Are Stopping Distances Useless?

[@two-countiesdashcam]

At least the distances published in the HC may encourage learners to think about how speed affects stopping distance. As you say most people are useless at estimating distance, a trip to a supermarket will show that nobody can even estimate 2 Metres accurately

[@UKbob1975]

This is what I was thinking. Its the simplest way to make people know stopping distance and thinking distance increase as speed increases. Has no relevance to emergency stops, if its an emergency its anchors on and fingers crossed.

[@two-countiesdashcam]

@James Stewart 2 second rule is great when following traffic in the dry... Not so good for the unexpected child/dog/cat/elephant running out into the road. ; )

[@RobBCactive]

@James Stewart but that's a reaction distance rule, you're relying on the driver in front to some extent, especially vans/HGV.

[@RobBCactive]

Exactly, it shows that doubling speed doesn't simply double braking distance.

[@gravemind6536]

Arbitary numbers are pointless, this is why we have the 2 second rule for measuring distance from the vehicle in front because the time it takes to stop can be measured and known easily.

[@loc4725]

If you're going downhill with a boot full of bags of cement. And yes, that's the voice of experience.

[@marknicholls1075]

They used females for the thinking time i think

[@collinslfc]

@@marknicholls1075 Ooooo...edgy.

[@marknicholls1075]

@@collinslfc pretty happy guy actually 😀

[@MrKarlPrince]

@@marknicholls1075 A boot full of females?

[@marknicholls1075]

@@MrKarlPrince every boys dream ey? 😅

[@marklittler784]

Keeping your distance actually has the main advantage of opening up your view ahead so you can see a problem a lot earlier or even at all, staggering your position with the vehicle in front not in its tracks opens up your view too even if your driving close.

[@piciu256]

Changing the highway code distance won't change a thing, nobody thinks about stopping distance by meter 🤣 nevermind that most follow the next vechicle way too close anyway. So I guess I agree with your take.

[@Nodster]

@James Stewart This here ^^ I agree with James on this one. Stopping distances really do mean nothing, The two second rule is the one that should be pushed home to people hell they even gave it a catchy rhyme so people can remember it. If people are not confident in their stopping ability or it scares them it might be to quick there is nothing stopping them increasing that gap to their comfort level. Not sure what changing the stopping distances would actually achieve other than knowing what they are considering those then become dependant on speed, weight, hills, weather and so on. For most people I dare say that the distance it will take for them to stop will not even cross their mind in that situation to begin with other than praying they do stop in time.

[@Nodster]

@@nocturn791 That's the whole point it actually is a case of that and it should be at least doubled or more in the case of wet or icy conditions, I was taught on this principle. Two seconds in good conditions, 4 seconds in wet conditions and more in ice etc, So new drivers are being taught this but this needs to be more common across the spectrum. I do believe that those stopping distances fall well within the 2 second (4 seconds in rain) rule any way and as previously mentioned people suck at judging distances but everyone can pick a fixed point the car in front passes and count 2 seconds to when they get to it. for reference of the two second rule is increased depending on situation there is this article on the gov website, www.gov.uk/government/news/highways-agency-warns-tailgaters-that-only-a-fool-breaks-the-two-second-rule As a side note if my mum's concept of size and will it fit when it comes to Ikea furniture is anything to go by then all I can say is we are screwed lol

[@aztimms]

@@nocturn791 HC can be used in court to support/negative any claim (civil/criminal) under question - HC perhaps a good place then for stopping distances to be published!

[@RobBCactive]

@@nocturn791 let's add tailgating, as you are best to brake smoother then to compensate their error

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

The rules should be set to a limit where even the lowest common denominator is able to drive safely, having stopping distances help give people a frame of reference.

[@nigelcox1451]

I think the table in the Highway Code does show how distances increase exponentially with speed, so useful in that respect. The numbers were based on an average reaction time of 0.68 seconds, but as TRL have found, reaction times today are very slow. I think the overall stopping distances are still about right, but the timings for thinking and braking need adjusting. An exercise I've done with both learners and experienced drivers is similar to yours, but with some reaction time added. Luckily I have two suitable roads, straight stretches, little traffic. Get the driver to set a speed, then at a marker, (I've used telegraph poles, gateposts, even particular daffodils or dandelions.) call STOP. Once stopped, get out of the car and walk back to the marker. Stood at the marker, it is very easy to see just how far you will travel at that speed, and that anything within that distance will be hit. As speeds increase, it becomes a long walk. At 70 mph (or more), no-one has yet walked back far enough when asked, all needing to be taken much further. At 60mph and above, the distance from marker to front of car is sobering. This has been successful in slowing down many drivers.

[@jeremypnet]

No it's actually a square law, not exponential.

[@Tesmond256]

“TRL referred to academic literature and concluded that the average thinking time is 1.5 seconds” Do you have a link to the study? The data and methodology are not published on the website and they do not appear to provide any information on this. When a conclusion is presented by a partisan agency without making the data and methodology clear it should be presumed that they are hiding important information or potentially even going so far as to make up the data entirely. Additionally not considering innovations such as EABS seems a bit of an oversight. Your statement that anything within that distance will be hit is true, however, if you are hit in the first 1ft and the last 1ft of the braking distance the outcome would be expected to be very different. It also assumes that the object is stationary for the duration of the braking. As a for instance on timing the methodology being an important consideration, I was driving late a night on a 3 lane motorway. I was driving on the left lane approaching a truck that was doing 60mph. The middle lane was empty and the far right lane was occupied by a car overtaking the truck at about 60.01mph. I noticed in my rear mirror headlights approaching very quickly. I slowed down to 55 backing away from the truck I was planning to overtake and watched as 2 cars that were clearly racing at well over 100mph came up behind the car that was in the far right lane. The lead car seemed to expect the car in front to move over hammered the brakes at the last moment when it was clear they were not moving over. The second car hammered his brakes but was going to run into the back of the first car. He swerved into the middle lane and undertook both outside lane cars. How would you have assessed my breaking time in avoiding that potential accident? I would suggest that if I had tried to “force” the slow overtaker into the middle lane or performed an undertaking manoeuvre between the car and truck myself there was a high probability of a crash. My decision to break was several seconds before an emergency braking might have been warranted and before a potential accident had materialised.

[@Tesmond256]

I studied fatal cyclist road traffic accidents in Oxford over a 10 year period. Interestingly none of them were known to have occurred over the speed limit and the median speed of deaths was under 20mph. One was a drunk driver and it was unclear in accident investigation the speed as the driver hit a cyclists without stopping, so there might have been one person speeding. The most frequent was a HGV or bus turning at a junction or where a road narrowed and a cyclist was hit. This occurred at very slow speeds but was fatal. Stopping distance and thinking distance were not a factor in the deaths as all the cyclists were simply not seen. If you were to want to limit cyclists deaths then teaching cyclists to avoid undertaking at junctions, especial HGVs and not wearing headphones would probably be the biggest improvement. Accident hotspots are always junctions, and sadly even traffic lights are not sufficient to prevent them. Designing junctions to have filtering lanes and reduce cars cutting across each other makes a huge difference but they cost more so councils do the cheap solution instead.

