6 ms·

It’s very unlikely it’s a first time FSD caused accident for others. People using FSD allow it to do reckless things, just to see “if it’ll figure it out”. You

It’s very unlikely it’s a first time FSD caused accident for others. People using FSD allow it to do reckless things, just to see “if it’ll figure it out”. You can cause accident, without being involved in it, especially if you drive in unpredictable way. Like this one - if driver would stop sudden breaking and moved forward, cars behind him could have still crashed. That’s the thing about testing on the public roads - there are many ways you can affect other users.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
Most of the fault in this video seems attributable to the other motorists. I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Is this not the case in California? Because the first car seems at least partially at fault in this respect, and every other contributor to the pile up is significantly at fault.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  This is mostly applicable if there is no sudden lane change. True you should always keep a safe enough distance for you to react and brake in any case with the car in front of you. If that car was too close on another lane, switch to yours and brake simultaneously this is a bit different.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    The first car to collide with the Tesla is least at fault, but obviously still partially at fault. None of the other cars in the pileup have that excuse though.
    - ht85 4y ago
      Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?
      - AmericanChopper 4y ago
        It’s almost impossible to rear-end another car without being at least partially at fault. The lane change from the Tesla was obviously dangerous, but the first car to collide with it had sufficient warning and time to react. You can see that they did react, but they obviously didn’t expect the Tesla to come to a full stop, which is why the first collision took place. I believe the legal term for this is contributory negligence.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        It takes humans up to 5 seconds to even start breaking in the presence of danger. Even at 40 miles per hour your speed is 58 feet per second (or, at 60kmh you speed is 16 meters per second). So it's either "the driver had sufficient warning" or "the lane change from Tesla was dangerous". As you don't expect cars that are dangerously changing to suddenly slow down.
        jiriro 4y ago
        5 seconds is nonsense. The average driver’s reaction time is 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. This is before the driver’s foot moves. Then there is approx 1 second before the brakes take effect (foot movement, applying the force, brakes responding) So 1.5 second before the car starts breaking. There is a rule of “be at least 2 seconds behind the car in front” which gives a safe distance to handle any emergency braking. Of course everything depends on driver’s and car’s conditions.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        Sweden has the rule of "at least 3 seconds". Because you keep ignoring the speed, and the braking distance as well. Edit: and assuming perfect conditions when the driver is perfectly alert and looking ahead. And is young and healthy. And... However you count, if Tesla did a dangerous lane change and started braking, how is this the fault if the driver behind?
        4y ago
  - mtsr 4y ago
    The whole scenario would look very similar if the Tesla was a car suffering from a breakdown and moving to the safest lane it can reach safely. In such a case we would also expect other drivers to pay enough attention to prevent an accident like this...
    - throwaheyy 4y ago
      No, it wouldn’t in a breakdown situation in any other car, the driver would try to pull over to the right. Most drivers gain an instinct to passing slower/stopped objects on the left, and a natural aversion to passing them on the right. The Tesla pulled over and stopped in the far left lane. No “space” was left to pass it.
      - mtsr 4y ago
        It's either changing 3 lanes to the right or 1 to the left. In case of loss of control, in this case with the car coming to a stop very quickly, it might be better heading for the left lane, instead of getting stuck in the middle or second lane from the right.
- b4je7d7wb 4y ago
  >Is this not the case in California? I don't think it is. I've never felt so unsafe in traffic as driving on highways in california. People keep an order of magnitude too little distance to the car in front. That density of cars would make any european highway slow down to a crawl but there they just practically touch eachother while driving 60kmph while doing crazy lane shifts left and right.
- jjav 4y ago
  > I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Brake testing (suddenly braking hard for no reason, what the Tesla did here) has always been a cause for the leading car to be the guilty party when they get rear ended. In times prior to dashcams, it was difficult to prove the car ahead did brake to cause the accident, so the rule of thumb was the rear car is probably guilty. But if there was a way to show the lead car did brake, they're guilty. Nowadays with dashcams, it's a lot easier to prove, so brake testers don't get away with it as much.

AmericanChopper 4y ago

Most of the fault in this video seems attributable to the other motorists. I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Is this not the case in California? Because the first car seems at least partially at fault in this respect, and every other contributor to the pile up is significantly at fault.

prmoustache 4y ago
This is mostly applicable if there is no sudden lane change. True you should always keep a safe enough distance for you to react and brake in any case with the car in front of you. If that car was too close on another lane, switch to yours and brake simultaneously this is a bit different.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  The first car to collide with the Tesla is least at fault, but obviously still partially at fault. None of the other cars in the pileup have that excuse though.
  - ht85 4y ago
    Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      It’s almost impossible to rear-end another car without being at least partially at fault. The lane change from the Tesla was obviously dangerous, but the first car to collide with it had sufficient warning and time to react. You can see that they did react, but they obviously didn’t expect the Tesla to come to a full stop, which is why the first collision took place. I believe the legal term for this is contributory negligence.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        It takes humans up to 5 seconds to even start breaking in the presence of danger. Even at 40 miles per hour your speed is 58 feet per second (or, at 60kmh you speed is 16 meters per second). So it's either "the driver had sufficient warning" or "the lane change from Tesla was dangerous". As you don't expect cars that are dangerously changing to suddenly slow down.
        jiriro 4y ago
        5 seconds is nonsense. The average driver’s reaction time is 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. This is before the driver’s foot moves. Then there is approx 1 second before the brakes take effect (foot movement, applying the force, brakes responding) So 1.5 second before the car starts breaking. There is a rule of “be at least 2 seconds behind the car in front” which gives a safe distance to handle any emergency braking. Of course everything depends on driver’s and car’s conditions.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        Sweden has the rule of "at least 3 seconds". Because you keep ignoring the speed, and the braking distance as well. Edit: and assuming perfect conditions when the driver is perfectly alert and looking ahead. And is young and healthy. And... However you count, if Tesla did a dangerous lane change and started braking, how is this the fault if the driver behind?
        4y ago
- mtsr 4y ago
  The whole scenario would look very similar if the Tesla was a car suffering from a breakdown and moving to the safest lane it can reach safely. In such a case we would also expect other drivers to pay enough attention to prevent an accident like this...
  - throwaheyy 4y ago
    No, it wouldn’t in a breakdown situation in any other car, the driver would try to pull over to the right. Most drivers gain an instinct to passing slower/stopped objects on the left, and a natural aversion to passing them on the right. The Tesla pulled over and stopped in the far left lane. No “space” was left to pass it.
    - mtsr 4y ago
      It's either changing 3 lanes to the right or 1 to the left. In case of loss of control, in this case with the car coming to a stop very quickly, it might be better heading for the left lane, instead of getting stuck in the middle or second lane from the right.
b4je7d7wb 4y ago
>Is this not the case in California? I don't think it is. I've never felt so unsafe in traffic as driving on highways in california. People keep an order of magnitude too little distance to the car in front. That density of cars would make any european highway slow down to a crawl but there they just practically touch eachother while driving 60kmph while doing crazy lane shifts left and right.
jjav 4y ago
> I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Brake testing (suddenly braking hard for no reason, what the Tesla did here) has always been a cause for the leading car to be the guilty party when they get rear ended. In times prior to dashcams, it was difficult to prove the car ahead did brake to cause the accident, so the rule of thumb was the rear car is probably guilty. But if there was a way to show the lead car did brake, they're guilty. Nowadays with dashcams, it's a lot easier to prove, so brake testers don't get away with it as much.