3 ms·

A sudden stop is something the driver behind should be prepared to handle, so if there’s a crash, it’s caused by a lack of caution on the part of the driver beh

by jl6 3y ago

A sudden stop is something the driver behind should be prepared to handle, so if there’s a crash, it’s caused by a lack of caution on the part of the driver behind, not overcaution of the braking driver.

genocidicbunny 3y ago
True, but it doesn't really change the calculus at all. Good defensive driving includes considering the human factors, which also means anticipating when other drivers don't drive well or suddenly decide to do something stupid. So yes, the person behind you that rear-ended you might be in the wrong, but you're still going to be left with a life-long spinal injury. As they say -- you can be dead right, but you're also dead.
gnicholas 3y ago
It is generally presumed that the driver who rear ends a stopping car is the one who is at fault. But this is a rebuttable presumption: the following driver can shift the responsibility if he can show that he was following at a safe distance and that the driver in front braked too aggressively/for no reason. For example, if you’re doing 70 on the freeway and the car in front of you screeches to a halt to avoid hitting a squirrel, you could prove this is unreasonable braking. If it’s a deer in the road, you’re going to have a harder time. It depends on the circumstances.
- mindslight 3y ago
  > the car in front of you screeches to a halt to avoid hitting a squirrel, you could prove this is unreasonable braking Uh, what? I agree with the rest of your comment, but avoiding killing a squirrel is a legitimate reason to brake hard. I've rarely seen squirrels on controlled access roads where going 70 is the norm though (proper landscaping plus road noise keeps them away), so I'd say we're really talking about 30~50mph situations.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    The point was the speed. Slamming on the brakes at 70 to avoid killing a squirrel is unreasonable, according to most people, if the likely outcome is causing a huge pileup. People don’t slam on the brakes on the freeway unless it’s to avoid serious injury or damage. Even at 50 I’d think that slamming on the brakes could be unreasonable, since it is pretty rare and would be unexpected by other drivers.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  By definition, a safe following distance means you can brake in time if the car in front effectively turned into a giant concrete wall (e.g., if they swerved right in front of, or crashed into, a large immobile obstruction). If the driver in front "braked too aggressively", then you are not at a safe following distance, sorry. The safe following distance is much longer than most drivers realize.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    In many places, it is impossible to maintain this follow distance. If you leave this distance when driving on the freeway in California, for example, cars will repeatedly cut you off, shrinking your follow distance. It is literally not possible to maintain what you describe.
    - Ferret7446 3y ago
      That is not what "impossible" means. It is perfectly possible to maintain this distance, which is based on your speed. You just have to be comfortable with getting cut off or slowing down. (Note that I am not dictating what you should be doing, I am simply commenting that 1. if you maintain a safe follow distance, sudden braking isn't an issue 2. if sudden braking is an issue, it is your fault 3. it is perfectly possible to maintain safe follow distance, even if it irritates you.
      - gnicholas 3y ago
        If there is a regular amount of traffic, it is actually impossible. I've tried. You can achieve it instantaneously, but you cannot maintain it because you will keep getting cut off. It is also dangerous — especially for you — because it causes a lot of merges to happen right in front of you. Cars will end up passing you on both sides, and some fraction of them will try to then cut you off. If this happens from both sides, you're in big trouble. Also, from a legal perspective, you are incorrect that if you rear-end someone, you are at fault (IAAL).

by jl6 3y ago

genocidicbunny 3y ago

True, but it doesn't really change the calculus at all. Good defensive driving includes considering the human factors, which also means anticipating when other drivers don't drive well or suddenly decide to do something stupid. So yes, the person behind you that rear-ended you might be in the wrong, but you're still going to be left with a life-long spinal injury. As they say -- you can be dead right, but you're also dead.

gnicholas 3y ago

It is generally presumed that the driver who rear ends a stopping car is the one who is at fault. But this is a rebuttable presumption: the following driver can shift the responsibility if he can show that he was following at a safe distance and that the driver in front braked too aggressively/for no reason. For example, if you’re doing 70 on the freeway and the car in front of you screeches to a halt to avoid hitting a squirrel, you could prove this is unreasonable braking. If it’s a deer in the road, you’re going to have a harder time. It depends on the circumstances.

mindslight 3y ago
> the car in front of you screeches to a halt to avoid hitting a squirrel, you could prove this is unreasonable braking Uh, what? I agree with the rest of your comment, but avoiding killing a squirrel is a legitimate reason to brake hard. I've rarely seen squirrels on controlled access roads where going 70 is the norm though (proper landscaping plus road noise keeps them away), so I'd say we're really talking about 30~50mph situations.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  The point was the speed. Slamming on the brakes at 70 to avoid killing a squirrel is unreasonable, according to most people, if the likely outcome is causing a huge pileup. People don’t slam on the brakes on the freeway unless it’s to avoid serious injury or damage. Even at 50 I’d think that slamming on the brakes could be unreasonable, since it is pretty rare and would be unexpected by other drivers.
Ferret7446 3y ago
By definition, a safe following distance means you can brake in time if the car in front effectively turned into a giant concrete wall (e.g., if they swerved right in front of, or crashed into, a large immobile obstruction). If the driver in front "braked too aggressively", then you are not at a safe following distance, sorry. The safe following distance is much longer than most drivers realize.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  In many places, it is impossible to maintain this follow distance. If you leave this distance when driving on the freeway in California, for example, cars will repeatedly cut you off, shrinking your follow distance. It is literally not possible to maintain what you describe.
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    That is not what "impossible" means. It is perfectly possible to maintain this distance, which is based on your speed. You just have to be comfortable with getting cut off or slowing down. (Note that I am not dictating what you should be doing, I am simply commenting that 1. if you maintain a safe follow distance, sudden braking isn't an issue 2. if sudden braking is an issue, it is your fault 3. it is perfectly possible to maintain safe follow distance, even if it irritates you.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      If there is a regular amount of traffic, it is actually impossible. I've tried. You can achieve it instantaneously, but you cannot maintain it because you will keep getting cut off. It is also dangerous — especially for you — because it causes a lot of merges to happen right in front of you. Cars will end up passing you on both sides, and some fraction of them will try to then cut you off. If this happens from both sides, you're in big trouble. Also, from a legal perspective, you are incorrect that if you rear-end someone, you are at fault (IAAL).