Cybertruck sideswiped on highway. ROAD RAGE?

[Jethro]

Maybe the guy is a jerk, but people who intentionally travel in the passing lane are also jerks ?‍

I TOTALLY AGREE!

-People are also jerks for intentionally not allowing someone to pass, particularly if they are going under the speed limit.

-This forum has been great for the most part with valuable insights and perspectives…I mostly just read. A good analogy is “trying to cure cancer in the line at Starbucks”...there is not a vetting process, perspectives can range from knowlegble/genius or ignorant/angry to just bored/frustrated.

-The answer I may never have is whether the other drivers are accidental or criminal

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

But to deny the OP accelerated strongly right before impact is to deny reality.

Even if the OP did change speed, the lane ahead was clear, and there was nothing wrong with him doing so.

Assuming he did accelerate: then even if he had instead maintained speed, the perpetrator was already moving faster to overtake, and still would have collided (or possibly missed by inches), which still makes it an unsafe and illegal lane change.

The vehicle with the right-of-way bears no responsibility for mitigating the unsafe actions of other vehicles.

 

[REM]

Even if the OP did change speed, the lane ahead was clear, and there was nothing wrong with him doing so.

Assuming he did accelerate: then even if had instead maintained speed, the perpetrator was already moving faster to overtake, and still would have collided (or possibly missed by inches), which still makes it an unsafe and illegal lane change.

The vehicle with the right-of-way bears no responsibility for mitigating the unsafe actions of other vehicles.

Spot on.

 

[Cyber Man]

Even if the OP did change speed, the lane ahead was clear, and there was nothing wrong with him doing so.

Assuming he did accelerate: then even if had instead maintained speed, the perpetrator was already moving faster to overtake, and still would have collided (or possibly missed by inches), which still makes it an unsafe and illegal lane change.

The vehicle with the right-of-way bears no responsibility for mitigating the unsafe actions of other vehicles.

Absolutely spot on! I couldn’t have said this better.

I would also say that if a reckless driver is in your right side blind spot entering your lane without an indicator, you better accelerate to avoid deadly pit maneuver. It’s a very dangerous situation. Pit maneuvers at high speed can cause fatalities. OP hasn’t broken any law even if he accelerated in the passing lane to avoid a collision. He didn’t do that but even if he did that, it’s a smart thing to do to avoid a fatal crash. You can’t slow down at that time. Accelerating is the only way. When I mentioned this earlier, I was told that I lack common sense and don’t have much experience! lol ?

That minivan switched lane three times in 90 seconds and tried to pass from right. Totally reckless and against the law to pass from right side without an indicator.

I also noticed that the rear camera view doesn’t change angle before the crash. So, OP didn’t accelerate. If nose is up, rear should tilt. The offsets that you see in rear view is same throughout. I’m not a forensic video expert, but I do believe that OP is saying the truth. Even if he accelerated, he didn’t break any law. Either ways, we are just going in circles to say there was no fault from OP’s side.

It’s very unfortunate that he came to the forum to find some guidance and help, but instead he had to spend energy proving he didn’t break the law! Such a shame.

 

[CyberGus]

I TOTALLY AGREE!

-People are also jerks for intentionally not allowing someone to pass, particularly if they are going under the speed limit.

-This forum has been great for the most part with valuable insights and perspectives…I mostly just read. A good analogy is “trying to cure cancer in the line at Starbucks”...there is not a vetting process, perspectives can range from knowlegble/genius or ignorant/angry to just bored/frustrated.

-The answer I may never have is whether the other drivers are accidental or criminal

 

[HaulingAss]

Even if the OP did change speed, the lane ahead was clear, and there was nothing wrong with him doing so.

Assuming he did accelerate: then even if he had instead maintained speed, the perpetrator was already moving faster to overtake, and still would have collided (or possibly missed by inches), which still makes it an unsafe and illegal lane change.

The vehicle with the right-of-way bears no responsibility for mitigating the unsafe actions of other vehicles.

Again, you are speaking from a legalistic perspective. I'm simply saying that from a practical standpoint, the accident wouldn't have happened without that burst of acceleration 1.5 to 2 seconds before impact. It's never smart to try to prevent someone from getting around you, no matter how much you defend the legality of it. And for the hundredth time, yes, the driver of the minivan is an idiot driver with poor driver skills.

 

[HaulingAss]

I also noticed that the rear camera view doesn’t change angle before the crash. So, OP didn’t accelerate. If nose is up, rear should tilt. The offsets that you see in rear view is same throughout.