[@nigelcox1451]

@@Tesmond256 Your reaction time to the post above is a bit slow. Only 3 years. Hopefully your reactions when driving are faster. It is also very unclear what you are asking above, and I have no need to spend the time trying to re-read it many times to dig the point out.

[@Tesmond256]

@@nigelcox1451 how is reaction time calculated? The “study” is not on their website and I cannot find it or details of the data and methodology to come up with the conclusion.

[@MrDCIsaacs]

I believe the CONCEPT of stopping distance is an ESSENTIAL idea that new learners need to be presented with. The idea that you can't just stop a car - it takes time, and distance. These days, the car's stopping distance may be halved BUT, LOL the driver's thinking distance seems to have been trebled!

[@bottlediggingchris3966]

Thinking distance, lots of idiots driving around nowadays who can't even think about the basics of driving, never mind stopping in an emergency situation.

[@RobBCactive]

I agree, people are driving worse as cars feel safer and they have more distractions without traffic police replaced by cameras, they used to have conversations or calm drivers by being seen regularly. Cycling you notice even more crazy moves, as you can see more of the surrounding roads than when driving

[@Ep1cure]

It's much easier to use time to judge distances. Generally 2 seconds is an ideal rule of thumb, and still works very well with modern ABS cars. ABS if anything, has made the importance of not tailgating in many ways more significant, as it can surprise someone tailgating how quickly the car in front can stop. Even lightning fast reactions end up not being enough in such scenarios. In ideal conditions I'm not bothered too much if a car is following with say a little over 1 second (still not ideal), but any much less than that is truly ridiculous and happens far too often. A lot of people are way too overconfident about their reaction times. Try to think whether, not only can you stop in time, but can you stop EASILY in time.

[@1daddyDA]

Love the two second rule. Wish more drivers even followed this simple rule

[@jeremypnet]

ABS doesn't improve theoretical stopping distance. It is designed to stop the wheels from locking so you can still steer. It does mean you can mash the pedal to the floor without fear of losing directional control (up to a point - my car manual says "it doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply").

[@1daddyDA]

@@jeremypnet ABS convinces too many idiots that their brakes will defy the laws of physics and momentum. Suddenly they drive like its motor sport and they have the reactions of a racing 🏎 driver Its like knowing the safety cell of your Smart Car will not deform if you hit a tree at 50 mph but not understanding that your internal organs will still hit your body cavity at 50mph. This will even shred many of them and although you may look fine outside the internal bleeding will still kill you.

[@another3997]

You're an experienced driver in a fairly new BMW, with wide, good quality tyres and powerful brakes. You were executing a planned stop, so you didn't have to make a sudden decicion. You just covered the brake pedal and mashed it to the floor. Now transplant that to an inexperienced or less capable driver in an older, less performance oriented vehicle, in a real emergency situation. Most drivers don't press the brake pedal hard or fast enough. Do their tyres grip as well, and are their brakes as efficient? Your 25 feet comes close to the HC figure. But I agree, most people cannot relate to stopping distances.

[@keith6400]

I think the stopping distances in the Highway Code draw attention to the fact that if you need to stop immediately it will take time while travelling a distance. This is where their merit is. The most important thing is that even if you know all the data off by heart when you look out the front of your vehicle if your judgement is that what is actually one hundred feet is in reality thirty feet your ability to stop well within the distance to be clear is going to be somewhat dangerous.

[@SuperVitz]

People need to remember to drive to the conditions!!! i.e SLOWER and keep more distance if it's raining, if your car is full, if visibility is reduced, if it's a busy or built up area, and one that I'm not sure you mentioned, road surface condition. Worn out surfaces with lots of potholes also increase stopping distance.

[@marklittler784]

Especially how fast you can get the mother in law out of the car.

[@SuperVitz]

@@marklittler784 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@RobBCactive]

Also tail gaters

[@mikemac803]

I tried this in the icy weather last week. Had a clear wide but icy road. No cars, no junctions no bends, no one parked and no one walking. So I tried my stopping distance from 20mph to both get a realistic understanding on how my car preforms on ice and as a means of practicing control during a skid. It was really eye opening how quickly I locked up and how violent my brake pedal was shaking (something I've never experienced before in 5 years of driving). Managed to keep the car straight and true and stopped eventually. Probably one of the stupider things you can do, yes I admit. But it gave me great respect to icy conditions and my cars ability in them (I drive a small city car). Overall a valuable lesson learned which is better to learn in somewhat controlled conditions than when you actually need them.

[@mikemac803]

@RoseTintedWindscreen I suppose. But definitely not one to try if there's any people/ cars around, parked or not. Just in case it's a lesson where you realise you can't control a skid afterall.

[@jbaj250]

Ashleys face at 4:51 has some great meme potential there lol great vid as always

[@1988dgs]

Does everyone not plant the brakes at least once on a test drive when buying a new car? Just me then? Ok

[@xlfive]

I do,that’s how I found a faulty braking system on a car I was looking to buy ,it drove perfect under normal conditions

[@1988dgs]

@@xlfive glad you found it (was told the test drive is for driving it like you stole it, if it breaks it’s not yours, once you pay for it it’s like driving miss daisy)

[@jeremypnet]

The route that the salesman took me on was such that it wouldn't have been safe anywhere to do that exercise.

[@1988dgs]

@@jeremypnet local knowledge helps, you can deviate from their route, I ask for somewhere I can do full circles on full lock (got stung once with a car with bad cv joints) while your testing that see if the back doesn’t track properly or slides, if they object ask about what they are hiding

[@QuentinStephens]

Probably yes, but do you then get out and measure the distance as Ashley did?

[@Subh8081]

7:04 It took 24 ft to stop. But adding a reasonably low reaction time of 0.5s at 30mph, the car would travel a further 22ft, so totaling 46ft. For a 1.5s delay in reaction, a whopping 66ft would be added to the 24ft stopping distance, taking the travel distance at 90ft!

[@piciu256]

That's not the point. It's about the base stopping distance itself, reaction time is added to that, at least that's how I understand 🤣

[@piciu256]

Btw. imo 1.5s reaction time is not very realistic, not in most situations anyway. That's of course depending on how you calculate it, from the moment of obvious danger, or from the moment of "this may be a danger so I better take my foot from the gas" to the moment of braking" which is very situation specific. I will say that my reaction time falls around the 0.5s mark when I'm not expecting something, that's quite a bit of distance at 100km/h ;) so the most important thing is to stay vigilant and take a rest stop if you're tired.

[@davidharris2517]

The 45ft is just the breaking distance, there is an additional 30ft in thinking distance listed.

[@TheIceMurder2]

How did this get 15 thumbs up?

[@stuartking]

@@piciu256 Very much depends on the driver. Based on reaction times at traffic lights, some drivers could start braking a couple of seconds before the incident develops, whilst others would take twenty seconds to look up from their phone. :D

[@peregreena9046]

The distances in the highway code might be useless to experienced drivers. That doesn't mean they're also useless for new drivers who lack the experience to judge how long it takes to stop a car and how far it'll go in that time. No matter how outdated the actual distances are, they still represent a good "rule of thumb" for beginners, who also lack the experience to recognize the need to stop immediately.

