Safe Speed Forums

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should leave smaller gaps. I'm certainly not.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Me neither. What I'm trying to do is understand what mechanism the "successful" tailgater is using in order to remain accident free for such long periods. If we could adopt the mechanism without adopting the tailgating that'd be a win-win!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Agreed - but most crashes - in fact the vast majority of crashes - appear to happen because of simple concentration failures (=inattention) or observation failures.

Mechanical failure is well under 5% - probably under 1% - and the 'totally unexpected' is probably well under 10% (that's an intelligent guess).

When we're talking about crash avoidance strategies we should surely align our efforts to match the likely causes of crashes. While we shouldn't ignore the cause of 1% of crashes clearly we should give it lower priority.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yep. Quite right. Although of course I expect we already have.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

a clarification... I didn't mean you personally but "you" whoever chooses to adopt this style of driving.


well one case I can remember I was distracted by someone doing something daft on my left (yeah, almost as daft as what I was doing) looked back and found that the car in front had decided to stop and wait to turn right at the same time.

Would I have been looking at the guy on the left had I been tailgating the car in front??? Who knows. Obviously some people do as we've all seen the results.

Just in case anybody thinks that I still drive like this, I don't, but I did for a while especially in the London area. I don't condone driving like it either, but I am trying to explain the thought process of drivers that do. The real world data says that driving like this is nothing like as dangerous as everybody seems to think it is.

I think that by leaving the 2 second gap drivers tend to view the bubble that they operate in as being the two second gap, plus the lanes to either side (as there is a high risk from that direction) - because concentration has to be given to the risks from the sides less is given to further forward. The tailgater has through his actions changed the shape of the bubble to dramatically reduce the risks from the side, and so places more concentration into the vehicles much further ahead - by reacting to the vehicle 5 or 6 ahead they are leaving a gap for reaction and anticipation purposes that is 3 seconds or more - the gap however has cars in it, but 99.99% of the time you will brake in parallel with the vehicle in front (or before) and the risk is minimised.

It is a higher-risk strategy and when the unexpected happens then it can be catastrophic (M42 100 vehicle pile-up in fog), but there are perceived rewards too in that you are generally going as fast as the conditions allow. The rewards are mainly imaginary as the 30 seconds journey time saved per 10 miles or so means nothing in the real world.

Personally I decided that I was finding the application of the necessary concentration was too stressful especially when the traffic is going stop-start in L3 all the time, and adopted a more laid back "sit in L1 with lots of space" mind set. An hour of high concentration driving morning and night in addition to 8 hours of high concentration work was not giving me a happy life.

I suspect that the stress of applying the technique may also contribute to road-rage...

I think the bubble most people operate in extends to the end of their bonnet and no further.
What I try to do is drive like the tailgaters you've described but without the tailgating. I do find myself reacting well before people even 2 or 3 cars in front of me. I remember seeing some loon go for a desperate overtake of a line of traffic. The van he was going to hit headon didn't react until literally the last second when he swerved left opening just enough room for our overtaker to get through. The car behind him (who was naturally driving way too close) didn't react at all. I managed to see well before this that the overtaker wasn't going to make it and had jumped on the anchors and opened up a nice big gap for what, very fortunately, didn't eventuate.

I find it is not knowing just what the chap in front will do it is all the others.
I know what they are thinking before they even reach for the indicator or break pedal. I have anticipated a loose load of corrigated sheeting, spotted cars that look asleep. junctions, the lot....

However you cannot out think the debris that might fly up from the road such as half bricks or a lost bycycle in lane 2! yes... it happened!

That needs stopping or swerving distance.
You need to know where the spaces are before you need them. I cant remember the last time someone overtook and suprised me. Some people don't notice two fire trucks on blues and twos.

I have been lucky, but you make a lot of your own luck.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

This:



and this:



are mutually exclusive.

As I said before, I see C.O.A.S.T. as a sequence. (C)oncentration and (O)bservation are the driver inputs; (A)nticipation is the mental output. We can concentrate without observing but we can't 'observe' (in the driving sense) without <some level of> concentration. Similarly, we can concentrate and observe without anticipating but we can't anticipate without <some level of> concentration and observation. (S)pace is the physical output. Our anticipation of actual hazards, developing hazards and potential hazards allows us to define the space we need for our selected speed or, if we cannot increase the space available, allows us to regulate our speed to the available space. (T)ime to react is the end product, being a function of the space we have created (or is available) relative to the selected speed.



That's an erroneous theory, imo, which puts the cart before the horse. I believe that drivers develop a 'risk equilibrium'. If an averagely aware driver senses that his C and O (and therefore A) are reduced, he will compensate by increasing his safety margin, 'S', to give more 'T'. That effect is seen in (for example) the studies of mobile phone use, which found that drivers increased separation distances when they were engaged on a call. Correspondingly, if a driver wishes to (say) increase speed or otherwise reduce S and T (say for an overtake) he will raise C.O. and A. to the level necessary to maintain the equilibrium.

The problem (I think) we have with drivers who fail to leave adequate separation is that their risk equilibrium does not adequately allow for possible/likely reduction in C.O. and A. And that's where safety messages could be used to good effect.