UK Bad Drivers & Driving Fails Compilation | UK Car Crashes Dashcam Caught (w/ Commentary) #40

[@BigDavie2000]

#12 I believe the truck drivers version of events. His brake lights didn't come on, back wheels left a trail of rubber but front wheels continued rolling. Scary stuff.

[@YouTubeuser-eq4up]

I can remember the aftermath of that tuffnels lorry. It happened just passed j12 on the m6 northbound. They had it closed for hours to recover and re-tar the road

[@johnvarley4561]

Looks like he isn't wearing a seatbelt though... that's a bit silly

[@techtinkerin]

Electronic handbrake maybe

[@rickconstant6106]

@@techtinkerin more likely sudden loss of air pressure on parking brake - needs air to hold it off.

[@paulcollyer801]

@@rickconstant6106, parking brake also applies all brakes on LGVs & HGVs, which usually run air over hydraulic for foot brake & hand brake application, with the addition of high tensile steel spring brake application countered by positive air pressure to release brakes. My suspicion is a gearbox or axle seizing. Often down to poor maintenance, but potentially down to poor refitting of the drive shaft (if automatic) following a previous tow, resulting in catastrophic lubrication loss.

[@rapture756]

#8 Very quick to start with the expletives at the other driver, yes he could have picked a better place to overtake, but it's 100% on you to check both ways when pulling out of a give way. So many dashcammers quick to post their videos thinking they're exposing another driver while actually exposing their own poor driving.

[@david1976aful]

I was just about to post the same, yes, the other driver was driving like a knob, put it’s up to the person turning at the junction to look both ways.

[@ditch3827]

It is also 100% on you to check that it is safe to overtake. Rule 167: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road. Clearly both drivers at fault

[@thezanzibarbarian5729]

Dead right. Regardless of what part of the road you are on, if you are entering onto another section of road, _they have the right of way._ Even if there is a complete and utter knob-head overtaking at a junction. You still have to give way.

[@makemineapint]

@rapture- whilst I agree with the view that the cammers are often as much to blame as the 'offender' and yes in a perfect world non of us would ever make a mistake and be models of calmness and curtesy, but I think you're being a touch harsh here, the Range Rover is performing a reckless and dangerous manoeuvre in overtaking where they did... Highway code #167 "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example... - approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road - when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled" The cammer managed to avoid an accident through quick reactions but I think a few choice words can be forgiven in this case the greater guilt lays elsewhere.

[@Scoupe400]

It’s common in many situations that the HwC gives rules to both drivers, but different perspectives, seeking that you both try to avoid danger. Try explaining it to insurance though. They don’t want to get into the MUST not and should not within the HWC. (Take overtaking for example. If the other driver speeds up, albeit their error, the insurance (and maybe police) would urge that you didn’t anticipate it and choose to overtake when there’s a bigger gap to the next (2nd) car ahead; you’d need footage that showed blatant speeding up and dangerous driving.)

[@macbitz]

The only thing you can be certain of when on public roads is that 99% of drivers who are 'at fault' will LIE.

[@SkrimOnYouTube]

Had an accident last year that wasn’t my fault and the first thing the driver said to me was it was my fault… after they’d just drove through two give way signs and hit me.

[@stevesmith7530]

More than that, they will lie to themselves, not be able to see their part in it, and that includes the not at fault drivers who could have done something else to not be involved.

[@fegstachops6746]

I’ve had three accidents. One was my fault, I just couldn’t handle my old mg midget and was travelling slightly to fast . I admitted responsibility immediately. Glad I’m in the 1%. The other two prangs were unfortunately caused by the 99% bellends.

[@garethedwards2883]

No 2 was not the fault of the police officer, it was the fault of the drivers not looking far enough ahead.

[@hughjarse1381]

There was only one driver at fault. The others were dealing with the situation.

[@garethedwards2883]

@@hughjarse1381 Hi Hugh the drivers at the front by the cones had stopped for no reason. Many drivers do not look far enough ahead on fast moving roads.

