8 ms·

> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup

> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different than if someone backed into the Tesla while it was parked in a parking garage.

somethoughts 4y ago
From what I can tell from the video - there seems to be a grey area because the Tesla FSD is changing lanes and stopping simultaneously. If that's the case, its not a tailgating issue but an unsafe lane change - for which the Tesla FSD (or Tesla driver) could be at least partially at fault. The grey area will require some defense and it will be interesting to see if the Tesla driver is left high and dry by Tesla.
sokoloff 4y ago
If I brake check someone on the highway, causing an accident, and it’s discovered that that’s what happened, I’d be pretty shocked* if the trailing driver was found responsible. That video looks like a combined lane change and brake check on the part of the Tesla. * and disappointed
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 4y ago
  Why would you be shocked and disappointed? It is the obligation of the driver trailing you to maintain enough distance to be able to stop safely if the car in front of them has to brake hard for whatever reason. The fact that your hard braking wasn't actually necessary may mean that you're also responsible, but it doesn't absolve the other driver.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    As a matter of pragmatism, the person intentionally putting other drivers at unnecessary risk by being an asshole should bear the responsibility for the outcomes of that intentional and unnecessary risk they elected to subject roadway users to.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      They should, and I said as much. It does not absolve the other person from responsibility for not following the required safety protocol. The car in front of them might have had to brake for a perfectly legitimate reason. I mean, suppose that the other driver was driving while drunk. They might have arrived to their destination safely without the asshole in front, but that's not an excuse against a DUI ticket.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        How do you maintain safe distance from those in adjacent lanes? Especially if they may come from behind you, suddenly change lanes in front, then break hard?
        int_19h 4y ago
        You do not, but that wasn't the hypothetical posited by OP. In the actual case with Tesla, the driver of the car that was in front of the pile-up was not at fault IMO. But there were a bunch more cars behind, and at least some of those slammed into each other because they didn't maintain proper distance, according to the police.
        throw827474737 4y ago
        Are we looking at the same video? The turn signal is on long before, the lane change of the car starts long before.. you don't see any reaction of the following driver even when the Tesla's tires finally cross the line, which is the latest point where the following driver must adapt apeed and distance, but nothing happens?
- scotty79 4y ago
  I think the intention matters. If you did it to spite the guy behind you then you are at fault. If you did it because you thought something might cross the road and just wanted to be safe then it's not your fault even if nothing crossed the road or nothing was really there.
  - abduhl 4y ago
    Tesla’s FSD/autopilot does not act with intention as we understand it.
    - scotty79 4y ago
      No intention, no fault. But definitely unsafe lane change, I think.
      - abduhl 4y ago
        How convenient for Tesla. I doubt we would think this way if your wheel flew off your civic because of a design flaw in the axle.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        noobermin 4y ago
        Why is this being downvoted? Intent isn't everything. While it is important, design flaws are worth getting the book thrown at you over.
        klyrs 4y ago
        That's because we'd fully expect them to recall the effected models and fix the design flaw. Since Tesla knows about erratic lane-changes and phantom braking, and has for years, why haven't they recalled the vehicles and fixed the design flaw or at least disabled the feature?
      - Faark 4y ago
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  Lane change + braking is extremely scary. I rear-ended a woman who did that to me. When she cut in front of me in my lane there was not nearly enough distance between us for me to fully stop when she then suddenly braked. I'm not sure what I really was even supposed to even do in a situation like that — I suppose as soon as she cut over I should have just assumed the worst was coming and hit my brakes right away?
  - Jach 4y ago
    Or at least have the foot off the gas. I try to have or create if I don't distance between myself and aggressive drivers. But even with defensive / paranoid driving sometimes there's just not much you can do, physics is physics.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Yeah, in cases like this it is just physics. Propably not much you could have done. She cuy into the space between you and the car in front, the normal reaction is to lift the foot to increase distance again. If the new car hits the brakes, no chance to not rear end it...
