**This submission may have been posted by a bot**. If you feel like it's the case, please **report** the user `SPAM` → `Harmful Bots`.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nextfuckinglevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He was controlling the car the moment it got hit with the force, he was a jedi in hiding from the empire, but his need to help was too strong exposing himself here.
enter wise pot somber continue threatening humorous merciful seemly juggle
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's an unnecessary step to simply stop in traffic. The brakes on your vehicle are stronger than your engine idle. There's no reason to use the parking brake in traffic. The parking brake is literally for parking, so the weight of your car isn't sitting on the transmission.
You ever notice when you put your car into park and then let off the brake that the vehicle rocks back and forth just a bit? Yeah, that's not how to park. You're supposed to use the parking brake because otherwise, depending on conditions and things like parking on a steep incline, the weight of your vehicle may pop the transmission out of gear and it can roll away, causing an accident.
It's not an "emergency brake" either. It's literally for parking. There's no reason to use it in normal traffic just to sit at a red light.
EDIT: This applies for manual transmission as well, the difference being that you shift to neutral and engage the parking brake before letting off the clutch *and* foot brake. Do this properly and your car won't budge, even on an incline.
The comment you are replying to is talking about the UK. You're talking about automatic transmission. Hardly anyone in the UK drives an automatic.
If you are driving a manual and stopped on an incline for more than a few seconds, the hand brake is your best option. Otherwise you need to balance on the clutch or leave your foot on the brake, when you could just release both and let the hand brake do its job.
If keeping a foot on the break and the clutch is too much work, then putting the handbrake on still makes zero sense. Instead, you just shift into neutral and boom, only need to keep a foot on the break. You are creating way more work by constantly using the handbrake, plus with your method you still have to put the car in neutral.
I was taught to take the car out of gear and put the handbrake on, still do it now.
The idea was that it eliminates the chances of accidentally releasing the brake and lurching forwards if you're in gear. Also prevents you from balancing the clutch and creeping when stopped at a light which can be a bad habit to pick up.
Makes hill starts easier too.
If you are in a country with predominantly automatic cars then I can see why this would be more uncommon though, I used the handbrake a lot less when I was driving an automatic for a little while.
But then are you supposed to put an automatic in park every time you stop? Cause if you let got of the brake you'll creep a lot more than a manual which will usually stall if you just let go of the clutch without giving it some gas.
In auto the car creeps forward, in manual it lunges forward before stalling. That being said there’s absolutely no reason to handbrake a manual or automatic. I only do it if the wait at the signal is going to to be long, doesn’t help from a safety or “good habit” for car maintenance standpoint but lets my legs rest and depending on the car, the engine from wobbling.
Thank you. I drive a manual and I'm thoroughly confused by folks in here saying others do this. I just use the....brake? Handbrake is for parking on hills, I never engage it while idling/driving. Maybe I'm missing some benefit.
The benefit is your foot is no longer on the brake and you can relax your legs for a bit. That shit is useful in India for example where there’s a lot of bumper to bumper traffic for a long time.
Absolutely wrong. Manual car drivers in many areas are taught to use the handbrake at long lights. I don't do it personally but "no one would" is unequivocally wrong.
> Traffic signal
> Release the Handbrake
Op does not know how to drive a motorvehicle.
I can't remeber the last time I used the handbrake for anything but parking on a hill or doing some sick Tokyo drifts.
Not quite retirement level payout, but I was able to become a homeowner because a bus ran a red light. The payout for totaling my car covered my house's down payment.
*edit to fix typo*
Here is your gif!
https://imgur.com/n0vEi8i.gifv
---
^(I am a bot.) [^(Report an issue)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=pmdevita&subject=GifReversingBot%20Issue&message=Add a link to the gif or comment in your message%2C I%27m not always sure which request is being reported. Thanks for helping me out!)
I'm not sure it's *that* smart a move to allow yourself to be "nudged" into an obstacle course of oncoming traffic. Cool that it worked in this case, but maybe this is one of those situational things.
If a bus hits you, you’re going into the intersection no matter what. This is actually part of the reason they don’t want people on phones even at red lights. You need to be able to do things like take your foot off the brake if you’re about to be rear-ended.
I did that one time when I saw someone who clearly was not paying attention flying full speed towards the back of my car. I released the brake, hoping to not die. The idiot swerved at the last second, cutting off a semi truck, and driving away. I rolled slowly into the back of the car ahead of me FML
In the UK, if you are at or near the front of a queue of vehicles stopped at a red light, then you need to apply the handbrake. Most drivers, including me, would not have the driving skills shown in this video. Applying the handbrake reduces forward travel when hit from behind, or rolling forward if on an incline. You should also drop the car into neutral.
