3 ms·

It's really a travesty of how financial liability is handled in this country that your comment is not falsehood. If this were a normal negligence tort vs an au

It's really a travesty of how financial liability is handled in this country that your comment is not falsehood. If this were a normal negligence tort vs an automobile crash there would be a very strong case to be made that the driver who set the whole chain of events in motion is responsible for all of it under something akin to the eggshell skull rule.

watwut 4y ago
no. The driver is responsible to keep speed and distance from previous car such that he/she can stop if necessary. When you hit someone from behind, it is your fault, because you should have been driving more slowly or further away And that is also absolutely correct way of evaluating it - the one in the back controls attention, speed and distance. The one in front does not.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >no. The driver is responsible to keep speed and distance from previous car such that he/she can stop if necessary. And pretty much every state also has a law drivers not to do things like panic stop in the highway without a reason. The rules of the road have redundant responsibility baked in almost everywhere on purpose We abridge a lot of normal rules and legal doctrine for handling civil liability when it comes to car stuff because we have to have quick rules of thumb to deal with the sheer volume of incidents. What you are arguing in favor of here is a very sloppy rule of thumb and such advocacy is likely because you have assessed yourself to be far more likely to be the source of a multi-car wreck than one of the people caught up in it. Ask yourself, if you brake checked someone and caused a chain reaction would you be morally culpable? The overwhelming majority of the population would say yes. So why should you not be financially culpable? Now ask yourself if instead of brake checking someone you were stopping because a child wandered into the road how would that change things. On what grounds do you justify using the same allocation of liability for both these situations?
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    In this case there was a reason. The self driving system determined it was required for safety to stop. It wasn’t just to cause an accident. Had the other drivers been following the law and driving safely, they wouldn’t have crashed.

watwut 4y ago

no. The driver is responsible to keep speed and distance from previous car such that he/she can stop if necessary. When you hit someone from behind, it is your fault, because you should have been driving more slowly or further away And that is also absolutely correct way of evaluating it - the one in the back controls attention, speed and distance. The one in front does not.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>no. The driver is responsible to keep speed and distance from previous car such that he/she can stop if necessary. And pretty much every state also has a law drivers not to do things like panic stop in the highway without a reason. The rules of the road have redundant responsibility baked in almost everywhere on purpose We abridge a lot of normal rules and legal doctrine for handling civil liability when it comes to car stuff because we have to have quick rules of thumb to deal with the sheer volume of incidents. What you are arguing in favor of here is a very sloppy rule of thumb and such advocacy is likely because you have assessed yourself to be far more likely to be the source of a multi-car wreck than one of the people caught up in it. Ask yourself, if you brake checked someone and caused a chain reaction would you be morally culpable? The overwhelming majority of the population would say yes. So why should you not be financially culpable? Now ask yourself if instead of brake checking someone you were stopping because a child wandered into the road how would that change things. On what grounds do you justify using the same allocation of liability for both these situations?
- Gigachad 4y ago
  In this case there was a reason. The self driving system determined it was required for safety to stop. It wasn’t just to cause an accident. Had the other drivers been following the law and driving safely, they wouldn’t have crashed.