# Question for the LEO's



## Jade Tigress (Mar 30, 2007)

On the way to work this morning my husband was rear ended. He was on the expressway and traffic was typically congested and stop and go. He was slowing down and was going about 30 when a woman slammed into him at about 60. He said it didn't look like she even tried to slow down, she must have been looking down, or something. He overheard her telling the officer that "the sun must have been in her eyes". It's an overcast day. The officer asked no questions about what happened, just wrote an accident report and left.

Anyway, an accident report is filed, but no ticket was issued to the woman. I found that unusual. Is that common? Why wouldn't she be given a ticket for that? 

Thanks.


----------



## Drac (Mar 30, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> On the way to work this morning my husband was rear ended. He was on the expressway and traffic was typically congested and stop and go. He was slowing down and was going about 30 when a woman slammed into him at about 60. He said it didn't look like she even tried to slow down, she must have been looking down, or something. He overheard her telling the officer that "the sun must have been in her eyes". It's an overcast day. The officer asked no questions about what happened, just wrote an accident report and left.
> 
> Anyway, an accident report is filed, but no ticket was issued to the woman. I found that unusual. Is that common? Why wouldn't she be given a ticket for that?
> 
> Thanks.


 
She'd have gotten one from me...Yes, that is unusal..Every jurisdiction does thing different..


----------



## LawDog (Mar 30, 2007)

It is very difficult to answer a question like this one. Every accident has it's own unique situations and a multitude of variables.
Each individual state & local agency has it's own policies & procedures on how to handle various tasks.
The best way to get the correct answer is to go to that law enforcement agency and ask the officer involved or a supervisor directly.


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> On the way to work this morning my husband was rear ended. He was on the expressway and traffic was typically congested and stop and go. He was slowing down and was going about 30 when a woman slammed into him at about 60. He said it didn't look like she even tried to slow down, she must have been looking down, or something. He overheard her telling the officer that "the sun must have been in her eyes". It's an overcast day. The officer asked no questions about what happened, just wrote an accident report and left.
> 
> Anyway, an accident report is filed, but no ticket was issued to the woman. I found that unusual. Is that common? Why wouldn't she be given a ticket for that?
> 
> Thanks.



Wow, that's bizarre, Pam! I've been rear-ended, and there was no question: it was the guy behind me who was at fault. No matter what happens, they are responsible for the accident (apart from cases where a `chain' of rear-end collisions occurs; there it's the rearmost driver's fault).

I had witnesses. But the officer indicated that they wouldn't be needed. The rear-end situation was obvious (it was somehow clear from the physical evidence that I hadn't been driving backwards) and automatically put the other people in the wrong. And other people who I talked to about it afterward indicated that when they'd been rear-ended, it was the same thing.

Something sounds seriously wrong in the picture you've described.


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2007)

There is a difference between fault in an accident and being cited with a moving violation.

I recently rear ended somebody.  I was clearly at fault but I didn't get a ticket....I'm just going to get a nasty hike on my insurance.


----------



## Drac (Mar 30, 2007)

LawDog said:


> The best way to get the correct answer is to go to that law enforcement agency and ask the officer involved or a supervisor directly.


 
Yep, that will work too..Thanks LawDog...


----------



## LawDog (Mar 30, 2007)

I just bet that someone that we all know just batted her eye lashes to get out of a ticket.


----------



## Drac (Mar 30, 2007)

LawDog said:


> I just bet that someone that we all know just batted her eye lashes to get out of a ticket.


 
Yeah probably...


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2007)

LawDog said:


> I just bet that someone that we all know just batted her eye lashes to get out of a ticket.



No sir, I...uh...crashed in front of a Dunkin Donuts.  I'm afraid not even my baby blues could keep the fine gent from the Danvers barracks from his coffee...after he made sure were were OK, of course.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 30, 2007)

In front of a D.D.? That's like having an accident infront of a police station.


----------



## Drac (Mar 30, 2007)

LawDog said:


> In front of a D.D.? That's like having an accident infront of a police station.


 
In some cities YEP..


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 30, 2007)

LawDog said:


> I just bet that someone that we all know just batted her eye lashes to get out of a ticket.



