Who gives cr@p about breaking distances? Plods?
Discussion
Okay, we all know that speed kills etc. The pro and cons of this have been debated at length on this forum. Now, I don't have statistics at hand, but it seems to me that one of the most dangerous behaviour on the road - and certainly one of the most common - always go unpunished: tailgating! I was taught that a safe distance was roughly the meter equivalent of your speed in km/h, for example if you drive at 100km/h (62mph) you should be some 100m behind the car in front of you. A huge proportion of people reduce this distance to 30-40m, often people in basic cars with poor breaking performance! This does cause accidents - I have been commuting to Milton Keynes from London for over a month now and have seen over ten such crashes, causing absolute chaos on the M1 (delays etc). Surely this is more dangerous that doing 120mph on an empty motorway. Yet the former will be ruthlessly sanctioned whilst the latter seems to be simply ignored by the boys in blue. Why? Doing people for dangerous driving - because that's exactly what it is - could generate as much revenue as speeding. In addition, it would really save lives.
A frustrated PHer
>>> Edited by rthierry on Monday 5th August 18:18
A frustrated PHer
>>> Edited by rthierry on Monday 5th August 18:18
Not ignored, just hard to Police. Afterall, what happens when people see a Police car on motorway...they all slow down to 70.0000001 mph and become the safest most law abiding drivers in the world.
Tailgaters are no different. The best way to catch them is in an umarked car, which because of cutbacks in man power country wide are used less and less.
I agree, they are as, if not more dangerous than driving a well maintained vehicle at speed on an empty motorway. If I remember correctly, this has been discussed at length here before, with some good suggestions..
Regards
Rob
Tailgaters are no different. The best way to catch them is in an umarked car, which because of cutbacks in man power country wide are used less and less.
I agree, they are as, if not more dangerous than driving a well maintained vehicle at speed on an empty motorway. If I remember correctly, this has been discussed at length here before, with some good suggestions..
Regards
Rob
quote:for the sake of my nerves, please don't ever start a post off like that again
Okay, we all know that speed kills etc.
quote:Hmm.. true I suppose.
it seems to me that one of the most dangerous behaviour on the road - and certainly one of the most common - always go unpunished: tailgating!
quote:Please - no more rules.
I have been commuting to Milton Keynes from London for over a month now and have seen over ten such crashes, causing absolute chaos on the M1 (delays etc). Surely this is more dangerous that doing 120mph on an empty motorway. Yet the former will be ruthlessly sanctioned whilst the latter seems to be simply ignored by the boys in blue. Why?
You might be interested to know that the technology exists to detect and penalise tailgaters.. In Israel they run cameras which detect the gap between cars in a flow of traffic. If the gap is less than 1 second, the driver of the car behind is fined.
The last thing we need is an opening for more regulations and electronic detectives.
This is simply one strand supporting the argument that better driver education is the fundamental requirement for safer and more responsible driving. No point focusing on any single behaviour in isolation. The level of knowledge and ability needs to be raised across the board. Then you'll find such driving habits much reduced.
Or so one hopes. Everyday I have less faith in peoples' innate abilities and my expectations were below to start with.
Either way - less rules, not more. More knowledge, not less.
>> Edited by CarZee on Monday 5th August 18:52
We have had such monitors before. About 15 years ago, on the A4010 between High Wycombe and Princes Risborough there was a sign with a sensor in the road that lit up "Too Close, Move apart" if it sensed the gap was not sufficient. I guess this was just not as money making as Revenue Cameras!
quote:
Either way - less rules, not more. More knowledge, not less.
Couldn't agree more, but I've got to admit that I too often see hair-raising stuff on the roads. May be I am going to put a sign at the back of the Chimaera, something like 'Back off!'.
No, what really annoys me is that various motoring organisation and lobbies only talk about absolute speed. At least, I know I am not the only frustated one...
[rant]
Braking Distances - It's always "at Xmph, your braking distance is Yft". How come they never mention that the type of car has a huge effect ?
Since I replaced my Alfa 164 with a Pug 205 I've had a fair few close calls and some rapid re-learning regarding braking distance.
I'll go as far as saying that over one local lane at 70mph the Alfa felt safe and always stopped with a good reserve of space. However, the Pug on the same lane at 50mph recently gave me the biggest brown trouser moment I've had for a long time. It simply started sliding with very little brake pressure and didn't want to stop. I only avoided an accident by foot off the brake and steer up the bank last ditch panic measures.
Have the Alfa and the Pug got similar braking distances - No way !
