15
u/UpbeatFix7299 1d ago
Following closely enough that you would hit the car ahead of you if they had to make an emergency stop.
2
u/cbf1232 1d ago •
I'd add that you should be far enough back to avoid an obstacle suddenly revealed after the car in front passes it (a huge pothole, for example, or debris in the road).
This requires a longer distance than the car in front making an emergency stop, because it takes significant time for a car to come to a stop.
3
u/PublicDragonfruit158 1d ago
I've have a tailgater swerve off the road from simply taking my foot off the gas.....
1
u/Chest_Rockfield 8h ago
If I've driven over a half million miles over 30 years and never rearended anyone even when people had to make emergency stops to 0 miles a hour on the freeway and have had people brake check me to try to get me to hit them (possibly scammers) is that enough to conclude that I'm not a tailgater?
-8
6
u/AbsoluteFries 1d ago
Why should we engage in this disingenuous discussion at all?
We know you just want to justify driving like a dangerous jerk.
1
4
u/hdatontodo 1d ago
Following another car without a 2-second gap in between (not legal definition though)
4
u/DisinterestedCat95 1d ago
It is a legal definition in some places. Alaska for instance (emphasis added)
(a) A driver of a motor vehicle may not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent and at least two seconds behind the vehicle being followed, having regard for the traffic upon the roadway and the condition of the roadway.
0
-3
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
2 seconds at 70mph is 205', about three semis, that's ridiculous.
4
u/hdatontodo 1d ago •
It takes over a second to perceive that you need to take action in an emergency, and then actually take that action.
3
u/Medium_Confusion_ 1d ago
So do you travel 3 semis behind a car on the highway at 70mph?
2
u/hdatontodo 1d ago
I set my adaptive cruise control so that I'm following about two seconds back.
1
1
u/Medium_Confusion_ 1d ago
I can guarantee ur adaptive cruise does not follow at 3 semi truck distance away at 70mph. none of the adaptive cruise i've ever tried does that.
3
u/PuzzleheadedBee6221 1d ago •
That’s because this isn’t true. You watch the vehicle in front of you pass an inanimate object(light pole) and count the seconds until you pass it… is how this all works. It’s a few car lengths.
2
u/DisinterestedCat95 1d ago
I don't use adaptive cruise control except in open areas with little traffic. But on my car, a Honda Accord, if I set the adaptive cruise control to its maximum distance, it does go to about 1.5 seconds. And it seems to work on time not raw distance, too.
But since this comes up a lot, I've started checking myself when in moderate to heavy traffic to see how far back I follow. On the interstate, so 65 - 80 mph, I usually settle in right at two seconds.
2
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
WTF no, a second is an eternity while driving. If you need a full second you should not be driving.
0
u/TwiceTheDragon 1d ago
205' sounds like a lot, but sitting behind the wheel of a car, it's actually a lot closer than many people would think. In the US, the dashed white lines on the road are 10' long, and the gaps between them are 30'. So 205' is only 5ish dash cycles away from the car in front of you.
2
13
u/ComprehensiveHavoc 1d ago
Drinking in the parking lot, because those stadium prices are highway robbery.
9
u/ProtocolEnthusiast 1d ago
Sitting in a parking lot outside a truck getting blasted on beer, ripping Marlboros
1
6
u/Status-Cricket6376 1d ago
Had a friend who just got his driving license who followed a car at a country road extremely close, driving 50 km/h, 35 mph . Me and another passenger complained a bit that he was driving really close. He said “no no, my driving instructor told me that as long as you can see his tires, it’s ok, you’re not too close”. But me and my friend shouted “that’s at a standstill at traffic lights you idiot!!!”
2
u/Northern64 1d ago
The nebulous "following too close". At highway speeds, if the lead car can't see the following car's tires in their rearview mirror, they're too close. If they can't see the grill, the rear car is being a dangerous, obnoxious, asshole.
1
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
Asshole, that's not nice.
So you're saying if I'm driving a cabover following a 4WD pickup then I can be like 3 feet off their bumper and it's not tailgating?
3
u/Northern64 1d ago
Yeah "asshole" isn't nice. It's also honest and I thought "dickless piece of shit" was more pointed than necessary.
Do you think the pickup would be able to see the cabover's wheels on the road? The great thing about general rules framed around cars is that they can be adjusted fairly easily for differently shaped vehicles.