[@Scoupe400]

I’d agree the other drivers averted danger, but as Gareth says there’s basic skills that if applied would make this scene a non-event. Looking ahead, maintaining a safe 2 second gap (which is valuable in so many ways, not just stopping dist/reaction time, but also allows zip merging etc). The police car is within the vicinity of him working such that it could protect him if someone blasts through the cones further along, but hopefully far enough back it doesn’t become a projectile at him (which his police car seemed too close).

[@leexgx]

Some people think slowing down when merging from first Lane (or a slip road) that's closing is the best method, couple of days ago someone was doing that to me I had left a space for the car to merge but braked before looking so he ended up beside me so I accelerated instead because I would have had to stop at that point witch I wasn't going to do (rear end collision risk)

[@PP-cm4re]

I agree with hugh Jarse. Other drivers stopping for no reason is irrelevant. The person who caused the collision was in the white hatchback going too fast, not looking far enough ahead and went into the back of the van. The other cars stopping may have made the situation worse, but they didn’t collide with anyone. If you go into the back of someone, you are at fault. It’s your responsibility to maintain a safe braking distance at all times.

[@fenrichlee2867]

1st clip, this is the classic 'two wrongs never made a right' And it is certainly not the emerging car who is totally at fault because if the speeding car had been observing the speed limit (regardless of what you say) there would not have been any drama.

[@Saeglopur2]

Exactly. "Doesn't matter how fast the golf was going..." Well no, it does matter actually.

[@peterd5102]

When the driver pulling out looked it was possible that the speeding car was behind the keep left signs?

[@chrisbrookes1167]

Exactly why there is a lower speed limit in urban areas, I bet the golf was hidden when the driver emerging looked right, then by time he’d looked left and started pulling out and looked right again there’s a dickhead in a golf on him.

[@londonlad5701]

Surely the golf would’ve been at fault if there was an accident as it was breaking the law… trumps the SUV pull out..

[@martinhutchinson9265]

Not sure I agree with your interpretation of the last one. You can see the van trying to edge out from the start, so the cammer should be wary of him, but actually seems to accelerate a bit and is definitely slow to react when the van finally goes for it.

[@Teeb2023]

For sure. Cammer didn't appear to slow at all, even after the van had continued out.

[@oddities-whatnot]

@@Teeb2023 This is a common one. Cammer seeing someone pulling out of a side road, then not slowing down so as to make it look like they pulled out right in front of them, to prove a point instead of just slowing down and let them pull out if already starting to do so. Some right jerks in the UK.

[@Alan_Clark]

4:12 The cammer pulled out without looking left. If he had there would have been no drama.

[@bravo2966]

Exactly, 100% cammer was at fault. Seems to have forgot "Look right, look left, look right again" before pulling out of a junction. He was saying there'd be a 'big ass claim' he's right about that, he'd have lost hugely.

[@AlmostLastJedi]

Totally agree

[@ArminGrewe]

@@bravo2966 You might want to read up on the Highway Code. Rule 167 clearly states: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example - approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road Meaning the impatient SUV driver is at least partly at fault

[@bravo2966]

@@ArminGrewe Yes he was doing the wrong thing BUT the cammer joined the road without looking, he would be found 100% at fault. I know this because the same thing was done by a former work colleague. He pulled his van out without looking left and hit a motorcyclist that was overtaking, he was found to be 100% at fault. The SUV driver was horrifically bad though so I take your point. He was trying to overtake a car that was indicating a right turn. Very very poor.

[@dlon4539]

Code 101: We are given right of way, we don't take it. Lorries to our left at roundabouts, causing traffic behind them. What is the right thing to do if you have priority?

[@artydooty1675]

#8 4:30 Yes it would have been a big-assed claim, but one I suspect you would have been 50% liable for as you didn't check left as you pulled out. If you had, tyou would have seen the overtake before you pulled out.

