*sigh*

I heard her describe two problems:

1 -- The distance between me and the car ahead.

2 -- The distance between me and the car behind.

She said the first problem is less trouble than the second problem. I strongly disagree. It's not just semantics.

I've already described the truth that I can only control the first one and can't control the second one. But if you like, let's break it down.

Imagine one car only on a long straight road. No collisions, because no other cars, likewise no before and after car so no distance.

Now imagine two cars traveling together down the road. There's a collision. Who's at fault? How can the lead car be culpable at all (leaving aside deliberate actions like dynamiting the brakes and trying to cause a collision)? What if the car has a failure, like a blowout or some mechanical thing, stops very quickly, then what? Still up to the driver following. Who among those two drivers can have any chance at reducing the likelihood of a collision? ONLY the follower, not the leader. After all, the chance that some magical bad mojo causing a car to screeeeeeeech to a halt could happen to either car, with equal chance, no? If it happens to the following car, no problem. If it happens to the lead car, *maybe* problem. Maybe if the distance (read reaction time) is too small to respond safely. The responsibility is on the following car to maximize that distance / time to allow for whatever might happen.

Now expand that logic to three cars, or four or N cars. Each car has a driver, and a follower and a leader, save the front and rear cars of the string. The

All crashes of this kind propagate backward through the flow of traffic. There is the first collision. The next collision happens behind that one. Had that third vehicle allowed a safe distance, it would never have happend. No chain reaction. But, if the distance isn't enough, then there's a second collision and the decision tree moves to the fourth car. Is there enough distance in front of that car for the driver to evade the trouble? If yes, then the reaction stops. If no, then add another collision and repeat the question. In fact, these kinds of pile ups ONLY stop when one motorist DOES have enough space IN FRONT of them to avoid adding to the carnage.

The way I see it, there is no distance behind, only distance ahead. Each frame of reference is zeroed on the driver of that vehicle. Bothering to consider how close the asshole behind me is following is like letting him drive *my* car. And that's a bad idea, since we already know he's an idiot.

Sorry, V.
It might be lost in translation, but I really do think it's just semantics.

What I was saying was that the only thing I can control is how far I am behind the car in front.
Using the word "trouble" was obviously not advisable, it's just the way I see it when I am driving.
I know I can control the problem of being in a pile-up by staying a decent braking distance behind the vehicle in front and especially allowing for the conditions.
I cannot control the problem of how fast the person is driving behind me, or how close they are.
Even if I can stop a sensible distance behind the vehicle in front, I can still be shunted into it by a less sensible driver behind me.
Doesn't stop me driving carefully though.

When driving in Wales I often pulled over in lay-bys, bus stops etc to allow traffic past. Because I did not know the roads and wanted to drive at or below the speed limit.

I usually drive in the "slow lane" on the motorway and only pass where necessary because I am more concerned with my own speed than keeping up with the flow of traffic in the other two lanes (the vehicles I pass are usually those with trackers, like coaches and lorries, so they drive at 50 or 60).

And yes, I have had people pull in front of me or overtake me for no more reason than that I have left a large gap. I just hang back a bit more.

While you can't directly control the vehicle behind you without physical contact, there are multiple defensive driving techniques with which to influence the driver behind you to increase their following distance. The distance behind you should still figure prominently into your decisions since it, along with vehicle weight, factors into how much the vehicle behind you can be slowed before hitting yours which in turn affects your own safe following distance . As stated before:

Doesn't work in fog though.

The local weather conditions were appalling. Very heavy and prolonged rain caused a stone river bank to collapse at Bridgwater, just a few miles from the crash and the motorway was so wet as to cause some aquaplaning. In addition, it is in a valley so some degree of low cloud was likely and added to all of that the Rugby club had lit its bonfire which was causing dense cloud which might well have drifted into the roadway. I guess we'll never know how much of a factor that was.

Then comes poor judgement on the part of drivers, perhaps an inexperienced motorway driver or two and plenty of heavy traffic with it being Friday evening. Add speed and sudden loss of visibility...

One of the surviving drivers spoke of a car overtaking them at 50-60mph after the collisions had started and that car seemed to explode on impact with one of the burning trucks.

Locally there seems to be deep shock at the horrific details beginning to emerge and great sadness at such a terrible loss of life.

You can influence the vehicle behind you. There's the smoke screen button, and the system that sprays oil on the road behind you, and the rear-firing M203 grenade launcher, and all the other cool features of a modern automobile.

It doesn't work anywhere if you're driving too fast for conditions; or, shouldn't be driving at all. It works for drivers who break from the herd mentality.

Oh hell people drive with both feet if people follow too closely. Right foot on the gas and your left jussssssst barely touching the brake pedal enough so that your brake lights go on. They'll back off and/or go around you.

Option two is to drive a tank and slam on your brakes :eek:. After the resulting collision you may proceed without further stress.

I know this is not proper, but, if I think you are too close to my back bumper, I slow down. And if you don't back off, Ima slow down even more. I'm not talking about a couple miles per hour slowing down, I'm talking 10-15 miles per hour slowing down, the first time.

I know it's not right, in certain circumstances it may even be more dangerous, it's just what I like to do. It makes me feel better. Bonus: If it's a no pass zone, and I can see in my rearview that you're getting pissed...I feel even betterer.

I have actually heard Uncledigr say: "Goddammit, I wish I had a bulldozer that would run a hundred miles an hour."

:lol2:

If traffic is heavy, then it's not about you and the driver in back of you, it's about you and the entire stream of traffic behind you. You can actually cause an accident in heavy traffic just by braking suddenly. That accident may not include you, it may be 4 or 5 cars behind you as each car behind you brakes increasingly hard. Your responibility in heavy traffic is to do nothing that causes the people behind you to over react. That means you should leave enough space in front of you to gradually stop, and give the car behind you some warning.

I'd like to add to my previous post
**conditions permitting**

If I have someone following too close, I also slow down - not to irritate the other driver, but because now I need account for my stopping distance plus his stopping distance.

If there's only one car behind you, just toss a flash-bang out your sun roof.

ftfy