[@jeremypnet]

Yes but do you know what 75 feet looks like or 240 feet (60mph)?

[@peregreena9046]

@@jeremypnet count "one potato - two potato - three potato" the distance you cover counting to three potatoes at 60 mph. (two potatoes for 75 feet at 30 mph)

[@jeremypnet]

@@peregreena9046 which is far more useful than knowing the stopping distances in terms of feet.

[@peregreena9046]

@@jeremypnet Converting between distance and time at speed isn't exactly rocket science (even though i suspect rocket scientists do a lot of that). But, if it makes you sleep better, you can always lobby your local MP to change the units in the highway code from feet to potatoes.

[@C47F14P6]

They did a segment on this on Top Gear didn’t they? Fantastic video

[@piciu256]

Well, they did, but I don't think a supercar on superb tires and hot tarmac is representative of an average vechicle ;)

[@stuartking]

If I recall correctly, the test was flawed, but not wrong, because they didn't take the thinking time out of the distances that are noted in the Highway Code.

[@LW_-sm4ok]

@Mackenzie Stanton they did a re test with the stig in a vauxhall insignia. I think he was doing 128 mph to meet the high way code specifications

[@standy9368]

@@piciu256 they did it with a normal Vauxhall insignia

[@eddierose0608]

Didn't they mention the distance in the highway code was set by a Ford Anglia?

[@hughraynor8670]

The quality of the road surface can also have a huge impact on braking distance. Shellgrip will stop you quicker than grass!

[@jastat]

most people seem to follow with half the required distance, so I think it should be kept the same otherwise ppl will get even closer

[@artemkatelnytskyi]

I bet most drivers don't even know about this section about the stopping distance. And well educated drivers drive at a correct distance anyway.

[@marklittler784]

Well there's stopping distances then there's overall stopping distances and stopping distances when the vehicle behind is too close.

[@andyowens5494]

When the vehicle behind is too close, the vehicle in front is far, far away to give much more time to react and slow gently. Theres also the fog light flash and lift off the gas, that gets them to back off quick enough without actually having to brake check anyone.

[@another3997]

Your stopping distance isn't any different if there's a car close behind. As a driver, it's your responsibility to weigh up how much room to leave to the car in front. It's also your responsibility to be able to stop in time for any likely hazard. That applies to you as well as the car behind... so if you HAVE to do an proper emergency stop, you do it. It's the primary concern, the vehicle behind is secondary.

[@marklittler784]

@@another3997 Its not the vehicle behind you need worry about its the damage it might cause to you.

[@sabriath]

1. you did a control distance on pure braking but not including "thought time" so that's probably why they doubled the range (and looking to increase it) in the books 2. most places that I've seen teach time and not distance because, as you said, people are rubbish in determining distance, but they can count how long 3 or 4 seconds is. The faster you go, the more distance you need, and through math alone, counting seconds does that for you automatically. I've always learned 3 seconds in dry/calm weather and 4 for non-ideal situations, 5 or more in blizzard/heavy fog. Of course, these are just "cautionary" time amounts, but getting used to them when you are 100% mindful will get you in the habit for when you aren't 100%, in my opinion.

[@piciu256]

He did take into account the reaction time in the beginning tho. Anyway these numbers are pointless anyway, nevermind if they reflect real world scenarios or not.

[@andyowens5494]

The 45 feet was JUST the braking time; total distance adds the thinking time on top of that. IIRC Distance = x+(x^2/20) where x= mile per hour. The first term (x) is the thinking time, and the second term (x^2/20) is the braking time - it goes up as the square of the speed and the kinetic energy increases as the square, and the brakes can only scrub energy at a more-or-less linear rate..

[@stuartking]

I think that something emphasising stopping distance is important in the Highway Code, but, given how people drive these days, I don't think many people would actually use the information in a useful way, whatever the distances noted. I also think having longer distances than necessary is better than shorter distances, better safe than sorry. The information has to be provided in a way that is useful to all drivers, no matter what vehicle. Yes it's nice to know that your modern BMW, which is undoubtedly in very good condition, can stop in 24ft, but if you needed to hire a van to move house, would that van stop in the same distance? Would anyone have even considered that it might not? It's not like you need to take a new test to drive a van after all. In addition, the total stopping distance has to account for the driver too. Would a 20 year old brake the same way as an 80 year old? Would a new driver brake the same as a motor racing world champion? To many variables for an accurate answer, but I do think it is worth having. Bear in mind also, that the Highway Code is used to assess 'blame' in the event of an accident.

[@stuarthall2180]

Obviously things change over time. I passed my test in 1977 in a new Triumph Toledo ! As you say a world apart, no traction control or abs etc. In those days I think the stopping distances were good for new drivers like me. I couldn't afford a new car so was driving a banger on cross ply tyres, drum brakes and no servo assistance ! I probably now have a false idea in how long it takes my modern car to stop so probably leave too larger gap to the car in front which is maybe better than thinking your invincible on the brakes.

[@marklittler784]

Keeping a good distance makes for a much more pleasant ride for passengers especially ones unfamiliar with your driving or ones that have been previously involved in bad accidents in a vehicle.

[@gravemind6536]

Never had any complaints from passengers usually just suprise or thats the smoothest drive I've ever had. Then again 4-5 seconds is what I aim for in terms of gap between me and the car in front so even if the car in front were to slam on I'd only end up using half my brakes. Does fuel economy and wear and tear of car lots of good too.

[@nadim2769]

The way some people are so distracted by their phones when driving thinking time might as well be 1 minute 😂😂😂

[@andrewnorris5415]

Talking to passengers too is an issue.

[@shawnrahoon6789]

@@andrewnorris5415 so is sneezing, blinking, farting especially if you have to lift one cheek, scratching your arse, pulling out your jocks if they are too tight, moreso women and their knickers.

[@norbertmayer7005]

In Sweden we get taught how to calculate stopping distance. You take the speed in kph and divide by 10. Then you multiply by itself and after that you multiply with 0.4. So for instance 30mph is 50kph. 5x5=25. 25x0.4=10m. A little bit higher than what Ashley got, but it's a lot better.

[@mikeroberts]

I agree that nobody actually drives or rides thinking about the distances in the highway code. 😮 Most people, including me, would find it hard to estimate a numerical distance in yards/meters visually. The diagrams in the HWC are useful though to illustrate thinking distance and the relative increase in stopping distance with higher speeds. PS. Dutch reach for getting out of the car makes life so much easier.

[@robbieelvin4951]

When driving an old car with 1950s drum brakes amongst modern traffic I always tried to leave at least a 4 second gap to the car in front, but people constantly filled the space. Sometimes they would also brake which was never fun. A good rule is the older/slower the car the worse it's brakes will be.

[@johnkeepin7527]

And the other side of the coin is when driving a relatively new one with modern brakes and brand new tyres, be careful about what’s behind in some places!

[@Austin40424]

I've got a 1959 Austin A40 Farina? What's yours?

