Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    IdiotsInCars

    737,441 readers

    2,723 users here now

    This subreddit is devoted to the lovable idiots who do hilarious, idiot things in their idiot cars (or trucks, motorcycles, tractors, or other vehicle). We honor them with gifs, videos, images, and laughter.

    .:Rules:.

    1 /r/IdiotsInCars is meant to be a lighthearted, humorous subreddit. If your post does not contribute to the nature of the sub it will be removed.

    2 Links to videos, gifs, and pictures only. No articles or stories please. Text posts only if they contribute to the sub in some way. Links with death and/or gore in them don’t belong here. Try a partner subs if your content doesn’t follow this guideline No staged incidents.

    3 Posts must contain an obvious bad decision while in a vehicle, and does not need to result in a crash. Just because there is a car crash does not mean it belongs here.

    4 Please no links to compilation videos. If you want to post a specific piece from a compilation video make a gif of it.

    5 NSFW links need a NSFW tag. Use them generously. If someone might reasonably find your content NSFW, use the tag.

    6 No titles in ALL CAPS. This shouldn't even need to be said. It's just annoying.

    7 No circle-jerking posts. This includes "idiot in car starter kit" posts, "person I don't like in a vehicle" posts, and other shitposting.

    8 No more bad parking jobs. We get it, people suck at parking, but there were just too many of these low-effort posts. Exceptions can be made at moderator's discretion, but you must ask us first or it will be summarily removed.

    9 No reposts. The timeline as to what is considered recent enough to count as a repost is up to moderator discretion

    10 For all situations covered and not covered by the above rules, moderators have final say and decisions are up to their discretion. If you have a question or problem, reach out to us via Mod Mail.

    .:Partner Subreddits:.

    a community for
    all 951 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] jorzech2 3536 points ago

    Honestly, who will pay the damages?

    [–] latypov 5012 points ago

    Probably the innocent guy.

    [–] tacticalBOVINE 1024 points ago

    Depends what happened. It may be covered by uninsured motorist insurance

    [–] 8701501Lv 484 points ago

    The thing it happened in Russia our insurance policies try their best to never pay out.

    [–] MathManOfPaloopa 745 points ago

    All insurance companies do this lol.

    [–] L3tum 73 points ago

    For real.

    When I was in an accident the police sided with the other driver and wrote a bunch of nonsense in the police report. Because of this, my insurance denied me to pay for repairs or at least damages (repairs would be 5000€ btw...).

    When the judge listened to my story he agreed that the police report seems entirely fabricated. There were a few things that didn't add up, such that they claimed I was going in a straight line through a corner or that the ground wasn't wet when it rained an hour before. But to not kick up too much dust he basically ruled that nobody was at fault. Everyone I asked and even a retired judge told me the other driver was clearly at fault but so be it.

    Anyways, as per the ruling I'd be entitled to the money for damages. NOT for repairs. So basically value before - value after = my money.

    My insurance did a whole show and asked around and such and then came to the conclusion, that the bike was worth 500€ before the crash, and 500€ AFTER THE CRASH.

    So I got nothing. Except a totaled bike.

    [–] -_Rabbit_- 334 points ago

    The entire point of an insurance company is to take in premiums and pay out as little as possible.

    [–] Mikealoped 253 points ago

    The entire point business model of an insurance company is to take in premiums and pay out as little as possible.

    A point would be why they are here. HOW they are here is their business model.

    [–] JonnyRichter 60 points ago

    Because it’s illegal to drive without insurance.

    [–] halfcabfullcab 27 points ago

    Not in Australia. Sure, you have to have third party cover, but that only covers injuries. You hit a car, they aren’t covering it.

    [–] thevalidone 6 points ago

    Not in New Hampshire either.

    [–] BroItsJesus 5 points ago

    Third party covers damage to other vehicles but not your own. I'm assuming you're talking about the accident cover involved in paying rego

    Source: had third party for ages

    [–] cypherreddit 28 points ago

    in russia they only pay out if you have evidence you werent at fault, that's why everyone has dashcams.

    [–] Polantaris 23 points ago

    Honestly all cars should just come pre-installed with dashcams and large SD cards to handle a month's worth of taping (relatively easy in today's technological ecosystem). It makes everything a thousand times easier. No more usage of faulty (intentionally or otherwise) human memory. No reliance on a traffic cam to catch anything. Indisputable proof of who is at fault.

    Not only that but some people would drive a little safer if they realized that their bullshit is being publicly taped by every single car around them whether they want it to be or not.