[@joncurtis199]

Seen this one before elsewhere. Itd absolutely have been on the dashcammer if it was a collision, they are behind the give way.

[@jamieswain4888]

Exactly what I was saying to myself. The only reason it's advisable not to overtake at a junction is because idiots like that cammer don't look both ways, and some people turn without indicating. The overtaking car was still a prick considering the Mustang was about to turn but still, cammer would've been at fault there.

[@TaylerJDust]

The cammer would not be 50% viable, they'd be 100% liable. The road markers indicate it's legal to pass there, and the cammer has to yield to both sides. Not doing so is a failure to yield, and thus the cammer is liable, and committing a traffic offense

[@bravo2966]

Not 50%, would've been 100% cammer's fault. He didn't look left, didn't give way to vehicles already on the road. Happened to someone I used to work with, he only looked right, pulled out, hit a motorcyclist who was overtaking, was found to be 100% my work colleague's fault.

[@chrisfryer3118]

100% liable, as not giving way, as indicated by the junction. Ok, not many will be expecting to have to give way to an overtaking vehicle.

[@MattF340]

If you think the police car was a factor in clip 2 hand your license back immediately.

[@CDBC]

4:20 Cammer 'discovered' that car on the wrong side far too late. When are people going to figure out that getting your eyes ahead of you once you've checked for hazards must happen sooner?

[@mrcellophane99]

#8 @4:11 - Cammer at fault for not looking both ways before pulling out.

[@ArminGrewe]

You might want to read up on the Highway Code. Rule 167 clearly states: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example - approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road Meaning the impatient SUV driver is at least partly at fault

[@OlimpijczykNaDwa]

Well, you have to give way to everyone on the main road, the line was interrupting and SUV had the right to overtaking

[@RkoAhrims]

You’re a helmet

[@ArminGrewe]

@@OlimpijczykNaDwa "the right to overtaking"? Where in the highway code (or the law for that matter) does it give you a "right to overtake"?

[@joncurtis199]

@@ArminGrewe why are you trying to defend the dashcammer for not giving way when they should have? Whether the overtake was poor or not is irrelevant, that was a time to give way.

[@anthonyphillips4883]

I’m not sure I agree that #17 had good reactions - seems a long time between the van starting to move and any action taken by the dashcammer…

[@dj_efk]

I’m not sure what was meant by the “they had good reaction time” comment but the driver certainly didn’t have good reaction instinct. They could have easily hit the brakes and avoided the van

[@FatHead1979]

Indeed, I didn't see much (if any) evidence of any hard braking

[@markeltringham2427]

@@FatHead1979 Looked more like they speeded up

[@mikethecabbie8476]

I'm wondering if cammer was actually going a bit too fast to begin with. That was my first impression. There was also three seconds between VW pulling out and impact; that ought to have been enough...

[@traykey]

If that was a good reaction, wonder what a bad reaction would look like🤣😂

[@jillgarlick2122]

No. 2 has nothing to do with the Police vehicle! The onus is always on us to have enough space to stop safely when these situations turn up.

[@heene]

4:10 Look where you are going!

[@101francis101]

I don’t care if #5 cammer overreacted, that was extremely satisfying.

[@alanhindmarch4483]

#2 The white car driver was totally at fault, obviously wasn’t paying attention. #3. How can anyone reverse that far back and not realise there is vehicle parked behind, hope they got the reg. #8. OK the RR shouldn’t have been overtaking, but thats a prime example of why you should not just check right, but also to the left when emerging out of a junction to the left. What had it been an emergency services vehicle? #9. I would contacted to police, then my insurance company. It is and offence to leave the scene of an accident, no matter who small or large. #10. A driver did a simulator thing in front of me on a 60mph road trying to Uturn. But with no indicator. He managed to total mine and his own car, closing the road for 4 hours, then tried to put the blame on me till the police watched the video and charged him with Dangerous Driving.

