Rear Ended on Freeway

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
.. I was maintaining a
> >safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
> >for me to stop my car.
>
> Did anyone miss the irony of that statement?

No, I saw it right away.

But I have to be sympathetic here. In most freeway situations in town,
you absolutely cannot have a safe stopping distance between you and the
car in front. There are too many cars and not enough room. If you
tried to leave one length for every 10 mph, three cars would have
filled it up. Consequently, if any driver slammed on the brakes, there
is most likely going to be a tail-ender. Or more than one.

So sure, the driver didn't maintain a safe distance. Because doing so
is impossible. And we live--and drive--with that every day.

Another reason to push for mass transit. (Then if there is a wreck we
can ALL be in it....)

Harry K wrote:

> ??? Mesuring in seconds is the recommended way as it is far easier and
> more accurate than the old 'car lengths' method which hardly anyone can
> come within 20 feet of guessing.
>
> Harry K

The old cars used to be longer, which gave more safety measure. ;<)

Nate Nagel wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>
> >
> >>She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
> >>foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
> >>faulted you and insurance would still fault you.
> >>
> >>Least that's my experience.....
> >
> >
> > I would love to hear more about that.
> >
> >
> >>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
> >>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
> >>possible.
> >
> >
> > Really?! Have you read this?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness
> >
> > "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
> > with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
> > distance from 80-0 km/h)"
>
> did you have a point? No,

Not with that reference, I didn't. My bad.
-----

- gpsman

Brent P wrote:
>
> I've noticed that in driving video games, that the brakes tend to lock up
> the rears really easy sending the car into a spin... Really annoying in
> that every one i've ever played if I drive it as were a real car it
> doesn't respond correctly.

How would you know...?!

Do you have any experience operating a real car at video game
velocities?

IME video driving simulators recreate an incredibly realistic
experience... except for the ****ty AI of the other drivers.
-----

- gpsman

Actually in california MOST freeways dont. and it would have been
stupid to drive 50 when the speed limit is 70!
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:57:23 -0700, Bill Funk >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> >MURDERERS > wrote:
> >
> >>On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, wrote:
> >>
> >>>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
> >>>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
> >>>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn't
> >>>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
> >>>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
> >>>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
> >>>didn't give her enough room. I don't think I should have to pay for the
> >>>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?
> >>
> >>If you'd been doing 50 you'd have been able to stop in time. You can't
> >>drive too slow.
> >
> >Then why do you recommend 50mph?
>
> The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
> THINK

On 27 Aug 2006 19:10:43 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>> >>Then why do you recommend 50mph?
>> >
>> >The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
>> >THINK
>>
>> But you said that you can't go too slow, and now you say you can.
>> Confused? Let that nice man in the white jacket know; maybe your meds
>> are reacting to each other.
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>
>Don't confuse the poor thing. It is now arguing with itself.
>
>Harry K

He argues with everyone.
That nice man in the white jacket who helps him, is changed out every
two days. That's the longest anyone can take it. The white jacket
assignments for him are in a strict rotation; everyone gets their turn
in the barrel.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2006 19:10:43 -0700, "Harry K" >
> wrote:
>
> >> >>Then why do you recommend 50mph?
> >> >
> >> >The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
> >> >THINK
> >>
> >> But you said that you can't go too slow, and now you say you can.
> >> Confused? Let that nice man in the white jacket know; maybe your meds
> >> are reacting to each other.
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
> >
> >Don't confuse the poor thing. It is now arguing with itself.
> >
> >Harry K
>
> He argues with everyone.
> That nice man in the white jacket who helps him, is changed out every
> two days. That's the longest anyone can take it. The white jacket
> assignments for him are in a strict rotation; everyone gets their turn
> in the barrel.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

It's bad enough to talk to yourself, and worse if you argue with
yourself. You are truly in trouble if you lose those arguments.
(source unknown)

The case you mention likely has yet to find a good use for the piece of
meat on top of the neck.

You might want to consult a lawyer with experience in traffic law --
not just in your state, but in your area. It should be fairly quick
and cheap to get his reading on whether contesting the ticket is worth
your while, and what the civil possibilities might be. (If you rear
ended someone hard enough to cause "extensive damage" to your own car,
you might end up needing a lawyer anyway...)

One end of the range of possibilities is that she saw some hazard you
didn't, and for whatever reason you failed to exercise your
responsibility to stop short of her. Woops! At the other extreme,
maybe she did a very foolish thing maliciously targeted at you.

I would imagine that witnesses will be very important in making a case
that it was anything but the former. Rear enders happen a lot, and
the usual cause is somebody following too close too fast with not
enough attention.

BTW, a common SWAG is that for a typical car with average brakes and
tires on a dry road it takes roughly 5 seconds to stop a car at 70 mph
when you factor in perception time and reaction time as well as actual
braking time. If the person ahead has a better car, or shaves off
the perception and reaction time by being sharper, you better enlarge
that. Expect to be confronted with accepted standards used in the
insurance industry in these matters, and to have a real struggle with
"everybody does it" counter-arguments. One layman's opinions, worth
what you paid if your connect time is cheap.

So here's something to ponder in the various waiting rooms you're
likely to be in: Is three seconds at 70 mph a truly safe interval in
something reasonably close to a worst case -- say your mind is
wandering, as minds will do; or maybe you're fishing the last french
fry out of the bag; and you don't realize that there's hard braking
going on ahead quite as soon as you might hope? Or is it a "success
oriented" interval that makes urban traffic more efficient under normal
conditions, and lets you get out of many predicaments -- but leaves
you facing a substantial risk of parking in somebody else's trunk if
things get worse, faster, than usual? Something to think about...

Safety first,
--Joe

In article . com>,
wrote:

> I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
> was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
> brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn't
> see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
> safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
> for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
> didn't give her enough room. I don't think I should have to pay for the
> extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

The cop's probably right, but you should definitely see a lawyer,
especially if an injury resulted from this accident. Based on what YOU
said, you were following too close, but that woman may be partially at
fault. You need a lawyer to sort this out for you.

gpsman wrote:
> Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>

> > Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
> > up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
> > possible.
>
> Really?! Have you read this?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness

Have *you*? Try this part:

"An alert skilled driver without ABS should be able, through the use of
techniques like cadence braking or threshold braking, to match or
improve on the performance of a typical driver with an ABS-equipped
vehicle."

Brent's phrase "as quickly as possible" means "an alert skilled driver
without ABS". This is not to say that the woman *was* as skilled as
necessary for this; only that had she been, she could have been
stopping more quickly than she did by sliding the tires.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)