11 ms·

The Tesla should not have stopped but there is a cultural problem of driving way too close to the car in front of you. There are other justified scenarios why a

The Tesla should not have stopped but there is a cultural problem of driving way too close to the car in front of you. There are other justified scenarios why a car would have had to slam on the brakes at that same spot and the pileup would have still occurred.

platzhirsch 4y ago
This. After having moved from Germany to California I was astonished with how little safety gap folks leave between each other on the freeway. In Germany we are taught to keep a lot more gap because the time it takes to break or react will eat up a lot of distance. The last time I pointed this out I was told: well, I can still steer to the side if that happens.
- kccqzy 4y ago
  I did not see any emergency stopping lane on this stretch of the road. You would bump onto the narrow pedestrian walkway. So those people were wrong. We absolutely should keep more safety gap.
a_cardboard_box 4y ago
In this case the Tesla slammed on the brakes and changed lanes, so there wasn't a realistic way for the other car to prevent the collision.
- newaccount74 4y ago
  Curiously the vehicle behind the Tesla barely hit it whereas the drivers of the cars further back in the pileup seemed to have paid less attention. There would have been multiple ways for the cars further back to prevent a pileup: Drive slower, keep more distance. If you speed, have both hands on the wheel, look at the road, and be ready to brake quickly. It does sound like there were no severe injuries, so you could argue that people kept enough distance to avoid serious injuries.
  - godelski 4y ago
    There are lighting conditions that could play a role here since this was when people were entering the tunnel. This might also be something that freaked out the Tesla. But it is hard to know without being in the situation.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - creato 4y ago
    Even if all the vehicles following each had the same following distance and reaction time, each of them is going to encounter a vehicle stopping more quickly than the one in front of them did. So even if everyone performs similarly, the cars at the back are going to hit harder.
  - hanche 4y ago
    It’s really hard to tell, but to me it looks like the one behind that one managed to stop in time. But only with the tiniest margin. Action further back was much more dramatic, that’s for sure.
- markisus 4y ago
  You're right. The first rear-ending may have been unavoidable. However, you can see from the rear surveillance camera that subsequent vehicles could have stopped if everyone agreed to keep larger following distances. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, there is the game-theoretical issue of other drivers cutting in when large gaps form so it would take some coordination on a technology / policy / cultural level to resolve the issue.
  - svnpenn 4y ago
    > drivers cutting in when large gaps form if they do, so what? even if 10 people cut in front of you, with a 30 minute drive, how much time are you really losing? 50 seconds?
  - Dudelander 4y ago
    That's just not true. The two cars behind that one were well more than two car lengths apart. Following too close is a non-sequitur.
    - jws 4y ago
      Unless they are going under 13mph, two car lengths is too close.
      - hallway_monitor 4y ago
        I have always heard you should keep two seconds between cars. So at 20mph, you are 60 feet apart. At 60mph you are 180 feet apart.
      - sidibe 4y ago
        In any case they stopped successfully, it was the ones behind them that pushed them forward.
  - roughly 4y ago
    The Tesla changed lanes and instantly became a stopped object. The car that hit it did the same, and so did every subsequent car. The follow distance to avoid a collision at that point is about 10 car lengths, or roughly the average stopping distance.
- econonut 4y ago
  The Tesla looks like it slowed down 200+ feet over 4 seconds. That's far from slamming on the brakes. It's also, however, very far from expected behavior which could explain why the drivers behind didn't slow down enough in time. They weren't expecting the Tesla to come to a complete stop. I'd guess if the other car was a Tesla it probably would have stopped in time to prevent the collision because it's basing its decisions on the environment not based on prior experience driving in that particular spot. I'd also argue that the Tesla pulling over into the left lane (merge 1 lane left vs 3 lanes to the right) is the right behavior in a situation that warrants stopping. Try to get to the side of the road so other cars can pass.