[@shm5547]

6:47 cyclist had just as much right to go straight ahead as the car did, this is a shared space with no road markings, so no priority is given to anyone. Good that the driver, as the operator of a more dangerous vehicle, was paying greater attention.

[@ditch3827]

Agreed and with the hierarchy perhaps a tad more right.

[@InevitableMayo]

Doesn't mean he had less of a right to look and make sure he wasn't going to be hit. I know what you're saying, and it's good that the driver was paying attention. But the cyclist should also have paid attention.

[@ditch3827]

@@InevitableMayo Always good to look but the cyclist had priority.

[@cigmorfil4101]

@@ditch3827 And if the motorist had been a pedestrian running along? The cyclist, by the hierarchy, would have been required to give priority to them. It is extremely unlikely the cyclist could have done that safely.

[@ditch3827]

@@cigmorfil4101 It wasn't, but if it had been then we do not know what the cyclist would have done.

[@markproctor6678]

That Renault did that on purpose hitting the Mercedes

[@DashDrones]

2:38 I know the van was being a dick but what about the cammer's extremely dangerous overtake that could have ended in a head on crash..

[@stephenhewitt5835]

Love these. Very well edited and adequate time to read the post script. Keep up the good work. Stay safe people 😎

[@neilbates5726]

At 4:17 the camera user totally ignores a "give way" sign and relevant lines on the road. So guess who's at fault!!

[@maffysdad]

NO#9, report to police as failing to stop at the scene of an accident, show them the video, let them deal with it by way of points and a fine and contact your insurance making a claim on TP insurance.

[@nathanparker4796]

3:32 yes you have the right of way but you should have been looking down the road it looks asif that one lane is a long one and that blue car was already on the road before you even got to it so really not the drivers fault

[@corroded]

Yep, cammers fault entirely there.

[@cigmorfil4101]

*Priority* is given, not taken. The fact that there was no obvious give way line (that would accompany the other direction has *priority* sign) for the opposing traffic, it is clear that the opposing vehicle had committed and travelling some way in the section before the cammer reached the section, possibly before the cammer was visible. What is further obvious is that as the *priority* sign was emphasised, the cammer thought it was their "Right of Way" _[sic]_ (without which the drivers would have been committing trespass), and she equated it with her "Rights", like "Human Rights", and damned be anyone who violated her "Rights". All she had to have done was approach the *priority* section with an eye to going but with a potential to stop and let someone who has not given her priority to get through. She would have been ultimately less stressed and been on her way and through the section much quicker!

[@paulcalvert8105]

4:17 would have been her fault for not giving way even if he was overtaking

[@stevecooke1566]

No 8. Yeah the overtake at the junction was wrong , but you also are not supposed to enter a carriageway if it is not safe to do so , my old instructor had it right he said ' you never ever cross paint unless it is safe to do so ' simple but effective and true

[@TheOriginalEL]

What happened to clip #2? Was it someone driving thru the Bermuda Triangle?

[@chrisbrookes1167]

#6 this is going to become more common now they’ve scrapped separate trailer tests.

[@DashDrones]

The Lexus pulling out and beeping in the first one was hilarious. I know the golf was driving dangerously, but all the Lexus'fault

[@johnvarley4561]

How do you know its the Lexus beeping? It's highly likely its the cammer themselves, considering the volume of the horn doesn't change as they get closer

[@ronnewsam6129]

So both at fault.

[@MattF340]

Clip 8 That's why you look *both* ways at junctions.

[@basbeestKT]

#17 good reaction time? There's at least two seconds when the van starts moving and before he hits it.

[@KenMKenMKenM]

7:00 you can see he has no idea where he's going, why not just sit back and be safe?

[@traykey]

Also, the golf was in a correct lane as both are marked straight ahead.