[@amyk9813]

I can't imagine how much driving under the influence would effect the thinking distance/result. So scary to even think about it

[@andrewnorris5415]

Very true! And let's not forget talking to passengers. It often involves getting distracted by the convo and looking over the shoulder. As passengers, we must be careful about when we choose to speak. A lot of accidents could be prevented in this way.

[@PPT75019]

I have done that experiment once when I thought my ABS had stopped working. They were actually fine. The first time I had to slam on my brake, I really thought I was going to rear end an amblance that came to a sudden stop while I was doing my checks to change lane. Thank you Saab for stopping 2 meters before hitting the ambulance. I was shocked by how quickly I came to a stop.

[@Stettafire]

I nearly t-boned someone in a Golf because they pulled out in front of me. Was convinced I wouldn’t stop in time, just barely did. Had a newfound respect for modern breaking that day

[@sassyboofle6983]

👏👏👏👏 Couldn’t have agreed more , I was asked the stopping distance for a certain speed on my test and I to tell you the truth fluffed my way through that particular question . All other questions I knew and answered well and learnt properly , the stopping distance were and still are useless . They are not a practical necessity, and yes most people cannot judge distance well . People do not adhere to the need for a distance in between cars for instance . Other items are way more important now . 👍

[@paull7725]

What's most important to me is the reaction time - I was taught 2 seconds. And yes it is 2 seconds even for these self-proclaimed very good drivers who have very good reactions and that use their superhuman skills to tailgate the "bad drivers" that drive too slow (at the limit). Accidents always happen when you least expect them - otherwise they can be avoided. It is when something unexpected happens that these 2 seconds become handy :). As for the stopping distance, refer to the dead ground video.

[@dgphi]

One thing that is useful about the stopping distance graph is that it shows that stopping distance increases hugely with speed (it is non-linear). If you double your speed, for instance, your stopping distance will be more than double. The practical application for that knowledge is that if you are approaching a hazard, then you should slow down because at low speeds your stopping distance will be very small.

[@PPT75019]

Peronnaly I can't really tell if an object ahead is 75 feet or 100 feet in font of me. I just use the 2 seconds rules when I'm following a car. And if a danger comes up, I first brake and check my surrondings to know if I can release the brakes and swerve if it's too late to aoid the accident. Anyway, I often fond the actual road condition to be the biggest uncertainty. There is a big difference between a weel maintained road and a cobblestone road or one with potholes etc.

[@mattmilford]

I remember hearing the highway code distances are based on a Ford Anglia (also so is the 70mph limit (the Anglia's top speed)). I don't think the stopping distances in the highway code are a lot of use. Your car might manage better but I see a lot of M badges on your car, you probably have better brakes than most. Also, don't forget that everyone seems obsessed with increasing the weight of everything by insisting on buying SUVs. I wonder how well a base spec SUV would compare.

[@EightPawsProductionsHD]

SUVs have larger brakes to compensate for the increased weight, they also tend to have wider road tyres, so more grip from a larger contact patch. Distances would be comparable, I think.

[@Alan_Clark]

Ashley is right to say that people are poor at judging distances. On my final lesson before my test (in 1969) my instructor asked me to read a number plate (he had not tested my vision earlier!). It was so far away that I could barely read it! But on the test, the examiner picked a car that was much closer than 25 yards.

[@L5GUK]

The thing that's always bothered me about stopping distance is that it's almost treated as a matter of fact thing, and that if a hazard presents you'll stop just in time if you react quickly enough. In reality it's rubbish, I completely agree. If one is driving down a road at 30mph and a dog just bolts out from an alley or side street within your 23m stopping distance (exampled in the video) then your stopping distance is irrelevant - all you can do is your best. More should be done, perhaps, to incorporate the braking distances, following distances and safe travel speeds into a single lesson/highway code section. Right now it does seem that stopping distance is treat as a seperate matter to following distance, which is a sperate matter to travelling speeds. All three together are important factors to ensuring that you can react, and stop, in time for a hazard. As an aside, there should be a little more said about the reduction of speed during your breaking distance. Whilst you take 23m to come to a stop from 30mph, you're not actually travelling at anywhere close to 30mph in the last 10% of your braking. That could make the difference between serious and minor injuries, or a write off or minor repairs. It's always worth at least trying to stop, even if you think you won't (perhaps a lesson more for the younger, less experienced driver more than anyone else).

[@marcusrex3792]

I am a driving instructor in Bristol and I would recommend to anyone to test the stopping distance of their vehicle in different conditions. A number of years ago (before I became an instructor) we had heavy snow and I had a 4wd. I was confident that I wouldn't get stuck in the snow, however I was not as confident about the Jeeps stopping capability. I therefore did exactly what you just did. I drove to an empty road and tested it for myself. I wanted to see how it would stop on snow before I needed it to for real.

[@davidtalbot941]

Absolutely agree with your final comment; I remember thinking how pointless it was trying to cram and parrot the stopping distances for my test, because I was pretty sure I couldn't judge how far that was on the road anyway. It doesn't matter how many metres the Highway Code says it takes to stop at 30mph- what matters is that you can judge how close to drive to the car in front, and certainly in my head that is not measured in metres.

[@gravemind6536]

Its measured in seconds

[@robertebob3596]

Many years ago when my wife was learning to drive i asked her how far 75 feet was down the road and she had no idea. Totally agree that in a test its a pointless excersise trying to memorise what is just a list of numbers but as someone has said earlier its good visual aid as to how speed affects your ability to stop in an emergency.

[@marklittler784]

The time spent recognising and realising there's a hazard is the problem quick reactions are no use if you haven't worked out there's something to react to.

[@PedroConejo1939]

As I've often said, the cars have outstripped their drivers in ability.

[@andyowens5494]

Throuhout the whole video, I was thinking exactly what Ashley said in the last 30 seconds. I remember thinking when I passed my test that it was useless having numbers, as I couldnt tell how far that was anyway - and the view from sitting in the drivers seat is different from walking down the road anyway. Within a year of passing my test, I had gone to an empty car park and done some crazy stops from different speeds, some with a lot of steering/swerves, just to get a feel for what it actually looked like (and felt like too - how much can you brake, and what does it feel like in a swerve before the tyres let go). 20 years later, I got a 4WD Jag and tried to throw is around another car park on snow and ice, and the results were surprising (it was better than I'd expected). Its not worth driving to the limit off track, but its good to know how far you can go in an emergency before it feels like you're out of grip, so can modulate braking and steering to minimise damage. Also, I think "thinking distance is irrelevant; half the people on the road aren't thinking at all, so the difference between 0.7 and 1.5 seconds is moot - for many its more like 5 seconds to realise somethings going on in front of them, and then they are into an emergency, whilst I've been behind them and already backed off, braked and nearly stopped (observation is better than braking any day).

[@Interknetz]

Good idea on telling people to try how quick it takes for their car to stop. It's what really matters, cause some cars will stop a lot quicker and react faster than others of course. If you're distracted while driving, even if your car stops quick, a split second distraction can mean the difference between being imprisoned or not because they will work it out - especially if someone dies.