LOL! I asked my husband about that...he said the woman was about 60. (not that she couldn't have been a fantatic looking 60-year-old, just not the batting eyelashes type LOL)

Seriously, thanks for the replies. I just thought it was really weird that she wouldn't get a ticket for a moving violation. I mean, if you rear-end someone aren't you at the least driving too fast for conditions? My husband didn't hit the guy in front of him, he had plenty of room. And this is morning rush hour for cryin out loud. Not like my husband slammed on the brakes to avoid a dog running across the street or something. Anyway, it seemed odd to me so I thought I'd ask what the norm is.


----------



## Drac (Mar 30, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Anyway, it seemed odd to me so I thought I'd ask what the norm is.


 
As LawDog said each situation is unique....


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 30, 2007)

Each situation is different, and each agency has different policies.  Then there are state laws, too...

I've had pretty extensive crash reconstruction training.  Better than 90% of rear end accidents are going to be the fault of the driver who hits the first car.  Driver inattention or following too closely are almost always, in my experience, the cause.  However, weather conditions, sunlight, and other factors can figure into it.

That said -- as others have noted -- being at fault, and being charged are two different questions.  I know officers who don't cite unless there's an injury or major damage (in their opinion), and are within their agency's policies when they make that call.  Others almost have to cite someone in a crash...  For me, when I was in patrol, I generally cited the driver at fault, or most at fault unless it was clear that both contributed fairly equally or were seriously wrong.  At the same time, others would figure that the hit on the insurance and fixing the car, along with the DMV record of the crash, might be enough in some cases, and rarely cited.

I didn't work the crash; I don't know what the officer who did determined.  He may have found mitigating factors that you and your husband were unaware of.  I personally generally tried to explain my decision to all parties involved, just to avoid this sort of puzzlement. 

So... You ask what's the norm?  There probably isn't really one!


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2007)

LawDog said:


> In front of a D.D.? That's like having an accident infront of a police station.



And in front of a Dunkins with no drive through at that...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 30, 2007)

I'm curious what traffic violation you might think the woman may have made? If she was driving 60 miles an hour on an expressway, that is usually within the speed limit, isn't it? 

I'm not certain there are laws against being a bad driver. The police department, I have to imagine, has no part to play in the determination of liability from an insurance standpoint.

Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?


----------



## Kacey (Mar 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm curious what traffic violation you might think the woman may have made? If she was driving 60 miles an hour on an expressway, that is usually within the speed limit, isn't it?
> 
> I'm not certain there are laws against being a bad driver. The police department, I have to imagine, has no part to play in the determination of liability from an insurance standpoint.
> 
> Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?



Well, I'm not a LEO - but when my father was hit in similar circumstances, the driver who hit him was ticketed for following too closely.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 30, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Well, I'm not a LEO - but when my father was hit in similar circumstances, the driver who hit him was ticketed for following too closely.



That's along the lines I was thinking. 

This wasn't a little fender bender. The woman's car was totalled. My husbands SUV (company vehicle) will most likely need the bumper replaced. He was wearing his seat belt, but his glasses went flying off his head and were damaged. Thank God neither him, nor the other driver, appear to have any serious injuries, though I suspect my husband is going to be quite sore tomorrow.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm curious what traffic violation you might think the woman may have made? If she was driving 60 miles an hour on an expressway, that is usually within the speed limit, isn't it?
> 
> I'm not certain there are laws against being a bad driver. The police department, I have to imagine, has no part to play in the determination of liability from an insurance standpoint.
> 
> Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?


You've asked a couple of questions.

First -- most states use a very similar traffic code, adapted from sources like the Model Traffic Code.  Otherwise, you'd have to really worry about what was legal in each state as you drove. Imagine if, say, Virginia chose to drive on the right side of the road and Maryland used the left...  Talk about a nightmare!  Most states have laws against being a bad driver.  In Virginia, for example there is the state code violation of reckless driving for people who drive in such a way to endanger other people or property.  There are several specific instances, like reckless by speed or by driving a car with defective brakes, in addition to the general law.  There are also laws requiring that you be in control of the car, and many jurisdictions have laws requiring you to give your full-time attention to driving.  In particular to rear-end collisions are the following offenses: following too closely (in other words, following so close that you cannot stop if the car in front of you does), driving too fast for the conditions (if you're blasting through stop & go traffic at 60...even though you're not speeding by the posted limit, you're driving too fast for the traffic conditions; similarly, driving too fast to control the car on icy or foggy roads are other examples), reckless driving (multiple reasons; by definition, if you hit someone, you're endangering them!), fail to pay full time attention (hit them because you were changing the radio station, talking on the cell phone, putting on make-up or playing the violin), and various defective equipment violations if the cause was mechanical disrepair.  In the case at hand -- I'd probably have charged either following too closely, or fail to pay full time attention, depending on the exact circumstances and statements.

