SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Confusion over what is a "safe following distance" has QUT [(Queensland University of Technology)] road safety researchers calling for a standardised definition to prevent tailgating.
- Tailgating conclusively linked to rear-end crashes
- Most drivers leave less than a 2 second gap between them and the vehicle in front
- Rear-enders account for one in five Queensland crashes
Dr Sebastien Demmel, from QUT's Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety -- Queensland (CARRS-Q), said the results of the study which found 50 per cent of drivers tailgate, was being presented at the 2017 Australasian Road Safety Conference in Perth today.
"This study, for the first time conclusively linked tailgating with rear-end crashes, but we also identified confusion among drivers over what is deemed to be a safe following distance," he said.
"Despite drivers perceiving they are following at a safe distance, our on-road data showed that in reality most don't leave the recommended two to three second gap," he said.
"At some locations 55 per cent of drivers were found to leave less than a two second gap between them and the vehicle in front, and 44 per cent less than a one second [gap]."
A safe following distance is 5 feet. While looking at a smartphone.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 12 2017, @11:23PM (4 children)
The whole left-lane-is-for-passing thing falls apart on multi-lane highways where the lanes have specialized uses. If the left lane is an HOV lane, then sorry, if you're an HOV driver you have the right to stay there, and passers have to pass on the right. (Yeah, I know that's really not ideal, but you can't have it both ways.) And also, if the highway uses left exits, and you're taking an exit in the next few miles that's on the left, then it's not unreasonable for you to stay in the left lane until then, though for traffic's sake you might want to delay moving left until you get closer, but that depends on how heavy traffic is (if it's really heavy, you'll want to move over earlier or else you could miss your exit).
Being really strict with lane discipline only works in places where they designed the highway with that in mind, and they don't have ANY left exits, nor any HOV lane.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday October 13 2017, @12:04AM (3 children)
You're right. We should get rid of the HOV lane.
Seriously, it's a huge disruption. The people moving across all lanes as quickly as possible by braking and waiting for a gap slow down traffic for everyone else. Without that lane, traffic can be heavy but flow smoothly. I saw it happen when they added an HOV lane to a freeway I drive most days to work. Before the new lane, everyone cruised at about 45-55mph. It was dense traffic, but it moved. Now with an extra lane, it's stop and go averaging 20mph or less in the peak of rush hour.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @03:24AM (1 child)
or make it pay-to-play, like on I-405 in Seattle area, or various HOV lanes in California. The cameras on the lanes can see your license plate AND see if there's a passenger in front with the driver or not, and they toll you accordingly. In Washington, they have a phone # where you can rat violators out, too.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday October 13 2017, @05:21AM
So three people on the rear seat don't count if there's nobody on the second front seat? It doesn't sound right to make the cost dependent on the passenger sitting at the "correct" place.
OTOH this might give inflatable dolls a new use. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 13 2017, @07:36AM
Agreed. There is no engineering or traffic safety reason to have HOV lanes. It totally fucks up a well defined traffic system that has been designed and improved with scientific traffic and accident statistics since the 30s. People are in the wrong lane going the wrong speed, and the whole road way is impacted.
Since the invention of the HOV, We've been taught that lane choice based on speed and destination is wrong. We've been taught that lane choice is for political reasons.
Someone mentioned Seattle. One of the worst examples of political engineering you can imagine. The pay to drive the 405 is just a money grab. Rent seeking using a Federally funded freeway that was paid for by tax dollars. It does not solve any problem. Traffic does not move faster. And they still have the an ever increasing number of homeless persons living under the freeway every year. A money grab in the name of social engineering.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.