This isn't how driving works in practice. Suddenly stopping on a fast freeway isn't a reasonable thing to do unless it's absolutely necessary, and it's not reasonable to expect the following driver to constantly be considering the possibility that the driver in front will slam on the brakes for no reason.
Insurance companies (at least in some parts of the world) have a standing agreement to just hold the following driver responsible when there's a collision like this, because in the majority of these collisions, the following driver is at fault. It's efficient for them to agree to this convention to avoid the cost of investigating each collision individually. This has led to the common misconception that the following car is necessarily responsible if there is a front-to-rear collision.
> it's not reasonable to expect the following driver to constantly be considering the possibility that the driver in front will slam on the brakes for no reason.
It's totally reasonable. It's not hard to maintain a safe following distance. Sudden braking isn't the only reason to do so, and insurance claims aren't the only motivating factor. You drive defensively so as to reduce the likelihood of death and destruction while making life easier for other drivers.
It's not hard to maintain a safe following distance.
So if a car swerves into your lane 10 meters in front of you, then slams on the brakes, you're at fault because it should have been so easy to maintain a safe following distance? (This isn't hypothetical, I've had this exact scenario happen multiple times -- on/off ramps seem to bring out the worst in some drivers).
I don't think anyone is saying what you're suggesting. If you're following a car and they stop, you should be able to stop as well. If a car pulls in front of you and slams on your brakes then that is quite a different scenario.
> it's not reasonable to expect the following driver to constantly be considering the possibility that the driver in front will slam on the brakes for no reason
Whether or not it's reasonable is immaterial. If you constantly consider the possibility of the cars around you to do something unexpected, then you're more likely to avoid death and destruction. As well as prevent the death and destruction of the people around you. It's called defensive driving.
Maybe it's unfair, or too much to ask, or just too difficult. But it's reality.
I'm rooting for self driving cars because I believe that, theoretically, they'll do a much better job than people. In the long run.
However, today, you have to pay attention or you might die. And even if you pay attention you still might die.
My dad told me a story about a coworker he had who was in a car accident. He was sitting at a long line in the highway at a tollbooth. It was foggy. My dad's coworker was watching the fog behind him like a hawk because he didn't feel safe just sitting completely stopped in the highway. A semi-truck appeared out of the fog moving at high speed. My dad's coworker cranked his steering wheel and tried to accelerate off to the side of the road but got rear ended by the truck. He was lucky. Because he was already headed away, this car got bumped out into a field. His car was destroyed and he got a bunch of injuries, but he lived. The people in front of him in the line were not lucky. A bunch of them died.
It's not fair or reasonable. But being constantly considering possibilities saved this guy's life. The other people are dead.
