Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
able to stop before hitting you.
There is another car stopped in front of you, but you stopped far
enough back so that you can see where his tires meet the road. Which
would be a preferable course of action for you:
a) Step on the brakes as hard as you can and brace for impact, or
b) Take your foot off the brake, wait for the impact, and then
IMMEDIATELY slam on the brake again so that you don't hit the car in
front of you.
Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?

Signature
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
L Sternn - 24 Apr 2005 03:20 GMT
>Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
>you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?
I choose c) make use of the grenade launcher installed in the back of
my car.
Arif Khokar - 24 Apr 2005 03:32 GMT
[impending rear end collision]
> There is another car stopped in front of you, but you stopped far
> enough back so that you can see where his tires meet the road. Which
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> IMMEDIATELY slam on the brake again so that you don't hit the car in
> front of you.
If it were possible, I'd drive into one of the adjacent lanes.
If it were not, then I would choose a. The problem with option b is
that you may not be able to press the brake due to the effect the force
of impact may have on you.
L Sternn - 24 Apr 2005 05:15 GMT
>[impending rear end collision]
>> There is another car stopped in front of you, but you stopped far
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>that you may not be able to press the brake due to the effect the force
>of impact may have on you.
The other problem with 'a' is that bracing for impact might end up
resulting in greater injury.
They often say that one reason drunks often walk away from accidents
without a scratch is that they were relaxed.
Let your seatbelt and headrest do the work
The Real Bev - 24 Apr 2005 03:46 GMT
> Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
> you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?
I don't think you could slam the brakes on quickly enough to avoid hitting the
car in front of you even if it would actually stop your car before hitting
him. If you had that much room, pulling around the guy in front of you and
letting HIM take the hit might be sensible.

Signature
Cheers,
Bev
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." --Ernst Jan Plugge
Brent P - 24 Apr 2005 05:08 GMT
> a) Step on the brakes as hard as you can and brace for impact, or
> b) Take your foot off the brake, wait for the impact, and then
> IMMEDIATELY slam on the brake again so that you don't hit the car in
> front of you.
>
> Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?
Can't you take out your own physics book?
Scott en Aztlán - 24 Apr 2005 19:19 GMT
>> a) Step on the brakes as hard as you can and brace for impact, or
>> b) Take your foot off the brake, wait for the impact, and then
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Can't you take out your own physics book?
I sold it back after the course was over. ;)

Signature
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
Brent P - 25 Apr 2005 01:02 GMT
>>> a) Step on the brakes as hard as you can and brace for impact, or
>>> b) Take your foot off the brake, wait for the impact, and then
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I sold it back after the course was over. ;)
Well that was dumb. I not going to type in a whole chapter for you.
Anyway the answer depends on the mass of the objects and how much energy
is consumed in the collision.
Nate Nagel - 24 Apr 2005 10:38 GMT
> Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
> you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?
Neither one... if you've stopped with enough space you ought to be able
to get onto the shoulder, unless you're in the middle lane of three or more.
nate

Signature
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Harry K - 24 Apr 2005 14:18 GMT
> Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
> you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Sloth Kills!
> http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
A. Pull out of line if possible.
Option b is a no show. Your reaction time won't allow it and in the
scenario you posit you are going to wind up impacting the car in front.
Your choice really comes down to jamming the brake on and taking all or
most of the impact or allowing yourself to be shoved into the next car
which will lessen your impact by some amount.
Harry K
Steve - 24 Apr 2005 15:46 GMT
I say do what they teach in Driver's Ed, which is to let off the brake
and relax. Yes, you'll hit the car in front of you, but you'll have a
softer impact with the car behind you, which will cause less damage to
your car and yourself.
Brent P - 25 Apr 2005 01:03 GMT
> I say do what they teach in Driver's Ed, which is to let off the brake
> and relax. Yes, you'll hit the car in front of you, but you'll have a
> softer impact with the car behind you, which will cause less damage to
> your car and yourself.
However, the insurance implications may not be so pleasant.
Harry K - 25 Apr 2005 01:59 GMT
> > I say do what they teach in Driver's Ed, which is to let off the brake
> > and relax. Yes, you'll hit the car in front of you, but you'll have a
> > softer impact with the car behind you, which will cause less damage to
> > your car and yourself.
>
> However, the insurance implications may not be so pleasant.
Here is a great example of LE gone wrong.
I don't recall the exact details anymore but:
Spokane WA recently a county commissioner (or at least a high ranking
government person) got the Sheriff (or Chief of Police) to cancel a
ticket given to one of his relatives who was in that exact position,
i.e., middle car in a 'car sandwich'. The ticket was for defective
tail light. In the uproar that came out in the paper...you ain't gonna
believe it but it is true;
It was the standard in the department to give a 'defective tail light'
citation' to anyone who was rear ended. That practice was rapidly done
away with when the reporters lit on it.
Harry K
Bernd Felsche - 25 Apr 2005 01:03 GMT
>I say do what they teach in Driver's Ed, which is to let off the brake
>and relax. Yes, you'll hit the car in front of you, but you'll have a
>softer impact with the car behind you, which will cause less damage to
>your car and yourself.
That ignored the injury effect of subjecting vehicle occupants to
greater acceleration. Cars are much easier to fix than backs.

