[yupper32]

If it often brakes hard and late to the point that people think you're brake checking them, then you shouldn't be using it. They don't think you're brake checking them, you ARE brake checking them.

Stop being dangerous on the road. This isn't a game.

[jjulius]

>They don't think you're brake checking them, you ARE brake checking them.

This is the important part. Doesn't matter what the intent was, the fact of the matter is that the people behind you nearly rear-ended you because of your car's actions. And you, as the driver, never know when you might piss off the wrong driver - brake check the wrong person and suddenly you're in trouble with someone who might not care if you say, "But my car did it, not me! Honest!".

[ALittleLight]

Even worse, the person behind you might fail the brake check. I can't believe people are knowingly operating faulty autopilots on public roads. If my car randomly braked I would take it to the mechanic - not continue to drive it.

[throwaway894345]

Autopilot should be fixed, but the problem in your scenario is people trailing others too closely. If you fail phantom braking, you're going to fail real braking whether it's activated by a computer or not.

[woojoo666]

Safe trailing distance is determined by safe driving expecations. If everybody in the world started doing hard and sudden brakes, then the safe trailing distance would be extended.

While ideally everybody would always leave enough space for hard and sudden brakes (eg in case a deer runs across a road), the reality is that driving has a lot of loose rules, and you're expected to behave rationally and similarly to the other drivers on the road. For example it's usually fine to speed a little in the left lane if most people deem it safe to do so. And there's no strict definition for "reckless driving" despite it being illegal. Driving is an intricate social dance with millions of actors, and if you are the one acting way out of line, you are liable, and hard + sudden brakes for no reason, is definitely out of line.

(That's not to say this is the best system though. An autonomous system with well defined behaviors, less ambiguity, and less social guesswork, would probably be safer. But such a system would require full participation, not just one or two tesla drivers choosing to let Elon take the wheel)

[throwaway894345]

> Safe trailing distance is determined by safe driving expecations.

Respectfully, it's not. A safe trailing distance is defined as enough room for you to stop even if the car in front of you stops abruptly (for example, if a kid or animal runs into the street), factoring in your reaction time and the stopping distance of your vehicle. The buffer isn't for normal variations in the speed of traffic, it's for anomalies.

> the reality is that driving has a lot of loose rules, and you're expected to behave rationally and similarly to the other drivers on the road

This isn't a valid excuse for unsafe following.

> Driving is an intricate social dance with millions of actors, and if you are the one acting way out of line, you are liable

I'm not sure what sense you mean "liable" here, but it's certainly not true in the legal sense--you're liable if you violate the law, for example, by following too closely (the law doesn't seem to care whether others follow too closely or not).

> An autonomous system with well defined behaviors, less ambiguity, and less social guesswork, would probably be safer.

It doesn't require full participation, it merely requires fewer fatalities caused per 1M miles than human drivers. That's the point at which we should legalize AI, and if it becomes significantly safer, that's the point at which we should mandate AI in the general case. And then something really interesting happens--we can start to do away with those ambiguities that make AI hard because human drivers become the exception rather than the rule. Rather than informal social systems governing driving, driving becomes a formal digital protocol. Maybe rather than relying on computer vision (or computer vision alone) cars are loaded with a national database containing the right-of-way rules, speed limits, scheduled maintenance, etc and/or they use other sensors. These things in turn make AI safer (discrete signals = fewer failures due to computer vision errors). Safe and ubiquitous AI could lead to much narrower roads, freeing up more space for pedestrian traffic.

Moreover, since cars are safer, they don't need to be so heavily armored--rather, they become smaller and lighter, which further increases safety by increasing survivability in pedestrian- or cyclist-involved accidents.

Moreover, those strict protocols could make transportation more efficient (a given road increases its throughput and latency for a without increasing lanes or compromising safety) because (1) cars are smaller and lighter as previously discussed, (2) AI can travel faster with less buffer due to its increased reaction times, and (3) because AI can coordinate so you don't have inefficient traffic patterns like "4 semis driving in quadruple file" or "one reckless ass hat changing lanes frequently, abruptly, and aggressively, causing everyone to slow down".

Without human drivers, maybe taxis become cost-competitive with public transit (or better) and fewer people need to own a car (and the cars they own needn't be so large since one can easily and cheaply rent a larger car for transporting large items). And for those who do own their own car, those cars can drop them off at their destination and park farther away (no need for so much parking downtown).

This is all just a sketch of some of the possibilities, but the point is that there's a horizon (a critical mass of AI cars) that could manifest in a cascade of other significant changes.

[ALittleLight]

Accidents tend to happen when multiple things "go wrong". If a car accident happened every time some single thing was imperfect - well, car accidents would be more common than safe journeys. It's the confluence of multiple imperfections that result in car accidents (usually) - e.g. Driver 1 steps suddenly on the brakes AND Driver 2 is fiddling with the radio AND it's raining - or whatever, and you get a car accident.