[@dancoulson6579]

5:52 - The brake lights didn't even come on. The driver saying that the rear wheels locked up is sounding more believable. If you 'frame-by-frame' it as the rear wheel of the truck goes out of view on the left, you can even see the smoke being pulled up in a fashion that indicates the wheel is rotating in the wrong direction. Also considering that this wheel is on the inside of the curve - Less weight and traction, the logical assumption I can make is that something has prevented the drivetrain from rotating. Or it's an automatic and somehow managed to engage the park mechanism. The wheel rotating the wrong direction can happen when the driveshaft is locked (ie, transmission set to park) and wheels are conneced with an open differential. If forced to move, the drive wheel with least traction will rotate in reverse. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKPLhJyMrLifaqM

[@robertwillis4061]

It's possible that a rear brake line failed. Remember that trucks use air pressure to keep their brakes off and by braking you are reducing the amount of air pressure to the brake. If a pipe blew out all air pressure to those brakes would escape and the brakes would come on very quickly. Just like the video. However there may have been warning signs in the dashboard. The air pressure gauge may have be showing a low reading and every day the truck would take a while to build air pressure as some would escape when not being used. Ok trucks vary, some will hold a fully pressurised tank for a few days others can loose it overnight.

[@kevinbell9255]

2:26 That same van has cut me up on the same road so glad to see it's not just me. Sadly Bramley Window Systems is a small family company so probably someone related so a complaint will go nowhere, but my custom won't go there either!

[@Carl-vq6ww]

I wouldn’t give a shit, if their works good. Why care. Stop trying to discredit a company. Idiot 😅. He’s probably under more pressure than yrself. 👍. You are obv retired

[@metr0n0me1]

4:19 cammers fault loom both ways at a junction your the one joining!

[@FatHead1979]

Admittedly it wasn't a sensible overtake by the cock womble in the Range Rooney but yeah I agree, the vehicle joining the carriageway is responsible for doing it safely i.e. actually paying attention instead of waffling on to someone else in the car.

[@artydooty1675]

Just added exactly the same comment. He seems oblivious to the fact he was at least partly (if not fully) at fault for that

[@ditch3827]

But also the other car's fault for not obeying rule 167: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

[@gavgrewal2704]

@@ditch3827 As well as the junction, he was also stupid to overtake a car on the right when it’s clearly indicating to turn right. Clearly needs to calm down when driving

[@cigmorfil4101]

@@ditch3827 But the cammer's 100% fault for not obeying rule 172: you MUST give way to traffic on the main road.

[@ChaseEverything]

The guy who pulled out towards the Range Rover on the wrong side of the road with the mustang should realise that insurance could turn around and say he didn't look left before pulling out. Yes the truck shouldn't have been in the wrong lane but Highway Code instructs us to avoid all possible collisions...

[@splifsend]

@4:10 the cammer doesn't understand what give way means.

[@highupdroneservices]

Hi, where can I go to upload a video to you guys?

[@dibqip]

On the green van it looks really like a mechanical failure locked the rear wheels up. If that’s the case it would be quite difficult to keep control even if you have the skill you’re just not expecting it and it’s not like a sports car where basically letting go will let the car find the correct counter steer, you have to wrap the turns on.

[@ronnewsam6129]

#1 Both driving without due care and attention / reasonable consideration for other road users.

[@paddymalky1979]

7.41 should have seen him pull out well before.

[@ghostofsosaria7534]

Love the vids guys but please someone tell me the name of the tune these all end with. Pleeeeeeeaaaassseeeeee

[@wordreet]

Trouble is, if you slow down every time, just because that may be an idiot up ahead, you'll never get anywhere!

[@therarestpepe9655]

People saying 4:10 is the cammers fault are out of their mind lol. They may very well have looked left, seen it was clear, looked right, then begin to pull out. The range rover only begun to pull out by the time it was in frame and did so aggressively and unpredictably. All of you, hand your licenses in

[@cigmorfil4101]

If there had been a crash, despite the dangerous manoeuvre of the overtaking vehicle, the cammer would have been guilty of an offence under RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25 (see rule 172). You should hand your dictionary in (it can't tell the difference between a verb and a noun).