Signature
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!
Ashton Crusher - 24 Apr 2005 20:40 GMT
>Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
>you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?
Why not, aside from insurance reasons, an option C
c) pull up so your front bumper is pushed as hard as possible against
the car ahead's bumper. That will double the mass of the first object
the fast approaching car is going to hit (now it will hit a car that's
twice as big with 8 wheels). It means your car will move forward
after the hit at a lower speed then it otherwise would (till it hit
the car ahead). It might also reduce the number and/or severity of
secondary bounce-back collisions that occur in these kinds of
accidents. After pushing bumpers together I would keep my foot on the
brake to minimize the bounce back effects. The more damping forces
you can introduce, i.e. brakes, and bumper touching to double the
mass, the more you reduce the peak acceleration your body has to
experience. Your bodies damage is likely to be closely related to the
peak acceleration you have to endure.
--
New service to compete with paypal
Get $25 pre-registration bonus by
following this link
www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u
Alexander Rogge - 24 Apr 2005 20:50 GMT
> Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
> you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
> able to stop before hitting you.
If it's the Sloth Coaster in a car without any lights on in the rain, in
the left lane which I was trying to use to pass a line of vehicles that
were being held up by another Sloth Coaster also with no lights on, you
should slam on the brakes with three car lengths in front of you and
yell at your rearview mirror. What is it they don't get about the need
to have headlights and taillights on in the rain? Unless I drive with
high-beams on or use a TIC, they're very hard to see in the dark.
> There is another car stopped in front of you, but you stopped far
> enough back so that you can see where his tires meet the road.
You could put the transmission into neutral and let the car be pushed
into the vehicle in front. Unfortunately, you'll be forced backward and
then forward again, so the risk of injury increases and you'll have two
areas of vehicle damage, one of which is to the engine. It's unlikely
that without an electronic braking system you would be able to reapply
enough brake force in time to stop your car from hitting the one in
front. A better method is to move forward so that you're
bumper-to-fender with the vehicle in front of you. When the vehicle
behind you hits, the secondary forward impact will be minimised.
Scott en Aztlán - 24 Apr 2005 22:12 GMT
>> Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
>> you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>should slam on the brakes with three car lengths in front of you and
>yell at your rearview mirror.
Did that technique work for you? :)
>A better method is to move forward so that you're
>bumper-to-fender with the vehicle in front of you. When the vehicle
>behind you hits, the secondary forward impact will be minimised.
The original idea was to avoid impacting the car in front at all,
confining damage to the rear of my car, but unless one stops several
feet back from the car in front that doesn't appear to be likely.
How about this: assuming you're not doing something asinine like
blocking the entrance to a left turn pocket or a driveway, stop 6'
back from the car in front until such time as another car comes up
behind you and stops. Once your rear-end-collision shield is in place,
you can creep forward to a standard distance from the car in front.
This way, the only way you'll strike the car in front of you is if the
car behind you gets hit hard enough to push both the car behind you
AND your car far enough forward to hit the car in front of you.

Signature
Life is short - drive fast!
http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/about.html
Alexander Rogge - 24 Apr 2005 23:22 GMT
> Did that technique work for you? :)
The LLB Sloth Coaster was likely trying to get hit. I could have moved
back to the right lane, but the road was wet and oily and it felt like
the front end wasn't responding well when I pulled into the left lane,
so I decided to cancel. The Sloth lights up the brake lights and comes
to a stop 5 m behind the intersection line. I could have gone left, but
I did a brake test instead. The Sloth then moved slowly forward and
held up all the traffic in the left lane as I moved in front of the
other Sloth Coaster and continued in the right lane.
> How about this: assuming you're not doing something asinine like
> blocking the entrance to a left turn pocket or a driveway, stop 6'
> back from the car in front until such time as another car comes up
> behind you and stops. Once your rear-end-collision shield is in place,
> you can creep forward to a standard distance from the car in front.
If you move forward, the driver behind you will likely also move
forward. If that vehicle gets hit from behind, you'll get hit and be
pushed into the vehicle in front. Sometimes two or three cars will stop
behind each other and I'll stop at the usual distance behind them. The
first driver in line moves forward into the intersection, and then the
second driver moves forward, and then the third driver, until I have two
or three car lengths in front of me. They leave so little space in
between each other that they couldn't move out of the lane if they had
to. Then the light turns green and they don't move.
Scott en Aztlán - 25 Apr 2005 01:55 GMT
>> Did that technique work for you? :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>If you move forward, the driver behind you will likely also move
>forward.
Of course.
>If that vehicle gets hit from behind, you'll get hit and be
>pushed into the vehicle in front.
That depends on how hard the other vehicle gets hit. Since the
collisions are at least somewhat elastic, the amount of energy that is
transferred to your car is going to be much less thanks to that newly
formed ball of tinfoil behind you. :)
>Sometimes two or three cars will stop
>behind each other and I'll stop at the usual distance behind them. The
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>between each other that they couldn't move out of the lane if they had
>to. Then the light turns green and they don't move.
And you change lanes and go around. ;)
Which brings up another point: I've noticed a strong correlation
between creeping forward at an intersection and Sloth. One might
expect someone who is creeping forward to be "itching to go" and thus
to floor it away from the light when it turns green, but I've found
the opposite to be more often the case. Usually the guy who was
creeping forward for the last 90 seconds acts like he's stuck in
cement when the green finally does come on, and is the LAST vehicle to
actually cross the stop/limit line.

