A Question on fault

[Pro Tour Punditry]

So you are telling me while traveling at 60mph you are 200 feet behind the car in front?

You are telling me that you would need to travel 65m behind the car in order to be able to stop so that's what you need to do.

What's so insane about that?

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

That's fine, enjoy your death crash.

I'll carry on driving sensibly and with consideration to the conditions and circumstances presented, you carry on thinking it's insane and to be influenced by others around you.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

Highway Code Rule 126
Stopping Distances. 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 (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown below)
• allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
• remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front.

If you have to stop in a tunnel, leave at least a 5-metre gap between you and the vehicle in front.

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-117-to-126

Going by the guidence given by the highways agency it takes 73 meters or 18 car lengths to stop the average car at 60mph (60mph = 88fps)
which will take more than three seconds, specially if you also include reaction time. As such you would be in the wrong.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Yes - the 3 second rule is a rough guide to a minimum distance
Remember to to leave a lot longer in the wet!

So if you are going 70mph on a motorway you are a football pitch length away from the car in front?

Do the maths
Assuming a football pitch is around 115 yards (345ft) long
and at 70mph you are traveling at a little over 33 yards per second (around 100 feet per second)
then the 3 second rule should put you about the length of a football pitch behind the car in front if you are both traveling at 70mph!

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I think he must be forgetting to say elephant between 1 2 and 3

 

[Cycling Dan]

Yes - the 3 second rule is a rough guide to a minimum distance
Remember to to leave a lot longer in the wet!

Do the maths
Assuming a football pitch is around 115 yards (345ft) long
and at 70mph you are traveling at a little over 33 yards per second (around 100 feet per second)
then the 3 second rule should put you about the length of a football pitch behind the car in front if you are both traveling at 70mph!

2-3 second gap puts you under the minimum stopping distance. You need 96 to stop and its only around 88 the rule gives you.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

2-3 second gap puts you under the minimum stopping distance. You need 96 to stop and its only around 88 the rule gives you.

That's why its a rough guide

 

[Paulus]

It maybe implausible, but that is what is required, you have to keep a distance behind a vehicle so that you can stop short of the vehicle in front should it stop in front of you. Years ago we used to be taught the thinking distance + the braking distance, ie, at 30mph it was 75 feet, 30+30+15 for instance. just because the roads are now much busier, it is still on the driver to stay a safe distance behind the vehicle infront.

 

[Cycling Dan]

Also don't think i'm being cheeky. I'm just challenging points to understand more deeply. Although I get it.
No doubt Marmion has took a bi**h fit. Which is slightly amusing.

 

[vernon]

No, Just had a thought and wondered. Then I couldnt think of an answer as while the car behind should allow room to stop it would be impossible to do so without leave an insane amount of room. So I just wondered as to what the answer was. I think reasonable space should be the answer rather than dead yes or no. As I said before it would be in this case impossible to stop unless you left the stopping distance which at 60mph is like 65m or so.

It would be insane to expect to be able to stop in shorter than the stipulated stopping distances. Even then it assumes decent reflexes, tyres with decent tread depth, and a good road surface in dry weather.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

That's apparently not how the court saw it.
Sadly I can't quote the case - there may have been more to it than met the eye. But on motorways, the recommended time gap is two seconds - double the thinking distance, but nowhere near the stopping distance.

I suspect this is an urban myth told to you by somebody who was also trying to get out of their responsibility

Alan...

 

[Cycling Dan]

It would be insane to expect to be able to stop in shorter than the stipulated stopping distances. Even then it assumes decent reflexes, tyres with decent tread depth, and a good road surface in dry weather.

That I suppose only goes further to question why exactly teach a guide of 2 seconds when it reads under to start with. Presumably the guide should read over rather than under but that is a question for another thread (no im not posting it)

 

[Cycling Dan]

Heres one reason to keep your distance I suppose. Maybe more of a case of paying more attention

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[vernon]

Heres one reason to keep your distance I suppose. Maybe more of a case of paying more attention

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

It's totally about paying more attention.

 

[Blue]

There was an old Scottish case (can't recall the name but I used it in my earlier career) wherein a following motorist hit the rear of another motorist who had done an emergency stop for a pheasant in the road despite knowing there was a following car and the tail ender got off on the basis that it wasn't to be expected that someone would perform such a stop in the circumstances. However, it was a lower Court decision and tended not to be followed as it wasn't in any way binding. In my experience of Court work in NI tailending resulted in 100% liability for the rear damage. Any frontal damage/injury from the earlier collision would be sorted separately with a possibility of some part falling on the tailender if they pushed the vehicle they hit into something for a second time.