- mhb 4y ago
  In the video, the Tesla comes to a gradual stop and the car behind it didn't change speed at all. The third car was able to stop without hitting the second car and that was arguably more challenging. Second car wasn't paying attention. Maybe it was using cruise control?
- tempestn 4y ago
  Yes. Watching the second video, you can see the second car's brake lights come on quite quickly, given the Tesla's actions were completely strange and unexpected. Less than a second from when the Tesla cuts in front and starts braking to the vehicle behind hitting the brakes. They're definitely not at fault. Some of the cars that piled in behind were a different matter though. Some were able to stop while others didn't. Those ones must have been following too close and/or not paying enough attention.
  - mtsr 4y ago
    They didn't actually stop their car, though. And it really looks like they could have, had they braked a little bit harder. But that may be due to the unexpected nature of the Tesla coming to a full stop.
    - tempestn 4y ago
      Yeah, it's possible they didn't fully slam on the brakes immediately. But you don't expect the car in front of you to do so for no reason either, so I still wouldn't consider the second car at fault.
- Loic 4y ago
  In Germany you would be covered because line change and break, without a reason, is a deliberate dangerous action. This means that the one doing it is responsible of the following crash. For the multiple cars crash, if not clear cut, without video recording, all the insurances pool themselves together and consider the drivers as not responsible. Nobody cannot tell if you stopped, got hit in the back and then the front or the opposite.
  - raphman 4y ago
    Huh? In my (German) experience, responsibility for the crash (and thus for the sentence/fine/payout to each driver) is rarely assigned to a single driver in such a case. Instead, it is distributed among participants with e.g. the Tesla driver being 80% at fault for the second driver's damages and the others ramming the second car for 20% (or something like this). I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many people here assign complete blame to exactly one participant.
    - Loic 4y ago
      I asked my lawyer, the fine element is the deliberate and dangerous part of the action without reason. Normally you effectively have shared fault. The question is if in this case the action can be considered as deliberate. The "software" did it, is it deliberate? Is it considered as a failure of the car like the breaking of mechanical part? This is new and the justice will have to figure it out and I am very happy not to have to figure it out.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many people here assign complete blame to exactly one participant. I'd say there is only one car which did a clearly illegal action (sudden lane change followed by brake checking), so the guilt is 100% on them. It's also true that the car behind probably could've been more assertive in braking harder to avoid reaching the Tesla (I wish there was a dashcam to see it from a better angle). But they didn't do anything illegal per se. Also, that second car driver might've been worried of braking too hard to avoid getting themselves rear ended, which is a legitimate concern when having to break hard in traffic. Of course in the end they got rear ended anyway, but couldn't have known that prior to it happening.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  Not a brake check, that kind of implies cutting in and then a hard enough dab on the brake to freak out the guy behind and force them to brake sharply but not enough to stop. This was the Tesla braking as hard as possible to a complete stop. The following driver reacted quickly and had they not been paying attention the accident would have been much much worse.
- jejeyyy77 4y ago
  That would still be your fault for following too closely. Basically if you hit a car from behind, it’s your fault, every time.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Basically if you hit a car from behind, it’s your fault, every time. Incorrect. If you brake check someone (what the Tesla did), the front car is at fault.
7e 4y ago
In California, it is illegal for a car to stop on a freeway except in an emergency.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Law in question: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21718.&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
lamontcg 4y ago
> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Quebec woman who stopped for ducks, causing fatal crash, loses appeal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses-appeal-1.4152387 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses...
- alanfranz 4y ago
  That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. She didn’t crash into ducks.
  - witheld 4y ago