[@320iSTWEdition]

We here in Germany have no written stopping distances in our traffic laws. Only the following distances are regulated by traffic laws. regarding braking our laws only state that you have to be able to stop your car at any time and road condition safely. So if there is an accident a judge might have to rule with the help of experts in that area, if the accident was inevitable or if you were following too close to a car or if you were too fast for the road conditions at that time. The better solution if you ask me.

[@MotorSportsFan46]

As an advanced driving and riding coach I've always found distance to be utterly useless, time is a far more useful measure.

[@frankhooper7871]

I first learned to drive in 1966 in California [and have been driving in the UK since 1974] and we were taught to keep one car length for each 10mph between us and the car in front (bear in mind, this was before the 'small car' phenomenon hit California LOL) - but I guarantee you if you drive on an English dual-carriageway at 70mph and allowed 7 car lengths between you and the one in front, you'll consistently have cars (a) passing you [obviously driving above the speed limit] and (b) pulling in between you and the one in front, causing you to ease of the throttle to regain your distance.

[@MPal24]

Interesting point about pivoting your foot - It's very difficult to do that in my car, as the brake pedal is positioned slightly higher than the throttle when both are in their natural position. I therefore have to slightly lift my foot to move it onto the brake pedal. If I try to pivot, I'm likely to just catch the brake but still press the throttle. Very dangerous.

[@curator23]

Since learning to drive I have become very good at estimating 5 metres (a car length) and 100 yards (distance between junction countdown markers). But I still can't remember the stopping distances in the HC. Never needed them. The brake pedal in my car is set closer to the driver than the accelerator, so I can't swivel my foot. I think the idea is to get more pedal stroke length / leverage. (Come to think of it, there was a recalled emergency brake assist in one brand of car many years ago. It's purpose was to fully apply the brake when emergency braking was detected, because their research showed that people weren't pressing hard enough, causing stopping distances to be much greater. It was recalled because it suffered from false triggers and was causing accidents.) Thinking time is a huge variable, since your attention may be taken by some other hazard, or checking your mirrors etc.

[@luke7842]

As an ADI I think it's a very useful concept to teach for learners to understand the appropriate and safe speed for different situations. However I certainly don't focus on the distances that are quoted in the highway code.

[@derekp2674]

At 30mph or 44 feet per second, the 2 second rule would give you a safe distance of 88 ft behind the vehicle in front. But at 60mph or 88 ft/s, the 2 second rule only gives you 176 ft when the 1954 overall stopping distance would be 240 ft. For those with a flair for mental arithmetic, the 1954 distances in feet are given by thinking distance = (speed, in mph) and braking distance = ((speed, in mph) x (speed, in mph))/20 Also, as Ashley said, the thinking distance will vary according to one's reaction time and mental state, while the real world braking distances will vary according to the conditions of both the vehicle and the road surface. But the real takeaway is that the faster you go, the more distance you'll need to safely stop. Again as Ashley said, judging real world distances accurately and quickly is impossible for most of us. That is why the 2 second and 4 second rules are more useful in practice. For driver training and examination purposes, I think this topic needs to be learnt and understood. But I would favour changes to promote deeper and more hands on learning, instead of just expecting test candidates to learn and repeat the 1954 High Code distances parrot fashion (if they still do that).

[@johnkeepin7527]

The ‘get out’ in the HC is the use of the term ‘typical’. The ‘thinking time’ (or reaction time) is not too bad in there, but is actually quite variable, for some of the reasons you described, and loads more. Whilst one can do measurements of reaction time with online toys, I’ve actually had it measured on a specially equipped test car (for previous medical problems), and the HC times are a bit pessimistic overall - only about 1/10 of a second though. It’s more critical at low speeds in urban conditions, evidently. The specially equipped one had measurement devices attached to both brake and accelerator pedals, and a flat screen mounted on the screen as it’s interface; not suitable for use on the road, though. The effect of gradients is not well understood by many - and not much presentation in any publication, either, notably the Highway Code. In fact, compared with the standards used ‘on the other side of the fence’ - the Railway trade, the absence of such relevant information on the roads is weird. In the past, my trade was railway signalling, so I know a lot about that! As for tyres and road conditions, there are lots of things available online now for comparing different brands, type of tyre (all seasons, summer only, etc.), but one of the worst things is the rather low minimum tread depth for replacing anything. Years ago, one of the first things I did when having bought an old car, was to replace the whole lot, and what a difference it made. While I don’t know what your car is fitted with, many new ones (like the Toyota Yaris) have built in ‘crash prevention’ kit, which will occasionally ‘take over’ and do it’s own emergency stop, if something or someone tries to cross the road much too close.

[@PenMac1963]

Another very informative educational video, thanks Ashley. When I was learning to drive and my IAM coach suggested feet speed x 1.5 to give a feet per second to judge stopping distance and this method was used by Chris Gilbert in his videos Ultimate Road Craft

[@JohnSmith-dt1tw]

I have an interesting question to ask people to highlight the effects of speed on stopping distances. There are two identical cars driving along a dual carriageway, one doing 70mph and the other doing 100mph. At the moment they are next to each other they see a tree lying in the road ahead and both start braking fully. The car that was doing 70mph stops just before the tree. How fast is the car that was doing 100mph going when it hits the tree? The answer is slightly over 70mph.

[@aNiTF3]

thinking distance in 2021 includes sitting on phone so total distance still stands correct

[@CherkasovN]

A problem comes. Hi google, what is 45 feet in meters. Ah!...(pressing the brakes)

[@marklittler784]

😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂

[@marklittler784]

@@CherkasovN 😂😃😂😃😂😃

[@AbhiTek_]

Stopping distances are a complete waste of time. Nobody knows what 45ft is from sitting in the driving seat. If you keep a good and common sense safe distance from the car in front (basing your distance on weather and road conditions) and you are constantly aware of what’s going on around you (ie looking up beyond just the car in front of you to check for hazards), you don’t need to know braking distances. I think going by the two-second rule is great because it is a relative measure that is easy to carry out whilst you’re driving, rather than trying to try and see what 45ft is, which requires you to stare at the car in front and nothing else, making you lose awareness. It is also easy to adapt based on conditions - for example, doubling or quadrupling the time based on speed, rain, ice, fog, etc. Almost all modern cars will stop way before the outdated braking distance and if your car doesn’t, then you will almost certainly know, so you should be extra careful. This is also why checking the condition of your braking system and tyres is so important. Granted, most people don’t know what they’re looking for on their braking system, but checking tyres is part of the driving test and is the least you can do before every journey you make. People hugely underestimate the part that tyres in poor conditions play when it comes to the safety of their car, especially when it comes to braking.

[@johnawalker9261]

I once did a speed awareness course where they insisted that the Highway Code stopping distances were still correct. Top Gear also proved they are wrong. It took the Stig to do over 120mph to stop in the length stated at 70mph.

