> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers.
In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different than if someone backed into the Tesla while it was parked in a parking garage.
If I brake check someone on the highway, causing an accident, and it’s discovered that that’s what happened, I’d be pretty shocked* if the trailing driver was found responsible.
That video looks like a combined lane change and brake check on the part of the Tesla.
Yes. Watching the second video, you can see the second car's brake lights come on quite quickly, given the Tesla's actions were completely strange and unexpected. Less than a second from when the Tesla cuts in front and starts braking to the vehicle behind hitting the brakes. They're definitely not at fault. Some of the cars that piled in behind were a different matter though. Some were able to stop while others didn't. Those ones must have been following too close and/or not paying enough attention.
They didn't actually stop their car, though. And it really looks like they could have, had they braked a little bit harder. But that may be due to the unexpected nature of the Tesla coming to a full stop.
Yeah, it's possible they didn't fully slam on the brakes immediately. But you don't expect the car in front of you to do so for no reason either, so I still wouldn't consider the second car at fault.
Why would you be shocked and disappointed? It is the obligation of the driver trailing you to maintain enough distance to be able to stop safely if the car in front of them has to brake hard for whatever reason. The fact that your hard braking wasn't actually necessary may mean that you're also responsible, but it doesn't absolve the other driver.
As a matter of pragmatism, the person intentionally putting other drivers at unnecessary risk by being an asshole should bear the responsibility for the outcomes of that intentional and unnecessary risk they elected to subject roadway users to.
It does not absolve the other person from responsibility for not following the required safety protocol. The car in front of them might have had to brake for a perfectly legitimate reason.
I mean, suppose that the other driver was driving while drunk. They might have arrived to their destination safely without the asshole in front, but that's not an excuse against a DUI ticket.
How do you maintain safe distance from those in adjacent lanes? Especially if they may come from behind you, suddenly change lanes in front, then break hard?
You do not, but that wasn't the hypothetical posited by OP.
In the actual case with Tesla, the driver of the car that was in front of the pile-up was not at fault IMO. But there were a bunch more cars behind, and at least some of those slammed into each other because they didn't maintain proper distance, according to the police.
Are we looking at the same video? The turn signal is on long before, the lane change of the car starts long before.. you don't see any reaction of the following driver even when the Tesla's tires finally cross the line, which is the latest point where the following driver must adapt apeed and distance, but nothing happens?
I am not sure about the US, but in most countries I have driven in, putting a turn signal on is asking for permission to enter another lane, and there is no 'right' to go into the other lane or expect drivers currently there to slow down for you.
If there is an obstruction ahead, the safest scenario is to change to an empty lane ('empty' including safety distance) or brake in your lane to avoid hitting it. If you have some other problem you should probably brake slowly and change lanes to the outer edge of the road whenever there are safe gaps.
I would probably be off the gas or braking based on movement of the car in the other lane as part of driving defensively, though i don't think there is any 'obligation' for me to do so.
The behavior of the Tesla would also strike me as rather odd (assuming a right hand drive country unless there is a off-ramp coming up on the left) as it appears to be pulling over to the wrong side of the road.
You don't, but as soon as you see the car in front of you change the lane (or just indicating via turn signal), you should?
And to be honest, this looks more like slowing down and not a hard break, and at least the first following driver slept quite a bit... agreed the stopping had no reason, so (as someone quoted German laws) for that you would be too blame... but for crashing into the car with that video footage, I'm sure the following driver would get at least 80% if not 100% blame.
our auto laws are founded from a time when catastrophic failure happened much more often. If a suspension bushing randomly disconnects, or a wheel hub disintegrates, or a differential grenades, who is the asshole? That's right, it's the person following too closely
This seems to be 100% the fault of Tesla for selling unsafe equipment. Some amount of blame for the Tesla driver. 0% blame for the car that got cut off and hit the Tesla. And 100% blame for every car behind that crashed into the car in front of them.
Only half of the subsequent impacts in the Tesla video are the fault of the car who hit the car in front of them. I agree with the police conclusion that vehicles 5, 7, and 8 share fault for unsafe following. Vehicles 2, 3, and 6 do not, despite crashing into the car in front of them (subsequent to being hit from behind). Vehicle 4 I couldn’t develop a clear sense of what happened, but it seems was hit only from behind.
I agree. But this should also apply to those drivers that experiment with FSD. After all, they were playing with tech on a public road, so deliberately putting others at risk.
As much as I agree with you, it seems that concepts like 'brake check' and other road rage behaviours make this matter a lot more complicated than common sense dictates.
Simply, drivers don't use their common sense, and just their normal daily driving routine is already endangering to people around.
