Well, hopefully you do when needed... but I've become more and more fascinated (or obsessed) by the constant flashing of brake lights? A few examples:

1) I'm rolling peacefully on a 90 km/h (55 mph) road, following another car, in front of us signs reducing speed limit to 70 km/h (45 mph) so I just lift my right foot from the accelerator... but on the car in front of me the brake lights flash ???

2) Roundabout in a 30 mph area. I move the gearshift to 3rd, let the engine adjust the speed, and go smoothly through it... but the driver in front of me puts his foot on the brake ???

Can't understand why they do it? Only drawback mith my style of driving that I can think of is that the rear brake shoes are seldom used, so at MOT the tester has to work the pedal frantically to get an even and balanced action :p (note to self: make a sharp brake at least once a fortnight to keep them moving)

Another unscientific observation (through the rear mirror) that I would appreciate comments on is the characteristics of tailgating drivers... in my experience they are either inconsiderate chavs in modded Volvos (probably something else in the UK - Vauxhalls?), the kind or Beemer owners with more money than brain, or...

women

Have your say.

Edited 2 September, 201015 yr by swedishskoda

2) Roundabout in a 30 mph area. I move the gearshift to 3rd, let the engine adjust the speed, and go smoothly through it... but the driver in front of me puts his foot on the brake ???

As an observation rather than a criticism...using your technique, a car following you would have no prior indication that you were about to slow down until they observe the car slowing down. If you touched the brakes, they'd see the brake light come on and know your intention...

As an observation rather than a criticism...using your technique, a car following you would have no prior indication that you were about to slow down until they observe the car slowing down. If you touched the brakes, they'd see the brake light come on and know your intention...

Most valid point :yes:

A roundabout is much larger than my Felly, so I would expect the driver behind me to take notice of its existence anyway. But in dense traffic I do touch the brake pedal for the very reason you mention.

Using the gears to slow down instead of the brakes is normally frowned upon, at least in UK "advanced driving" systems. I'm surprised Rob didn't mention that TBH.

Ok, rantette over.

My Octy is so free-running that, if I didn't brake at some point or another entering a reduced speed limit, I'd need to lift off about 200m before the limit for every 10kph I needed to lose, so that's why I will brake at some point!

OTOH, in slowish but steady moving traffic, I practice "see how far I can drive without braking", as an exercise in building my anticipation and "look ahead" skills. This usually confises the H211 out of the driver behind, particularly if they're female or drive a BMW. OTOH Ch@vs seem to be afraid of being anywhere that is more than 2 miles from a MacDonalds "restaurant", so they're rarely an issue!

A lot of people seem to touch the brake whenever they slow down. As I drive two diesel cars they both have a lot of engine braking and I can often get away without touching the brakes.

However, I'll often just apply a little dab if I think the person behind isn't paying attention, or if I'm swinging from one lock to the other, especially in the Signum, which likes 24 hours notice of any change of direction. A little dab seems to bring the car back level before swinging it from one lock to the other.

Phil

Did it not used to be that engine braking for any reason only used to be taught to minimise the risk of brake fade on all-drum cars of old? ISTR that's what my driving instructor told me (although he also reckoned on being Rolf Harris's biggest hater due to himself once being the drummer in Marmalade and losing out on the first no. 1 of the 70s to 'Two Little Boys' - one, other or both may not therefore be true...)

If you get a single flash of the brake lights, they maybe touching the brakes to cancel cruise control

I work to the Jeremy Clarkson rule as far as possible. accelerator uses fuel (and money). Brakes kill momentum and costs money - keep both to a minimum as far as possible - it is up to the car behind me to realise theer is a reason to slow down and I have no duty to use my brake just to inform them.

Most cars here in NZ are autos, so people brake all the time, especially downhill (we have many steep hills!).

You do find some drivers who mysteriously brake when driving along a straight road at or under the speed limit. That's strange!

I don't really use my brakes much. I'm still on the original brake pads at 6.5 years old and 97,000km and they have a fair amount of wear in them.

Just the way I was taught to drive.

