Safe following distance? [Archive]

R6_kid

16th January 2009, 18:29

What do you judge as a 'safe following distance'?

In the last few days i've seen a lot of people on bikes following quite close to the vehicle in front.

In a 10 minute period I saw 3 bikes ride past, all of them were less than 2m from the car in front and travelling at approximately 50kmh+. Either these people have lightning fast reactions and superhuman braking abilities or they are simply being stupid and following too close.

So how do you judge that you are at a safe following distance from the vehicle in front? And what do you believe constitutes a safe following distance?

James Deuce

16th January 2009, 18:32

Only a fool, forgets the 2 second rule. It's a reasonable guide.

I like to see what's on the road in front of the vehicle I'm following.

The one that gets me is the people who start over taking from behind the vehicle they want to over take.

Select gear, indicate, check, pull into other lane, check the coast is clear and then nail it. If something's coming you've left yourself room to pull back in. You can't pull in alongside the car you're overtaking without a little stress.

Bren

16th January 2009, 18:36

personally for me...4 to 5 seconds behind ...always leave myself a good space

but then I am a bit of a nanna on the road...

Trudes

16th January 2009, 18:39

I know what you're saying, I've seen a lot of it lately also, gives me the shits!!
I've realised that my reactions suck so have learned to back off the arse end of cars and other bikes, sometimes forget and creep up a bit but usually doesn't take me long to remember and back off again.
It's really not necessary, we ride bikes, (most) of us have plenty enough acceleration to get past cars etc without having to slip-stream them first!!!:blink:

Katman

16th January 2009, 18:49

varminter

16th January 2009, 19:02

Two seconds works for me, four when it's raining (but then my brains saying "it's ice, it's ice) leave too much and some fucknuckle in a cage will fill it up. Nana's live longer I reccon.

Katman

16th January 2009, 19:06

leave too much and some fucknuckle in a cage will fill it up.

Ummmm, so fucking what?

Chill the fuck out and create a new space.

R6_kid

16th January 2009, 19:14

Thats exactly my point - if the car in front fucks up, it shouldnt become your problem.

If the car behind you fucks up, that is another story.

Highlander

16th January 2009, 19:22

spookytooth

16th January 2009, 19:26

maybe on the other hand bikes stung out/blind corner= 2nd guy didnt see first guy hit the breaks or even know something was wrong till it was too late ?Dunno i wasn't there

smoky

16th January 2009, 19:49

Interesting question (and I know I'm likely to get flamed)......

The three bikes that hit that tanker were supposedly travelling line astern. How on earth did they all manage to hit it if they weren't following each other way too close?

Yes, I'm aware it was a blind corner, but watching the rider ahead should certainly give a fair degree of warning if your spacing is adequate.

I agree entirely. I wasn't there so may be judging unfairly, but it is hard to imagine how this could have happened if the first rider was traveling at a safe speed given the ammount of road he could see clearly in front of him, and the following riders were respecting safe following distances.

I must admit I'm guilty of having ignored both of those at times but it is something I think about regularly when riding and conciously try to improve on.

Good on ya spookytooth - you're right;
I lived on that road, I know the spot, I’ve also felt my heart leap into my mouth coming over a blind hill at a reasonable speed to find a tanker pulling out of a farm crossing both sides of the road, leaving me with absolutely nowhere to go
RIP John – he wouldn’t of stood a chance at any speed.
Leave your ignorant comments out of this thread please

smoky

16th January 2009, 19:59

All depends really – not talking legally of course, but If I’m coming up behind traffic with the intention of overtaking I can be guilty of following to close while waiting for on coming traffic to clear, or just timing it so I don’t have slow down too much and can overtake a bit quicker on a shorter bit of road. Of course I’ve changed down and can see past the car in front.

I know it’s wrong, I know it’s illegal, and on occasions the car in front does something unpredictable, I have always had a contingency plan – or I wouldn’t do it

Now here comes the flack

Katman

16th January 2009, 20:08

Leave your ignorant comments out of this thread please

Who the fuck are you talking to?

For three bikes to concertina into a vehicle, that even the first rider should have made allowance for being there, suggests something inherently wrong with the manner in which the bikes were ridden.

Much the same as the two bikes in the Buller Gorge.

smoky

16th January 2009, 20:17

Who the fuck are you talking to?

For three bikes to concertina into a vehicle, that even the first rider should have made allowance for being there, suggests something inherently wrong with the manner in which the bikes were ridden.

Much the same as the two bikes in the Buller Gorge.

Have you been drinking – or are you just not thinking tonight?

