RE: Me? A Tailgater?
Tuesday 8th June 2004
Me? A Tailgater?
Frustrated motorists continue to tailgate
A survey by Green Flag reveals that nearly half of drivers in the UK (48%) admit they do not keep a two-second gap between them and the vehicle in front on motorways.
The company warns that leaving a two-second gap is only enough in dry weather. Drivers must leave at least four seconds or more if the weather is wet or icy because in slippery conditions the braking distance can increase significantly.
Green Flag is backing a call for a return of the old government campaign, which ran with the strapline: 'Only a fool breaks the two second rule' and says there needs to be a clear message to drivers about the consequences of driving too close to the vehicle in front, as drivers do not seem to be aware of the dangers.
Latest figures from the Department for Transport (DfT) show that on average five people a week are killed on UK motorways, and more than 50 people a week are seriously injured highlighting the importance of leaving a significant gap to provide time for thinking and braking in an emergency.
Melanie Denny from Green Flag said: "In our rush to get from A to B, we seem to have forgotten the two-second rule and why it was so useful in reminding us of the minimum distance required to stop safely before hitting the car in front. Perhaps now's the time to revive the saying and for the millions of responsible drivers out there to take the lead and show an example to others on the motorways ."
Discussion
I know all this is good stuff and sensible but I am personally sick to death of all this preaching. Is it me or what, I would have thought that all drivers and riders know very well about tailgate driving, and another load of nanny messages aint gonna make a jot of difference. IMHO. If a moron tailgates as a habit nanny messages wont stop him/her. 
I'm not so sure. I reckon a large proportion of people tailgating on the Motorway are doing it for one of two reasons.
1. Being they think that if they leave a 2 second gap someone will pull into it and they'll have to back off, then someone will pull into that gap...
2. They're completely ignorant of the fact that they're supposed to leave as big a gap as 2 seconds. At 30mph, a 2 second gap is only a couple of car lengths so seems natural. At 70/80mph a 2 second gap is actually quite a distance (70m @ 80mph). So if people get used to sitting 5 car lengths behind the car in front round town, they may just not think that they need to leave around 15 car lengths at 80mph.
In short, I think it's a good idea.
Edited to fix idiotic mathematical mistake.
>> Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 8th June 13:44
1. Being they think that if they leave a 2 second gap someone will pull into it and they'll have to back off, then someone will pull into that gap...
2. They're completely ignorant of the fact that they're supposed to leave as big a gap as 2 seconds. At 30mph, a 2 second gap is only a couple of car lengths so seems natural. At 70/80mph a 2 second gap is actually quite a distance (70m @ 80mph). So if people get used to sitting 5 car lengths behind the car in front round town, they may just not think that they need to leave around 15 car lengths at 80mph.
In short, I think it's a good idea.
Edited to fix idiotic mathematical mistake.
>> Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 8th June 13:44
I think this can only be a good idea. We've had 10 years of preaching that staying within speed limits is the only issue to consider regarding road safety, with disastrous results. Any intiative to encourage drivers to actully think about what they're doing can only be a good thing.
As for "... all drivers and riders know about tailgate driving ..." no I don't think they do. Most riders, maybe, being and feeling more vulnerable. Most drivers, who've been educated for years that all they have to do is stay within the speed limit and they'll be safe and "innocent", no I don't think so.
As for "... all drivers and riders know about tailgate driving ..." no I don't think they do. Most riders, maybe, being and feeling more vulnerable. Most drivers, who've been educated for years that all they have to do is stay within the speed limit and they'll be safe and "innocent", no I don't think so.
To resolve tailgating, we also have to look at why people do it, even though it is dangerous:
One reason is because, when you leave a 2 second gap, someone will always try to cut in -and
Secondly, some slower moving drivers simply hog the faster lanes refusing to move over and allow faster traffic through and this creates frustration, tailgating and possibly road rage.
So yes tailgating should be highlighted but so should the problem of drivers hogging the faster lanes, without making any attempt to allow faster traffic past.
One reason is because, when you leave a 2 second gap, someone will always try to cut in -and
Secondly, some slower moving drivers simply hog the faster lanes refusing to move over and allow faster traffic through and this creates frustration, tailgating and possibly road rage.