As to fault...  The police investigate accidents for simple reasons; we're there, there was often a violation of the traffic code, and we're interested in making the roads safer.  Police reports are also used by the highway department and other similar planning bodies to address road design and designate areas for traffic calming measures, or other changes to increase safety.  The insurance companies typically review police reports (if any) of accidents, as well as the statements made in the claims by the insured.  Depending on circumstances, they may contact the officer who investigated the crash.  In some cases, they even have their own accident reconstructionists investigate the case.  When they're done, the assign fault for payment, and they can assign fault in proportions (driver 1 was 70% at fault, but driver 2 was 30% at fault because they stopped in the roadway - in violation of the law - without cause, for example...)  Police reports generally simply identify the driver most at fault; the one who's actions caused the wreck.  The insurance companies dicker over how much each will pay...  And they usually do it all behind the scenes.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?


Reckless driving, following too closely, speed unsafe for conditions.


----------



## Tames D (Mar 30, 2007)

Rear ended at 60 mph, that's a helluva impact. Thank God your husband is ok. I would think he'd be in the hospital after that. What's he got a Guardian Angel in the car with him?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 30, 2007)

I dont think that in an obvious case like that, that a ticket is really "Needed". The insurance company can determine fault fairly quickly without it. If it was a complicated crash, a ticket could probably help the ins. co. sort out who was at fault.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 30, 2007)

QUI-GON said:


> Rear ended at 60 mph, that's a helluva impact. Thank God your husband is ok. I would think he'd be in the hospital after that. What's he got a Guardian Angel in the car with him?


 
That is truly what is important!


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 30, 2007)

QUI-GON said:


> Rear ended at 60 mph, that's a helluva impact. Thank God your husband is ok. I would think he'd be in the hospital after that. What's he got a Guardian Angel in the car with him?



Rear-ended at 30 MPH - the OP stated that her husband slowed to 30, he wasn't at a stand-still.  Still nasty, of course.


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2007)

It doesn't take that much to total a car with todays crumple zones.   Keep in mind, cars are basically made to be destroyed in a wreck so the impact goes in to the cars instead of the people.  My x-bf totalled his Honda Accord backing in to a telephone pole. 

Also when a smaller vehicle hits a larger vehicle, that does a helluva lot of damage.  I hit an SUV larger than mine and my speed at time of impact was 10-15 miles an hour, yet the insurance company assessed the damage at 3K. 

So glad hubby is OK Jade!  *hugs*  That must have been frightening!


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 30, 2007)

Pam, when that happened to me, (probably on the same expressway) the ticket WAS issued, and it was failure to reduce speed to aviod an accident, and following too closely.​


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 30, 2007)

Oh, and at least he wasn't in your car...

​


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Oh, and at least he wasn't in your car...
> 
> ​



AMEN!!!  Glad the hubby AND the Stang are OK!!


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 31, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Pam, when that happened to me, (probably on the same expressway) the ticket WAS issued, and it was failure to reduce speed to aviod an accident, and following too closely.​



Yep, probably was the same expressway (90). Traffic is ridiculous, AND with open road tolling. I don't get it.



			
				Cryozombie said:
			
		

> Oh, and at least he wasn't in your car...



Damn straight! I would have been the one causing injury instead of the accident! lol



			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> It doesn't take that much to total a car with todays crumple zones. Keep in mind, cars are basically made to be destroyed in a wreck so the impact goes in to the cars instead of the people. My x-bf totalled his Honda Accord backing in to a telephone pole.
> 
> Also when a smaller vehicle hits a larger vehicle, that does a helluva lot of damage. I hit an SUV larger than mine and my speed at time of impact was 10-15 miles an hour, yet the insurance company assessed the damage at 3K.
> 
> So glad hubby is OK Jade!  *hugs*  That must have been frightening!



