Motorway 'safe' distance chevrons

[WinstonWolf]

25NAD90TUL said:

[we completely agree, I'm glad we found some common ground finally.

Taken from one of your earlier posts

So, how do you maintain this seven second gap without being an MLM? Do you need seven seconds of space in L1 before you are willing to move left?

[SK425]

25NAD90TUL said:

SK425 said:

Ah! That's probably what WinstonWolf was getting at on page 3 with "opens you up to prosecution" isn't it.

See this is what happens when you react without thinking about what has been said

Sorry for any confusion - I think you're reading too much into my post. I was just closing off my part in the earlier discussion on legality - I hadn't previously understood where people thought the potential for illegality was, now I do. That's all.

If you're taking care not to cause inconvenience then that potential illegality isn't an issue for you. I don't think it's surprising that people are interested in how you achieve that when you're using the overtaking lanes though is it?

[7db]

25NAD90TUL said:

My maintaining a seven second or 215 metre gap at 70mph IN ANY LANE is NOT ILLEGAL IN ANY WAY

HC264 said:

You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear.

HC126 said:

Allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic

215m sounds pretty clear to me.

[25NAD90TUL]

7db said:

HC126 said:

Allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic

No issue with this quote 7db, but how do you balance that against this one?

HC126also said:

'Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
You should:
Leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance'

At the speed we are discussing well more than 2 seconds.

[0000]

25NAD90TUL said:

I also stated that I'm mostly on the M5 between Exeter and Birmingham, has no-one been there?

7 seconds at 70mph is broadly comparable no matter where in the world you are.

But FWIW I went to Exeter university, live in Worcestershire and have clients in Gloucestershire, Bristol and Devon. I've done 50 miles on it today (outside rush hour, but barely able to use lane 1).

[johnao]

25NAD90TUL said:

In fact it's a case of the counter arguments being contrary to what is suggested as safe in the Highway Code. Perhaps you think I've made all this up, or that it is just my opinion, it isn't, according to the Highway Code you should consider the full stopping distance of 96 metres at 70mph to be the safe following distance. Now that clearly is NOT two seconds or 62 metres. If you want the exact wording I quoted it verbatim earlier in this thread.

I can only put forward the facts as stated in the books I quoted from, and regarding your instruction, johnao, if that's what it was, I had already bowed out temporarily and stated such publicly, well before your post, as you would have seen had you not just made a reactionary post without reading further.

OK, I'll be a little less guarded and, not to put too fine a point on it, I'll be blunt and come straight to the point.

You posted:

25NAD90TUL said:

... what I am asking is whether 62 metres is enough at 70? ...

You ask a perfectly reasonable question. However, when confronted with views that are opposed to yours you don't just say..."OK, thanks for that, we'll agree to differ". Because the majority of posters think 62 metres is enough, but you don't, you then continue to argue your case over 8,9,10 pages. Presumably this is because you are right. But, most of us don't agree with you. You then start telling us we must be wrong because all the official advice is contrary to what we advocate. So, you see, you asked a question and then proceeded to browbeat us because you didn't like the answer. You criticise PistonHeads AD posters because they can't see reason and they argue against advice given in the Highway Code etc. I'm sure you can see where this critique is going. You don't always get the answers that you would like or wish for. You won't always get other posters to agree with you. This is an internet forum after all! You aren't going to change our minds by browbeating us. You asked the question, you got an answer, now is the time for the conversation to close. Oh! I see it has, you've posted that you'll stop posting on pages 2,3,4,5,6,7,8(twice),9,10... 94.


OK, that's it, I've had enough, I'm out of here for good, never to return, I've got better things to do with my life than waste my time reading all this interminable rubbish (Actually, I haven't. I just made that bit up, the bit about better things to do with my life; it was just wishful thinking on my part).
I'll shut up now. (No need to re-post [Oh, of course, you won't, you've stopped posting]... "Thank goodness for that". That's something we both agree upon.

[25NAD90TUL]

Please accept my sincere apologies for flying off the handle in this thread.

No excuses, I've been a dick, arguing unnecessarily about this.

Apologies extended to all parties.

Sincere best wishes all.

[WinstonWolf]

fair play to you.

[Vipers]

25NAD90TUL said:

Please accept my sincere apologies for flying off the handle in this thread.

No excuses, I've been a dick, arguing unnecessarily about this.

Apologies extended to all parties.

Sincere best wishes all.

And that is how all disagreements should conclude, nice post.

[waremark]

johnao said:

..... I've got better things to do with my life than waste my time reading all this interminable rubbish (Actually, I haven't. I just made that bit up, the bit about better things to do with my life; it was just wishful thinking on my part). ....

