Hacker News Reader

Comment by dark-star | Hacker News Reader

As much as I'd love to bash on Tesla for this, this is 100% the fault of the drivers behind not keeping enough distance or being distracted. Heck, even a simple distance-keeping cruise-control would have prevented this.

The dad of a friend of mine once drove a rental car on the German Autobahn. He was used to driving stick shift but the rental had automatic. So he accidentally stepped on the brake (because his brain was still expecting the clutch) while in the left lane, causing the driver behind to crash into him. The driver behind him was declared 100% at fault for the accident.

View on HN

If I slam on my brakes for no reason in the middle of a highway, and I get rear-ended, you would argue it's 100% the fault of the guy behind me? Ridiculous.

Leave a gap, then there's no problem.

Change the situation: car on the other lane swerves and hits the car in front of you. so now there's a stationary hunk of metal suddenly infront of you, which you collide with.

Is it the chunk of metal's fault for being stationary on a highway or your fault for following too close?

i'll state the obvious - you can try to leave a gap, but it will be quickly filled, and you'll have a bunch of angry tailgaters and put yourself in danger very quickly.

Common sense isn't so common on the Internet... So many comments repeating this pleasant fiction told to students in drivers' ed to set a good baseline, seemingly because people want to believe in the just world fallacy.

Legally yes, you want to be damn sure you leave plenty room in front of you, regardless of how people cut in, because if you rear end someone it will most likely be considered your fault, regardless of the circumstances, especially if you don't have a dash cam. This goes doubly if you're driving a heavy vehicle with a longer stopping distance.

But there are plenty of cases where it can certainly be the fault (morally, and legally if you can prove it) of the person who gets rear ended - intentionally "brake checking", insurance fraud "boxing", changing lanes from a stopped lane into a moving lane, or changing lanes with insufficient room behind you and then braking hard (as we seem to have here).

People say that a lot, but it's not true in my experience. You can spend a large fraction of your driving this way, and it's a much better experience than you'd think.

It is ridiculous, when it becomes a pattern of conduct. Insurance fraudsters do get caught when a pattern emerges. Is this an insurance fraud? Check to see if there is a pattern with this driver.

I read the transcript of the driver interviews. The Tesla driver (or FSD, whatever) both changed lanes and braked. The officer who interviewed hime cited him under the California code for improper stopping. I suspect that it had a lot to do with the lane change occurring simultaneously with the braking.

Considering some tail-gaters I know who drive less than 4 feet from the car infront of them, I want as many facts as possible.

Would you feel the same if there was a legitimate reason for your stopping (like a person on the road)? The outcome is the same.

"Having a legitimate reason" is different from not. That's the difference between murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and good Samaritan protection.

Perhaps you just had a legitimate reason to cause a crash, doesn't mean the person driving behind you truly deserves any blame.

100%. yes.

People slam on the breaks for any number of reasons, both valid and invalid.

Failure to leave enough space to stop is 100% your fault.

You were supposed to learn this in driving school.

brake-checking is generally illegal. for a reason.

What about when a deer runs out onto the highway?

don't think that qualifies as a brake check.

Break check is not the only reason one slams on the breaks

> Break check is not the only reason one slams on the breaks

No, but it is a reason that is illegal, which is the point. If you brake check someone (and they have a dashcam to prove it), you'll be paying the fines and the repairs.

Braking for no reason is definitely not a 100% yes.

You should always be prepared that any vehicle in front of you can emergency brake at any time. If you don't leave enough room for this then you are at fault.

The new story here is about a car that changed lanes. If you don't get when you don't have room, you are at fault.

If the cars where following at a safe distance then only one or two other cars should have collided but that doesn't explain 8 cars crashing.

yes absolutely it is the fault of the person behind you.

that is the law in the United States, as well.

following distance is controllable only by the following car. failure to maintain adequate following distance then rear ending the car you are following, no matter what reason they stopped, is always the fault of the following car, and never the followed car.

stopping for no reason on a busy interstate is an offence, but it will cause zero crashes if people are following at safe distances.

the number of people who have forgotten what they probably didn't learn to begin with in Driver's Ed is really scaring me right now.