If you're driving properly, you'll anticipate the traffic conditions and use the accelerator accordingly. Ease off it to slow down and then select the appropriate gear for your speed, so as not to use your gears to slow down, just the natural engine braking effect.

When you use your brakes, you should really use them when the car is in its most stable condition, usually in a straight line, braking mid corner is asking for trouble.

With regard to vehicles behind no seeing brake lights, the amount of deceleration from easing off the accelerator is low and gradual and if other drivers can't anticipate the conditions from the same information available to you, then their driving ability is questionable.

The brakes convert kinetic energy into heat, using them inappropriately is a waste of fuel.

Using the gears to slow down instead of the brakes is normally frowned upon, at least in UK "advanced driving" systems.

I think one of the reasons is that if you change down a gear to slow down, you're adding wear to the clutch, as opposed to adding wear to brakes - and brake components are *much* easier to replace than clutch components.

If you're driving properly, you'll anticipate the traffic conditions and use the accelerator accordingly. Ease off it to slow down and then select the appropriate gear for your speed, so as not to use your gears to slow down, just the natural engine braking effect.

That's certainly one scenario, although if your main objective is to drive for "progress", rather than "chauffeuring", then you'll likely be holding a higher speed for as long as possible before using the brakes firmly but smoothly to set the speed for the hazard. Different approaches, but both equally valid imho

The brakes convert kinetic energy into heat, using them inappropriately is a waste of fuel.

Absolutely - but there's more to life than fuel economy isn't there?

Chris

I think one of the reasons is that if you change down a gear to slow down, you're adding wear to the clutch, as opposed to adding wear to brakes - and brake components are *much* easier to replace than clutch components.

The argument is along the lines that brakes are designed to stop the car and cheaper to replace than gearboxes. Can't really argue with that statement, but when was the last time anyone had to change a gear box as a result of using gears to slow down?! In addition to Rob's point about the brake lights, a few reasons to use the brakes rather than the gears is because it gives (in a well maintained car!) predictable results, it acts on all 4 wheels (in the worst case engine braking will only operate on one wheel), allows you to keep both hands on the steering wheel and also has the added benefit of ABS assistance should the wheels lock. It also seems to be to be much more efficient to only have a single gear change on the approach to a hazard.

For me, engine braking is used for small amounts of deceleration that can be performed in the current gear I'm in. For bigger amounts of deceleration, I'll be using the brakes as I want people to notice I'm slowing down more and I also don't want to start decelerating half a mile before the hazard

Chris

...

For me, engine braking is used for small amounts of deceleration that can be performed in the current gear I'm in. For bigger amounts of deceleration, I'll be using the brakes as I want people to notice I'm slowing down more and I also don't want to start decelerating half a mile before the hazard

Chris

Exactly

... if your main objective is to drive for "progress", rather than "chauffeuring"...

Could that be interpreted 'if your main objective is to drive for "fun", rather than "chauffeuring"...'? The 'progress' (e.g. gained minutes during a 100 miles trip) can't be that big? Even after this 'edit' I agree with your statement "Different approaches, but both equally valid '

The argument is along the lines that brakes are designed to stop the car and cheaper to replace than gearboxes. Can't really argue with that statement, but when was the last time anyone had to change a gear box as a result of using gears to slow down?!

:yes: One can, of course, imagine that repeated deceleration from 70 mph by throwing in 2nd gear might give you trouble in the long run. If a gearbox breaks from downshifting to 3rd at 30 mph it must be on the verge of breaking anyway - and the wear on the clutch must be next to nothing compared with starting from standstill.

In addition to Rob's point about the brake lights, a few reasons to use the brakes rather than the gears is because it gives (in a well maintained car!) predictable results, it acts on all 4 wheels (in the worst case engine braking will only operate on one wheel), allows you to keep both hands on the steering wheel and also has the added benefit of ABS assistance should the wheels lock. It also seems to be to be much more efficient to only have a single gear change on the approach to a hazard.