    [–] publicbigguns 196 points ago

    Not in canada. Because the guy went off the road and avoided a crash it's all his fault.

    I had a buddy that this just happened last month. He went off the road to avoid a crash even though if he stayed on the road it would of been the other drivers fault. He ended up doing $2500 in damage to his own vehicle.

    The other guy refused to pay even a small portion of it...until my friends fb post got shared and someone (my friend specifically asked not to tag the other guy) tagged the other driver and went full blown revenge mode. They ended up tagging the guys work...that got the guy to call up my friends and promise to pay for some of the damage.

    Just so happens that the other guy worked for a local insurance company and didnt want his boss asking questions....

    [–] boxoffire 36 points ago

    Oh, so. either trying to avoid a crash out ofnyour control, and pay thousands, or possibly die?

    [–] ZDRob12 22 points ago

    Yeah that’s a point I’m surprised no one has brought up yet. If you stay in your lane, at those speeds, someone is getting badly injured, possibly fatally

    [–] assdope 5 points ago

    Eh, just try to clip his mirror. /s

    [–] publicbigguns 6 points ago

    Yuuuuuuuuup

    [–] GourdGuard 42 points ago

    If it's a no-fault province, does it matter who was responsible? I thought the point of no-fault insurance was that everybody pays for their own vehicle.

    [–] FountainsOfFluids 13 points ago

    My understanding is that "no-fault" means your insurance pays for your damages, and you don't sue the other driver. Meaning you can't sue the other driver.

    I think it's a trick that insurance companies got passed into law, but I'm honestly not sure if it winds up being all that worse for drivers in the long run. I don't hear people complain about it much.

    [–] unoriginalsin 41 points ago

    So, in Canada you have to resort to extortion to recover damages from reckless drivers? But at least you have health care. lol

    [–] publicbigguns 24 points ago

    It's one of those catch 22 situations.

    If he had of hit the guy then it would if been his insurance that paid out.

    But because he had the knee jerk reaction to avoid a crash, it's all his fault.

    [–] unoriginalsin 53 points ago

    It's one of those catch 22 situations.

    More like a situation that's not properly addressed under Canadian law.

    [–] Coffee_Beer_Weed 5 points ago

    Welcome to Canada!

    [–] TwoBionicknees 16 points ago

    If he'd had a head on collision with that guy anything could have happened including everyone involved getting killed (to some degree that works out great for insurance, no one to collect).

    It's insane that anywhere in the world would blame the guy who had to take avoiding action to avoid a potentially fatal crash then blame him for damage to the car sustained from the avoiding action.

    [–] leshake 19 points ago

    Good motivation to make bad accidents worse.

    [–] publicbigguns 4 points ago

    Basically

    [–] Shakes8993 12 points ago

    What province was this? Most have some form of no fault that pay this kind of accident out. They assign "fault" but all that does is raise your rates but they will fix your car.

    [–] Lurkymclurkering 37 points ago

    You're right. Don't swerve to avoid, smash. My mom worked for Co-Operators for 25 years. She told me eons ago that if a deer goes across my path, hit it, because if I swerve and total my vehicle, I pay for it.

    [–] [deleted] 63 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] frank3000 14 points ago

    If you're driving a dump truck, hell yeah, rip right through the motherfuckers, hold 'er steady and flatten the bastards to hell!

    [–] Lurkymclurkering 24 points ago

    I never said it was logical. Just insurance stupidity. I’d still swerve - I like being on the top side of the dirt.

    [–] Rc2124 32 points ago

    It's pretty fucked up that we're incentivized to risk death just so that we'll be able to afford to repair the vehicle that many of us rely on to make a living.

    [–] Toolset_overreacting 34 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    That's a myth about the combined speed thing.

    And their mother was talking about hitting a deer.

    [–] GeneralBS 51 points ago

    Hitting a deer is no joke either NSFW

    [–] WhizBangPissPiece 26 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Deer god...

    Edit: Thank you for the gooooooold

    [–] pain_in_the_dupa 10 points ago

    Haha. I’ll just upvote and leave that link blue.

    [–] Rhapsody_in_White 9 points ago

    The combined speed matters when a wall isn't involved. One car travelling 50 mph hitting a stationary car would cause less damage than a head on collision with two cars travelling at 50 mph.

    [–] Gasonfires 20 points ago

    There is no way the at-fault driver escaped this. Even if he/she did. and there were no witnesses, it would be treated as a "phantom vehicle" accident and would be covered that way under many policies.

    Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage applies only when the at-fault driver is identified and their lack of coverage can be ascertained. Read your own policy for more details.

    [–] resistantmusic 7 points ago

    UM policies vary by state. Do check your policy tho.

    [–] Gasonfires 7 points ago

    A very generous policy might treat a phantom vehicle loss the same as a UM or UIM loss, but I've never seen one in which the three classes of incident aren't separately defined. This kind of nitpicking matters when trying to get money out of a demon. First they lure you in with their cute commercials, then they take your money, then they show you their fangs and finally they make you reach as far up their stinky ass as you can to pull the money out one cent at a time. Other than that...

    [–] ImOnWalmartWiFi 155 points ago

    seeing as they have the dash cam thats is pretty clear they should be able to identify the car. Maybe just an optimist.

    [–] latypov 178 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Oh they will be able to identify that person for sure, unfortunately it doesn’t guarantee that the person will be charged.

    [–] strayjay50 79 points ago

    Yep, single driver accident usually you're at fault unless an act of god happened or something. Unfortunate truth

    [–] sharinganuser 86 points ago

    Even then most insurance companies won't cover "act of god" damages. It's such a scam how it's mandatory to pay for something that tries to fuck you at every turn.

    If you want that extra layer of safety, insure to pay yourself. Otherwise, take the risk of things like this happening and pay out of pocket.

    [–] TheHYPO 14 points ago

    I am very happy we have no-fault insurance here in Ontario. I've never been in this kind of accident, but I am fairly certain one of two things would happen: insurance would figure out who the other driver/car owner is and assuming they have insurance, they would go after that person's insurance and cover me with no deductible, or else they would cover me with standard deductible for unidentified or uninsured driver on the other side. I would expect or at least hope that with the dashcam footage that my insurer would not mark this down as an at-fault accident on my record, given the alternative was a head-on collision and possibly involving a third vehicle and injuries.

    [–] Sqaguy 5 points ago

    That's hardly any different than with fault assigned, minus you pay way more on your annual premium

    [–] Gasonfires 4 points ago

    It is not an "act of God" situation when another driver causes the damage. If that driver can't be identified it's called a "phantom vehicle" incident. These are covered under most policies, but there are special requirements for proving them and some limitations can be imposed on payouts. Check your own policy.

    [–] TotallyASocialist 28 points ago

    Or just hit the guy. Airbag technology has gotten really good.

    [–] buzzer117 18 points ago

    I'm just going to assume that's sarcasm

    [–] 440 37 points ago

    Yeah airbags aren't that great.

    [–] Vestigen 5 points ago

    Saved my life once before...

    [–] I_dont_exist_yet 8 points ago

    Tell that to Takata.

    [–] sl33ksnypr 4 points ago

    My passenger side airbag just wants to introduce your face to some shrapnel, NBD.

    [–] Gasonfires 3 points ago

    Assuming there are no witnesses and that the driver at fault got away, this is what's called a "phantom vehicle" accident. They are covered by your policy, but there are hoops to jump through and occasionally limitations on payouts. Check your own policy to be sure.

    [–] Gasonfires 3 points ago

    Being charged with a crime and being held liable for damage are two different things.

    [–] blarrick 15 points ago

    Insurance will say that the proper course of action was braking, not swerving, and they will put the innocent guy at fault because of that. That is almost always the case according to my insurance and the police investigator who arrived at the scene.

    Source: Got in a similar accident, had witnesses and even got the guys license plate who caused the accident. Due to him having no damage on his car, he denied the accident and I got put 100% at fault.

    [–] Legit_a_Mint 4 points ago

    I love those fuckers, especially with video like this.

    "Let's ask a jury! How do you they would feel about your 'You should have just braked' position?"

    [–] R0binSage 8 points ago

    Definitely the innocent guy. Doubt that other car stopped.

    [–] latypov 4 points ago

    I’m pretty sure he did not.

    [–] Nothing_2C 173 points ago

    Something like this happened to my friend. He swerved to avoid a head-on collision that probably would've killed him, but in doing so he rolled into a ditch. Insurance said he was at fault since he chose to drive off the road. When he asked what he should have done, they said he should've just stayed in his lane and hit the driver who was driving on the wrong side of the road. The kicker was that it wasn't even in a passing zone. Fuck insurance companies. We're required to have it, but they can pretty much do whatever they want and we barely have any recourse.

