|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 15, 2021 15:13:28 GMT
it seems in the UK, drivers are taught to put the car in neutral, set the handbrake (parking brake) and remove their foot from the brake pedal when stopped at a traffic light. one of the reasons given is if they get in a rear end collision, the handbrake will hold the car better than having their foot on the brake pedal. part of the logic being that the impact can dislodge the foot.
this seems to me to be something worthy of discussion - in the interest of modeling a test platform to test the myth.
the immediate factors I see are how robust the handbrake actually is, how robust the average person with their foot on the brake actually is, and how easy it is to knock their foot off the brake.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 15, 2021 16:34:44 GMT
it seems in the UK, drivers are taught to put the car in neutral, set the handbrake (parking brake) and remove their foot from the brake pedal when stopped at a traffic light. one of the reasons given is if they get in a rear end collision, the handbrake will hold the car better than having their foot on the brake pedal. part of the logic being that the impact can dislodge the foot. this seems to me to be something worthy of discussion - in the interest of modeling a test platform to test the myth. the immediate factors I see are how robust the handbrake actually is, how robust the average person with their foot on the brake actually is, and how easy it is to knock their foot off the brake. I can see the logic behind it, but don't really know how much difference it would make. One thing I have noticed is that after an accident, often one or more vehicles keep rolling until either their drivers come to their senses and apply the brake or they hit something. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 15, 2021 17:04:43 GMT
it seems in the UK, drivers are taught to put the car in neutral, set the handbrake (parking brake) and remove their foot from the brake pedal when stopped at a traffic light. one of the reasons given is if they get in a rear end collision, the handbrake will hold the car better than having their foot on the brake pedal. part of the logic being that the impact can dislodge the foot. this seems to me to be something worthy of discussion - in the interest of modeling a test platform to test the myth. the immediate factors I see are how robust the handbrake actually is, how robust the average person with their foot on the brake actually is, and how easy it is to knock their foot off the brake. I can see the logic behind it, but don't really know how much difference it would make. One thing I have noticed is that after an accident, often one or more vehicles keep rolling until either their drivers come to their senses and apply the brake or they hit something. I don't see randomly rolling cars after those accidents very often. but yes, it's definitely something that can be quantified and tested. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 20, 2021 15:39:35 GMT
One key factor that would need to be looked at is "how fast is the collision in question?".
Are they presuming that the majority of rear-impact collisions at intersections are a vehicle at full-speed absolutely failing to notice traffic ahead of them, or is the reality of the situation that most impacts are people who haven't slowed down fully?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 21, 2021 3:47:03 GMT
One key factor that would need to be looked at is "how fast is the collision in question?". Are they presuming that the majority of rear-impact collisions at intersections are a vehicle at full-speed absolutely failing to notice traffic ahead of them, or is the reality of the situation that most impacts are people who haven't slowed down fully? if it were to be tested, it would need to be at a range of impact velocities. |
|
