8 ms·

As much as I'd love to bash on Tesla for this, this is 100% the fault of the drivers behind not keeping enough distance or being distracted. Heck, even a simple

As much as I'd love to bash on Tesla for this, this is 100% the fault of the drivers behind not keeping enough distance or being distracted. Heck, even a simple distance-keeping cruise-control would have prevented this. The dad of a friend of mine once drove a rental car on the German Autobahn. He was used to driving stick shift but the rental had automatic. So he accidentally stepped on the brake (because his brain was still expecting the clutch) while in the left lane, causing the driver behind to crash into him. The driver behind him was declared 100% at fault for the accident.

warning26 4y ago
If I slam on my brakes for no reason in the middle of a highway, and I get rear-ended, you would argue it's 100% the fault of the guy behind me? Ridiculous.
- drekipus 4y ago
  Leave a gap, then there's no problem. Change the situation: car on the other lane swerves and hits the car in front of you. so now there's a stationary hunk of metal suddenly infront of you, which you collide with. Is it the chunk of metal's fault for being stationary on a highway or your fault for following too close?
  - readonthegoapp 4y ago
    i'll state the obvious - you can try to leave a gap, but it will be quickly filled, and you'll have a bunch of angry tailgaters and put yourself in danger very quickly.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Common sense isn't so common on the Internet... So many comments repeating this pleasant fiction told to students in drivers' ed to set a good baseline, seemingly because people want to believe in the just world fallacy. Legally yes, you want to be damn sure you leave plenty room in front of you, regardless of how people cut in, because if you rear end someone it will most likely be considered your fault, regardless of the circumstances, especially if you don't have a dash cam. This goes doubly if you're driving a heavy vehicle with a longer stopping distance. But there are plenty of cases where it can certainly be the fault (morally, and legally if you can prove it) of the person who gets rear ended - intentionally "brake checking", insurance fraud "boxing", changing lanes from a stopped lane into a moving lane, or changing lanes with insufficient room behind you and then braking hard (as we seem to have here).
    - Enginerrrd 4y ago
      People say that a lot, but it's not true in my experience. You can spend a large fraction of your driving this way, and it's a much better experience than you'd think.
- powerbroker 4y ago
  It is ridiculous, when it becomes a pattern of conduct. Insurance fraudsters do get caught when a pattern emerges. Is this an insurance fraud? Check to see if there is a pattern with this driver. I read the transcript of the driver interviews. The Tesla driver (or FSD, whatever) both changed lanes and braked. The officer who interviewed hime cited him under the California code for improper stopping. I suspect that it had a lot to do with the lane change occurring simultaneously with the braking.
- ecpottinger 4y ago
  Considering some tail-gaters I know who drive less than 4 feet from the car infront of them, I want as many facts as possible.
- metal 4y ago
  Would you feel the same if there was a legitimate reason for your stopping (like a person on the road)? The outcome is the same.
  - lupire 4y ago
    "Having a legitimate reason" is different from not. That's the difference between murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and good Samaritan protection.
  - gggggg5 4y ago
    Perhaps you just had a legitimate reason to cause a crash, doesn't mean the person driving behind you truly deserves any blame.
- randyrand 4y ago
  100%. yes. People slam on the breaks for any number of reasons, both valid and invalid. Failure to leave enough space to stop is 100% your fault. You were supposed to learn this in driving school.
  - croes 4y ago
    Braking for no reason is definitely not a 100% yes.
  - readonthegoapp 4y ago
    brake-checking is generally illegal. for a reason.
    - verdverm 4y ago
      What about when a deer runs out onto the highway?
      - readonthegoapp 4y ago
        don't think that qualifies as a brake check.
        verdverm 4y ago
        Break check is not the only reason one slams on the breaks
        jjav 4y ago
