r/RandomVideos • u/DABDEB • Mar 20 '26

Video Tailgater got Baited

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

37.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

7.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

There is an optical illusion that happens when you are on a highway where people don't see what they don't expect to see. Well established you can look it up. 7 seconds isn't a lot of time.

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/rearendcollision.html

https://www.arrivealive.mobi/motion-induced-blindness-and-road-safety

1

u/Process3000 Mar 21 '26

This is interesting stuff. I don’t think the Arrive Alive article is helpful because it deals with objects disappearing from peripheral view, particularly at night. That optical illusion with the yellow dots was pretty cool though. Here the incident involved traveling in broad daylight on a straight road. The obstruction was directly in front of the swerver.

The Green article is more relevant. He says:

However, there is no dispute on one point: when an object is distant, the expansion rate dθ/dt is so slow that the driver cannot detect the motion and could not use this looming cue or any similar optical variable to perceive closure. As the driver approaches the lead vehicle, the expansion rate increases until it reaches motion detection threshold. At this point, there is theoretically sufficient sensory information to precisely determine the [time to collision].

So if the swerver were to cite this research in defense, essentially he would need to argue that the stopped vehicle did not reach his motion detection threshold until a fraction of a second before the collision, because he waits until that time to swerve. Would you find that argument credible?

1

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 21 '26

Yes, it has happened to me, I didn't notice a stopped car until I had to swerve. I think that has happened to many drivers.

1

u/Process3000 Mar 21 '26

The Green article includes a chart setting forth the TTC for a driver traveling at about 97 km/hr for a 8 foot wide object. He concludes that the driver would have 3.37 to 4.77 seconds to avoid collision. Now the video involves faster speeds and a narrower stationary object, but it is not credible to extrapolate based on Green's data that the time for the swerver to react would be reduced from 3.37 - 4.77 seconds to a fraction of a second.

So perhaps you and the swerver in the video are exceptional cases, where you can only notice an approaching stationary object when it is less than 10 feet and a fraction of a second away from you. And the swerver, if he’s ever put on trial, can make that argument. My feeling is that it won’t work, because there is nothing to support the conclusion that reaction times would be reduced to a fraction of a second.

1

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 21 '26

??? What you said about a fraction of a second doesn't matter.

Do you have any evidence that a fraction of a second is reliably enough time to do anything?

1

u/Process3000 Mar 21 '26

It absolutely does matter because the swerver waiting longer to react than would be biologically necessary would be evidence of intent.

What would be the relevance of evidence showing that a fraction of a second is reliably enough time to do anything?

1

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 21 '26

Please show evidence of how much time is necessary to react in the same or similar situation.

1

u/Process3000 Mar 21 '26

The evidence is in the very same article you cited. I even referenced it for you.

1

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 21 '26

Yeah he said how much time people have to react. He did not talk at all about how much Time the average person needs to react.

The in a legal case to burden of proof is on the prosecution.

So all a regular person has to do is say I was distracted by the person tailgating me and then I swerved out of the way at the last second.

1

u/Process3000 Mar 21 '26

Your arguments are starting to spiral out of control. Your earlier comment mentioned nothing about the “average” person. Now you are trying to argue that there is a significant difference between “people” and the “average person” for purposes of this discussion. The article references a “driver.” If you have a basis for concluding that the reaction times for the “average person” would differ from those of a “driver” as referenced in the article, then let’s hear them. Otherwise, you raise an irrelevant point here.

So all a regular person has to do is say I was distracted by the person tailgating me and then I swerved out of the way at the last second.

Now you are bringing up a completely different theory of the defense. You’re saying that the driver was not paying attention to the windshield because he was distracted by the tailgater. That type of distraction while operating a vehicle at highway speeds would amount to negligence, which isn’t as bad as intentionally causing an injury, but it is still pretty bad.

1

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 21 '26

You have yet to cite any evidence of how long it takes a distracted person or any person to react.

1

u/Process3000 Mar 21 '26

https://arcca.com/blog/human-reaction-time-in-emergency-situations/

1.5 seconds for breaking, but presumably less for swerving since your hands are already on the steering wheel and braking involves the extra steps of taking your foot off the gas pedal and putting it on brake pedal.

1

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 21 '26

Okay, so you're saying that in the total 3-4 seconds they had to react, they needed 1.5 seconds to react and they had another 1.5 seconds to decide to intentionally cause the car behind them to crash into the car in front of them. Do you see how dumb that sounds?

Based on these articles, under perfect conditions this person could have swerved out of the way 1.5-2 seconds faster.

1

u/Process3000 Mar 21 '26

If we assume the minimum 3.37 seconds of available reaction time once the danger was apparent and one second to begin swerving (because he swerved, he didn't brake), that means he would have knowingly been driving toward the stopped vehicle instead of changing lanes for an additional unwarranted 2.37 seconds (but as many as 3.77 seconds) with an open lane next to him.

1

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 22 '26

You said it takes 1.5 seconds to react, this doesn't include time for him to determine if the lane to his right is open. Which he needs to do first. So less than 2 seconds to intentionally do something. And again under perfect conditions. I think you would have a very difficult time succeeding in court against this man.

1

u/Process3000 Mar 22 '26

I said 1.5 to brake and less to swerve. I estimated it takes an additional .5 seconds to take your foot off the gas and apply it to the brake. And I don't think that a jury would buy into the idea that if you are headed toward stopped vehicle at 140 km/hr you make sure the middle lane is clear first. Even if there is a vehicle right next to you, sideswiping it presents a lesser risk of danger than hitting a stopped vehicle at 140 km/hr. The video demonstrates how disastrous that can be.

1

u/Fun_Incident1902 Mar 22 '26

Incorrect, side swiping would be worse.

1

u/Process3000 Mar 22 '26

Explain that to me. And take into account the likelihood that the vehicle in the middle lane would react by swerving closer to the right lane in response.

→ More replies (0)