[Leoshashi]

This happened on Shimla-Chandigarh highway today. Driver miraculously escaped.



Source:Whatsapp

[shubhodeepdas@g]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Here, the City guy is at fault for stopping suddenly in the middle of the road. But he is not at fault for forcing you to take a 'Moose test'. That is entirely due to you not keeping adequate distance. What if there was another vehicle on your left? You would ve rear-ended the City.

A car travels 27+ meters per second at 100 kph, If the gap is 50 meters or 10 cars, its a decent <2 seconds to take a Moose Test. Even with a 100 meter gap its a second and a half just to realise that the chap in front stopped dead for no reason. Length of a Modern Car is about 4 - 6 Meters.

A child walking on an expressway will be an insane situation, although not entirely unrealistic.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by shubhodeepdas@g

A car travels 27+ meters per second at 100 kph, If the gap is 50 meters or 10 cars, its a decent <2 seconds to take a Moose Test. Even with a 100 meter gap its a second and a half just to realise that the chap in front stopped dead for no reason. Length of a Modern Car is about 4 - 6 Meters.

A 50m gap is more than enough to stop safely, without a moose test, at 100kph. Let's assume that you are maintaining a 50m gap with the guy in front of you(@100 kph). If the guy stops suddenly, he will take around 60m to stop completely(excluding his reaction distance). So you will have 110 metres to stop safely. So if you were maintaining a 50m gap, there would have been no need for a Moose test.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by bblost

I really hope you are kidding. Every road user assumes the person in front of him to maintain a bit of common sense and not stop without warning on a expressway.

Surprised to hear you say that. Never assume any such thing. Assume only that anybody could do anything

Unless you maintain a distance of over 100 metres, at 100 kmph, how do you react safely.
Can anyone actually maintain so much distance at all times.

https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resou...ing-distances/

It's 98 meters for 100 kmph to 0.

Yes, and that is what people should do.

Originally Posted by jaspal singh

Hi
few members are holding vehicle which rear ends accountable for accident irrespective of scenario. this is not true.

It is almost entirely absolutely true. There are exceptions, such as a when a vehicle cuts in front and immediately brakes, but here it is the leading vehicle which has taken responsibility for the space

There can be several situations where a car being driven at speed limit rear ends a vehicle. Example
1) a vehicle parked illegally on road
2) a broken down vehicle at night without working tail lamps or safety triangle put in place to warn road users

Both these examples are about stationary vehicles, not about following moving vehicles. They are not relevant.

But... a person who drives into a stationary object is definitely responsible, although there may be contributory fault of the other.

3) a vehicle moving too slow in fast lane

No: responsibility of driver is to correctly assess that situation.

4) slow moving vehicle suddenly changes lane and enters the fast lane

Pulling out in front of a faster vehicle: I can give that a yes!

[bblost]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Surprised to hear you say that. Never assume any such thing. Assume only that anybody could do anything

My average speed on the highways goes down every year because I keep getting slower and slower following this braking distance rule.

However and I am sure you will agree with the following line.
An accident is usually the outcome of many small events that come together at an inappropriate time.

A blanket rule that the trailing car is always to blame is a very simplistic view.

Can anyone driver take the full blame for this crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhCCHoWI2v4

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by bblost

A blanket rule that the trailing car is always to blame is a very simplistic view.

Can anyone driver take the full blame for this crash:

I dont think this is legally considered as rear-ending, but I maybe wrong. Here, the SUV abruptly pulled in front of the lorry(?). The SUV driver should've stopped and checked if there was any traffic in the other lane before pulling into it.

Keeping a safe distance comes into picture only if you are following another vehicle. In this video, the lorry was never following that SUV. That is why I think this should not be considered as a rear-ending.

This "trailing car is always to blame" rule is applicable only if you are following some vehicle (not when someone abruptly jumps in front of you) and the vehicle in front of you stops under its own braking(and not when an external force stops it).

[bblost]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

This "trailing car is always to blame" rule is applicable only if you are following some vehicle (not when someone abruptly jumps in front of you) and the vehicle in front of you stops under its own braking(and not when an external force stops it).

Looks like we are both arguing for the same side except with a disagreement on some semantics.

[honeybee]

Why do we all like to push or break the speed limits?