  - ruined 4y ago
    that is, in fact, slamming on the brakes. your estimate of 200+ft over 4 seconds, assuming perhaps a low highway speed of 60mph, is faster than many cars are capable of stopping, even assuming zero reaction time.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  It's ok, the car may have cut people off and caused an accident, but if you look at it on the basis of the the number of fatalities/mile, cutting off and causing a minor accident is no big deal. Clearly keeping Tesla's stock price up is a bigger deal.
- quantified 4y ago
  It's cars 3,4,5 or 4,5,6 that really hit hard. Coming to a full stop in the left lane is really last-resort stuff. That is the speed/passing lane (in most jurisdictions, all lands are speed/passing around the Bay Area and especially on the bridges).
cjbgkagh 4y ago
It's one of those things where if you don't close the gap you'll get other cars constantly trying to jump into it. Same with not speeding, you'll get overtaken constantly. Tends to make things more dangerous for you. I'm not sure what the answer is. It'll be hard to generate a consensus without some major policing.
- peter422 4y ago
  If you are driving in the "slow" lanes this is not the case. I generally cruise in the right or second to right lane with a large gap in front of me and it is certainly not more dangerous. Certainly faster traffic is passing on my left but not in a way that impacts me.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- godelski 4y ago
  I'm surprised this isn't higher up. I think a lot of people retcon their safe driving behaviors to what they learned in a driving test but not to what they do in practice. Or maybe a lot of people answering haven't driven in major cities? But yeah, drive in LA and see how long you can keep 3+ car lengths in front of you. I hate driving in LA.
- amf12 4y ago
  > It's one of those things where if you don't close the gap you'll get other cars constantly trying to jump into it. In general I am ok with people merging in the gap, but some people are assholes about it by merging too close to me that I have to brake. I don't understand why people merge when they know the person behind in the other lane will have to slow down to let them merge.
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    You have to keep slowing down to maintain the gap which causes more problems.
    - 4y ago
techdmn 4y ago
I haven't read statute, but my understanding has always been that if you run into the car in front of you, it is your fault, period. If you didn't have time to stop, you are "Following too close for conditions", regardless of what those conditions are. I agree that culturally a lot of people in such situations say "It's not my fault, they stopped right in front of me!", but as you correctly point out, there are legitimate reasons for someone to come to a sudden stop, and as a driver it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you are ready for that possibility.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  You get situations of people backing into you which looks like you ran into them. I think it's on the absence of other evidence the car with front damage is presumed guilty but if you have additional evidence like a dashcam you can challenge that presumption.
  - candiodari 4y ago
    You can easily tell this situation from the tire marks.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    In that situation, the person did not get hit from the rear. They hit someone with their rear.
    - cjbgkagh 4y ago
      Good luck proving that without evidence. You can see a number of youtube videos of people trying to perpetuate break checks as an insurance scam. Sometimes break checking alone doesn't work so they reverse into you. Relying too hard on simple heuristics creates these problems and additional evidence such as dash cams can help.
  - sorum 4y ago
    It's one of the reasons we have dashcams in both our cars. Added bonus is that if you witness an incident, the police is very happy when you can send them the video file to prove how it all happened.
bdcravens 4y ago
Humans drive in that world, and while these accidents still occur, typically are able to respond, as we have far better sensors and processing power.
pleb_nz 4y ago
I couldn't watch the video so can't comment directly on this case but it boggles the mind how close people follow others on the road. The distance you have between you and the car in front on you is one of the only safety zones you can control on the road. People should cherish it and let it blossom into wide open space. You often have no control over the left, right and rear. Why would you want to take away that front space as well?
