Forced Tailgating

If I have a driver signalling to move into my lane I will start to increase the distance between myself and the vehicle ahead to make room and keep my cushion. If the driver seems hesitant I will blink my lights to let them know when it is safe to switch lanes.

I consider this the same as merging. Far too often I see drivers that will not give a person a break. Attitude seems to be you can merge anytime you want just not in front of me.

Read the posts on merging from a few months past. One even complained that if a car moved in from of them it was obviously one of those terrible speeders who always had to be first. You should always merge behind this person. Interesting post as this person is always carrying on about the evils of speeding and how speeders always have to be first. Yet at the same time this person did not believe in the zipper merge as you were supposed to go behind them even though in a zipper merge you should have gone in front. In other words if this person was in the lane you were merging you had to let two cars go by so that you did not merge in front of them.

I thought it was 3 seconds.  It's been like 6 years since I read the drivers' book, but I seem to remember that.  It should be the same as the 3 seconds you are supposed to wait before entering an intersection when the car in front of you has started moving on a green light (which no one does, and which is ridiculous, in my mind).

It's always been the '2 second rule', which isn't a rule actually (merely a suggested minimum following distance), just some useful advice about maintaining a gap from the vehicle ahead. This, because the vast majority of two-vehicle crashes (the commonest type of crash) are rear-enders, which could probably have been prevented if the driver had sufficient time and space to react.

It's worth keeping in mind that prior to this concept (which got introduced in the 1970s/80s) the wisest heads in driver education were counseling that drivers should maintain a car length distance at 10 mph, two car lengths at 20 mph, five car lengths at 50 mph, etc. Which is nuts, because it requires the driver to constantly try and recalculate (while constantly checking the speedometer) as traffic flow changes, and more importantly it ignores the simple physics of increased speed. Ten car lengths at 100 mph? Maybe - on a race track! But the 2 Second Rule which is a minimum, not an absolute works at any speed, in terms of giving the following driver adequate stopping distance in good condtions.

But any driver - especially a learner/new driver - can 'train their brain' to constantly check for that two second gap from the vehicle ahead. Which will then, hopefully, become an ingrained habit. And it won't matter whether the local measurements are in miles or kilometers.

Inasmuch as road conditions may become more challenging (poor road surface, steep downgrade, weather conditions) then any driver with a brain in their head will try for a bit more of a space cushion. But trying to specify whether this should now be 3, or 4, or whatever number of seconds is absurd (although ICBC 'experts' still try to make more 'rules' for drivers to follow - apparently because they don't understand how  and why the 2 Second Rule got created, or the actual meaning of 'minimum'). And yet, these guys have university degrees and some kind of qualification, apparently.

As for that idea of counting to three before proceeding on a fresh green light, at the time it was created it probably seemed to make sense. Oh sure, other vehicles can blow through a red light any time, but it's usually due to them attempting to 'make it' (often while accelerating instead of stopping). That's why quite a few of our red light cameras now have their speed camera function activated. Meanwhile, any wise driver will continue to scan as they pass through any intersection, to ensure they're not going to get hit by some fool on the cross street.

The Law

A driver must not drive from one lane to another unless the driver has ascertained that movement can be made with safety and will in no way affect the travel of another vehicle. This requirement is straight forward, if I have to slow to maintain safe following distance after you change lanes in front of me, you are in violation.

It's unfortunate, but - like many traffic laws - this gets ignored constantly. By drivers, and by police. If a law isn't enforced, at least to some degree, it gets ignored, forgotten, unimportant. And the police/bylaws officers in this province have been increasingly inefficient/ineffective over the last fifty years. What percentage of drivers have actually been ticketed due to following too close, or making an unsafe lane change, in the last few decades? 1%, maybe 2%? In my opinion, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have driven in the UK frequently, having family there. Remarkably, and as much as they love speed cameras, on motorways with high crash rates (multiple rear-enders, typically) they also often now paint white road markings (with accompanying signage) to help drivers realize whether or not they have that two second gap from vehicles ahead. A foreign concept to the BC Government, I guess.

Incidentally, this UK Government item for drivers is worth a look.

As to making effective use of camera technology, it's clearly evident that the higher-speed/volume arteries (mostly bridges with a limited forward view) have the most rear-enders. It would be simple to set up cameras that check following distance (maybe using two or three marked points for measurement, in case of some driver cutting into a gap illegally) and ticket drivers who habitually follow too close. We could do this. But they don't really care, in my opinion. Much easier to ticket speeders on an empty freeway, or miscreants using the HOV lane ... and bring in lots of money for the authorities instead of protecting and serving the general public.