On one hand we have fatal accidents due to speeding vehicles, on the other hand we have people not following traffic rules, no road sense or any regard whatsoever to the safety, of one's own or of others. Doesn't anyone here think those speed limits might have been set taking into account these very factors, including people who won't give you enough warning when they brake?

Why a 2 second gap on an expressway, and not a 10 second one? Do we want to follow some blind rule blindly so that we can wreck the vehicle and then complain about someone not giving you time to stop?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by bblost

My average speed on the highways goes down every year because I keep getting slower and slower following this braking distance rule.

I once asked a much more experienced friend, on a British motorway drive, "What's your stopping distance at this speed." He picked a bridge in the distance, "That bridge, from... ... here." No way to know if it was really really right, but it was scarily distant. And better to overestimate than under.

An accident is usually the outcome of many small events that come together at an inappropriate time.

The my-fault accidents in my life have been due to just one stupid error or mistake. Like looking for the danger one way when it was coming from the other. Thankfully, they have been slow-speed, and have not involved more than one other vehicle.

Multi-car accidents will have multiple causes. But if those cars had been spread out, they probably would not have happened. This is why I hate, to the point of fear, knots of vehicles at any more than crawling pace. Get ahead, or stay back, but never, never, be in the pack is my rule (although I didn't realise it rhymed!)

A blanket rule that the trailing car is always to blame is a very simplistic view.

As has been stated in other posts, we have to be more precise with the definition. If I pull out to overtake, right in some fast guys path, It is certainly my fault when he hits me.

I hope we'll achieve universal agreement on this one, but there always seems to be one more loose end

[pixantz]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Maintaining 100m gap is not necessary to stop the car without rear-ending. A 20m gap is enough for modern cars with good brakes.

Let's assume that the guy driving in the front is travelling at 100kph. He will take 98m to stop completely. So if you are maintaining a 20m gap, you will have a total of 118m to stop safely. With a reaction time of 0.5s, you will need only 14m extra, i.e 112m, still 6m clear of the vehicle in front of you.

This seems to be a much more sane suggestion than the "100 metre rule" thingie. I think that one is simply insane.

Accepted that in the name of safety the calculation to keep the 100 mtr gap at 100kmph seems a good calculation on paper. But to think of it in real life, its just an insane thought to even execute most of the time. I mean, maybe you can pull it off sometimes, but did anyone imagine how big a gap is 100mtrs on the road and even more so what would happen if even half the motorists would decide to follow it in India, for example? First of all I don't think India is even big enough or we even have that much road for all those cars to execute such a feat. It would be a Guinness record. No, seriously.

Think of it as an image you have on your screen, whichever screen, and you want to zoom it so as to have about say, 5 times the gap between all the pixels. Just for fun, eh? What would happen? Most of the image would just go off the screen. You wouldn't have space to see the whole image. Same with the cars. Our roads, or whole country is like the screen and the pixels are the cars! Just that they can't go off the borders of the road, or the country, just to keep that gap. Not happening. The roads are already too crowded for that.

And on sheer practical terms, even if you decide to be 100mtrs behind the driver ahead, guess what would happen. Half a dozen other cars would promptly fill in the gap happily for you. Who has the liberty for that much space. And what would you tell them? "Hey fellow drivers, move out of the way, I'm on a 100mtr mission here." I seriously doubt they would salute me and move.

Moreover, I think the problem doesn't start with the safe distance. It begins when the tailgating driver was not paying enough attention or was distracted and then sees the stationary vehicle ahead too late to respond fast enough. So whatever distance he was keeping is not always relevant. Even if you keep 200mtrs distance and are not paying attention, you're ending up the same way.

[Jr Godzilla]

Originally Posted by bblost

Deerhunter,

I really hope you are kidding. Every road user assumes the person in front of him to maintain a bit of common sense and not stop without warning on a expressway.

Unless you maintain a distance of over 100 metres, at 100 kmph, how do you react safely.
Can anyone actually maintain so much distance at all times.

https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resou...ing-distances/

It's 98 meters for 100 kmph to 0.

Hi
I am not a guru but I have learnt to drive and ride and understand road behavior patterns only becuase I got my motorcycle & driving licence from Middle East & UK.
I have my Indian Licence issued 1991.
I just got it without ever understanding what the machine capability, my own capability, managing speed, taking care when riding / driving and so many other factors.
Thanks to our licensing system which asks you to make a number "8" and of you hit the roads or highways legally or pay the agent and get your licence illegally.