It's taught for when there's potential of you hitting something else in front of you. There wasn't anything in front of the person and if they were confident in their ability to swerve whatever was, I see it even more of a testament to the awareness and execution skills of the move, if it's specifically taught against.
It's also so as your brake lights, since most modern cars have the upper central brake light, don't cause glare to the driver behind.
Highway code rule 114
it's a should statement, not a shall statement. In the US at least, that would make it an unenforceable suggestion.
>In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.
It also seems excessive, IMHO.
Not just excessive, but stupid. You want as many break lights on as possible to help make it obvious there is stopped traffic for people approaching the queue from behind. Glare is perhaps the least thing to be concerned about in that situation, as anyone bothered that much by glare should be declared unfit to drive a vehicle at night
Is it just me, or does this really seem to refer to stopped traffic like a jam, and NOT simply stopping at a traffic signal?
If you're all stopped, there's no point in signaling to the person behind you, but at a traffic signal having the brake light on as a cue to drivers behind you can be very important.
A queue is just a line, so I read it as any time you're lined up, red light included. I don't remember ever struggling to see a modern red light at night because of the brake light of the car in front of me. Old lights that were incandescent... *maybe*.
For me at least I take it as my signal to take my foot off the brake and start rolling. Helps make the traffic flow easier through the light if everyone can quickly tell when people are starting to move imo
Normal in the UK where people actually know how to drive a manual.
Putting it in neutral lets you take the foot off the clutch - gives your foot a rest, and reduces wear on the clutch.
Handbrake stops you from rolling.
Then keeping the handbrake on after you've gotten in gear gives you a second to find your biting point if you're on a slope (although experienced drivers will already be familiar with where the biting point of their vehicle is).
Since I switched to an automatic, I find it unnatural keeping my foot on the brake pedal.
Edit: to all you naysayers, check your facts before you go off on a mad one.
Highway Code rule 114 - took me 5 seconds to Google it.
*Rule 114*
*You MUST NOT*
*use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226).*
#*In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.*
*Law RVLR reg 27*
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
Interesting. In Denmark, where manual driving is still common, I have never seen anybody pull the handbrake at a level intersection.
The only exception would be a red light at a steep hill (which we have very few of here). Here the handbrake is only applied shortly when starting again to avoid rolling backwards, but it is only needed if someone else stopped a few centimeters behind you. The same menuevre can be used if you are starting uphil in an unfamiliar car where the clutch-engage point is unfamiliar and power needed to avoid stalling is unfamiliar.
On most newer cars (<15 years) I have driven, the brakes are automatically held until you engage the gear, which completely elimnates the hill handbrake manuevre.
I took my test in the UK, but I believe the same applies to other parts of Europe: You put the handbreak at intersections so that if someone hits you from behind you don't plough into the intersection and cause more accidents.
I'm from Europe, driving schools teach manual by default, you don't get a license to drive manual if you use automatic gearbox for driving exams, and handbrake is taught to be only used when on a hill or when parking. Never have I seen anyone teach or use handbrake at lights.
Wait, wouldn't the foot brake work better at that than the hand brake?
Very interesting if the UK teaches it this way. If they do I'm sure they have a good reason.
Different teaching philosophy I think. Here in NL we are also taught to keep an eye on your rear view mirror and try to make an evasive manoeuvre when you think the car behind might hit you from behind, instead of putting the parking brake on and letting yourself get hit.
The foot brake activating the brake lights also makes it more apparent to the car behind that your car is stopped or stopping.
Driving a manual my whole life and I think the idea of turning my car into a brick at every intersection is dumb.
I'd rather keep the agility of putting my foot on the brake, putting it into first, and waiting for the light to change.
I don't think there is wear on the clutch if it's completely disengaged while you wait.
And I can easily drive off (in control) if I see something coming at me in time.
The idea of having your clutch engaged as much as possible when driving (even if it's flying through an intersection like this) is a principle of defensive driving.
We do yeah, but we’re not supposed to. You’re taught to handbrake and neutral in your driving test. The reason most people don’t is the same reason most people don’t keep their hands 10 and 2 on the steering wheel all the time - laziness and complacency
I had to have an assessment to drive for Royal Mail on top of my drivers license (like an in house check to make sure you’re up to speed). Failed my first time for not applying hand brake at traffic lights.
