8 ms·

If it often brakes hard and late to the point that people think you're brake checking them, then you shouldn't be using it. They don't think you're brake checki

If it often brakes hard and late to the point that people think you're brake checking them, then you shouldn't be using it. They don't think you're brake checking them, you ARE brake checking them. Stop being dangerous on the road. This isn't a game.

jjulius 4y ago
>They don't think you're brake checking them, you ARE brake checking them. This is the important part. Doesn't matter what the intent was, the fact of the matter is that the people behind you nearly rear-ended you because of your car's actions. And you, as the driver, never know when you might piss off the wrong driver - brake check the wrong person and suddenly you're in trouble with someone who might not care if you say, "But my car did it, not me! Honest!".
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  I would do pretty bad things to any person who would severely harm or kill my kids for example, and no amount of blaming car electronics or recent update would change that...
  - ericbarrett 4y ago
    My first thought was, what if it's a sheriff, police officer, or state patrol? Now you've got a couple nights in the county lockup, a reckless driving charge (this can be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the severity), and $thousands in towing and impound fees.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      I don't think abrupt braking constitutes reckless driving (maybe it varies by location), and it seems like it would be pretty easy to fight by claiming you saw a deer/etc in the road. If the cop says he didn't see it, you respond with some variation of "unsurprising because you were following me too closely to see anything else". Of course, none of this absolves Tesla from fixing their software.
      - ericbarrett 4y ago
        I can't imagine a cop anywhere in the world responding well to the phrase "unsurprising because you were following me too closely," especially if s/he already thinks you were brake checking them!
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        By the time you're fighting the ticket, it doesn't much matter how the cop reacts.
        ericbarrett 4y ago
        > By the time you're fighting the ticket, it doesn't much matter how the cop reacts. Now you get to add a defense lawyer's trial rate...
  - daedalus_f 4y ago
    In this circumstance (crashing into the back of a tesla breaking hard) you would have been the person primarily to blame. Yes tesla sells a dodgy "autopilot" that does unexpected things (and in my opinion should not be road legal until fixed), but you were tailgating to the point where you couldn’t stop in time. The car behind has to be responsible for maintaining safe separation to the car in front (under reasonable circumstances). edit: The "you" in the above being the hypothetical driver.
    - yupper32 4y ago
      You and the Tesla aren't the only ones on the road. You can't control people behind you being just close enough to not be able to stop. Or having another person behind the Tesla swerve into you when trying to avoid hitting the Tesla. There are plenty of scenarios where you are still impacted by the brake checking Tesla without you being at fault.
    - Escapado 4y ago
      I kind of agree, however at least from my experience in Germany keeping at least the minimum legal distance is an exception rather than the norm. It kinda makes me mad and I wish it was mandatory for all cars to have sensors which would either not allow you to get closer given a certain speed to be in line with the regulations or at least make a really annoying sound so that you simply wouldn't want to. I would bet this would save so many lives.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    There's a difference between doing bad things to prevent someone from hurting your kids and doing bad things to someone who hurt your kids in an accident. Acting in defense is justified, but acting in revenge should rightly land you in legal trouble (including prison depending on the severity of the "bad things").
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Even worse, the person behind you might fail the brake check. I can't believe people are knowingly operating faulty autopilots on public roads. If my car randomly braked I would take it to the mechanic - not continue to drive it.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Autopilot should be fixed, but the problem in your scenario is people trailing others too closely. If you fail phantom braking, you're going to fail real braking whether it's activated by a computer or not.
    - yupper32 4y ago
      Brake checking is (usually) illegal in the US, albeit hard to prove without a dash cam or witnesses. So no, it's not the case that people trailing too closely is the problem. It's the case of the Tesla requiring, without good reason, the car behind them to brake hard to avoid the collision. This is dangerous and (usually) illegal.