Good point. The woman was driving a VW Passat and hubby a Blazer. Surprisingly, my husband feels fine. He's not even sore, even though the impact sent the glasses on his head flying off. Apparently, according to the insurance company, the other driver went to the hospital. Here's the thing...her passenger side airbag deployed, but the drivers side didn't. Hmmm. A little problem for VW don't ya think?


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Good point. The woman was driving a VW Passat and hubby a Blazer. Surprisingly, my husband feels fine. He's not even sore, even though the impact sent the glasses on his head flying off.



Chalk part of it up to the considerable mass difference between the two vehiclesyour husband had the good fortune to be in the bigger, heavier one. I'd guess his padded headrest transmitted enough force to knock his glasses off but damped down the shock enough to prevent major whiplash. 



Jade Tigress said:


> Apparently, according to the insurance company, the other driver went to the hospital. Here's the thing...her passenger side airbag deployed, but the drivers side didn't. Hmmm. A little problem for VW don't ya think?



I've been told that Volkswagon engineering isn't what it once was (or at least what people _think_ it used to be). But that sounds like a major, major screwup. Look out for a possible VW recall sometime in the nearish future...


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 31, 2007)

exile said:


> Look out for a possible VW recall sometime in the nearish future...



Yep. That's what I'm thinkin.


----------



## Carol (Mar 31, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Good point. The woman was driving a VW Passat and hubby a Blazer. Surprisingly, my husband feels fine. He's not even sore, even though the impact sent the glasses on his head flying off. Apparently, according to the insurance company, the other driver went to the hospital. Here's the thing...her passenger side airbag deployed, but the drivers side didn't. Hmmm. A little problem for VW don't ya think?



It may be but it also may not be.  It actually sounds like she was trying to steer slightly to the right (to avoid hitting your hubby) and thus she did hit hubby square in the back and instead hit him on a an angle, damaging the drivers side. She may have had a bad front sensor for the airbags but it may have also been that the front sensor was just under the deployment threshold and the side sensor was not.  

Glad hubby isn't sore!  My back was a little stiff from my impact even though I wasn't going very fast.  I hit the BMW on an angle as well.  I suspect had I hit her square on I wouldn't have been feeling as much pain.

Sooooo glad hubby is OK (((((hugs)))))) and I wish the lady a speedy recovery too.  Glad she hasn't caused you too much trouble.  Accidents do happen.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 31, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Sooooo glad hubby is OK (((((hugs)))))) and I wish the lady a speedy recovery too.  Glad she hasn't caused you too much trouble.  Accidents do happen.



Thanks Carol, and I wish her a speedy recovery too. It hasn't been too much trouble, an inconveniece mostly. Accidents do happen, that's for sure. What can ya do?


----------



## redfang (Mar 31, 2007)

In NC where i work, the appropriate charge is GS 20-141(m), failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. For me if an accident is reportable (more than $1000 damage or a personal injury is involved.) I typically cite if appropriate. Sometimes I won't for various reasons. Some officers I know don't like to because they have had crash related charges thrown out too often in court. I have not had that occur, tho I had someone challenge a citation because I had not seen them actually driving.  The DA's had not subpoena'd the witnesses and so I had to testify to what I could reasonably infer from what I observed and what I was told. I won, but you get the jist.

As to getting the insurance to take care of damages, it makes absolutely no difference if a citation is issued, though the crash report has a place to list any citations issued.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 31, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Yep, probably was the same expressway (90). Traffic is ridiculous, AND with open road tolling. I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not necessarily...

Airbags today are smarter than the drivers.  In an impact as described, I wouldn't particularly expect for any airbag deployment at all; when they first came out we were seeing people hurt worse by the airbag than the crash!  

Depending on the age of the VW, what I'd wonder more about is WHY the passenger side went off without a passenger...  Most newer cars won't trigger the airbag unless there's a passenger.  

I'm glad your husband wasn't injured.  If the woman was transported, that might be one reason she wasn't cited at the scene; I seldom issued a traffic ticket to someone sitting in an ambulance.  We can take care of that stuff later...  As to going to the hospital at all, a lot of the time, people just do that because they're sore.  They think that the insurance companies won't cover it unless they go to the hospital.  (Actually, it depends on the insurance company and specific details.)  And there are some situations now where the medics will transport, no matter what, because we've learned of "invisible" injuries that don't show up till you're dead -- like an aortic dissection caused by hitting the steering wheel.