The topic of this thread can be well discussed without surmising or supposing about something we don’t have all the facts about.
I think you're wrong

I don’t believe articulated trucks should be able to pull across the entire road, meters the other side of a blind spot.
There should be a law requiring them to pull out to the left only on country roads.
It may have had nothing to do with their riding style

mattian

16th January 2009, 20:18

Who the fuck are you talking to?

For three bikes to concertina into a vehicle that even the first rider should have made allowance for being there suggests something inherently wrong with the manner in which the bikes were ridden.

Much the same as the two bikes in the Buller Gorge.

Can we stay on topic please?.... and not turn this into a bitch fight

Katman

16th January 2009, 20:24

I don’t believe articulated trucks should be able to pull across the entire road, meters the other side of a blind spot.
There should be a law requiring them to pull out to the left only on country roads.

Do you understand the concept of being able to stop within the distance visible in front of you?

:weird:

CB ARGH

16th January 2009, 20:30

I learnt the hard way about following distances. Was riding along waiting to pass a slow vehicle, I was tailgating, as we came around a corner all of a sudden a beer bottle appears from under the car, I have no time to react and hit it directly, thank god I wasn't leaned over.

A few KM's down the road the steering gets super heavy, and I pull off to the side of the road. Flat front tyre. Cycletreads wouldn't repair it due to legal reasons (apparently it is illegal to repair a front tyre), so I had to replace it.

---------

I stick about 3 or 4 bike lengths behind the vehicle infront. That's enough for me.

R6_kid

16th January 2009, 20:33

Although Katman is right in theory about the 'being able to stop in the visible distance' could we please reserve this thread for the 'following distance' debate only.

R6_kid

16th January 2009, 20:35

I stick about 3 or 4 bike lengths behind the vehicle infront. That's enough for me.

At what speed? That may be ok at 50kmh but at 100kmh would you still stop in time?

I tend to use the '2 second rule' and will admit to at times even counting it out after the vehicle in front passes a road side object. Over time i've built up a pretty good judgement of what that distance is at different speeds and I keep the appropriate distance for the speed I am doing.

Katman

16th January 2009, 20:35

Although Katman is right in theory about the 'being able to stop in the visible distance' could we please reserve this thread for the 'following distance' debate only.

I thought that was exactly what I was talking about.

Ixion

16th January 2009, 20:39

Although Katman is right in theory about the 'being able to stop in the visible distance' could we please reserve this thread for the 'following distance' debate only.

Uh, what is the difference? Surely the safe following distance is that which enables one to stop in the clear road ahead.

And the lack of visibility over blind hill tops - might that be why the Road Code has some words of wisdom to say about speed over said hill tops? As well as round blind bends.

The greatest single fault of the NZ motorist. The insistent notion that someone is responsible for ensuring that there will never be an obstruction on the far side of that hill or bend.

It's all in the Road Code. It works. He who runs may rede. And ride.

smoky

16th January 2009, 20:48

Do you understand the concept of being able to stop within the distance visible in front of you?

:weird:

Do you understand the concept of decency?

This topic can be discussed without you, or anyone else making ignorant comments about an accident they have no knowledge about, other than their own troglodyte self righteous, up their own arse opinion.
Wanker

McDuck

16th January 2009, 20:54

Highlander

16th January 2009, 20:57

I tend to use the '2 second rule' and will admit to at times even counting it out after the vehicle in front passes a road side object. Over time i've built up a pretty good judgement of what that distance is at different speeds and I keep the appropriate distance for the speed I am doing.

I count it out often. I make it at least 2 seconds (3 is better still) behind the vehicle in front of me (bike, car, what ever) even if riding staggered in a group. That makes it 2 seconds behind the bike in front no matter where in the lane he is.

sinned

16th January 2009, 20:58

2 Seconds is a basic rule for 4 wheeled vehicles and it is a reasonable allowance for reaction time. However while on a bike I consider 2 seconds not enough for a number of reasons: 1) I can't be covering the front brake all the time and don't, 2) a car can stop quicker than a bike and with ABS any idiot can out brake a bike, 3) no need to follow close as a bike has excellent acceleration making passing so wonderfully easy.

Riding in groups is high risk. It is easy to become complacent and get sucked along with the group (following the tail) - when someone stops quickly that 2 second gap disappears in a blink. I still go on group rides but am aware of the risks. 4 Seconds is a minimum for group rides even though this spreads the group out.

Allowing 3 to 4 seconds and not sitting directly behind the vehicle in front so the bike can slip past instead on being sandwiched seems right to me.

stormerUK

17th January 2009, 02:37

Generally the 2 second rule at 100kph should apply...unless you have a chelsea tractor behind you! A modern day bike will stop on dry roads in about 1/2 the distance of one of them beasts due to weight difference so to avoid becoming a meat sandwich go for twice x 2sec. Obviously moving up to the overtake position when the road plan allows is different.

