4 ms·
> That's only true for the first vehicle though, not the rest of the pile up. I don't think that's right. Because safe following distance can only prevent you
by lostmsu 4y ago
> That's only true for the first vehicle though, not the rest of the pile up.
I don't think that's right. Because safe following distance can only prevent you from slamming into the car in front of you if it breaks hard. If it hits something and stops way before the breaking distance, there's little you can do.
- vel0city 4y agoIf the car in front of you hits something and comes to an extremely abrupt stop and you don't have the stopping distance to stop, you're too close. There was something you could have done: leave more space.
- rootusrootus 4y ago> If the car in front of you hits something and comes to an extremely abrupt stop and you don't have the stopping distance to stop, you're too close. That is your opinion, and my local DMV does not specify a distance that long.
- vel0city 4y agoI don't know what area you're from but I cannot imagine the DMV advocates for a following distance where you know you wouldn't be able to stop in time. I'd love a citation for that.
- jjav 4y ago> If the car in front of you hits something and comes to an extremely abrupt stop and you don't have the stopping distance to stop, you're too close. It is physically impossible for a car to come to an instantaneous stop for no reason. It would have to e.g. drive into a concrete wall, but if there's a wall across the freeway you should've seen that from afar. You only really need to have enough distance to be able to notice the car ahead braking and start braking yourself.
- lostmsu 4y agoThe stopping distance at 60mph/96kmh (~28m/s) for a typical car seems to be 133ft/40m. So you are right, it is actually significantly smaller than the recommended 3-4 seconds rule with a relatively good margin. It also amounts to ~5 car lengths at that speed, which I rarely see in practice on active highways.