4 ms·

I wonder how many extra crashes will something like this trigger and who will pay when accidents happen because the car decided to break for no apparent reason.

I wonder how many extra crashes will something like this trigger and who will pay when accidents happen because the car decided to break for no apparent reason. I've seen PCS working well at slow speeds and, arguably, they would be more helpful at higher speeds. But would you trust such system with your life at high speed on a busy motorway ?

consp 4y ago
> who will pay The person hitting you from behind would be at fault anyway, at least where I live you are required to keep enough distance to stop even for no apparent reason, if driving in a lane and not moving to another. If you do it whilst moving in front of another car as it could be on you as you are required to yield and leave enough space to not hinder or endanger the driving of the other vehicle. This also includes brake-checks as your obligation to yield does not stop after you have merged into another highway lane and continues for an unspecified amount of time. So there should not be an issue there, only problem is people can and will not understand the stopping distance of a car driving 100+kph and do not leave enough space. YMMV with respect to the laws involved as it's entirely possible you could be at fault at the place you are living.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  The rules for accident liability aren't as rigid and naive as you are implying. The rear ender having to pay is just the base case that is used in the absence of other facts. If you drive "in an asinine manner" (the definition of asinine is subject to discretion and negotiation between the relevant insurance companies) and manage to make the front of someone else's care meet the rear of yours in the process AND there are witnesses, dashcam footage or other evidince you will almost certainly wind up having to pay up. Everybody knows that traffic doesn't follow the rules. Pretending like it does is a convenient legal fiction we use in order to make rule making easier. There is intentionally tons of redundancy baked into the rules to cover for all the edge cases where people routinely don't follow the rules. Hence why other people's obligation to not crash into stuff isn't a blank check to do whatever. In cases where two people are breaking the rules usually whoever's breaking them in the more typical and predicable manner is the one given a pass (e.g. someone speeding "a normal amount" will likely not be found at fault if you roll a stop and get t-boned).
  - consp 4y ago
    Sure, if driving like a maniac, but you would argue the driver stopping for a dog on the road is at fault for the person crashing into him/her from behind? Maybe it's different in the states, I'm not up to date with all traffic rules everywhere.
    - macintux 4y ago
      The challenge is that our tailgating rules aren’t sufficient for extreme cases. Two seconds behind someone is sufficient for most cases, but if the person in front of you, say, hits a wall and comes to an immediate stop, it won’t be enough. So if autonomous systems hit the brakes much more severely than conditions warrant, it’s not obvious that the drivers behind you are going to have time to react.
    - ianai 4y ago
      It’s been my experience/understanding that in the US someone hitting a car from behind is almost always at fault. The onus is on everybody to avoid an accident. But that doesn’t include forcing a car to continue forward. Also people commenting here are likely from widely disparate parts of the world with different driving laws. Those differences are more than enough to preclude useful discussion here at the extremes.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    It probably varies by state, but people I know who've rear ended someone else have said that no one is interested in how it happened. The cops didn't care, and the insurance didn't care. The rule is it's your responsibility to maintain a safe distance. So sure - the guy in front of you may have been extremely reckless, but no one involved is even going to want to hear that narrative.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      >So sure - the guy in front of you may have been extremely reckless, but no one involved is even going to want to hear that narrative. Nobody cares about talk. Everybody lies when they have financial motive to do so and everyone who deals with accidents professionally knows this. That said, insurance companies care deeply about hard to falsify (i.e. anything better than heresay) evidince that show that their customer was not the cause of the loss (dashcam video, surveillance footage, 3rd party witness statements, etc) because the profitability of their business depends in large part on claims payouts.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  >The person hitting you from behind would be at fault anyway Where is this place where drivers just magically pay for damages? Where I live in the US, the person who hits you from behind is probably going to back up and just drive away.
nradov 4y ago
Results are going to vary by manufacturer. Tesla and Honda seem to have a serious problem with phantom braking. https://electrek.co/2022/08/30/tesla-faces-class-action-lawsuit-over-autopilot-phantom-braking-problem/ https://electrek.co/2022/08/30/tesla-faces-class-action-laws... https://jalopnik.com/the-honda-cr-v-and-honda-accord-are-being-investigated-1848588049 https://jalopnik.com/the-honda-cr-v-and-honda-accord-are-bei... Most other brands seem pretty good. My 2019 Subaru has zero phantom braking events so far. (Although the adaptive cruise control does get confused when driving in the slow lane on freeways and slows down when the car ahead turns onto an offramp.) Automatic emergency braking changes nothing from a crash liability standpoint. Generally the leading vehicle has the right of way, and the following driver must leave enough space to avoid a crash even if the leading vehicle brakes inappropriately.