So, yeah, maybe Driver 2 should be able to pass the brake check, but that doesn't mean it is good or safe or desirable for Driver 1 to be randomly brake checking people. Having a car that randomly brakes is like having a driver who randomly applies the brakes - you shouldn't do that, it's bad, and unsafe.

[yupper32]

Brake checking is (usually) illegal in the US, albeit hard to prove without a dash cam or witnesses.

So no, it's not the case that people trailing too closely is the problem. It's the case of the Tesla requiring, without good reason, the car behind them to brake hard to avoid the collision. This is dangerous and (usually) illegal.

[daedalus_f]

Teslas or people in general people should absolutely not break-check, but no, cars that drive so close to the car in front that they cannot safely stop in an emergency are tailgating.

I do agree there is some nuance, but it really saddens me that so many comments in this thread are supportive of a form of driving that, while very common, is unsafe for themselves and others. It's a form of normalisation of deviance and I'm sure it costs far more lives than teslas dodgy "autopilot" (even if that too should not be road legal).

[throwaway1851]

In metropolitan areas (where I imagine most Teslas are driven), it often just isn’t possible to maintain a textbook-safe following distance. The instant you allow more than the average distance ahead of you, another car will jump in to fill the gap.

[saiya-jin]

I would do pretty bad things to any person who would severely harm or kill my kids for example, and no amount of blaming car electronics or recent update would change that...

[daedalus_f]

In this circumstance (crashing into the back of a tesla breaking hard) you would have been the person primarily to blame. Yes tesla sells a dodgy "autopilot" that does unexpected things (and in my opinion should not be road legal until fixed), but you were tailgating to the point where you couldn’t stop in time. The car behind has to be responsible for maintaining safe separation to the car in front (under reasonable circumstances).

edit: The "you" in the above being the hypothetical driver.

[yupper32]

You and the Tesla aren't the only ones on the road. You can't control people behind you being just close enough to not be able to stop. Or having another person behind the Tesla swerve into you when trying to avoid hitting the Tesla.

There are plenty of scenarios where you are still impacted by the brake checking Tesla without you being at fault.

[Escapado]

I kind of agree, however at least from my experience in Germany keeping at least the minimum legal distance is an exception rather than the norm. It kinda makes me mad and I wish it was mandatory for all cars to have sensors which would either not allow you to get closer given a certain speed to be in line with the regulations or at least make a really annoying sound so that you simply wouldn't want to. I would bet this would save so many lives.

[throwaway894345]

There's a difference between doing bad things to prevent someone from hurting your kids and doing bad things to someone who hurt your kids in an accident. Acting in defense is justified, but acting in revenge should rightly land you in legal trouble (including prison depending on the severity of the "bad things").

[ericbarrett]

My first thought was, what if it's a sheriff, police officer, or state patrol? Now you've got a couple nights in the county lockup, a reckless driving charge (this can be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the severity), and $thousands in towing and impound fees.

[throwaway894345]

I don't think abrupt braking constitutes reckless driving (maybe it varies by location), and it seems like it would be pretty easy to fight by claiming you saw a deer/etc in the road. If the cop says he didn't see it, you respond with some variation of "unsurprising because you were following me too closely to see anything else". Of course, none of this absolves Tesla from fixing their software.

[ericbarrett]

I can't imagine a cop anywhere in the world responding well to the phrase "unsurprising because you were following me too closely," especially if s/he already thinks you were brake checking them!

[throwaway894345]

By the time you're fighting the ticket, it doesn't much matter how the cop reacts.

[throwaway894345]

It doesn't make sense to argue that the responsibility for a violent or aggressive interaction stops with the Tesla/etc driver rather than the maniac who responded aggressively. The Tesla/etc driver is responsible for his own driving, as is the person reacting to that driving. Further still, since we're being pedantic about litigating responsibility, the person trailing the Tesla/etc should be leaving plenty of room such that he can comfortably react to abrupt braking (the leading driver might have a good reason for braking quickly!).

[jjulius]

>It doesn't make sense to argue that the responsibility for a violent or aggressive interaction stops with the Tesla/etc driver rather than the maniac who responded aggressively.

I never said that the responsibility stops with the Tesla driver. I simply said that it's wise to not put yourself in a situation where you may accidentally piss the wrong person off - this is a general sentiment that applies everywhere in life, really. You don't know if the person you're dealing with is the nicest, most understanding person in the world, or an absolute maniac who's been dealing with some heavy stuff and is one step away from losing their absolute shit. Yes, you're not responsible for someone else's emotions, but you are responsible for how you interact with them.

>Further still, since we're being pedantic about litigating responsibility, the person trailing the Tesla/etc should be leaving plenty of room such that he can comfortably react to abrupt braking (the leading driver might have a good reason for braking quickly!).

Of course. Surely you'd agree that nuance plays a large role here, though? There are often times where you'll find yourself closer to the back of a car than you'd like, despite your best efforts to maintain plenty of room (eg, someone cuts you off or moves into your lane with less distance than you'd like).