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  aside, people drive somewhat close in the bay area, but also in my experience it's so much worse in both LA and in Austin, and in TX so many of them are 6000lb Ford F150s.
  - godelski 4y ago
    In LA if you try to have distance someone will fill in the spot. I've experienced this in the Bay too. While I agree with many of these comments about people driving too close, I think it ends up being too simple and naive to real world conditions. This behavior tends to be true in any major city but not so outside.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      Yeah I understand the "fill the spot" issue all too well. This is a behavior that our police/legal system is failing to address adequately. The emergent behavior is not the safe, legal, or even optimal behavior for traffic flow/reduction (afaik). But as I've observed in America, it's more about getting 1 car ahead of others than it is about having optimal outcomes across a large proportion of all traffic.
      - godelski 4y ago
        I have a hypothesis that this is another emergent pattern. I drive a lot between WA, OR, and CA. One thing I notice is that in OR I can easily pass people AND that if I'm in the left lane approaching someone there's a fairly high likelihood that they move right. Maybe 1 in 10 people don't move. But once I hit California I end up zig zagging much more, passing people who are in the left lane going below the speed limit (especially in central California). But I don't think the probability changed, but rather the population. Oregon is easier to rive in than Washington which is easier to drive in than California. I'm pretty sure this is just a small number of bad actors who are a constant percentage and their effects scale (probably also providing a feedback loop). I try to slightly combat this by calling the left most lane the "passing lane" rather than the "fast lane." A lot of people treat the left lane like kids treat lightup shoes: they think it makes them go faster. And don't get me started on elephant racing. I frequently wonder the economic and environmental impact of just this singular type of event in central California.
flibbityflob 4y ago
I think if the Tesla had been avoiding a hazard, there would be a lot more gray area for FSD to hide in. It’s true that sudden braking and swerving is sometimes the least-bad thing for a driver to do, but if a human driver showed a pattern of repeatedly performing that maneuver for no reason, at some point a reasonable person would have to conclude that that driver is at least partly at fault for the inevitable crash that happens.
ProAm 4y ago
Did the driver have his hand on the the controls at the time of the accident? FSD = Faulty Self Driving or Fairly Self Driving or Fully Stopped Driving.
Dudelander 4y ago
That was absolutely not the case in this accident. The Tesla swerved in front of the car in the next lane and then suddenly slammed on the breaks. The two cars behind that one were driving several car lengths back. There was no way for this accident to involve less than 4 cars.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  False. There exists a following distance and amount of paying attention that would have involved 0 cars hitting the tesla. If you look really closely at it at least 3 cars (maybe 4) stopped with next to no incident (it's not discernible if they even touched). It's the 5th or 6th car that shoves everyone into everyone else (and quite dramatically gets under the car infront of them and pops them up)
  - SrslyJosh 4y ago
    The Tesla changed lanes and came to a stop in the middle of a bridge for no reason. Would you make excuses for a human that did that while conscious and not in any kind of distress?
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      > that while conscious and not in any kind of distress? I'd be less understanding, yes. But at this point it's presumable that the autopilot was in "distress" (avoiding a perceived issue). And when such a thing comes up, real or false, the drivers behind need to be ready to react. And several of the cars did so quite well actually. The only reason this is a dramatic incident is because of the like 5th or 6th car that hits everyone else hard.
  - timeon 4y ago
    Not sure how it is in SF. But I have noticed too many people on highway looking at their phones (even if it is illegal). On the other side I do not understand why this 'Autopilot' is not banned from the public roads.
maerF0x0 4y ago