Read the below PDF page 16 & 20 will help you to clear your doubts.
Changing a bad habit is difficult but NEVER impossible.
Hope it helps.

I follow SEE always - Search - Evaluate - Execute or Escape as I call it.

Cheers mate.


http://msf-usa.org/downloads/mom_v16_GS_low_res.pdf

Originally Posted by pixantz

This seems to be a much more sane suggestion than the "100 metre rule" thingie. I think that one is simply insane.

Mate, you are taking it to insane levels. The 100 meter thingy is when you are driving at speed between 60 to 80mph and NOT when you are at 30mph or less.

And if those 2 or 3 cars pass and jump into the gap that you are maintaining, then you slow down and start maintaing the gap with the new car ahead.

If you dont want those cars infront of you, then you overtake and stay happy.

Cheers

[bblost]

An accident. Two cars. One has its front and the other it's rear smashed

With no other information available an assumption that the car with the broken front is at fault is something I don't agree with.

This is my point on this topic.

[//M6]

Originally Posted by bblost

Can anyone driver take the full blame for this crash

In this case the lorry is surely speeding in a lane which is about to merge in the middle lane. The white car is not suppose to cross onto a lane which is closing and so is the Black SUV. All three are at fault but since the white car got away without any mishap and the lorry has a dashcam each will have to claim there own insurance. If the lorry din't have a dashcam than it would have been a different story unless the SUV guy was honest.

The two second gap rule it universal. If you follow that you can be rest assured that you have sufficient time/distance to brake and not hit the vehicle in front. There can still be a scenario in which you may still rear end the car in front but it can never be fatal like this BMW case.

Unless you have poorly maintained car or suddenly hit a patch with gravels or oil you can always brake safely behind a vehicle without rear ending it.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Maintaining 100m gap is not necessary to stop the car without rear-ending. A 20m gap is enough for modern cars with good brakes.

Let's assume that the guy driving in the front is travelling at 100kph. He will take 98m to stop completely. So if you are maintaining a 20m gap, you will have a total of 118m to stop safely. With a reaction time of 0.5s, you will need only 14m extra, i.e 112m, still 6m clear of the vehicle in front of you.

Anyway, most sane people travelling at 100kph will maintain a gap of 30m atleast.

98m to stop from a 100kph might be true of a vehicle fitted with drum brakes. The average car takes about 50-60m to stop from 100kph. Secondly, you are telling me that while cruising down a road, you perceive the need to brake hard and then shift your foot and stomp on the brakes within .5 seconds? WOW! I for one have never done that because how do you know that the person in front of you is braking to a stop and not just braking over an undulation as many drivers in India do? There are several things you need to asses before you feel the need to stomp hard on your brakes everytime you see the brake lights in front of you light up.

Studies show that the average driver takes half a second to perceive the need to hit the brakes and then atleast half a second to move the foot from the accelerator and press the brake pedal. In many cases both figures even go up to three fourths of a second which means reaction time is anywhere between one whole second to 1.5 seconds, in turn this means that reaction distances are anywhere between 27 to 40 meters. So keeping a 20m distance gives you 80 meters in total to stop assuming it takes 60 meters for the car ahead of you to come to a complete halt. 80 meters is 7 meters less than what is needed for you to come to a complete halt taking into account the fact that you need atleast 27 meters to react and 60 meters to brake to 0.

It would be very funny if you drove on the roads with that math of yours and continued to blame the driver behind, no matter what, in a case of rear-ending.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

98m to stop from a 100kph might be true of a vehicle fitted with drum brakes. The average car takes about 50-60m to stop from 100kph. Secondly, you are telling me that while cruising down a road, you perceive the need to brake hard and then shift your foot and stomp on the brakes within .5 seconds? WOW!

If you go back and check bblost's post, that 98m includes a good 42m of reaction distance (1.5s). The 0.5s I mentioned is in addition to that 1.5s. Anyway, there is no way of knowing the reaction time of the driver in front of you. That 20m I mentioned was the bare minimum required. I agree that the average total reaction time is 1s, but it is just that - average.

If you read the last line of my previous post, I have clearly mentioned that every sane person will leave atleast 30m gap (equivalent to 1s-avg reaction time). I gave the 20m example to contrast the previous post which said a 100m is necessary for a safe stop. I was not advising anyone to leave only 20m gap. Everyone should leave a minimum of 30m gap, but 100m gap is not at all necessary.