> yes absolutely it is the fault of the person behind you.

> that is the law in the United States, as well.

No, this is incorrect.

First of all, vehicle code is different for each state so there's no "law in the United States" as a whole.

For California, this is the section which makes brake checking illegal:

https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_2210...

It's your responsibility to remain in control of your vehicle and maintain proper stopping distance for the speed you're traveling.

The "no reason" part means you were intentionally doing something dangerous. But if you slammed on your breaks for any reason at all and the person behind you hits you, that's absolutely their fault.

The crash - yes, but if you indeed did it for no reason you will get fined for creating dangerous road condition.

Not really, if you watch it the SUV jerks out of the lane. The drivers behind him aren't following too closely they just get no opportunity. Stopping room considers the stopping distance of the vehicle in front of you too. You can really expect to have stopping distance from an obstruction appearing in front of you out of sight.

no opportunity means they were following too closely.

if the car in front of you suddenly comes to a complete stop, you need to have enough time to brake to prevent yourself from hitting that vehicle without changing lanes.

if you are so close that you can't stop in time in that situation, you are following too closely. end of statement.

yes that does happen to cars, by the way. a car driving at speed X which hits another car head-on at speed X will cause both cars to come to a complete stop, instantly, provided they are the same mass. usually they are not the same mass, so that car which you were following could suddenly not only stop, but change direction and accelerate towards you.

crashes also usually don't happen head-on, so you must be ready when the inevitable does happen to you or around you. sometimes you can't prevent what happens, but you can always prevent colliding into the car in front of you.

these things happen hundreds of times per day, if not thousands of times per day, EVERY DAY.

If you don't make time to stop, you do not have time to stop.

> no opportunity means they were following too closely.

The car departed the lane next to them, dove in front of them, and stopped.

Do you always leave enough space so that a vehicle in the lane next to you can do this?

> if you are so close that you can't stop in time in that situation, you are following too closely. end of statement.

> yes that does happen to cars, by the way. a car driving at speed X which hits another car head-on at speed X will cause both cars to come to a complete stop, instantly, provided they are the same mass. usually they are not the same mass, so that car which you were following could suddenly not only stop, but change direction and accelerate towards you.

Recommended following distances are nowhere near "instant stop of vehicle in front of you plus reaction time". E.g. California recommends 3 seconds of distance at your current speed-- 286 feet. Real world stopping distances are often ~300+ feet, after 100 feet+ of reaction time (yes, I know that vehicle tests in ideal conditions often achieve something more like 150 feet not including reaction times).

Following distances are just guidelines, assuming traffic is moving normally.

The California Driver's Handbook says...

> California’s “Basic Speed Law” means that you may never drive faster than is safe for current conditions.

> You must drive slower when there is heavy traffic or bad weather. However, if you block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic by driving too slowly, you may be cited.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-han...

The Tesla, FSD or not, blocked the flow of traffic and was partially at fault. The vehicles behind the Tesla were driving too fast given the conditions and were also partially at fault.

The handbook is structured to minimize the chance/danger of accidents even if other drivers aren't adhering to it.

You can cause an accident any time you want by diving in front of faster traffic and braking. You will start from a slower speed and have equivalent deceleration.

You'll only cause an accident if the faster traffic is driving too fast for the conditions and/or not maintaining sufficient distance from other vehicles, especially your vehicle.

You could ram the other vehicle. In that case no amount of safe/defensive driving would stop that.

But a safe/defensive driver will go as slow as you do if you merge in front of them.

You're saying that you never exceed the speed of traffic in the lane next to you, by even a little bit?

If you exceed the traffic of the lane next to you, you will have low "following distance" to it, and a deceleration disadvantage. Plus, humans have reaction times.

I'm saying that if I exceed the speed of another vehicle and that vehicle merges into my lane or I merge into theirs, and I hit their vehicle from behind, I'm at least partially at fault.