Yes, exactly! tire blow out would have caused the exact same scenario (or worse). Would the headline be "Michelin causes 8 car crash just after rubber contract with Brazil" ? The title is completely unfair to Tesla.
- robofanatic 4y ago
  I guess its because Tesla is almost synonymous to "self driving car"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ncr100 4y ago
  That's not this situation. It's fair to assume "full self driving" will continue driving, rather than change lanes into an occupied lane, and stop abruptly. It should have slowed gradually. It's Tesla's fault.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    The design flaw is Tesla's fault, yes. The chain reaction is not. And it's not fair to blame the design flaw for 8 cars. At most 1, but we see that 1 behind it actually more or less stopped.
cacozen 4y ago
This argument bears a lot of resemblance with victim-blaming phrases, like: “She shouldn’t have been raped, but did you see the dress she was wearing on a dark street?”
- amf12 4y ago
  Its not even remotely close. Women have a right to wear what they want without being raped for it. People don't have to drive dangerously too close and expect to not get in an accident.
  - ncr100 4y ago
    Not my understanding of this situation ..they pulled into another occupied lane and hit the brakes...so neither generalization is so simple a case to support.
    - abenga 4y ago
      This is true for the first car that hit the Tesla but not any of the others behind that.
dieselgate 4y ago
I agree with that but it seems like the Tesla basically cut off the driver to their left while changing lanes (while signaling) but also coming to a stop. Really weird behavior to see, of course, but this honestly doesn't seem like much of a "safe driving distance" thing to me.
vl 4y ago
The irony, of course, if other cars would have been software-driven they would just safely stop. I’ve been in the situation when Tesla auto breaking saved the car from crush, which was similar situation to this.
- ncr100 4y ago
  Lol. Ironic, truly, and likely the excuse made by Musk. He shipped a car which is Not designed for Today.
ncr100 4y ago
"But" nothing. This is a Technology Failure. Whomever worked on this software should face consequences. Hitting the brakes in the tunnel for no reason is a "never to this" kind of move. "But [...] other scenarios" is not the situation here. There is no escaped pet anaconda slithering across the tunnel floor. There's no Godzilla breathing fire inside the tunnel. It's just a car with no obstructions in front of it, none visible to any other drivers, and it's choosing to hit the brakes. There is no excuse. It's at the bottom of a downhill slope. There's a limited view of what's up ahead because the slope starts to incline inside that tunnel. Cars start to speed up. There is typically a massive amount of traffic on the bridge. Blame Tesla, full throatedly.
cycomanic 4y ago
> shows a Tesla Model S vehicle changing lanes and then abruptly braking in the far-left lane of the San Francisco Bay Bridge While it is true that there is a culture of following to closely, I don't think it applies here. When a car merges into your lane you should not abruptly change your speed to adjust the distance, but slowly increase it. Otherwise you get huge ripple effects and people 1km back will essentially be in stop and go mode.
- nrb 4y ago
  The video is literally evidence of the effects of following too closely. From the back angle, there are 4 vehicles starting with the white truck in the leftmost lane that pass through within 1.5 seconds; a few are only a few hundred milliseconds apart! If you switch back to the front view you see that’s exactly the cluster that piles up onto the safety braked vehicles ahead of them, because the white truck they’ve been tailgating has swerved into a moving lane and exposed the stopped traffic. Everyone beside perhaps the first car that had an incursion into its lane (but arguably failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident with a vehicle braking and signaling their lane) are WAY too close for the speed. Any speed reductions in those lanes would necessitate heavy braking which would cause exactly the ripple effects you’re referring to under normal conditions because there’s no buffer whatsoever to gradually reduce speed/increase distance either.
iJohnDoe 4y ago
It’s seems like everyone that has a Tesla - Drives way too close to other cars (tailgating). Drives way too fast all time, even in neighborhoods. Drives way too aggressive. Drives way too entitled. I’ve seen some crazy stuff from people driving a Tesla. Driving on the shoulder when traffic backs up. Zipping around people to steal parking spots.