[@themittonmethod1243]

Oddly, the TRL study, giving a "thinking time" or "deciding time" of 1.5 seconds fits in well with the "two second rule" which has been taught as the minimum following distance on city streets (30mph/50km/h) for decades. Another interesting thing is that where I live, in BC, Canada, the motorcycle parking lot skills test requires a braking distance from 30km/h (20mph) of 7m (23ft) INCLUDING "decision distance" or "cognitive distance", when on a clear, dry day regardless of the bike being used on the test. Given that, as you note, Ashley, MOST people have a very poor ability to judge distance but a better ability to count time, the Two Second rule is a much more useful tool for ensuring following distance. Note that adding a second for each "impediment" - rain, night, fog, highway/motorway, number of riders in the group of bikes you are leading - makes for a MUCH better appropriate distance to be following, and automatically gives the correct necessary distance to stop or avoid safely! It is quite sobering and scary to watch other drivers and see just how small a distance they are actually leaving in front of them, and what the consequences would be if that vehicle came to an abrupt stop or made an emergency swerve.... Just today, I observed a fancy (German) SUV following a lorry (container rig) at a distance of literally one of its own lengths - about 20 feet.... AT 90 km/h (55mph)!! Not a good example for the early teenage child who was in the front passenger seat, for certain! Cheers and drive (and ride) safe!

[@gravemind6536]

Stopping distances are a guide and use arbitary numbers the concept is the more speed you're doing the longer it takes to stop not just due the speed but the distance you travel before you have even reacted so the idea is correct. Some people will react quicker and some slower some cars will stop in less distance and some more depending on the condition of the road, the weight of the vehicle and the type of tyres used because a cars braking distance is only as good as grip the tyres will allow as ABS will quick in so tyres are usually the cars bottle neck on braking distance (stop fitting awful budget tyres and use decent tyres) it can be the difference between a crash or spinning out and not. These stopping distances are old so most cars will brake much better but at the same time everyone seems more distracted so reaction times are slower. Take this for what its worth which is simply the fact that speed matters. To measure the distance you need you should use the 2 second rule or 4 seconds for rain and 10 for snow and ice. Because you can easily calculate the time it takes to stop, when the car in front passes a lamp post start counting the seconds if you can't even reach 2 you're too close although really I would advocate for 4 or more at all times. This is my long winded ramble about it.

[@99solutionsit10]

Doing this check everytime when changing tires, e.g. from winter to summer. Probably 5-6 times each year, for each car.

[@landmannmike]

A number of considerations.. 1 The highway code says this is a general guide and there are other factors to consider. 2 Virtually none of us actually apply maximum braking for the first half of the braking distance, so what can potentially be achieved is not reality 3 The day after a driving test we could drive a van with a tonne of parcels, unlikely to achieve significantly less than 14m at 30mph on slippery roads. 4 The highway code clearly shows the overall stopping distance at 30 mph is about 6 car lengths, most of us can visualise that

[@TheMrDavidSir]

Great video. The only problem I have is that you knew you were going to perform an emergency stop, effectively reducing your thinking time and distance to 0. Now I'm not saying your car would have stopped after 45ft like the Highway code says it should, but if you weren't expecting to stop and you applied thinking distance, it may have only stopped after 30-35ft.

[@donaldasayers]

He is talking about braking distance, not the stopping distance, which includes thinking time.

[@hughraynor8670]

Not long after buying my car, I took it (with permission) to an airfield and did a 0-80-0 test. I was absolutely astounded both at the acceleration, but also the braking. It came to a stop in just over 8 car lengths (~35m), less than HALF the HWC distance at 70 - 10mph less!

[@dimensionexo.]

You were aware of everything - On the highway completely different scenario ⚡︎

[@hughraynor8670]

@@dimensionexo. Not really. From the moment you apply the brakes, the car will stop in the same distance. The difference you're referring to is in the 'thinking distance' - but this has no bearing on the actual ability of the car to slow.

[@dimensionexo.]

@@hughraynor8670 Indeed it will slow - However the distance will { increase } quite substantially : My hypothesis is in your demonstration all parameters were carefully pre - Arranged : You we're already thinking and knowing that you had to stop : Real world we do not have that option to forsee any given circumstance ⚡︎

[@hughraynor8670]

@@dimensionexo. Right. But the Highway Code lists a 'thinking distance' and a 'braking distance'. The point here being that the braking distance, the distance it takes the car to stop from the point the pedal is pressed, is much shorter than the distance the highway code claims.

[@dimensionexo.]

@@hughraynor8670 Okay 😹

[@martinbutchers9497]

Over the years brakes have got better and better and better. When I first went to ABS braking I had a young lad pull out in front of me from a slip road from a car park. He then just stopped to let the two car who were waiting correctly for a sensible gap. I had to brake hard and I thought I was going to hit the back of him and I couldn’t believe how quick my car stopped compared to the older braking system in my previous car. My thoughts were that’s good to have in my back pocket if I ever need them. But most people as brakes have got better drive more and more asleep because they feel more and more confident that they can stop in time. The stopping distance is increased by slower reactions because nobody is looking or even thinking about stopping, just going. Brakes are no good if you don’t apply them and you first have to see the hazard/problem. The biggest problem today, as the manufacturers keep improving cars with safety gizmos it leave the driver to do less and less so they drive does less and without any awareness waiting for an emergency situation to happen. That’s why the hazard perception test is rubbish because it encourages people to do that and not look for the possibilities of hazards. I have several rules in my car I keep too. Here are three, the first 1 is keep yourself alive. number 2, as soon as I start moving I start looking for what is going to to slow me down or make me stop. number 3 If I use the brakes in a harsh manner I have missed something.

[@piciu256]

Even more of a reason why these numbers are useless ;)

[@martinbutchers9497]

@@piciu256 Breaking distances have always been a waste of time since when I learned to drive and 38 years of being an instructor. Brakes are absolutely useless if you don’t apply them but before you can apply them you need to see the problem. today because brakes are so good nobody is looking for the problems they are just waiting for the problem to develop into emergency situation and hit them hard.

[@robg521]

In 1981 I passed my full motor Bike licence, I had already been riding on the roads for several years as a learner and also been on an RAC advanced bike riding course so I flew through the practical test with ease. At the end the examiner asked the Highway Code questions as they did in those days and I got the stopping distances completely wrong which was a potential fail. The examiner stopped, looked at me and asked me to point at the road where I thought I would stop at what speed, and when I did this he was happy that although I couldn’t express the distance in ‘official measurements’ correctly I knew the distances accurately by eye in the real world. ….. Being able to recite numbers out of a book is no indication that you know and understand what happens in the real world.

[@NubletPie278]

I agree, stopping distances are absolutely useless. Can't perceive distance very easily, won't influence your driving in the slightest, varies wildly from car to car (imagine Lotus Exige vs 1990s Land Rover Discovery with tools in the back) and even conditions are not as simple as "wet" or "dry". What they should have, as part of a 3rd test (car control), is a reaction time test. So simply, a red light somewhere in front of the car flicks on and the car records the time it takes for you to smash the brake 1s fail or something. That would actually have some use.

[@IanST9]

Agreed: stopping distances are not much use. The 2-second rule is more helpful: but if a better estimate of thinking distance is 1.5 seconds, then 2 seconds may not be enough. Interestingly, the 2022 edition of the Highway Code seems to have removed the table of Stopping Distances, so it looks like the Department for Transport agreed with Ashley!