      - daedalus_f 4y ago
        Teslas or people in general people should absolutely not break-check, but no, cars that drive so close to the car in front that they cannot safely stop in an emergency are tailgating. I do agree there is some nuance, but it really saddens me that so many comments in this thread are supportive of a form of driving that, while very common, is unsafe for themselves and others. It's a form of normalisation of deviance and I'm sure it costs far more lives than teslas dodgy "autopilot" (even if that too should not be road legal).
        throwaway1851 4y ago
        In metropolitan areas (where I imagine most Teslas are driven), it often just isn’t possible to maintain a textbook-safe following distance. The instant you allow more than the average distance ahead of you, another car will jump in to fill the gap.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  It doesn't make sense to argue that the responsibility for a violent or aggressive interaction stops with the Tesla/etc driver rather than the maniac who responded aggressively. The Tesla/etc driver is responsible for his own driving, as is the person reacting to that driving. Further still, since we're being pedantic about litigating responsibility, the person trailing the Tesla/etc should be leaving plenty of room such that he can comfortably react to abrupt braking (the leading driver might have a good reason for braking quickly!).
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >It doesn't make sense to argue that the responsibility for a violent or aggressive interaction stops with the Tesla/etc driver rather than the maniac who responded aggressively. I never said that the responsibility stops with the Tesla driver. I simply said that it's wise to not put yourself in a situation where you may accidentally piss the wrong person off - this is a general sentiment that applies everywhere in life, really. You don't know if the person you're dealing with is the nicest, most understanding person in the world, or an absolute maniac who's been dealing with some heavy stuff and is one step away from losing their absolute shit. Yes, you're not responsible for someone else's emotions, but you are responsible for how you interact with them. >Further still, since we're being pedantic about litigating responsibility, the person trailing the Tesla/etc should be leaving plenty of room such that he can comfortably react to abrupt braking (the leading driver might have a good reason for braking quickly!). Of course. Surely you'd agree that nuance plays a large role here, though? There are often times where you'll find yourself closer to the back of a car than you'd like, despite your best efforts to maintain plenty of room (eg, someone cuts you off or moves into your lane with less distance than you'd like).
coldtea 4y ago
But it's cool technology. A death or two is worth it /s
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > But it's cool technology. A death or two is worth it /s You're clearly trolling here, but maybe we can reframe this into something worth discussing: does autopilot result in more or fewer deaths per 1M miles driven than the median human driver? That seems like a reasonable threshold/criteria for legalizing the technology.
absnetneg 4y ago
It's not a brake check if the person in front of you is slowing down and your braking is to maintain safe distance. A brake check is braking for the purpose of affecting those behind you. It seems clear he means it is braking due to the slow down ahead.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  > A brake check is braking for the purpose of affecting those behind you. Intent doesn't matter to the person in the other car, who likely is relying on your behavior to some extend to understand traffic ahead. If your driving seems like a brake check and brings in all of the unsafe conditions associated with brake checking, then it's a brake check.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Of course, the unsafe conditions aren't associated with braking, but with the failure of the trailing car to leave adequate room for their own braking. The accident here would happen whether the leading car had a justifiable reason to brake or not, and the trailing driver would be responsible in either case.
  - InvertedRhodium 4y ago
    Unfortunately that just shows the person following was not doing so at a safe distance - any car you're driving behind could perform emergency braking at any moment.
- noirbot 4y ago
  Sure, but if you're doing it far later than a human would have done it, then you're really screwing with the person behind you who isn't an AI with instant response times.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    This is why the law requires people to follow at a safe distance. If you're only leaving room for "instant response times" then you had better have instant response times because you're liable.