platzhirsch 4y ago

This. After having moved from Germany to California I was astonished with how little safety gap folks leave between each other on the freeway. In Germany we are taught to keep a lot more gap because the time it takes to break or react will eat up a lot of distance. The last time I pointed this out I was told: well, I can still steer to the side if that happens.

kccqzy 4y ago
I did not see any emergency stopping lane on this stretch of the road. You would bump onto the narrow pedestrian walkway. So those people were wrong. We absolutely should keep more safety gap.

a_cardboard_box 4y ago

In this case the Tesla slammed on the brakes and changed lanes, so there wasn't a realistic way for the other car to prevent the collision.

newaccount74 4y ago
Curiously the vehicle behind the Tesla barely hit it whereas the drivers of the cars further back in the pileup seemed to have paid less attention. There would have been multiple ways for the cars further back to prevent a pileup: Drive slower, keep more distance. If you speed, have both hands on the wheel, look at the road, and be ready to brake quickly. It does sound like there were no severe injuries, so you could argue that people kept enough distance to avoid serious injuries.
- godelski 4y ago
  There are lighting conditions that could play a role here since this was when people were entering the tunnel. This might also be something that freaked out the Tesla. But it is hard to know without being in the situation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- creato 4y ago
  Even if all the vehicles following each had the same following distance and reaction time, each of them is going to encounter a vehicle stopping more quickly than the one in front of them did. So even if everyone performs similarly, the cars at the back are going to hit harder.
- hanche 4y ago
  It’s really hard to tell, but to me it looks like the one behind that one managed to stop in time. But only with the tiniest margin. Action further back was much more dramatic, that’s for sure.
markisus 4y ago
You're right. The first rear-ending may have been unavoidable. However, you can see from the rear surveillance camera that subsequent vehicles could have stopped if everyone agreed to keep larger following distances. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, there is the game-theoretical issue of other drivers cutting in when large gaps form so it would take some coordination on a technology / policy / cultural level to resolve the issue.
- svnpenn 4y ago
  > drivers cutting in when large gaps form if they do, so what? even if 10 people cut in front of you, with a 30 minute drive, how much time are you really losing? 50 seconds?
- Dudelander 4y ago
  That's just not true. The two cars behind that one were well more than two car lengths apart. Following too close is a non-sequitur.
  - jws 4y ago
    Unless they are going under 13mph, two car lengths is too close.
    - hallway_monitor 4y ago
      I have always heard you should keep two seconds between cars. So at 20mph, you are 60 feet apart. At 60mph you are 180 feet apart.
    - sidibe 4y ago
      In any case they stopped successfully, it was the ones behind them that pushed them forward.
- roughly 4y ago
  The Tesla changed lanes and instantly became a stopped object. The car that hit it did the same, and so did every subsequent car. The follow distance to avoid a collision at that point is about 10 car lengths, or roughly the average stopping distance.
econonut 4y ago
The Tesla looks like it slowed down 200+ feet over 4 seconds. That's far from slamming on the brakes. It's also, however, very far from expected behavior which could explain why the drivers behind didn't slow down enough in time. They weren't expecting the Tesla to come to a complete stop. I'd guess if the other car was a Tesla it probably would have stopped in time to prevent the collision because it's basing its decisions on the environment not based on prior experience driving in that particular spot. I'd also argue that the Tesla pulling over into the left lane (merge 1 lane left vs 3 lanes to the right) is the right behavior in a situation that warrants stopping. Try to get to the side of the road so other cars can pass.
- ruined 4y ago
  that is, in fact, slamming on the brakes. your estimate of 200+ft over 4 seconds, assuming perhaps a low highway speed of 60mph, is faster than many cars are capable of stopping, even assuming zero reaction time.
Spooky23 4y ago
It's ok, the car may have cut people off and caused an accident, but if you look at it on the basis of the the number of fatalities/mile, cutting off and causing a minor accident is no big deal. Clearly keeping Tesla's stock price up is a bigger deal.
quantified 4y ago
It's cars 3,4,5 or 4,5,6 that really hit hard. Coming to a full stop in the left lane is really last-resort stuff. That is the speed/passing lane (in most jurisdictions, all lands are speed/passing around the Bay Area and especially on the bridges).

cjbgkagh 4y ago

It's one of those things where if you don't close the gap you'll get other cars constantly trying to jump into it. Same with not speeding, you'll get overtaken constantly. Tends to make things more dangerous for you. I'm not sure what the answer is. It'll be hard to generate a consensus without some major policing.

peter422 4y ago
If you are driving in the "slow" lanes this is not the case. I generally cruise in the right or second to right lane with a large gap in front of me and it is certainly not more dangerous. Certainly faster traffic is passing on my left but not in a way that impacts me.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
godelski 4y ago
I'm surprised this isn't higher up. I think a lot of people retcon their safe driving behaviors to what they learned in a driving test but not to what they do in practice. Or maybe a lot of people answering haven't driven in major cities? But yeah, drive in LA and see how long you can keep 3+ car lengths in front of you. I hate driving in LA.
amf12 4y ago
> It's one of those things where if you don't close the gap you'll get other cars constantly trying to jump into it. In general I am ok with people merging in the gap, but some people are assholes about it by merging too close to me that I have to brake. I don't understand why people merge when they know the person behind in the other lane will have to slow down to let them merge.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  You have to keep slowing down to maintain the gap which causes more problems.
  - 4y ago

techdmn 4y ago

I haven't read statute, but my understanding has always been that if you run into the car in front of you, it is your fault, period. If you didn't have time to stop, you are "Following too close for conditions", regardless of what those conditions are. I agree that culturally a lot of people in such situations say "It's not my fault, they stopped right in front of me!", but as you correctly point out, there are legitimate reasons for someone to come to a sudden stop, and as a driver it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you are ready for that possibility.

cjbgkagh 4y ago
You get situations of people backing into you which looks like you ran into them. I think it's on the absence of other evidence the car with front damage is presumed guilty but if you have additional evidence like a dashcam you can challenge that presumption.
- candiodari 4y ago
  You can easily tell this situation from the tire marks.
- dylan604 4y ago
  In that situation, the person did not get hit from the rear. They hit someone with their rear.
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    Good luck proving that without evidence. You can see a number of youtube videos of people trying to perpetuate break checks as an insurance scam. Sometimes break checking alone doesn't work so they reverse into you. Relying too hard on simple heuristics creates these problems and additional evidence such as dash cams can help.
- sorum 4y ago
  It's one of the reasons we have dashcams in both our cars. Added bonus is that if you witness an incident, the police is very happy when you can send them the video file to prove how it all happened.

bdcravens 4y ago

Humans drive in that world, and while these accidents still occur, typically are able to respond, as we have far better sensors and processing power.

pleb_nz 4y ago

I couldn't watch the video so can't comment directly on this case but it boggles the mind how close people follow others on the road. The distance you have between you and the car in front on you is one of the only safety zones you can control on the road. People should cherish it and let it blossom into wide open space. You often have no control over the left, right and rear. Why would you want to take away that front space as well?

maerF0x0 4y ago
aside, people drive somewhat close in the bay area, but also in my experience it's so much worse in both LA and in Austin, and in TX so many of them are 6000lb Ford F150s.
- godelski 4y ago
  In LA if you try to have distance someone will fill in the spot. I've experienced this in the Bay too. While I agree with many of these comments about people driving too close, I think it ends up being too simple and naive to real world conditions. This behavior tends to be true in any major city but not so outside.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    Yeah I understand the "fill the spot" issue all too well. This is a behavior that our police/legal system is failing to address adequately. The emergent behavior is not the safe, legal, or even optimal behavior for traffic flow/reduction (afaik). But as I've observed in America, it's more about getting 1 car ahead of others than it is about having optimal outcomes across a large proportion of all traffic.
    - godelski 4y ago
      I have a hypothesis that this is another emergent pattern. I drive a lot between WA, OR, and CA. One thing I notice is that in OR I can easily pass people AND that if I'm in the left lane approaching someone there's a fairly high likelihood that they move right. Maybe 1 in 10 people don't move. But once I hit California I end up zig zagging much more, passing people who are in the left lane going below the speed limit (especially in central California). But I don't think the probability changed, but rather the population. Oregon is easier to rive in than Washington which is easier to drive in than California. I'm pretty sure this is just a small number of bad actors who are a constant percentage and their effects scale (probably also providing a feedback loop). I try to slightly combat this by calling the left most lane the "passing lane" rather than the "fast lane." A lot of people treat the left lane like kids treat lightup shoes: they think it makes them go faster. And don't get me started on elephant racing. I frequently wonder the economic and environmental impact of just this singular type of event in central California.

flibbityflob 4y ago

I think if the Tesla had been avoiding a hazard, there would be a lot more gray area for FSD to hide in. It’s true that sudden braking and swerving is sometimes the least-bad thing for a driver to do, but if a human driver showed a pattern of repeatedly performing that maneuver for no reason, at some point a reasonable person would have to conclude that that driver is at least partly at fault for the inevitable crash that happens.

ProAm 4y ago

Did the driver have his hand on the the controls at the time of the accident? FSD = Faulty Self Driving or Fairly Self Driving or Fully Stopped Driving.

Dudelander 4y ago

That was absolutely not the case in this accident. The Tesla swerved in front of the car in the next lane and then suddenly slammed on the breaks. The two cars behind that one were driving several car lengths back. There was no way for this accident to involve less than 4 cars.

maerF0x0 4y ago
False. There exists a following distance and amount of paying attention that would have involved 0 cars hitting the tesla. If you look really closely at it at least 3 cars (maybe 4) stopped with next to no incident (it's not discernible if they even touched). It's the 5th or 6th car that shoves everyone into everyone else (and quite dramatically gets under the car infront of them and pops them up)
- SrslyJosh 4y ago
  The Tesla changed lanes and came to a stop in the middle of a bridge for no reason. Would you make excuses for a human that did that while conscious and not in any kind of distress?
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > that while conscious and not in any kind of distress? I'd be less understanding, yes. But at this point it's presumable that the autopilot was in "distress" (avoiding a perceived issue). And when such a thing comes up, real or false, the drivers behind need to be ready to react. And several of the cars did so quite well actually. The only reason this is a dramatic incident is because of the like 5th or 6th car that hits everyone else hard.
- timeon 4y ago
  Not sure how it is in SF. But I have noticed too many people on highway looking at their phones (even if it is illegal). On the other side I do not understand why this 'Autopilot' is not banned from the public roads.

