Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 12 2017, @09:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-is-behind-whom? dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @01:17AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @01:17AM (#581479)

    Why not 5, 6, or 10?

    Explain your reasoning.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @02:46AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @02:46AM (#581522)

    *sigh* I know, pearls to the swine [travelers.com]...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @04:06AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @04:06AM (#581541)

      3 seconds. [...] Eh, better give yourself 4 seconds, just to be sure...

      That's ad hominem, not an answer nor an explanation.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @04:53AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @04:53AM (#581568)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @05:35AM (#581585)

          The question has been answered

          If assertions could be transformed into truth simply by making them, then you would be correct.

          Why not 5, 6, or 10?

          Explain your reasoning.

          [posts ad hominem, but doesn't post an explanation of his assertion regarding why 4 seconds of cushion, and not 5, 6, or 10]

          As it is, you are wrong.