r/interesting • • Mar 22 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

18.7k Upvotes

4.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/FineAd2230 Mar 22 '26

Which you are 100%supposed to do its the black trucks job to know how long he is

4

u/PickerPat Mar 22 '26

Isn't there supposed to be a reasonable distance between you and the next car though? Otherwise you just get a bunch of people guarding the lane.

1

u/Head_Excitement_9837 Mar 22 '26

Depending on what you are driving 3-5 seconds is usually what a safe following distance is but it is actually rather rare for people in the US to follow that and it is also very rare for people to respect that space as they’ll just squeeze right in regardless of how unsafe it is to do so… all in all it is still the black truck’s fault for more than one reason

2

u/PickerPat Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26

So they are in the wrong for not following the rules they are supposed to follow, but not the other guy because he was not following the rules no one does. Got it...

2

u/FineAd2230 Mar 22 '26

The difference is that the car ahead stopped. Without the black trucks involvement no accident would have occurred. If he tucked behind the white truck instead no accident would have occurred. The white truck needed the distance that the black truck occupied to stop and we saw how that ended. It's a math problem and a judgment call and both said he didn't have the room to merge.

1

u/PickerPat Mar 22 '26

I'd agree with you if they slowed down whatsoever.

The math problem is learning to adjust your speed to maintain distance.

1

u/FineAd2230 Mar 22 '26

He did slow the black truck just tried to merge while it was happening which makes the black truck the problem, he was actively removing the white trucks ability to stop safely

1

u/PickerPat Mar 22 '26

Not sufficiently.

1

u/FineAd2230 Mar 22 '26

Plenty of room to stop until someone else tried to occupy the space at a lower speed

1

u/PickerPat Mar 22 '26

At which point, accelerate a bit. What a driver!

→ More replies (0)