[absnetneg]

It's not a brake check if the person in front of you is slowing down and your braking is to maintain safe distance. A brake check is braking for the purpose of affecting those behind you. It seems clear he means it is braking due to the slow down ahead.

[HelloMcFly]

> A brake check is braking for the purpose of affecting those behind you.

Intent doesn't matter to the person in the other car, who likely is relying on your behavior to some extend to understand traffic ahead. If your driving seems like a brake check and brings in all of the unsafe conditions associated with brake checking, then it's a brake check.

[throwaway894345]

Of course, the unsafe conditions aren't associated with braking, but with the failure of the trailing car to leave adequate room for their own braking. The accident here would happen whether the leading car had a justifiable reason to brake or not, and the trailing driver would be responsible in either case.

[InvertedRhodium]

Unfortunately that just shows the person following was not doing so at a safe distance - any car you're driving behind could perform emergency braking at any moment.

[silax]

^ It's this. I haven't been honked at yet, but I have felt a little apologetic to people behind me. I recently updates my follow distance from 3 to 4 and its helped tremendously.

[noirbot]

Sure, but if you're doing it far later than a human would have done it, then you're really screwing with the person behind you who isn't an AI with instant response times.

[throwaway894345]

This is why the law requires people to follow at a safe distance. If you're only leaving room for "instant response times" then you had better have instant response times because you're liable.

[noirbot]

The question isn't who's legally liable. The question is are you doing things more unsafely than you need to be. You don't have to be legally at fault to be doing something that's unsafe for other drivers to deal with. Sudden breaking at highway speeds, especially for no actual reason, even if the person behind you is following at a safe distance, is rolling the dice that every car behind you for a while is driving at full attention.

"I require every other human driver to be driving correctly so that my AI-car may drive unsafely" seems like a bad bet. I'd also imagine that, if as a human, I just slammed on my breaks for no reason on the highway, I would be found to be at fault for an accident assuming the car behind me wasn't directly tailgating me.

[throwaway894345]

You seem to view safety as some binary that doesn't account for frequency or severity of incidents. Your framing suggests you think it's better to continue with human drivers and the commensurate 40k lives lost each year than to use an AI that has even the slightest possibility of causing even the least significant accident irrespective of whether or not any accident occurs in practice.

I suggest it's better to compare a given AI with humans in terms of fatalities caused per million miles driven. If an AI performs a little better than humans it should be legalized and if it performs dramatically better than humans, it should be mandatory.

Of course, this is where we need more data and greater transparency so we can answer these questions.

[noirbot]

I'm not trying to say that at all. What I'm saying is that we're at an awkward time now, where this sort of quick AI-assisted breaking is especially dangerous because fallible humans are most of the rest of the drivers on the road. In an all FSD world, this wouldn't really be a problem.

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth and assuming I'm against working on AI driving because one person might ever die. All I'm trying to point out is that it's pretty worrying to have a system that could cause a highway-speed accident because of a well-known and decently common bug. I'd be equally worried if it came up that some other decently selling model of car would randomly have the ABS system engage.

I wrote my OP here because the parent poster was casually talking about "not really break checking people" as if that's just normal behavior that's a part of R&D, instead of an AI accidentally emulating dangerous aggressive driving patterns that FSD is supposed to do away with. I'm not trying to ban FSD research or anything. I want this improved! It's just scary when people excuse dangerous behaviors by FSD systems because it's otherwise safer.

The other issue is that more data and greater transparency are both not things Tesla seems to have any interest in providing anyone, so while this may get fixed, it's not really pushing the industry forward all that much if no one other than Tesla is going to benefit. There's plenty of mentions in this thread of this sort of issue happening on other cars and adaptive cruise control systems that could benefit from an improvement for the betterment of all drivers, but instead "not breakchecking people" is going to be a unexplained feature improvement in some FSD patch probably.

[nunez]

if a car is tailgating me (less than one car length of space behind me above 30 mph), and my Tesla sees a ghost and brakes hard, and the car behind me rams into me, then that is completely on them. it's on me if they were further away than that.

[noirbot]

Sure, but fault aside, you still just got into a highway-speed car accident. I don't get to decide if the person behind me is a reckless driver or not and "but the law says it's not my fault" doesn't do away with any injuries or damage to my car that happens because of it. There's plenty of completely legal things you can do that will create unsafe situations on the road, and you get a mark on your insurance for getting in the accident whether or not it's your legal fault that it happened (as I found out when I lost the front half of my car to flying road debris.)

[coldtea]

But it's cool technology. A death or two is worth it /s

[throwaway894345]

> But it's cool technology. A death or two is worth it /s

You're clearly trolling here, but maybe we can reframe this into something worth discussing: does autopilot result in more or fewer deaths per 1M miles driven than the median human driver? That seems like a reasonable threshold/criteria for legalizing the technology.