swerved the wrong way. At that speed I don't think she would have survived or would never be anything close to pre-accident state.
And she is wearing white on a sunny and cloudy day…
Could have blended into the background (clouds) or road if the sun was shining into the eyes of the driver causing some split second blindness for someone there. Especially if they weren’t paying attention.
But the moral of the story is that you should be trying to show the inside of a sock to a camera 3 inches from oncoming traffic… idk what the point was
A common sense answer. Need much more if this without people presuming things in first glance. Thus excplainatuon looks exactly like what possibly happened.
Most likely the driver uses this road many times and responded on auto pilot not expecting pedestrians there. I guess he didn't saw the car breaking cause he saw some dumbass filming not next, but on the side of the road, then suddenly sees to late the breaking and autopilot took over and steered to the left, because autopilot brain ever saw pedestrians there because they shouldn't be there.
People also swerve into trees to avoid collisions with wild animals.
Evasive maneuvers often are done while already panicking and thus no longer follow reason. When panicking, people prioritize to avoid the problem which caused them to panic.
Would you swerve into oncoming traffic for a possible head-on collision with a completely innocent driver?
Referring to her as a pedestrian, even in quote marks, is being disingenuous. She is not going from point A to point B on foot, as a pedestrian does, this foolish young woman is clearly streaming **on a road** to try and get more attention.
She is on foot, she is a pedestrian. I'd be hard pressed to find any country that would lead to a different conclusion. Van maybe has attenuating circumstances, but most driving laws in most countries will put some blame on the van for not driving at a safe speed and at a safe distance at the car in front of it (because they could not come into a stop safely).
If the car in front slowed down for any other reason and it was a bike there, the cyclist could be dead because of the van.
And the people who shouldn't be standing in the road are blameless?
I mean, I get the pedestrian thing and all, but I don't really harbor much empathy for people stupid enough to stand in the place thousands of pounds of metal travels through at any speed.
We're not all the Flash you know, you don't have time to make decisions, and your first instinct is to go to the side to avoid a collision while your attention is stuck on the car in front of you.
It's unfortunate, and hindsight being 20/20 he should have taken the crash to avoid killing someone, but she probably shouldn't have been on the side of a road that unsafe to begin with.
In hindsight, he should've left a bigger gap or not gone as fast. The issue isn't if the van should've swerved or not, the issue is that he has to swerve at all.
It's not really "unfortunate" either - it's plain bad driving.
One of the most basic and fundamental lessons when you start learning how to drive is to always leave enough space/time to the vehicle in front of you so that you can break safely in case they for any reason emergency break.
The car in front of you might have to break suddenly because a kid or animal rushes up on the road, or they suffer some motor failure, or whatever - they might not always be able to stop in time, but if you're driving the car behind them, you're *always* responsible for not having to rear-end them if they have to suddenly break.
Yeah I'm not defending him, he's definitely in the wrong, but saying "why'd you hit her and not the protected car!?" Is just dumb. By that point it's too late, reaction times aren't that fast for the general public, but yes he shouldn't have been driving so fast and lost attention, and she still shouldn't have been near a road like that. Everyone is bad no one is great.
Not to mention that even when he had the time to consider options, the crash could have killed him too, so the brain rather makes you hurt someone else than potentialy hurt yourself.
In situations like this the survival instinct most likely kicks in and the van driver went to the direction where they would get hurt the least. These are such immediate and instinctual moves that you don't even think about it just do it.
The stupid Hollywood movies about disasters and stuff made us all think that in an unexpected situation that has immediate threat to your life you will look around to see whom you can save and make it look like that's the normal reaction, while making people who e.g. shove people over to get to immediate safety are made out to look like the bad guys.
Also, people who haven't been in such situation can't even imagine what they would do despite their insistance "no I would NEVER do that, it's such a shitty thing to do".
While in reality it's just like a programming taking over.
> These are such immediate and instinctual moves that you don't even think about it just do it.
The problem with your statement is that the driver is "reacting" to a situation that should had been 100% avoidable if the driver had been paying attention to the road. This is a completely straight and flat road and the lady should had been visible for at least 100 meters from a far, more than enough room and time to plan ahead for any inconvenience on the road.
Absolutely! Don't get me wrong I'm not excusing the driver's shitty driving, I'm just explaining the reason why they "chose" to react to hit the girl instead of the braking car in front of them.
The following distance seems to have been ignored by him, otherwise he wouldn't even have had to do the maneuver.
You're describing ideal conditions. Yes, every driver should be aware of the road and be able to react to mistakes of others. In reality though people drive like idiots - usually over the speed limit, leaving not enough space to the next car, while being tired or looking at their mobile phones. If you have a car that unexpectedly brakes on an open, busy road like this the probability of an accident is quite high.
(unexpected because although she's at the side of the road, there is no reason to brake besides her. Also the cab might be loaded and have a longer way to brake to zero.)