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Sooooo glad hubby is OK (((((hugs)))))) and I wish the lady a speedy recovery too.  Glad she hasn't caused you too much trouble.  Accidents do happen.



_Amen_ to that, Pam, and let's hope that this accident used up you guys' quota of rotten luck for at least another year, eh?


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 1, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Not necessarily...
> 
> Airbags today are smarter than the drivers.  In an impact as described, I wouldn't particularly expect for any airbag deployment at all; when they first came out we were seeing people hurt worse by the airbag than the crash!
> 
> ...


Thanks. That's interesting info about the airbags. As far as the woman being *in the hospital* , she was fine at the scene. She drove herself to the hospital the following day. As far as I know she is fine.



			
				exile said:
			
		

> Amen to that, Pam, and let's hope that this accident used up you guys' quota of rotten luck for at least another year, eh?



Let's hope so!


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 1, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Thanks. That's interesting info about the airbags. As far as the woman being *in the hospital* , she was fine at the scene. She drove herself to the hospital the following day. As far as I know she is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hope so!


It's not at all uncommon for someone to feel fine at the scene of a crash, and then decide later to go to the doctor/hospital.  Sometimes, it's just the adrenaline and shock, and the soreness and discomfort or awareness of the injuries hits later.  Sometimes they can't be bothered, even though it might be a good idea.  Or, someone gets home and a concerned spouse/partner/roommate/etc. urges them to go "get checked out!"


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 1, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> It's not at all uncommon for someone to feel fine at the scene of a crash, and then decide later to go to the doctor/hospital.  Sometimes, it's just the adrenaline and shock, and the soreness and discomfort or awareness of the injuries hits later.  Sometimes they can't be bothered, even though it might be a good idea.  Or, someone gets home and a concerned spouse/partner/roommate/etc. urges them to go "get checked out!"



I agree. I thought for sure my husband was going to be sore as hell the next morning. I'm quite surprised he wasn't. I just commented because injury wouldn't have been an indicator for the topic we're discussing.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 1, 2007)

redfang said:


> In NC where i work, the appropriate charge is GS 20-141(m), failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. For me if an accident is reportable (more than $1000 damage or a personal injury is involved.) I typically cite if appropriate.


 
Thank you.


----------



## Drac (Apr 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Drac, you say you would issue a ticket ... for what?


 
ACD (Assured Clear Distance)


----------



## Drac (Apr 1, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> It's not at all uncommon for someone to feel fine at the scene of a crash, and then decide later to go to the doctor/hospital. to go "get checked..


 
Yep, it happened to me..Some Yuppie in his brand new Beemer slammed into my cruiser attempting to make a lane change...After I stopped I called in that I had been involved in and MVA and got out of my vehicle..I took about 3 steps and crumpled in pain..


----------



## Last Fearner (Apr 2, 2007)

My thoughts are that a ticket should have been issued.  It has been a number of years since I worked in Law Enforcement, but the Motor Vehicle Code in Michigan (and I imagine most states) provides for citations for just about anything.  Officers have the power of discretion, but if someone is stopped for suspicion of DWI because they were weaving and crossed the center line, yet it turns out they were not drunk, they still might get a ticket.  If they are disrespectful or uncooperative, the officer might decide to cite them for careless driving.

In the event of a crash, careless or reckless is appropriate.  Simply failing to have your vehicle under control, or many other reasons as stated by other officers here.  Excuses like, "the sun was in my eyes" doesn't cut it with me.  If you can't see clearly, then you should slow down.  What if it was a child that ran in front of your car?  Are excuses going to bring the child back to life?  You are responsible for the safe control of your vehicle.  If you rear-end someone, you deserve a ticket unless it was beyond your control.

Some have commented that a ticket really isn't needed because insurance companies determine fault.  The ticket is designed to penalize a violation, and discourage future acts of carelessness.  I don't care what the insurance companies do.  You cause an accident, you get a ticket in my opinion.  I remember when insurance was an option, and many people didn't even have car insurance.  Then it became mandatory and insurance companies started smiling real big.  They hold out their hands for the money and say with a grin, "it's the law."