So yes tailgating should be highlighted but so should the problem of drivers hogging the faster lanes, without making any attempt to allow faster traffic past.
I totally and utterly agree with the basic message, but I think they need to think the detail through a bit more.
The "two second rule" is to allow for reaction time, not stopping distance, based on the assumption that as long as you can react within two seconds to the driver in front then you can both slow at the same speed and come to a halt safely. In practice a good reaction time is under a second, so the "two second rule" builds in a 100% safety margin.
But there is no logical reason why this should increase to 4 seconds in adverse conditions. The braking distance affects both vehicles in the same way, but doesn't affect thinking time at all. It might well give us an additional "comfort factor" to increase the gap in bad conditions, and indeed I do it myself, but it isn't strictly necessary.
As such I'd rather they concentrated on conveying the simple, accurate, memorable "two second rule", rather than complicating it un-necessarily by misleading people in this way into thinking that it perhaps has something to do with braking distances.
The "two second rule" is to allow for reaction time, not stopping distance, based on the assumption that as long as you can react within two seconds to the driver in front then you can both slow at the same speed and come to a halt safely. In practice a good reaction time is under a second, so the "two second rule" builds in a 100% safety margin.
But there is no logical reason why this should increase to 4 seconds in adverse conditions. The braking distance affects both vehicles in the same way, but doesn't affect thinking time at all. It might well give us an additional "comfort factor" to increase the gap in bad conditions, and indeed I do it myself, but it isn't strictly necessary.
As such I'd rather they concentrated on conveying the simple, accurate, memorable "two second rule", rather than complicating it un-necessarily by misleading people in this way into thinking that it perhaps has something to do with braking distances.
Reaction time should be more like 0.5 sec if you're on the ball. The 2 sec rule does allow a bit for braking time, as if the car in front runs into something large and solid it's going to "brake" rather quicker than you'll be able to do with your discs. With the 2 sec gap you *may* have time and space to stop, you may also have time to take evading action. If you're applying the "quarter-second rule" like so many do, you haven't a rat's chance.
To be 100% safe you'd have to allow the full stopping distance of your vehicle between yourself and the car in front, but that's hardly practical.
To be 100% safe you'd have to allow the full stopping distance of your vehicle between yourself and the car in front, but that's hardly practical.
900T-R said:
At 70/80mph a 2 second gap is actually quite a distance (35m @ 80mph).
That's actually a one second gap.
Ooops! Absolutely right.
Please double all my figures or completely ignore my inane ramblings.
Original post edited to avoid looking quite so stupid for too long.
pmanson said:
Those arrows on the road are a good idea!
Everyone keeps to them while the arrows are there (IIRC You must be able to see 2 arrows between you and the car in front) but as soon as they disappear everyone bunches again.
And the traffic flows better cause there's less of that braking in front.
Let's assume that anything less than 2 seconds is tailgating. I wouldn't agree, but Green Flag has to get its sensationalist figure from somewhere.
There are approx 10 people per day killed on the roads, so 5 per week is 5/70 = 7% of the total. Hence motorways are relatively safe compared to other roads.
Now every anti-motoring organisation (and I think we've established that Green Flag supports Brake) tells us that 35% of deaths are caused by excess speed. So therefore only about 3 motorway deaths per week could possibly be due to tailgating, if we believe them. Overall, therefore, it's a minor cause of road deaths considering the proportion of drivers who do not keep 2 seconds apart (approx 100% in my experience).
Yes, let's encourage drivers to be more aware of the distance they keep from the vehicle in front. But let's also remind them that this is less relevant than maintaining a picture of what's going on all around them, including as far forward as possible past the car in front. I'd rather be 1 second behind someone and know what's happening 1/2 mile ahead than keep 2 seconds behind and see nothing more.
Just as with treating speeding as the single issue, focusing solely on keeping 2 seconds behind someone is not the whole safety story. Far better to provide accurate figures of the causes of road deaths/casualties and then permit informed debate on the driving styles and attitudes that can best minimise them while still achieving acceptable journey times.
How sad, then, that another opportunity for reasoned debate has been lost in the rush for headline-grabbing sensationalism and self-publicity.
