[noopster]

Originally Posted by Safety is Param

In the 10,000 kms that I have driven on the same route, I have never encountered a moment where I can follow the 3-second rule. The state of affairs currently prevalent, I don't think I would be able to follow this within city limits anyday.

The 3-second rule does NOT mean that you cannot follow the vehicle ahead at the same speed as that vehicle but ONLY that you maintain sufficient distance so that if it were to stop suddenly you have enough braking distance.

And there have been umpteen instances where I had to brake hard even at 20 kmph - somebody trying to cut into my lane suddenly from the left, only to take a right turn ahead - someone's car stalling on a speed breaker just before the signal - an indicab with no tail lights suddenly applying brakes for "only God knows why?" - So far, I have managed to not bang into either of these just because my vehicle was in "my" control. But yes, in none of these situations was I maintaining a 3-sec rule or "my car length X kmph" rule.

Your 'control' is irrelevant. We're talking physics here. Your car needs a certain distance to to come to a complete halt even with maximum braking. I don't think you quite get what the 3-second rule is, so please don't trivialize a simple rule of thumb that saves lives.

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by noopster

The 3-second rule does NOT mean that you cannot follow the vehicle ahead at the same speed as that vehicle but ONLY that you maintain sufficient distance...
Your 'control' is irrelevant. We're talking physics here. Your car needs a certain distance to to come to a complete halt even with maximum braking.

Well said, Anoop. I do agree with some of the folks here that one cannot always follow global traffic rules in India. But keeping a safe distance behind a vehicle that is ahead of us is something that is always possible. Is there a risk that a bike may squeeze in? Yes. But all that you do is slow down a bit more and give him space. Stay patient, and you are much likelier to stay safe.

I have rear ended someone once (in the monsoon, in a Zen, shortly after I started driving regularly to work). Clearly my fault - even if he braked suddenly.

Have been rear ended twice - on both occasions, while waiting at a signal early in the morning, and not because I braked suddenly.

So I have made a change to my driving habits - if I spot an isolated red signal either before 8 am or after 10 PM (and note the word, isolated), I treat it like a blinking orange, and go through carefully. Frankly, I do the same thing while driving before 8 am or after 10 PM even with green signals - there could always be a dolt coming through from the other side. And even at busier signals where I stop, I turn on the hazards late at night.

[Chetan_Rao]

The 3-second rule can always be followed. It's not a space thing, it's about patience. Of course there will be idiots trying to barge into gaps in traffic (there always are, even if you're sticking to the leading car's bumper, which sort of negates the whole argument), but ultimately it is a trade-off between leaving enough space to stop safely in a panic braking situation, or always being on your toes trying to avoid rear-endings both with vehicles ahead and behind.

The bare minimum once must do in traffic (IF utterly impossible to follow the 3-second rule), is to still maintain sufficient distance to be able to see the leading vehicle's rear wheels from your normal driving position. If you're any closer, you're inviting trouble.

[Safety is Param]

Originally Posted by noopster

The 3-second rule does NOT mean that you cannot follow the vehicle ahead at the same speed as that vehicle but ONLY that you maintain sufficient distance so that if it were to stop suddenly you have enough braking distance

That is always understood. In city limits you cannot maintain a constant distance between 2 vehicles. My point was, if a car passes point – A , and if I were to pass the same point after 3 seconds, there would be other vehicles between that car and mine by the time it has reached point – B, which now means, I am no longer following that car, but some other vehicle that managed to squeeze in between us. So, in order to implement the 3-second rule again, religiously, I have to slow down and let the leading vehicle move ahead, resulting in a considerable / acceptable gap between the 2 of us. This practice, though safe, is not practical, and that is what I wanted to convey. If I am able to view the bumper of the car ahead of me, I am comfortable.

If this involves high speed travel, the equation changes totally.