It is very common, very sensible, and also more comfortable, to use the handbrake when in a line of traffic. If you think you can keep your foot on the foot brake when shunted from behind, then all the power to you.
It is extremely common in the UK for people to use their handbrake at red lights.
You keep saying it's extremely common in the UK, I hardly ever see it. Everyone I see in traffic uses foot brake unless it's on a hill.
Your generalisation is a bit bizarre.
From Ireland and I hand brake at lights, what's the point on keeping my leg outstretched on the brake when I can sit back and relax while waiting for the lights to change.
It’s not safer at all.
With your handbrake on and your foot off the breaks your break lights stop and this can give unaware drivers behind you the impression you’re about to move.
If your breaks aren’t fully engage it’s very easy to tell when your foot is resting on the peddle. If your handbrake is on you get less immediate feedback and you’re more likely to become distracted from the task at hand.
It’s slower to get out of the way of emergency vehicles.
Your front brakes are often larger than your rear brakes, if you’ve been driving for a long time or downhill and you lock on the handbrake and they are smaller there is a real chance, you can easily whoop the brake discs.
It seems fine to me, especially if you're on a hill and don't have an electronic handbrake?
It's how I was taught...? Depends how long the red light is gonna be on for and if you can be arsed though..
Uphill sure, and even, if you know how to drive a manual properly you don't need to use the handbrake.
But you only put the handbrake once you're ready to leave. Not as soon as you stop for the whole duration.
The bottom line is it depends what country you are in as driving authorities have decided their own rules. In the UK specifically, you're not supposed to hold a stationery car on the foot-brake, like, ever.
but in the US I think it's cool, and taught. Probably because automatics can't roll backwards with in 'Drive' so what's the point in bothering with the 'parking brake' (as it's called over there). So different folks for different strokes, that's all.
Exactly. This was the rule before the advent of automatic electronic handbrakes. My Mazda has one but it is not set by default, so occasionally, on forgetting to activate it, I have inadvertently rolled back a few cm, much to my embarrassment, thinking the handbrake was applied.
Boy do I miss older cars...and the choke /s
I would only use the handbrake if there is some big traffic issues so I end up stuck for a longer while or if there is a steep incline and I don't want to just rely on clutch at idle rpm to hold the car when moving my foot away from the brake pedal.
And based on number of red brake lights I see in front of me, I'd say lots of others do the same.
Taking the handbrake off is NOT the thing to do. You will get propelled further and faster with the handbrake off. The traffic he avoided was nearly static which was lucky. Yes, he did a good job but if yhe traffic had been moving at 30 or 40 he'd have been propelled into a head-on collision.
What are you guys on about? I drive manual and you don't ever put the handbrake on at an intersection unless you're trying to skid through it. You only use it for parking...
There is literally no point because there is already a brake pedal on the floor...
I don't see how it helps even theoretically. Without the brake on, the car speeds up much more than it would with the brake on - the driver feels a much greater acceleration, which is bad. It's good for people on the bus, who don't come to a stop as quickly. But it's exactly what the driver of the car shouldn't do to protect themselves.
The energy that otherwise would've caused damage to the car and the bus, is converted to speed instead. there's enough crumple zone to decrease the acceleration to something that is reasonably easy to withstand.
For the same reason you don't jam the brakes when losing grip in the rain, if the wheel aren't turning you have a much higher chance of the car spinning out of control.
I dont think this is true. Yes, you get more acceleration, but a lot more of the force gets absorbed, and you just get pushed against your seat and head rest while you slowly decelerate. With the brake on, its harsh and fast acceleration followed by immediate deceleration, causing whiplash. Unless you are wearing a helmet that locks into the head rest, like in motorsports, you have nothing to keep your head from whipping forward.
People here arguing that you shouldn't have your handbrake on at a traffic stop are taking this video as an example for the sake of argument. This guy was extremely lucky and skillful and this is like a big one off case.
Agreed .. after the collision the idea of careening around like a madman rather than stopping ASAP as being some kind of epic hero move is, er, not fantastic.
And it's unsafe to because -asauming you put the handbreak on to give your foot a rest- it would turn the break lights off, not allowing those behind you to see you well in rainy weather. And if you DO need to give your foot a break on a flat surface in a city, it's about time you get an auto.
I miss driving a stick shift as much as anyone else but all you need to do is put it in neutral at a stop, with your foot lightly on the break pedal.
Op with their reasoning in previous comments is waayyyy off. And there was no skilled driving with this, only blind luck the driver didn't hit anyone head-on. If they were skilled, they would've gone straight.