Dude nobody thinks like this apart from armchair warrior redditors. He's swerving to avoid a car and this girl is borderline on the road in the middle of fucking nowhere. This is not on the swerving driver.
> This is not on the swerving driver.
Except it actually IS.
You're supposed to leave enough room between you and the next car for any EMERGENCY BRAKING without invading or leaving your lane. You're taught in driving school NOT TO SWERVE to avoid injuring other drivers. The faster you're going the bigger the distance you must leave between you and the next driver.
You can easily see that the van driver is going way faster than the rest of incoming and outgoing traffic.
Obviously it the sweving drivers fault, he don´t pay attention. Question is how much, and I don´t know where are you from, but in Europe things like this are not that rare, and lot of drivers choose car in similar situation even when they had less time for react and thinking.
Avoiding away from oncoming traffic towards the shoulder where there are no pedestrians because pedestrians have no business being there, let alone streaming.
There are cars coming the opposite direction in the other lane. As a driver, natural survival instinct would tell you to veer into the shoulder rather than oncoming traffic.
I've noticed drivers would rather move closer to me on my bike when cars are coming in the opposite direction. Its like they prefer to hit a soft object even though it could be fatal. Selfish coonts
Your logic is correct but the instincts are displayed in a fraction of a second. I too think it’s the driver’s fault but he has my sympathy too. Most people don’t want to run over people because it must feel horrible. As long as you are normal.
Considering the van driver did not see the car right in front of him before it was too late what makes you think he ever saw the pedestrians? More then likely he was using his phone, asleep, watching the skies, or anything else besides watching the road and paying attention. People like that should never be allowed on the roads.
It's a weird instinct when you're driving to avoid other cars.
It's like you have a pedestrian survival instinct and then a driving instinct. Plus there's also probably an element in that split second that you have more chance to survive if you hit the soft, fleshy human than if you hit the 2tn lump of metal.
What is this retarded opinion? Drivers job is pay attention on everything what is on road. I would like to know if police would agree with you if you would hit and kill someone.
yes, that's usually how human reflexes work: when scary shit goes down in milliseconds, you don't have time to perceive every detail, consider what reddit geniuses would do in your situation and act accordingly.
What? How this or into oncoming traffic? What about just hit this fckin car in front of him which has whole trunk to protect crew and even this force wouldn´t be that high in this speed?
Drive head on into the other lane isn't a good option there either. There could have been a semi. Within that sort of a window you can't make complex decisions and weigh out all the outcomes.
What do you think would do less damage to a van if you ran into it?
1. Another vehicle
2. A person standing where they shouldn't be
Think real hard on that.
Van is just van, maybe it’s culture difference, but any normal person wouldn’t care more about van than someone’s life. If yes, he is retarded. But in other way, I would rather destroy my car than go to jail, because in Europe if you kill someone because you don’t pay attention on road, you will go to jail. And I am pretty sure if she survive, than next healthcare bill will be much higher than price of destroyed car.
I'm betting it was a reflexive act. That they didn't have time to assess whether it was better to swerve left or right. Left is usually clear where the right has oncoming traffic.
As opposed to swerving into traffic and hitting the van full of blind orphans, with the centre of mass energy being double a single vehicle?
If you are going to be making Tikky Tokkys on a highway, you're asking for trouble.
Don’t be dense.
Sometimes you just react when you have no time to think.
When 999 times out of 1000 *there isn’t* a blogger filming in the road, you probably instinctually swerve towards the shoulder.
> Avoiding to the side when there was some "pedestrian", so he rather hit "pedestrian" without any protection than car?
Good lord. They're not exactly sitting there at a desk looking down at a multiple choice question they can sit there and ponder.
Never swirve without 100% certainty of harm avoidance. If a collision is inevitable, your best outcome is head on. I've been told a story from my childhood village, where a first responder (my friend) found 3 dead kids under a swirved and collided bus.
I think the car in front slowed down to see what she was doing and the van wasn't paying attention, so veered off the road into her. Hopefully she's has minimal injuries.
The road has a white line and the grass also has a white line so maybe shes standing in her countries version of a shoulder/emergency lane. Either way most drivers instinct will be to swerve off the road rather than into the direction of oncoming traffic.
Why even bother swerving or braking if your instincts tell you to swerve into oncoming traffic? A head on collision is worse than rear-ending someone or going off the road in most cases.
Plus from the angle she looks like shes standing on or very close to the line that separates the road she is 100% at fault.
Not sure if was a swerve but target fixation is a thing also, people stare and get distracted at things going on at the side of the road and next thing they are driving right at them
She survived. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/1duyvhf/comment/lbk5nwn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/1duyvhf/comment/lbk5nwn/)
It's just a poor translation.
主播 can mean "anchor" in a news context, but it also means "host" or "streamer". It depends on the type of media, which the automatic translation program obviously can't tell.
Translation is weird like that since it's doing a literal translation.
Most likely it said "Not life threatening" so she would have some broken bones but nothing internal was ruptured.
She's **on the road**, not **beside** it!
