4 ms·

Before jumping to conclusions... Nah, I'm jumping straight to this conclusion: if you hit something in front of you that didn't leap out in front of you at the

Before jumping to conclusions... Nah, I'm jumping straight to this conclusion: if you hit something in front of you that didn't leap out in front of you at the last second, you fucked up. The object that you hit was erratically slowing and speeding up? You should have left more room to allow for the unpredictability. It was raining, can't see, the roads are slick? Leave more room in front of you. Yes, I way too often don't do that, either. But if there's something in the road ahead of me, and I hit it? Man, there are few scenarios where I can claim that there was nothing I could do. And in the case of a full-sized vehicle in front of me, I don't care how erratically it's driving, don't run into the back of it.

flerchin 3y ago
If your system is objectively right, but also objectively causing accidents with humans. Well you won't fix the humans...
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > If your system is objectively right, but also objectively causing accidents with humans. It's not causing accidents in these cases. The humans are.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The causality version of "cause", not the blame version. Accidents that would not have happened without the system.
bumby 3y ago
Right, but also imagine how traffic would be if everyone drove with the pre-requisite distance to do that. Can you imagine I-5 traffic if everyone had 10 car lengths between them? So while your statement isn't wrong, it's also not always pragmatic in the real world.
- jaktet 3y ago
  I’m guessing an accident caused due to not leaving enough room to safely stop is going to cause a bit more traffic than the alternative
  - bumby 3y ago
    So you're saying we should all drive with a 10 car buffer, then? If not, then you already recognize the probability is less than 100%, so that has to be baked into your statement.
    - mikestew 3y ago
      So you're saying we should all drive with a 10 car buffer, then? The only comments saying that are...yours. If your argument is so lacking that you need to argue in bad faith, perhaps it is best to not bother at all. Or perhaps you are not aware of the proper following distance (and therefore, part of the problem about which you complain). Two car lengths (EDIT: seconds, not car lengths; oops) is the general advice.
      - bumby 3y ago
        I'm just trying to understand exactly what they are advocating, because so many people seem to be making a dichotomous safety choice. It's not a simple model and my point is there are tradeoffs. >Two car lengths is the general advice. No. It's speed, roadway, and car dependent. Two car lengths isn't even sufficient at 25mph let alone at 70mph.[1] Which all goes to show how poorly people tend to think about these things and quickly resort to overly simplified mental models. [1] https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_Aug15_Speeding_1.html https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_A...
        mikestew 3y ago
        No. It's speed, roadway, and car dependent. Moreso that my post has a mistake: two second following distance, not car lengths. Brain fart on my part; apologies for causing you to have to find a URL. But as general rules go, that increases the distance as speed goes up. No, it doesn’t account for everything, but good enough for most circumstances.
sib 3y ago
I remember taking Driver's Ed class many years ago. When we got to the section about fault in relation to rear-end collisions, the instructor said, "if you rear-end someone, it is your fault, full stop." The class then spent five minutes asking hypotheticals, to which the answer was always, "nope, still your fault."
- ghaff 3y ago
  That is correct. However, it's also the case that in the real world if you drive legally but do things like brake erratically, you will cause accidents.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Not if the vehicles behind you are self driving cars.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  He's wrong. What if that car ahead just got there and is moving far below your velocity? And there's the case of where the car ahead stopped in a fashion a car can't--ran into something massive or the like. Under standard driving conditions if the car in front of you is involved in a head-on at speed you're going to hit it. 2 second following distance assumes the car ahead is subject to the same physics you are.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    If you cannot see a car ahead of you in time to stop then you are going too fast for conditions. The only time it can be not your fault is if the slow moving car switches lanes in front of you before there is time to stop.
  - sib 3y ago
    The one exception is if a car pulls into a lane in front of you when you are traveling faster. His actual statement was, "if you rear-end someone that you are following, it is your fault..." If someone abruptly pulls in front of you, you weren't following them.
rickydroll 3y ago
I have a couple more scenarios for you. Overdriving your headlights is a great way to hit something you don't see in time. The safe speed in average conditions on low beams is around 25 to 30 mph, and on high beams, it is around 45 to 50 mph. If there's any glare on the roadway from security lights and oncoming drivers, your safe speed drops 10 to 20 miles an hour. Related to this is glare from the sun or artificial sources. I lived in a small city with antique-style globe lamps on Main Street. The veiling glare made pedestrians invisible, and even if you knew about the glare and watched for pedestrians, you would still be surprised when they became visible halfway across the street in front of you.

