4 ms·

Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?

by ht85 4y ago

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?
      - AmericanChopper 4y ago
        You seem to be missing a couple of point here. 1. Fault in an accident can be spread across every party that was involved, and no matter how negligent one part was, that has no influence over how negligent every other party also potentially was. 2. A driver is typically responsible for being aware of all potential hazards on the road, not just the ones immediately ahead in the same lane. For instance a car that has started indicating to move into their lane from another lane (as this Tesla did ~7 seconds before the collision), and a car in their lane that is coming to a stop (this Tesla had completed the lane change pretty much 3 seconds before the collision). Obviously the Tesla is really pushing the limits of what would be considered a safe gap, and coming to a stop in that location without a proper reason is obviously negligently dangerous. But the negligence of both parties contributed to this accident, regardless of who was most at fault.
    - smaudet 4y ago
      It's absolutely not nonsense, I suggest taking some basic high-school physics. Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop, not for the driver to first notice an issue. At 60 mph it will take many meters and seconds to deaccelerate, assuming the driver can take exactly the correct action: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=time+to+brake+at+70+meters https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=time+to+brake+at+70+met... Estimate here is about 4 seconds, under perfect conditions. 5 seconds is more than reasonable, considering you also need to realize the other driver is acting erroneously.
      - frumper 4y ago
        he said 5 seconds to START braking
        smaudet 4y ago
        I did not interpret their comment that way. That would be unreasonable, however their comment included mention of physical break distance, so I'm pretty certain they didn't mean actual human response time and instead how long it takes for a human to respond and slow the car, which is the metric of interest here. Even for a robot with millisecond response times, you will be breaking in the multiples of seconds, not instantaneously. Observation "reaction time" really is completely irrelevant here.
        frumper 4y ago
        > It takes humans up to 5 seconds to even start breaking in the presence of danger. That seems pretty clear. 5 total seconds is really reasonable. 5 seconds before you start is silly.
      - mikestew 4y ago
        Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop You seem to have your terminology confused. Reaction time doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with driving. I suggest a quick web search next time before assigning people remedial physics.
  - meindnoch 4y ago
    5 seconds?? Lol. Maybe if the driver is 86 years old.
- misnome 4y ago
  I overtake you, the instant my car is 1m in front of yours I switch into your lane and hard break. Who is at fault for you crashing into the back of me?
  - progman32 4y ago
    Key word is "almost". Perhaps this is a situation where the fault is primarily with the overtaking car. However, an attentive driver should have started braking as soon as the illegal lane change was started.
  - numpad0 4y ago
    You, UNLESS THERE ARE CLEAR EVIDENCES THAT PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, like there are in this case and there will be in such cases(like skid marks). The fact that the trailing driver is USUALLY found at fault it is just philosophical razors applied to situations without enough evidences. Generalizing that into "trailing drivers are always at fault" is disingenuous, partisan and malicious.
  - matwood 4y ago
    You're describing the exception situation that has led to many drivers to install dashcams.
- sumeno 4y ago
  Changing lanes and then slamming on the brakes means you are 100% at fault (assuming there is evidence). It's the most common car insurance scam and it is completely indistinguishable from what the Tesla did in this case
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    Breaking down is also completely indistinguishable from what the Tesla did in this case. The breaks weren’t slammed on either, 7 seconds elapsed between the Tesla indicating for the turn and the collision. It’s very obvious that every participant in the pile up was at least partially at fault. The only confounding factor in this case seems to be that many HN commenters lose a handful of IQ points when any topic relating to Elon Musk comes up.
    - ryanwaggoner 4y ago
      I applaud your self awareness
    - sumeno 4y ago
      The video of the accident[1] clearly shows the Tesla start hitting its brakes 4 seconds in, the car that eventually rearends it is a few car lengths behind and in the left lane and hits its own brakes less than a second later and the accident occurs less than 4 seconds later. Taking into account reaction times, it takes approximately 5-6 seconds to bring a car going 60mph to a complete stop[2][3] The accident was completely unavoidable for the car that rearends the Tesla because the Tesla made an extremely dangerous maneuver [1] https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-autopilot/ https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-auto... [2] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_ti... [3] https://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/keep-your-braking-distance-more-than-just-slowing-down.html https://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/keep-your-braking-dista...

Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?

by ht85 4y ago

Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?

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?
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      You seem to be missing a couple of point here. 1. Fault in an accident can be spread across every party that was involved, and no matter how negligent one part was, that has no influence over how negligent every other party also potentially was. 2. A driver is typically responsible for being aware of all potential hazards on the road, not just the ones immediately ahead in the same lane. For instance a car that has started indicating to move into their lane from another lane (as this Tesla did ~7 seconds before the collision), and a car in their lane that is coming to a stop (this Tesla had completed the lane change pretty much 3 seconds before the collision). Obviously the Tesla is really pushing the limits of what would be considered a safe gap, and coming to a stop in that location without a proper reason is obviously negligently dangerous. But the negligence of both parties contributed to this accident, regardless of who was most at fault.
  - smaudet 4y ago
    It's absolutely not nonsense, I suggest taking some basic high-school physics. Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop, not for the driver to first notice an issue. At 60 mph it will take many meters and seconds to deaccelerate, assuming the driver can take exactly the correct action: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=time+to+brake+at+70+meters https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=time+to+brake+at+70+met... Estimate here is about 4 seconds, under perfect conditions. 5 seconds is more than reasonable, considering you also need to realize the other driver is acting erroneously.
    - frumper 4y ago
      he said 5 seconds to START braking
      - smaudet 4y ago
        I did not interpret their comment that way. That would be unreasonable, however their comment included mention of physical break distance, so I'm pretty certain they didn't mean actual human response time and instead how long it takes for a human to respond and slow the car, which is the metric of interest here. Even for a robot with millisecond response times, you will be breaking in the multiples of seconds, not instantaneously. Observation "reaction time" really is completely irrelevant here.
        frumper 4y ago
        > It takes humans up to 5 seconds to even start breaking in the presence of danger. That seems pretty clear. 5 total seconds is really reasonable. 5 seconds before you start is silly.
    - mikestew 4y ago
      Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop You seem to have your terminology confused. Reaction time doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with driving. I suggest a quick web search next time before assigning people remedial physics.
- meindnoch 4y ago
  5 seconds?? Lol. Maybe if the driver is 86 years old.
misnome 4y ago
I overtake you, the instant my car is 1m in front of yours I switch into your lane and hard break. Who is at fault for you crashing into the back of me?
- progman32 4y ago
  Key word is "almost". Perhaps this is a situation where the fault is primarily with the overtaking car. However, an attentive driver should have started braking as soon as the illegal lane change was started.
- numpad0 4y ago
  You, UNLESS THERE ARE CLEAR EVIDENCES THAT PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, like there are in this case and there will be in such cases(like skid marks). The fact that the trailing driver is USUALLY found at fault it is just philosophical razors applied to situations without enough evidences. Generalizing that into "trailing drivers are always at fault" is disingenuous, partisan and malicious.
- matwood 4y ago
  You're describing the exception situation that has led to many drivers to install dashcams.
sumeno 4y ago
Changing lanes and then slamming on the brakes means you are 100% at fault (assuming there is evidence). It's the most common car insurance scam and it is completely indistinguishable from what the Tesla did in this case
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  Breaking down is also completely indistinguishable from what the Tesla did in this case. The breaks weren’t slammed on either, 7 seconds elapsed between the Tesla indicating for the turn and the collision. It’s very obvious that every participant in the pile up was at least partially at fault. The only confounding factor in this case seems to be that many HN commenters lose a handful of IQ points when any topic relating to Elon Musk comes up.
  - ryanwaggoner 4y ago
    I applaud your self awareness
  - sumeno 4y ago
    The video of the accident[1] clearly shows the Tesla start hitting its brakes 4 seconds in, the car that eventually rearends it is a few car lengths behind and in the left lane and hits its own brakes less than a second later and the accident occurs less than 4 seconds later. Taking into account reaction times, it takes approximately 5-6 seconds to bring a car going 60mph to a complete stop[2][3] The accident was completely unavoidable for the car that rearends the Tesla because the Tesla made an extremely dangerous maneuver [1] https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-autopilot/ https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-auto... [2] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_ti... [3] https://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/keep-your-braking-distance-more-than-just-slowing-down.html https://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/keep-your-braking-dista...