What do you do?

[TheInsanity1234]

Out of curiosity, what do you do when someone is following you a bit closely, and their headlights appear to be quite bright.

How far do you stay back from someone while driving so you don't end up dazzling the driver in front with your headlights at night?

I've always thought that a courteous distance would be one where you don't get closer than the edge of your headlight spread on the road?

[trashbat]

Half facetious, half honest: that's what the flip on the rear view mirror is there for.

Headlight adjustment is more of a factor than following distance, IMO, so I don't worry about it and just follow the usual principles, e.g. two second rule.

[TheInsanity1234]

Half facetious, half honest: that's what the flip on the rear view mirror is there for.

Headlight adjustment is more of a factor than following distance, IMO, so I don't worry about it and just follow the usual principles, e.g. two second rule.

Usually that's fine, but on my dad's Galaxy, it's got an auto-flip mirror (no we have no idea how it's supposed to work, because it doesn't physically move), which doesn't always work, so, what would you do in that case?

It's a very, very common issue around here as my mum's car is a Clio which is quite low-riding compared to the 4x4s that frequent the locality, and they have headlights which are often set very high up meaning they're level with the rear window of my mum's car, so even when they're not on main beam, and following at a reasonable distance, their headlights often light up the interior of the Clio. Hopefully the issue will be sorted when we get the Yeti, but until then, I don't know xD

[gannet]

pull over and let them past? I've done just that twice today. Time lost for journey = 0, safety gained (in rainy conditions) = immeasurable.

[TheInsanity1234]

pull over and let them past? I've done just that twice today. Time lost for journey = 0, safety gained (in rainy conditions) = immeasurable.

Very simple when there's about 2 4x4s for every normal car around here...

[gannet]

pull over and let them past? I've done just that twice today. Time lost for journey = 0, safety gained (in rainy conditions) = immeasurable.

Very simple when there's about 2 4x4s for every normal car around here...

You'll be fine when you get the yeti then

[TheInsanity1234]

pull over and let them past? I've done just that twice today. Time lost for journey = 0, safety gained (in rainy conditions) = immeasurable.

Very simple when there's about 2 4x4s for every normal car around here...

You'll be fine when you get the yeti then

I hope so

[Ancient]

The problem is that it pushes people to get taller cars - which are less safe for other road users in the event of a crash.

[michael769]

The problem is that it pushes people to get taller cars - which are less safe for other road users in the event of a crash.

Really?

The Nissan Qashqai (to name but one) gets a 69% rating for pedestrian protection in euroNCAP, little different to the 72% of a Ford Focus and considerably better than the 46% of a Vauxhall Astra.

The assumption that SUVs are bad for people outside the car is less to do with height and more to do with their traditional slab front - something that is less common these days (even the Range Rover manages to beat the Astra with a 63% rating).

The pass mark for Pedestrian protection is 60%, and the threshold to match the 5 star rating of the old system is 40%

The Mini to take a another example only has a pre 2009 rating which is not comparable with the above, but at a lamentable 1 star is still beaten by the, not to be proud of 2 star of a 2007 model Qashqai). So small cars are not good for pedestrians.....

[trashbat]

Those results are only comparable with cars of the same class, are they not? I'm not sure whether pedestrian ratings are universal.

[Ancient]

Yes really, whilst the cars are designed to gain good scores in the tests, the higher the car the higher the impact, the higher the impact the more chance of part of the body dragging underneath and the more chance of vital squishy bits being directly hit.

[TheInsanity1234]

It's a vicious circle.

Parents want to protect their children in accidents, so they go for bigger cars which are more solid, meaning other parents are more vulnerable in their small cars, so they go and get a bigger car too, and it just keeps going.

[skodatezzer]

So this is where AD comes in - "If you hit me at 20 mph I'll probably live, if you hit me at 40 mph I'll probably die"..... How's about I don't hit you in the first place! (H. Noblett).

[michael769]

Yes really, whilst the cars are designed to gain good scores in the tests, the higher the car the higher the impact, the higher the impact the more chance of part of the body dragging underneath and the more chance of vital squishy bits being directly hit.

Even tall cars are now designed to lift the pedestrian up and throw them over the bonnet. Looks spectacular and probably fatal but consistently gives better outcomes than ending up on the deck.

Everything you think you know about this is badly out of date. You still don't want to be hit by a 1t+ lump of steel, but your chances of survival are far better than even 5 years ago. Today survival rates from 30mph hits are where they where for 20mph hits a decade, and in a few years as pedestrian airbags, active bonnets and active underbody deflectors become commonplace in the car feel the odds of surviving a 40mph hit will soon be in the pedestrians favour.

Volvo as part of their target 0 plan aim to make 70mph hits survivable by the end of this decade. Thats in the 1:1,000,000 occasions the car will fail to,prevent the impact. Given what their tests are achieving today there is no reason to think they will fail, and where Volvo leads, the rest of the industry follows these days.

[Astraist]

The assumption that SUVs are bad for people outside the car is less to do with height and more to do with their traditional slab front - something that is less common these days (even the Range Rover manages to beat the Astra with a 63% rating).

That's good for pedestrians. But once you put an SUV or proper 4X4 in a collision with another, smaller, vehicle, more of the collision's overall energy will be absorbed in the opposite vehicle.

While bigger and heavier vehicles are believed to provide better safety, their safety "benefits" only come to play when it's a multiple-party collision (i.e. not hitting a solid object) with a smaller and lighter vehicle only , and even than it would provide better safety on the expense of other road users.

Using a likewise small but better designed car (in terms of crumple zones) would reduce the overall collision forces for all collision types and for all parties involved in the collision, which makes them my preferred choice.

Also, many 4X4 and trucks have a very poorly designed passenger compartment with poorly designed belts, seats (e.g. the typically short middle seat in most lorries) and very few airbags. This might make them overall less safe than a smaller but more sophisticated car.

As for the OPs question, if the tilting the inner glass (the switch) does not do, signal the car behind to pass by means like subtle deceleration or signals. If passing isn't possible, tilt the mirror itself and consider pulling over if you find it necessary.