3 ms·

To say nothing of the "inconvenience" to the driver who wasn't at fault but would have been assumed to be.

• wongarsu 4y ago
  In which jurisdiction would the rear-ending driver not be at fault? He was either inattentive or failed to maintain proper distance. Sure, driving too close is common, but that doesn't make it right
  • jjav 4y ago
    The car behind who rear ends the car in front has a presumption of being at fault, but if there is evidence to show the car in front caused the accident (say, by brake checking them) then that can change the outcome. Before dash cams, it was very rare for the car behind to be able to show any proof otherwise, so they were usually at fault unless there were credible witnesses of the brake checking. But no, you can't just randomly threshold brake in the middle of the highway for no reason and expect to blame the car behind for your actions (or the actions of your car).
• lostlogin 4y ago
  Surely rear ending a misbehaving Tesla is still the fault of the following car? Or am I misunderstanding you?
• fipar 4y ago
  Where I live (not the US) the only way rear-ending would be the tailing vehicle's fault is if the front vehicle was running in reverse. Otherwise, it's your responsibility to maintain a safe distance form the vehicle ahead, and one should assume this vehicle may stop unexpectedly. You're always at fault if you rear-end someone.
  • gnicholas 4y ago
    IIRC from law school (in the US), the driver of the back car would be rebuttably presumed to be at fault. This presumption could be rebutted, for example, if it were shown that the front car braked hard for no reason whatsoever.