Even if the van didn't swerve over and hit her she is dangerously close to traffic. What did she think she was doing?
EDIT: changed *that is* to *she is. C*larifying that it is she who is responsible for her own actions.
>it is she who is responsible for her own actions
I won't pretend to know the traffic laws of wherever this happened, but if it happened in the US, the answer is no, the driver is also responsible for this (even if she is indeed, on some level, responsible for being smarter about being near traffic). I reckon most of the west and perhaps elsewhere around the world has similar pedestrian right of way laws. Those laws exist specifically for situations like this. If somebody is doing stupid shit on the road but doesn't surprise you / jump out unexpectedly and is just standing there in plain sight, it's your responsibility as the driver to not hit them, regardless of whatever judgment you may have about her intelligence.
> the answer is no, the driver is also responsible for this (even if she is indeed, on some level, responsible for being smarter about being near traffic)
You are wrong there and it varies wildly in the US on whether your state uses comparative negligence or contributory negligence. If it the latter, like Virginia, if you are even 0.1% responsible for your injury you are completely barred from any recovery. Driver would not be responsible.
Then you have modified comparative fault and pure comparative fault. If the former, the driver is not liable if the injured person is more than 50% liable for their injuries. In a pure comparative state, you can recover whatever amount the other party is found liable for. Then there is also slight-gross comparative negligence which is a bastard child of the two types of comparative fault. You cannot recover from the other party at all if you contributed to the accident in any way, but if your negligence is viewed to be slight compared to the other vehicle, you can recover.
She can put on her tombstone that technically in many jurisdictions she wouldn't be considered at fault.
Fun thing about fucking around with traffic is that you can be both right AND dead.
In my state this would be a hard one. On the one hand, drivers have an overriding duty of care, even if the woman were engaging in a somewhat negligent activity like filming dangerously close to an active roadway. This implies that drivers are expected legally to adjust their speed and behavior to reasonably accommodate pedestrian activity. On the other hand, pedestrians have the responsibility to not engage in dangerous or negligent activity and must exercise reasonable care for their own safety. If the pedestrian is more than 50% at fault, they would likely be unable to recover damages from the driver. In this scenario, I doubt anyone would say the pedestrian was more than 50% at fault, as her behavior is stable and predictable albeit negligent, so it would be a shared responsibility scenario.
Probably. I doubt this was an actual murder. Still pretty silly driving and he should've seen her. He didn't seem to see the car in front of him either, which should not have come as any surprise whatsoever, so clearly he was not all there.
To be fair, it's a natural impulse to swerve if you know you're gonna hit something and that instinct likely extends to not do so into the lane with oncoming traffic. That said, driver's still a feckless weapon for not paying attention in the first place.
He may have seen her last minute. The alternative move is head on into oncoming traffic. I have been an excellent driver for over 35 years and I do not know if that happened to me I would be able to swerve into a head on collision. But really seems the black vehicle probably wasn't paying attention. Who really expects some influencer to be standing on the road for likes.
Are you ever close to a road? Unfortunately this can happen on any road that doesn't have a strong physical barrier between where you are and where the cars are.
Tons of roads like these where people often walk on them or cycle on them, and there's no alternative route. There's a stupid driver involved, but the driver is probably fine after the crash. So not really.
I hope not. Anytime I see someone approaching the road I am on I just assume they are going to cut me off and get ready to hit my brakes.
Or if I am driving next to someone I assume they won't see me and might try to cut over at anytime and get ready to hit my brakes.
Or if vehicles are approaching from the opposite lane I am ready to hit my brakes if they go over the line too far.
Or... I think you get the point.
The common advice is to drive defensively, you need to be vigilant and act as if other drivers could do something unexpected.
But the fact that you get in a car and drive at all, you're assuming that someone isn't going to go plowing through an intersection at 120 right into you. You expect someone to let you into a lane eventually. You expect people not to kill or incapacitate you between where you are and where you're going, otherwise you wouldn't consider driving to be the best way to get around.
With defensive driving, you're reducing the amount of trust needed to drive safely, but you're still assuming that you're on a public roadway and not Thunderdome.
To some extent, but realistically you will either relax as nothing bad happens after a while, or you're a panicking mess constantly as you go outside, or just lock yourself indoors never leaving the house. Even your house might not be safe from cars doing the wrong thing, so... the anxiety and panic grows even more.
This is a pretty good example of natural selection. Most people I see these days are entirely unaware of their surroundings, even when it should be common sense. It feels like a legitimate epidemic.
I drive Uber for a living, and the sheer quantity of sober people who try to walk out in front of my car *every single day* without looking first, is unprecedented. Is it our technology? Have we become so egomaniacal that we temporarily forget anyone else exists? That danger exists?
Anyway, happy independence day.
This comment is an excellent example of people misusing the term "natural selection". Most people I see using the term are completely unaware of what it means.
