Stop being dangerous on the road. This isn't a game.
This is the important part. Doesn't matter what the intent was, the fact of the matter is that the people behind you nearly rear-ended you because of your car's actions. And you, as the driver, never know when you might piss off the wrong driver - brake check the wrong person and suddenly you're in trouble with someone who might not care if you say, "But my car did it, not me! Honest!".
While ideally everybody would always leave enough space for hard and sudden brakes (eg in case a deer runs across a road), the reality is that driving has a lot of loose rules, and you're expected to behave rationally and similarly to the other drivers on the road. For example it's usually fine to speed a little in the left lane if most people deem it safe to do so. And there's no strict definition for "reckless driving" despite it being illegal. Driving is an intricate social dance with millions of actors, and if you are the one acting way out of line, you are liable, and hard + sudden brakes for no reason, is definitely out of line.
(That's not to say this is the best system though. An autonomous system with well defined behaviors, less ambiguity, and less social guesswork, would probably be safer. But such a system would require full participation, not just one or two tesla drivers choosing to let Elon take the wheel)
Respectfully, it's not. A safe trailing distance is defined as enough room for you to stop even if the car in front of you stops abruptly (for example, if a kid or animal runs into the street), factoring in your reaction time and the stopping distance of your vehicle. The buffer isn't for normal variations in the speed of traffic, it's for anomalies.
> the reality is that driving has a lot of loose rules, and you're expected to behave rationally and similarly to the other drivers on the road
This isn't a valid excuse for unsafe following.
> Driving is an intricate social dance with millions of actors, and if you are the one acting way out of line, you are liable
I'm not sure what sense you mean "liable" here, but it's certainly not true in the legal sense--you're liable if you violate the law, for example, by following too closely (the law doesn't seem to care whether others follow too closely or not).
> An autonomous system with well defined behaviors, less ambiguity, and less social guesswork, would probably be safer.
It doesn't require full participation, it merely requires fewer fatalities caused per 1M miles than human drivers. That's the point at which we should legalize AI, and if it becomes significantly safer, that's the point at which we should mandate AI in the general case. And then something really interesting happens--we can start to do away with those ambiguities that make AI hard because human drivers become the exception rather than the rule. Rather than informal social systems governing driving, driving becomes a formal digital protocol. Maybe rather than relying on computer vision (or computer vision alone) cars are loaded with a national database containing the right-of-way rules, speed limits, scheduled maintenance, etc and/or they use other sensors. These things in turn make AI safer (discrete signals = fewer failures due to computer vision errors). Safe and ubiquitous AI could lead to much narrower roads, freeing up more space for pedestrian traffic.
Moreover, since cars are safer, they don't need to be so heavily armored--rather, they become smaller and lighter, which further increases safety by increasing survivability in pedestrian- or cyclist-involved accidents.
Moreover, those strict protocols could make transportation more efficient (a given road increases its throughput and latency for a without increasing lanes or compromising safety) because (1) cars are smaller and lighter as previously discussed, (2) AI can travel faster with less buffer due to its increased reaction times, and (3) because AI can coordinate so you don't have inefficient traffic patterns like "4 semis driving in quadruple file" or "one reckless ass hat changing lanes frequently, abruptly, and aggressively, causing everyone to slow down".
Without human drivers, maybe taxis become cost-competitive with public transit (or better) and fewer people need to own a car (and the cars they own needn't be so large since one can easily and cheaply rent a larger car for transporting large items). And for those who do own their own car, those cars can drop them off at their destination and park farther away (no need for so much parking downtown).
This is all just a sketch of some of the possibilities, but the point is that there's a horizon (a critical mass of AI cars) that could manifest in a cascade of other significant changes.
So, yeah, maybe Driver 2 should be able to pass the brake check, but that doesn't mean it is good or safe or desirable for Driver 1 to be randomly brake checking people. Having a car that randomly brakes is like having a driver who randomly applies the brakes - you shouldn't do that, it's bad, and unsafe.
