That was pretty cool. I wonder if the Tesla's sensors could still "see" the braking SUV as it is a bigger vehicle than the red car that rear ended it. We can't see the sides of the SUV in the video, until the red car begins its lane change, because of the wide-angle dashcam but perhaps the Tesla's sensors could.

I think the driver of the red car, who wanted to change lanes, was fixated on the black car in the right hand lane and didn't see the SUV suddenly brake. If the red car had collision avoidance capabilities, this accident would likely have been prevented.

CONT'D:

Every car in America also comes with a free handgun in place of an emergency hand brake because fuck you and the person in front of you. After you rear end your highway opponents, expect to deal with road rage reprisals. Luckily you have a handgun at the ready. But so does the other guy. Shoot him immediately or he will shoot you.

This also explains why the police murder so many drivers. For fuck's sake every car is sold with a gun! It's fucking America, fuck you: LEAVE.

"These are clutch plates I believe"

No those are ring gears from a rear end.

I am so firmly in driver category #1 that I printed my own T-shirts that have the road sign most people ignore that says "slower traffic keep right" and on the back they say "keep right except to pass".
I used to get upset at my grandmother who would drive 40mph on the freeway to be "safe". I would repeat 'How is it not a wreck if we get rear ended by someone going the speed limit? You know we get hurt MORE being hit unexpectedly from the rear, right?' It never helped.
Thank you Vox, for explaining it well.

I love how it only fits because he ground away under the stairs and lifts the rear end.

Wilkens was awarded more than $180,000 in total damages.

Jurors additionally determined that Edwards acted with negligence when his police car rear-ended Wilkens’ motorcycle, but ruled that the veteran state trooper did not violate Wilkens’ rights by pointing a gun at him and using force to handcuff and then pull Wilkens to his feet.

Wilkens suffered a broken left clavicle, a fractured rib and other injuries in the Aug. 3, 2012, incident.

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/33955359-75/federal-jury-rules-in-favor-of-speeding-motorcyclist-against-oregon-state-police-trooper.html.csp

Some other nice bits in the article, the officer was driving an unmarked chevy camaro, was unaware that it was equipped with a dash cam, and blamed the rear ending of the bike on 'brake fade' (which a brake expert testified was rare in modern brake systems).

It's a fun read, also the cop was later promoted to captain.

The tailgater was of the super aggressive type and 100% in the wrong for their actions. If they'd looked at the road situation they would have seen the merging car that meant moving to the right was a bad idea for the car in front, and waited the extra 10-20 seconds it would have taken for the first car to safely move over.

The front car did nothing wrong until they braked unnecessarily because they were upset at being tailgated. It is always the following cars fault if they rear end someone, but I wouldn't be surprised if the police were tempted to charge them with something like dangerous driving based on that footage. I'm sure they could argue their foot slipped or they thought they saw a deer though.

So yeah, both are jerks in my mind but the tailgater made it all possible.

The motorcyclist who got rear-ended says

"Hey everyone thanks for the thoughts. I am all good now. Took a little bit to get back on motorcycles but it's my love and passion."

"Hahaha. Turn it over and spank its butt. I don't know. Hahaha."

Umm, hello, dumbass. Pull over and call 911 maybe? Perhaps turn the freaking camera off or put it down, pull the car over, and comfort the baby and baby mama? Freaking comedian.

Knowing the police they'd probably pull you over and give you a ticket for no child seat. At worst you could get t-boned or rear-ended and... not good.

So it would seem that the concept of red-light cameras is debated by special interest groups on both sides, with strong lobbying from red-light camera vendors. The wikipedia summary explains the controversy thus: "Authorities cite public safety as the primary reason that the cameras are installed, while opponents contend their use is more for financial gain. There have been concerns that red light cameras scare drivers (who want to avoid a ticket) into more sudden stops, which may increase the risk of a rear-end collisions."