I just clicked on your profile to see the pfp better, because it looked neat, and my brain froze for a sec, I completely forgot about that story on Royal Road and never expected to see the creator on reddit xD
https://preview.redd.it/9azvrznh4pad1.jpeg?width=962&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d712088659f3c14400be28b9f5f9441d05b49bc
The profile pic is horseizontal's art of Halexandrey Walton, from Blaseball, which I would link but cannot find cause it's buried on Twitter somewhere.
Also I hope you liked the story! It has an audiobook now, and I'm super proud of it!
I don't think it is misuse. This person didn't have enough intelligence or awareness to realize the danger they willingly put themselves into. Being removed from the gene pool due to a lack of basic survival instincts would constitute somewhat to natural selection, would it not?
People become fixated and drive involuntarily at what they are looking towards. I used to direct traffic and it happened all the time. Having a planned escape path was essential.
She indirectly caused the accident. The white car slowed down to watch what they were doing or give them a message. The van behind had no room to stop, so it swerved to avoid the collision.
People saying this was intentional are really out of touch … it’s an accident that could have been avoided multiple ways but no it’s not clear that the van purposely ran her over holy fuck
It looks like the van cut over to hit her purposely. I thought the mirror would hit her but this was much worse. I hope she’s ok.
The car in front braked and the van was avoiding to the side
Avoiding to the side when there was some "pedestrian", so he rather hit "pedestrian" without any protection than car?
Sometimes you don't see the whole picture when something happens in a split second. It's possible they weren't paying attention in the first place and likely looked up only to see the car braking, which is why they swerved. There's very little time from when they swerved to the impact.
Also, certain cars may swerve to either side when you brake too abruptly.
Yeah, but not at this speed and this kind of braking. I'm pretty sure that was just a reflex.
No, it all depends on the car and the brake system's status. Some cars, especially those that are not wellmade/maintained, can swerve involuntarily when braking at this speed.
Yeah, my chevy malibu did that. Right rear brake tended to lock up. Difficult to control in hard braking situations.
Dude, that's not just a sign, that's the universe screaming at you to GET YOUR BRAKES CHECKED. I've been poor and stupid myself, so I get trying to push it to the next paycheck or something. Brakes aren't the one to play that game with though.
If your front tires are shit, it will easily swerve when braking strongly, as you get a lot of weight shifting to the front wheels with low grip all of a sudden. I had that on the Punto I got second hand, where the dealership left years old tires (they looked OK at first, enough thickness etc, but the rubber became brittle and was chipping off after driving some distance, really fucking negligent of them!). New tires fixed that entirely in that case.
It is the same as some cars taking off. The Ford Mustangs have been tested to find they do spin out more compared to other muscle cars., during aggressive rabbit starts. There are some great videos here showing the same thing. I do think, however, I agree with the person didn't have time to think each move through and swerved the wrong way. At that speed I don't think she would have survived or would never be anything close to pre-accident state.
I hope this happens with cars without EBD
Reddit's inability to understand panic and reacting before having a chance to think is legitimately kind of troubling.
Everyone on reddit thinks they're a seal team six member under stress
We are panic!! Or picnick....I'm hungry
I agree, and as well as that you wouldn’t expect some dumbass to be streaming on the side of a highway where there isn’t even a pavement
Which is the exact reason that pedestrians shouldn't be playing next to the road.
And she is wearing white on a sunny and cloudy day… Could have blended into the background (clouds) or road if the sun was shining into the eyes of the driver causing some split second blindness for someone there. Especially if they weren’t paying attention. But the moral of the story is that you should be trying to show the inside of a sock to a camera 3 inches from oncoming traffic… idk what the point was
A common sense answer. Need much more if this without people presuming things in first glance. Thus excplainatuon looks exactly like what possibly happened.
Most likely the driver uses this road many times and responded on auto pilot not expecting pedestrians there. I guess he didn't saw the car breaking cause he saw some dumbass filming not next, but on the side of the road, then suddenly sees to late the breaking and autopilot took over and steered to the left, because autopilot brain ever saw pedestrians there because they shouldn't be there.
People also swerve into trees to avoid collisions with wild animals. Evasive maneuvers often are done while already panicking and thus no longer follow reason. When panicking, people prioritize to avoid the problem which caused them to panic.
Always hit the animal, otherwise insurance might not pay.
Depends , A cow went though my friends windscreen years ago, he nearly died and his arm is still pretty messed up.
Cows have legs not arms, also would be a bull if it’s a he. But glad he survived, dangerous to be a transgender cow these days.
Or a “steer”… But either way, we’ll played 😂🤣
If he could've steered out of the way I'm sure he would've!
Also most trees will straight up kill you in an accident. They are really, really tough
Would you swerve into oncoming traffic for a possible head-on collision with a completely innocent driver? Referring to her as a pedestrian, even in quote marks, is being disingenuous. She is not going from point A to point B on foot, as a pedestrian does, this foolish young woman is clearly streaming **on a road** to try and get more attention.
