Counterflowing Jaguar driver enrages netizens

[Monseratto]

Popcorn please...:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[jick.cejoco]

Popcorn please...:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Would you care for some fries with that?

[boybi]

Pag hindi sana lumabas yung driver ng jaguar and sumigaw, palagay ko hindi malalagay sa social media ito.

Honestly, nagagawa kong magovertake ng ganyan if natatae ako. Pero hindi ako tututok sa kasalubong, I make sure makaka merge ako sa lane ko before may sumalubong sa akin.

Also, kaya cool lang yung driver ng dashcam is because alam nyang naka record and balak nyang i-post sa social media.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pag hindi sana lumabas yung driver ng jaguar and sumigaw, palagay ko hindi malalagay sa social media ito.

Honestly, nagagawa kong magovertake ng ganyan if natatae ako. Pero hindi ako tututok sa kasalubong, I make sure makaka merge ako sa lane ko before may sumalubong sa akin.

Also, kaya cool lang yung driver ng dashcam is because alam nyang naka record and balak nyang i-post sa social media.

[noitimed]

Naisip ko lang.

1. Same scenario. Counterflowing jaguar driver, caught in cam throwing invectives posted in FB din. Ang pagkakaiba lang location. Say: Hongkong or Singapore or Japan or USA. What do you guys think will happen?

2. Same scenario pilipinas din. Pero hindi Jaguar, but jeepney driver.

[e2romo]

Or baka yung nagtatanggol sa jaguar driver eh ganun din kayo? Can't accept the fact that mali yung ginagawa nyo?

Ito rin naiisip ko actually.

[gundam]

Sayang lang yung paint.
Registered owner still liable.
Result pa din ng Corruption sa LTO.
kung di kaya sariling disiplina, estado dapat magdisiplina sa tao.

[erick_214]

Kung sakali naman nakikita ko na talagang gusto nyang bumalik sa lane nya eh palalampasin ko na lang siya, I'll give way. Kaso nga lang sya pa galit at walang modo..!

[vvti2.0]

Masyado delikado ginawa ni dashcam owner, paano kung niratrat sya agad nun.

Under sa law, mayroon tinatawag na last clear chance, kahit pa nasa right of way ka, kung ikaw yung may paraan para umiwas, dapat pagbigyan mo yung nasa mali.

Mas kup*l lang talaga si Jaguar driver kasi bumaba pa sya at nagmura, pero mali rin yung dashcam owner, sya yung pwede mag giveway, dapat nag giveway na sya.

Hindi naman yan usapan kung sino mas lalaki sa kanila hehehehe...

[RomeoAlpha]

Masyado delikado ginawa ni dashcam owner, paano kung niratrat sya agad nun.

Under sa law, mayroon tinatawag na last clear chance, kahit pa nasa right of way ka, kung ikaw yung may paraan para umiwas, dapat pagbigyan mo yung nasa mali.

Mas kup*l lang talaga si Jaguar driver kasi bumaba pa sya at nagmura, pero mali rin yung dashcam owner, sya yung pwede mag giveway, dapat nag giveway na sya.

Hindi naman yan usapan kung sino mas lalaki sa kanila hehehehe...

i beg to differ, Sir.

tama may provision na ganyan, pero huminto si FD driver in which he provides the jaguar ample space to return to his lane. kung nagkabanggaan talo sure si jaguar kasi nakahinto na si FD dumiretso pa din siya.

wala din sa batas na nakasaad yung pagbigyan mo yung may mali. ginagamit lang itong argument para marule out ang homicide case for example - accident sa expressway wherein nakasagasa ka ng pedestrian.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Masyado delikado ginawa ni dashcam owner, paano kung niratrat sya agad nun.

Under sa law, mayroon tinatawag na last clear chance, kahit pa nasa right of way ka, kung ikaw yung may paraan para umiwas, dapat pagbigyan mo yung nasa mali.

Mas kup*l lang talaga si Jaguar driver kasi bumaba pa sya at nagmura, pero mali rin yung dashcam owner, sya yung pwede mag giveway, dapat nag giveway na sya.

Hindi naman yan usapan kung sino mas lalaki sa kanila hehehehe...

i beg to differ, Sir.

tama may provision na ganyan, pero huminto si FD driver in which he provides the jaguar ample space to return to his lane. kung nagkabanggaan talo sure si jaguar kasi nakahinto na si FD dumiretso pa din siya.

wala din sa batas na nakasaad yung pagbigyan mo yung may mali. ginagamit lang itong argument para marule out ang homicide case for example - accident sa expressway wherein nakasagasa ka ng pedestrian.