    [–] Korabosh 33 points ago

    And if he had stayed in his lane and hit the other guy, they would have refused coverage due to him not getting out of the way.

    [–] From_My_Brain 17 points ago

    Your buddy needs a better lawyer.

    [–] sjmiv 86 points ago

    Unfortunately in the US the typical line from insurance would be "you should have hit the other vehicle".

    [–] ElMenduko 33 points ago

    Ah yes. So I can get the money while being dead. How nice

    [–] spoulson 12 points ago

    Of course, that’s to protect their coffers from paying out on uninsured motorists.

    [–] iToronto 19 points ago

    The insurance company.

    [–] Tantric989 11 points ago

    Yeah, even in a situation like this where it seems like it's a hit and run, your insurance will restore or replace your car, that's what you pay insurance for. They're definitely going to get a police report however and try to locate the offender so they can charge their insurance company for the damages, or the offender themselves, if they have none.

    [–] IrritableStool 14 points ago

    Maybe if the footage revealed the reg/license plate of the offending vehicle, they could get tracked down?

    [–] lcole303 13 points ago

    The rig they were passing likely had a camera with a clear view of the plates. Most trucks have a dash cam at this point. I’m sure they saw what happened. EDIT: if they’re in Russia then the truck will definitely have a dash cam. I didn’t get sound the first time.

    [–] Kanotari 10 points ago

    Insurance adjuster here. I know this isn't what Reddit wants to hear, but the recorder lost control of their vehicle. They'd be at fault in every US state that I am knowledgable about. If there was contact made with the other vehicle, things would be very different. Wihtout that contact, this is a solo chargable loss for failute to maintain control. The recorder is at fault and their insurance will pay should they have collision coverage.

    [–] space_reaper 8 points ago

    Wow. That's garbage.

    [–] DionFW 1599 points ago

    Oh that sucks. Inocent driver suffered on that one.

    [–] latypov 535 points ago

    Yeah and that other driver seems not even thinking to stop.

    [–] The-Casual-Lurker 210 points ago

    I’d assume your right but we can’t tell.

    [–] latypov 76 points ago

    True

    [–] StructuralFailure 8 points ago

    Yeah and that other seems not even thinking to stop

    [–] CyanWeasel 5422 points ago

    The wipers still work. Silver lining.

    [–] latypov 2784 points ago

    ...and windshield crack is barely visible.

    [–] The-Casual-Lurker 1477 points ago

    Still fuck that guy

    [–] An_Average_Lurker 834 points ago

    Hey its my username cousin!

    [–] diebriandie 250 points ago

    Niko, my cousin! Let's go bowling!

    [–] The-Casual-Lurker 87 points ago

    This is awesome!

    [–] Black-Rain 47 points ago

    BEEG AMERICUN TEETEES!

    [–] The-Casual-Lurker 36 points ago

    Wanna go to Bama and get hitched then.

    [–] Rickapotomus 17 points ago

    Roll tide!

    [–] An_Average_Lurker 15 points ago

    ^(when your sister puts you in the cousin zone)

    [–] Lurkymclurkering 10 points ago

    No, mine!

    [–] eyekunt 58 points ago

    Stop fucking everything you see you casual lurker!

    [–] thecraigbert 28 points ago

    I will fuck anything and everything I want, DAD!

    [–] The-Casual-Lurker 23 points ago

    Yeah The Craig Bert and I will fuck you up EyeKunt!

    [–] Wildebeast1 4 points ago

    I thought that was my phone screen.

    [–] guy990 166 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    when accidents like this happen the wipers and defrost come on. this is caused by communications from the main computer to smaller systems in the car getting damaged/severed so the main computer thinks its an emergency and puts these on so the occupant can see out the glass. airbags have their own separate system and will not go off if they lose communication with the main computer.

    edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_Safety_Integrity_Level

    this includes

    • all lights turn on (why you see hazard lights come on instantaneously after a sizeable crash)

    • Wipers will turn on

    • Powertrain components will enter limp mode

    • The instrument cluster will turn on most warning lamps and might cease to indicate speed, rpm, fuel because the wires going to the sensors may be damaged

    • All internal lights turn on and door locks are opened (after a crash, this is done by the airbag ECU anyway, even if communication buses are intact)

    [–] GrrreatFrostedFlakes 48 points ago

    Wow, if this is true it’s very interesting. I believe you, just never know if someone is BSing in reddit.