    The tesla crash in question happened on a freeway, in california where stopping on the freeway is illegal. It was also an unsafe lane change which caused the pile up, not just the braking.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. Right, same as what the Tesla did, suddenly stopping on a highway (being in a tunnel makes it worse, as there's no runoff room to the sides).
kube-system 4y ago
> it's basically never the fault of the front car Because typically the car in the front stopped or slowed for a reason that does not violate any rules or responsibilities. But when they have neglected to follow rules, or uphold responsibilities, then they can share fault. Generally speaking, drivers in the US have a legal responsibility to pay attention to what is going on and operate their vehicle with care. Considering that the police report evidence includes the FAQ page from Tesla for the question “Do I need to pay attention while using autopilot?”, I think it’s clear what direction they’re going here.
kmoser 4y ago
It will be interesting to see if most of the problems with FSD go away as soon as all cars have FSD as well as transmitters to signal to nearby cars what they are doing. At that point humans will theoretically be the weakest link, and anyone driving "manually" will be a liability because they will lack the information and reflexes to deal with whatever is happening around them in a timely manner.
watwut 4y ago
If you change the lanes to be right in front of the car and then hit brakes, you are at fault. The back driver responsibility applies when they have control over space between you two.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
At least in the UK, it would very much be the fault of the driver in front, especially if there was that much CCTV footage available (there won't be, which is why dashcams are important - the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage scores a point here). The second car had left a more than adequate stopping distance. The Tesla changed lanes close in front of it and then immediately braked as hard as possible, deliberately. The driver of the Tesla should lose their driving licence. The drivers following the second car weren't leaving enough distance or paying enough attention.
- mhb 4y ago
  the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage Ha ha ha. London, UK?
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    No more and no fewer cameras than any city in the US.
    - mhb 4y ago
      That's just silly.
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        It's one of the things I found baffling about the US, is the sheer amount of cameras on everything. People even put CCTV cameras inside their homes. What on earth?
        mhb 4y ago
        I don't know what you mean by everything and I certainly agree that the U.S. trend is in the wrong direction with private video doorbells, license plate scanners, etc. It is also pretty crazy to put someone else's camera in your house. But I don't get how someone with a UK background could think that the situation here is somehow worse. For example, this lists the top ten most surveilled cities. Nine are in China. Number three is London. https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-top-10-most-surveilled-cities-in-the-world https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-t...
scoopertrooper 4y ago
It looks like the Tesla driver will be at least as fault for the collision with the car behind it. However, it seems the subsequent collisions were caused by fleshy human drivers driving unsafely. I don't know much about traffic law, so I'm unsure how responsibility for the overall pileup will be divided. From the police report: > V-1 made an unsafe lane change (21658(a) California Vehicle Code) and was slowing to a stop directly into V-2's path of travel. This caused the front of V-2 to collide into the rear of V-1 (4.0.1. #1). P-2 did not have enough time to perceive and react to V-1's lane change. V-1 = The Tesla > P-4 observed V-3 stopping and applied V-4's brakes. V-3 came to a stop to the rear of V-2. P-5 observed V-4 stopping and applied V-5's brakes. As V4 slowed down, P-4 steered V4 towards the #2 lane. Due to P-5's unsafe speed for stopped traffic ahead (22350 California Vehicle Code), P-S failed to safely stop behind V-4 and V-3. The front of V-5 collided into the rear of V-4 (A.O.L #2). V-4 moved into the #2 lane without colliding into any other vehicles. V-5 came to a stop in the #1 lane after colliding into the rear of V-3 (A.O.L #3). and it goes on from there... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-02256-redacted https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-0...
- Alex3917 4y ago
  Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars. I know someone who had to suddenly brake due to a pedestrian jumping onto the road. So, for a very good reason in that case. Nonetheless, it was a sudden stop, so their insurance had to pay for the repairs to both of the two following cars which rear ended each other.
jjav 4y ago
> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Brake checking (what the Tesla did) does definitely make the front car the guilty party. It's usually done for insurance fraud, here presumably done just by AI gone mad. But same result and same guilt.