[beginnerz]

i beg to differ, Sir.

tama may provision na ganyan, pero huminto si FD driver in which he provides the jaguar ample space to return to his lane. kung nagkabanggaan talo sure si jaguar kasi nakahinto na si FD dumiretso pa din siya.

wala din sa batas na nakasaad yung pagbigyan mo yung may mali. ginagamit lang itong argument para marule out ang homicide case for example - accident sa expressway wherein nakasagasa ka ng pedestrian.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



i beg to differ, Sir.

tama may provision na ganyan, pero huminto si FD driver in which he provides the jaguar ample space to return to his lane. kung nagkabanggaan talo sure si jaguar kasi nakahinto na si FD dumiretso pa din siya.

wala din sa batas na nakasaad yung pagbigyan mo yung may mali. ginagamit lang itong argument para marule out ang homicide case for example - accident sa expressway wherein nakasagasa ka ng pedestrian.

Wat if niratrat nga sya agad ni jaguar driver? Ive experienced these kind of a$$holes, and what i do is i just kept my mouth shut. Stood my ground. Wala nang reply sa mga pinagssabi nung jaguar driver. Pg meron nang chance or may space na para umalis, umalis ka na. Wat if kasama mo family mo dba? Iisipin mo pa ba yung law? Im not saying that we should tolerate these kinda of behavior , pero life is the more important. Just my 2cents.

[CVT]

Masyado delikado ginawa ni dashcam owner, paano kung niratrat sya agad nun.

Under sa law, mayroon tinatawag na last clear chance, kahit pa nasa right of way ka, kung ikaw yung may paraan para umiwas, dapat pagbigyan mo yung nasa mali.

Mas kup*l lang talaga si Jaguar driver kasi bumaba pa sya at nagmura, pero mali rin yung dashcam owner, sya yung pwede mag giveway, dapat nag giveway na sya.

Hindi naman yan usapan kung sino mas lalaki sa kanila hehehehe...

Iyan ang pinakamalaking palpak sa batas trapiko ng Pilipinas,- iyang vng*s na provision ng LAST CLEAR CHANCE....

Kaya,- ang lalakas ng loob at inaabuso ng mga g*gong kapwa natin drivers....

Kung sa ibang bansa iyan (alam ko,- sa US),- bubungguin iyang Jaguar ng driver na may dashcam,- at talo ang Jaguar sa korte....

Dahil,- mali siya(ang Jaguar) ng linya...


"The measure of a man is what he does with power" LJIOHF!

26.2K _/_/_/_/_/:shower:_/_/_/_/_/

[ClaNker]

Iyan ang pinakamalaking palpak sa batas trapiko ng Pilipinas,- iyang vng*s na provision ng LAST CLEAR CHANCE....

Kaya,- ang lalakas ng loob at inaabuso ng mga g*gong kapwa natin drivers....

Kung sa ibang bansa iyan (alam ko,- sa US),- bubungguin iyang Jaguar ng driver na may dashcam,- at talo ang Jaguar sa korte....

Dahil,- mali siya(ang Jaguar) ng linya...


"The measure of a man is what he does with power" LJIOHF!

26.2K _/_/_/_/_/:shower:_/_/_/_/_/

Mismo bro.

Kaya dumadami ang kupal dahil sa mga batas na sinulat ng mga kupal na pulintiko na binoto ng kupal na mamayan. Kahit ikaw ang nasa tama ay mali ka pa rin sa mata ng batas trapiko. Lalo na pag ang naka engkwentro mo eh yang si jaguar driver o isang paawa epek na mamamayan.

[ClaNker]

Masyado delikado ginawa ni dashcam owner, paano kung niratrat sya agad nun.

Under sa law, mayroon tinatawag na last clear chance, kahit pa nasa right of way ka, kung ikaw yung may paraan para umiwas, dapat pagbigyan mo yung nasa mali.

Mas kup*l lang talaga si Jaguar driver kasi bumaba pa sya at nagmura, pero mali rin yung dashcam owner, sya yung pwede mag giveway, dapat nag giveway na sya.

Hindi naman yan usapan kung sino mas lalaki sa kanila hehehehe...

Corrupt culture.

