...after looking again, yes, it did, but it seemed to avoid saying explicitly "nearly everybody tailgates and it messes things up, duh".
The people on the slower end of the reaction time spectrum will have to brake longer and harder, causing the people behind them to have to brake longer and harder, and the people on the slower end of reaction times behind them will brake harder still... and eventually you get the effect amplified to the point that traffic is coming almost to a dead stop despite no obstacle in the road (other than traffic itself) causing it.
All of this can and does happen independently of whether people are tailgating. Autonomous vehicles can, in theory, maintain very small following distances behind each other and avoid this problem because they react so much more quickly and (in some visions of the future) can communicate wirelessly with each other to coordinate a reaction. Humans can't do that.
I think you just can't imagine leaving that much space. Which is not surprising, because if people in general could, then we wouldn't have the traffic jams.
It seems to me that tailgating by definition is following too closely to be able to react in time to what's ahead. You seem to feel it can be something else.
By your definition, the people with slower reactions who amplify traffic waves aren't tailgating. By your definition, if they were tailgating, they would've rear-ended the vehicle in front of them.
Perhaps you'd like to try again?
I don't think you're being consistent with yourself now, in saying "react in time" means "to not rear-end", nor are you rightly attributing that to my definition of tailgating.
You're entitled to your opinion about a definition, but it's not worth getting overly offended about. Sometimes generalizing a definition changes what falls under it, but it becomes in a subtle way better. I think this is sort of an "is Pluto a planet" issue, only I'm on the other side than in that case.