[@shm5547]

5:05 are you allowed to do a U-turn on double white lines? No you are not!!

[@ditch3827]

The No U-Turn sign was also a bit of a clue.

[@joncurtis199]

Im not sure actually. Double white lines are no overtaking from either side...

[@shm5547]

@@joncurtis199 the actual law is you must not cross the solid white line (bar a few exceptions). It's more than no overtaking.

[@shm5547]

@@ditch3827 even without the no u-turn sign you can't do it

[@keith6400]

You may turn right into or out of a side road or premises and cross a solid white line on your side. U-turns are not listed as permitted.

[@hamshackleton]

#15, if the cammer hadn't gone through the yellow light, the van couldn' have cut them up! #17, cammer didn't brake, just swerved

[@IvanDBelmont]

The cammer would have had to fully slam on thier brakes to stop for that yellow light. I don"t understand why people think you can't go through a yellow light.

[@BaalsMistress]

Still entirely the fault of the van driver.

[@georgebarnes8163]

LOL, you serious?

[@java1892]

pretty sure #12 was a mechanical failure of the air brakes as the was no brake lights seen

[@pow1983]

nice spot

[@MrJT1955]

Front wheels didnt lock up

[@cigmorfil4101]

@@MrJT1955 Air holds the parking, *rear,* brakes off; the front wheels are not affected by the parking brake. If the _parking brake line_ failed, the rear wheels would have the brakes applied but not the front.

[@bajr8452]

7:40 gonna have to disagree about cammer having good reaction time there

[@MrPomdownunder]

That was one of the better Tuffnells drivers..

[@malcwhite]

3:32 seen that clip months ago

[@gareth14111984]

6:22 #12, many of these 'big green parcel machine' trucks need to be serviced properly, the suspension on the one I saw yesterday was clearly buggered, and yet the driver just carried on as if nothing was wrong...

[@andystone5487]

Hmmmm, I've already watched most of these on Sunday evening.......

[@MrSonicAdvance]

#15 It was pretty clear the van driver hadn't got a clue where they were going and so should be given a wide berth. The cammer did alright to sort out the van driver's stupidity, though.

[@ChaseWilder]

Number 12 the one in the green truck got thrown about like a rag doll. This is why you wear a seatbelt.

[@kailani37]

#1 correct, but hopefully it gave the Golf driver a bit of a wake up call.

[@Robdutton91]

First clip - the car pulling out has looked right NOT EXPECTING some idiot to be overtaking at double the speed limit, and hasn’t either expected or seen the person in the wrong lane. They’ve only seen cammer’s car and then pulled out because they’ve not noticed the overtaker.

[@honestchris7472]

At 1:15, how could it possibly anybody else's fault other than the white car driver, where the police car was in irrelevant.

[@nightynightjill]

That hospital roundabout in Yeovil is a nightmare, - on one side on the approach there’s lines to go right but in the far left lane! Seen many cars collide here. Course, no one wants to complain in case they turn yet another round about into a set of traffic lights! 🤣🤣🤣

[@Seaside_Seanster]

#12 Looks like brake failure. On trucks you need air pressure to release the brakes. So if the air line comes off, brake jam on. Had it happen to me once in the bin lorry I used to work on.

[@mb2000]

#10 Salterhebble Hill is awful at the best of times, even more so with all the roadworks there at the moment. I’ve been up and down there many, many times but I’ve never seen anyone U-turn half way up like that (especially when there’s a roadworks sign saying not to do exactly that!) I wanted that McDonalds on the right on Saturday. Coming the same way as the cammer, it was much easier and safer to go up round the bend to the next lights, turn left and turn around near the hospital and come back down the hill!