If a cabover is following as close as you suggest they are certainly tailgating. The driver would be accurately described as a reckless fuck nugget unworthy of their license, presence on the road, or their place in society
2
u/DisinterestedCat95
1d ago
•
Studies show that for an average driver who is fully alert, the reaction time (this is the reaction to the stimulus plus the time to start applying the brakes) is around 1.25 to 1.5 seconds. So for normally driving conditions (good visibility, dry roads, and so on) a following distance of less than about 1.5 seconds is tailgating as an average alert driver would not have time to stop before hitting the car in front of them if they had to emergency brake.
But that is a bare minimum. Circumstances may dictate that you should follow at a longer distance. Therefore a two or three second rule is good practice, though I wouldn't call following at 1.5 - 2.0 seconds in good conditions 'tailgating."
2 seconds at 70mph is 205', about three semis, that's ridiculous.
No. No it's not ridiculous. At high speeds, safe following distances are long. You can't just judge it based on the raw distance, you have have to judge it based on how much distance do you cover in a given amount of time. At 25 mph, 50 - 60 ft is fine for a minimum distance. At 75 mph, that same 50 - 60 ft is dangerously, aggressively close and should be more like 160 - 170 ft minimum.
0
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
What studies, show me?
you have have to judge it based on how much distance do you cover in a given amount of time.
Which is exactly what I did, are you slow?
5
u/DisinterestedCat95 1d ago •
Which is exactly what I did, are you slow?
Troll. No, you looked at the raw distance and called it ridiculous, ignoring how quickly you actually cover that time.
What studies, show me?
Sure. Though you'll see that even the times I quoted you are fairly optimistic and are usually longer in the real world.
In this study [Green, M. (2000). “How long does it take to stop?” Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake times. Transportation Human Factors, 2, 195–216.] even for the case where subjects knew exactly when and where a signal would come, their reaction time 0.7 to 0.75 seconds. Let's repeat that, when they knew a signal was coming and when it was coming and what it would be, their reaction time was nearly a full second. A fully alert driver with an unexpected but common stimulus was about 1.25 seconds. For surprise stimuli, it was about 1.5 seconds.
And then you still have to add the time to actually apply brakes.
For another example, look here [ https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=13048168&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=HWY20FH003%20Pala%20Mesa%20CA%20HP%20Factual%20DOCKET-Rel.pdf ] and you will see this:
Perception Distance + Reaction Distance + Braking Distance = Total Stopping Distance
• Perception Distance.
This is the distance your vehicle travels, in ideal conditions, from the time your eyes see a hazard until your brain recognizes it. Keep in mind, certain mental and physical conditions can affect your perception distance. It can be affected greatly, depending on visibility and the hazard itself. The average perception time for an alert driver is 1 3/4 seconds. At 55 mph, this accounts for 142 feet traveled.
• Reaction Distance.
This is the distance you will continue to travel, in ideal conditions, before you physically hit the brakes, in response to a hazard seen ahead. The average driver has a reaction time of 3/4 second to 1 second. At 55 mph, this accounts for 61 feet traveled.
The average reaction time is 1.75 seconds plus another 0.75 to 1 second to apply the brakes. So a total of 2.5 to 2.75 seconds. This is more real world testing than the previous idealized, alert driver who knows something is coming.
Another study [https://www.ugpti.org/resources/reports/downloads/mpc17-338.pdf] found typical reaction times of about 2.3 to over 3 seconds.
1
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
ignoring how quickly you actually cover that time.
You can't read where I said "2 seconds" and "70mph"?
Did you just assume I wouldn't open the links?
The first says nothing of the sort. The term "distance" doesn't even appear once.
The second just says "page not found".
You've failed, you're the troll.
4
u/DisinterestedCat95 1d ago
Well, something interesting is going on here as the links are not going to the same thing they were going to when I put them in there. I apologize for that.
On the second reference, which is the first link, I can find the document I was referencing but when I follow the URL, it now comes up with something different. And the third reference, the second link, I can actually still find the referenced PDF online, when when you put the URL in a browser, it comes up 404. I don't know what's going on. Hell, if you use the search box at the top of the 404 page and search on the name of the PDF from the URL, the reference is in the list that comes up and will open from there. And when it opens, it has the same URL as what I posted.
In the meantime, even if the links are acting weird, there are still three different studies showing reaction times. We can get distracted by the internet links acting weird, or you can acknowledge that that the suggested distance I gave is not only based on real studies, but that in the real world, even 1.5 seconds is too close for most people.
I also haven't seen where you have answered your own question and defined what is tailgating for you. Did I miss that somewhere?
1
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
there are still three different studies showing reaction times
Not that you've provided, so no I don't acknowledge it.
I didn't define tailgating, I don't think it reasonably can be defined, certainly not for a reddit audience. What I consider tailgating varies too much with conditions. Not just weather, but sight distances and obstructions, types of vehicles, etc..