If their vehicle is fully in the lane, I'm almost certainly going to be completely at fault.

I'm saying if you ever exceed the speed of a lane next to you, a vehicle in that lane can force you to crash.

Yup. Relative speed doesn't matter. A vehicle in the lane next to you can force you to crash.

I don't think that source is neither exhaustive nor authoritative. It doesn't tell you e.g. that you have to stop at red lights, which I'm pretty sure you're required to by law.

I'm no expert in US law but I think there's probably at least a dozen separate laws on what is (il)legal, and I'd bet it's more than the 8 paragraphs in the source you linked to

>Recommended following distances are nowhere near "instant stop of vehicle in front of you plus reaction time".

But the nothing can instantly stop, it's physics. The recommendations, at least in Germany are so that you have enough time to react + brake if the car in front of you does an emergency braking manœuvre.

If the car merges into your lane at too little distance, like here, you have to slow down. A lot of people don't.

> But the nothing can instantly stop, it's physics.

A car striking a pileup in front of you can come pretty close, though.

> The car departed the lane next to them, dove in front of them, and stopped

That explains a two-car collision. The following pileup is explained by drivers not leaving enough space to react and brake.

> The following pileup is explained by drivers not leaving enough space to react and brake.

The rest of the pileup is varied. Some of it is from too short following distances or really lack of reaction.

Some drivers in the back had no ability to see the pileup ahead and had cars stop in front of them (from dissipating their energy in a collision) in less distance than they could brake.

> Some drivers in the back had no ability to see the pileup ahead and had cars stop in front of them (from dissipating their energy in a collision) in less distance than they could brake.

In other words, these drivers did not leave enough distance to react and brake.

> In other words, these drivers did not leave enough distance to react and brake.

Again, recommended following distance is ~250-300 feet when stopping & reaction time can be 350-400 feet. This is OK when the car in front of you brakes, because you'll both be decelerating with a similar profile and you'll have more than 250-300 feet to stop. It is not OK when the car in front of you stops substantially faster than braking with no warning because it has hit an unknown obstacle.

please get a "rules of the road" booklet from your local driver's services facility and read it.

assuming you are in California: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-han...

operating a motor vehicle in the United States requires that you have this entire booklet (or that of another state; they are all nearly identical) memorized, cover to cover.

I'm not sure why you sent this to me. That book was actually the source of:

* The 3 second rule I cited: "To avoid tailgating, use the “3 second rule”: when the vehicle ahead of you passes a certain point, such as a sign, count “one-thousand-one, one-thousand- two, one-thousand-three.” This takes approximately 3 seconds. If you pass the same point before you finish counting, you are following too closely." https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-han...

* Real-world stopping distances being longer than 3 seconds (3 seconds * 55MPH = 242 feet) -- "Assuming you have good tires, brakes, and dry pavement: At 55 mph, it takes about 400 feet to react and bring your vehicle to a complete stop."

Of course, all this is orthogonal to my main point: If someone dives and brakes in front of you, with a slower starting speed and equivalent or better brakes: you're a-gonna hit them. And no one seriously proposes that you should never drive faster than the lane next to you, which would be the only way to avoid this.

Yeah, watching the video, the vehicles behind had every opportunity to prevent the accident(s). They were all following too closely (in general) and didn't decelerate in proper response to the conditions. I've had vehicles literally pull out in front of me (like crossing the road I'm on perpendicularly) and I still braked to a correct extent to avoid t-boning the idiot who made a colossal mistake. As soon as they even edged forward, I was already feathering the brake anticipating the situation. I would have done the same if this Tesla changed into my lane with such poor distance.

The person who hit the Tesla could absolutely without question have avoided hitting them. I can see that the driver applies their brakes but clearly not hard enough. I think they incorrectly expected the Tesla to resume speed.