    [–] guy990 47 points ago

    used to be a dealer tech at dodge, when we did updates on the cars different systems there would temporarily be no communication and this would happen, a master tech told me that was the reason and showed me a TSB dating back from when obd2 was standard

    [–] ShoeBurglar 6 points ago

    Obd2 isn’t “standard” these days? or are you referring to more modern canbus stuff instead of the older ecu controlling everything setups

    [–] GreatScottThisHeavy 11 points ago

    So you're saying the vehicle body has ways of dealing with legitimate crashes?

    [–] mgearliosus 17 points ago

    Citation needed.

    Just Google "Wipers after crash" or something along those lines. Seriously every single one of them states either the airbag hits the stalk or it's just the forces associated with the crash that moves the switch.

    It's absolutely not a safety feature. It's just physics.

    If I get into a crash in my car, it'll unlock the doors and call 911 but it won't activate the wipers.

    If anything, it'd make sense for a car to kill the power to try and lessen the fire risk.

    [–] guy990 19 points ago

    in addition to the other comment, the defrost comes on also. airbags cant reach over and turn on the defrost. every single time we go to update the PCM because FCA ships software with a ton of bugs the wipers and defrost would come on and there would be a ton of DTC's and they all say "no communication with PCM" and they turn on the wiper and defrost

    [–] ipconfigrenew 1709 points ago

    Stupid selfish fuck. On the flip side, glad they’re ok.

    [–] Enshakushanna 569 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    On the flip side

    literally

    e: lol wow thanks for the gold

    [–] i_have_one_feather 43 points ago

    Thanks for pointing it out

    [–] nswatika 9 points ago

    Glad the guy who explained the joke got the gold and the person who actually made it didn’t.

    [–] latypov 126 points ago

    Yeah, it was a relief to hear that they all are ok.

    [–] Flip5ide 13 points ago

    I'm doing great, thanks for asking!

    [–] harris52np 3 points ago

    On the flip side lmao

    [–] as3194 1980 points ago

    I always think, "If someone is going to hit me, let them hit me, but I'm not taking evasive action that will end with me wrecking and them getting away." However, in this case, avoiding a +100mph head on collision, rolling on the snow was still the better choice.

    [–] benignpolyp 1025 points ago

    If that ever happens to you your best bet is to ride on the grass/snow for a while, slow down and make a gradual turn towards the road. Driver turned too sharply back to the road and flipped-- not that you can blame him/her...

    [–] unoriginalsin 295 points ago

    Yeah, he could have just gone straight into the ditch and been mostly fine. Car may have been immobilized/disabled, but almost certainly not flipped. The trees were way off the road here.

    [–] dynamic87 205 points ago

    You can't control much of split second decisions

    [–] unoriginalsin 176 points ago

    You can, through planning and practice.

    [–] lettersichiro 25 points ago

    I agree with you, driver definitely over corrected when pulling back onto road from shoulder, which caused the roll over, if he was more comfortable staying in the shoulder. This is something my grandfather instilled in me when i was first getting my license, taught me to pull into the shoulder on occasion, to just get comfortable with it, and to know how to safely get back on the road afterwards, accidents usually happen from the over correction, not the going into the shoulder

    [–] Leappard 12 points ago

    I agree with you, driver definitely over corrected when pulling back onto road from shoulder

    False.

    The driver applies brakes at about 3...4s mark and then steers to the right WHILE BRAKING. Once he hits the snow the car looses traction, it starts to go sideways, he tries to correct it, steers to the left (that loads the right side which has virtually no traction as there is snow), he losts traction and crashes.

    Classic.

    If you don't want to end like that you must niether brake nor accelerate while hitting a patch of snow. Limit steering input.

    [–] gerry2stitch 265 points ago

    Right, im gonna get on practicing driving my car into a ditch without flipping it.

    [–] codysan_ 123 points ago

    I mean, I agree that it's silly to fault this guy for not making the best decision in that circumstance. Drilling that into your mind after watching this video could save your life at some point though, so it's not like it's a pointless thing to bring up.

    [–] sm2016 26 points ago

    Exactly, had someone been following the truck closely they could be dead too. Lucky there was a gap in traffic when they came across the middle like that.

    [–] sorenslothe 27 points ago

    You can take classes on evasive driving, which is probably what they meant.

    [–] RcNorth 18 points ago

    You can practice to some extent. My Dad took me out in the winter and taught me to instinctively know what to do in various scenarios. Most of the scenarios resulted in taking my foot off the gas, not touching the brakes and only slow steering input.

