Great save by that trucker.

Both the cammer and the trucker did awesome, but I give props to the truck's owner for obviously keeping up with their maintenance.

Love the tired "im shootin', im shootin', (expletive)" from the second trucker.

Well you're shooting allright, but vertically, so don't be so blasé next time.

Prometheus was almost great, but there were too many "that's fucking stupid" elements. The entire crew was shit, not a single one was likable. At least with the space truckers in Alien, they were all sorts of assholes, but they were likable assholes. In Prom, they were just unpleasant people, doing unpleasant things, while generally being bad people - I hate them all still.

One thing Prometheus had going for it was visuals - Ridley Scott knows how to film a good looking film, I don't really think anyone can argue that. I really hope the story won't get fucked over this time, and I hope it won't just be a retread either. The reason Aliens was so great, is that it did something new with the franchise; prometheus tried and failed to do that well.

Alien 3 was not actually so shit, I think. It made some damn near unforgivable choices in killing off Newt and Hicks off screen, but aside from that I actually liked it. Close to a retread of Alien, but still a twist on it.

A4 was just shit with some good bits in - the many twisted clones of ripley, the Auton, and the aliens in water was all fun things. The rest is garbage.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Covenant, more classic horror, I wager, but with Scott's signature visuals.. we'll see!

Congratulations! Your video, Trucker helps stalled motorcycle to side of the road, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 32 Badge!

Your video, Trucker helps stalled motorcycle to side of the road, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 60 Badge!

Your video, How Aussie Truckers Get Through Gates In The Outback, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's no wonder the trucker didn't stop. That puny horn wouldn't stop a sneeze from breaking through a tissue.

White puma truckers cap, tats, soul patch, ratty college necklace...

The BRO is strong with this one.

What was the broadcast date of that History channel show?

I'd be amazed and genuinely impressed if there was still room for some, you know, actual History on the channel instead of "Ice Road Truckers" or whatever other nonsense. But I bet this is quite old...

Huh...the car actually slams into him on purpose to avoid rear-ending the other semi...that is humorous because it was 100% intentional. You see the car jerk, and I watched it multiple times to see if he hit something beforehand that would cause it to swerve and no, it did not...that is one hell of a felony.

Just because he lost the fight he pulled that bullshit? Whoa, I would have hated to see some kid's brains splattered on the street because someone purposely rammed another vehicle while being a dick...might have been road rage or w/e...

As far as the gap closing, yeah, it is pretty obvious the trucker doesn't want the car to cut in front of him when it isn't legal or right for that to happen. The trucker has this right because it is this forced-tailgating when people merge that causes accidents. HE OBVIOUSLY MAKES AN EDUCATED GUESS THAT THE DUMB BITCH WON'T RAM HIM, but he is proven wrong.

The ironic thing is that without video footage, this would go 100% in favor of the trucker. All he would have to say is that he hit his brakes and tried to avoid it. With the video footage, he can't.

And he audibly boasts about how he's going to get the other driver with the video footage. Talk about self-hoisting via petard.

So, I am an auto liability adjuster. I do this for a living--I take statements from drivers and witnesses, review damage and, when it's available, I watch videos of car accidents to see where fault lies.

In this particular accident, it seems pretty obvious that both parties contributed to some degree or another. The VW's driver was obviously making an unsafe lane change. However, the trucker had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, and from the audio in the cab was clearly distracted by a cell phone. The truck thus contributed by failing to maintain driver attention.


So we're going to need to assess partial negligence on both driver's. So, how much will we need to assess, and what does that mean for how much each person might or might not get paid?

In terms of negligence law, Texas is a Modified Comparative state under the Not Greater Than rule. What this means is that in order to recover money from the other party, you cannot have more responsibility than they do in order to recover any money. But you can only recover the percentage that the other party is at fault. So if it's 50/50, each party gets half of their costs from the other party. If it's 51/49, one person owes the other guy 51%, but the other guy doesn't owe a dime.

In this case, 50/50 would be a likely and attractive option for the insurance companies. Both parties clearly contributed, and each party had equal opportunity to avoid the loss, so each insurance company would pay the other 50%.

The gross negligence of the driver of the pickup is such that I don't see less than 50% negligence on that driver. However, I can see the car's insurance company arguing for a higher responsibility on the truck.

When the car puts on the signal and starts moving over, there is clearly room to move over without striking the truck. The car starts moving over, and the truck starts to overtake the VW. The trucker was closing the distance with the traffic ahead. The VW appears to hit their brakes as the traffic ahead is slowing down--but the trucker doesn't, and appears to be accelerating.

Moreover, as the driver of the larger vehicle, the trucker has a greater duty to maintain driver attention and avoid accidents, as a mistake on his part has greater likelihood of causing more serious physical damage, and severe bodily injury or death.

I believe that it would be justified to put a slight majority on the truck, 60-70%. This would be my preference. So they would owe for 60-70% of the VW's damages. The trucker will have to go through his own insurance or pay out of pocket for his damages.

Negative, chief.

1) If you turn up the volume and listen closely, you can hear him change gears right before he starts accelerating. Are you really claiming it's not possible for a big-rig to change to a higher gear and put their foot down on the gas in a way that it would increase its speed?

2) The Nissan in front of him wasn't slowing down.

3) From all my years as a rambling man in the trucking game hauling loads down winding roads from Anaheim to New Orleans, truckers know full well how to teach a blonde bitch a lesson usually with the voice of CB Savage (look it up) in the back of their mind. If he wasn't trying to scare or collide, he could have slowed to prevent the accident. Unless you're saying big-rigs are also not capable of slowing down.

I love how passionate everybody is about debating traffic. How cute we all are.

I don't know... they both suck. Trucker on his phone cruising in the left lane like a lazy piece of shit. And then the VW trying to pass on the right and cut in where there wasn't room.

And the trucker didn't speed up - the traffic flow slowed down.