Emergencies happen, sometimes the person in front of you may completely slam their brakes on. In this case, the Tesla was WELL into the lane before they braked, so the driver behind already had every opportunity to ensure proper distance -- the Tesla had long since become "a vehicle in your lane in front of you".

Further, so many of the drivers in this video have a serious lack of driving skill, as they simply maintain speed and try to swerve around, creating dangerous conditions for themselves and everyone around them.

> no opportunity means they were following too closely.

No. This is the difference between following a car that slows suddenly and stops versus a stationary object suddenly appears on the road in front of you.

> if the car in front of you suddenly comes to a complete stop,

This is the point - the car in front of them moved and revealed an already stationary car.

The SUV jerked out of the lane without warning or prolonged use of brake lights right behind the stopped Tesla. The following drivers suddenly have far less processing and reaction time and likely would not be aware for at least a second that the car now in front of them was actually stopped and not just slowing down.

You should always leave at least two secondstothe car in front. The first car behind the SUV may have had no time to stop if the speed limit was over 80km/h, but everyone behind had no excuse.

Did you watch the video? The Tesla shifts a lane to the left when stopping. They weren’t tailgating it.

It doesn't matter; cognitive dissonance is in play here. The Tesla cult is activating the standard response protocol to criticism of The Company and Dear Leader.

I did watch the video. The Tesla had seven blinks of the turn signal, five of them before entering the lane.

The car in the destination lane was at a safe distance for the Tesla to enter the lane, but it aggressively maintained its slightly faster speed to close the distance to the Tesla until it crashed into the Tesla as the Tesla slowed to a stop. The Tesla did present a difficult situation for the other driver, but only in the sense that the other driver may have felt their ego would be bruised by needing to slow down for safety versus aggressive posturing that they went with instead. Watch the video again. Zoom in. The other driver did have the opportunity to slow down, keep distance, and avoid hitting the Tesla. They did not take that opportunity.

> is 100% the fault of the drivers behind not keeping enough distance

Bullshit. You are ~50% at fault. You're just 0% financially liable in the absence of other facts. That is the default case we've concocted over the years to make financial liability easy to pin down.

If you become a road obstruction for no good reason whatever happens after after that is half or more your fault. If you manage to dodge financial liability then you are simply exploiting an edge case of the system to the detriment of everyone else.

The rules of the road are built around redundant obligations so that things don't go south whenever there's a momentary failure by one party. If you obstruct the road for no good reason you are just as at fault for the ensuing accident as someone who wasn't prepared for that obstruction.

Thank god for dashcams....

Let's not forget the 'third party' (or is the 9th party?), a corporate maker of q software with implied and express warranties. Moreover, there are many, many, representations of safety for the alleged "advanced driver assistance system(s)'. I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could get some modest litigation started.

To the extent state attorney's are pre-empted by federal law, I'm sure that the NHTSA could pick up some of the slack.

please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it.

what other things are you wrong about?

obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, but even when it does happen, it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances.

the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always.

> please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it.

No you. Literally. You need to do that.

>obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason,

Exactly my point.

>it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances.

Hence by bit about redundant obligation and the difference between responsibility and financial liability.

>the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Go anywhere people talk about dashcams and you'll find plenty of testimony to the tune of "had I not had video I'd have been paying for that dumb mfers poor decisions".

The financial liability defaults to the following vehicle. It can always change if there are hard facts that amount to the other guy being more responsible.

Have you ever heard something called “brake check”?

The bottom line is if all car in front you is using FSD like this, you will hit one of them sooner or later, no matter how “good” you are.

Since when people are so out of touch while having a strong opinion?

> Have you ever heard something called “brake check”?

Yes, and they are illegal. But if you rear-end the car in front of you, it doesn't matter if he slammed the brakes because of a "brake check" or because of a pedestrian jumping into his lane: you did not leave enough room to safely brake.

> The bottom line is if all car in front you is using FSD like this, you will hit one of them sooner or later, no matter how “good” you are.

Not if you leave enough room in front of you to safely stop

Reply on news.ycombinator.com