        > Break check is not the only reason one slams on the breaks No, but it is a reason that is illegal, which is the point. If you brake check someone (and they have a dashcam to prove it), you'll be paying the fines and the repairs.
- richardjam73 4y ago
  You should always be prepared that any vehicle in front of you can emergency brake at any time. If you don't leave enough room for this then you are at fault.
  - lupire 4y ago
    The new story here is about a car that changed lanes. If you don't get when you don't have room, you are at fault.
    - richardjam73 4y ago
      If the cars where following at a safe distance then only one or two other cars should have collided but that doesn't explain 8 cars crashing.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  yes absolutely it is the fault of the person behind you. that is the law in the United States, as well. following distance is controllable only by the following car. failure to maintain adequate following distance then rear ending the car you are following, no matter what reason they stopped, is always the fault of the following car, and never the followed car. stopping for no reason on a busy interstate is an offence, but it will cause zero crashes if people are following at safe distances. the number of people who have forgotten what they probably didn't learn to begin with in Driver's Ed is really scaring me right now.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > yes absolutely it is the fault of the person behind you. > that is the law in the United States, as well. No, this is incorrect. First of all, vehicle code is different for each state so there's no "law in the United States" as a whole. For California, this is the section which makes brake checking illegal: https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_22109 https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_2210...
- bdcravens 4y ago
  It's your responsibility to remain in control of your vehicle and maintain proper stopping distance for the speed you're traveling.
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  The "no reason" part means you were intentionally doing something dangerous. But if you slammed on your breaks for any reason at all and the person behind you hits you, that's absolutely their fault.
- rasz 4y ago
  The crash - yes, but if you indeed did it for no reason you will get fined for creating dangerous road condition.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
> is 100% the fault of the drivers behind not keeping enough distance Bullshit. You are ~50% at fault. You're just 0% financially liable in the absence of other facts. That is the default case we've concocted over the years to make financial liability easy to pin down. If you become a road obstruction for no good reason whatever happens after after that is half or more your fault. If you manage to dodge financial liability then you are simply exploiting an edge case of the system to the detriment of everyone else. The rules of the road are built around redundant obligations so that things don't go south whenever there's a momentary failure by one party. If you obstruct the road for no good reason you are just as at fault for the ensuing accident as someone who wasn't prepared for that obstruction. Thank god for dashcams....
- naikrovek 4y ago
  please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it. what other things are you wrong about? obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, but even when it does happen, it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances. the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    > please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it. No you. Literally. You need to do that. >obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, Exactly my point. >it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances. Hence by bit about redundant obligation and the difference between responsibility and financial liability. >the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Go anywhere people talk about dashcams and you'll find plenty of testimony to the tune of "had I not had video I'd have been paying for that dumb mfers poor decisions". The financial liability defaults to the following vehicle. It can always change if there are hard facts that amount to the other guy being more responsible.
    - 4y ago
hattmall 4y ago
