[mtreis86]

You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling. In traffic it is obvious that people will be starting and stopping so there the fault is the person in the back, but on a country road with no traffic the fault is not so clear.

To your second point, nothing on those vehicles says "warning, no human in control" so I'm not sure how obvious it really is.

[ceejayoz]

> You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling.

You absolutely can; it's what you're supposed to do if a toddler runs out in front of the car, for example. Barring malfunctioning brake lights, if you rear end a suddenly stopping vehicle, you were at fault for following at an unsafe distance.

Most legislation about this (example: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-22109/) says stuff like "when there is opportunity to give the signal". Screech brakes, then signal.

[bryanlarsen]

In my jurisdiction, brake checking is illegal.

But it's pretty hard to enforce just for the reasons you mentioned. "I saw something on the road" is a fairly bullet proof defence which nobody can counter.

[mtreis86]

> for no reason

Kid in the street is a reason to stop suddenly

[ceejayoz]

If you’re too close to a car stopping for no reason, you’re also too close to a car stopping for a good one. The physics are the same.

[COGlory]

You are supposed to be far enough behind the vehicle in front of you that you have enough time to stop. Assuming something about what other vehicles will do is a great way to get into an accidents. There are a lot of humans that don't drive like humans.