Speeding camera fines.

[expat]

You do realise that you are arguing against a globally accepted rule, a rule that is regarded as having a greater than required margin for error.. There is not a court in the world that would hold you to blame for an accident if you stood up and explained you were applying this rule.

I don't believe that. If you hit the car in front then you have done something wrong. Period.

[The Lone Gunman]

I don't believe that. If you hit the car in front then you have done something wrong. Period.

You may be right, I may be over stating but if you could prove that you were actualy applying it and not just saying it then you would stand a chance.
The law says that you should maintain a safe distance, a distance in which you should be able to stop. If you were using the 2 second rule under normal circumstances you would stop.

You are still avoiding telling me how you decide you are at a safe distance. How far back would you be at 30, 50 and 70. How would you know how far back you were?

This is still getting away from my original point which is a few better braking cars on the road is a dangerous thing not a better thing.

[expat]

This is still getting away from my original point which is a few better braking cars on the road is a dangerous thing not a better thing.

Tall poppies should be cut down to the mean. eh?

[ASB]

You may be right, I may be over stating but if you could prove that you were actualy applying it and not just saying it then you would stand a chance.
The law says that you should maintain a safe distance, a distance in which you should be able to stop. If you were using the 2 second rule under normal circumstances you would stop.

You are still avoiding telling me how you decide you are at a safe distance. How far back would you be at 30, 50 and 70. How would you know how far back you were?

This is still getting away from my original point which is a few better braking cars on the road is a dangerous thing not a better thing.

Assume 2 seconds seperation and 70 mph. That is 206 feet.

Car 1 decides to brake. Allowing 0.7s reaction time (a fair average) you are still doing 70mph with a nominal seperation of 136 feet. But car 1 has been braking. Maybe now down to 50mph, this would bring the seperation back to about 170 ft. This pattern repeats until Car 1 comes to halt and you do 0.7 seconds later. Except your probably only about 30 ft away by this time.

So yes, generally you will miss them with a two second seperation. If however both vehicles are doing 100mph at the start of the process it's going to get much closer. If car 2 is slightly slow in reacting (> 1 sec) he will hit car 1 every time.

If car 1 has more efficient brakes than car 2 (and he uses them) he gets hit every time. If car 1 slows more rapidly than normal (e.g. he's just hit the rest of the accident in front of him) car 2 will hit him.

At about 40 mph or less 2 seconds seperation will give you time to stop - even if the vehicle in front stops dead (e.g. it runs into a bridge - but then you probably wouldn't be following him).

2 seconds is good guidance. But is not enough in typical motoway accidents. Of course the other problem is that any gap > about 50 ft just gets filled by somebody.

[The Lone Gunman]

Assume 2 seconds seperation and 70 mph. That is 206 feet.

Car 1 decides to brake. Allowing 0.7s reaction time (a fair average) you are still doing 70mph with a nominal seperation of 136 feet. But car 1 has been braking. Maybe now down to 50mph, this would bring the seperation back to about 170 ft. This pattern repeats until Car 1 comes to halt and you do 0.7 seconds later. Except your probably only about 30 ft away by this time.

So yes, generally you will miss them with a two second seperation. If however both vehicles are doing 100mph at the start of the process it's going to get much closer. If car 2 is slightly slow in reacting (> 1 sec) he will hit car 1 every time.

If car 1 has more efficient brakes than car 2 (and he uses them) he gets hit every time. If car 1 slows more rapidly than normal (e.g. he's just hit the rest of the accident in front of him) car 2 will hit him.

At about 40 mph or less 2 seconds seperation will give you time to stop - even if the vehicle in front stops dead (e.g. it runs into a bridge - but then you probably wouldn't be following him).

2 seconds is good guidance. But is not enough in typical motoway accidents. Of course the other problem is that any gap > about 50 ft just gets filled by somebody.

Thanks for that. Not sure I agree with your 100 mph as the greater distance between the two cars should account for the greater speed, and slow reactions are not a factor in this. If you are a slow reactor then you should be further back.
Hitting the accident in front again is not part of my argument, I would say that is poor driving on your part not to have seen the approaching hazard.

Glad you agree that better brakes on some cars makes a dangerous situation for those whose are not so good. I assume you agree it also makes a mockery of the safe distance calculations in the highway code.

[threaded]

No, the safe distance numbers are there for your safety. Ignore them at your peril. If you think your fancy toys such as ABS etc. really help you stop quicker in all conditions then you are an utter utter fool.

[The Lone Gunman]

No, the safe distance numbers are there for your safety. Ignore them at your peril. If you think your fancy toys such as ABS etc. really help you stop quicker in all conditions then you are an utter utter fool.

Yes Threaded, but this argument is about the Bubble Headed Twats assertion that cars with better stopping capability should be allowed to drive faster.
I am stating that his assertion fails to take account of the stopping capability of the traffic behind. The advance in sports cars has altered the dynamic.
I would also suggest that drivers these days need to be much more aware of the fact that the car in front may stop quicker than you can.

We would all be much safer if all cars had the same stopping capability.

(I am avoiding using brakes and braking as I seem incable of not using break and breaking).

[ASB]

Thanks for that. Not sure I agree with your 100 mph as the greater distance between the two cars should account for the greater speed, and slow reactions are not a factor in this. If you are a slow reactor then you should be further back.
Hitting the accident in front again is not part of my argument, I would say that is poor driving on your part not to have seen the approaching hazard.

Glad you agree that better brakes on some cars makes a dangerous situation for those whose are not so good. I assume you agree it also makes a mockery of the safe distance calculations in the highway code.

If you extend your argument about better brakes causing potentially dangerous situations then surely nobody should have any brakes in the interests of it being equally dangerous for everybody

As a general rule the highway code tells you to leave the stopping distance. It also tells you at least 2 seconds on a road with fast moving traffic. Unfortunately 2 seconds is less than their idea of the stopping distance at > 40 mph. Also 2 seconds is far from universally accepted. Most US authorities recommend 3-4 seconds.

In any event the stopping distance is not important. It is the distance that will remain clear during the emergency. That includes potential for ingress from the side and the distance the vehicle behind is maintaining. If the vehicle behind is too close you need to add on some margin for him. You need to allow greater thinking time, so that you can start to brake gently and try and prevent him from rear ending you (very hard if you happen to be in an M3 with good brakes [<120 ft from 60 mph]).

There is quite a good discussion of most of the factors here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/background.html

[ASB]

No, the safe distance numbers are there for your safety. Ignore them at your peril. If you think your fancy toys such as ABS etc. really help you stop quicker in all conditions then you are an utter utter fool.

In most conditions of course ABS does help. However two that it doesn't are loose snow and gravel. My Quattro used to let me turn the ABS off. The only vehicle I've had which has allowed this.

Another questionable point for ABS is split mu surfaces. However, it is highly likely that although a vehicle in these circumstance could be stopped quicker by an extremely competent driver with impeccable cadence braking skills the average joe will just have his foot firmly on the middle pedal and pirouette into the sunset.

Overall ABS is much more likely to help you than harm you. But the latter most definitely can happen.

Bit like seatbelts. I knew a bloke who would still be with us if he wasn't wearing one.

[threaded]

My favourite example is people who vear onto a grass verge, one pair of wheels on the tarmac, one pair on the grass, slding along wondering why they're not slowing down as quick as they'd like.