The forward camera and the rear facing cameras are hard mounted to the same rigid chassis. So it's nonsensical to say the front camera tilted up but the rear facing camera didn't tilt down. Of course they did. But it will be noticeable much more in a full screen view than in a thumbnail view. And that difference will be magnified if the front camera has a narrower field of view than the rear facing camera.

People are trying to bend glass to fit their preferred narrative. That's not how letting the facts guide your analysis works.

 

[Cyber Man]

The forward camera and the rear facing cameras are hard mounted to the same rigid chassis. So it's nonsensical to say the front camera tilted up but the rear facing camera didn't tilt down. Of course they did. But it will be noticeable much more in a full screen view than in a thumbnail view. And that difference will be magnified if the front camera has a narrower field of view than the rear facing camera.

People are trying to bend glass to fit their preferred narrative. That's not how letting the facts guide your analysis works.

I watched it several times in 27” screen. I can watch again in my 110” screen. It won’t make any difference. In the rear view, I used the distance between the top of the screen and the beginning of the road horizon to see whether CT nosed up. The vehicle appeared flat all along, but again I’m not Sherlock Holmes. Seems like the only person who is twisting facts to fit your feelings is you, lol! ?

Seriously my friend - first you claimed that OP was breaking law by cruising in the passing lane. Once that myth is busted, you are arguing that OP is at fault for accelerating in the passing lane. As many explained above, even if that happened it’s irrelevant.

It’s clear you don’t have much experience driving around reckless drivers. If OP had accelerated, this accident would have never happened. In 2 seconds, the Beast would have been several feet away from the minivan. I ride motorcycles that do 0-60 under 3 secs. I can cross 3 cars under 2 seconds if I do hard acceleration even at 70 mph. Have you tried to do hard acceleration on these vehicles at highway speed? I’m not talking about AWD. Just try Beast or BMW S1000RR. 0-60 under 3 secs is an insanely fast vehicle. It’s incredible how much distance they can cover with a hard acceleration. I ride with friends who do these. Even at 80 mph, when they open full throttle, they will disappear in just seconds. Now please don’t say the OP was not in Beast mode! lol ?

Assuming that this is not a road rage, what would you have done in OP’s situation (last 5 secs only), knowing that someone is about to pit maneuver you illegally from the right-hand lane from behind? Would you stay there as a sitting duck waiting to be pit maneuvered at 60+ mph? I wish OP accelerated to avoid this crash. He didn’t expect anyone from the right lane. If he had a Time Machine to go back and drive again, he might have accelerated to save his Beast. I would have definitely done that! Mind you, the minivan came from behind at high speed and entered passing lane from behind (and not across side by side). This is very important to understand. What you say makes sense if two drivers are neck to neck. In this case, minivan came at reckless speed from behind. You can’t slow down in this circumstance. Slowing down would increase the relative speed and minivan would have rear ended.

 

[Cyber Man]

Assuming that this is not a road rage, what would you have done in OP’s situation (last 5 secs only), knowing that someone is about to pit maneuver you illegally from the right-hand lane from behind?

@HaulingAss - before you say that OP accelerated only hard enough to cause the accident, I have to mention that the only way to nose up a 6000 lbs heavy vehicle traveling at 60+ mph is to fully floor down the pedal. With that instant torque for 2 seconds, CT would have been several feet away from the minivan. You might come up with some illogical explanation to counter argue for the sake of being right. I implore you to please go drive/ride any vehicle that does 0-60 under 3 secs, open the full throttle at 60 mph for 2 secs (of course do it safely), and watch how much distance it covers. If you still believe OP drove recklessly, I don’t know what else to say other than calling this is as the best example of someone twisting facts to fit their feelings! ?‍?

 

[HaulingAss]

@HaulingAss - before you say that OP accelerated only hard enough to cause the accident, I have to mention that the only way to nose up a 6000 lbs heavy vehicle traveling at 60+ mph is to fully floor down the pedal. With that instant torque for 2 seconds, CT would have been several feet away from the minivan. You might come up with some illogical explanation to counter argue for the sake of being right. I implore you to please go drive/ride any vehicle that does 0-60 under 3 secs, open the full throttle at 60 mph for 2 secs (of course do it safely), and watch how much distance it covers.

This is getting weird. There are so many fallacies embedding in your last two posts I don't even want to cover them all.

You agree that the chassis of the Cybertruck angled upward on the front camera but deny the back camera angled downward, even though both cameras are attached to a rigid chassis.

You have an "all or nothing" attitude of how much acceleration it takes to cause the nose of the Cyberbeast to rise. Your "proof" requires me to believe that only a fully floored Cyberbeast would take on a nose-high attitude. Which is obviously not how it works.

