"only a fool"…………

[waremark]

If you're worried about whether the 2 second rule is closer than HC stopping distance, how many seconds it takes you to stop is irrelevant. What matters is is how much distance it takes.

That may be true, but have you tried measuring the distance between you and the car in front on the move?

You can measure your following distance in units of time - such as 2 seconds. I often do. That 2 seconds of following distance has nothing to do with the time it takes to stop. The time it takes to stop is not relevant. 2 seconds of following distance is relevant.

The view of most of us here that a 2 second following distance is relevant mostly because it gives time to react is at odds with the universally ignored proposition that when it is wet you should make it 4.

[MGF]

Why do you need more time to react when it is wet? If vision is reduced that may be the case but is wetness sufficient?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

The time it takes to stop is not relevant. 2 seconds of following distance is relevant.

The view of most of us here that a 2 second following distance is relevant mostly because it gives time to react is at odds with the universally ignored proposition that when it is wet you should make it 4.

I'm confused by this - surely the 2 seconds is based on sufficient time to react and stop when the car in front of you does? It's not just a "nice distance" for following someone else

I often make it more than 2, although I don't really do it as a conscious "make it 4", nor do I measure it when I do, particularly.

[fungus]

In fact, they are very different, coinciding at only one speed - which calculates out to be 19mph. This is the speed from which takes 2 seconds to stop 9on Highway Code figures, including thinking time). Above this, the time increases far beyond that figure.

Not sure if that's your words or a quote from Mind Driving? Seems a strange way to define the point at which the two rules coincide. If you're worried about whether the 2 second rule is closer than HC stopping distance, how many seconds it takes you to stop is irrelevant. What matters is is how much distance it takes.

At 19mph, your HC stopping distance would be 37 feet and your two second following distance would be 55 feet, so if the car in front came to an instant stop somehow, you'd have plenty of space.

HC stopping distance equals 2 second following distance at about 39mph.

The entire post was quoted from Stephen Haley.

[TheInsanity1234]

Another thing I've noticed, it's never a good idea to have a bumper sticker if you don't want people tailgating you, because if they notice it, they might creep closer to see what it says, only to see that it's telling them that they're following too closely.

[cupraray]

I have never really understood the whole following distance issue and why there is a "2-second rule" because in my mind, this only really serves to encourage that frame of mind that "if I am following at this distance, I must be a safe driver" even when conditions don't encourage it.

I would just guess that a decent following distance would be:
Minimum number of car lengths = (speed limit / 10) + 1
For example, the speed limit is 70, so the minimum following distance should be 8 car lengths?
(I suppose the government need to keep it simple for those who got their licence out of a cereal box).

In fact, have any of you noticed that in some places on the motorway, there are chevrons painted on the road and you have to follow someone with at least 2 of those in between you and the car in front.
The gap that they make you follow at varies slightly, depending on your position in the car, but the average I've counted is between 1 and 1.5 seconds. Those distances are closer than the 2 second rule that the government keep talking about?

I wouldn't want you behind me

[TheInsanity1234]

I have never really understood the whole following distance issue and why there is a "2-second rule" because in my mind, this only really serves to encourage that frame of mind that "if I am following at this distance, I must be a safe driver" even when conditions don't encourage it.

I would just guess that a decent following distance would be:
Minimum number of car lengths = (speed limit / 10) + 1
For example, the speed limit is 70, so the minimum following distance should be 8 car lengths?
(I suppose the government need to keep it simple for those who got their licence out of a cereal box).

In fact, have any of you noticed that in some places on the motorway, there are chevrons painted on the road and you have to follow someone with at least 2 of those in between you and the car in front.
The gap that they make you follow at varies slightly, depending on your position in the car, but the average I've counted is between 1 and 1.5 seconds. Those distances are closer than the 2 second rule that the government keep talking about?

I wouldn't want you behind me

Just in case you didn't see earlier, I did mention that I meant to add x2 on to the end, but then came up with a following distance of 16 car lengths, which sounded rather long, so I just ditched it to give 8.
(My maths did fall foul in this. It's probably because I don't necessarily count the number of car-lengths, I just judge whether a gap is big enough or not.)
Anyway, I probably wouldn't be behind you, since I kind of don't exactly drive just yet.

[MGF]

There are plenty of 'advanced' drivers I would prefer not to be behind me when they are 'looking' for an overtake.

[TheInsanity1234]

I'm another who, when you get your licence, wouldn't want you following me. eight car lengths will barely give you enough room to stop from 40mph. At 70mph you need more like twenty five car lengths. The two second rule may not be perfect but it's an easy and pretty reliable way of judging following distance.