Brian d marge

17th January 2009, 03:57

Hes right you know , to stop within the visible distance ....and one does have to wonder.......

There was a few years back on KB an unfortunate fella who was killed by I think a truly unfortunate means ...the road dipped BUT looked flat , he thought it was safe.... pulled out and a car appeared .... ( but even then if you dot pull into the on comming lane there is plenty of room for a bike on the centre line ,,,

my rule of thumb ...if I cant get CLEAR ROAD in front of me then its 2 seconds from the car in front positioning either to the far left or far right ,,preferably to the right ... and in the car in fronts rear wing mirror ,,,so if he looks I am all he /she can see... And my reaction point is 5 to 8 cars ahead of the one I am following ...there are no surprises

My first accident on a suzuki a 100 yes back then ,,,after the triumph terrier ...was up the arse of a car , because I was watching a bird with not a lot on ,,,,,,nice tits too ...

had gonads the size of watermellons for weeks afterwards ....Kama its a biyatch

Now the last scary moment driving ANY thing was possibly 10 years ago ..and I am struggling to remember what it was ..... Comming down Fuji san in the middle of winter , ice an inch thick over the road ...other than that cant remember that includes people pulling out , running reds ,,, being beamed down from the star ship enterprise , ,,,Cows ...now that did happen ,,, a cow jumped a fence and into the road ,,, thats was about 12 or more years ago ......

Operator error , is the main cause of all my wee excurtions ...and before anyone shouts holier than thou ..... I have in my day wriiten off a mini ..by using a cb 360 . high sided a rgv at 140 kph , wearing jeans , a jacket and ,,,gasp an open face ... ruined a good jacket that did , been run over by a double decker bus ( try that one for size then ! ) Owned and rode a BSA bantam at 85 mph on the Finsbury park road While spliiting lanes /////:spanking:.... it takes a super tanker less distance to stop than the Bantam ( great bikes )

So the soap box isnt out on parade here ,,,But ...there are some big no nos on a bike ....following behind a car , and crossing the nicely painted line in the middle of the road... what ever the color ! and not being able to stop in the didtance that is clear ahead ...

and that does mean the rocket powered car at the junction that can magically go from zero to 8 meters 1 sec in the time it takes a bike to travel 30 meters.

Finally Katman , you know what happens when you start questioning the locals driving skills , they are all good ruders , it was the unexpected that caught them out thats all....

Stephen

PrincessBandit

17th January 2009, 08:41

Had to have words with number one son yesterday while riding back from Hamilton. I let him lead, me behind him and (because we had all headed down on different days) husband and daughter were in car behind me.

As ripperroo rides my ginny I decided to let him set the pace, being on the least grunty machine. We both had words with him regarding his following distance (or lack thereof). His riding would have been fine - doing everything well EXCEPT that he had a weird attraction to the rear of any vehicle in front of him. Rik and myself carefully explained (again) why this is a huge no-no, but it was disappointing to see that he still has to be spoken to about it.

But, we will keep doing our best to instruct him and hope that he doesn't ever have to learn the hard way.

It is an easy habit to form, counting off your following distance, as is doing a circuit mirror check. BUT it is a habit that needs to be cultivated and practiced. With all the drilling into us of "the following driver being at fault" in the event of a nose to tail etc or coming unexpectedly upon a road blockage of any type (i.e. being able to stop even in the event of the unexpected) it is hard to believe there are still so many incidents of this nature.

Richi

17th January 2009, 09:03

spookytooth

17th January 2009, 09:21

they must have alot higher speed limet down south than up here 180kph ?

PrincessBandit

17th January 2009, 09:28

from my understanding the 2 second rul allows enough distance for you to react and stop before hitting the car/bike in front when they emergency brake. If they had a head-on collision i imagine they would almost instantaneously come to a stand stall. I doubt 2 seconds would save u there so good on ya for trying to blame the guys "following too close"

Unusual reasoning - what difference is there between hitting a vehicle that comes to an "almost instantaneous stand still" in front of you and one which is obscured or hidden from view around a corner. That is what riding to what you can see is all about. It is our preconceptions that a vehicle in front of us will continue to travel as they are that lead us into a false sense of security when getting too close behind them.

I think I know what you are trying say, but my understanding of the 2 second rule is obviously different to yours. My understanding is that is to allow you reaction and stopping/avoidance time for ANY problem in front of you, not just a leading vehicle to "emergency brake".

smoky

17th January 2009, 09:35

So you all going to ride with a safe stopping distance in front of you at all times?

