4 ms·

> 'Sometimes, though, I will allow the distance between myself and the next car to close, for example, if they're turning and will be gone in a second...' I of

by dazc 4y ago

> 'Sometimes, though, I will allow the distance between myself and the next car to close, for example, if they're turning and will be gone in a second...' I often wonder what advantage in life people think they are gaining by this behaviour. Care to share?

brookst 4y ago
Reducing the odds of getting rear-ended by absorbing the slack of a conservative following distance rather than braking to maintain the same following distance from 35 to 20 mph.
- dazc 4y ago
  Thanks for answering. Don't do this in some parts of the UK though, where 'crash for cash' is a thing, you may well become a victim. https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-and-issues/fraud/crash-for-cash/ https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-and-issues...
- notacoward 4y ago
  You can't control what the person behind you does, but you can control what you do and rushing people through turns is unsafe. If the person in front of you signaled (or did anything else to indicate) their turn in sufficient time, then you should be able to do likewise for the person behind you with a light tap on the brakes. The odds of being rear-ended probably won't change by any significant amount, and IMX people who cite those odds weren't really thinking about them at the time. It's just an excuse for prioritizing speed over safety.
  - brookst 4y ago
    These systems are imperfect. People are imperfect, too. But please consider that not everything is evidence that everyone else is reckless driver. One day your system will fail in a surprising/dangerous way, and you'll tell someone "wow, it mistook a reflection for tail lights", and they'll say "well I am a perfectly safe driver so that could never happen with my careful driving, you must have been really reckless", and you'll have an epiphany.
    - notacoward 4y ago
      > please consider that not everything is evidence that everyone else is reckless driver Never said or implied that. I said that one specific behavior is dangerous. Maybe you're right that "my system" will fail some day, but in the meantime I'll continue doing my best to improve the odds instead of using "well, stuff happens anyway, can't do anything about it" as an excuse. After driving for ~40 years, having been in a few accidents (only one in the last ~30 and never even remotely considered to be at fault) and seen more, I don't think I'm the one who needs that epiphany here. BTW, let me go into a bit more detail about that one accident, since it's kind of relevant. I was turning, had signaled, person behind me saw and had tapped the brakes, person behind them was on their phone and plowed right into them, pushing them into me. No injuries, amazingly. Key point: there was nothing the woman in the middle could have done. She would have been struck regardless. If she had "absorbed the slack" as you suggest, her car would have just been slammed into mine even harder - quite likely with more dire consequences. Other times, as I already mentioned in another comment, drivers "absorbing the slack" actually caused accidents themselves at an intersection near me. More than once. You're relying on your reactions being better than those of the person behind you (if not better than humanly possible), with no justification whatsoever. "Absorbing the slack" is a stupid and dangerous habit that most people who have driven for a while learn to avoid. I'm trying to tell you here so you don't have that epiphany about defensive driving and margins of error too late.
branon 4y ago
> I try to do this instead of braking sometimes as I believe it assists with keeping the flow of traffic predictable for others. Just that bit from my original comment. The other child comment worded it better than I did though.

by dazc 4y ago

brookst 4y ago

Reducing the odds of getting rear-ended by absorbing the slack of a conservative following distance rather than braking to maintain the same following distance from 35 to 20 mph.

dazc 4y ago
Thanks for answering. Don't do this in some parts of the UK though, where 'crash for cash' is a thing, you may well become a victim. https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-and-issues/fraud/crash-for-cash/ https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-and-issues...
notacoward 4y ago
You can't control what the person behind you does, but you can control what you do and rushing people through turns is unsafe. If the person in front of you signaled (or did anything else to indicate) their turn in sufficient time, then you should be able to do likewise for the person behind you with a light tap on the brakes. The odds of being rear-ended probably won't change by any significant amount, and IMX people who cite those odds weren't really thinking about them at the time. It's just an excuse for prioritizing speed over safety.
- brookst 4y ago
  These systems are imperfect. People are imperfect, too. But please consider that not everything is evidence that everyone else is reckless driver. One day your system will fail in a surprising/dangerous way, and you'll tell someone "wow, it mistook a reflection for tail lights", and they'll say "well I am a perfectly safe driver so that could never happen with my careful driving, you must have been really reckless", and you'll have an epiphany.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    > please consider that not everything is evidence that everyone else is reckless driver Never said or implied that. I said that one specific behavior is dangerous. Maybe you're right that "my system" will fail some day, but in the meantime I'll continue doing my best to improve the odds instead of using "well, stuff happens anyway, can't do anything about it" as an excuse. After driving for ~40 years, having been in a few accidents (only one in the last ~30 and never even remotely considered to be at fault) and seen more, I don't think I'm the one who needs that epiphany here. BTW, let me go into a bit more detail about that one accident, since it's kind of relevant. I was turning, had signaled, person behind me saw and had tapped the brakes, person behind them was on their phone and plowed right into them, pushing them into me. No injuries, amazingly. Key point: there was nothing the woman in the middle could have done. She would have been struck regardless. If she had "absorbed the slack" as you suggest, her car would have just been slammed into mine even harder - quite likely with more dire consequences. Other times, as I already mentioned in another comment, drivers "absorbing the slack" actually caused accidents themselves at an intersection near me. More than once. You're relying on your reactions being better than those of the person behind you (if not better than humanly possible), with no justification whatsoever. "Absorbing the slack" is a stupid and dangerous habit that most people who have driven for a while learn to avoid. I'm trying to tell you here so you don't have that epiphany about defensive driving and margins of error too late.

branon 4y ago

> I try to do this instead of braking sometimes as I believe it assists with keeping the flow of traffic predictable for others. Just that bit from my original comment. The other child comment worded it better than I did though.