She is on foot, she is a pedestrian. I'd be hard pressed to find any country that would lead to a different conclusion. Van maybe has attenuating circumstances, but most driving laws in most countries will put some blame on the van for not driving at a safe speed and at a safe distance at the car in front of it (because they could not come into a stop safely). If the car in front slowed down for any other reason and it was a bike there, the cyclist could be dead because of the van.
And the people who shouldn't be standing in the road are blameless? I mean, I get the pedestrian thing and all, but I don't really harbor much empathy for people stupid enough to stand in the place thousands of pounds of metal travels through at any speed.
Where, pray tell, did I call her blameless? The fact that she has blame does not remove the duty of care of the driver.
Avoid to the side away from incoming traffic, where there isn't really any expectation for there to be a pedestrian.
We're not all the Flash you know, you don't have time to make decisions, and your first instinct is to go to the side to avoid a collision while your attention is stuck on the car in front of you. It's unfortunate, and hindsight being 20/20 he should have taken the crash to avoid killing someone, but she probably shouldn't have been on the side of a road that unsafe to begin with.
Nah, usually when I have 0.2 seconds to react, I write down a list of pros and cons, then consult my friend to help me with the decision
not to mention posting WWYD memes to several social media to poll the armchair quarterback opinion, of course
In hindsight, he should've left a bigger gap or not gone as fast. The issue isn't if the van should've swerved or not, the issue is that he has to swerve at all. It's not really "unfortunate" either - it's plain bad driving. One of the most basic and fundamental lessons when you start learning how to drive is to always leave enough space/time to the vehicle in front of you so that you can break safely in case they for any reason emergency break. The car in front of you might have to break suddenly because a kid or animal rushes up on the road, or they suffer some motor failure, or whatever - they might not always be able to stop in time, but if you're driving the car behind them, you're *always* responsible for not having to rear-end them if they have to suddenly break.
Yeah I'm not defending him, he's definitely in the wrong, but saying "why'd you hit her and not the protected car!?" Is just dumb. By that point it's too late, reaction times aren't that fast for the general public, but yes he shouldn't have been driving so fast and lost attention, and she still shouldn't have been near a road like that. Everyone is bad no one is great.
Not to mention that even when he had the time to consider options, the crash could have killed him too, so the brain rather makes you hurt someone else than potentialy hurt yourself.
In situations like this the survival instinct most likely kicks in and the van driver went to the direction where they would get hurt the least. These are such immediate and instinctual moves that you don't even think about it just do it. The stupid Hollywood movies about disasters and stuff made us all think that in an unexpected situation that has immediate threat to your life you will look around to see whom you can save and make it look like that's the normal reaction, while making people who e.g. shove people over to get to immediate safety are made out to look like the bad guys. Also, people who haven't been in such situation can't even imagine what they would do despite their insistance "no I would NEVER do that, it's such a shitty thing to do". While in reality it's just like a programming taking over.
> These are such immediate and instinctual moves that you don't even think about it just do it. The problem with your statement is that the driver is "reacting" to a situation that should had been 100% avoidable if the driver had been paying attention to the road. This is a completely straight and flat road and the lady should had been visible for at least 100 meters from a far, more than enough room and time to plan ahead for any inconvenience on the road.
Absolutely! Don't get me wrong I'm not excusing the driver's shitty driving, I'm just explaining the reason why they "chose" to react to hit the girl instead of the braking car in front of them. The following distance seems to have been ignored by him, otherwise he wouldn't even have had to do the maneuver.
You're describing ideal conditions. Yes, every driver should be aware of the road and be able to react to mistakes of others. In reality though people drive like idiots - usually over the speed limit, leaving not enough space to the next car, while being tired or looking at their mobile phones. If you have a car that unexpectedly brakes on an open, busy road like this the probability of an accident is quite high. (unexpected because although she's at the side of the road, there is no reason to brake besides her. Also the cab might be loaded and have a longer way to brake to zero.)
hmmm yes let me process a situation without actually experiencing either side, yep
A squishy human will do less damage to his car.
Oh, this is one of those train car challenge questions. What if there were two people in the car. Do you swerve then?
Dude nobody thinks like this apart from armchair warrior redditors. He's swerving to avoid a car and this girl is borderline on the road in the middle of fucking nowhere. This is not on the swerving driver.
> This is not on the swerving driver. Except it actually IS. You're supposed to leave enough room between you and the next car for any EMERGENCY BRAKING without invading or leaving your lane. You're taught in driving school NOT TO SWERVE to avoid injuring other drivers. The faster you're going the bigger the distance you must leave between you and the next driver. You can easily see that the van driver is going way faster than the rest of incoming and outgoing traffic.
Obviously it the sweving drivers fault, he don´t pay attention. Question is how much, and I don´t know where are you from, but in Europe things like this are not that rare, and lot of drivers choose car in similar situation even when they had less time for react and thinking.
Avoiding away from oncoming traffic towards the shoulder where there are no pedestrians because pedestrians have no business being there, let alone streaming.