So taking a normal bend in the road you will maintain about 100 meters clear visibility at 100klm/hr.
You will of course have to keep more than the 2 seconds stopping distance in a corner – stopping quickly while leaning over is bit more difficult, so I think you’ll have to observe about a 5 second rule to be safe.
Blind hills would be the same

Now actually go out and ride like that (honestly) on a back road, or any road off the main highways, you’ll find corner after corner after corner where you’ll be slowing down to ridiculous speeds and probably give up pretty quickly
Be honest here – I’ve tried it, I agree with the sentiment, I agree with the general principal, I agree that’s a good way to ride where practical, but to ride (or even drive a car) like that at all times I would suggest is not going to happen.

There is and always will be the unexpected, always expect something unexpected, but it will always catch when you’re not expecting it.
Bike failure, puncture, even on a straight bit of road some dick can pull out in front of you.
Bikes aren’t a practically safe form of transport – it’s a calculated risk
But then so is driving a car – just a lower risk

Road Guardian

17th January 2009, 10:51

Two seconds works for me, four when it's raining (but then my brains saying "it's ice, it's ice) leave too much and some fucknuckle in a cage will fill it up. Nana's live longer I reccon.

Yea I like you style, and yes, cagers tend to do stupid things, and don't think about other road users, and will fill the gaps like that.

PrincessBandit

17th January 2009, 11:02

Yeah, was thinking about what i posted just before and realised that it kinda fits more with the 12 second rule. Using the variety of "seconds" rules should minimise crashes. Even travelling around a corner how many people barge on round assuming that the way will be clear (which it is probably 99.8% of the time) and then massively go fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccckkkkkkkkk when that .2% occurs.
As for cars shoving into your following distance each person uses their discretion as to how to deal with it, and yes it may mean on occasion just letting them do it, regardless of whether they're a dick or not.

Manxman

17th January 2009, 11:10

I generally conform to the 2 second rule, except when lining up to overtake (obviously).

However, this concept nearly cost me dearly yesterday (and, after a good night's, rest still don't think I am underestimating the situation) going up Haywards toward Porirua, when a truck decided that because he was indicating to overtake a slower truck in his lane, he had an absolute right to pull right into the (2 second) gap in front of me in the right hand lane (despite the fact that I'm travelling about 20-30kph faster than him in a line of orderly overtaking traffic).

Anchors were thrown out pretty fecken big time, as I was rapidly and just a liiiittle scarily forced into the good ole cheesecutters, and missed them by inches, before regaining full control. Fuppin good one.

:mellow::Oi::finger::tugger::slap::spanking::bash: :ar15::slap:

Had I stopped to sort it out with him, it's probably fair to say blood would have spilled liberally....but he wisely back riiiight off (I overtook him and 'waved' animatedly on the way past), for the rest of the journey - which was actually quite pleasant, especially going around the Pauahatanui Inlet.:2thumbsup

Now, I have to say that I have seen this a few times around Welly dual carriageways/motorways (ie people thinking that simply because they're indicating to move into the right lane, means that have a God given right to do so, regardless of the faster speed of traffic already in that lane), so perhaps I should have anticipated....but you just can't prepare yourself for every complete fecken feckwit manoeuvre on the road...

bikemike

17th January 2009, 11:40

I've been thinking about this recently. There is the issue of being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, when not following. I guess you use experience and judgement,limit point, or even the 2/4 seconds rules.
Back to simple following - no corners, not overtaking etc.

Two seconds is good because it's time based and expands as speed goes up. Without getting into how good that relationship is with the rising braking ditances - it's a good starting point - I found myself naming the shit that appeared as the car in front drove on....
Tar band, white paint, man hole, pot hole, litter, bottle, can, ball, newspaper, old tyre strip, dead cat etc.

If you are two seconds or more AND you can keep your eyes ahead AND name the thing that you see BEFORE you get to it, then you also account somewhat for the state of your mind as well as the speed of your bike. I know that language (generally) operates somewhere else in the brain to motor but, some account of cognitive speed is still there.

It's not perfect either, but on good days I can name stuff in two seconds. On bad days I pull back.
Anyone else tried this?

Richi

17th January 2009, 16:10

Unusual reasoning - what difference is there between hitting a vehicle that comes to an "almost instantaneous stand still" in front of you and one which is obscured or hidden from view around a corner. That is what riding to what you can see is all about. It is our preconceptions that a vehicle in front of us will continue to travel as they are that lead us into a false sense of security when getting too close behind them.

I think I know what you are trying say, but my understanding of the 2 second rule is obviously different to yours. My understanding is that is to allow you reaction and stopping/avoidance time for ANY problem in front of you, not just a leading vehicle to "emergency brake".

Yea i guess we must have slightly different understanding of it, next time im out on my bike I might try this and get a good idea of how far 2 seconds is at 100kmph then try and completely stop in that distance. I dont rate my chances maybe i underestimate the braking power!