[@MUFCSINCE90]

0:24 ☑️ 2:19 Lane changer no indicator, inside lane far too fast. Little white thing own fault. 5:16 no excuse but I think he lost something off his car just before and turned back to get it 6:18 smoke comes from back tyres upon locking 7:48 I thought cammers reaction time was poor obvs van in wrong

[@eddiehawkins7049]

@8 mins. It was obvious that there was a problem with that lorry. Overtaking should have been the last thing on the cammer's mind.

[@damnft8218]

#12 no seatbelts 😂

[@MrKingofcreed]

the last one could of bin avoided if the cammer car was paying attention to the van because you can clearly see he was getting ready to go LOL

[@makemineapint]

#1 The car pulling out is expecting the golf to be travelling at the speed limit, so reckons they have time to pull out, OK they're in the wrong but the root cause of their mistake is the reckless speeding by the Golf in a built up area, #2 inappropriate speed in the circumstances, I really enjoyed the lorry drivers commentary, shows his experience.

[@martinhutchinson9265]

I reckon when he looked right, he either didn't see the golf because it was blocked by the island, or didn't register him because he was on the other side of the road, or a combination of the two. Target fixation. Still would have come down as the puller-outer's fault.

[@makemineapint]

@@JoeyRhubarb true, I always check both ways when stepping off a pavement in a one way street. Like I said their mistake, I've met too many lunatics in Golfs when out on the bike to trust them one inch.

[@Howard1471]

Most of the near misses in this compilation could have been avoided if the cammer had been paying attention and not driving so badly themselves. There's even one who runs a red light.

[@Thegoldenemerald]

That hgv wheels did lock up because of the big white van on the right and there was nothing that could be done also there was a slight wobble from the hgv before the drift across 3 lanes which if the driver saw the wobble they could change lanes but couldn't because of the big white van mentioned earlier was in lane 3 the distance between him and the hgv before the wheels locked up was enough

[@TheMushroom246]

038 not police fault was clearly marked as police plus bollards . lorry driver could have slowed a bit quicker ,he was not able to cross lanes as van was useing outher lane .lorry driver should have stayed wheree it was and not change lanes till it was clear ...most of all accident would not have happened if little white car took more notice of the road ahead and not distracted by what itwas doing ...so top it off the little white cars fault ....100%

[@keith6400]

0:47 POLICE SLOW signs should really slow people down, anything can be ahead, it is backed by the police and licences are at stake potentially! and usually it has just happened. Everybody is tanking down the road close together and a big articulated lorry stops. You cannot see past the lorry so why are they all going at speed?

[@martinslater381]

The "Nextbase" Cameras couldn't clearly capture a single number plate or signpost, surely they can't be That Bad ?

[@Dont-come-at-me-24]

It depends many download just the low res version rather then the high res, I fit these nearly daily and it’s pretty decent quality. Also depends how the footage was sent as that could have loss some of the quality too. Plus some of the cams are 2K & 4K res.. but cheap ones are 720 & 1080p only

[@sianwickenden8692]

Shoutout to the yellow Mustang....gorgeous car

[@mydogeatspuke]

You need to actually be able to see the oncoming vehicles in order to give them priority. People can't see through walls. Nobody is expected to reverse out of your way if you appear after they've started moving. Driving towards them as if their car will suddenly disappear is very immature.

[@corroded]

HN63FGC for that Clio

[@listerofsmeg884]

Cammer at 2:30 is moron. Yes, the van shouldn't have pulled out, but ample time to slow down. Then makes a dangerous overtake 🙄

[@stevecooke1566]

No 15. You do know you are supposed to stop for orange light not speed up to get through it

[@Andrew-ut3fo]

At 3.05 the coffin dodger driving of the blue Jag must have the reactions of a sloth to have not seen what was going on and react accordingly

[@blcjck8121]

#7 Seen similar situations from GB dash cams before. How are roads like this not one way? Or maybe they are?