It does. And then also actually maintaining a safe distance can be difficult simply because people will immediately merge in there (and then brake in front of you, because of course now they're too close to the other car).
Maintaining a safe configuration of cars on the road is the collective job of everyone who is driving on it; and conversely, it takes just one person to ruin it for everybody who is doing the right thing. So it really needs to be a part of the culture of driving for that to work. And we don't have that in US, unfortunately (though, to be fair, there are far worse places to drive in).
I rear-ended a woman who did that to me. When she cut in front of me in my lane there was not nearly enough distance between us for me to fully stop when she then suddenly braked.
I'm not sure what I really was even supposed to even do in a situation like that — I suppose as soon as she cut over I should have just assumed the worst was coming and hit my brakes right away?
Yeah, in cases like this it is just physics. Propably not much you could have done. She cuy into the space between you and the car in front, the normal reaction is to lift the foot to increase distance again. If the new car hits the brakes, no chance to not rear end it...
Or at least have the foot off the gas. I try to have or create if I don't distance between myself and aggressive drivers. But even with defensive / paranoid driving sometimes there's just not much you can do, physics is physics.
In Germany you would be covered because line change and break, without a reason, is a deliberate dangerous action. This means that the one doing it is responsible of the following crash.
For the multiple cars crash, if not clear cut, without video recording, all the insurances pool themselves together and consider the drivers as not responsible. Nobody cannot tell if you stopped, got hit in the back and then the front or the opposite.
Huh? In my (German) experience, responsibility for the crash (and thus for the sentence/fine/payout to each driver) is rarely assigned to a single driver in such a case. Instead, it is distributed among participants with e.g. the Tesla driver being 80% at fault for the second driver's damages and the others ramming the second car for 20% (or something like this).
I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many people here assign complete blame to exactly one participant.
I asked my lawyer, the fine element is the deliberate and dangerous part of the action without reason. Normally you effectively have shared fault.
The question is if in this case the action can be considered as deliberate. The "software" did it, is it deliberate? Is it considered as a failure of the car like the breaking of mechanical part?
This is new and the justice will have to figure it out and I am very happy not to have to figure it out.
> I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many people here assign complete blame to exactly one participant.
I'd say there is only one car which did a clearly illegal action (sudden lane change followed by brake checking), so the guilt is 100% on them.
It's also true that the car behind probably could've been more assertive in braking harder to avoid reaching the Tesla (I wish there was a dashcam to see it from a better angle). But they didn't do anything illegal per se.
Also, that second car driver might've been worried of braking too hard to avoid getting themselves rear ended, which is a legitimate concern when having to break hard in traffic. Of course in the end they got rear ended anyway, but couldn't have known that prior to it happening.
I think the intention matters. If you did it to spite the guy behind you then you are at fault. If you did it because you thought something might cross the road and just wanted to be safe then it's not your fault even if nothing crossed the road or nothing was really there.
If a wheel falls off, the driver doesn't have to apply the brakes... A quarter of the car is digging in and melding itself to the asphalt.
If the differential fails catastrophically, it applies more braking force than the brakes do, so you'll have brief period of being airborne and then at least 1 rear wheel will sheer off (seen it).
If the driveshaft or trailing arms fail the wrong way, they result in a steel shaft digging into the roadway at a downward angle in front of the wheels and the driveshaft will stop the differential as above, until it sheers off.
> If a wheel falls off, the driver doesn't have to apply the brakes... A quarter of the car is digging in and melding itself to the asphalt.
That's not necessarily true. I've been in a car where the rear wheel parted ways with the car and passed us. For a few seconds we wondered where that wheel came from until realizing it was from our car. The car was balanced just fine on three wheels, there was plenty time to lift off the gas and make way to the breakdown lane safely.
Even if it's a more heavily loaded wheel (e.g. front wheel on front engine front wheel drive car), it'll slide on the brake disc or the disk cover (whichever is lower, varies by car). A good amount of sparking but you'll have enough steerage to pull over.
I agree with your original example ("good reason => OK", "bad reason => BAD"). But for the in-between we should default to "not OK" as well, since stopping on a highway is just dangerous.
But damn, I really have little sympathy for all the inattentive drivers not being able to stop in time for the pileup (and hope damages have to be payed accordingly). Maybe, Tesla FSD does not make the streets more dangerous than they already are, after all.
That's because we'd fully expect them to recall the effected models and fix the design flaw. Since Tesla knows about erratic lane-changes and phantom braking, and has for years, why haven't they recalled the vehicles and fixed the design flaw or at least disabled the feature?
In the video, the Tesla comes to a gradual stop and the car behind it didn't change speed at all. The third car was able to stop without hitting the second car and that was arguably more challenging. Second car wasn't paying attention. Maybe it was using cruise control?