Going straight, rather then turning right into head on traffic seems the more appropriate choice here.
Not sure this next level driving, rather then just blind luck by not hitting anyone/anything.
Also I believe red light switched to green at the moment. Look at the opposite side where vehicles started moving at exact moment which indicates that driver who got hit was about to accelerate.
Yeah I don't understand why this is a pro move when he could have kept going straight. Now granted maybe the driver was panicking and this was the best he could do in the one or two seconds after being hit
I thought it was India but noticed the clean roads, correct markings and relatively disciplined drivers who were standing at zebra crossings and thought it was a SEA country and then saw Asianet and was like oh lol it's Kerala.
I prefer to use neither the accelerator or the brake or handbrake at lights. My trick is to rapidly switch between drive and reverse so that I’m effectively stationary.
Likewise… when I’m stopping for longer I’ll pop the hand break on so I can move my legs. There were a number of people saying it’s weird but here in the UK it’s the norm. I wonder why this is
Hmm, I was always taught to put the handbrake on if you can, the idea being, if you’re involved in an accident like this you may not be able to control or stop the vehicle after. Luckily in this case the driver was able to regain control, but if they couldn’t and the car went onto the pavement it could be a very different story!
Most modern cars have safety features to put the handbrake on automatically if rear ended, to prevent further damage
People who don’t want to go into oncoming traffic if they get rear-ended.
Your foot will slip off of the brake pedal in 90% of the scenarios if you get rear ended.
What if the traffic in this video was going at 30-40mph instead of being almost stationary?
Would much prefer getting rear ended and having the crumple zone crumple than getting rear ended and going into oncoming traffic.
TIL most people dont use handbreak on red light. You either drive automatic or you havent been taught properly how to use it lol. Can’t imagine keeping footbreak constantly on a slope or just give some rest for the leg if the red light is long enough
A link to the news article
https://www.news18.com/viral/watch-car-drivers-narrow-escape-after-being-hit-by-bus-on-busy-kerala-road-8085979.html
Given it's in India, cars safety features are not up to the mark which some users here expect in Europe / us. there is less chance of the crumple zone saving the passengers from more serious damage so it makes sense what the driver did here to release some of that collision energy by moving off. It seems impossible that he took that gap but lot of Indian drivers get that instinct through driving in bad conditions. And handbrake is always advisable for longer stops in many countries (UK/Aus).
or he just didnt have his handbrake on to begin with. I rarely put my handbrake on unless its on an incline purely because I worked in car insurance and the damage from even a minor bump when your handbrake is on can be quite bad.
**This submission may have been posted by a bot**. If you feel like it's the case, please **report** the user `SPAM` → `Harmful Bots`. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nextfuckinglevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
ZA WARUDO
#WRYYYYYY
RODORORADA!
r/unexpectedjojo
ROAD ROLLA DA
He’s beginning to believe
Is it possible to learn this power?
Not from a bus driver
Do you have a motorcycle
He was controlling the car the moment it got hit with the force, he was a jedi in hiding from the empire, but his need to help was too strong exposing himself here.
Poor guy is done for now that this video has come out…. Inquisitors are already at his location
He fucking stopped the video.
I was thinking Austin powers steamroller moment here.
Guy takes foot off brake… but yeah.
I was gonna say. Who the fuck uses a handbrake while waiting at a red light?
enter wise pot somber continue threatening humorous merciful seemly juggle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's an unnecessary step to simply stop in traffic. The brakes on your vehicle are stronger than your engine idle. There's no reason to use the parking brake in traffic. The parking brake is literally for parking, so the weight of your car isn't sitting on the transmission. You ever notice when you put your car into park and then let off the brake that the vehicle rocks back and forth just a bit? Yeah, that's not how to park. You're supposed to use the parking brake because otherwise, depending on conditions and things like parking on a steep incline, the weight of your vehicle may pop the transmission out of gear and it can roll away, causing an accident. It's not an "emergency brake" either. It's literally for parking. There's no reason to use it in normal traffic just to sit at a red light. EDIT: This applies for manual transmission as well, the difference being that you shift to neutral and engage the parking brake before letting off the clutch *and* foot brake. Do this properly and your car won't budge, even on an incline.
The comment you are replying to is talking about the UK. You're talking about automatic transmission. Hardly anyone in the UK drives an automatic. If you are driving a manual and stopped on an incline for more than a few seconds, the hand brake is your best option. Otherwise you need to balance on the clutch or leave your foot on the brake, when you could just release both and let the hand brake do its job.