jjulius 4y ago

>They don't think you're brake checking them, you ARE brake checking them. This is the important part. Doesn't matter what the intent was, the fact of the matter is that the people behind you nearly rear-ended you because of your car's actions. And you, as the driver, never know when you might piss off the wrong driver - brake check the wrong person and suddenly you're in trouble with someone who might not care if you say, "But my car did it, not me! Honest!".

saiya-jin 4y ago
I would do pretty bad things to any person who would severely harm or kill my kids for example, and no amount of blaming car electronics or recent update would change that...
- ericbarrett 4y ago
  My first thought was, what if it's a sheriff, police officer, or state patrol? Now you've got a couple nights in the county lockup, a reckless driving charge (this can be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the severity), and $thousands in towing and impound fees.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    I don't think abrupt braking constitutes reckless driving (maybe it varies by location), and it seems like it would be pretty easy to fight by claiming you saw a deer/etc in the road. If the cop says he didn't see it, you respond with some variation of "unsurprising because you were following me too closely to see anything else". Of course, none of this absolves Tesla from fixing their software.
    - ericbarrett 4y ago
      I can't imagine a cop anywhere in the world responding well to the phrase "unsurprising because you were following me too closely," especially if s/he already thinks you were brake checking them!
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        By the time you're fighting the ticket, it doesn't much matter how the cop reacts.
        ericbarrett 4y ago
        > By the time you're fighting the ticket, it doesn't much matter how the cop reacts. Now you get to add a defense lawyer's trial rate...
- daedalus_f 4y ago
  In this circumstance (crashing into the back of a tesla breaking hard) you would have been the person primarily to blame. Yes tesla sells a dodgy "autopilot" that does unexpected things (and in my opinion should not be road legal until fixed), but you were tailgating to the point where you couldn’t stop in time. The car behind has to be responsible for maintaining safe separation to the car in front (under reasonable circumstances). edit: The "you" in the above being the hypothetical driver.
  - yupper32 4y ago
    You and the Tesla aren't the only ones on the road. You can't control people behind you being just close enough to not be able to stop. Or having another person behind the Tesla swerve into you when trying to avoid hitting the Tesla. There are plenty of scenarios where you are still impacted by the brake checking Tesla without you being at fault.
  - Escapado 4y ago
    I kind of agree, however at least from my experience in Germany keeping at least the minimum legal distance is an exception rather than the norm. It kinda makes me mad and I wish it was mandatory for all cars to have sensors which would either not allow you to get closer given a certain speed to be in line with the regulations or at least make a really annoying sound so that you simply wouldn't want to. I would bet this would save so many lives.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  There's a difference between doing bad things to prevent someone from hurting your kids and doing bad things to someone who hurt your kids in an accident. Acting in defense is justified, but acting in revenge should rightly land you in legal trouble (including prison depending on the severity of the "bad things").
ALittleLight 4y ago
Even worse, the person behind you might fail the brake check. I can't believe people are knowingly operating faulty autopilots on public roads. If my car randomly braked I would take it to the mechanic - not continue to drive it.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Autopilot should be fixed, but the problem in your scenario is people trailing others too closely. If you fail phantom braking, you're going to fail real braking whether it's activated by a computer or not.
  - yupper32 4y ago
    Brake checking is (usually) illegal in the US, albeit hard to prove without a dash cam or witnesses. So no, it's not the case that people trailing too closely is the problem. It's the case of the Tesla requiring, without good reason, the car behind them to brake hard to avoid the collision. This is dangerous and (usually) illegal.
    - daedalus_f 4y ago
      Teslas or people in general people should absolutely not break-check, but no, cars that drive so close to the car in front that they cannot safely stop in an emergency are tailgating. I do agree there is some nuance, but it really saddens me that so many comments in this thread are supportive of a form of driving that, while very common, is unsafe for themselves and others. It's a form of normalisation of deviance and I'm sure it costs far more lives than teslas dodgy "autopilot" (even if that too should not be road legal).
      - throwaway1851 4y ago
        In metropolitan areas (where I imagine most Teslas are driven), it often just isn’t possible to maintain a textbook-safe following distance. The instant you allow more than the average distance ahead of you, another car will jump in to fill the gap.
throwaway894345 4y ago
It doesn't make sense to argue that the responsibility for a violent or aggressive interaction stops with the Tesla/etc driver rather than the maniac who responded aggressively. The Tesla/etc driver is responsible for his own driving, as is the person reacting to that driving. Further still, since we're being pedantic about litigating responsibility, the person trailing the Tesla/etc should be leaving plenty of room such that he can comfortably react to abrupt braking (the leading driver might have a good reason for braking quickly!).
- jjulius 4y ago
  >It doesn't make sense to argue that the responsibility for a violent or aggressive interaction stops with the Tesla/etc driver rather than the maniac who responded aggressively. I never said that the responsibility stops with the Tesla driver. I simply said that it's wise to not put yourself in a situation where you may accidentally piss the wrong person off - this is a general sentiment that applies everywhere in life, really. You don't know if the person you're dealing with is the nicest, most understanding person in the world, or an absolute maniac who's been dealing with some heavy stuff and is one step away from losing their absolute shit. Yes, you're not responsible for someone else's emotions, but you are responsible for how you interact with them. >Further still, since we're being pedantic about litigating responsibility, the person trailing the Tesla/etc should be leaving plenty of room such that he can comfortably react to abrupt braking (the leading driver might have a good reason for braking quickly!). Of course. Surely you'd agree that nuance plays a large role here, though? There are often times where you'll find yourself closer to the back of a car than you'd like, despite your best efforts to maintain plenty of room (eg, someone cuts you off or moves into your lane with less distance than you'd like).

coldtea 4y ago

But it's cool technology. A death or two is worth it /s

throwaway894345 4y ago
> But it's cool technology. A death or two is worth it /s You're clearly trolling here, but maybe we can reframe this into something worth discussing: does autopilot result in more or fewer deaths per 1M miles driven than the median human driver? That seems like a reasonable threshold/criteria for legalizing the technology.

absnetneg 4y ago

It's not a brake check if the person in front of you is slowing down and your braking is to maintain safe distance. A brake check is braking for the purpose of affecting those behind you. It seems clear he means it is braking due to the slow down ahead.

HelloMcFly 4y ago
> A brake check is braking for the purpose of affecting those behind you. Intent doesn't matter to the person in the other car, who likely is relying on your behavior to some extend to understand traffic ahead. If your driving seems like a brake check and brings in all of the unsafe conditions associated with brake checking, then it's a brake check.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Of course, the unsafe conditions aren't associated with braking, but with the failure of the trailing car to leave adequate room for their own braking. The accident here would happen whether the leading car had a justifiable reason to brake or not, and the trailing driver would be responsible in either case.
- InvertedRhodium 4y ago
  Unfortunately that just shows the person following was not doing so at a safe distance - any car you're driving behind could perform emergency braking at any moment.
noirbot 4y ago
Sure, but if you're doing it far later than a human would have done it, then you're really screwing with the person behind you who isn't an AI with instant response times.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  This is why the law requires people to follow at a safe distance. If you're only leaving room for "instant response times" then you had better have instant response times because you're liable.