Or D) Tesla stops instantly when it hits OP once by itself and again when the person behind it hits it.
(Spare me the low effort comment about how everyone should be prepared for the car in front of them to stop instantly because it hit something, statistically nobody drives like that)
Edit: I misinterpreted the OP about it being an four car pileup.
Dude. It's not a "low effort comment" to point that out, it's literally the law. If you can't stop when the person in front of you stops, you're too close. Increase your following distance. Don't let others bad habits justify your own.
Yes, yes it is a low effort comment. And it is exactly what I was trying to preempt. It adds exactly zero to the conversation to say "but the law" or "but drivers ed" or "but some proverbial rule of thumb".
For better or worse neither your fantasy of how people ought to act nor the letter of the law is reflective of how the overwhelming majority of the human population operators motor vehicles or expects others to. Is it ideal? Probably not. But it's a decent balance between being somewhat prepared for the expected traffic oddities, leaving margin for some subset of the unexpected and efficient use of road space.
I'm sure this will be an unpopular comment because there is no shortage of people here who think humans adhere to laws the way a network switch adheres to its configuration but the reality is that there is not perfect alignment between how reasonable traffic participants behave and the letter of the law.
I think that some of us would argue that these are not "reasonable traffic participants". People who do not maintain sufficient stopping distance are one of the most frustrating parts of the American driving experience and are (IMO) extremely disruptive to safe travel, especially on highways.
>I think that some of us would argue that these are not "reasonable traffic participants"
You're basically arguing that almost everyone else is unreasonable. That's going to be a very uphill argument.
Also there's no reason to hide behind "I think that some of us would argue". You clearly hold this opinion. Ask yourself why you have reservations about owning it.
>People who do not maintain sufficient stopping distance
Who defines "sufficient" because the consensus based on the observed behavior of typical traffic seems to be that "sufficient" is a few seconds where possible but always less than whatever the comments section on the internet thinks it should be
>American driving experience
The American driving experience is not particularly remarkable compared (except maybe in its low cost) compared to other developed nations. All of which are pretty tame compared to developing nations
I'm not asking you to like the way people drive. I'm just asking you to not assess traffic incidents based on the reality of how people drive and not the farcical assumption that most participants are following or can be expected to be following whatever rules are on paper.
You could have pre-empted it by not making such a claim in the first place, and I abhor your attempt to normalize this dangerous behavior. It is not a "delicate balance." Increase your follow distance. Driving closer to the car in front of you gains you nothing but sacrifices valuable reaction time in the event of an emergency.
Take your high horse and turn it into glue. I'm not attempting to normalize anything. Look outside, it's already normalized. It is the current status quo. I'm not endorsing it. I'm simply asking you to not to pretend otherwise so you can pretend to be outraged at someone who failed to avoid an accident because they were driving like typical people drive.
> If you can't stop when the person in front of you stops, you're too close
If the other driver decides to randomly brake in the middle of the road (as some Teslas have been known to do), it's not necessarily the person behind's fault.
It absolutely is. If the person behind was unable to avoid collision, then the collision occurred because they were following too closely. It doesn't matter whether it was a Tesla phantom-braking, or a human slamming on the brakes to avoid hitting a dog. It is always the driver's responsibility to maintain enough distance that they can safely respond to any action taken by the vehicle ahead.
>It absolutely is. If the person behind was unable to avoid collision, then the collision occurred because they were following too closely.
This is infantile circular logic. It makes for great internet feel good points an little else.
What the other car was doing absolutely matters. Plenty of people have brake checked their way into an accident and wound up paying for it because there were witnesses.
>It is always the driver's responsibility to maintain enough distance that they can safely respond to any action taken by the vehicle ahead
Citation please. I'm particularly interested in one that backs up the word that you thought was important enough to italicize.
My state places no specific requirement for following distance upon drivers. The state driver's manual states a suggested minimum of two seconds.
I spot checked two other states and their drivers' manuals advise similar (one advised three seconds, one advised a variable number depending on speed), neither said anything about being able to account for anything the car in front of you does.
This is changing with dash-cams. If the other person has a dash-cam you are not free to do unreasonably things and then weasel out of being on the hook on the basis of the front of their car hitting the rear of yours. Of course, if there were witnesses this has always been the case.
If the dashcam shown the driver following too closely and failing to brake in time, I'm not sure a dashcam will help. But sure you can't reverse into someone.
Really? In most states and EU countries its not. It's assumed to be the person behind's fault at first, but that's a heuristic, not a necessary assignment.
You said it was a 4 car accident? She hit you from behind and you hit the car in front of you which hit the car in front of it? Did you end up hitting the car in front of you twice because she hit you twice?
(Spare me the low effort comment about how everyone should be prepared for the car in front of them to stop instantly because it hit something, statistically nobody drives like that)
Edit: I misinterpreted the OP about it being an four car pileup.