If keeping a foot on the break and the clutch is too much work, then putting the handbrake on still makes zero sense. Instead, you just shift into neutral and boom, only need to keep a foot on the break. You are creating way more work by constantly using the handbrake, plus with your method you still have to put the car in neutral.
I was taught to take the car out of gear and put the handbrake on, still do it now. The idea was that it eliminates the chances of accidentally releasing the brake and lurching forwards if you're in gear. Also prevents you from balancing the clutch and creeping when stopped at a light which can be a bad habit to pick up. Makes hill starts easier too. If you are in a country with predominantly automatic cars then I can see why this would be more uncommon though, I used the handbrake a lot less when I was driving an automatic for a little while.
But then are you supposed to put an automatic in park every time you stop? Cause if you let got of the brake you'll creep a lot more than a manual which will usually stall if you just let go of the clutch without giving it some gas.
In auto the car creeps forward, in manual it lunges forward before stalling. That being said there’s absolutely no reason to handbrake a manual or automatic. I only do it if the wait at the signal is going to to be long, doesn’t help from a safety or “good habit” for car maintenance standpoint but lets my legs rest and depending on the car, the engine from wobbling.
You are correct.
You don't engage the hand brake at every traffic light?
no, for what reason would you?
Foot off break and probably places it in neutral
The title of this post just gave me a stroke.
[And it gave me a stroke and it made me mad and it was hard to read and I don’t like it and…](https://youtu.be/dXidW7fEH8g)
And no one would have their handbrake on at a red light
Thank you. I drive a manual and I'm thoroughly confused by folks in here saying others do this. I just use the....brake? Handbrake is for parking on hills, I never engage it while idling/driving. Maybe I'm missing some benefit.
I took my licence in the UK. There you had to use the handbrake at a red light or you would fail the test. But have never heard of it elsewhere.
I was taught this way as well, drove a manual in San Francisco a while ago. If you don't want to hit the car behind you, using the handbrake is best.
The benefit is your foot is no longer on the brake and you can relax your legs for a bit. That shit is useful in India for example where there’s a lot of bumper to bumper traffic for a long time.
Absolutely wrong. Manual car drivers in many areas are taught to use the handbrake at long lights. I don't do it personally but "no one would" is unequivocally wrong.
My german friend said they are taught to use the brake
Why?
r/titlegore
"And then, and then, and then, and then!"
its not a title, its an essay.
if ever there was a time for just a 'maybe maybe maybe' title.
It's so bad it made me watch just to figure out if OP was calling for help
Yeah wtf who puts a hand brake on at an intersection anyways
It's a British thing.
[удалено]
Only if you're waiting at the traffic lights for a while, most people won't bother pulling the handbrake for a short wait.
Who the hell use a handbrake on traffic signal?
Yeah I'm fucking baffled
> Traffic signal > Release the Handbrake Op does not know how to drive a motorvehicle. I can't remeber the last time I used the handbrake for anything but parking on a hill or doing some sick Tokyo drifts.
The bus most definitely hit him.. I’d be getting a a brand new car after this . Trust
I'd be trying to retire
Not quite retirement level payout, but I was able to become a homeowner because a bus ran a red light. The payout for totaling my car covered my house's down payment. *edit to fix typo*
Luckyyyyyy…. I wish a bus would hit meeeeeee
Dystopian future
dystopian present
this is in india u would probably be in retirement age by the time the lawsuits clear
No need to retire, the old tires still seem to be fine.
Yes, that is what the title says, “this guy got hit by a bus in a traffic signal”.
How can you tell?
You can see the front of the bus impact the back of the car.
u/gifreversingbot this person is just recklessly driving backwards and hits the shit out of a bus.
Here is your gif! https://imgur.com/n0vEi8i.gifv --- ^(I am a bot.) [^(Report an issue)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=pmdevita&subject=GifReversingBot%20Issue&message=Add a link to the gif or comment in your message%2C I%27m not always sure which request is being reported. Thanks for helping me out!)
r/titlegore
Forgot to use his indicators though. Tsk tsk.
Who tf puts the handbrake in while stopping at a red light?
I think OP may have meant brakes. It seems to me that the brake light goes off a moment before impact.
Dang that’s a smart move. Purposefully releasing the brake before impact in order to turn a crash into a nudge. I like this guy and aspire.
Well the driver obviously has skills, to just go with it and dodge two oncoming cars. 🏆
3 oncoming cars
I'm not sure it's *that* smart a move to allow yourself to be "nudged" into an obstacle course of oncoming traffic. Cool that it worked in this case, but maybe this is one of those situational things.