I follow the actual evidence. Therefore, I'm not willing to assume that nose suddenly rising up was due to the OP flooring the Cyberbeast (it would only require a sudden acceleration of enough magnitude to overcome the stiction on the suspension).

I really don't have time for such illogical arguments. The video evidence is clear, the OP suddenly accelerated about 1.5 seconds before impact. If you think that was a good idea, or you want to believe it didn't happen, that's your prerogative. And mine is to not have silly arguments, if that's the most sense you can make.

 

[mongo]

Again, you are speaking from a legalistic perspective. I'm simply saying that from a practical standpoint, the accident wouldn't have happened without that burst of acceleration 1.5 to 2 seconds before impact. It's never smart to try to prevent someone from getting around you, no matter how much you defend the legality of it. And for the hundredth time, yes, the driver of the minivan is an idiot driver with poor driver skills.

Rewatching, the visual clue used to interpret acceleration could be due to a combination of the iPhone re-recording panning up slightly (watch lower edge of video), the road grade changing at the peak of a rise, and more critically, the vehicle shifting in its lane. Shifting left -> barrier lower in shot -> looks like camera rises
look at the barrier and yellow line position relative to the left camera box:

 

[CyberGus]

Rewatching, the visual clue used to interpret acceleration could be due to a combination of the iPhone re-recording panning up slightly (watch lower edge of video), the road grade changing at the peak of a rise, and more critically, the vehicle shifting in its lane. Shifting left -> barrier lower in shot -> looks like camera rises
look at the barrier and yellow line position relative to the left camera box:

For fun I floored it (well, "AWD floored it" lol) and couldn't really visualize a "nose-high" effect on the video. Between the low CoG and self-leveling air suspension, the truck stays mostly level.

I've seen videos of Beasts launching off the line, and there's definitely a noticeable shift from an outside observer, but the internal cameras are not a great measure of in-flight acceleration.

 

[Cyber Man]

For fun I floored it (well, "AWD floored it" lol) and couldn't really visualize a "nose-high" effect on the video. Between the low CoG and self-leveling air suspension, the truck stays mostly level.

I've seen videos of Beasts launching off the line, and there's definitely a noticeable shift from an outside observer, but the internal cameras are not a great measure of in-flight acceleration.

I’m glad you tried. Probably it’s possible only in Fast and Furious ?. People think it’s easy to nose up a vehicle. I can do wheelies on a motorcycle, but I cannot get the front wheel lift off even by few inches at 60 mph. You need lot of force at higher speeds to nose up any vehicle. That’s what I tried to clarify in the previous post. If you have to nose up a 6000 lbs vehicle at 60 mph, you absolutely have to fully floor down the pedal. Moderate acceleration won’t cut it. If you do that on a Beast, it would have covered way more distance than what we see in the video.

 

[HaulingAss]

For fun I floored it (well, "AWD floored it" lol) and couldn't really visualize a "nose-high" effect on the video. Between the low CoG and self-leveling air suspension, the truck stays mostly level.

I've seen videos of Beasts launching off the line, and there's definitely a noticeable shift from an outside observer, but the internal cameras are not a great measure of in-flight acceleration.

1) Put your Dual Motor in "Comfort".

2) Cruise along at 65 mph, then suddenly floor it.

3) Provide us with the video from your front camera.

Yes, the Cybertruck has a very composed controlled ride. No, you can't do a sudden acceleration and not have it show up on the forward-looking camera.

 

[HaulingAss]

Rewatching, the visual clue used to interpret acceleration could be due to a combination of the iPhone re-recording panning up slightly (watch lower edge of video), the road grade changing at the peak of a rise, and more critically, the vehicle shifting in its lane. Shifting left -> barrier lower in shot -> looks like camera rises
look at the barrier and yellow line position relative to the left camera box:

Watching the original 4 second video, I think you will see this is not the case. Put your cursor on the car up by the bridge and play the video. You will see there is no appreciable side-to side motion until impact happens.

This is also one more way to verify the way the nose suddenly rose due to acceleration and remained there until impact.

I appreciate you looking at this from a fact-based perspective, and trying to find an alternate explanation, that doesn't require a sudden acceleration, but I think if you examine this theory more thoroughly, it doesn't hold together.

One method to examine the possibility of phone movement creating the illusion that the nose suddenly rose, and remained high, is to compare the distance of the bottom of the concrete jersey barrier to the inset video thumbnail of the left camera through the duration of the original 4 second video. The conclusion is clear. The video doesn't lie.

Putting your cursor on the small car in the background as the 4 second video plays is quite useful to debunk the idea that it could all be an illusion caused by the Cybertruck shifting to the left. That happens, but not until the point of impact.

Sponsored