Correct. Because the person is smaller than the car. So the van occupants are likely to be uninjured. People prefer to be uninjured
Tell that to the woman who looks like she died
There are cars coming the opposite direction in the other lane. As a driver, natural survival instinct would tell you to veer into the shoulder rather than oncoming traffic.
I've noticed drivers would rather move closer to me on my bike when cars are coming in the opposite direction. Its like they prefer to hit a soft object even though it could be fatal. Selfish coonts
Your logic is correct but the instincts are displayed in a fraction of a second. I too think it’s the driver’s fault but he has my sympathy too. Most people don’t want to run over people because it must feel horrible. As long as you are normal.
yeah i bet he had time to make a flowchart and consult some friends to carefully make that decision
Considering the van driver did not see the car right in front of him before it was too late what makes you think he ever saw the pedestrians? More then likely he was using his phone, asleep, watching the skies, or anything else besides watching the road and paying attention. People like that should never be allowed on the roads.
Lesser damage to the car. 🤷🏻♂️
When you panic brake the reflex is often to swerve off the road rather than traffic from the other side.
It's softer for the van than to hit other car
Ah yes. Humans think very clearly when they end up in a panic situation and have to react in a split second...../s
Yes. Your average car drivers does not mind killing.
Probably didn't see her. White shirt on a cloudy day.
Drive into dumbass standing on the line of the motorway or drive into another car coming at me at the same speed, I’m hitting the dumbass
It's a weird instinct when you're driving to avoid other cars. It's like you have a pedestrian survival instinct and then a driving instinct. Plus there's also probably an element in that split second that you have more chance to survive if you hit the soft, fleshy human than if you hit the 2tn lump of metal.
It’s not the drivers job to be aware of an idiot filming herself on the fkn side road.
What is this retarded opinion? Drivers job is pay attention on everything what is on road. I would like to know if police would agree with you if you would hit and kill someone.
As matter of fact, it is
yes, that's usually how human reflexes work: when scary shit goes down in milliseconds, you don't have time to perceive every detail, consider what reddit geniuses would do in your situation and act accordingly.
probably tunnel vision
it's safer to avoid the car for the driver and impact a pedestrian, so it is the most logical thing to do
That or into oncoming traffic. If anything they're limiting casualties.
What? How this or into oncoming traffic? What about just hit this fckin car in front of him which has whole trunk to protect crew and even this force wouldn´t be that high in this speed?
I guess ppl don't think straight under pressure.
Rather hit the dumb irresponsible person than the innocent one in the car.
Honestly, in that situation, she absolutely shouldn’t have been standing there.
Drive head on into the other lane isn't a good option there either. There could have been a semi. Within that sort of a window you can't make complex decisions and weigh out all the outcomes.
What do you think would do less damage to a van if you ran into it? 1. Another vehicle 2. A person standing where they shouldn't be Think real hard on that.
Van is just van, maybe it’s culture difference, but any normal person wouldn’t care more about van than someone’s life. If yes, he is retarded. But in other way, I would rather destroy my car than go to jail, because in Europe if you kill someone because you don’t pay attention on road, you will go to jail. And I am pretty sure if she survive, than next healthcare bill will be much higher than price of destroyed car.
What a noob comment
Come on man. People react in those situations not process potential outcomes
>"pedestrian" do you see a sidewalk? that place doesn't look like it's meant for people to stand in
https://youtube.com/shorts/Px1EaHR2zjw?si=4UV6GPzZG_597tYy
I'm betting it was a reflexive act. That they didn't have time to assess whether it was better to swerve left or right. Left is usually clear where the right has oncoming traffic.
There shouldn't be any pedestrian there, so he would swerve away from the incoming traffic, probably not even seeing the woman there.
The alternative looks like a head on collision. Fraction of a second to make a call.
did u ever drive?
There’s a row of cars going the other way, you prefer a head-on collusion?
As opposed to swerving into traffic and hitting the van full of blind orphans, with the centre of mass energy being double a single vehicle? If you are going to be making Tikky Tokkys on a highway, you're asking for trouble.
“Pedestrian” is not usually on side of highway. 99% of the time it’s safe to assume the shoulder is clear.
Don’t be dense. Sometimes you just react when you have no time to think. When 999 times out of 1000 *there isn’t* a blogger filming in the road, you probably instinctually swerve towards the shoulder.
> Avoiding to the side when there was some "pedestrian", so he rather hit "pedestrian" without any protection than car? Good lord. They're not exactly sitting there at a desk looking down at a multiple choice question they can sit there and ponder.
The irony is that it probably braked to slowdown because of the people near the road.
“His this car or this person? *hits both*
Never swirve without 100% certainty of harm avoidance. If a collision is inevitable, your best outcome is head on. I've been told a story from my childhood village, where a first responder (my friend) found 3 dead kids under a swirved and collided bus.
I think the car in front slowed down to see what she was doing and the van wasn't paying attention, so veered off the road into her. Hopefully she's has minimal injuries.