Approaching a hazard is, of course, completely different from adjusting your speed to 'natural' obstacles such as speed limits or roundabouts that are easy to spot from a long distance. Road condition (winter driving) is another factor that should be decisive.

And under difficult conditions both hands on the wheel is important.

For me, engine braking is used for small amounts of deceleration that can be performed in the current gear I'm in.

On those instances when a downshift is necessary for other reasons (as in my roundabout example) I cannot see a problem in using it for deceleration as well

For bigger amounts of deceleration, I'll be using the brakes as I want people to notice I'm slowing down more and I also don't want to start decelerating half a mile before the hazard

Agree completely.

I guess that the conclusion that can be drawn from all sound remarks and comments in this thread is that there are no general rules for good driving - you should always adjust to the situation.

Intresting statisic is that you are 50% less likely to be driven into the back of in an automaic as the divers will use the brakes for slowing down and holding stationary. Shows the value of brake lights in slowing down.

While the other person may be at fault you still have a damaged vehicle, possibly an injury and if they are uninsured...

Intresting statisic is that you are 50% less likely to be driven into the back of in an automaic as the divers will use the brakes for slowing down and holding stationary. Shows the value of brake lights in slowing down.

While the other person may be at fault you still have a damaged vehicle, possibly an injury and if they are uninsured...

Interesting... but (with due respect) I wonder if any reliable and systematic studies have been made? References appreciated. A difference sounds more than plausible, but 50 % seems to me an awfully high figure.

I'm not denying the importance of the brake lights' signal function and in dense traffic I often put my foot on the brake just enough to flash the light, even if the pads never touches the discs. But I'm also a fan of the 'look ahead' school and I imagine that if I have any driving qualities above average they consist in my foresight capabilities. This includes using the rear mirror - and if there are no cars behind me (or only at a more than safe distance) there's no need for signalling.

Nevertheless there are people on the roads who interpret every possible driving condition as an opportunity to touch the brakes! I'd say this is mostly down to poor driving awareness or lack of experience. There seems to be a panic braking syndrome!

I think the point raised earlier on that the car in front's brake lights serve as a warning to the driver behind is flawed! Whilst they do serve as a warning that the car in front is slowing down - if this is the only thing you're relying on to help you moderate your speed, then you're just waiting to have an accident! Whether you see their brake lights or not, it's your responsibility as the operator of your own vehicle to keep a safe distance from the car in front.

The key is learning to drive smoothly and safely which I'd put largely down to gaining greater experience of driving in a variety of conditions.

Could that be interpreted 'if your main objective is to drive for "fun", rather than "chauffeuring"...'? The 'progress' (e.g. gained minutes during a 100 miles trip) can't be that big? Even after this 'edit' I agree with your statement "Different approaches, but both equally valid '

By progress, I was really referring to the other extreme of emergency vehicles on a shout where there is a need to make progress and where response time is crucial. For regular driving, I'd probably agree that fun might be a better suited definition and I suspect that it's rare for people to drive entirely at either extreme on a journey.

Approaching a hazard is, of course, completely different from adjusting your speed to 'natural' obstacles such as speed limits or roundabouts that are easy to spot from a long distance.

That's an interesting point and I'm not sure my use of "hazard" is well defined. Roadcraft has the rather woolly definition of "Any thing or situation that has the potential for danger" but I think I'd include natural obstacles in there too. One thing that I like to instil in associates is that identifying a hazard, planning on how to deal with that hazard, and dealing with that hazard are three distinct phases and that just because you've seen and identified a hazard, it may not make sense to deal with it just yet - remember that the closer you get to the hazard the more information you accumulate about that hazard and therefore the more informed decision you can make. With the Roadcraft approach, we aim to only go through the System (Information, Position, Speed, Gear, Acceleration) once per hazard so for us to be using engine braking to get the speed correct, we would be only making a small change in speed or making a decision early.

I quite like Eisenhower's quote (paraphrased from memory) - “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but the act of planning is indispensable.â€

Chris

Nevertheless there are people on the roads who interpret every possible driving condition as an opportunity to touch the brakes! I'd say this is mostly down to poor driving awareness or lack of experience. There seems to be a panic braking syndrome!