Not a brake check, that kind of implies cutting in and then a hard enough dab on the brake to freak out the guy behind and force them to brake sharply but not enough to stop.
This was the Tesla braking as hard as possible to a complete stop. The following driver reacted quickly and had they not been paying attention the accident would have been much much worse.
From what I can tell from the video - there seems to be a grey area because the Tesla FSD is changing lanes and stopping simultaneously. If that's the case, its not a tailgating issue but an unsafe lane change - for which the Tesla FSD (or Tesla driver) could be at least partially at fault.
The grey area will require some defense and it will be interesting to see if the Tesla driver is left high and dry by Tesla.
> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something.
Quebec woman who stopped for ducks, causing fatal crash, loses appeal
Because typically the car in the front stopped or slowed for a reason that does not violate any rules or responsibilities. But when they have neglected to follow rules, or uphold responsibilities, then they can share fault.
Generally speaking, drivers in the US have a legal responsibility to pay attention to what is going on and operate their vehicle with care.
Considering that the police report evidence includes the FAQ page from Tesla for the question “Do I need to pay attention while using autopilot?”, I think it’s clear what direction they’re going here.
It looks like the Tesla driver will be at least as fault for the collision with the car behind it. However, it seems the subsequent collisions were caused by fleshy human drivers driving unsafely. I don't know much about traffic law, so I'm unsure how responsibility for the overall pileup will be divided.
From the police report:
> V-1 made an unsafe lane change (21658(a) California Vehicle Code) and was slowing to a stop directly into V-2's path of travel. This caused the front of V-2 to collide into the rear of V-1 (4.0.1. #1). P-2 did not have enough time to perceive and react to V-1's lane change.
V-1 = The Tesla
> P-4 observed V-3 stopping and applied V-4's brakes. V-3 came to a stop to the rear of V-2. P-5 observed V-4 stopping and applied V-5's brakes. As V4 slowed down, P-4 steered V4 towards the #2 lane. Due to P-5's unsafe speed for stopped traffic ahead (22350 California Vehicle Code), P-S failed to safely stop behind V-4 and V-3. The front of V-5 collided into the rear of V-4 (A.O.L #2). V-4 moved into the #2 lane without colliding into any other vehicles. V-5 came to a stop in the #1 lane after colliding into the rear of V-3 (A.O.L #3).
Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars.
> Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars.
I know someone who had to suddenly brake due to a pedestrian jumping onto the road. So, for a very good reason in that case. Nonetheless, it was a sudden stop, so their insurance had to pay for the repairs to both of the two following cars which rear ended each other.
> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something.
Brake checking (what the Tesla did) does definitely make the front car the guilty party. It's usually done for insurance fraud, here presumably done just by AI gone mad. But same result and same guilt.
If you change the lanes to be right in front of the car and then hit brakes, you are at fault. The back driver responsibility applies when they have control over space between you two.
At least in the UK, it would very much be the fault of the driver in front, especially if there was that much CCTV footage available (there won't be, which is why dashcams are important - the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage scores a point here).
The second car had left a more than adequate stopping distance. The Tesla changed lanes close in front of it and then immediately braked as hard as possible, deliberately. The driver of the Tesla should lose their driving licence.
The drivers following the second car weren't leaving enough distance or paying enough attention.
I don't know what you mean by everything and I certainly agree that the U.S. trend is in the wrong direction with private video doorbells, license plate scanners, etc. It is also pretty crazy to put someone else's camera in your house. But I don't get how someone with a UK background could think that the situation here is somehow worse.
For example, this lists the top ten most surveilled cities. Nine are in China. Number three is London.
Well, mostly because the article that's always cited about the number of cameras in London is tabloid bunk, an utter fiction.
The guy that wrote it wanted a suitably shock-horror piece so he went to the main street of a shitty part of London, counted every CCTV camera he could see everywhere including ones inside all the betting shops, off-licences, pawn shops, cheque cashing places, and so on - all lovely totally-not-dodgy businesses I'm sure - and then multiplied up by the total amount of roads in the UK.
If the figures were accurate then every single-track road that's basically just a cow path with tarmac sprayed over it would have a CCTV camera every four car lengths, which is clearly not the case.
Well, OK. But how is that different than the huge number of cameras that you mention in the US? Aren't the US cameras similar - doorbells, shops, banks, ATMs, etc.
It will be interesting to see if most of the problems with FSD go away as soon as all cars have FSD as well as transmitters to signal to nearby cars what they are doing.
At that point humans will theoretically be the weakest link, and anyone driving "manually" will be a liability because they will lack the information and reflexes to deal with whatever is happening around them in a timely manner.
In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different than if someone backed into the Tesla while it was parked in a parking garage.