Signature
Life is short - drive fast!
http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/about.html
Alexander Rogge - 25 Apr 2005 07:16 GMT
>>If that vehicle gets hit from behind, you'll get hit and be
>>pushed into the vehicle in front.
> That depends on how hard the other vehicle gets hit.
If the vehicle behind you isn't pushed into you, its driver will likely
panic when the numerous airbags pop out, stomp on the accelerator pedal
and smash into you, and then jump out of the vehicle.
>> Then the light turns green and they don't move.
> And you change lanes and go around. ;)
I used a left turn lane to go around a line of about ten vehicles being
held up by a Sloth in a minivan. The Sloth was still playing with its
CDs when the light turned green again, and only two more vehicles behind
the Sloth got through the light.
> Which brings up another point: I've noticed a strong correlation
> between creeping forward at an intersection and Sloth.
I see that happening, too. They get mad if you honk or attempt to pass
them as they Slothly accelerate forward.
Cory Dunkle - 25 Apr 2005 04:23 GMT
> Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
> you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car
Personally I'd choose option C...
Pull out to the right and up onto the curb, or pull out to the left onto the
'wrong' side of the road/do a U-turn if possible/go up the curb on the other
side of the road if necessary to avoid being in teh way of oncoming traffic.
If both sides were blocked and no other options existed I would hit the
brake as hard as I could, lay across the seat and brace myself into it so as
to have proper neck/head support. For a slower speed impact I would not
bother with that as I wouldn't be concerned with whiplash or neck injury.
Even if hitting the car in front of me would reduce possible injury to me I
would not do that if I could prevent it. NJ insurance is ludicrous and NJ
police are extremely oppressive. I do not want to deal with getting tickets,
fines and poitns on my license from the police adn insurance increasing out
teh wazoo from being involved in an accident and hitting another vehicle
plus wahtever points would go on my license from the police. Here in NJ
everyone is guilty, at least according to the police officers and judges.
In aay case, the best course of action in all cases is to avoid an accident
if at all possible.
Alex Rodriguez - 25 Apr 2005 21:07 GMT
>Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
>you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?
I doubt B would work because when you get hit from behind, you may not have
full control of your legs to hit the brakes. I would move up as close as
possible to the car in front and hope the extra couple of feet allow the
car in back to stop.
-------------
Alex
S Narayan - 27 Apr 2005 19:04 GMT
> Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
> you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?
Assuming the car behind is not a large SUV and chances are I am not going to
get hurt, I would brake as soon as possible leaving as much space as
possible ahead of me. Carefully watching the action behind me, I would go
forward to allow more space for braking vehicle behind me if possible. I
therefore don't get cited for hitting the car ahead of me and ALL the fault
is that of the car behind me for eventually hitting me. Moreover, rear end
damage is not bad as front end damage to my car. The car behind may swerve
to avoid hitting me but that's his/her prerorgative. I am not swerving
unless I am certain I can do so without hitting anything.
James C. Reeves - 28 Apr 2005 03:22 GMT
Pull up as close to the car in front...perhaps even touch. The impact will
be slightly less since that will give the maximum stopping distance.
I was rear ended years ago while stopped at a stop light by a Pontiac T-1000
(basically a Chevy Chevette). I was in my Dodge truck. The T-100 was
totaled. The truck needed only a new bumper and the tailgate re-painted
because the battery acid ate the paint off of it. I was on the brake hard
when I heard the T-1000 skidding and that little tiny car pushed my big
truck 40+ feet into the intersection. You can't hold the car in pace with
the brake.
> Suppose you're stopped at a traffic light. In your rear-view mirror,
> you see a car approaching - FAST. You realize he's not going to be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Which would result in the least amount of damage to you and your car?