[@robp8218]

Always thought the stopping distances were way off with modern cars nowadays, this proves it. I'm with you Ash, they shouldn't be in the highway code, utter waste of space.

[@1daddyDA]

Of course you raise a good and very valid point. I’m sure that with cruise control set, and the road checked so it was safe for you to brake hard at that cone and bearing in mind your Car had ABS, as well as traction control, I am unsurprised that you stopped in a distance, even on a wet road far shorter than the 45 feet. However, you yourself agree that ‘thinking distance’ can be affected by foot position, if you are tired, if you are truly concentrating and if you are really alter. I’d even say that anything that distracts you from the road and your environment could affect thinking distances. So perhaps we should spend more time teaching people that it takes time (time in which your car is still moving) to react on the controls to what you see. Yes as you say all cars should have road legal brakes, tyres at the correct pressure for the road, and all drivers should adapt their driving to the road and traffic conditions. So as instructors we have to teach what’s in the Highway Code. Were I teaching today I would still teach braking and thinking distance as I always have. However I would also address this issue with every learner driver and experienced drivers, I agree totally modern cars have better brakes, better tyres, better braking and suspension systems than cars on the road four years before I was even born! What worries me though is drivers who are so totally convinced that they can stop on a one Penny coin in the pouring rain at 30 mph they drive so close behind you that you can see them snarling in your mirror. As instructors I’m sure you know how we would both have spent ages teaching pupils to deal with these drivers.

[@davidrumming4734]

This time of year I carry a foldable spade in the boot of my car...and some plastic tracks to put under the wheels if I get stuck in snow. I had to do an emergency stop a few weeks ago in a 30 (housing estate) for a cat which ran straight out of a garden. Stopping distance similar or a bit less than yours by the look of it. Less vehicle weight I’m guessing. Important people understand that under emergency stop conditions the brakes feel much different to the usual braking. Often people say they didn’t think their brakes were that good when they do have to chuck the anchor out. Because it invokes ABS etc etc.

[@74HC138]

The absolute stopping distances in the HC are useless, but *relative* distances to show how with increasing speed, the stopping distance doesn't go up linearly but quadratically, needs to be in there. But the easiest and most understandable way of presenting this relationship is to simply present distances as they are in the Highway Code with a nice graph showing numbers and increasing distance with a set of selected speeds. (How many average drivers understand the term "quadratic"? Not many!)

[@wandpj]

I agree that there's very little value in the stopping distance information. It doesn't change drivers' behaviour. It's only small value is illustrating how speed affects the stopping distance of a vehicle. Time is a much more precious commodity than distance.

[@InclusiveDriving]

The universal gauge of distance in my lessons is the swimming pool. The Highway code stopping distance at 20mph is a pool width. At 70mph it's 4 lengths.

[@Otacatapetl]

I never learnt those stopping distances printed on the back cover of the HC (mainly because I couldn't, they just wouldn't stick in my brain). I just winged it in my test and got away with it. I always took the view that, by the time you've stopped, opened the boot and got a tape measure out, the car in front is miles away. I find the 2-second rule (in good conditions) works for me. Touch wood, in 52 yrs of driving I haven't rear-ended anyone.

[@BadDrummerCarl]

Stopping distances should just be a manufacturer requirement and be much lower than stated. There should be more emphasis on reaction time as you pointed out. If all manufacturers had to stop in for example 30ft in good conditions at 30mph then it would put more emphasis on good brakes and safety. The thinking distance should be what drivers learn about and make learners think about awareness. The distance overall in the highest code may not change but the thinking distance should be much higher and the actual stopping distance reduced

[@Austin40424]

Very helpful vid Ashley,thanks. Maybe just being picky, but having a clear windscreen is good in difficult conditions.

[@AndrewGruffudd]

The way I see it, avoiding accidents is dependent more on your ability to read the road and adjust your driving accordingly - and that's more a product of experience, 'though I'm told the modern theory test has a section whereby candidates are expected to spot potential hazards, which is always useful put into practice. As impractical as the stopping distance chart is, though, it's useful as a guide, from whence the experienced driver may make inferences.

[@earlebacciochi9796]

On my motorcycle i regularly do controlled stops with tight turns with cones in empty car parks. So when that moment i need to stop fast it becomes a natural maneuver not a panic uncontrolled skid ! Never occurred to practice it in the car👍

[@wandpj]

There's nothing to practice in a car. Just push the brake pedal through the floor and look for an escape route if you have that luxury. The more valuable aspect is to recognise a potentially dangerous situation earlier and give yourself more time to avoid or minimise.

[@davidellis8141]

For me it’s the drivers awareness ( thinking distance) that’s the problem, when you watch dash cam videos I wonder how the driver didn’t see the problem coming. So it’s not the braking distances but driver awareness is the point. If increasing the stopping distance gives the driver more time, only problem is still the driver having the correct distance to react.

[@legootje3217]

I think important for this discussion is the inclusion of older cars that are still used for daily driving that use older technology/no ABS, etc.. Those might have stopping distances that are longer than the current newer cars and closer to the 1954 data, however a revision/investigation could be usefull

[@piciu256]

That's not the point of the video, the point is that these numbers are totally useless anyway.

[@I_Evo]

But is unlikely they'll also be using 1950's tyres, tyre technology is a major factor in the reduction of stopping distances over the last 60+ years.

[@TheVanderfulLife]

Main issue I find is on motorway at rush hour there's always brake lights, but not enough to require me to brake, just ease off, however occasionally it'll be a harsh brake ahead which from all the non essential braking prior it definitely delays my reaction time till I realise they're braking hard!! 'boy who cried wolf' kinda incident

[@wandpj]

That's why the reaction time in an emergency braking situation is much longer than people think. You have to realise that this situation is different to all the other braking situations where cars are merely slowing down and it takes time to come to this realisation.

[@davidfishwick5573]

@@wandpj good point. The emergency stop excercise is a bit fake as it assumes its an obvious emergency stop. But in most developing situations you will spot the hazard developing early (and either get ready to slow down, or be braking already), but only when its too late will you realise that an emergency stop was indeed needed and you crash anyway.

[@davidfishwick5573]

This commonly occurs before standing traffic. You see everyone braking so you know you will be stopping and you start slowing but (because you were travelling at motorway speed) you think you are going VERY slow and you press the accelerator again because you think you will stop miles too short. Only to realise you have to brake hard to stop because you didn't realise you were still going quite fast.

[@EwanV]

Just did some quick Calculations, and just thinking in terms of 2 second gaps actually exceeds the published stopping distance right up to 40 miles per hour. From 50mph and up you will probably be on main roads where you would already be thinking in terms of 2 second gaps, so2 seconds should be what is taught period. mph kph m/2s Stopping (m) 20 32.2 18 12 30 48.3 27 23 40 64.4 36 36 50 80.5 45 53 60 96.6 54 73 70 112.7 63 96

[@will4may175]

I wonder what the stopping distance is for back seat drivers ? 😁 I agree about the stopping distance in the highway code, the fact that all new cars have ABS as standard (a quick google says UK law since 2004) though I've had cars before that with it, that alone shortens the braking distance, unless on gravel or oil/ice.