Not really, if you watch it the SUV jerks out of the lane. The drivers behind him aren't following too closely they just get no opportunity. Stopping room considers the stopping distance of the vehicle in front of you too. You can really expect to have stopping distance from an obstruction appearing in front of you out of sight.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  no opportunity means they were following too closely. if the car in front of you suddenly comes to a complete stop, you need to have enough time to brake to prevent yourself from hitting that vehicle without changing lanes. if you are so close that you can't stop in time in that situation, you are following too closely. end of statement. yes that does happen to cars, by the way. a car driving at speed X which hits another car head-on at speed X will cause both cars to come to a complete stop, instantly, provided they are the same mass. usually they are not the same mass, so that car which you were following could suddenly not only stop, but change direction and accelerate towards you. crashes also usually don't happen head-on, so you must be ready when the inevitable does happen to you or around you. sometimes you can't prevent what happens, but you can always prevent colliding into the car in front of you. these things happen hundreds of times per day, if not thousands of times per day, EVERY DAY. If you don't make time to stop, you do not have time to stop.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > no opportunity means they were following too closely. The car departed the lane next to them, dove in front of them, and stopped. Do you always leave enough space so that a vehicle in the lane next to you can do this? > if you are so close that you can't stop in time in that situation, you are following too closely. end of statement. > yes that does happen to cars, by the way. a car driving at speed X which hits another car head-on at speed X will cause both cars to come to a complete stop, instantly, provided they are the same mass. usually they are not the same mass, so that car which you were following could suddenly not only stop, but change direction and accelerate towards you. Recommended following distances are nowhere near "instant stop of vehicle in front of you plus reaction time". E.g. California recommends 3 seconds of distance at your current speed-- 286 feet. Real world stopping distances are often ~300+ feet, after 100 feet+ of reaction time (yes, I know that vehicle tests in ideal conditions often achieve something more like 150 feet not including reaction times).
jtsiskin 4y ago
Did you watch the video? The Tesla shifts a lane to the left when stopping. They weren’t tailgating it.
- carlivar 4y ago
  It doesn't matter; cognitive dissonance is in play here. The Tesla cult is activating the standard response protocol to criticism of The Company and Dear Leader.
- natch 4y ago
  I did watch the video. The Tesla had seven blinks of the turn signal, five of them before entering the lane. The car in the destination lane was at a safe distance for the Tesla to enter the lane, but it aggressively maintained its slightly faster speed to close the distance to the Tesla until it crashed into the Tesla as the Tesla slowed to a stop. The Tesla did present a difficult situation for the other driver, but only in the sense that the other driver may have felt their ego would be bruised by needing to slow down for safety versus aggressive posturing that they went with instead. Watch the video again. Zoom in. The other driver did have the opportunity to slow down, keep distance, and avoid hitting the Tesla. They did not take that opportunity.
up2isomorphism 4y ago
Have you ever heard something called “brake check”? The bottom line is if all car in front you is using FSD like this, you will hit one of them sooner or later, no matter how “good” you are. Since when people are so out of touch while having a strong opinion?
- dark-star 4y ago
  > Have you ever heard something called “brake check”? Yes, and they are illegal. But if you rear-end the car in front of you, it doesn't matter if he slammed the brakes because of a "brake check" or because of a pedestrian jumping into his lane: you did not leave enough room to safely brake. > The bottom line is if all car in front you is using FSD like this, you will hit one of them sooner or later, no matter how “good” you are. Not if you leave enough room in front of you to safely stop

