Speed limit

[motorbiking]

it includes thinking time. Actually stopping should be around 100-150ft from 70. But if it takes you a second to react you’ve gone another 100ft.

 

[Deleted member 307320]

it includes thinking time. Actually stopping should be around 100-150ft from 70. But if it takes you a second to react you’ve gone another 100ft.

The figures are still based on 1960s cars!

 

[securespark]

Is that the figure from the highway code, written in the late 60s?

There have been many updates since then. But I believe the stopping distances are still the same.

 

[securespark]

Maybe Ray Charles while he's asleep.

And....err....dead....

 

[Deleted member 307320]

There have been many updates since then. But I believe the stopping distances are still the same.

Still the same in the highway code, or still the same in reality?!

 

[johnny2007]

https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=70mph+braking+test

 

[securespark]

Still the same in the highway code, or still the same in reality?!

The "reality" is that the Highway Code has these figures. I don't know if the HC says you must use these distances, then they are backed by law.

Have you seen this article?

Brake argues Highway Code stopping distances should be extended

The road safety charity Brake says stopping distances should be increased because drivers' thinking time has been underestimated.

www.fleetnews.co.uk

 

[Brigadier]

Its the same point I've been making all along. Glad you caught up.

The room in front is irrelevant

You really have no ability to follow what you, yourself, wrote; let alone what others did.

then add the stopping distance they haven't left, to yours by gradually increasing the gap.

So you should go faster, and faster to creste a gap and keep it? Rubbish.

you've misunderstood. You add their stopping needs in front, not behind. Again, you only have control of one vehicle, the one you are driving

And rinse, and repeat..........

 

[Brigadier]

it includes thinking time. Actually stopping should be around 100-150ft from 70. But if it takes you a second to react you’ve gone another 100ft.

I wouldn't be at all surprised for a study to find that people of the 60's reacted more quickly back then, than those of today do now.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Let's put this very simply for you and mb.

You can be driving along a road with nobody in front of you, with clear vision for say 400 yards, but being tailgated

Slowing down (or speeding up) doesn't change how close the person behind is. In fact if you slow they might even get closer.

Any sudden stop (child, animal, item thrown into road) may involve them hitting you if they fail to stop.

You cannot control their car, or reactions

The ONLY real choice is to pull over and let them pass, or just accept they may run into you

It is that SIMPLE

 

[Brigadier]

Let's put this very simply for you and mb.

Let's put it very simply for you.

MB advised that you slow down.

You got all haughty, claiming that he'd advise you speed up.

Everything else has been you're doubling down on your initial miscomprehension.

 

[Brigadier]

clear vision for say 400 yards

Any sudden stop (child, animal, item thrown into road)

Not "clear vision for say 400 yards" then, is it?

I consider "clear vision" to include kerbs, paths, junctions, parks, hedges, etc.

 

[Roy Bloom]

If you have nothing in front of you, there is no real issue. If you have vehicles in front of you then add the stopping distance they haven't left, to yours by gradually increasing the gap. That way you avoid getting rear ended in the event the car in front of you has to stop suddenly.

The problem with the human brain is its fast reaction part (the amygdala) struggles to assess near danger and danger, so a brake checker, can trigger a fight reaction. it will usually lead to escalation and rarely result in the person dropping back.

I think Motorbiking is confused, and seriously confused the situation for everyone else.

The discussion was about being tailgated.
Mb suggested driving slower to increase the gap in front of you to avoid being rear-ended.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It doesn't prevent you having to make an emergency stop. It could even increase the risk, because another road user could exploit the gap in front of you, for whatever reason, causing you to brake hard.
In addition, it would increase the frustration of the tail-gater, so that they reduce the distance between you and them.
Indeed, if mb talks about stopping distnces, at slower speeds, the tail-gater is likely to be as knowledgable about such things. They will assume they need even less gap to stop, if you do.
Having a larger gap in front of you, or driving slower is likely to enrage the tail-gater behind oyu.

Mb is confused, and confuses others.
He talks about space not speed, then suggests slowing down.

its about space not speed.

If the car in front is doing 40mph, you need at least 36m gap. giving you 2 seconds reaction time. If the guy behind has only got 2M then you need to create his missing 34m to give him the best chance of stopping. 5mph slower for 15 seconds will do.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Not "clear vision for say 400 yards" then, is it?

I consider "clear vision" to include kerbs, paths, junctions, parks, hedges, etc.

I'm sorry I couldn't make it any simpler for you.

I've never driven anywhere without hazards to be aware of.

Visibility is being able to see what's there, and driving accordingly. Tailgaters can still be too close

 

[gant]

Here we go again.