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: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 12 2017, @11:33PM (11 children)
3 seconds. That gives you your one second to get your foot on the break and the other two to stop. Eh, better give yourself 4 seconds, just to be sure...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @01:17AM (4 children)
Why not 5, 6, or 10?
Explain your reasoning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @02:46AM (3 children)
*sigh* I know, pearls to the swine [travelers.com]...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @04:06AM (2 children)
That's ad hominem, not an answer nor an explanation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @04:53AM (1 child)
That would be your problem, and your opinion, which is irrelevant. The question has been answered
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @05:35AM
If assertions could be transformed into truth simply by making them, then you would be correct.
As it is, you are wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @02:03AM (4 children)
While kinda funny it is sometimes true.
Basically enough time for you too look go "OH SHIT" and blast the hell out of the breaks to a dead stop. That is the optimal stopping/following distance. For me that is 2-3 seconds. As I get older that time is getting slightly longer every year.
Now the scary part? I moved to this state about 20 years ago. I ask people about the '2 second rule'. The ones who learned to drive here go 'what is that?'. The out of state people tell me exactly what it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @09:11AM (3 children)
That's because they where taught some stupid shit like "1 car lengh per 10 mph" or whatever it is.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 13 2017, @11:14AM (2 children)
Is that stupid? I find it sensible. It's easy to remember and adjusts with your speed so you always have a safe following distance.
In a couple years it will become a moot point with self-driving cars, but in the meantime it's a good rule of thumb.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 13 2017, @12:49PM (1 child)
I believe the "x second rule" (I was taught 4, but some use 2 or 3 apparently) was created precisely because "1 car length per 10mph" DOESN'T really adjust with your speed -- you've gotta constantly calculate and estimate distances. And what's a car length anyway -- VW bugs or Ford trucks? Instead, you can just pick a landmark (ie, a specific line on the pavement or a mile marker) and count from when the previous car passes it to when you do. That way scales perfectly, you don't have to do any math, don't have to consider any fractions, don't have to estimate any distances, you don't even need to look at your speedometer...you've just gotta be able to count to four. It's a much better way to teach that idea IMO.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 13 2017, @01:38PM
That's a good method, too. Anything that conveys the idea that "the faster you go, the more safe following distance you need," will work.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Funny) by doc_doofus on Friday October 13 2017, @07:51PM
6960 miles or 11,202 km
aka 3 mississippi's
"Just because you're real, doesn't necessarily mean that you're intelligent." - Inspirobot