warning26 4y ago

If I slam on my brakes for no reason in the middle of a highway, and I get rear-ended, you would argue it's 100% the fault of the guy behind me? Ridiculous.

drekipus 4y ago
Leave a gap, then there's no problem. Change the situation: car on the other lane swerves and hits the car in front of you. so now there's a stationary hunk of metal suddenly infront of you, which you collide with. Is it the chunk of metal's fault for being stationary on a highway or your fault for following too close?
- readonthegoapp 4y ago
  i'll state the obvious - you can try to leave a gap, but it will be quickly filled, and you'll have a bunch of angry tailgaters and put yourself in danger very quickly.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Common sense isn't so common on the Internet... So many comments repeating this pleasant fiction told to students in drivers' ed to set a good baseline, seemingly because people want to believe in the just world fallacy. Legally yes, you want to be damn sure you leave plenty room in front of you, regardless of how people cut in, because if you rear end someone it will most likely be considered your fault, regardless of the circumstances, especially if you don't have a dash cam. This goes doubly if you're driving a heavy vehicle with a longer stopping distance. But there are plenty of cases where it can certainly be the fault (morally, and legally if you can prove it) of the person who gets rear ended - intentionally "brake checking", insurance fraud "boxing", changing lanes from a stopped lane into a moving lane, or changing lanes with insufficient room behind you and then braking hard (as we seem to have here).
  - Enginerrrd 4y ago
    People say that a lot, but it's not true in my experience. You can spend a large fraction of your driving this way, and it's a much better experience than you'd think.
powerbroker 4y ago
It is ridiculous, when it becomes a pattern of conduct. Insurance fraudsters do get caught when a pattern emerges. Is this an insurance fraud? Check to see if there is a pattern with this driver. I read the transcript of the driver interviews. The Tesla driver (or FSD, whatever) both changed lanes and braked. The officer who interviewed hime cited him under the California code for improper stopping. I suspect that it had a lot to do with the lane change occurring simultaneously with the braking.
ecpottinger 4y ago
Considering some tail-gaters I know who drive less than 4 feet from the car infront of them, I want as many facts as possible.
metal 4y ago
Would you feel the same if there was a legitimate reason for your stopping (like a person on the road)? The outcome is the same.
- lupire 4y ago
  "Having a legitimate reason" is different from not. That's the difference between murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and good Samaritan protection.
- gggggg5 4y ago
  Perhaps you just had a legitimate reason to cause a crash, doesn't mean the person driving behind you truly deserves any blame.
randyrand 4y ago
100%. yes. People slam on the breaks for any number of reasons, both valid and invalid. Failure to leave enough space to stop is 100% your fault. You were supposed to learn this in driving school.
- croes 4y ago
  Braking for no reason is definitely not a 100% yes.
- readonthegoapp 4y ago
  brake-checking is generally illegal. for a reason.
  - verdverm 4y ago
    What about when a deer runs out onto the highway?
    - readonthegoapp 4y ago
      don't think that qualifies as a brake check.
      - verdverm 4y ago
        Break check is not the only reason one slams on the breaks
        jjav 4y ago
        > Break check is not the only reason one slams on the breaks No, but it is a reason that is illegal, which is the point. If you brake check someone (and they have a dashcam to prove it), you'll be paying the fines and the repairs.
richardjam73 4y ago
You should always be prepared that any vehicle in front of you can emergency brake at any time. If you don't leave enough room for this then you are at fault.
- lupire 4y ago
  The new story here is about a car that changed lanes. If you don't get when you don't have room, you are at fault.
  - richardjam73 4y ago
    If the cars where following at a safe distance then only one or two other cars should have collided but that doesn't explain 8 cars crashing.
naikrovek 4y ago
yes absolutely it is the fault of the person behind you. that is the law in the United States, as well. following distance is controllable only by the following car. failure to maintain adequate following distance then rear ending the car you are following, no matter what reason they stopped, is always the fault of the following car, and never the followed car. stopping for no reason on a busy interstate is an offence, but it will cause zero crashes if people are following at safe distances. the number of people who have forgotten what they probably didn't learn to begin with in Driver's Ed is really scaring me right now.
- jjav 4y ago
  > yes absolutely it is the fault of the person behind you. > that is the law in the United States, as well. No, this is incorrect. First of all, vehicle code is different for each state so there's no "law in the United States" as a whole. For California, this is the section which makes brake checking illegal: https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_22109 https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_2210...
bdcravens 4y ago
It's your responsibility to remain in control of your vehicle and maintain proper stopping distance for the speed you're traveling.
alasdair_ 4y ago
The "no reason" part means you were intentionally doing something dangerous. But if you slammed on your breaks for any reason at all and the person behind you hits you, that's absolutely their fault.
rasz 4y ago
The crash - yes, but if you indeed did it for no reason you will get fined for creating dangerous road condition.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

> is 100% the fault of the drivers behind not keeping enough distance Bullshit. You are ~50% at fault. You're just 0% financially liable in the absence of other facts. That is the default case we've concocted over the years to make financial liability easy to pin down. If you become a road obstruction for no good reason whatever happens after after that is half or more your fault. If you manage to dodge financial liability then you are simply exploiting an edge case of the system to the detriment of everyone else. The rules of the road are built around redundant obligations so that things don't go south whenever there's a momentary failure by one party. If you obstruct the road for no good reason you are just as at fault for the ensuing accident as someone who wasn't prepared for that obstruction. Thank god for dashcams....

