5 ms·
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 stoppe
by 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 agoThat'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 agoUnless they are going under 13mph, two car lengths is too close.
- hallway_monitor 4y agoI 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 agoIn any case they stopped successfully, it was the ones behind them that pushed them forward.
- roughly 4y agoThe 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.