[TheLeeds]

This is quite worrying and could have interesting legal implications in the event of someone crashing into the back of a car under these circumstances.
You've probably all heard the urban myth that if you crash into the back of the car in front, it's always your fault. Well that's not strictly true. There are many exceptions, such as when the driver in front brakes suddenly for no justifiable reason (road rage, crash for cash, stupidity, etc). One precedent case involved a driver stopping to avoid running over a fox. The court held this was not a good enough reason and said this driver was at fault. I'm wondering what would happen if an accident claim went to court where a car had suddenly stopped without any driver input, and who the defendants would be.
I reckon it might be an interesting decade as the 'driverless' technology gets more popular.