I don't know how it is in other states, but Michigan has "No Fault" insurance, so it does not matter who caused the accident from their perspective.  Each driver's insurance company pays for their own damage.  The fault is only important for legal purposes, and civil suits for gross negligence.

Glad to hear things worked out.
CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> In the event of a crash, careless or reckless is appropriate.  Simply failing to have your vehicle under control, or many other reasons as stated by other officers here....You are responsible for the safe control of your vehicle.  If you rear-end someone, you deserve a ticket unless it was beyond your control.



I'm pretty much convinced that this is the right way to look at it. It's built into the situation that the driver behind has control over whether or not a rear-end collision takes place, under most scenarios. Even if the driver in front breaks suddenly, you should be following the one car length per 10mph of speed rule and paying attention to the lead car's brake lights. So a rear-end collision pretty much has to mean that someone wasn't exercising due caution. There are exceptions, sure; there always are, but in most cases, negligence is probably the main reason for such a collision...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 2, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> The ticket is designed to penalize a violation, and discourage future acts of carelessness. I don't care what the insurance companies do.


 
And your jurisdiction or State doesnt get any $$$ from insurance companies either. 

Just teasing.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2007)

exile said:


> I'm pretty much convinced that this is the right way to look at it. It's built into the situation that the driver behind has control over whether or not a rear-end collision takes place, under most scenarios. Even if the driver in front breaks suddenly, you should be following the one car length per 10mph of speed rule and paying attention to the lead car's brake lights. So a rear-end collision pretty much has to mean that someone wasn't exercising due caution. There are exceptions, sure; there always are, but in most cases, negligence is probably the main reason for such a collision...


They've moved from the one-car length rule to a simpler one; the two second rule.  Start counting when the car in front of you passes a fixed object (like a signpost), and you should get two seconds (one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two) before you pass that object IN GOOD WEATHER WITH FEW IN-CAR DISTRACTIONS.  As distractions increase or road conditions worsen -- increase the count.  I was driving home in snow a few weeks ago, and I think I had about 8 or more seconds between me and the cars in front of me before I felt comfortable.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 2, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> They've moved from the one-car length rule to a simpler one; the two second rule.  Start counting when the car in front of you passes a fixed object (like a signpost), and you should get two seconds (one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two) before you pass that object IN GOOD WEATHER WITH FEW IN-CAR DISTRACTIONS.  As distractions increase or road conditions worsen -- increase the count.  I was driving home in snow a few weeks ago, and I think I had about 8 or more seconds between me and the cars in front of me before I felt comfortable.



That's been around for some time - I learned it in Driver's Ed, in the early 80s - 2 seconds in good weather, 3 in light rain, 4 in heavy rain or snow, farther if you feel you need it.  It took care of all of us who were bad at judging distance.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2007)

Kacey said:


> That's been around for some time - I learned it in Driver's Ed, in the early 80s - 2 seconds in good weather, 3 in light rain, 4 in heavy rain or snow, farther if you feel you need it.  It took care of all of us who were bad at judging distance.


I didn't say it was new...  but there are still many people out there trying to estimate car lengths.  The big headache with that rule, especially today is simply what is a car length?  Is it a shade over 20'... or is it about 12'?  There are "cars" today in both lengths.  It also requires you to change the "rule" as you speed up; you go from 2 to 3 at residential/business speeds to 5 to 7 at highway speeds.  With the two second rule... your distance is automatically adjusted as you speed up, but the "rule" remains the same.

Incidentally... just in the interest of making everyone safer drivers -- in my experience, the three main causes of crashes are driver inattention, following too close, and excessive speed for the conditions (regardless of the posted limit).  All are in the control of the DRIVER...  Today, driver inattention is especially prevalent as we try to do more and more while we drive.  Please, everyone... Keep your mind on your driving; whatever else (even playing the trumpet... which really happened!) can wait till you're stopped.  Keep space between yourself and the other drivers; just like in sparring, you want time to react.  (A car moves 1.466 feet/second for every mile in speed; at 25 miles per hour, that's almost 37 feet; at 50, it's 72 feet and change... Human reaction time averages about 1.5 seconds to see, identify and act.)  And don't be afraid to slow down!


----------

