This is fair, I should have been more specific. "Following too close" implies "following", doesn't include people unexpectedly pulling into a stream of traffic. In this instance the Tesla changing lanes would mitigate "Following too close" and it would likely be "Unsafe lane change". That's only true for the first vehicle though, not the rest of the pile up.
> That's only true for the first vehicle though, not the rest of the pile up.
I don't think that's right. Because safe following distance can only prevent you from slamming into the car in front of you if it breaks hard. If it hits something and stops way before the breaking distance, there's little you can do.
The stopping distance at 60mph/96kmh (~28m/s) for a typical car seems to be 133ft/40m. So you are right, it is actually significantly smaller than the recommended 3-4 seconds rule with a relatively good margin. It also amounts to ~5 car lengths at that speed, which I rarely see in practice on active highways.
> If the car in front of you hits something and comes to an extremely abrupt stop and you don't have the stopping distance to stop, you're too close.
It is physically impossible for a car to come to an instantaneous stop for no reason. It would have to e.g. drive into a concrete wall, but if there's a wall across the freeway you should've seen that from afar.
You only really need to have enough distance to be able to notice the car ahead braking and start braking yourself.
I don't know what area you're from but I cannot imagine the DMV advocates for a following distance where you know you wouldn't be able to stop in time. I'd love a citation for that.
Well "unsafe lane change" can be totally legit as well. I for once had to do no think abrupt lane change when I saw some largish object appear seemingly out of nowhere and it was flying towards my front window. Still do not know what it was. Abrupt lane change did not cause any problem in this case but in theory it could have.
While you may have had a legit reason, there's no way you can expect a driver in the lane you abruptly changed into to anticipate this behavior. If you hit another car in your abrupt change, you are still at fault even if you have a legit reason.
Of no fault of their own, the car you hit trying to avoid something means you didn't avoid them. The car you hit did nothing wrong, but you did. Insurance will place you at fault at a minimum of partial fault. You will not be blameless in your example if you do hit someone/something
Yeah, I know where you're coming from, but...when you've taken as many defensive driving classes I have from my younger days (we all know why), then some of the things they teach definitely start to stick with you. If you are forced to drive in rush hour traffic every day, there's definitely not much you can do. So, stop driving in rush hour traffic!! After that, you stop driving next to cars. You place yourself in the gaps even if that means slowing down. And that was my biggest Doh! moment was learning to accept that slowing down has so many benefits. One of the take aways form defensive driving was always leaving yourself an out. Being cognizant of not having an out for unexpected need for avoidance maneuvering will go a long way of avoiding the situations you experienced.
FWIW the defensive driving guidance in that scenario is to stay in your lane and brake -- this is most commonly encountered when you see a deer in the roadway, you will almost always do more damage to your passengers, other motorists, and your own car by swerving (and potentially risking a rollover or running off the road) than by maintaining your course and hitting the object at a lower speed
> maintaining your course and hitting the object at a lower speed
Growing up in the Midwest, I remember being taught (not sure if this was official or something I got from my father, older brother, or maybe an uncle) to quickly assess if I believed that I would hit the deer or not.
If I was going to hit the deer, regardless of my actions, I was to accelerate into it.
If I could brake and avoid it, I was to brake.
I've been in that situation a few times. In the case of a collision with a deer, I accelerated into it and only took damage to the front passenger side panel. I do believe that it helped prevent a bad situation from becoming worse.
In the other cases, I was able to avoid a collision by braking.
Later in life, I did swerve once to avoid a large animal that I mistook for a person walking on a very dark, very rural road. My car flipped and slid on it's top ~100 ft. before coming to a stop. Myself and all 3 passengers walked away without incident but I still feel fortunate that we all did these many years later. Swerving is almost always the wrong answer.
I always wondered about that recommendation to accelerate into it. It seems to me it would only end up making things worse by adding more energy into the collision than less.
Sadly it does happen. There are horror stories of live deer going through the windshield, doing a number on the occupants both with their arrival and their attempts to escape.
Animals do not fly towards you. Tires do and they kill people who brake and wait toll it hits you. Becaus all happened very fast I can not bet what the flying object was but it was most likely a tire.
The object flying towards my window was most likely a tire. Sorry but I am not suicidal. Brake and wait till it hits you is worthy of Darwin award. There are countless examples of flying tires killing people on the road.