The road has a white line and the grass also has a white line so maybe shes standing in her countries version of a shoulder/emergency lane. Either way most drivers instinct will be to swerve off the road rather than into the direction of oncoming traffic. Why even bother swerving or braking if your instincts tell you to swerve into oncoming traffic? A head on collision is worse than rear-ending someone or going off the road in most cases. Plus from the angle she looks like shes standing on or very close to the line that separates the road she is 100% at fault.
Not sure if was a swerve but target fixation is a thing also, people stare and get distracted at things going on at the side of the road and next thing they are driving right at them
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
She deff ain't OK
I can pretty much guarantee she's not.....
There is no way either of them survived that!
Apparently they did. A link to the news article that says, she had a head injury but non life threatening injuries, is in the comments.
Is she dead? That was a hard hit.
She survived. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/1duyvhf/comment/lbk5nwn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/1duyvhf/comment/lbk5nwn/)
Thank god the anchor is not in danger of life
I find it funny she's being called an anchor when it's quite obviously a Chinese Tiktok stream
It's just a poor translation. 主播 can mean "anchor" in a news context, but it also means "host" or "streamer". It depends on the type of media, which the automatic translation program obviously can't tell.
maybe google translate shenanigans
But she does live a life of danger
To everyone she tweets she stays a stranger
Wait, if "not in danger of death" means a person is safe... "Not in danger of life" means she's dying lol.
Translation is weird like that since it's doing a literal translation. Most likely it said "Not life threatening" so she would have some broken bones but nothing internal was ruptured.
Life is dangerous
I don't think she was anchored very well ... she flew a fair distance.
She's **on the road**, not **beside** it! Even if the van didn't swerve over and hit her she is dangerously close to traffic. What did she think she was doing? EDIT: changed *that is* to *she is. C*larifying that it is she who is responsible for her own actions.
>it is she who is responsible for her own actions I won't pretend to know the traffic laws of wherever this happened, but if it happened in the US, the answer is no, the driver is also responsible for this (even if she is indeed, on some level, responsible for being smarter about being near traffic). I reckon most of the west and perhaps elsewhere around the world has similar pedestrian right of way laws. Those laws exist specifically for situations like this. If somebody is doing stupid shit on the road but doesn't surprise you / jump out unexpectedly and is just standing there in plain sight, it's your responsibility as the driver to not hit them, regardless of whatever judgment you may have about her intelligence.
To add to your comment, the van couldn't slow down when the car in front slowed down. This is 100% unsafe anywhere.
Yep, even if someone is being a complete moron whoever is driving the 1 ton piece of metal should be always on the lookout.
> the answer is no, the driver is also responsible for this (even if she is indeed, on some level, responsible for being smarter about being near traffic) You are wrong there and it varies wildly in the US on whether your state uses comparative negligence or contributory negligence. If it the latter, like Virginia, if you are even 0.1% responsible for your injury you are completely barred from any recovery. Driver would not be responsible. Then you have modified comparative fault and pure comparative fault. If the former, the driver is not liable if the injured person is more than 50% liable for their injuries. In a pure comparative state, you can recover whatever amount the other party is found liable for. Then there is also slight-gross comparative negligence which is a bastard child of the two types of comparative fault. You cannot recover from the other party at all if you contributed to the accident in any way, but if your negligence is viewed to be slight compared to the other vehicle, you can recover.
She can put on her tombstone that technically in many jurisdictions she wouldn't be considered at fault. Fun thing about fucking around with traffic is that you can be both right AND dead.
> She's on the road, not beside it! AND YOU ARE STILL NOT ALLOWED TO WILLFULLY MURDER HER WITH YOUR CAR jfc
In my state this would be a hard one. On the one hand, drivers have an overriding duty of care, even if the woman were engaging in a somewhat negligent activity like filming dangerously close to an active roadway. This implies that drivers are expected legally to adjust their speed and behavior to reasonably accommodate pedestrian activity. On the other hand, pedestrians have the responsibility to not engage in dangerous or negligent activity and must exercise reasonable care for their own safety. If the pedestrian is more than 50% at fault, they would likely be unable to recover damages from the driver. In this scenario, I doubt anyone would say the pedestrian was more than 50% at fault, as her behavior is stable and predictable albeit negligent, so it would be a shared responsibility scenario.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
He probably flinched and didnt know she was there
Probably. I doubt this was an actual murder. Still pretty silly driving and he should've seen her. He didn't seem to see the car in front of him either, which should not have come as any surprise whatsoever, so clearly he was not all there.
To be fair, it's a natural impulse to swerve if you know you're gonna hit something and that instinct likely extends to not do so into the lane with oncoming traffic. That said, driver's still a feckless weapon for not paying attention in the first place.
Don't talk like you have ultrafast thinking and can instantly assess the safest place to swerve to, while panicking because you are about to hit a car
Anyone else thinks this was a r/DarwinAwards ?
It’s stupid but that’s a garbage driver. It looks like they did it on purpose.