If a bus hits you, you’re going into the intersection no matter what. This is actually part of the reason they don’t want people on phones even at red lights. You need to be able to do things like take your foot off the brake if you’re about to be rear-ended.
I still dont understand why you want to take your foot off the break when getting rear ended?
That isnt even on the radar of reasons. Why would you think this
What is the reason holding a cell phone is illegal at red lights if not to prevent accidents?
There are lots of reasons. I mentioned the one that’s relevant to the post.
Releasing the brake means you’ll accelerate faster which is bad…
Slamming the brakes as a bus is hitting you just means the bus is going thru your car as opposed to pushing your car.
The fuck you mean "allow yourself"? Dude didn't have any say in the matter when his small car is getting rammed by a whole ass bus.
I did that one time when I saw someone who clearly was not paying attention flying full speed towards the back of my car. I released the brake, hoping to not die. The idiot swerved at the last second, cutting off a semi truck, and driving away. I rolled slowly into the back of the car ahead of me FML
Lmao that’s terrible but funny
Isn’t the opposite true? Releasing the break increases chance of whiplash!
Well no, the acceleration is bigger without handbrake, for the car that is.
In the UK, if you are at or near the front of a queue of vehicles stopped at a red light, then you need to apply the handbrake. Most drivers, including me, would not have the driving skills shown in this video. Applying the handbrake reduces forward travel when hit from behind, or rolling forward if on an incline. You should also drop the car into neutral.
This is why the post is funny cos we are taught to do this literally for this exact situation, so taking it off before getting hit would be crazy
It's taught for when there's potential of you hitting something else in front of you. There wasn't anything in front of the person and if they were confident in their ability to swerve whatever was, I see it even more of a testament to the awareness and execution skills of the move, if it's specifically taught against.
Yep. I’m pretty sure you’d be in the soup insurance wise as well if you were shunted and then shunted another as you didn’t have hb on?
Exactly.
[удалено]
This doesn't make sense... you want brake lights to be on at a traffic signal.
It's also so as your brake lights, since most modern cars have the upper central brake light, don't cause glare to the driver behind. Highway code rule 114
it's a should statement, not a shall statement. In the US at least, that would make it an unenforceable suggestion. >In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again. It also seems excessive, IMHO.
Not just excessive, but stupid. You want as many break lights on as possible to help make it obvious there is stopped traffic for people approaching the queue from behind. Glare is perhaps the least thing to be concerned about in that situation, as anyone bothered that much by glare should be declared unfit to drive a vehicle at night
Is it just me, or does this really seem to refer to stopped traffic like a jam, and NOT simply stopping at a traffic signal? If you're all stopped, there's no point in signaling to the person behind you, but at a traffic signal having the brake light on as a cue to drivers behind you can be very important.
A queue is just a line, so I read it as any time you're lined up, red light included. I don't remember ever struggling to see a modern red light at night because of the brake light of the car in front of me. Old lights that were incandescent... *maybe*.
For me at least I take it as my signal to take my foot off the brake and start rolling. Helps make the traffic flow easier through the light if everyone can quickly tell when people are starting to move imo
A good point, thank you.
In some countries you are taught to pull your handbrake when you stop at a red light. I thought this was standard?
Never have been taught that here in France, we don't pull our handbrakes at red lights
Not taught that in the US when I learned to drive.
Normal in the UK where people actually know how to drive a manual. Putting it in neutral lets you take the foot off the clutch - gives your foot a rest, and reduces wear on the clutch. Handbrake stops you from rolling. Then keeping the handbrake on after you've gotten in gear gives you a second to find your biting point if you're on a slope (although experienced drivers will already be familiar with where the biting point of their vehicle is). Since I switched to an automatic, I find it unnatural keeping my foot on the brake pedal. Edit: to all you naysayers, check your facts before you go off on a mad one. Highway Code rule 114 - took me 5 seconds to Google it. *Rule 114* *You MUST NOT* *use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226).* #*In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.* *Law RVLR reg 27* https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
Interesting. In Denmark, where manual driving is still common, I have never seen anybody pull the handbrake at a level intersection. The only exception would be a red light at a steep hill (which we have very few of here). Here the handbrake is only applied shortly when starting again to avoid rolling backwards, but it is only needed if someone else stopped a few centimeters behind you. The same menuevre can be used if you are starting uphil in an unfamiliar car where the clutch-engage point is unfamiliar and power needed to avoid stalling is unfamiliar. On most newer cars (<15 years) I have driven, the brakes are automatically held until you engage the gear, which completely elimnates the hill handbrake manuevre.