Absolutely. One of the problems we have is that people are very defensive about their driving ability (just look how many people rate themselves above average!) which means that they have no motivation to improve ... and let's face it, we can all improve!

I think the point raised earlier on that the car in front's brake lights serve as a warning to the driver behind is flawed! Whilst they do serve as a warning that the car in front is slowing down - if this is the only thing you're relying on to help you moderate your speed, then you're just waiting to have an accident! Whether you see their brake lights or not, it's your responsibility as the operator of your own vehicle to keep a safe distance from the car in front.

Maybe we should remove brake light bulbs from cars and see how long we all last

Chris

By progress, I was really referring to the other extreme of emergency vehicles on a shout where there is a need to make progress and where response time is crucial.

Makes sense :yes: Very few of us have to consider this when driving, though.

That's an interesting point and I'm not sure my use of "hazard" is well defined. Roadcraft has the rather woolly definition of "Any thing or situation that has the potential for danger" but I think I'd include natural obstacles in there too.

If you add 'potential', all roundabouts, crossings &c. are, of course, hazardous. But again, more or less so depending on the actual situation - compare a congested roundabout in dense city traffic, with people in a hurry to or from work, with an empty roundabout in a small village. One must prepare for both but will deal with them differently. Eisenhower hit the nail :yes: I had to google that one and the established form seems to be "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." Can't think of a better way describing a sound attitude towards driving.

I think the point raised earlier on that the car in front's brake lights serve as a warning to the driver behind is flawed! Whilst they do serve as a warning that the car in front is slowing down - if this is the only thing you're relying on to help you moderate your speed, then you're just waiting to have an accident! Whether you see their brake lights or not, it's your responsibility as the operator of your own vehicle to keep a safe distance from the car in front.

Yes and no... if brake light is the only thing you care about you will get in trouble :p As one indicator among many they are useful.

The 'look ahead' approach is not foolproof. With a car in front of me, and a roundabout further ahead, I can foresee that the driver will slow down so his brake lights are irrelevant. But if I'm just a tiny bit too smart, I also foresee that he will pass through the roundabout since (from my reading of the situation) he has plenty of time doing so without putting safety aside. Instead he chooses to stop, giving way to a car approaching from another road. In such a case his brake lights are very helpful

Edited 4 September, 201015 yr by swedishskoda

Yes and no... if brake light is the only thing you care about you will get in trouble :p As one indicator among many they are useful.

The 'look ahead' approach is not foolproof. With a car in front of me, and a roundabout further ahead, I can foresee that the driver will slow down so his brake lights are irrelevant. But if I'm just a tiny bit too smart, I also foresee that he will pass through the roundabout since (from my reading of the situation) he has plenty of time doing so without putting safety aside. Instead he chooses to stop, giving way to a car approaching from another road. In such a case his brake lights are very helpful

Which is completely my point - they do create an awareness that the person in front is braking, but that should never be our only point of reference for moderating our speed or distance from the car in front. But yeh, I think we're saying the same thing.

The statistic was given to me on a work course (run by the IAM commercial arm I think).

As for looking ahead I did a cousre full day course with CAT driver trianing at Milbrook (Advancd road and track) earlier in the week and the instructor was saying how many people mearly concentrate on the vehicle in front when driving. I am preety sure he said either 30 or 40%, either way a scary proposition.

Now I'm back, on the "how much time do you save?" question, one of my friends used to have a commute like that.

If she left work and didn't get held up in the first 10 miles, she'd get home in about 90 minutes. If she got held up for 5 minutes in those first ten miles, her trip went out to significantly over 2 hours, repeatably.

So the answer is that driving quickly can make a big difference to journey times.

Oh and I can believe Simon's point in #23!

Having followed a 406 with no working brakelights this morning an a fast but congested M60, I'm glad to say I was able to keep track of him AND the other traffic around so that it took me a while to even notice that was what was wrong! I'm a bit worried about what would have happened if he'd done an emergency stop, though...