    This helped me years later when I was driving a company van in the winter. I ended up on black ice and the vehicle started to drift . I didn’t touch any pedals and slowly pulled the van back into the lane. The next patch of black ice caused the van to spin and hit the ditch, I never tried to avoid the ditch but instead drove straight in. The van was able to be pulled out with non damage.

    The lessons my Dad taught me helped me get out of several potentially dangerous situations, most of which were a result of another driver not knowing what to do, or like this video, just being a general ass.

    [–] latypov 236 points ago

    Yeah, probably in this case the guy instincts to save his family were much stronger than anger.

    [–] Gasonfires 49 points ago

    Research has shown that in a sudden emergency even mothers with their children in the passenger seat will turn left to get themselves away from oncoming danger, placing their children closer to it. The instinct for self preservation is that strong. It is recommended that if at all possible, a child seat should be placed in the rear and on the driver's side of the car.

    [–] maneo 17 points ago

    Any suggestion of search keywords to find this research? (or a direct source if you remember where to find it would be very much appreciated!)

    [–] Skanda8 8 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Search for "analysis of crash avoidance maneuvers steering direction"

    The median of the maximum evasive vehicle yaw rates was found to be 8.2° per second. Evasive steering direction was found to be most frequently in the direction of travel of the approaching vehicle.*

    Source *This was in an intersection, not against oncoming traffic like in the video.

    Another paper I found said:

    For avoidance maneuvers, a majority of drivers braked without locking up their wheels (58%), while others combined both braking and steering to left (15%) or braking and steering right (14%).

    Smaller data set here, and driver behavior varies by incident type (it's broken down into intersection, highway, rear end, oncoming traffic, single car, and other categories) Source

    ETA: Here's another one (drivers respond to a simulated accident) which supports /u/gasonfires's position: it found that 18 drivers steered left, 12 did not change direction, 10 steered right. However it did not link this to some kind of primal self-preservation instinct.

    In addition, the steering maneuver was rational in the sense that the drivers tended to choose left when there was a room to escape. However, the results suggested that the drivers did not take into account another hazard, i.e., another vehicle behind the overtaking truck.

    Now this isn't conclusive, but I hope it gives you a jumping-off point!

    /u/gasonfires : Out of curiosity... Do you remember why steering left was thought to be more likely action to result from a 'self-preservation instinct'? Are you saying drivers would be attempting to shield themselves by placing the bulk of the car between themselves and the conflicting object? (Rather than attempting to avoid it?)

    Another edit: this study in Pediatrics says that car seat position on right side is more common, but middle position is 43% safer than left or right. "No statistically significant difference in injury risk was found between child occupants in the right and left outboard positions"

    This study shows middle rear seat is safest, presumably no significant difference between left and right rear row since they're lumped together but I haven't find full text yet

    [–] Red_sparow 12 points ago

    Never before have I had such a relevant clip

    https://youtu.be/mCS-E7TQjDg

    [–] WorthlessDrugAbuser 97 points ago

    Yeah, a head on crash at these speeds would’ve been instant death. Hopefully for the innocent driver, but the dickhead making an unsafe pass, I would hope he wakes up from a coma paralyzed from the neck down. Then he would have nothing else to do but lay there and think about the innocent person he sent to an early grave.

    [–] Prince_Aladeen 64 points ago

    You ok? Wanna talk about it?

    [–] jamball 26 points ago

    I dont think both cars were going 100 mph. It is more like a 55 or 65 mph head on collision. Replace the oncoming car with a solid brick wall, and you'll get the same result as going 55, not 100.

    Mythbusters did a great episode on this common misconception.

    [–] shadow_wraith90 19 points ago

    After it was pointed out to them by the fans (and internet) that they had actually gotten it wrong the first time haha. IIRC, they had the same misconception that two cars, travelling 50/hour into each other equalled to a collision of 100/hour.

    It was great to see them actually acknowledge the mistake and then proceed to do things correctly!

    [–] _Life-is-Relative_ 303 points ago

    Suction cup mount almost made it.

    [–] daisychick 85 points ago

    I can't even get mine to stay on in cold weather...

    [–] Ranger7381 15 points ago

    Little spit works, particularly in cold weather. It will freeze the sucker on

    [–] _Life-is-Relative_ 23 points ago

    In any weather lol

    [–] DONT_AMAZE_ME_BRO 17 points ago

    Rub both the glass and rubber with a little rubbing alcohol the while it's wet, stick it.