Actually, I have, but I am afraid I find this stuff quite addictive, and I hurry back to see how many more pages there have been since I last looked. Sad, isn't it? And some of it really does make you think.

Now, how do you clever people explain the incident reported here:

http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic....

What should in the opinion of all but one of us have been a safe following distance very nearly proved inadequate. How did it happen?

Please keep going for another 10 pages.

[WinstonWolf]

Maths above doesn't seem to stack up.

[Vipers]

waremark said:

johnao said:

..... I've got better things to do with my life than waste my time reading all this interminable rubbish (Actually, I haven't. I just made that bit up, the bit about better things to do with my life; it was just wishful thinking on my part). ....

Actually, I have, but I am afraid I find this stuff quite addictive, and I hurry back to see how many more pages there have been since I last looked. Sad, isn't it? And some of it really does make you think.

Now, how do you clever people explain the incident reported here:

http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic....

What should in the opinion of all but one of us have been a safe following distance very nearly proved inadequate. How did it happen?

Please keep going for another 10 pages.

[b]He slid into lane four, hit the central crash barrier, and slid across all four lanes before reaching the hard shoulder.

When he slid across lane two - front of the car facing the centre of the carriageway, driver side facing our car - he was no more than six feet in front of us.

I braked a little more to give myself a little more leeway and concentrated my eyes on the front of his car and the line that separated lanes one and two.

As soon as his car was fully in lane one I put my foot down in case someone in lane one hit him and pushed him back into lane two.[/b]

Is this supposed to have happened, or a sort of test, if real, sounds like a load of BS to me, pushed him back into lane lane 1? then didnt stop after all tht, really tell me is a porkie!

[DHGTR]

How can any large gap be excessive, the larger the gap the less likely you are to run into the back of another. Its all relative to your cars braking ability and your reaction time.

You are still doing 70 with a 2 yard gap or a 2 mile gap.

The motorway isn't a race track so you don't need to be on anybodies bumper.

As I understand it the 2 chevron thing is a guide to make you think whether you are too close or not.

[p1esk]

Vipers said:

25NAD90TUL said:

Please accept my sincere apologies for flying off the handle in this thread.

No excuses, I've been a dick, arguing unnecessarily about this.

Apologies extended to all parties.

Sincere best wishes all.

And that is how all disagreements should conclude, nice post.

Indeed it is. I've made a careful note of it, as it's quite likely I ought to be saying something similar occasionally: not often mind you, cos I'm usually right.

[Vipers]

p1esk said:

I'm usually right.

That's what the. OH says, deluded me thinks.

[SK425]

DHGTR said:

How can any large gap be excessive, the larger the gap the less likely you are to run into the back of another. Its all relative to your cars braking ability and your reaction time.

You are still doing 70 with a 2 yard gap or a 2 mile gap.

There comes a point of diminishing returns though doesn't there. Somewhere between 2 yards and 2 miles is the Goldilocks following distance. 2 yards is too close. 2 miles really is more than the needs of safety demand. Being significantly beyond that threshold is what I think people have been getting at by 'excessive'. Where that threshold is is something of a matter of opinion.

There are two potential consequences that have come up in the thread that might illustrate the excess. Firstly, if just one person chooses to follow at really rather more distance than is sensibly dictated by safety (whatever that threshold is) then it's no great problem, but if on a busy motorway everybody did it the capacity of the motorway would be needlessly reduced. Secondly, attempts to maintain such a following distance, particularly in an overtaking lane perhaps, might be inconsiderate to those behind.

Edited by SK425 on Thursday 16th January 13:32

[7db]

25NAD90TUL said:

No issue with this quote 7db, but how do you balance that against this one?

HC126also said:

'Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
You should:
Leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance'

My reading of those two, given the context on the page and the particular mention of faster roads in the second one is that the first is referring to slower urban traffic -- where the stopping distance and thinking distance are broadly comparable.

[WinstonWolf]

Again?

[tulloch]

I could be wrong but did he not empty his pram over at ADUK as Separation Master?

[p1esk]

tulloch said:

I could be wrong but did he not empty his pram over at ADUK as Separation Master?

Huh, it seemed like it, but so what? I've done that a time or two, here and elsewhere, but in due course we recover and get together again, which is the main thing, so we can continue to communicate.

The thing is, we're enthusiasts and thinkers, which is not a bad start, so inevitably we have fairly strong views about things.

Maybe a bit of patience is required; and it'll all come right in the end.



Best wishes all,
Dave - a bit laid back at the mo.