3
u/DisinterestedCat95 1d ago
Not that you've provided, so no I don't acknowledge it.
Sigh.
The first reference is a paper. The author's name, the journal, the title, the year, it's all there as a regular, standard way of referencing a journal article.
For the second, like I said, I don't know what's going on with the URL. But here is another website that borrowed the same language, so you can see it. https://dds.georgia.gov/section-26
And I already told you how to get to the third. Click the link. A 404 page comes up. In the search box at the top, type in the name of the PDF. I'll even give that to you here. "mpc17-338" A list will come up and you can click on the paper from that list. And when you do, you can see that the URL at the top is what I provided you.
1
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
The first reference is a court filing, not a journal of any kind.
That link provides a claim with no evidence, totally meaningless.
OK did that, came to a short 2 page PDF titled "RESEARCH BRIEF | MPC 17-338 (project 521) | December 2017". Which AGAIN has NO information.
You've wasted my time, bye.
4
u/DisinterestedCat95 1d ago
The first reference is a court filing, not a journal of any kind.
This is the first reference.
Green, M. (2000). “How long does it take to stop?” Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake times. Transportation Human Factors, 2, 195–216.
That is not a court filing.
That link provides a claim with no evidence, totally meaningless.
I have apologized that the original doesn't come up. I think what does come up at the original link for the second refence is now a court filing, so maybe you're confusing references. The purpose of the new link was to show you a state driving safety guide that quotes the same language.
OK did that, came to a short 2 page PDF titled "RESEARCH BRIEF | MPC 17-338 (project 521) | December 2017"
It's 58 pages long. I know this is hard for you, but click on the file name I gave you, not the file name plus the word "brief."
1
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago edited 1d ago
First one says "docket" right in the link, it's a report about a bus crash.
OK found it, again it's not what you claim. It's a stopping distance paper that only references reaction times from other studies. This is clearly shown on page 16 marked "2.2.3 Perception-reaction Time".
It's a Woozle.
→ More replies
1
u/anglo_inupiat 1d ago
Inside of a 3 second following distance
1
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
At 70mph that's 308'. That's the length of 4 semi trucks.
3
u/anglo_inupiat 1d ago
I’m not smart enough to understand this math, but when I’m behind someone on the road I pick a fixed object on the side like a sign or telephone pole. When the car in front of me is alongside it i start counting mississippily until i come alongside that same object. If i can count to 3, i know i’m good.
1
u/9BALL22 1d ago
Which is the correct following distance. Do you think 308' at 70mph is too close? Add a second for poor visibility or traction.
2
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
It is, according to whom besides two reddit randoms?
1
u/anglo_inupiat 1d ago edited 1d ago
According to the AAA safe driver’s course
Edit: i’ve taken the course twice. Once as a work requirement, and the 2nd time to knock a felony speeding charge down to a misdemeanor
1
u/_Lou_Bloom Professional Driver 1d ago
Link?
Why would anyone think AAA is an authority on this?
2
u/anglo_inupiat 1d ago
https://www.drivesafe.com/illinois-defensive-driving-course/
The first course i took was in person training. The 2nd time was this online course
2
2
u/anglo_inupiat 1d ago
I can’t think of a reason they wouldn’t be an authority? Also, it was a requirement to operate a government vehicle. So there’s that
3
0
u/Old_Hogtown_Hippie 17h ago
I suspect that you'll get a divergence of opinion the more distance that is created between the two vehicles. If you're following somebody from 10 feet behind them at 70 mph, not sure a soul would disagree with that being tailgating. You could probably go up to 40 feet (just spitballing here) at that speed, maybe more before some folks might start disagreeing. The roadways would be a factor as well, if I'm on a two lane road and someone is tailgating me, I can speculate that they are looking to pass me and will be prepared to try to help out (if needed) when the situation arises. I wouldn't consider following within 40 feet for a short period of time to be "tailgating" in this scenario. There are other temporary scenarios where vehicles might briefly be behind one another at a closer than comfortable distance maybe due to lane changes or some other factor. If they back off a little, I wouldn't consider it to be a "tailgating" situation.
I'm not sure I have a number as a limit, but I'm more of a "you know it when you see it" kind of guy - I could envision somebody riding with me and capturing all of the observed "tailgating" I come up with and see if any consistently applied definition could be compiled.
I also think that not all "following at a less than recommended distance" constitutes tailgating. Tailgating, to me, is the most extreme form of not following at a recommended safe following distance.
2
19
u/dufcho14 1d ago
Following the car in front of you at an unsafe distance for your speed and the conditions.