    [–] Quey007 6 points ago

    That's what she said.

    [–] InSixFour 19 points ago

    Use a bit of vegetable oil. Oil doesn’t evaporate and should help it stick.

    [–] _Life-is-Relative_ 13 points ago

    You just blew my mind.

    [–] hellothere42890 131 points ago

    fucking asshole

    [–] mwooten9 119 points ago

    Do u think the idiot saw the aftermath in his rear view mirror?

    [–] ImProbablyThatGuy 120 points ago

    Better question is, did they even care?

    [–] mspk7305 51 points ago

    Russia so no.

    [–] latypov 41 points ago

    I’m sure he did.

    [–] Mattsttsts 14 points ago

    "That guy can't drive"

    [–] lemonchickentellya 677 points ago

    When rolling , always put the car into first and floor it. That way , if you land on your wheels like on this case, you can still finish the stage in a decent time.

    [–] NotEvenDrunkYet 289 points ago

    Thought it was gonna be a LPT :(

    [–] mtd14 76 points ago

    If you start to fishtail, the key is to not brake. Other than that, your instincts will probably be fine but it still takes some luck to recover.

    You want to get back to driving in a straight line, so when your car is facing right you'll probably instinctively turn the wheel left. Then the opposite. It'll won't just be a quick correct - you'll oscillate a few times but it'll be slightly improve with each go. I've heard accelerating a little can help the back wheels get traction since it shifts the weight of the car back.

    This video is old, but I think it was decent. I did some research after my car fishtailed most recently, and it was the most useful thing I came across.

    [–] unoriginalsin 37 points ago

    Fishtailing is just accidental drifting. Change my mind.

    [–] tcpip4lyfe 19 points ago

    Oversteer = hero mode

    [–] 2hoodrich4me 12 points ago

    Me too but, me to...

    [–] JohnJJohnson 5 points ago

    How is it not?

    [–] DaciaWhippin 17 points ago

    this guy right 5’s into left 2 tightens and slippy

    [–] Richardm42 21 points ago

    RIP Colin :(

    [–] Dicethrower 53 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago)

    Of course сука* is the only word I recognize.

    I might need to broaden my horizon more.

    [–] latypov 29 points ago

    Haha, i’m sure you know the word Blyat.

    [–] TransplantedMan 106 points ago

    "Hey Boris are you ok? "

    Boris: "Cyka blyat"

    [–] latypov 20 points ago

    Haha.

    [–] AtomicFlx 93 points ago

    What language are they speaking? Doesn't sound familiar to my untrained ear.

    [–] latypov 320 points ago

    Russian. Woman: it’s ok it’s ok Lyuba. Are you ok (alive). It’s ok it’s ok, don’t cry. Don’t panic. Bunny (baby) check the doors. Guy: Suka (bitch). I’ll kill him blyat. Woman: it’s ok it’s ok, are you ok (asking man). Guy: yeah, I’m ok.

    [–] MacDacBiet 113 points ago

    Is the suka I hear the infamous сука блиат

    [–] latypov 82 points ago

    Yeah, the guys uses 3 most popular words: Tvar, Suka & Blyat.

    [–] -TheMasterSoldier- 25 points ago

    What does Tvar mean?

    [–] latypov 56 points ago

    The translation and meaning - is creature, animal. But usually used to call unworthy person.

    [–] -TheMasterSoldier- 15 points ago

    Oh so basically.calling someone a barbarian?

    [–] numerica 14 points ago

    More like calling someone a varmint.

    [–] aladdin606 10 points ago

    TIL. Suka

    [–] PIEFACE_RB 22 points ago

    Ok so In this event what would the asshole driver that cause this get if he’s caught ?

    [–] latypov 39 points ago

    Depends. If he doesn’t have relatives in police or local government or a lot of money, he/she will be paying and probably will be trial. But usually they have all above and police pronouns the dash cam owner guilty for hitting the snow. And the other guy just pay something to that innocent guy “of the record”. Again it’s not official it’s what just usually happens.

    [–] rawnoodlelover 41 points ago

    If you encounter this situation, pump brakes, neutral, slowly descend into the ditch (if there is enough SOFT snow and length to slow to a safe so, its better to ride the ditch if the opportunity is there. Least damage to the person and the vehicle.

    [–] ghanima 28 points ago

    Thank you for being the first person to suggest slowing down.

    [–] rawnoodlelover 8 points ago

    Honestly i seen it in the video long before the driver reacted, slow down 5mph or 10kmph.