Do I feel safe in the Pug - NO WAY !
[/rant]
Braking Distances - It's always "at Xmph, your braking distance is Yft". How come they never mention that the type of car has a huge effect ?
Since I replaced my Alfa 164 with a Pug 205 I've had a fair few close calls and some rapid re-learning regarding braking distance.
I'll go as far as saying that over one local lane at 70mph the Alfa felt safe and always stopped with a good reserve of space. However, the Pug on the same lane at 50mph recently gave me the biggest brown trouser moment I've had for a long time. It simply started sliding with very little brake pressure and didn't want to stop. I only avoided an accident by foot off the brake and steer up the bank last ditch panic measures.
Have the Alfa and the Pug got similar braking distances - No way !
Do I feel safe in the Pug - NO WAY !
[/rant]
Couldn't agree more about this. Worst of it is that many of the mongs who tailgate do so becasue they aren't paying attention, so too close and pants reactions.
Personally, when it gets truly silly and people are putting their own lives at risk, I'd be very happy to see the police intervene.
I guess one of the reasons it is less of a focus than outright speed is that it is substantially harder to measure and therefore to get adequate evidence to convict. You can imagine defences like "the car in front cut me up" that would be hard to disprove based on photos from fixed cameras even if you measured the speed of both cars. For example a car in the middle lane, overtaken slowly by another car who then moves back into middle lane without leaving a gap ... car in front's fault, impossible to distinguish with snapshots.
If the policeman's word isn't enough, they'd have to film the incedent, and to do that they'd have to have a side shot so the distance between the cars was obvious, and in many cases this would put them in a fairly bizarre position on the road.
Compare and contrast with the simplicity of measuring a car's speed.
Personally, when it gets truly silly and people are putting their own lives at risk, I'd be very happy to see the police intervene.
I guess one of the reasons it is less of a focus than outright speed is that it is substantially harder to measure and therefore to get adequate evidence to convict. You can imagine defences like "the car in front cut me up" that would be hard to disprove based on photos from fixed cameras even if you measured the speed of both cars. For example a car in the middle lane, overtaken slowly by another car who then moves back into middle lane without leaving a gap ... car in front's fault, impossible to distinguish with snapshots.
If the policeman's word isn't enough, they'd have to film the incedent, and to do that they'd have to have a side shot so the distance between the cars was obvious, and in many cases this would put them in a fairly bizarre position on the road.
Compare and contrast with the simplicity of measuring a car's speed.
Tailgating seldom makes it to court as it is far harder to prove it amounts to an offence. Lets face it, it someone accused you of crap driving would you admit it ? This means these take up a lot of time and effort to go to trial when at the end of the day the penalty is likely to be marginally harsher than a speeding ticket.
Speed cameras are administered by the police in return for a share of the proceeds, so there's an incentive to detect and issue tickets for these. Offences about standard of driving need a wad of paperwork, go to CPS, who then come to court with a case which could frankly go either way. If they lose, it looks bad for the CPS and their office stats. Result they are reluctant to prosecute, cops realise this and are reluctant to charge, meaning those involved carry on regardless.
Ironically if speeders did the same and challenged every ticket, the system would grind to a halt. Used to work in a processing office. Only around 5% of tickets issued lead to a court case, the rest pay up beforehand. If that figure rose to much more than about 20%, the courts could not physically cope. Now there's an idea. Unfortunately until it reaches critical mass, the courts can cope and those who challenge get a bigger fine.
Speed cameras are administered by the police in return for a share of the proceeds, so there's an incentive to detect and issue tickets for these. Offences about standard of driving need a wad of paperwork, go to CPS, who then come to court with a case which could frankly go either way. If they lose, it looks bad for the CPS and their office stats. Result they are reluctant to prosecute, cops realise this and are reluctant to charge, meaning those involved carry on regardless.
Ironically if speeders did the same and challenged every ticket, the system would grind to a halt. Used to work in a processing office. Only around 5% of tickets issued lead to a court case, the rest pay up beforehand. If that figure rose to much more than about 20%, the courts could not physically cope. Now there's an idea. Unfortunately until it reaches critical mass, the courts can cope and those who challenge get a bigger fine.
There's a rather obvious catch that many numpties who swan around safe in the knowledge that their shiny new pride and joy has ABS, ASR, etc etc, fail to realise...
Namely that having stood on their anchors in the pissing rain and satisfyingly stopped many yards clear of the impending collision ahead of them, they've forgotten to look in the mirrors and clock the overloaded white transit van on remoulds that is about to turn their saloon into a hatchback.....