[@stevesmith7530]

1:07 The police car is irrelevant. It is highly visible, has a long coned off area. There is only one factor at play, and idiot driving too fast for the attention they were paying. The police vehicle and cones are there to attempt to protect the motorhome being struck by such an idiot. 3:59 You are wrong. The BMW driver is entirely at fault, they would have been able to see the oncoming vehicle before they got to the priority control, that is exactly why the priority is in that direction, oncoming traffic from the BMW direction has a better view. 7:45 You are wrong again. The cammer could have used the other pedal, the one designed to slow the vehicle down. They could have even done so long before the van pulled out. As it is they seemed to make no real effort to slow at all until after the impact. If you looked at comments where you lifted these clips from you would be aware of such things.

[@peterjones8999]

apparently, this is a new vid. but i've seen most of them before...

[@malcwhite]

Yes. I've seen the priority one on the bridge 6 months ago.

[@paulcunningham4973]

In clip #1 you comment that it doesn't matter what speed the golf was doing, failing to even mention the dangerous overtake on the hatch markings on approach to a traffic island, the car emerging was 100% at fault. In clip #2 you comment that possibly the stationary police car might have contributed to the rear end crash. Your analysis is a little inconsistent in some of these clips.

[@sammic974]

I hope the cammer for no.12 submitted it to the local police for action.

[@BLX187]

could a trailer really do that to a car. or was the driver just rubbish and panicy

[@InevitableMayo]

Bad weight distribution lifting some of the weight off the back wheels can cause loss of grip. That combined with the driver going too fast and not knowing how to correct the issue all leads to what happened in the clip.

[@dangodwin5778]

I genuinely think the first video…the golf was at fault!! That’s my opinion anyway

[@chrgod]

Yet another video demonstrating the lack of patience and understanding of British drivers / cammers. Yes people make mistakes and don't always know which lane/turn-off to take due to human nature so drive more slowly to allow better reaction time, anticipate that you don't own the road, and understand that idiots in the real world are still idiots when they get behind the wheel.

[@neilc935]

'big ass claim' at 4.20 odd totally camera car at fault : other car on existing road driving inconsiderately but ultimately has right of way. Is why you look BOTH ways.

[@mattyb123able]

So a van pulls out on you so you do a dangerous overtake

[@jessebella9322]

Wrong, it does matter how fast the golf was driving, both wrong.

[@Mr_OoOsH]

The overtake at the junction, now ok he’s not supposed to have overtaken at the junction but the cammer should be giving way to ALL traffic on the road they’re joining…….would have been 50/50 for insurance. Also the van pulling out Reaction was slow, cammer had plenty of time to stop as the van was moving for nearly the whole clip! Still the vans fault but cammer could have avoided.

[@cr_ziller]

I don’t know if I 100% agree about clip 1… if the cammer was where the faster car was when the other car pulled out he would have been seen already when the car looked right… assuming they did at some point but it’s unreasonable to assume they didn’t… the car pulling out won’t have seen the overtaking car essentially when they checked how much time they had to emerge and all they have failed to do is to make a last glance right before making their move… which yes… they should do… but for me the only thing that has caused that near miss is the psychotic driving of the overtaking vehicle that the guy emerging hasn’t spotted because it’s so out of the ordinary…

[@CDBC]

3:27 I knew a girl once who had a snaking outfit ...

[@adapaitsmyname]

Metaverse generation.

[@DashDrones]

Yep full on zombies..

[@markhill2173]

Big Lad in the Tuffnels lorry would have been much better off if he'd had his seatbelt on. Dick.

[@davelea8919]

thumbs down all been seen before think you stole some ones content

[@bikemanipswich4208]

I think they're re-releasing their own content, but with a text commentary because KZbin will make them take it down otherwise.

[@heene]

I haven't seen any of them. The more channels they are on, the better so more people can see them.

[@andyb4417]

6:03 The Green Parcel machine man doesn't appear to have his seat belt on, nor his trousers ! Maybe they fell off due to the impact.

[@alfiebresnahan6127]

That's what I thought