The same Wikipedia article summarizes the research thus: "A report in 2003 by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) examined studies from the previous 30 years in Australia, the UK, Singapore and the US, and concluded that red light cameras "improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used." While the report states that evidence is not conclusive (partly due to flaws in the studies), the majority of studies show a reduction in angle crashes, a smaller increase in rear-end crashes, with some evidence of a “spillover” effect of reduced red light running to other intersections within a jurisdiction. These findings are similar to a 2005 meta analysis, which compared the results of 10 controlled before-after studies of red light cameras in the US, Australia and Singapore. The analysis stated that the studies showed a reduction in crashes (up to almost 30%) in which there were injuries, however, evidence was less conclusive for a reduction in total collisions. Studies of red light cameras worldwide show a reduction of crashes involving injury by about 25% to 30%, taking into account increases in rear-end crashes, according to testimony from a meeting of the Virginia House of Delegates Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee in 2003. These findings are supported by a review of more than 45 international studies carried out in 2010, which found that red light cameras reduce red light violation rates, crashes resulting from red light running, and usually reduce right-angle collisions."

There are enough interesting sources there that you can still find confirmation for your particular bias, whatever it is, if you so choose.

As I heard it, the problem is that some people will tend to slam on the brakes on an orange light when they see a red light camera and then get rear ended.

I admit to only briefly perusing the list, but the descriptions on some of the links mention a similar conclusion.

yeah maybe. i dunno, i've seen people just freeze like a deer in the headlights whenever something unusual happens on the road.

Literally last night we pulled up as an accident had occurred ahead of us, and for the next five minutes the number of people who blasted past a line of stopped cars all with their hazards on and full headlight beams illuminating the crash site and so on, was staggering. Last minute they'd realize that yes, there's a car blocking one lane and facing the wrong way all smashed to bits and yes, there's glass and oil on the road. One after anouther they'd slam on the brakes, almost hit it, then almost get rear ended.

People drive with total tunnel vision i think. It's kinda scary how little awareness some people have. On the other hand maybe they're an asshole. hard to say.

Huh...the car actually slams into him on purpose to avoid rear-ending the other semi...that is humorous because it was 100% intentional. You see the car jerk, and I watched it multiple times to see if he hit something beforehand that would cause it to swerve and no, it did not...that is one hell of a felony.

Just because he lost the fight he pulled that bullshit? Whoa, I would have hated to see some kid's brains splattered on the street because someone purposely rammed another vehicle while being a dick...might have been road rage or w/e...

As far as the gap closing, yeah, it is pretty obvious the trucker doesn't want the car to cut in front of him when it isn't legal or right for that to happen. The trucker has this right because it is this forced-tailgating when people merge that causes accidents. HE OBVIOUSLY MAKES AN EDUCATED GUESS THAT THE DUMB BITCH WON'T RAM HIM, but he is proven wrong.

As an ex racer I will say this is disturbing and should definitely be investigated as a criminal act.
First, watching the initial incident closely, Stewart definitely turns into Ward intentionally putting him in the wall. That's likely not criminal, but it should get him thrown out of the circuit, and watched closely by any other circuit he drives in.
Second, the point made in the description is quite valid but understated. He DID know that hitting the throttle would send the whole car, and especially the rear end, sliding to the outside of the turn. Any attempt to claim otherwise is completely ridiculous, he's a professional driver and he knows that. That means even if Stewart didn't intend to hit Ward, he did intend to drive dangerously close to him at unsafe speed wile sliding partially out of control. It seems likely he only intended to spray him with the dirt roost and/or scare him but burped the throttle too soon...that is not an excuse or absolution in any way.
Being on a track doesn't absolve you from behaving safely, or from responsibility for your deliberately unsafe actions. Killing Ward may have been accidental, but acting dangerously irresponsibly was not. An accident that happens when you are acting unsafely is 100% your fault and responsibility, it's exactly why we have the charge of manslaughter and not only murder. Hitting and killing him when you unsafely accelerate at him in a dirt corner was foreseeable by any reasonable person....I would almost certainly convict him.

I doubt she was rear-ended judging by the truck drivers exaggerated reaction once he got out of the cab, but who knows.

Amazing technology, but I also doubt his trailers were full. Still, I bet someones underwear was after that.