Half your braking distances with technology and better brakes by all means, but remember you've doubled the chance that somebodys about to rear end you......
Namely that having stood on their anchors in the pissing rain and satisfyingly stopped many yards clear of the impending collision ahead of them, they've forgotten to look in the mirrors and clock the overloaded white transit van on remoulds that is about to turn their saloon into a hatchback.....
Half your braking distances with technology and better brakes by all means, but remember you've doubled the chance that somebodys about to rear end you......
Aspointed out by one of my colleagues, it would be difficult to police. Its bad enough whenyou stop someone for speeding having used a calibrated speedo, because you don't show them any figures they tend to argue the toss, or if you stop them for going through a red light "it was amber" so could you imagine trying to prove a tailgating, we would never be out of court for all the "not guilty" trials we would be attending. Don't get me wrong though I do agree with the observations that it is a dangerous practice and I have done a few for it, I would also do lots more if we had 'point and squirt' detection devices to prove it. I know they exist but as yet we ain't got em
>> Edited by john robson on Monday 5th August 23:06
>> Edited by john robson on Monday 5th August 23:06
Tailgating: Info for anybody travelling on the continent. This is VERY EASILY controlled and is regularly done in B, NL, LUX, CH and D. A camera is set up on (between railings) or under (on the crash barrier) a bridge, watch out for white lines of differing lengths next to the central divider/barrier which run across the lane (similar to some Gatso markings).
These are set at fixed distances and the photos then show your speed and distance to the car in front. This can lead to an automatic ban AND a speeding fine!!!! BEWARE these start up to 750m BEFORE the bridge, so that when the series of photos are processed your argument "he cut in front of me" does not hold water!!!
The old rule never closer than half the (km)speedo in meters helps here, 'cause thats how they're set up. To explain 200kph = 100m distance to the car in front... the only trouble is numpty(wo)man loves to dive into this space at 101.00001kph!!!
These are set at fixed distances and the photos then show your speed and distance to the car in front. This can lead to an automatic ban AND a speeding fine!!!! BEWARE these start up to 750m BEFORE the bridge, so that when the series of photos are processed your argument "he cut in front of me" does not hold water!!!
The old rule never closer than half the (km)speedo in meters helps here, 'cause thats how they're set up. To explain 200kph = 100m distance to the car in front... the only trouble is numpty(wo)man loves to dive into this space at 101.00001kph!!!
I think insurance laws should be changed so that people have more to loose if they crash into the back of someone. I think there can be no such thing as a no-fault accident, and the party found to be at fault in an accident should receive nothing from either insurance company and should pay any legal bills. What is now called no fault really means that insurance companies couldn't be bother deciding fault. It should be called all-at-fault and in that case no insurance would pay out. This would not only make people think a lot more about thier driving but would reduce insurance premiums.
I recently ran into the back of a woman at a roundabout. Consequences to be : none - company car replaced same day with courtesy car and my car fixed at no expense to me. (didn't even have to fill out form!) Consequences to old lady - written off old honda civic that she probably got paid a few hundred quid for - and major stress.
I recently ran into the back of a woman at a roundabout. Consequences to be : none - company car replaced same day with courtesy car and my car fixed at no expense to me. (didn't even have to fill out form!) Consequences to old lady - written off old honda civic that she probably got paid a few hundred quid for - and major stress.
quote:
I think insurance laws should be changed so that people have more to loose if they crash into the back of someone. I think there can be no such thing as a no-fault accident, and the party found to be at fault in an accident should receive nothing from either insurance company and should pay any legal bills. What is now called no fault really means that insurance companies couldn't be bother deciding fault. It should be called all-at-fault and in that case no insurance would pay out. This would not only make people think a lot more about thier driving but would reduce insurance premiums.
I recently ran into the back of a woman at a roundabout. Consequences to be : none - company car replaced same day with courtesy car and my car fixed at no expense to me. (didn't even have to fill out form!) Consequences to old lady - written off old honda civic that she probably got paid a few hundred quid for - and major stress.
I don't agree with you. Insurance is a private service that you pay for. The systems in place already penalises bad drivers through sky-high premiums. In your example, I should think your company's insurance bill is going to be affected. Now whether they want you to share the burden is their problem - and possibly yours! But please let's none of this rich-people-will-pay-and-get-away-with-it (becaue that's what it would mean). As a driver I am paying for a -very expensive- service and I'd expect them to come up with the goods should I need them.