Jantar

17th January 2009, 16:17

Yea i guess we must have slightly different understanding of it, next time im out on my bike I might try this and get a good idea of how far 2 seconds is at 100kmph then try and completely stop in that distance. I dont rate my chances maybe i underestimate the braking power!

Don't bother trying. Stopping from 100 kmh to 0 in 2 seconds is 1.4G. The very best tyres will only permit a 0.9 G decelleration under ideal conditions.

The 2 seconds following distance is to allow for reaction time and response, not to actually stop. You should be looking for hazards 9 to 12 seconds ahead to allow for both reaction and stopping distance.

karla

17th January 2009, 16:27

I got told a while ago that you should be able to have the car in frount stop dead and you be able to slow enough that you hare happy to hit it. Or avoid it etc. I think a shade (but bugger all) under the 2 second rule fits well.

Eek - I must have misread somewhere, or am overly cautious, 'cos I use the 12 second rule :)

Coming home from doing the Mainland Driving school advanced riding course a delivery truck I was following on the open road locked up his wheels for no apparent reason, and started skidding down the road in front of me.

It was lovely to be able to brake and slow down immediately, without panicking, without locking up the back wheel, and without hitting the truck. Certainly helps after having done a a few practice stops at 100ks per/hr on the racetrack.

Richi

17th January 2009, 17:05

R6_kid

19th January 2009, 16:42

Smoky, i see what you are saying. I know it doesnt happen 100% of the time in practice.

I'm not saying we should all be nannas and wear bubble wrap when we ride, this is simply a discussion to get people actively thinking about their following distances - whether it be from a truck/car/another bike is irrespective.

I would most likely be right in assuming that A LOT of 'accidents' would not happen if people observed better following distances from other vehicles. For instance, a Hyosung rider which a friend of mine helped to pull out of a ditch after he ran up the ass of the rider in front when they slowed down suddenly.

swbarnett

20th January 2009, 16:52

I think the point about being able to stop in your visibility when it comes to blind corners is a good one. I also accept that this seldom happens in practice. I know I'm slower on blind corners than equivalent clear ones. However, I'm probably still not slow enough to stop completely in my visibility. I suppose the point is that if you don't travel slow enough around blind corners and come to grief then you must accept at lease some of the blame for the accident.

ElCoyote

20th January 2009, 18:10

Do you understand the concept of being able to stop within the distance visible in front of you?

:weird:

Actually isn't it half the clear distance ahead:Playnice:

Katman

20th January 2009, 18:36

Actually isn't it half the clear distance ahead:Playnice:

On a road with a marked centre line it's the visible distance in front of you.

On a road without a centre line it's half the visible distance.

It is the main thought in my mind everytime I take a blind corner - can I stop in the distance I can see?

Anyone who says you can't always ride like that, is talking bullshit. You can - and you should.

The one time that theory won't work is if someone in the oncoming traffic is overtaking another vehicle on that blind corner.

(Hey, that sounds like something motorcyclists have a wont to do).

PrincessBandit

21st January 2009, 06:21

Don't bother trying. Stopping from 100 kmh to 0 in 2 seconds is 1.4G. The very best tyres will only permit a 0.9 G decelleration under ideal conditions.

The 2 seconds following distance is to allow for reaction time and response, not to actually stop. You should be looking for hazards 9 to 12 seconds ahead to allow for both reaction and stopping distance.

Good point (second sentence) damned physics! - think I did say stopping/avoidance in my earlier post.

The use of the 12 second rule is often underrated by some people, they focus almost exclusively on the vehicle in front of them at the expense of keeping an eye out for what is further up ahead or beyond that vehicle. While the vehicle immediately in front is understandably of greatest concern due to it's proximity much avoidance of hazards can be countered by looking ahead of those vehicles as well.

Grizzo

21st January 2009, 06:40

personally for me...4 to 5 seconds behind ...always leave myself a good space

but then I am a bit of a nanna on the road...
Yep same for me, I always like to leave a little space.

NordieBoy

21st January 2009, 07:27

1) I can't be covering the front brake all the time and don't

Really?
I always cover the front brake. My forefingers are always resting on the clutch and brake levers. It's just where they go when I hop on a bike.

NordieBoy

21st January 2009, 07:40

Don't bother trying. Stopping from 100 kmh to 0 in 2 seconds is 1.4G. The very best tyres will only permit a 0.9 G decelleration under ideal conditions.

I dunno.
Get a wasp in your helmet and it's amazing how quickly you can stop. Laws of physics be damned.

BMWST?