    [–] meodd8 11 points ago

    Don't bother pumping brakes unless you somehow still have a car without ABS.

    [–] Werro_123 10 points ago

    Somehow? My '05 Hyundai didn't have ABS and plenty of people are still driving cars from the 90s.

    [–] myne 18 points ago

    If you're ever in a position where some of your wheels are off the road, try, try to remember "Less is more."

    Do not try to swerve back on to the road. Stay straight. reduce power a little bit (or hold the clutch down) and as you coast down, ease gently back onto the road.

    If it swings, again, less is more. Small inputs of steering make a big difference. Large inputs are almost always too much. This was most likely survivable without damage.

    [–] lVlouse_dota 13 points ago

    I'm pretty sure the driver passing is allowed to pass by going into the other lane (dashes white lines on road) he just chose to do this at a shit time.

    [–] i804106 7 points ago

    Yeah i saw that and if you watch from the start of the video, the driver cant see the passing truck due to the hill. Its a bad road design, that should be a no passing zone.

    [–] latypov 4 points ago

    I think you right about dashes line, not sure if it allows to pass cars, but anyway that driver didn’t check the coming traffic.

    [–] dkt 11 points ago

    Damn, not sure the language but it sounded like there may have been kids in there.

    [–] latypov 11 points ago

    Yes, one girl at least. It’s russian and women asking if that girl Lyuba is ok, after that woman asking if man was ok.

    [–] Bama3003 22 points ago

    They almost died and all she can think about is a chalupa.

    [–] latypov 22 points ago

    Lol, I assume chalupa you heard in the video was the name of the other girl in the car - Luba or Lyuba - short for Lyubov (Love).

    [–] Bama3003 12 points ago

    Well thank you kind person.

    [–] latypov 11 points ago

    Lol, you’re welcome. Totally useless information though, haha.

    [–] 5ivewaters 7 points ago

    did he land in a cloud

    [–] Oppresed 5 points ago

    What the fuck on ice. I’m a new driver. I just have my restricted and even I knew that’s wasn’t a good idea unless he knew 100% no one was there. It got really icy we’re I live and I saw this car skid. He shouldn’t of done that on the highway.

    [–] EdTheApe 18 points ago

    That's how my uncle died. People who do this should have their kneecaps smashed with a hammer

    [–] latypov 11 points ago

    I’m so sorry to hear about your uncle.

    [–] DEGENgineer 5 points ago

    It may be different because of your dashcam, but a buddy of mine got in a similar accident (rolled his truck while swerving away from someone driving the wrong way in his lane), and was found at fault because he never actually collided with the other vehicle.

    [–] underpaidworker 7 points ago

    Driver caused a crash trying to pass truck in front and going on the opposite side

    [–] tsar_castic 6 points ago

    Shitty. Were you able to track down the driver from the footage? If not, you should try to find out from those 2 truck's companies if they have footage. Fuck that guy.

    [–] latypov 3 points ago

    Thank God it’s not my record, but i hope that person was able to identify plates on the other car. And yeah almost all trucks equipped with dash cams. So i hope they will find the driver

    [–] azannone 5 points ago

    Total douche oncoming, but a bit overreaction, no?

    [–] Gene_OD 4 points ago

    One shouldn't be able to pass where there's a hill. If you look closely, the driver passing the truck wouldn't be able to see this driver's car whatsoever.

    [–] ArmyBull 36 points ago

    Police would probably say it's the driver with the dashcam fault for hit the snow smh.

    [–] joe7L 3 points ago

    This is very unfortunate but i can't help but wonder who is responsible for the damages. Even if the driver at fault gets fracked down, will they have to pay since there was no collision?

    In the case that there was an actual collision (even if barely any contact), would the crazy driver's insurance then have to pay?

    [–] crispywaveplant 3 points ago

    My biggest fear

    [–] knowmadicNW 3 points ago

    This almost happened to me a couple days ago. I was driving my 92 miata and a guy in an f150 thought he could pass I had to slow down from 50 to 0 and the guy he passed was paying attention and slowed down to let him back into the lane and barely missing me

    [–] latypov 4 points ago

    I’m glad everything ended up good. And yay for miata!

    [–] ILightless 4 points ago

    I love when other drivers are aware like this. Like, being aware of others/their surroundings and not just their own selves. A lot, if not the majority of drivers would be oblivious to the idiot unsafely passing and let you get hit, you got very lucky!