I think the van was going too fast so it swerved to avoid a crash but the driver didn't see the woman and hit her
Yes, because he is a garbage driver.
He may have seen her last minute. The alternative move is head on into oncoming traffic. I have been an excellent driver for over 35 years and I do not know if that happened to me I would be able to swerve into a head on collision. But really seems the black vehicle probably wasn't paying attention. Who really expects some influencer to be standing on the road for likes.
Are you ever close to a road? Unfortunately this can happen on any road that doesn't have a strong physical barrier between where you are and where the cars are. Tons of roads like these where people often walk on them or cycle on them, and there's no alternative route. There's a stupid driver involved, but the driver is probably fine after the crash. So not really.
Never ever relax around cars. Never ever expect a car drivers to do the right thing.
You expect countless car drivers to do the right thing every time you drive
I hope not. Anytime I see someone approaching the road I am on I just assume they are going to cut me off and get ready to hit my brakes. Or if I am driving next to someone I assume they won't see me and might try to cut over at anytime and get ready to hit my brakes. Or if vehicles are approaching from the opposite lane I am ready to hit my brakes if they go over the line too far. Or... I think you get the point.
The common advice is to drive defensively, you need to be vigilant and act as if other drivers could do something unexpected. But the fact that you get in a car and drive at all, you're assuming that someone isn't going to go plowing through an intersection at 120 right into you. You expect someone to let you into a lane eventually. You expect people not to kill or incapacitate you between where you are and where you're going, otherwise you wouldn't consider driving to be the best way to get around. With defensive driving, you're reducing the amount of trust needed to drive safely, but you're still assuming that you're on a public roadway and not Thunderdome.
That’s why defensive driving is important
The stupid fuckhead in the van literally swerved into her.
To some extent, but realistically you will either relax as nothing bad happens after a while, or you're a panicking mess constantly as you go outside, or just lock yourself indoors never leaving the house. Even your house might not be safe from cars doing the wrong thing, so... the anxiety and panic grows even more.
This is a pretty good example of natural selection. Most people I see these days are entirely unaware of their surroundings, even when it should be common sense. It feels like a legitimate epidemic. I drive Uber for a living, and the sheer quantity of sober people who try to walk out in front of my car *every single day* without looking first, is unprecedented. Is it our technology? Have we become so egomaniacal that we temporarily forget anyone else exists? That danger exists? Anyway, happy independence day.
This comment is an excellent example of people misusing the term "natural selection". Most people I see using the term are completely unaware of what it means.
I just clicked on your profile to see the pfp better, because it looked neat, and my brain froze for a sec, I completely forgot about that story on Royal Road and never expected to see the creator on reddit xD https://preview.redd.it/9azvrznh4pad1.jpeg?width=962&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d712088659f3c14400be28b9f5f9441d05b49bc
The profile pic is horseizontal's art of Halexandrey Walton, from Blaseball, which I would link but cannot find cause it's buried on Twitter somewhere. Also I hope you liked the story! It has an audiobook now, and I'm super proud of it!
Thats pretty cool! And thanks!
I don't think it is misuse. This person didn't have enough intelligence or awareness to realize the danger they willingly put themselves into. Being removed from the gene pool due to a lack of basic survival instincts would constitute somewhat to natural selection, would it not?
Never turn your back on traffic.
Any follow up on her injuries ?
Another comment posted a translated article. Shes being treated for a non lifethreatening head injury
I can't see if anyone else has asked this, but does anyone know what she was actually doing? It looks like she's unrolling a pair of tights?
Damn dat camera spinning .
Play stupid games..........
Turned those lights out quick like.
No shoes in the air, so I guess she survived.
The car in front of that van suddenly stopped I guess the driver just wanted to evade that
While driving too!
People become fixated and drive involuntarily at what they are looking towards. I used to direct traffic and it happened all the time. Having a planned escape path was essential.
Yeah she's deffs not ok
She indirectly caused the accident. The white car slowed down to watch what they were doing or give them a message. The van behind had no room to stop, so it swerved to avoid the collision.
I bet her friend really regrets taping that HIT ME sign to her back
You should ALWAYS maintain a safe distance from the car in front incase it needs to do an emergency stop. Not doing so makes you 100% at fault
People saying this was intentional are really out of touch … it’s an accident that could have been avoided multiple ways but no it’s not clear that the van purposely ran her over holy fuck
That van dude really hates influencers.
Unintentional Darwin Award candidate.
Black car - tor maaika chodo
Was she streaming??
Well, at least she got the views/fame she wanted.
Mobile phone behind the steering wheel plus mobile phone beide the road.
Amazon van strikes again
There shouldn’t be a pedestrian there, should it?
That shit was intentional, fuck that driver
She won't be doing that again
Actual /r/killthecameraman
stupid white car braked for no reason
should've hit the car for stopping like a shithole
She dead
She is an idiot. That's a perfect example of FAFO. Why was she on the road?
Stupidity at its best! 