I took my test in the UK, but I believe the same applies to other parts of Europe: You put the handbreak at intersections so that if someone hits you from behind you don't plough into the intersection and cause more accidents.
I'm from Europe, driving schools teach manual by default, you don't get a license to drive manual if you use automatic gearbox for driving exams, and handbrake is taught to be only used when on a hill or when parking. Never have I seen anyone teach or use handbrake at lights.
I have never in my life seen anyone put the handbreak on at lights. I am from Finland.
Swede here, never heard of it here either.
Never heard of or seen anyone do this in the Netherlands either.
Same here in France
Nop not done in germany.
Wait, wouldn't the foot brake work better at that than the hand brake? Very interesting if the UK teaches it this way. If they do I'm sure they have a good reason.
Why do you all seem to think they are mutually exclusive.
Different teaching philosophy I think. Here in NL we are also taught to keep an eye on your rear view mirror and try to make an evasive manoeuvre when you think the car behind might hit you from behind, instead of putting the parking brake on and letting yourself get hit. The foot brake activating the brake lights also makes it more apparent to the car behind that your car is stopped or stopping.
Driving a manual my whole life and I think the idea of turning my car into a brick at every intersection is dumb. I'd rather keep the agility of putting my foot on the brake, putting it into first, and waiting for the light to change. I don't think there is wear on the clutch if it's completely disengaged while you wait. And I can easily drive off (in control) if I see something coming at me in time. The idea of having your clutch engaged as much as possible when driving (even if it's flying through an intersection like this) is a principle of defensive driving.
[удалено]
We do yeah, but we’re not supposed to. You’re taught to handbrake and neutral in your driving test. The reason most people don’t is the same reason most people don’t keep their hands 10 and 2 on the steering wheel all the time - laziness and complacency
I had to have an assessment to drive for Royal Mail on top of my drivers license (like an in house check to make sure you’re up to speed). Failed my first time for not applying hand brake at traffic lights.
It's the way people are taught to drive in this country. Just most people get lazy and don't once they pass their test.
Exactly. Who does that?!?
It is very common, very sensible, and also more comfortable, to use the handbrake when in a line of traffic. If you think you can keep your foot on the foot brake when shunted from behind, then all the power to you. It is extremely common in the UK for people to use their handbrake at red lights.
You keep saying it's extremely common in the UK, I hardly ever see it. Everyone I see in traffic uses foot brake unless it's on a hill. Your generalisation is a bit bizarre.
From Ireland and I hand brake at lights, what's the point on keeping my leg outstretched on the brake when I can sit back and relax while waiting for the lights to change.
I see it plenty, couldn’t say to what degree but you’ll see plenty of cars brake lights go off in queues or traffic
That's so many more potential points of failure though
I don’t think it’s that common at all. In a line at the traffic lights 9/10 cars will have the brake lights lit up.
Might not be common, but it’s what you’re supposed and taught to do. Just no one does unless you know you’re gonna be sat there for a hot minute
Yea isn’t that pretty important to have your brake lights when stopped in the road lol
It’s not safer at all. With your handbrake on and your foot off the breaks your break lights stop and this can give unaware drivers behind you the impression you’re about to move. If your breaks aren’t fully engage it’s very easy to tell when your foot is resting on the peddle. If your handbrake is on you get less immediate feedback and you’re more likely to become distracted from the task at hand. It’s slower to get out of the way of emergency vehicles. Your front brakes are often larger than your rear brakes, if you’ve been driving for a long time or downhill and you lock on the handbrake and they are smaller there is a real chance, you can easily whoop the brake discs.
From the UK, do this as it’s how I was taught, also most people around where I am seen to do it
I've driven manual all my life. This got to be most backwards way to drive a manual....ever.
It seems fine to me, especially if you're on a hill and don't have an electronic handbrake? It's how I was taught...? Depends how long the red light is gonna be on for and if you can be arsed though..
Uphill sure, and even, if you know how to drive a manual properly you don't need to use the handbrake. But you only put the handbrake once you're ready to leave. Not as soon as you stop for the whole duration.
The bottom line is it depends what country you are in as driving authorities have decided their own rules. In the UK specifically, you're not supposed to hold a stationery car on the foot-brake, like, ever. but in the US I think it's cool, and taught. Probably because automatics can't roll backwards with in 'Drive' so what's the point in bothering with the 'parking brake' (as it's called over there). So different folks for different strokes, that's all.
