5 ms·

Dude. It's not a "low effort comment" to point that out, it's literally the law. If you can't stop when the person in front of you stops, you're too close. Incr

by Zanni 5y ago

Dude. It's not a "low effort comment" to point that out, it's literally the law. If you can't stop when the person in front of you stops, you're too close. Increase your following distance. Don't let others bad habits justify your own.

HWR_14 5y ago
> If you can't stop when the person in front of you stops, you're too close If the other driver decides to randomly brake in the middle of the road (as some Teslas have been known to do), it's not necessarily the person behind's fault.
- speedgoose 5y ago
  In my part of the world, it's always the person's behind fault.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    This is changing with dash-cams. If the other person has a dash-cam you are not free to do unreasonably things and then weasel out of being on the hook on the basis of the front of their car hitting the rear of yours. Of course, if there were witnesses this has always been the case.
    - speedgoose 5y ago
      If the dashcam shown the driver following too closely and failing to brake in time, I'm not sure a dashcam will help. But sure you can't reverse into someone.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Really? In most states and EU countries its not. It's assumed to be the person behind's fault at first, but that's a heuristic, not a necessary assignment.
- diggernet 5y ago
  It absolutely is. If the person behind was unable to avoid collision, then the collision occurred because they were following too closely. It doesn't matter whether it was a Tesla phantom-braking, or a human slamming on the brakes to avoid hitting a dog. It is always the driver's responsibility to maintain enough distance that they can safely respond to any action taken by the vehicle ahead.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >It absolutely is. If the person behind was unable to avoid collision, then the collision occurred because they were following too closely. This is infantile circular logic. It makes for great internet feel good points an little else. What the other car was doing absolutely matters. Plenty of people have brake checked their way into an accident and wound up paying for it because there were witnesses. >It is always the driver's responsibility to maintain enough distance that they can safely respond to any action taken by the vehicle ahead Citation please. I'm particularly interested in one that backs up the word that you thought was important enough to italicize. My state places no specific requirement for following distance upon drivers. The state driver's manual states a suggested minimum of two seconds. I spot checked two other states and their drivers' manuals advise similar (one advised three seconds, one advised a variable number depending on speed), neither said anything about being able to account for anything the car in front of you does.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Yes, yes it is a low effort comment. And it is exactly what I was trying to preempt. It adds exactly zero to the conversation to say "but the law" or "but drivers ed" or "but some proverbial rule of thumb". For better or worse neither your fantasy of how people ought to act nor the letter of the law is reflective of how the overwhelming majority of the human population operators motor vehicles or expects others to. Is it ideal? Probably not. But it's a decent balance between being somewhat prepared for the expected traffic oddities, leaving margin for some subset of the unexpected and efficient use of road space. I'm sure this will be an unpopular comment because there is no shortage of people here who think humans adhere to laws the way a network switch adheres to its configuration but the reality is that there is not perfect alignment between how reasonable traffic participants behave and the letter of the law.
- Zanni 5y ago
  You could have pre-empted it by not making such a claim in the first place, and I abhor your attempt to normalize this dangerous behavior. It is not a "delicate balance." Increase your follow distance. Driving closer to the car in front of you gains you nothing but sacrifices valuable reaction time in the event of an emergency.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Take your high horse and turn it into glue. I'm not attempting to normalize anything. Look outside, it's already normalized. It is the current status quo. I'm not endorsing it. I'm simply asking you to not to pretend otherwise so you can pretend to be outraged at someone who failed to avoid an accident because they were driving like typical people drive.
- trav4225 5y ago
  I think that some of us would argue that these are not "reasonable traffic participants". People who do not maintain sufficient stopping distance are one of the most frustrating parts of the American driving experience and are (IMO) extremely disruptive to safe travel, especially on highways.

by Zanni 5y ago

HWR_14 5y ago

> If you can't stop when the person in front of you stops, you're too close If the other driver decides to randomly brake in the middle of the road (as some Teslas have been known to do), it's not necessarily the person behind's fault.

speedgoose 5y ago
In my part of the world, it's always the person's behind fault.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  This is changing with dash-cams. If the other person has a dash-cam you are not free to do unreasonably things and then weasel out of being on the hook on the basis of the front of their car hitting the rear of yours. Of course, if there were witnesses this has always been the case.
  - speedgoose 5y ago
    If the dashcam shown the driver following too closely and failing to brake in time, I'm not sure a dashcam will help. But sure you can't reverse into someone.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Really? In most states and EU countries its not. It's assumed to be the person behind's fault at first, but that's a heuristic, not a necessary assignment.
diggernet 5y ago
It absolutely is. If the person behind was unable to avoid collision, then the collision occurred because they were following too closely. It doesn't matter whether it was a Tesla phantom-braking, or a human slamming on the brakes to avoid hitting a dog. It is always the driver's responsibility to maintain enough distance that they can safely respond to any action taken by the vehicle ahead.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >It absolutely is. If the person behind was unable to avoid collision, then the collision occurred because they were following too closely. This is infantile circular logic. It makes for great internet feel good points an little else. What the other car was doing absolutely matters. Plenty of people have brake checked their way into an accident and wound up paying for it because there were witnesses. >It is always the driver's responsibility to maintain enough distance that they can safely respond to any action taken by the vehicle ahead Citation please. I'm particularly interested in one that backs up the word that you thought was important enough to italicize. My state places no specific requirement for following distance upon drivers. The state driver's manual states a suggested minimum of two seconds. I spot checked two other states and their drivers' manuals advise similar (one advised three seconds, one advised a variable number depending on speed), neither said anything about being able to account for anything the car in front of you does.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Yes, yes it is a low effort comment. And it is exactly what I was trying to preempt. It adds exactly zero to the conversation to say "but the law" or "but drivers ed" or "but some proverbial rule of thumb". For better or worse neither your fantasy of how people ought to act nor the letter of the law is reflective of how the overwhelming majority of the human population operators motor vehicles or expects others to. Is it ideal? Probably not. But it's a decent balance between being somewhat prepared for the expected traffic oddities, leaving margin for some subset of the unexpected and efficient use of road space. I'm sure this will be an unpopular comment because there is no shortage of people here who think humans adhere to laws the way a network switch adheres to its configuration but the reality is that there is not perfect alignment between how reasonable traffic participants behave and the letter of the law.

Zanni 5y ago
You could have pre-empted it by not making such a claim in the first place, and I abhor your attempt to normalize this dangerous behavior. It is not a "delicate balance." Increase your follow distance. Driving closer to the car in front of you gains you nothing but sacrifices valuable reaction time in the event of an emergency.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Take your high horse and turn it into glue. I'm not attempting to normalize anything. Look outside, it's already normalized. It is the current status quo. I'm not endorsing it. I'm simply asking you to not to pretend otherwise so you can pretend to be outraged at someone who failed to avoid an accident because they were driving like typical people drive.
trav4225 5y ago
I think that some of us would argue that these are not "reasonable traffic participants". People who do not maintain sufficient stopping distance are one of the most frustrating parts of the American driving experience and are (IMO) extremely disruptive to safe travel, especially on highways.