somethoughts 4y ago

From what I can tell from the video - there seems to be a grey area because the Tesla FSD is changing lanes and stopping simultaneously. If that's the case, its not a tailgating issue but an unsafe lane change - for which the Tesla FSD (or Tesla driver) could be at least partially at fault. The grey area will require some defense and it will be interesting to see if the Tesla driver is left high and dry by Tesla.

sokoloff 4y ago

If I brake check someone on the highway, causing an accident, and it’s discovered that that’s what happened, I’d be pretty shocked* if the trailing driver was found responsible. That video looks like a combined lane change and brake check on the part of the Tesla. * and disappointed

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 4y ago
Why would you be shocked and disappointed? It is the obligation of the driver trailing you to maintain enough distance to be able to stop safely if the car in front of them has to brake hard for whatever reason. The fact that your hard braking wasn't actually necessary may mean that you're also responsible, but it doesn't absolve the other driver.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  As a matter of pragmatism, the person intentionally putting other drivers at unnecessary risk by being an asshole should bear the responsibility for the outcomes of that intentional and unnecessary risk they elected to subject roadway users to.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    They should, and I said as much. It does not absolve the other person from responsibility for not following the required safety protocol. The car in front of them might have had to brake for a perfectly legitimate reason. I mean, suppose that the other driver was driving while drunk. They might have arrived to their destination safely without the asshole in front, but that's not an excuse against a DUI ticket.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      How do you maintain safe distance from those in adjacent lanes? Especially if they may come from behind you, suddenly change lanes in front, then break hard?
      - int_19h 4y ago
        You do not, but that wasn't the hypothetical posited by OP. In the actual case with Tesla, the driver of the car that was in front of the pile-up was not at fault IMO. But there were a bunch more cars behind, and at least some of those slammed into each other because they didn't maintain proper distance, according to the police.
        throw827474737 4y ago
        Are we looking at the same video? The turn signal is on long before, the lane change of the car starts long before.. you don't see any reaction of the following driver even when the Tesla's tires finally cross the line, which is the latest point where the following driver must adapt apeed and distance, but nothing happens?
scotty79 4y ago
I think the intention matters. If you did it to spite the guy behind you then you are at fault. If you did it because you thought something might cross the road and just wanted to be safe then it's not your fault even if nothing crossed the road or nothing was really there.
- abduhl 4y ago
  Tesla’s FSD/autopilot does not act with intention as we understand it.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    No intention, no fault. But definitely unsafe lane change, I think.
    - abduhl 4y ago
      How convenient for Tesla. I doubt we would think this way if your wheel flew off your civic because of a design flaw in the axle.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - noobermin 4y ago
        Why is this being downvoted? Intent isn't everything. While it is important, design flaws are worth getting the book thrown at you over.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        That's because we'd fully expect them to recall the effected models and fix the design flaw. Since Tesla knows about erratic lane-changes and phantom braking, and has for years, why haven't they recalled the vehicles and fixed the design flaw or at least disabled the feature?
    - Faark 4y ago
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Lane change + braking is extremely scary. I rear-ended a woman who did that to me. When she cut in front of me in my lane there was not nearly enough distance between us for me to fully stop when she then suddenly braked. I'm not sure what I really was even supposed to even do in a situation like that — I suppose as soon as she cut over I should have just assumed the worst was coming and hit my brakes right away?
- Jach 4y ago
  Or at least have the foot off the gas. I try to have or create if I don't distance between myself and aggressive drivers. But even with defensive / paranoid driving sometimes there's just not much you can do, physics is physics.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Yeah, in cases like this it is just physics. Propably not much you could have done. She cuy into the space between you and the car in front, the normal reaction is to lift the foot to increase distance again. If the new car hits the brakes, no chance to not rear end it...
mhb 4y ago
In the video, the Tesla comes to a gradual stop and the car behind it didn't change speed at all. The third car was able to stop without hitting the second car and that was arguably more challenging. Second car wasn't paying attention. Maybe it was using cruise control?
tempestn 4y ago
Yes. Watching the second video, you can see the second car's brake lights come on quite quickly, given the Tesla's actions were completely strange and unexpected. Less than a second from when the Tesla cuts in front and starts braking to the vehicle behind hitting the brakes. They're definitely not at fault. Some of the cars that piled in behind were a different matter though. Some were able to stop while others didn't. Those ones must have been following too close and/or not paying enough attention.
- mtsr 4y ago
  They didn't actually stop their car, though. And it really looks like they could have, had they braked a little bit harder. But that may be due to the unexpected nature of the Tesla coming to a full stop.
  - tempestn 4y ago
    Yeah, it's possible they didn't fully slam on the brakes immediately. But you don't expect the car in front of you to do so for no reason either, so I still wouldn't consider the second car at fault.
Loic 4y ago
In Germany you would be covered because line change and break, without a reason, is a deliberate dangerous action. This means that the one doing it is responsible of the following crash. For the multiple cars crash, if not clear cut, without video recording, all the insurances pool themselves together and consider the drivers as not responsible. Nobody cannot tell if you stopped, got hit in the back and then the front or the opposite.
- raphman 4y ago
  Huh? In my (German) experience, responsibility for the crash (and thus for the sentence/fine/payout to each driver) is rarely assigned to a single driver in such a case. Instead, it is distributed among participants with e.g. the Tesla driver being 80% at fault for the second driver's damages and the others ramming the second car for 20% (or something like this). I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many people here assign complete blame to exactly one participant.
  - Loic 4y ago
    I asked my lawyer, the fine element is the deliberate and dangerous part of the action without reason. Normally you effectively have shared fault. The question is if in this case the action can be considered as deliberate. The "software" did it, is it deliberate? Is it considered as a failure of the car like the breaking of mechanical part? This is new and the justice will have to figure it out and I am very happy not to have to figure it out.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many people here assign complete blame to exactly one participant. I'd say there is only one car which did a clearly illegal action (sudden lane change followed by brake checking), so the guilt is 100% on them. It's also true that the car behind probably could've been more assertive in braking harder to avoid reaching the Tesla (I wish there was a dashcam to see it from a better angle). But they didn't do anything illegal per se. Also, that second car driver might've been worried of braking too hard to avoid getting themselves rear ended, which is a legitimate concern when having to break hard in traffic. Of course in the end they got rear ended anyway, but couldn't have known that prior to it happening.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
Not a brake check, that kind of implies cutting in and then a hard enough dab on the brake to freak out the guy behind and force them to brake sharply but not enough to stop. This was the Tesla braking as hard as possible to a complete stop. The following driver reacted quickly and had they not been paying attention the accident would have been much much worse.
jejeyyy77 4y ago
That would still be your fault for following too closely. Basically if you hit a car from behind, it’s your fault, every time.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Basically if you hit a car from behind, it’s your fault, every time. Incorrect. If you brake check someone (what the Tesla did), the front car is at fault.

