NickF1011 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/22/2014-chevy-impala-investigation-braking-issue-report/ Have always been a bit worried about these automated braking systems doing just this without warning. Most systems on a car are passive, and if they malfunction will only result in inoperability of that feature. Active systems are another story and deserve more scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Although to be honest an emergency stop whether intended or not should not result in an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Although to be honest an emergency stop whether intended or not should not result in an accident. Shouldn't, but as we know, everybody tailgates. Having a car stop for no reason in front of you can lead to trouble. It's a pet peeve of mine. I really try not to tailgate in traffic, but everyone in the other lanes sees my safe following distance as an invitation to merge in front of me so I end up tailgating whether I try to or not. Edited April 23, 2014 by NickF1011 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/22/2014-chevy-impala-investigation-braking-issue-report/ Have always been a bit worried about these automated braking systems doing just this without warning. Most systems on a car are passive, and if they malfunction will only result in inoperability of that feature. Active systems are another story and deserve more scrutiny. This is 1 complaint. In a rental. To my understanding, only the LTZ trim has the automated braking system (collision avoidance alert is available but the part when the car fully brakes on its own is only available in the LTZ, and I doubt the rental was an LTZ). My suspicion here is the collision alert went off, freaked out a driver who didn't know a single thing about the car and reacted with "OMG, WE'RE GONNA DIE!" and slammed on the brakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 It only takes one event. I sure wouldn't want a rental jamming on the brakes for no reason and then having to explain a hit up the ass..... could you imagine the paperwork at the airport... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) It only takes one event. I sure wouldn't want a rental jamming on the brakes for no reason and then having to explain a hit up the ass..... could you imagine the paperwork at the airport... If you don't have a half-assed insurance company or you bought the CDW, you don't need to explain anything. File the claim and move on. Edited April 28, 2014 by BrewfanGRB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 If you don't have a half-assed insurance company or you bought the CDW, you don't need to explain anything. File the claim and move on. Especially when it's the other guy's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 If you don't have a half-assed insurance company or you bought the CDW, you don't need to explain anything. File the claim and move on. Especially when it's the other guy's fault. In New York State, if you are rear-ended, it is automatically the person doing the rear-ending that is at fault ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 In New York State, if you are rear-ended, it is automatically the person doing the rear-ending that is at fault ..... That's pretty much universal since you're supposed to be following at a safe enough distance to stop no matter what the car in front of you does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 This is 1 complaint. In a rental. To my understanding, only the LTZ trim has the automated braking system (collision avoidance alert is available but the part when the car fully brakes on its own is only available in the LTZ, and I doubt the rental was an LTZ). My suspicion here is the collision alert went off, freaked out a driver who didn't know a single thing about the car and reacted with "OMG, WE'RE GONNA DIE!" and slammed on the brakes. It's easy to dismiss it as driver error in a rental car, but apparently NHTSA had enough information to think otherwise. Black box data, perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 In New York State, if you are rear-ended, it is automatically the person doing the rear-ending that is at fault ..... That's pretty much universal since you're supposed to be following at a safe enough distance to stop no matter what the car in front of you does. There's really no such thing as automatic "at fault". Say you're driving at a safe distance from the car in front of you. A car from the adjacent lane merges directly in front of you and hits the brakes. You were entirely unable to get your vehicle to a "safe following distance" in that situation. The investigators will look at every incident individually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 But that's no different than a car pulling out in front of you from a side street. Suffice it to say if you're following a vehicle and a vehicle stops suddenly and you hit it - it's going to be your fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 But that's no different than a car pulling out in front of you from a side street. Suffice it to say if you're following a vehicle and a vehicle stops suddenly and you hit it - it's going to be your fault. But you're "following" it when it cuts in front of you all the sudden, whether you were planning to or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 There's really no such thing as automatic "at fault". Say you're driving at a safe distance from the car in front of you. A car from the adjacent lane merges directly in front of you and hits the brakes. You were entirely unable to get your vehicle to a "safe following distance" in that situation. The investigators will look at every incident individually. Yep, that's 'not yielding to oncoming traffic'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 But you're "following" it when it cuts in front of you all the sudden, whether you were planning to or not. If you're FOLLOWING a car and the car stops suddenly you have to be able to stop yourself. Period. If someone pulls out in front of you or merges in front of you that's a totally different scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) If you're FOLLOWING a car and the car stops suddenly you have to be able to stop yourself. Period. If someone pulls out in front of you or merges in front of you that's a totally different scenario. If they merged in front of you, aren't you then following them? :poke: Either way, just about nobody follows at a far enough distance all the time to avoid a vehicle that goes from cruising speed to zero almost instantly (assuming there are cars in the adjacent lanes that prevent swerving around it. Yes, I try to keep a good distance when possible, but frankly, on today's crowded roads "safe following distance" is often an impossibility. Edited April 28, 2014 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 but frankly, on today's crowded roads "safe following distance" is often an impossibility. Try telling that to the officer as he writes the ticket for following too closely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 But you're "following" it when it cuts in front of you all the sudden, whether you were planning to or not. You're being decidedly pedantic here. I think you pretty clearly know the point being made. And I can tell you, because it's my career, in the situation we all know what we're talking about here, no matter WHY the person in front of you slams on the brakes, the following vehicle by definition could not have allowed a safe following distance if they collide with the stopping vehicle. The "merge into your lane and slams on their brakes" is not the same. In a contributory negligence state, you (assuming "you" is the "following" car) could have some negligence attributed for failing to maintain a safe lookout, failing to take evasive action, but not for following too closely. So let's refocus, hmm? No matter WHAT happened with the Impala, assuming the Impala and the following vehicle didn't change lanes or make any other negligent moves, the driver of the following vehicle is at fault for failing to maintain a safe distance. Period. It's true whether there was a technical/electronic or human error with the Impala. Re: the Impala, I think the Toyota SUA incidents show the NHTSA will open the investigation to determine whether it's vehicle or human error. And I'd think that's particularly true with a newer/developing/evolving technology. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 A few years ago I dealt with a constituent who was cited by the police for deliberately slamming on the brakes and causing the vehicle following him to hit his car. The police apportioned part of the blame for the accident to him, which is why he called our office. We couldn't do anything to help him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Giving someone part of the blame for an intentional act is one thing - they still charged the following driver with following too closely. As for the guy who deliberately slammed on his brakes to cause an accident - why would you have tried to help him anyway? He deserved blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 As for the guy who deliberately slammed on his brakes to cause an accident - why would you have tried to help him anyway? He deserved blame. As does (nearly) everyone that gets a speeding ticket, DUI, etc. Yet, lawyers don't mind taking money to help those who are clearly in the wrong get out of their punishment. I would never have made a good lawyer...I have a conscience. I know, not all lawyers are that way, but they are stereotyped for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Try telling that to the officer as he writes the ticket for following too closely. That would certainly be up to the officer's discretion, and could certainly also be argued in court if such a citation is written. Drivers can't be assumed to be psychic. Do we also cite drivers for animal cruelty and hunting violations when deer jump in front of their cars? So let's refocus, hmm? No matter WHAT happened with the Impala, assuming the Impala and the following vehicle didn't change lanes or make any other negligent moves, the driver of the following vehicle is at fault for failing to maintain a safe distance. Period. It's true whether there was a technical/electronic or human error with the Impala. That kind of distracts from the point of the investigation though. Vehicles shouldn't be stopping themselves for no reason. Edited April 29, 2014 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 That would certainly be up to the officer's discretion, and could certainly also be argued in court if such a citation is written. Drivers can't be assumed to be psychic. Do we also cite drivers for animal cruelty and hunting violations when deer jump in front of their cars? That kind of distracts from the point of the investigation though. Vehicles shouldn't be stopping themselves for no reason. You're not getting it Nick. You are required to maintain a safe following distance so that even if the vehicle in front of you slams on their brakes you have room to stop. Period. End of story. Your following distance is entirely within your control. If you don't leave enough room it's your fault. Now if the driver does something stupid they may also be partially at fault but it doesn't relieve you of your liability. The fact that people routinely follow too closely doesn't change the liability if an accident occurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 You're not getting it Nick. You are required to maintain a safe following distance so that even if the vehicle in front of you slams on their brakes you have room to stop. Period. End of story. Your following distance is entirely within your control. If you don't leave enough room it's your fault. Now if the driver does something stupid they may also be partially at fault but it doesn't relieve you of your liability. The fact that people routinely follow too closely doesn't change the liability if an accident occurs. Unless your vehicle can defy the laws of physics, there's no way to instantaneously create a "safe following distance" if a vehicle merges an unsafe distance directly in front of you. It doesn't matter what kind of distance you are trying to maintain. That is entirely out of your control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Unless your vehicle can defy the laws of physics, there's no way to instantaneously create a "safe following distance" if a vehicle merges an unsafe distance directly in front of you. It doesn't matter what kind of distance you are trying to maintain. That is entirely out of your control. Wow. Really? We're not talking about someone pulling in front of you - that's a totally different scenario. That's failure to yield right of way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.