If a human driver did it deliberately as the Tesla did (since it was designed to pull over and stop) then I would consider it a criminal level traffic violation on the part of the stopping car.
It was deemed to be be 100% my fault. Here, if you run into the back of the car in front, it is always your fault. No exceptions.
It makes sense: you should always leave enough room to stop, so I couldn't really complain. But, if everybody did that on that particular busy roundabout, it would result in gridlock.
I drive for several years, and can say my brain relies heavily on this sort of predictable stuff like "that car has free intersection in front of it, it will move forward".
If you think like a good citizen, yes.
In a country north of UK the law was once the same. People with worn down cars would find the perfect opportunity to slam their brakes, intentionally get hit from behind and claim insurance.
Drivers are indeed expected to always be prepared for sudden stops even at the highest speeds.
If it had been a large deer, of course he should have stopped, at that point it's the safety of the people inside the car.
In law for insurance purposes it needs to be clear cut, person behind is almost always at fault. But that doesn't mean they are the cause of the accident in all cases. There is nuance to these things, and part of that is that braking for a rabbit, or using Level 2 automation, is increasing the chance of an accident happing on the road.
If the way you drive increases the risk of someone driving into the back of you, even if they haven't left enough space, you are at fault in my mind.
If the possibility exists that a driver in front of you may stop suddenly why not always leave a minimum amount of space for a safe stop considering there is virtually no downside to doing so?
Being a safe driver is being aware that other people, including the people behind you, may not be leaving enough space. Suddenly stopping for a rabbit, from a speed of 50mph, is f-ing stupid and massively increasing the risk of a serious accident on the road.
Using a Level 2 automation that can randomly stop for no reason is not safe driving, you are increasing the chances that someone who is too close drives into the back of you.
Just because someone else is driving unsafely doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of being aware of that and not driving safely yourself.
The reasoning doesn't make sense because it is applied retroactively. The parent poster doesn't want to take responsibility for their unsafe driving practice and tries to place the blame on the other driver.
Cars suddenly stopping in front of you isn't some unpredictable rare event. You are told this as part of the licensing procedure, and this is the reason minimum safety distance exists. The solution is obvious and known to any licensed driver. As such, it is unreasonable and unacceptable, to not follow the minimum safety distance.
For example, pedestrians crossing a bike path. Because a lot of people clearly don’t walk often they will just walk out without looking. People aware of their surroundings will look both ways. As soon as you see someone do that you can pass close to them without spooking them because you know they’re aware.
My point here is a ton of this comes down to acting predictably. Even a simple act like looking at someone will alleviate a ton of uncertainty.
The barriers to fully autonomous self-driving are huge and not necessarily technical. Acting predictably, being able to explain actions, drivers driving differently because another vehicle is automated and cultural differences.