3 ms·

Sure. But, in this case, there were three+ cars. The Tesla that stopped, the car immediately behind the Tesla swerved, and the third car ran into the Tesla.

Sure. But, in this case, there were three+ cars. The Tesla that stopped, the car immediately behind the Tesla swerved, and the third car ran into the Tesla. The driver of the third car claims there was nothing he could do. That's baloney, as the car that was EVEN CLOSER to the stopped Tesla was able to react. Fact is, he was following too close and/or not paying attention, and crashed.

iso1631 5y ago
If the driver of car 3 could not see past car 2, and car 2 hadn't realised the Tesla had stopped, and instead swerved out the say 1 second / 90 feet (assume 60mph) before collision, that would give car 2 traveling at a reasonable gap no more than 3 seconds / 270 feet to recognise what was going on and stop. Should have recognised something odd (a broken down car) within 1.5 seconds, leaving 1.5 seconds to slow down. Applying brakes from 60mph would mean you'd still be traveling over 40mph when you hit the back of the car. Thus you need to give more than 2 seconds if you can't see beyond the car in front
dhx 5y ago
I agree that the third car is almost certainly at fault. "Didn't have time to stop" is nonsense in every case except if some idiot cuts into your lane within your safe stopping distance and then immediately brakes. Drivers need to think of every vehicle as being in a moving block[1] signalling system with each block being ~290m long (actual vehicle in the middle of this block) in wet conditions at 110kmh-1[2] and ~230m long in dry conditions at 110kmh-1[2]. No vehicle should ever enter another vehicles moving block. Obviously the type of vehicle, tires, road surface material, etc can reduce (or extend) those required block lengths, but you generally have to assume worst case scenario because how are you to know whether another vehicle has bald tires or is operated by a person who is fatigued or distracted and taking much longer to respond than they should. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_block [2] https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-safely/stopping-distances/graph https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-...

iso1631 5y ago

If the driver of car 3 could not see past car 2, and car 2 hadn't realised the Tesla had stopped, and instead swerved out the say 1 second / 90 feet (assume 60mph) before collision, that would give car 2 traveling at a reasonable gap no more than 3 seconds / 270 feet to recognise what was going on and stop. Should have recognised something odd (a broken down car) within 1.5 seconds, leaving 1.5 seconds to slow down. Applying brakes from 60mph would mean you'd still be traveling over 40mph when you hit the back of the car. Thus you need to give more than 2 seconds if you can't see beyond the car in front

dhx 5y ago

I agree that the third car is almost certainly at fault. "Didn't have time to stop" is nonsense in every case except if some idiot cuts into your lane within your safe stopping distance and then immediately brakes. Drivers need to think of every vehicle as being in a moving block[1] signalling system with each block being ~290m long (actual vehicle in the middle of this block) in wet conditions at 110kmh-1[2] and ~230m long in dry conditions at 110kmh-1[2]. No vehicle should ever enter another vehicles moving block. Obviously the type of vehicle, tires, road surface material, etc can reduce (or extend) those required block lengths, but you generally have to assume worst case scenario because how are you to know whether another vehicle has bald tires or is operated by a person who is fatigued or distracted and taking much longer to respond than they should. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_block [2] https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-safely/stopping-distances/graph https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-...