consp 4y ago

> who will pay The person hitting you from behind would be at fault anyway, at least where I live you are required to keep enough distance to stop even for no apparent reason, if driving in a lane and not moving to another. If you do it whilst moving in front of another car as it could be on you as you are required to yield and leave enough space to not hinder or endanger the driving of the other vehicle. This also includes brake-checks as your obligation to yield does not stop after you have merged into another highway lane and continues for an unspecified amount of time. So there should not be an issue there, only problem is people can and will not understand the stopping distance of a car driving 100+kph and do not leave enough space. YMMV with respect to the laws involved as it's entirely possible you could be at fault at the place you are living.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
The rules for accident liability aren't as rigid and naive as you are implying. The rear ender having to pay is just the base case that is used in the absence of other facts. If you drive "in an asinine manner" (the definition of asinine is subject to discretion and negotiation between the relevant insurance companies) and manage to make the front of someone else's care meet the rear of yours in the process AND there are witnesses, dashcam footage or other evidince you will almost certainly wind up having to pay up. Everybody knows that traffic doesn't follow the rules. Pretending like it does is a convenient legal fiction we use in order to make rule making easier. There is intentionally tons of redundancy baked into the rules to cover for all the edge cases where people routinely don't follow the rules. Hence why other people's obligation to not crash into stuff isn't a blank check to do whatever. In cases where two people are breaking the rules usually whoever's breaking them in the more typical and predicable manner is the one given a pass (e.g. someone speeding "a normal amount" will likely not be found at fault if you roll a stop and get t-boned).
- consp 4y ago
  Sure, if driving like a maniac, but you would argue the driver stopping for a dog on the road is at fault for the person crashing into him/her from behind? Maybe it's different in the states, I'm not up to date with all traffic rules everywhere.
  - macintux 4y ago
    The challenge is that our tailgating rules aren’t sufficient for extreme cases. Two seconds behind someone is sufficient for most cases, but if the person in front of you, say, hits a wall and comes to an immediate stop, it won’t be enough. So if autonomous systems hit the brakes much more severely than conditions warrant, it’s not obvious that the drivers behind you are going to have time to react.
  - ianai 4y ago
    It’s been my experience/understanding that in the US someone hitting a car from behind is almost always at fault. The onus is on everybody to avoid an accident. But that doesn’t include forcing a car to continue forward. Also people commenting here are likely from widely disparate parts of the world with different driving laws. Those differences are more than enough to preclude useful discussion here at the extremes.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  It probably varies by state, but people I know who've rear ended someone else have said that no one is interested in how it happened. The cops didn't care, and the insurance didn't care. The rule is it's your responsibility to maintain a safe distance. So sure - the guy in front of you may have been extremely reckless, but no one involved is even going to want to hear that narrative.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >So sure - the guy in front of you may have been extremely reckless, but no one involved is even going to want to hear that narrative. Nobody cares about talk. Everybody lies when they have financial motive to do so and everyone who deals with accidents professionally knows this. That said, insurance companies care deeply about hard to falsify (i.e. anything better than heresay) evidince that show that their customer was not the cause of the loss (dashcam video, surveillance footage, 3rd party witness statements, etc) because the profitability of their business depends in large part on claims payouts.
sidewndr46 4y ago
>The person hitting you from behind would be at fault anyway Where is this place where drivers just magically pay for damages? Where I live in the US, the person who hits you from behind is probably going to back up and just drive away.

nradov 4y ago

Results are going to vary by manufacturer. Tesla and Honda seem to have a serious problem with phantom braking. https://electrek.co/2022/08/30/tesla-faces-class-action-lawsuit-over-autopilot-phantom-braking-problem/ https://electrek.co/2022/08/30/tesla-faces-class-action-laws... https://jalopnik.com/the-honda-cr-v-and-honda-accord-are-being-investigated-1848588049 https://jalopnik.com/the-honda-cr-v-and-honda-accord-are-bei... Most other brands seem pretty good. My 2019 Subaru has zero phantom braking events so far. (Although the adaptive cruise control does get confused when driving in the slow lane on freeways and slows down when the car ahead turns onto an offramp.) Automatic emergency braking changes nothing from a crash liability standpoint. Generally the leading vehicle has the right of way, and the following driver must leave enough space to avoid a crash even if the leading vehicle brakes inappropriately.