21st January 2009, 09:25

a motorcyclist should have a pretty good reaction time(ie getting fingers onto front brake,and most bikes will stop pretty quickly.So when you have to slam on your brakes because the car in front has to stop suddenly you should stop clear of him.....MOST(not all) motorcyclists follow too close,and a hell of a lot of cars too esp on motorways...We should all observe the 2 sec rule and visible distance in front stopping diistance..we will come of worst if we dont.

Badjelly

21st January 2009, 09:58

...It is the main thought in my mind everytime I take a blind corner - can I stop in the distance I can see? Anyone who says you can't always ride like that, is talking bullshit. You can - and you should...

I agree. You can and you should ride so you can stop in the distance you can see. I always try to do that and I think I usually succeed.

Riding so you can stop in half the distance you can see, as you're supposed to do on roads without a centre line, is more problematic. Just imagine you're on a road that's too narrow for two vehicles to pass each other. Could you stop if you met yourself coming the other way? Hmmm, maybe not. It means going pretty slow, and it assumes the other guy is going equally slow.

Following the 2-second following rule and the "stop in the clear distance ahead" rule helps you cope with a lot of things. It means you should be able to stop if the vehicle in front brakes hard and unexpectedly and it means you shouldn't hit a stationary object that's been left on the road. It doesn't allow for everything. It doesn't allow for stock or pedestrians that move onto the road suddenly, it doesn't allow for vehicles that come onto your side of the road round a blind corner, it doesn't allow for the vehicle in front of you running into something solid (though you should have seen that coming and backed off) and it doesn't allow for debris that appear when the vehicle in front drives over them (eg when some bastard stole some headstones from Karori Cemetery and left them on Karori Rd). There's no simple rule you can follow that will protect you from everything.

Chrislost

21st January 2009, 10:30

The greatest single fault of the NZ motorist. The insistent notion that someone is responsible for ensuring that there will never be an obstruction on the far side of that hill or bend.

is this not coming from the fact that the police advertise that they are over every blind crest / round every corner waiting for the speeding motorists, and that there wont be any cos theres a cop there...

right?

scracha

21st January 2009, 16:43

2s rule is the bare minimum in the dry for a car. If the car in front does an emergency stop then most bikers following just 2s behind will run into the back of the vehicle in front. Talking about bikes weighing less isn't valid as cars have 4 sticky rubber things stopping them whereas in an emergency stop bikes tend to just have 1 sticky rubber thing. Empty tankers with lots and lots of wheels stop unbelievably quickly in the wet or dry. I think Alex Barros is the only guy who'd maybe get away with 4s in the wet against your average car with ABS.

But 2s is better than the 0.2s I see most bikers following other vehicles on the roads.

Overtaking: you're on a bike. There is no need to drive up the car in front's ass. In fact, even in a car there's no need to drive up the car in front's ass. Pull back a little, look for a gap (much easier to see when you're not right up their arse), check mirror, indicate, time it, start accelerating, check your blind spot and pull out to the other lane well before you're up the other vehicles ass and you'll have a far bigger speed differential (and thus safer overtake) than trying to floor it from right behind the other vehicle. If more drivers learned to drive in ickle engined vehicles they'd know how to do this.

Stopping in visible distance...ok, I'm a naughty boy sometimes but cresting blind hills and going round blind bends at warp speed is bonkers. Pick a speed where you'll at least be able to change your line, brake a little and survive (e.g. hit the thing at 30 instead of 80) if there's something strange round the next bend.

DarkLord

26th January 2009, 13:03

I'm all for the two second rule as well. Failure to comply to that rule resulted in a nasty surprise when I looked at my speedo for a split second and looked up to see the back of the car right in front of me. That cost me my bike as I hit the front brake and the bike slid out from under me and went across the road on its side and was collected by an oncoming car.

Now I make sure I keep a good distance. What really fucks me off though is when I'm following someone at a safe distance and the muppet behind me starts tailgating me because he obviously "thinks I'm going too slow and should be right behind the car in front of me". They've obviously never had a crash like I had if they think like that.

sugilite

27th January 2009, 21:02

Really?
I always cover the front brake. My forefingers are always resting on the clutch and brake levers. It's just where they go when I hop on a bike.

Amen to that. It is a really good habit to get into, and as an added bonus it stops one from gripping the bars to tightly. Not having to curl, lift and then extend the fingers to get to the front brake lever can be the difference between making it, or not.

The way I look at the two second thing is that you have 2 seconds to come up with and execute a PLAN relevant to the road conditions, surrounding vehicles etc and then have a greater rate of retardation than the vehicle in front. Having a plan "B" also helps. Can everybody do all that in two seconds? Two seconds is a good starting point I suppose, but should not set in concrete. Riding to ones abilities and adding more time will only enhance and extend ones motorcycling fun, enjoyment and safety :yes:

sunhuntin

28th January 2009, 07:42

in town, i leave as much room as possible. either room enough for another vehicle, or a gap big enough for the number plate to blur. i figure if i can read their plate, im too close. open road, that gap gets doubled or more, unless im overtaking, in which case i get quite close in the lead up to the passing lane. if i dont do that, i dont have a shit show in hell of overtaking... which is why i dont often overtake. lol.

sometimes though, i find myself looking ahead of the car, and creep up. then i re-focus on the car, which makes me drop back pretty quick.

madbikeboy

24th February 2009, 09:17

Okay, I'm about to get some bad press - but hear me out first.

99% of the time, having a good gap is absolutely essential - this is especially true when over taking.

No disagreement at all from me.

But, there are a couple of instances where following closely makes sense.

In a target / risk rich environment, for example, heavy traffic in the morning - where the sun is behind you - think of this from the point of view of someone pulling across your lane to execute a right turn who will not see you with the sun in their eyes, then riding in a car's "shadow" can make sense.

The logic is that the car turning may not see you at all, but they are more likely to see a car - so, assuming you can see over the car, you can close the gap. I'm an ex-competitive cyclist, and that skill provides some practice for this - imagine riding on a track at 55kph with no brakes with an inch of separation.

Okay, so point is, you sit in the car's "shadow" - since you cannot safely project your presence, you let the car do it for you.

Your road position is critically important - I tend to sit with the centreline of the bike along the right flank of the car, a small push of the bar will see you alongside the car and safely braked (think about the advantage of being beside a car, rather than between the braking car and car behind that may not be paying attention to what's ahead).

Now, this was taught to me by an advanced instructor years ago, he was an ex-mc cop in the UK, and he taught police to ride... I have used it, and it has saved me on quite a few occasions - I've escaped from being sandwiched in a rear end accident twice now.

One other thing, a slight weave when you've got a car about to pull in front of you sometimes alerts them to your presence...

sunhuntin

24th February 2009, 09:27

i do the weave thing when coming up to one high traffic corner that has seen me hit in the past by a blind bitch. depending on the traffic and weather conditions, i also couple this with my high beam. i also use these as other situations demand. the brakes generally get covered here as well, and my speed drops to about 40-45k, specially when im riding into the early morning sun, and my sunglasses dont seem dark enough.

i try to avoid being hidden by the car in front. this means i will slow down till theres a gap im happy with, and then begin the weave so cars on both sides of an intersection can see me. i use a slow weave, staying left or right for a few seconds before moving over. this also allows me to see around whatever im following and see whats waiting at the intersection.

xwhatsit

24th February 2009, 11:53

then riding in a car's "shadow" can make sense.
That's what I slowly picked up on doing when in serious heavy traffic when commuting. Coming up Manukau Rd there's many places where car drivers try to turn right across you, no chance of visibility at certain times of the day.

Perhaps it's just because I ride a lightweight narrow bike from the 80s which doesn't stop in a hurry, but I don't usually hit the brakes. Handlebars are much more effective at hazard avoidance.

I do the `weave' thing too with oncoming right-turners. Turn the bike out in front of them so you're in a position where you'd just about clip their wing mirror, then come back into your normal road position a few metres away. Usually makes you noticeable.

madbikeboy

24th February 2009, 12:22

That's what I slowly picked up on doing when in serious heavy traffic when commuting. Coming up Manukau Rd there's many places where car drivers try to turn right across you, no chance of visibility at certain times of the day.

Perhaps it's just because I ride a lightweight narrow bike from the 80s which doesn't stop in a hurry, but I don't usually hit the brakes. Handlebars are much more effective at hazard avoidance.

I do the `weave' thing too with oncoming right-turners. Turn the bike out in front of them so you're in a position where you'd just about clip their wing mirror, then come back into your normal road position a few metres away. Usually makes you noticeable.

Yeah, I'm glad to see you do that. I've had an explanation from a occupational pyschologist that the weaving means you are either percieved as being wider (and therefore bigger and a threat), or it could be explained by the tracking outside what the motorist has already dismissed, and therefore attention gets reapplied.

xwhatsit

24th February 2009, 14:23

James Deuce

24th February 2009, 16:02

I think it's because when an object is just coming towards you in a straight line, the only indication it is moving (and hence attention-grabbing) is the fact that it is growing in size. Because motorcycles are narrow, this effect is pretty negligible compared to a wide car. When you swerve like that, you're moving across the field of view, so it's a big, obvious movement that they can see very well.

