On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind when she stops because of cross traffic.
Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."
I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no effect.
Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in front.
I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to (about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold water.
I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction, or at least very little.
If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will then see how good ABS is.
Hank
I think anti-lock would have far less effect on dry pavement, but could still come into operation. The system is looking for unusual differences in wheel speed during braking. For example if one wheel stopped turning while the others continued, it would reduce braking pressure on that wheel to stop it from skidding. That wheel could be the one skidding because of tire condition, inflation, cornering forces, etc. I also think it's possible it could actually increase braking distance on dry pavement, while at the same time increasing directional control. And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind under the circumstances cited, is at fault.
"Driving" would not be affected unless you had traction control along with ABS.
Eh, *good* ABS is good. *BAD* ABS, which I've experienced, can in fact cause significantly increased braking distances in some conditions compared to not having it at all. But good tires make even more of a difference; and
Most are halls effect and can distiguish between any movement at all and stopped. There are not any "resolution" issues.
So the ABS shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.
That's my experience. I back out onto a steep alley. When there is snow or ice I must go as slow as possible. The ABS will not work and at times have slid the entire length.
That's the case everywhere I have lived. If you can't stop in time then you were to close to begin with.
That's probably true, but, I had a case where traffic suddenly stopped on a busy interstate. It was a little wet. I stood on the brake of a Park Ave. The anti-locks did their pulsing thing and the car stopped a foot or 2 from the car in front of me. But then, I looked in the rear view mirror and the car in back was still going about 45 or so. He hit me hard and pushed me in the the car in front of me and actually that car hit the car in front of it also. Only that one person in the back car got the ticket and 3 of the 4 cars involve all hit a car in front of them. Surveying the carnage the cop said, "I know you all had your seat belts on or there would have been injuries." Only the cars were injured.
N8N wrote in news:e65c9d14-290c-40ff-b376- snipped-for-privacy@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or 15 mph.
Thomas wrote in news:3700a77b-2c84-4597-b072- snipped-for-privacy@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
This is a common complaint with ABS of all makes, especially once the tires get a bit worn.
Agree, assuming you are already following someone and you are in control of the seperation, And that's certainly the vast majority of cases. However, consider the case where you have two lanes, someone passes you quickly, cuts into the lane in front of you, then slams on the brakes. You can't stop in time and hit him. In that case, it's the other person's fault.
Having learned to drive in NYC (where as a young, aggressive driver we used to screw with the cabbies in Manhattan - that'll teach you some cool maneuvers!) I still employ this technique:
If I am forced to brake hard to avoid hitting a car in front of me, I glance up at the rearview mirror to see what's going on behind me. If need be, and *if possible* I release the brake momentarily to try and extend the distance between me and the car behind me - as long as I can still avoid hitting the car in front. Sometimes it's possible and sometimes I just hope the driver behind me can stop.
It's not that big a deal where I live now, but I can say without question that I avoided getting rear-end in NYC more than once by using this technique. One time the driver behind me still wasn't going to be able to stop in time, but I gave him just enough room to swerve to the left and go by me. That "foot or 2" you left between you and the car in front of you was probably all the guy behind me needed to get by.
My complaint, when going very slow my anti lock will come on, on bumpy roads, and when you get wheel hop, and the anti lock feature is a hazard in this case. Especially on one downhill slope onto an artery.
Greg
The controlling variable was that you had already stopped.
May depend on the state (or the cop). I was riding one night and that happened. The cop gave the cut-offer the ticket. Don't recall the exact charge, but IN has a law on un-safe lane changes and that was considered (by the cop anyway) to qualify.
Does that law in your state say that it's always the fault of the person in the rear, "unless the cop witnessed an unsafe lane change?" Somehow I doubt that and I also doubt there is any law in your state that actually says it's always the fault of the driver that's behind. Nor could you possibly know the motor vehicle laws in all
50 states.I'd bet in the example Kurt cited, if the driver in back sued the driver who cut him off and who he hit, he'd win for damages. Or consider the case of a car that goes out of control, crosses three lanes, winds up ahead of you and you wind up hitting them. Fact is it's very high probability it's the driver in back's fault, because the usual problem is that it's a case of following to closely, not paying attention, etc. But it's not established by law and sometimes it's not the fault of the person behind. The above being examples. If you have a law that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.
No problem there. Motorists claim all kinds of things. It's up to a judge to then decide based on evidence and witnesses who is telling the truth and what really happened.
Nice way to behave on the roads. Hope I'm not anywhere near you.
It depends on the particular system and how it is programmed, but below 5 MPH I would suspect that nearly all will be inactive at that point.
nate
That depends on where you are located and how many witnesses stick around... If you rear end a vehicle whose driver just committed traffic offenses to get into the lane ahead of you then the "you hit the back of my car so you are at fault" line of logic does not always apply -- anyway in a two car accident most places these days will apply
50:50 at fault so both operators can take the insurance points increase... The only way to not have 50:50 at fault is to be involved in an car accident with three or more vehicles damaged...~~ Evan
Lucky you... If you done that sort of thing in New England you might have been cited for road rage and unsafe operation depending on whether any witnesses who were not involved in the accident waited around to rat you out for clearly causing the accident...
Also, never take for granted anymore that a traffic accident was not captured on a surveillance camera -- the cop at the scene might let you go, but he/she knows who you are and where to find you if the recorded footage shows that you were the one at fault... That sort of driving can come back to bite you in the ass eventually...
~~ Evan
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.