I find fitting a tow bar is a great deterrent to tailgating - even if you never use it.
And its true - keeping your distance not only means you might not hit the car in front, but it also means you'll be braking more gently if something DOES happen so the overloaded transit behind won't hit you either.
Back in 1978 if you bought a Talbot Sunbeam Ti (quality motor) it came with a button on the dashboard to activate the brake lights - not sure if that would be allowed these days.
But there are plenty of cars around now (e.g. new Primera) that have intelligent cruise control - working in conjunction with parktronic sensors, it keeps you a safe distance from the car in front without you even thinking about it.
And its true - keeping your distance not only means you might not hit the car in front, but it also means you'll be braking more gently if something DOES happen so the overloaded transit behind won't hit you either.
Back in 1978 if you bought a Talbot Sunbeam Ti (quality motor) it came with a button on the dashboard to activate the brake lights - not sure if that would be allowed these days.
But there are plenty of cars around now (e.g. new Primera) that have intelligent cruise control - working in conjunction with parktronic sensors, it keeps you a safe distance from the car in front without you even thinking about it.
Agree with what has been previously posted in relation to tailgaiting. But have access to a variety of cars from an M3 to 1.4 Focus.
In the M overtaking is easy, nail the throttle and jobs done,
however in the focus, its more risky takes longer for the speed to build therefore have to tailgate the car in front and then pas them out i.e. to get a run at them (Obviously this does not apply to mways etc but to single lines of traffic) but if the car in front stops then an accident may ensue.
Its not always people being lazy thats causes people to tailgate
In the M overtaking is easy, nail the throttle and jobs done,
however in the focus, its more risky takes longer for the speed to build therefore have to tailgate the car in front and then pas them out i.e. to get a run at them (Obviously this does not apply to mways etc but to single lines of traffic) but if the car in front stops then an accident may ensue.
Its not always people being lazy thats causes people to tailgate
Anyone remember Top Gear a few years back when they compared the Highway Code stopping distance model with current production cars?
They tested a Pug 106, Lexus GS300 and Porsche 911 which all nearly halfed the Highway Code figures.
They then test a Land Rover Discovery which MATCHED the Highway Code figures from the 1960s!
And these are the b@stards that do most of the motorway tailgating!
Just get out of their way and let them past!
Cheers... Andrew
They tested a Pug 106, Lexus GS300 and Porsche 911 which all nearly halfed the Highway Code figures.
They then test a Land Rover Discovery which MATCHED the Highway Code figures from the 1960s!
And these are the b@stards that do most of the motorway tailgating!
Just get out of their way and let them past!
Cheers... Andrew
quote:
Agree with what has been previously posted in relation to tailgaiting. But have access to a variety of cars from an M3 to 1.4 Focus.
In the M overtaking is easy, nail the throttle and jobs done,
however in the focus, its more risky takes longer for the speed to build therefore have to tailgate the car in front and then pas them out i.e. to get a run at them (Obviously this does not apply to mways etc but to single lines of traffic) but if the car in front stops then an accident may ensue.
Its not always people being lazy thats causes people to tailgate
If the car ain't got the power don't do the move!!!!
Surely that's obvious common sense and trying to over take in a car that's got to build up speed beforeit can get past is in itself dangerous.
rthierry,
My point was that blame is increasingly being ignored by insurance companies who find it easier and probably less expensive to attribute no blame and split the costs of any accident. This means that if someone else causes an accident that you are involved in it is very likely that the insurance costs for all involved will increase. The person who causes the accident is no worse off than the innocent party.
If this is the case (as I have found it to be) then it is already a case of the rich getting away with it
My point was that blame is increasingly being ignored by insurance companies who find it easier and probably less expensive to attribute no blame and split the costs of any accident. This means that if someone else causes an accident that you are involved in it is very likely that the insurance costs for all involved will increase. The person who causes the accident is no worse off than the innocent party.
If this is the case (as I have found it to be) then it is already a case of the rich getting away with it
The worst offenders, and most worrying, are truck drivers, especially on the M25. I tend to leave a two second gap in the dry and double in the wet (that advert really worked -only a fool etc...) but all too often we'll be running along at 50 or 60 and I'll have an artic that seems to be less than 3 or 4 meters away...sometimes I'll ease off slowly and reduce my speed so that they lose their revs and have to fcuk off (now I also have a horsebox and so know how annoying it is to lose revs especially at the bottom of a hill)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff