Your Driving Habits

[Shrink]

No worries, I like to rehash topics to keep my memory sharp(ish)

All the brakes do is absorb energy from the car itself, the actual stopping ability of the car is almost completely reliant on how well the car is connected to the ground. If you had 4 piston, carbon ceramic brakes on a tyre the width of a road bike, it wouldn't help, and the opposite is true, but on new cars it's rarely the case. In essence, the better your grip, the better your brakes need to be to able to absorb energy from the car.

With an apples to apples comparison, car A at 40 stops in X metres. Car A at 80 will stop at >4X metres. On the same surface, any/every car will experience this behavior as long as they have ABS (ABS reduces slipping, which doesn't help you to slow down at all, in fact it increases your stopping distance).

As long as the car in question can lock the wheels on the surface with it's setup, then it's stopping as fast as it can.

Thanks for the reply.

ABS does not shorten stopping distance, which is our discussion here. But it is worth noting that ABS improves directional control. You may not stop in a shorter distance, but you may be able to steer around the object to be avoided.

Just an idle, and off topic, note.

 

[Hellhammer]

(ABS reduces slipping, which doesn't help you to slow down at all, in fact it increases your stopping distance).

Actually, it does. When your tires are not slipping, the friction is static. When the tires are slipping, the friction turn into kinetic. The coefficient of static friction is higher than the coefficient of kinetic friction, hence ABS does decrease your braking distance.

To try this at home: Try to push e.g. a book with one finger on a table. Compare the force you need to apply to A) Get it moving B) Keep it in motion. It's much harder to get the book moving than it is it to keep it in motion. Case A is static friction, case B is kinetic.

 

[Gregg2]

A good thought in principle, but not so great in execution. If people wait until the last possible second to break in, then others have to stop or seriously slow down to let them in. This has a domino effect which causes major delays. If, instead, people merged earlier, then there would not be nearly as much slowdown, and traffic would continue to move. I would rather be backed up for longer, but moving, than backed up for a shorter distance, but barely moving. All it takes is one car having to stop in heavy traffic and the damage is done. If everyone merged earlier while still moving, stopping would not occur. This comes to a major problem with the I-285/I-20 interchange on the west side of Atlanta. There is only one lane to exit off of I-285 South to get onto I-20 West. But somehow, the two right lanes are completely stopped, and the other two lanes are very stop and go. There is absolutely no reason that a one-lane exit should cause an entire 4-lane interstate to come to a standstill.

Along the same idea is something that used to KILL me at a particular intersection in Atlanta. There were two lanes eastbound. The left lane was a left-turn lane, and the right lane was a straight and right-turn lane. As the left lane was the entrance to the interstate, it was often heavily backed up with cars waiting to turn left. Every single day, numerous assclowns would get all the way up in the right-hand lane, then stop and put on their left-hand blinker, waiting for a chance to move over. This now stopped the straight lane as well from moving. Now, by the logic used above, the traffic backup is shorter. But a lot of the traffic now simply can't move. Is that better?

You are absolutely correct, but are describing an entirely different scenario than I was. I'm talking about situations where the number of lanes is being reduced, and a traffic jam is already underway. Or, there's a lane coming from an intersection onto the highway that is going to disappear ahead. Until the merge point, it's still a lane. Fill it. But, here's what happens: Someone who thinks it's "cheating" to continue in the merging lane slows down and turns on the blinker and all the people already stuck in the adjacent lane won't let the "kind, considerate" driver in. This has two consequences: the cars behind the "thoughtful" driver have to slow down, and the lane-feet ahead are wasted.

The clowns that you describe are trying to "butt in" at the front of the line instead of taking their place at the end. This causes traffic in the lane that is continuing through to slow down until someone who's not such a jerk lets the butter in. I used to observe this daily on the way to work. I was passing by in the lane next to that adjacent lane. I began observing the drivers who were trying to butt in. The overwhelming majority of them were of the same race and gender. The race: same as mine. No comment on the gender.

 

[sammich]

Actually, it does. When your tires are not slipping, the friction is static. When the tires are slipping, the friction turn into kinetic. The coefficient of static friction is higher than the coefficient of kinetic friction, hence ABS does decrease your braking distance.

To try this at home: Try to push e.g. a book with one finger on a table. Compare the force you need to apply to A) Get it moving B) Keep it in motion. It's much harder to get the book moving than it is it to keep it in motion. Case A is static friction, case B is kinetic.

It appears my wording was less than clear My intention was to say that ABS reduces slipping. Slipping (or screeching, as you would hear it usually) increases your stopping distance, as would be demonstrated by Hellhammer's post.

 

[DoFoT9]

My driving habits:

- I'll always drive 120km/h on the 100km/h highway, I live in a pretty rural area, so I know where the cop speed cameras usually are. I accept the fact that I will one day get a speeding ticket.

- When conditions are slippery and wet I will push my (pathetically horrible Lancer) to its limits and see if I can recover from corners, roundabouts, etc.

- I use my iPhone and iPad as I drive (normally both at the same time), and steer with my knee.

- I sing along to loud music almost every single time I drive.

- When I have a guest in the car, if they are a friend or peer I drive the same erratic way, but try to make it "smoother" for them. If it's with a family member, I will drive slower and more careful so I don't get the usual lecture.

- Because I know my local roads so well, I basically know where EVERY pothole is, so I might randomly swerve to one side of the road, etc, drivers behind me must think I suck!

- When driving at night, I attempt to put my 2 left wheels in between the yellow markers in the centre of the road. This means driving on the wrong side of the road, makes it fun when it's 3am and you are tired!

I think that's about it...

 

[JoeG4]

lol crappy lancer.

 

[samiwas]

You are absolutely correct, but are describing an entirely different scenario than I was. I'm talking about situations where the number of lanes is being reduced, and a traffic jam is already underway. Or, there's a lane coming from an intersection onto the highway that is going to disappear ahead. Until the merge point, it's still a lane. Fill it. But, here's what happens: Someone who thinks it's "cheating" to continue in the merging lane slows down and turns on the blinker and all the people already stuck in the adjacent lane won't let the "kind, considerate" driver in. This has two consequences: the cars behind the "thoughtful" driver have to slow down, and the lane-feet ahead are wasted.

If the traffic jam is already underway, then I guess it's not as big of a deal. But it still means that cars in the non-closing lane have to stop each time to let another car in. This does not help alleviate the problem, and only makes it worse. If each car didn't have to stop to let another in, then traffic would start moving.

As for merging, it's up to the person entering the highway to find the open point and get in, adjusting their speed up or down as they come down the merge lane to make that happen. If you can get over as soon as the merge lane hits the main road, you do it then. If you purposely wait until the end, because you think it's wasted lane space otherwise, then what happens when there's not a space for you to merge at that point? Maybe we are saying the same thing, as I'm a bit confused by your wording.

 

[neiltc13]

My habits:

-I tend to look right, then left. I don't know why but every time I catch myself I try to correct it.

That's right, why would you look left first? If you are turning left, then you only have to worry about the traffic coming from the right, and if you are turning right then the traffic from the right will be what you have to cross first.

-I don't stop completely after backing up to put my car in drive

Easily solved, get a car with a proper gearbox.

-I ALWAYS put my seat belt on. It's on before my car even starts. It feels weird not wearing it now.

This is a great habit to have.

 

[Happybunny]

With all you great drivers, I fail to see why there are so many accidents?

 

[steviem]

I don't think everyone is saying they are great in this thread.

 

[steviem]

- Because I know my local roads so well, I basically know where EVERY pothole is, so I might randomly swerve to one side of the road, etc, drivers behind me must think I suck!

This is where most accidents happen. Your very local roads.

 

[iJohnHenry]

That's right, why would you look left first? If you are turning left, then you only have to worry about the traffic coming from the right, and if you are turning right then the traffic from the right will be what you have to cross first.

Only true if you drive on the wrong side of the road, as you do.

Looking to the left first here is just a nod to self-preservation.

 

[ideal.dreams]

That's right, why would you look left first? If you are turning left, then you only have to worry about the traffic coming from the right, and if you are turning right then the traffic from the right will be what you have to cross first.

I was always told to look left then right, because at an intersection, a car to your left would be in the right lane in their lane which would be closer to your car itself. If that made any sense

 

[samiwas]

That's right, why would you look left first? If you are turning left, then you only have to worry about the traffic coming from the right, and if you are turning right then the traffic from the right will be what you have to cross first.

I always look both ways because I never know what insane crap someone is pulling.

 

[heehee]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I had to blast my horn 3 times the past half hour because people think signal is optional and they act like Im the one in the wrong.

 

[Gregg2]

If the traffic jam is already underway, then I guess it's not as big of a deal. But it still means that cars in the non-closing lane have to stop each time to let another car in. This does not help alleviate the problem, and only makes it worse. If each car didn't have to stop to let another in, then traffic would start moving.

If it's already a traffic jam, then, by definition, any car in the lane that's closing has to be "let in" by another car. If you don't recognize that the lane you're in is going to close because the backup is already beyond the sign saying the lane is closing ahead, then you find yourself stuck in that lane. You can stop and wait for someone to let you in, thereby blocking your lane. How does that speed anything up? The people who lose out are the ones farthest over from the lane that's closing. You'd think that lane would still be moving, but many times two or even three lanes away, it's a standstill. If cars move over to the lane that's closing, then other cars can move over as well. Take the same number of cars with one lane empty, and the last car in each lane is farther from the choke point than if all lanes are filled.

As for merging, it's up to the person entering the highway to find the open point and get in, adjusting their speed up or down as they come down the merge lane to make that happen. If you can get over as soon as the merge lane hits the main road, you do it then. If you purposely wait until the end, because you think it's wasted lane space otherwise, then what happens
when there's not a space for you to merge at that point?

Again, if it's already a traffic jam, there is no place to merge unless someone slows down even more to let you in.

Maybe we are saying the same thing, as I'm a bit confused by your wording.

What wording is confusing you?

 

[samiwas]

What wording is confusing you?

I didn't realize your highway merging lane example was also during a traffic jam. I thought you were just talking about merging in general.

 

[Gregg2]

I didn't realize your highway merging lane example was also during a traffic jam. I thought you were just talking about merging in general.

Yeah. I think in the flow of our "conversation", it's relatively clear. Maybe not crystal clear. I expanded on my original scenario in response to your reply to it talking about an exit lane from an expressway, which I had not addressed.

It's the same concept in my two scenarios, a lane is ending, whether due to road construction or an entry lane disappearing ahead. The thing that gets me about those jerks who pull over to block someone is how do they know if that car entered from the intersecting road and got "stuck" in the disappearing lane because there was no space to merge into? Those cars should fill the lane, and if someone from the adjacent lane wants to move over there too, how is that different from anyone else who is changing lanes in a traffic jam because they see an advantage to moving over?

 

[mscriv]

I tend to be a good driver that obeys all traffic laws except for the occasional speeding when on a long trip. I used to have terrible driving habits and sometimes I think back about crazy things I did and marvel that I am alive today. For example, once I passed a semi on the right shoulder at about 120 mph. For about the first eight years of my professional life my job required me to drive and visit people in the community. Thus, I was driving everyday in all kinds of driving conditions. I think all of that driving plus getting older has sort of mellowed me out and today I'm a pretty "vanilla" driver with good habits. My wife says I drive "like a grampa" now and that it drives her crazy. I guess I've just seen too many idiotic things happen on the road and I value my life and the lives of my passengers more than anything else.

 

[TheReef]

When reversing (auto or manual), I'll switch into drive or a forward gear without first bringing the car to a stop.

Yep - in manual, but not in auto. It's bad for the transmission.

Clutch slipping, engine braking (manual and semi-autos).

I use engine braking a lot, saves on break pads and petrol.

 

[sammich]

Yep - in manual, but not in auto. It's bad for the transmission.

Usually less then 5km/h (3mi/h) when I put in forward. I did it once on a new car we got (Kluger/Highlander in the US) a bit too fast, and the car stalled. Never happened on other cars I did it on.

I use engine braking a lot, saves on break pads and petrol.

But I wonder if it wears the clutch out a little faster and it offsets the benefits.

 

[TheReef]

But I wonder if it wears the clutch out a little faster and it offsets the benefits.

If you blip the throttle to rev-match on the downshift, it shouldn't put any wear on the clutch.

But if you use the clutch to brake (ie you don't perfectly match the revs), then yes, there will be more wear on the clutch - replacing break pads is cheaper than installing a new clutch.