3 ms·

> clearly the cause of the crash here isn't the tesla, it is other cars not respecting minimum safety distances The cause of the crash is the Tesla. You are no

> clearly the cause of the crash here isn't the tesla, it is other cars not respecting minimum safety distances The cause of the crash is the Tesla. You are not allowed to stop on bridges, in tunnels and several other places. The crashes starting with the Nth car and not the 1st is normal. Reaction time of the first car eats into the reaction of the second and so on until there's no more time to stop. Understand that cars further back do not see the car in front of them applying the brakes and slowing down, they are seeing a car moving at normal speed instantly crashing. Minimum safety distance is not as big as reaction time plus stopping to zero, that would be huge.

dachryn 4y ago
also, since they don't expect the need to come to a full stop, they don't apply enough braking force.
cm2187 4y ago
Not sure I understand your reasoning. The further you are from the first car, the more warning you get on what's going on, not the other way round. I typically watch not just the car in front of me but 1 or 2 cars ahead. If I see those cars braking, I start breaking. It's the car immediately following the tesla that got the least warning.
- trabant00 4y ago
  It is not always possible to see 1 or 2 cars ahead, that can not be the standard for who is at fault. edit: to make it clear, we are debating whether the Tesla is at fault, not whether the other could have avoided it. Creating a dangerous situation still puts you at fault, you can not be allowed to do so at any time on the grounds that everybody else should avoid you.
bagels 4y ago
It's not illegal to stop on a bridge or tunnel if required to not crash, surely?
- trabant00 4y ago
  Of course not, but the Tesla was not about to crash, so I don't understand your point.
progman32 4y ago
And yet, I make it a point to achieve enough space for reaction time + stopping to zero as often as possible. Everyone should.
- trabant00 4y ago
  Good for you. It is not always possible thought and this is why we have laws against braking or driving at significant lower speeds for no reason. Creating a dangerous situation is not acceptable on the grounds that other drivers should be able to avoid it.
  - sniglom 4y ago
    Wouldn't "acquire acceptable safety distance" be a reason good enough?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dachryn 4y ago

also, since they don't expect the need to come to a full stop, they don't apply enough braking force.

cm2187 4y ago

Not sure I understand your reasoning. The further you are from the first car, the more warning you get on what's going on, not the other way round. I typically watch not just the car in front of me but 1 or 2 cars ahead. If I see those cars braking, I start breaking. It's the car immediately following the tesla that got the least warning.

trabant00 4y ago
It is not always possible to see 1 or 2 cars ahead, that can not be the standard for who is at fault. edit: to make it clear, we are debating whether the Tesla is at fault, not whether the other could have avoided it. Creating a dangerous situation still puts you at fault, you can not be allowed to do so at any time on the grounds that everybody else should avoid you.

bagels 4y ago

It's not illegal to stop on a bridge or tunnel if required to not crash, surely?

trabant00 4y ago
Of course not, but the Tesla was not about to crash, so I don't understand your point.

progman32 4y ago

And yet, I make it a point to achieve enough space for reaction time + stopping to zero as often as possible. Everyone should.

trabant00 4y ago
Good for you. It is not always possible thought and this is why we have laws against braking or driving at significant lower speeds for no reason. Creating a dangerous situation is not acceptable on the grounds that other drivers should be able to avoid it.
- sniglom 4y ago
  Wouldn't "acquire acceptable safety distance" be a reason good enough?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]