naikrovek 4y ago
please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it. what other things are you wrong about? obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, but even when it does happen, it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances. the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  > please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it. No you. Literally. You need to do that. >obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, Exactly my point. >it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances. Hence by bit about redundant obligation and the difference between responsibility and financial liability. >the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Go anywhere people talk about dashcams and you'll find plenty of testimony to the tune of "had I not had video I'd have been paying for that dumb mfers poor decisions". The financial liability defaults to the following vehicle. It can always change if there are hard facts that amount to the other guy being more responsible.
  - 4y ago

hattmall 4y ago

Not really, if you watch it the SUV jerks out of the lane. The drivers behind him aren't following too closely they just get no opportunity. Stopping room considers the stopping distance of the vehicle in front of you too. You can really expect to have stopping distance from an obstruction appearing in front of you out of sight.

naikrovek 4y ago
no opportunity means they were following too closely. if the car in front of you suddenly comes to a complete stop, you need to have enough time to brake to prevent yourself from hitting that vehicle without changing lanes. if you are so close that you can't stop in time in that situation, you are following too closely. end of statement. yes that does happen to cars, by the way. a car driving at speed X which hits another car head-on at speed X will cause both cars to come to a complete stop, instantly, provided they are the same mass. usually they are not the same mass, so that car which you were following could suddenly not only stop, but change direction and accelerate towards you. crashes also usually don't happen head-on, so you must be ready when the inevitable does happen to you or around you. sometimes you can't prevent what happens, but you can always prevent colliding into the car in front of you. these things happen hundreds of times per day, if not thousands of times per day, EVERY DAY. If you don't make time to stop, you do not have time to stop.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > no opportunity means they were following too closely. The car departed the lane next to them, dove in front of them, and stopped. Do you always leave enough space so that a vehicle in the lane next to you can do this? > if you are so close that you can't stop in time in that situation, you are following too closely. end of statement. > yes that does happen to cars, by the way. a car driving at speed X which hits another car head-on at speed X will cause both cars to come to a complete stop, instantly, provided they are the same mass. usually they are not the same mass, so that car which you were following could suddenly not only stop, but change direction and accelerate towards you. Recommended following distances are nowhere near "instant stop of vehicle in front of you plus reaction time". E.g. California recommends 3 seconds of distance at your current speed-- 286 feet. Real world stopping distances are often ~300+ feet, after 100 feet+ of reaction time (yes, I know that vehicle tests in ideal conditions often achieve something more like 150 feet not including reaction times).

jtsiskin 4y ago

Did you watch the video? The Tesla shifts a lane to the left when stopping. They weren’t tailgating it.

carlivar 4y ago
It doesn't matter; cognitive dissonance is in play here. The Tesla cult is activating the standard response protocol to criticism of The Company and Dear Leader.
natch 4y ago
I did watch the video. The Tesla had seven blinks of the turn signal, five of them before entering the lane. The car in the destination lane was at a safe distance for the Tesla to enter the lane, but it aggressively maintained its slightly faster speed to close the distance to the Tesla until it crashed into the Tesla as the Tesla slowed to a stop. The Tesla did present a difficult situation for the other driver, but only in the sense that the other driver may have felt their ego would be bruised by needing to slow down for safety versus aggressive posturing that they went with instead. Watch the video again. Zoom in. The other driver did have the opportunity to slow down, keep distance, and avoid hitting the Tesla. They did not take that opportunity.

up2isomorphism 4y ago

Have you ever heard something called “brake check”? The bottom line is if all car in front you is using FSD like this, you will hit one of them sooner or later, no matter how “good” you are. Since when people are so out of touch while having a strong opinion?

dark-star 4y ago
> Have you ever heard something called “brake check”? Yes, and they are illegal. But if you rear-end the car in front of you, it doesn't matter if he slammed the brakes because of a "brake check" or because of a pedestrian jumping into his lane: you did not leave enough room to safely brake. > The bottom line is if all car in front you is using FSD like this, you will hit one of them sooner or later, no matter how “good” you are. Not if you leave enough room in front of you to safely stop