Your 'control' is irrelevant

Alright, let’s say “control” is irrelevant. So keeping in mind the other parameters constant, you are able to slam the brakes in 1/5 th of a second; and I take a full second to do the same. Do you think the aftermath will be the same in both the cases? Your reflexes were quicker than mine, resulting in a better “control” of the situation. The additional time that I took may result in my vehicle rear-ending someone else’s car / 2-wheeler. Accidents, no matter how severe they are, always occur when a situation goes “out of control”. I have never seen / heard of mishaps occurring when everything is under control.

We're talking physics here. Your car needs a certain distance to to come to a complete halt even with maximum braking

Again, it is understood. If you slam the brakes quicker than I do, you are reducing the braking distance quickly. If I react late, I will go and bang someone. This depends on how you react, and knowledge of Physics is not required for this.

Talking about Physics, you can take your own call after referring my post here –
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street...ml#post3321722

I don't think you quite get what the 3-second rule is, so please don't trivialize a simple rule of thumb that saves lives.

So far, I have not rear-ended someone nor has some one rear ended my vehicle. So I don’t think I need lessons to understand what a 3-second rule is. As long as I apply common-sense and keep the occupants in my vehicle and others on the road safe, I am good to go

I had many other options available to choose an on-screen name while applying for membership here. That I chose to pick what it is now was for some good reason. I have purchased all my vehicles giving safety the top-most priority (within the budget). So please don’t say that I am trivializing rules here

[Recompose]

Since we are on the discussion, in case a vehicle changes lanes and gets rear ended in the process - is it the rear enders fault?

[suresh_gs]

Originally Posted by Recompose

Since we are on the discussion, in case a vehicle changes lanes and gets rear ended in the process - is it the rear enders fault?

Leave alone changing lanes. Sometimes we come across situations where drivers turn to the left /right without any indication. Say the vehicle in the rear is maintaining a decent speed, and the vehicle in the front suddenly takes a turn. I would hope that the driver in the rear has good presence of mind to avoid a collision in the front. The same cannot be said about the vehicle trailing him.

[shivshanker]

Originally Posted by katchkamalesh

When will these guys realise that cars have much better braking compared to motorbikes.

Did your Bike have Mirrors on the Handle Bar!, one of the parameters of safe driving is also watching the traffic behind you anticipating their reaction and YOU guiding them to brake keep safe distance etc. I know this is a tall order and in current traffic conditions cannot be achieved.

Please do not get me wrong .. I am not a troll, I am sure the guy behind you must also be cursing you for braking suddenly.

[Safety is Param]

Originally Posted by Recompose

Since we are on the discussion, in case a vehicle changes lanes and gets rear ended in the process - is it the rear enders fault?

talking about this, this is what happened to me today morning.

I was driving in the right lane near NR Colony. There was an auto-1 in the left lane and one more auto-2 parallel to me in the left lane. There was a good gap between auto-1 and my car (gap between auto's right rear end and my car's left head-lamp).

Suddenly auto-2 picks up, cuts my lane and takes a u-turn on the opposite road. I brake suddenly, goggles on the anti-slip mat on the dash board fall off, mobile phone kept above the glove-box falls off, and this guy cooly picks up a passenger on the other road and drives off.

He didn't even bother to look at what happened as a result of his somersault. Fortunately, nothing happened!

[shivshanker]

The current economic scenario is forcing rickshaw drivers to collect more passengers, people en route to work to driver faster, Bus Drivers to maintain their timetables or even pensioners on way to the bank. Out of all this only one thing is for sure, every body is in a mad rush.

Based out of Bombay I have always considered Bumpers to Consumable items. Something like the ribbon in a printer or toner in a laser printer.

[katchkamalesh]

Originally Posted by shivshanker

Did your Bike have Mirrors on the Handle Bar!, one of the parameters of safe driving is also watching the traffic behind you anticipating their reaction

If you read my previous post again, you will know that I do care about whats happening in the rear view mirror and that is the reason why I do not slam the brakes (depending on the situation) or scared of such a situation.