You're in Shrewsbury.
The chances of me actually ending up behind you are very, very low indeed.
As I said, I added x2 to the end, which gave me 16 car lengths, but I thought as a number, it was big, so I thought 8 sounded more appropriate.
I didn't think of the distance involved, I was judging by numbers, and that is pretty damn hard when you have no idea what the length of an average car is, and therefore no idea how big the distance would be at 16.
The reason is, I have never taken the time to look at the following distance at 70, and count how many "average" cars would fit into that distance.

[TheInsanity1234]

You may not plan to be near Shrewsbury but I may well end up driving near your home.

Even 16 car lengths, or 64 metres (a car length is given in the Highway Code as 4 metres, which I think is a bit short: a Ford Mondeo is 4.8 metres, the Yeti is 4.22 metres), is nowhere near enough at 70 mph.

It's because of the difficulty of visualising distances that the 2 second rule is useful; it's quite easy to time how far behind another car you are. If you maintain a 2 second gap at 70 mph, the gap will be 63 metres.

Hang on, the Highway Code says your stopping distance at 70 mph is 96 metres; half as much again. How is that 63 metres safe? The answer is that the car you're following won't stop instantly (unless it hits an immovable object which you will, of course, have seen and backed off). That car will take roughly the same time/distance to stop as you will, so from the moment you react to his brake lights, all you will close up by is the thinking distance; about 20 metres.

Well I just hope you're not one of those people who think you should do 20 mph lower than the limits!

Yes, I know what the highway code says, and I understand the distances involved, and I can see why there's a 2 second rule
(Not that I'm going to stick to it... I don't feel that 2 seconds is a decent time gap, and I'd rather leave a minimum of 3 seconds where I can. Yes, it may seem contradictory to my previous maths, but that's maths I'm useless at. If we're measuring in times, then I'd prefer 3 seconds.)

[TheInsanity1234]

Well I just hope you're not one of those people who think you should do 20 mph lower than the limits!

You obviously don't know me; fancy a trip round the Nürburgring some time?
I like the 3 second idea; a bit of extra safety margin never goes amiss.

I don't do I? I've hardly met you, let alone have spoken to you a great deal
If you can pay for the tickets and everything else, sure!

The extra time is always a massive issue for me whenever we're on the straighter bits of motorway and you can't see as far ahead as you can. Always pays to be a little bit further back.

[Graham Wright]

I would like to discourage tail gaters

So would I, ideally, but I don't see much prospect of being able to achieve it. Why would you think they're interested in your opinion? I suspect it would be more productive and constructive to focus on how you will manage being tailgated when it happens.

It seems there are various reasons for tailgating.

1. Aggressive drivers
2. Bullies
3. Those who feel uncomfortable being "out of touch". Like horses in pony trecking - they need companionship.

I see no chance of discouraging those in class 1 or 2. However, I do feel from my experience that a hint that the followers separation is inadequate sometimes produces results.

In the past, I admit to touching the brakes (sufficient to light the lights) and that has worked every time. But now that I have joined the elite, I see the possible danger in that.

[TheInsanity1234]

In my view, I don't think that the brake light thing is actually useful.
It works well on those who are just in need of a wake up call, but it doesn't work on those who are tailgating you with intent, as the response would be that they become much more aggressive.

Much better to just add a second or so to your following distance, and don't let them take up too much of your thoughts

[fungus]

In my view, I don't think that the brake light thing is actually useful.
It works well on those who are just in need of a wake up call, but it doesn't work on those who are tailgating you with intent, as the response would be that they become much more aggressive.

Much better to just add a second or so to your following distance, and don't let them take up too much of your thoughts

+1

Yes, touching the brakes to bring on the brake lights does have the potential to increase agression. I wash the windscreen which is often effective as the tailgater usually gets a wet screen as well. But repeated use of this technique is likely to cause agression.

[TheInsanity1234]

In my view, I don't think that the brake light thing is actually useful.
It works well on those who are just in need of a wake up call, but it doesn't work on those who are tailgating you with intent, as the response would be that they become much more aggressive.

Much better to just add a second or so to your following distance, and don't let them take up too much of your thoughts

+1

Yes, touching the brakes to bring on the brake lights does have the potential to increase agression. I wash the windscreen which is often effective as the tailgater usually gets a wet screen as well. But repeated use of this technique is likely to cause agression.

Or they would follow closer to try and see what's causing you to wash your windscreen so often!