It's called motion camouflage and it's how dragonflies hunt. There's a lot of literature about motion camouflage in relation to motorcycles. The same effect causes people to try and cross level crossings in front of thousands of tonnes of freight train. Trains stay relatively static in size compared to the scenery as they approach, just like bikes.

swbarnett

24th February 2009, 16:28

I think it's because when an object is just coming towards you in a straight line, the only indication it is moving (and hence attention-grabbing) is the fact that it is growing in size. Because motorcycles are narrow, this effect is pretty negligible compared to a wide car. When you swerve like that, you're moving across the field of view, so it's a big, obvious movement that they can see very well.
Exactly. We are all predators genetically, our brains are queued to detect lateral movement. Anything coming towards us slow enough relative to it's size is effectively not moving.

sinned

24th February 2009, 16:54

But, there are a couple of instances where following closely makes sense.

In a target / risk rich environment, for example, heavy traffic in the morning - where the sun is behind you - think of this from the point of view of someone pulling across your lane to execute a right turn who will not see you with the sun in their eyes, then riding in a car's "shadow" can make sense.

The logic is that the car turning may not see you at all, but they are more likely to see a car - so, assuming you can see over the car, you can close the gap.

Okay, so point is, you sit in the car's "shadow" - since you cannot safely project your presence, you let the car do it for you.

This makes sense to me and I often close the gap at an intersection to get protection from the car in front if the car on either side of the intersection hasn't seen me. It is risk management; I am increasing the risk of not being able to stop and minimizing the risk of getting wiped out.

Really?
I always cover the front brake. My forefingers are always resting on the clutch and brake levers. It's just where they go when I hop on a bike. I find it too difficult to hold the bars and a steady throttle with one or two fingers resting on the levers. It sounds like a good practice but doesn't work for me.

It's called motion camouflage and it's how dragonflies hunt. There's a lot of literature about motion camouflage in relation to motorcycles. The same effect causes people to try and cross level crossings in front of thousands of tonnes of freight train. Trains stay relatively static in size compared to the scenery as they approach, just like bikes. I am right into weaving and do it at most intersections where traffic is waiting. Sometimes wonder what people watching think I am doing.

Clubbie

10th March 2009, 14:31

Really interesting thread so far! I have a question about the weaving technique, would you do it on the open road approaching a side road?
If so tell me about how far out you'd do it from, how much you'd weave etc.
I ride like a nanna so assume my speed is 95-100Km/h

newbould

11th April 2009, 17:45

I have noteced a few times commuting that I am commanding more respect than usual coming up to junctions - then realised that I am being tailed by a 4wd - so i am in its "shadow" in front of it. So maybe slowing back from the vehocle in front could also increase your visibility. Also worth noting that if you are being blinded by a low sun then you are very visible to drivers looking at you with the sun behond them - it is when the sun is behind you that you become invisible - like wwII fighter pilots attacking from way high up with the sun behind them - not that I've ever been there! I also extend following distance when I am being tailgated so I hope I can slow more gradually if needed. I do like the idea of stopping alongside the vehiocle in front rather than being meat in the sandwich - thanks for that tip.

LBD

11th April 2009, 18:44

Following distance, clear visibility/stopping distance are both different.

The 2 second dry, 4 second wet following distance guide lines have kept me safe many years riding.

Following distance is not related to visible distance, if you can see the road infront of you, even if part of that road is occupied by the car or cars in front of you. I always watch both the car(s) in front and the road ahead of them.

Covering the brake? Not always when riding but always following or on twisties or blind corners or unfenced road or where there is good chances of other surprises

James Deuce

11th April 2009, 19:23

Also worth noting that if you are being blinded by a low sun then you are very visible to drivers looking at you with the sun behond them - it is when the sun is behind you that you become invisible - like wwII fighter pilots attacking from way high up with the sun behind them -

In addition to that point, if you have your headlight on in that situation you are indeed completely invisible as the headlight prevents you from being seen in silhouette.

caseye

11th April 2009, 20:35

Wow,some damn fine ideas out there, the consensus is that the simple 2 sec rule is not actuially enough to make sure you can stop in time.
So 12 senonds seems more adaquete, but may still not be enough time.
These days, I leave a big gap, 1-200m's in front of me( on motorways) a bit less in town and to hell with the que jumpers and the tailgaters who come roaring up behind me in their tin cans.
I even go so far as to hit the brakes hard if i can't see their number plates in my rear views.though this is not advisable practice when being tailgated by a car full of mob members.
I have found that over the days, weeks, months since I've started taking my current route to work that many people have left the gap and adopted that gap for themsleves behind me.And this in Dorkland!
Road conditions, traffic flow and driver attitude all have to be considered, if you don't allow for absolutely everything something will jump out and bite ya!
Yep I've also been known to tap on a nasty cage drivers window and request that they stay well away from my behind, ah behind me while travelling I mean't.