[jinojohnt]

The following are some of the situations where it's not the fault of the rear-ending vehicle:
1. The front vehicle's driver doesn't have a valid license
2. The front vehicle doesn't have the papers in order (RC, Tax, Insurance).
3. The front vehicle's driver is drunk
4. The front vehicle's brake lights were not working, and no hand signal was provided (of course he can claim that the brake lights busted when you hit him)
5. The front vehicle was stranded/parked on the road without any proper hazard warnings/signals

[ashphil]

When it comes to road manners almost all Indians have a " Me First" attitude. If we see a slight gap between two vehicles we will nose our cars in or if one is on a two wheeler we will zoom into the gap without pausing to think of the confusion one is causing for the other road users behind us. If some one has dutifully stopped at a red light then the driver behind him has the right to consider him a moron and can and will honk indignantly demanding right of way to proceed straight!
Yes! the law says that if someone bangs your vehicle from the rear then he is at fault because he has not maintained enough gap between your vehicle and his. Is this practical in every Indian city which has mayhem for traffic? Quite emphatically, no! All one can do is observe the road and anticipate. Then hope that the driver behind you is one of your kind!
The Indian roads were not designed for a population explosion in people and vehicles. So let's all drop the attitude and concentrate on what's happening on the road. That will hone your anticipation skills and hopefully rear ending will be minimised.
regards,
Ashok

[lancer_rit]

The driver in the rear is at fault for any rear-ending. Period. Unless the car in front swerved/cut-across dangerously which would then be a lane jumping violation.

All this talk about what is practical etc just misses the point. The question is not of practicality or otherwise of whether the vehicle in the rear can maintain safe distance. The law says you must, and therefore, if you end up rear-ending the vehicle in front, you're most definitely at fault. It is ridiculous to talk of the driver in front of you, and why he/she slammed their brakes suddenly.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by Safety is Param

That is always understood. In city limits you cannot maintain a constant distance between 2 vehicles. My point was, if a car passes point – A , and if I were to pass the same point after 3 seconds, there would be other vehicles between that car and mine by the time it has reached point – B, which now means, I am no longer following that car, but some other vehicle that managed to squeeze in between us. So, in order to implement the 3-second rule again, religiously, I have to slow down and let the leading vehicle move ahead, resulting in a considerable / acceptable gap between the 2 of us. This practice, though safe, is not practical, and that is what I wanted to convey. If I am able to view the bumper of the car ahead of me, I am comfortable.

Actually I would have thought the exact same way in delhi - it is quite understandable. Since moving to Chennai and NOT knowing the language AND with the kamikaze two wheelers you have here, I have relaxed considerably. I give way to such douche bags like the auto you mentioned all the time. You can be in the leftmost lane, with indicator signaling left and yet these kamikaze bikers will try to squeeze in to your left, and then cross across your car to go right. All the time, and honk/make faces if god forbid, you are too quick forcing them to abort their maneuvers.

The cost (time/money) of hitting a stupid biker who will continuously keep overtaking us rashly from blind corners is much more than being "practical". not to mention that in slow moving stop go traffic, what you define as practical necessitates keeping a minimum distance from the vehicle in front, which means excess clutch usage.

But yes, to each their own.

Reg the question from recompose- agree, but your situation is like <1% of these incidents. The average person tailgates far more often than gets caught in your situation.

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by Safety is Param

So, in order to implement the 3-second rule again, religiously, I have to slow down and let the leading vehicle move ahead, resulting in a considerable / acceptable gap between the 2 of us. This practice, though safe, is not practical, and that is what I wanted to convey. If I am able to view the bumper of the car ahead of me, I am comfortable.

If we slow down to maintain the 3 second rule the problem I have faced is honking continuously from vehicles behind me and the guys by my side try and squeeze-in. So to avoid this I maintain a gap till I get to see the bumper of the vehicle in front of me.

Anurag.