[holdencaulfield]

Medyo ot lang: Guys question lang, kung kayo b ang nasa shoes ni dashcam driver, ganon din ba gagawin nyo? And if, wat if mainit ulo ni jaguar driver non at me baril tinutukan kayo ano na gagawin nyo after?

magbi break dance ako sa harap niya. showdown na lang kami sa dance floor.

yun nga lang baka lalong mabuwisit?

[benchman]

magbi break dance ako sa harap niya. showdown na lang kami sa dance floor.

yun nga lang baka lalong mabuwisit?

yebah! :hysterical:

[iceblueyes]

magbi break dance ako sa harap niya. showdown na lang kami sa dance floor.

yun nga lang baka lalong mabuwisit?

Sa lahat ng nagsasabi na pwede naman pagbigyan etc... I agree, sa dami na nanyayari at sa dami ng siraulo it might be safer/"smarter" to just avoid it altogether. I myself had encountered alot of counterflows especially whenever I travel from Q.ave into D.tuazon and most of the time I change lane and go, mostly because I don't have the time or energy to confront these a-holes, I do, however, give all of them the horn and the middle-finger salute.

Pero in this case, don't "excuse" what the jaguar did. Kasi for the most of it maliit na bagay nga naman yung nangyari, happens all the time here sa pinas. Except duon sa point na yung nagtutukan na sila, na instead of nag try na lang ni Jaguar na pumasok sa lane niya e nagtapang-tapangan pa siya, duon inexcusable na ginawa niya. And the dash-cam driver did not have to do anything, he gave the jaguar ample space so it was all the jaguar driver's fault, he was almost at full stop then the jaguar decided to aggressively move forward and have his confrontation.

[Juan Martinez]

At 0:14, the Jaguar, apparently in the middle of the street, followed an SUV (Expedition), at the far right of the dash camera. Take note of the position of the taxi on the right side. Its position could be two or three cars distance from the car with the dashcam. Take note also of the white Innova on the left followed by another white wagon.



At 0:15, a half of the body of the SUV had merged with the onrushing traffic, but the Jaguar still maneuvered to get in. The taxi on the right was a car or two distance from the dashcam. The white Innova shown at frame 0:14 already passed by and the station wagon was almost parallel to the taxi on the right. At this juncture, it seemed that the car with the dashcam had accelerated quite a bit or did not slow down.



At 0:16, three-fourth of the body of the SUV had already merged in with the flow, but the Jaguar was still maneuvering to merge and was already counterflowing sideways. Please take note that the backside of the white wagon on the left was still visible while the taxi on the right was already a half-car distance, more or less, from dashcam. At this slide, the back-up car of the Jaguar was already visible.



Another 0:16 frame, at this point, the front left and rear left tires of the SUV were on the yellow lanes, while the Jaguar was still trying to negotiate. It could not successfully do so, because, as shown in the next frame, there was a passing Honda Civic directly on its right path.

[Juan Martinez]

At 0:17, the Honda Civic behind the SUV was already visible at this point. The Jaguar was still trying to merge with the traffic, while the back-up Innova was on its tail had crossed the white lane. The taxi on the right was still visible. The distance that separates from the dashcam and the Jaguar could only be three cars apart, as borne out by the SUV followed by the Honda Civic on the left and the taxi on the right. At this point, the car with dashcam had stood its ground.



Another 0:17 frame, two cars distance.



At 0:18, only a car apart. It was at this point that the Jaguar veered a little bit to its left and stopped. The driver got out, already mad. And at 0:23 pointed his finger and said something.



Please take note at 0:14 we could surmise that the car with the dashcam already saw the SUV followed by the Jaguar crossed his line of sight, and at 0:15 and 0:16 he could notice that the Jaguar was trying to merge with the traffic. THAT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TWO SECONDS.



Yes, it is true that the Jaguar had counterflowed and the event that followed— Jaguar’s actuations of pointing his finger at the dashcam, shouting and losing altogether mind— could not be countenanced. But under the circumstances, could you not give a little leeway to a fellow motorist who was trying to merge?



He came from that intersection and turned left to merge, and did not counterflow coming from the opposite direction.

[mfabajon]

At 0:17, the Honda Civic behind the SUV was already visible at this point. The Jaguar was still trying to merge with the traffic, while the back-up Innova was on its tail had crossed the white lane. The taxi on the right was still visible. The distance that separates from the dashcam and the Jaguar could only be three cars apart, as borne out by the SUV followed by the Honda Civic on the left and the taxi on the right. At this point, the car with dashcam had stood its ground.



Another 0:17 frame, two cars distance.



At 0:18, only a car apart. It was at this point that the Jaguar veered a little bit to its left and stopped. The driver got out, already mad. And at 0:23 pointed his finger and said something.



Please take note at 0:14 we could surmise that the car with the dashcam already saw the SUV followed by the Jaguar crossed his line of sight, and at 0:15 and 0:16 he could notice that the Jaguar was trying to merge with the traffic. THAT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TWO SECONDS.



Yes, it is true that the Jaguar had counterflowed and the event that followed— Jaguar’s actuations of pointing his finger at the dashcam, shouting and losing altogether mind— could not be countenanced. But under the circumstances, could you not give a little leeway to a fellow motorist who was trying to merge?



He came from that intersection and turned left to merge, and did not counterflow coming from the opposite direction.

I don't get why you insist that the guy with the dashcam is at fault here. He stopped and gave the jaguar ample space to merge with traffic. He didn't honk his horn or did anything aggressive. The jaguar consciously violated the law thinking he can get away with it with his fancy car without consideration for the safety of other motorists. And his act of berating the other driver reinforces this conclusion. In my book, that qualifies as malicious intent.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At 0:17, the Honda Civic behind the SUV was already visible at this point. The Jaguar was still trying to merge with the traffic, while the back-up Innova was on its tail had crossed the white lane. The taxi on the right was still visible. The distance that separates from the dashcam and the Jaguar could only be three cars apart, as borne out by the SUV followed by the Honda Civic on the left and the taxi on the right. At this point, the car with dashcam had stood its ground.



Another 0:17 frame, two cars distance.



At 0:18, only a car apart. It was at this point that the Jaguar veered a little bit to its left and stopped. The driver got out, already mad. And at 0:23 pointed his finger and said something.



Please take note at 0:14 we could surmise that the car with the dashcam already saw the SUV followed by the Jaguar crossed his line of sight, and at 0:15 and 0:16 he could notice that the Jaguar was trying to merge with the traffic. THAT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TWO SECONDS.



Yes, it is true that the Jaguar had counterflowed and the event that followed— Jaguar’s actuations of pointing his finger at the dashcam, shouting and losing altogether mind— could not be countenanced. But under the circumstances, could you not give a little leeway to a fellow motorist who was trying to merge?



He came from that intersection and turned left to merge, and did not counterflow coming from the opposite direction.

I don't get why you insist that the guy with the dashcam is at fault here. He stopped and gave the jaguar ample space to merge with traffic. He didn't honk his horn or did anything aggressive. The jaguar consciously violated the law thinking he can get away with it with his fancy car without consideration for the safety of other motorists. And his act of berating the other driver reinforces this conclusion. In my book, that qualifies as malicious intent.

[Juan Martinez]

I don't get why you insist that the guy with the dashcam is at fault here. He stopped and gave the jaguar ample space to merge with traffic. He didn't honk his horn or did anything aggressive. The jaguar consciously violated the law thinking he can get away with it with his fancy car without consideration for the safety of other motorists. And his act of berating the other driver reinforces this conclusion. In my book, that qualifies as malicious intent.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




I don't get why you insist that the guy with the dashcam is at fault here. He stopped and gave the jaguar ample space to merge with traffic. He didn't honk his horn or did anything aggressive. The jaguar consciously violated the law thinking he can get away with it with his fancy car without consideration for the safety of other motorists. And his act of berating the other driver reinforces this conclusion. In my book, that qualifies as malicious intent.

i did not say it was all the fault of the driver with the dashcam. if you take a good look at it again. he did not stop. he knew that the Jaguar was negotiating to merge at 0:14. he did not stop. look at his distance with the taxi on the right. At 0:14, the taxi was still a little far away from him. he got nearer the taxi at 0:15 and 0:16. it was only a matter of 2 seconds. why could he not give in a little? it seemed he accelerated a little to trap the jaguar. if we think it was malicious, so be it. I respect your opinion. but i think at 0:14, 0:15, or 0:16 he did not have that intention to counterflow, but only somewhere 0:17 or 0:18 when he could not get in anymore and where his anger took him over. again it was only a matter of seconds. he did not come from opposite direction and counterflowed but he came from that intersection and turned left where with all great probability the dashcam driver saw him because he followed a bigger car the SUV at around 0:14. if we don't agree with me let us leave it at that. we are in a court of public opinion where to express one's opinion is free.