So no, it's not the case that people trailing too closely is the problem. It's the case of the Tesla requiring, without good reason, the car behind them to brake hard to avoid the collision. This is dangerous and (usually) illegal.
I do agree there is some nuance, but it really saddens me that so many comments in this thread are supportive of a form of driving that, while very common, is unsafe for themselves and others. It's a form of normalisation of deviance and I'm sure it costs far more lives than teslas dodgy "autopilot" (even if that too should not be road legal).
People sometimes fill the gap in front of me, and if they're particularly unsafe about my induced following distance I flash my lights, flip them off, and back off. In a typical 30 mile drive in one of those metros it costs on the order of tens of seconds. People usually aren't that aggressive about filling gaps until they have something to gain, so the frequency of people causing you to slow down winds up being pretty low.
edit: The "you" in the above being the hypothetical driver.
There are plenty of scenarios where you are still impacted by the brake checking Tesla without you being at fault.
Now you get to add a defense lawyer's trial rate...
I never said that the responsibility stops with the Tesla driver. I simply said that it's wise to not put yourself in a situation where you may accidentally piss the wrong person off - this is a general sentiment that applies everywhere in life, really. You don't know if the person you're dealing with is the nicest, most understanding person in the world, or an absolute maniac who's been dealing with some heavy stuff and is one step away from losing their absolute shit. Yes, you're not responsible for someone else's emotions, but you are responsible for how you interact with them.
>Further still, since we're being pedantic about litigating responsibility, the person trailing the Tesla/etc should be leaving plenty of room such that he can comfortably react to abrupt braking (the leading driver might have a good reason for braking quickly!).
Of course. Surely you'd agree that nuance plays a large role here, though? There are often times where you'll find yourself closer to the back of a car than you'd like, despite your best efforts to maintain plenty of room (eg, someone cuts you off or moves into your lane with less distance than you'd like).
Intent doesn't matter to the person in the other car, who likely is relying on your behavior to some extend to understand traffic ahead. If your driving seems like a brake check and brings in all of the unsafe conditions associated with brake checking, then it's a brake check.
"I require every other human driver to be driving correctly so that my AI-car may drive unsafely" seems like a bad bet. I'd also imagine that, if as a human, I just slammed on my breaks for no reason on the highway, I would be found to be at fault for an accident assuming the car behind me wasn't directly tailgating me.
I suggest it's better to compare a given AI with humans in terms of fatalities caused per million miles driven. If an AI performs a little better than humans it should be legalized and if it performs dramatically better than humans, it should be mandatory.
Of course, this is where we need more data and greater transparency so we can answer these questions.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth and assuming I'm against working on AI driving because one person might ever die. All I'm trying to point out is that it's pretty worrying to have a system that could cause a highway-speed accident because of a well-known and decently common bug. I'd be equally worried if it came up that some other decently selling model of car would randomly have the ABS system engage.
I wrote my OP here because the parent poster was casually talking about "not really break checking people" as if that's just normal behavior that's a part of R&D, instead of an AI accidentally emulating dangerous aggressive driving patterns that FSD is supposed to do away with. I'm not trying to ban FSD research or anything. I want this improved! It's just scary when people excuse dangerous behaviors by FSD systems because it's otherwise safer.
The other issue is that more data and greater transparency are both not things Tesla seems to have any interest in providing anyone, so while this may get fixed, it's not really pushing the industry forward all that much if no one other than Tesla is going to benefit. There's plenty of mentions in this thread of this sort of issue happening on other cars and adaptive cruise control systems that could benefit from an improvement for the betterment of all drivers, but instead "not breakchecking people" is going to be a unexplained feature improvement in some FSD patch probably.
You're clearly trolling here, but maybe we can reframe this into something worth discussing: does autopilot result in more or fewer deaths per 1M miles driven than the median human driver? That seems like a reasonable threshold/criteria for legalizing the technology.