maerF0x0 4y ago

Yes, exactly! tire blow out would have caused the exact same scenario (or worse). Would the headline be "Michelin causes 8 car crash just after rubber contract with Brazil" ? The title is completely unfair to Tesla.

robofanatic 4y ago
I guess its because Tesla is almost synonymous to "self driving car"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ncr100 4y ago
That's not this situation. It's fair to assume "full self driving" will continue driving, rather than change lanes into an occupied lane, and stop abruptly. It should have slowed gradually. It's Tesla's fault.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  The design flaw is Tesla's fault, yes. The chain reaction is not. And it's not fair to blame the design flaw for 8 cars. At most 1, but we see that 1 behind it actually more or less stopped.

cacozen 4y ago

This argument bears a lot of resemblance with victim-blaming phrases, like: “She shouldn’t have been raped, but did you see the dress she was wearing on a dark street?”

amf12 4y ago
Its not even remotely close. Women have a right to wear what they want without being raped for it. People don't have to drive dangerously too close and expect to not get in an accident.
- ncr100 4y ago
  Not my understanding of this situation ..they pulled into another occupied lane and hit the brakes...so neither generalization is so simple a case to support.
  - abenga 4y ago
    This is true for the first car that hit the Tesla but not any of the others behind that.

dieselgate 4y ago

I agree with that but it seems like the Tesla basically cut off the driver to their left while changing lanes (while signaling) but also coming to a stop. Really weird behavior to see, of course, but this honestly doesn't seem like much of a "safe driving distance" thing to me.

vl 4y ago

The irony, of course, if other cars would have been software-driven they would just safely stop. I’ve been in the situation when Tesla auto breaking saved the car from crush, which was similar situation to this.

ncr100 4y ago
Lol. Ironic, truly, and likely the excuse made by Musk. He shipped a car which is Not designed for Today.

ncr100 4y ago

"But" nothing. This is a Technology Failure. Whomever worked on this software should face consequences. Hitting the brakes in the tunnel for no reason is a "never to this" kind of move. "But [...] other scenarios" is not the situation here. There is no escaped pet anaconda slithering across the tunnel floor. There's no Godzilla breathing fire inside the tunnel. It's just a car with no obstructions in front of it, none visible to any other drivers, and it's choosing to hit the brakes. There is no excuse. It's at the bottom of a downhill slope. There's a limited view of what's up ahead because the slope starts to incline inside that tunnel. Cars start to speed up. There is typically a massive amount of traffic on the bridge. Blame Tesla, full throatedly.

cycomanic 4y ago

> shows a Tesla Model S vehicle changing lanes and then abruptly braking in the far-left lane of the San Francisco Bay Bridge While it is true that there is a culture of following to closely, I don't think it applies here. When a car merges into your lane you should not abruptly change your speed to adjust the distance, but slowly increase it. Otherwise you get huge ripple effects and people 1km back will essentially be in stop and go mode.

nrb 4y ago
The video is literally evidence of the effects of following too closely. From the back angle, there are 4 vehicles starting with the white truck in the leftmost lane that pass through within 1.5 seconds; a few are only a few hundred milliseconds apart! If you switch back to the front view you see that’s exactly the cluster that piles up onto the safety braked vehicles ahead of them, because the white truck they’ve been tailgating has swerved into a moving lane and exposed the stopped traffic. Everyone beside perhaps the first car that had an incursion into its lane (but arguably failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident with a vehicle braking and signaling their lane) are WAY too close for the speed. Any speed reductions in those lanes would necessitate heavy braking which would cause exactly the ripple effects you’re referring to under normal conditions because there’s no buffer whatsoever to gradually reduce speed/increase distance either.

iJohnDoe 4y ago

It’s seems like everyone that has a Tesla - Drives way too close to other cars (tailgating). Drives way too fast all time, even in neighborhoods. Drives way too aggressive. Drives way too entitled. I’ve seen some crazy stuff from people driving a Tesla. Driving on the shoulder when traffic backs up. Zipping around people to steal parking spots.