flerchin 3y ago

If your system is objectively right, but also objectively causing accidents with humans. Well you won't fix the humans...

robertlagrant 3y ago
> If your system is objectively right, but also objectively causing accidents with humans. It's not causing accidents in these cases. The humans are.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The causality version of "cause", not the blame version. Accidents that would not have happened without the system.

bumby 3y ago

Right, but also imagine how traffic would be if everyone drove with the pre-requisite distance to do that. Can you imagine I-5 traffic if everyone had 10 car lengths between them? So while your statement isn't wrong, it's also not always pragmatic in the real world.

jaktet 3y ago
I’m guessing an accident caused due to not leaving enough room to safely stop is going to cause a bit more traffic than the alternative
- bumby 3y ago
  So you're saying we should all drive with a 10 car buffer, then? If not, then you already recognize the probability is less than 100%, so that has to be baked into your statement.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    So you're saying we should all drive with a 10 car buffer, then? The only comments saying that are...yours. If your argument is so lacking that you need to argue in bad faith, perhaps it is best to not bother at all. Or perhaps you are not aware of the proper following distance (and therefore, part of the problem about which you complain). Two car lengths (EDIT: seconds, not car lengths; oops) is the general advice.
    - bumby 3y ago
      I'm just trying to understand exactly what they are advocating, because so many people seem to be making a dichotomous safety choice. It's not a simple model and my point is there are tradeoffs. >Two car lengths is the general advice. No. It's speed, roadway, and car dependent. Two car lengths isn't even sufficient at 25mph let alone at 70mph.[1] Which all goes to show how poorly people tend to think about these things and quickly resort to overly simplified mental models. [1] https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_Aug15_Speeding_1.html https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_A...
      - mikestew 3y ago
        No. It's speed, roadway, and car dependent. Moreso that my post has a mistake: two second following distance, not car lengths. Brain fart on my part; apologies for causing you to have to find a URL. But as general rules go, that increases the distance as speed goes up. No, it doesn’t account for everything, but good enough for most circumstances.

sib 3y ago

I remember taking Driver's Ed class many years ago. When we got to the section about fault in relation to rear-end collisions, the instructor said, "if you rear-end someone, it is your fault, full stop." The class then spent five minutes asking hypotheticals, to which the answer was always, "nope, still your fault."

ghaff 3y ago
That is correct. However, it's also the case that in the real world if you drive legally but do things like brake erratically, you will cause accidents.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Not if the vehicles behind you are self driving cars.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
He's wrong. What if that car ahead just got there and is moving far below your velocity? And there's the case of where the car ahead stopped in a fashion a car can't--ran into something massive or the like. Under standard driving conditions if the car in front of you is involved in a head-on at speed you're going to hit it. 2 second following distance assumes the car ahead is subject to the same physics you are.
- bluGill 3y ago
  If you cannot see a car ahead of you in time to stop then you are going too fast for conditions. The only time it can be not your fault is if the slow moving car switches lanes in front of you before there is time to stop.
- sib 3y ago
  The one exception is if a car pulls into a lane in front of you when you are traveling faster. His actual statement was, "if you rear-end someone that you are following, it is your fault..." If someone abruptly pulls in front of you, you weren't following them.

rickydroll 3y ago

I have a couple more scenarios for you. Overdriving your headlights is a great way to hit something you don't see in time. The safe speed in average conditions on low beams is around 25 to 30 mph, and on high beams, it is around 45 to 50 mph. If there's any glare on the roadway from security lights and oncoming drivers, your safe speed drops 10 to 20 miles an hour. Related to this is glare from the sun or artificial sources. I lived in a small city with antique-style globe lamps on Main Street. The veiling glare made pedestrians invisible, and even if you knew about the glare and watched for pedestrians, you would still be surprised when they became visible halfway across the street in front of you.