There are approx 10 people per day killed on the roads, so 5 per week is 5/70 = 7% of the total. Hence motorways are relatively safe compared to other roads.
Now every anti-motoring organisation (and I think we've established that Green Flag supports Brake) tells us that 35% of deaths are caused by excess speed. So therefore only about 3 motorway deaths per week could possibly be due to tailgating, if we believe them. Overall, therefore, it's a minor cause of road deaths considering the proportion of drivers who do not keep 2 seconds apart (approx 100% in my experience).
Yes, let's encourage drivers to be more aware of the distance they keep from the vehicle in front. But let's also remind them that this is less relevant than maintaining a picture of what's going on all around them, including as far forward as possible past the car in front. I'd rather be 1 second behind someone and know what's happening 1/2 mile ahead than keep 2 seconds behind and see nothing more.
Just as with treating speeding as the single issue, focusing solely on keeping 2 seconds behind someone is not the whole safety story. Far better to provide accurate figures of the causes of road deaths/casualties and then permit informed debate on the driving styles and attitudes that can best minimise them while still achieving acceptable journey times.
How sad, then, that another opportunity for reasoned debate has been lost in the rush for headline-grabbing sensationalism and self-publicity.
As a kid I vividly remember the TV ad campaigns that reminded drivers of the basics, sometimes with easily remembered, if corny, slogans "Dip Don't Dazzle", and "Only a fool ignores the 2 second rule" of course! And then the ad not to block junctions and the big hand comes from the sky!
All they come up with nowdays is some moody campaign dreamt up by some arty admen, with the crappy slogan "THINK", that those some admen probably snatching bags of our tax pounds!!
How about some basic short adverts reminding drivers of correct use of foglights (it seems taboo to use rear fogs even in fog, and compulsory to use front fogs on the clearest of nights!), tailgating, and lane discipline to just mention a few!!
All they come up with nowdays is some moody campaign dreamt up by some arty admen, with the crappy slogan "THINK", that those some admen probably snatching bags of our tax pounds!!
How about some basic short adverts reminding drivers of correct use of foglights (it seems taboo to use rear fogs even in fog, and compulsory to use front fogs on the clearest of nights!), tailgating, and lane discipline to just mention a few!!
Of course, I suppose the bitter truth is that tailgating mostly causes inconvenient car-damaging "bumps" rather than fatalities.
Indeed, to play Devil's advocate, if the guy behind you isn't paying attention, he'll actually hit you harder when you brake if he isn't tailgating you! With a bigger gap to close you'll have scrubbed off a lot more speed before he sails unwittingly into the back of you, whereas if he'd been 1/10 second behind he'd hit you immediately but lightly.
This may be an urban myth, but I was once told that Police drivers were taught to tailgate when in extreme high speed pursuits, so that they would only hit the car in front gently if they braked unpredictably. Whether this is true or not, it illustrates the logic.
Once again, the real issues are observation, awareness and responsibility, and that's where we really need to be concentrating the publicity efforts, rather than the specifics of speeding or tailgating. If we can correct the basic attitude deficiencies then all the rest of the problems solve themselves.
Indeed, to play Devil's advocate, if the guy behind you isn't paying attention, he'll actually hit you harder when you brake if he isn't tailgating you! With a bigger gap to close you'll have scrubbed off a lot more speed before he sails unwittingly into the back of you, whereas if he'd been 1/10 second behind he'd hit you immediately but lightly.
This may be an urban myth, but I was once told that Police drivers were taught to tailgate when in extreme high speed pursuits, so that they would only hit the car in front gently if they braked unpredictably. Whether this is true or not, it illustrates the logic.
Once again, the real issues are observation, awareness and responsibility, and that's where we really need to be concentrating the publicity efforts, rather than the specifics of speeding or tailgating. If we can correct the basic attitude deficiencies then all the rest of the problems solve themselves.
forever_driving said:
But there is no logical reason why this should increase to 4 seconds in adverse conditions. The braking distance affects both vehicles in the same way, but doesn't affect thinking time at all.
Here here
And I share the same roads as you guys??? Car bounces across from the opposing carriageway, hits the car in front of you head on bringing it to a dead stop. NOW you wish you had more than four second gap!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff