3 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean by "the car behind didn't show turn signal". If you're referring to the pink hatchback that ultimately rear-ended the SUV - the pink

I'm not sure what you mean by "the car behind didn't show turn signal". If you're referring to the pink hatchback that ultimately rear-ended the SUV - the pink hatchback seems to be making a lane change to the right after passing. The driver seems to have signaled and looked to the right to clear his/her blindspot at the same moment the SUV ahead slams on the brakes. It really seems like bad luck, that traffic would suddenly stop at the exact moment the driver of the pink hatchback looks to the right to change lanes.

seletz 10y ago
Well no -- that wasn't bad luck at all. He simply was way too close for the speed. Back in the day when I got my driver's license we were told to have 3 seconds of distance. One second to react one second to brake and one second for safety, if I remember correctly.
- slavik81 10y ago
  Around here they recommend 2s. As part of a science fair project, I measured the following distance of cars on a nearby highway. It's been about 15 years but IIRC, the mode was ~0.5s.
lb1lf 10y ago
> It really seems like bad luck, that traffic would suddenly stop at the exact moment the driver of the pink hatchback looks to the right to change lanes. -Pet peeve of mine: "Bad luck" is incredibly rare in traffic. This accident occurred because the hatchback was too close to the car in front of it; not because of bad luck.
rackbreaker 10y ago
At 0:00 the pink hatchback is well behind the car it's trying to pass. At 0:02 the brake lights of the SUV illuminate; the pink hatchback is still not quite caught up to the car it's trying to pass. Instead of braking, the hatchback keeps accelerating trying to beat the closing gap. No signaling at any time. Looks much more like bad judgment than bad luck.
- albedoa 10y ago
  No signaling at any time. You're just missing the signal. Look at the upper-right of the hatchback at 4 seconds.
  - rackbreaker 10y ago
    Right you are; I was looking in the wrong part of the car.

seletz 10y ago

Well no -- that wasn't bad luck at all. He simply was way too close for the speed. Back in the day when I got my driver's license we were told to have 3 seconds of distance. One second to react one second to brake and one second for safety, if I remember correctly.

slavik81 10y ago
Around here they recommend 2s. As part of a science fair project, I measured the following distance of cars on a nearby highway. It's been about 15 years but IIRC, the mode was ~0.5s.

lb1lf 10y ago

> It really seems like bad luck, that traffic would suddenly stop at the exact moment the driver of the pink hatchback looks to the right to change lanes. -Pet peeve of mine: "Bad luck" is incredibly rare in traffic. This accident occurred because the hatchback was too close to the car in front of it; not because of bad luck.

rackbreaker 10y ago

At 0:00 the pink hatchback is well behind the car it's trying to pass. At 0:02 the brake lights of the SUV illuminate; the pink hatchback is still not quite caught up to the car it's trying to pass. Instead of braking, the hatchback keeps accelerating trying to beat the closing gap. No signaling at any time. Looks much more like bad judgment than bad luck.

albedoa 10y ago
No signaling at any time. You're just missing the signal. Look at the upper-right of the hatchback at 4 seconds.
- rackbreaker 10y ago
  Right you are; I was looking in the wrong part of the car.