[@TKG]

The problem with stopping distances, is, people who constantly tail gait, but even worse, when on a faster road, I always get some numpty go into my safety gap in front, making me have to slow down to gain it back.

[@trueriver1950]

It's more complicated than you said. Doubling your speed doubles your thinking distance but quadruples your braking distance, so all you can say about the total stopping distance is that it is more than double and less than quad. How useful is that? Not very. So while I am quibbling about the physics I do agree with your overall conclusion.

[@SmokeyMcPot42087]

It would be interesting to see how much difference threshold breaking compares to ABS braking. Although i found in my car if you hit the brake quickly in an emergency it applies more braking force which is annoying as the ABS kicks in a lot easier increasing the stopping distance, which in mine seems to be a significant difference.

[@TinyPigy282]

My reactions/thinking time is terrible so i'd personally increase my distance between cars, although it's not much use if something runs out infront etc :/

[@andrewgilbertson5356]

As an older driver ( 65 ) I know my reaction time is slower. When driving on motor ways I tend to leave a good distance , however , I often find other driver using that space to pull out into , even when I am overtaking .

[@gravemind6536]

You're fucked on the motorway you constantly have to adjust because of these people deciding to occupy the gap you have.

[@BrightonandHoveActually]

In 1954, almost all cars would have had four drum brakes, crossply tyres and been only cadence braking would have been available to stop a skid. At least the front and possibly all four brakes will be discs (plus a recharge mechanism if electric). The tyres will be radials. They might have a TPMS (although this is no substitute for checking them). Against that, there is a lot more traffic these days and vehicles can accelerate faster. So I think the risks have changed but not necessarily decreased. The current Highway Code needs to reflect what drivers are likely to encounter in 2021, not 1954, though.

[@phillwainewright4221]

Just maintain a two second gap to the vehicle in front, and barring an emergency, you should be okay. The most important thing is to be aware of everything around you, not just what's immediately in front of your bonnet.

[@ColinMill1]

I think more emphasis on expressing stopping distances in terms of the times taken to cover the stopping distance would be better (much like the late lamented 2-second rule) as it's fairly easy to judge these times while, as you suggest, most people (apart from sprinters and surveyors) have any idea what 50 feet looks like.

[@THall-vv7ps]

Stopping distances in the highway code need to be removed, they are a useless bit of information. They need to be replaced with safe following distances. Minimum of a 2sec gap means following distances are 30mph--88ft(27m). 40mph--117ft(36m). That is much more useful for people to realise.

[@kitty13kitty]

Torque wrench in the boot crew !!! But, .6 seconds "thinking time" at 30MPH -> 44 f/s is actually 26 feet of thinking time and 24 of stopping, 50 feet in total. And knowing what your stopping distance is when that kid runs out could mean "time to avoid" knowing you can't stop in time vs "lets just hope for the best and bury my foot"

[@marklittler784]

On motorways if everything "suddenly!" suddenly indeed comes to a halt then everyone ducks and dives into the space other drivers have left so you're still likely to have an accident only less severe if you keep a good distance.

[@grahamnutt8958]

A very worthwhile upload Ash. In my opinion, which happens to concur with yours, it strikes me as totally pointless to have these figures printed. Most people are unable to remember them and I can state, from experience (also a Top Gear episode) that no two cars are the same. Take these examples from each end of the spectrum..... 1) Modern performance Sports (Supercar/Hypercar); 2) Morris Minor 1000...... I'm not going to quote distances here but I can guarantee that the modern vehicle will stop a damn sight quicker than the old Morris. You covered pretty much every possible variable that can affect the stopping distance.... ABS can help reduce this so long as it doesn't allow the wheels to lock up under braking. The road surface also makes a difference. Modern tarmac has a high level of grip compared to concrete.... the M2, before resurfacing, used to be concrete and could be an absolute nightmare in the wet. I would prefer never to be in a situation where an Emergency Stop is required, especially in a car designed in the 1950's like mine..... defensive driving is by far the safer option. The 2 second rule is reasonable for ideal driving conditions and should be doubled in the wet but I'm prepared to be corrected here if you disagree (@Ashley). Stay safe everyone 👍

[@DriveCamUK]

When I passed my test I came to much the same conclusion. I thought the braking distances in the code were very pessimistic - probably based on some very old brake technology - but also there was also little point in needing to learn that the stopping distance is x metres if almost no-one could estimate what x metres actually is on the road. However - it probably is useful for people, especially those with no particular scientific background, to understand the braking distance/speed relationship is not linear, but quadruples if you double the speed. And making people aware about the fact that there is a thinking distance by which you will continue at the same speed whilst you react to a situation. All of those might persuade some to err on the slower side rather than racing round everywhere.

[@gravemind6536]

My driving instructor asked me about distances, he said how far away is that lamp post and I said I don't know about 100 meters and he said exactly you don't actually know so how do you judge the gap in front of you I said I just leave what I think is a reasonable gap and he then immediatly explained the 2 second rule and it made sense to me straight away and I've used it ever since except I don't leave 2 seconds more like 4-5 seconds.

[@andrewnorris5415]

Passengers can play a big part in reaction times. When I am one I am always careful to stop talking at any time the driver needs to focus on what is going on. I also try to be an extra set of eyes and will shout a warning if need be.

[@RobBCactive]

That thinking time is key, drivers who slow when they observe a potential hazard ready to brake, will stop sooner than a car with a driver who is not observing and anticipating.

[@CdotPoppy]

Ashley, quick ?'s Am I better off braking for a long time softly or just harder and shorter time when I need to stop. Thus brake pads and heat, what wears them out quicker?? I'm coming up to a light at 30mph it goes amber, I cover the brake and the only way to maybe stop is an emergency stop, is it just my luck and I should just keep going, as delay in other green lights would mean there would be no incident?

[@matthewcochrane3750]

Any used car i buy. I always do a brake test, its more peace of mind knowing that it'll stop and also if I need to change the brakes

[@andrewnorris5415]

Good idea to get them looked over too. I bought a Mondeo ST years ago and shortly after in the Peak District on a long descent suddenly the brakes faded. I was lucky to be able to stop before the brakes overheated. I then waited a while for them to cool down! Turned out the discs had been worn below the recommended level. The car stopped sharply in a quick test, but could not dissipate heat so well on prolonged braking. And the car was supposed to have just passed its MOT too! The Quick Fit place that looked at it said it would be dangerous to drive in it - even a short distance. Had to fork out over £200.

[@matthewcochrane3750]

I got a vw polo couple year back, paid 900 quid for it, it stopped ok at slow speeds but slowing down from highway speeds I noticed it shaking, turned out the disks where warped, it was under a months warranty, took it back and they guy said he fixed it, nope ended up doing the job myself

[@TimpBizkit]

I would think the braking distances (which work out about 2/3 of a g, or what you can do with decent sports tires on a dry road) have some safety factor built in, especially for people timid about going full ham on the brakes at high speed and easing in more progressively. A good brake could probably pull up from 60mph in 120 feet or 36 meters (speed squared/100), although there is no safety factor at all. I did see some Australian and American presentations with stopping distances like the brakes were coated in Vaseline though.