7e 4y ago

In California, it is illegal for a car to stop on a freeway except in an emergency.

lamontcg 4y ago
Law in question: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21718.&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

lamontcg 4y ago

> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Quebec woman who stopped for ducks, causing fatal crash, loses appeal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses-appeal-1.4152387 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses...

alanfranz 4y ago
That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. She didn’t crash into ducks.
- witheld 4y ago
  The tesla crash in question happened on a freeway, in california where stopping on the freeway is illegal. It was also an unsafe lane change which caused the pile up, not just the braking.
- jjav 4y ago
  > That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. Right, same as what the Tesla did, suddenly stopping on a highway (being in a tunnel makes it worse, as there's no runoff room to the sides).

kube-system 4y ago

> it's basically never the fault of the front car Because typically the car in the front stopped or slowed for a reason that does not violate any rules or responsibilities. But when they have neglected to follow rules, or uphold responsibilities, then they can share fault. Generally speaking, drivers in the US have a legal responsibility to pay attention to what is going on and operate their vehicle with care. Considering that the police report evidence includes the FAQ page from Tesla for the question “Do I need to pay attention while using autopilot?”, I think it’s clear what direction they’re going here.

kmoser 4y ago

It will be interesting to see if most of the problems with FSD go away as soon as all cars have FSD as well as transmitters to signal to nearby cars what they are doing. At that point humans will theoretically be the weakest link, and anyone driving "manually" will be a liability because they will lack the information and reflexes to deal with whatever is happening around them in a timely manner.

watwut 4y ago

If you change the lanes to be right in front of the car and then hit brakes, you are at fault. The back driver responsibility applies when they have control over space between you two.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

At least in the UK, it would very much be the fault of the driver in front, especially if there was that much CCTV footage available (there won't be, which is why dashcams are important - the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage scores a point here). The second car had left a more than adequate stopping distance. The Tesla changed lanes close in front of it and then immediately braked as hard as possible, deliberately. The driver of the Tesla should lose their driving licence. The drivers following the second car weren't leaving enough distance or paying enough attention.

mhb 4y ago
the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage Ha ha ha. London, UK?
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  No more and no fewer cameras than any city in the US.
  - mhb 4y ago
    That's just silly.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      It's one of the things I found baffling about the US, is the sheer amount of cameras on everything. People even put CCTV cameras inside their homes. What on earth?
      - mhb 4y ago
        I don't know what you mean by everything and I certainly agree that the U.S. trend is in the wrong direction with private video doorbells, license plate scanners, etc. It is also pretty crazy to put someone else's camera in your house. But I don't get how someone with a UK background could think that the situation here is somehow worse. For example, this lists the top ten most surveilled cities. Nine are in China. Number three is London. https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-top-10-most-surveilled-cities-in-the-world https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-t...

scoopertrooper 4y ago

It looks like the Tesla driver will be at least as fault for the collision with the car behind it. However, it seems the subsequent collisions were caused by fleshy human drivers driving unsafely. I don't know much about traffic law, so I'm unsure how responsibility for the overall pileup will be divided. From the police report: > V-1 made an unsafe lane change (21658(a) California Vehicle Code) and was slowing to a stop directly into V-2's path of travel. This caused the front of V-2 to collide into the rear of V-1 (4.0.1. #1). P-2 did not have enough time to perceive and react to V-1's lane change. V-1 = The Tesla > P-4 observed V-3 stopping and applied V-4's brakes. V-3 came to a stop to the rear of V-2. P-5 observed V-4 stopping and applied V-5's brakes. As V4 slowed down, P-4 steered V4 towards the #2 lane. Due to P-5's unsafe speed for stopped traffic ahead (22350 California Vehicle Code), P-S failed to safely stop behind V-4 and V-3. The front of V-5 collided into the rear of V-4 (A.O.L #2). V-4 moved into the #2 lane without colliding into any other vehicles. V-5 came to a stop in the #1 lane after colliding into the rear of V-3 (A.O.L #3). and it goes on from there... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-02256-redacted https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-0...

Alex3917 4y ago
Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars. I know someone who had to suddenly brake due to a pedestrian jumping onto the road. So, for a very good reason in that case. Nonetheless, it was a sudden stop, so their insurance had to pay for the repairs to both of the two following cars which rear ended each other.

jjav 4y ago

> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Brake checking (what the Tesla did) does definitely make the front car the guilty party. It's usually done for insurance fraud, here presumably done just by AI gone mad. But same result and same guilt.