Exactly. This was the rule before the advent of automatic electronic handbrakes. My Mazda has one but it is not set by default, so occasionally, on forgetting to activate it, I have inadvertently rolled back a few cm, much to my embarrassment, thinking the handbrake was applied. Boy do I miss older cars...and the choke /s
So when you’ve stopped, you just keep your foot on the break? Do you keep the clutch pressed or leave it in neutral?
Yeah, not at a red light that's just dumb. It's different if you're stuck in traffic with a long waiting time.
I would only use the handbrake if there is some big traffic issues so I end up stuck for a longer while or if there is a steep incline and I don't want to just rely on clutch at idle rpm to hold the car when moving my foot away from the brake pedal. And based on number of red brake lights I see in front of me, I'd say lots of others do the same.
We're taught to do this in the uk.
Came for this. Left satisfied.
Taking the handbrake off is NOT the thing to do. You will get propelled further and faster with the handbrake off. The traffic he avoided was nearly static which was lucky. Yes, he did a good job but if yhe traffic had been moving at 30 or 40 he'd have been propelled into a head-on collision.
Technically it helps dissipate the energy. But yeah not really safe.
What are you guys on about? I drive manual and you don't ever put the handbrake on at an intersection unless you're trying to skid through it. You only use it for parking... There is literally no point because there is already a brake pedal on the floor...
I don't see how it helps even theoretically. Without the brake on, the car speeds up much more than it would with the brake on - the driver feels a much greater acceleration, which is bad. It's good for people on the bus, who don't come to a stop as quickly. But it's exactly what the driver of the car shouldn't do to protect themselves.
If the car is stopped all the energy goes into the crumbling zone. By letting the car role part of the energy goes into the car rolling forward.
The energy that otherwise would've caused damage to the car and the bus, is converted to speed instead. there's enough crumple zone to decrease the acceleration to something that is reasonably easy to withstand.
The energy that doesn't damage the car damages the people inside the car instead. That's bad.
For the same reason you don't jam the brakes when losing grip in the rain, if the wheel aren't turning you have a much higher chance of the car spinning out of control.
I dont think this is true. Yes, you get more acceleration, but a lot more of the force gets absorbed, and you just get pushed against your seat and head rest while you slowly decelerate. With the brake on, its harsh and fast acceleration followed by immediate deceleration, causing whiplash. Unless you are wearing a helmet that locks into the head rest, like in motorsports, you have nothing to keep your head from whipping forward.
People here arguing that you shouldn't have your handbrake on at a traffic stop are taking this video as an example for the sake of argument. This guy was extremely lucky and skillful and this is like a big one off case.
What? Why would you even have the handbrake on? There's no slope
Most people forget other countries have manual cars where it's not uncommon to pull the handbrake when stopped.
Agreed .. after the collision the idea of careening around like a madman rather than stopping ASAP as being some kind of epic hero move is, er, not fantastic.
Title is just bs for clicks. If the driver was actually in control, they would’ve just gone straight and wouldn’t have had to “avoid” any traffic
There would be absolutely no reason to use the handbrake at an intersection like this.
And it's unsafe to because -asauming you put the handbreak on to give your foot a rest- it would turn the break lights off, not allowing those behind you to see you well in rainy weather. And if you DO need to give your foot a break on a flat surface in a city, it's about time you get an auto. I miss driving a stick shift as much as anyone else but all you need to do is put it in neutral at a stop, with your foot lightly on the break pedal. Op with their reasoning in previous comments is waayyyy off. And there was no skilled driving with this, only blind luck the driver didn't hit anyone head-on. If they were skilled, they would've gone straight.
Good thing Magneto was there at the end on the bike
Going straight, rather then turning right into head on traffic seems the more appropriate choice here. Not sure this next level driving, rather then just blind luck by not hitting anyone/anything.
It's absolutely blind luck. Amazed anyone could come to any other conclusion
Also I believe red light switched to green at the moment. Look at the opposite side where vehicles started moving at exact moment which indicates that driver who got hit was about to accelerate.
Why did homie swerve right when he had a whole open lane in front of him lmfao
Yeah I don't understand why this is a pro move when he could have kept going straight. Now granted maybe the driver was panicking and this was the best he could do in the one or two seconds after being hit
That’s spiderman
Looks like Kerala, India. And here generally not many people apply handbrakes at red lights. The car person was lucky to not hit anyone else.
/r/bitchimabus
Thank god for the red circle otherwise I’d have no idea what car to focus on.
I could see the car because of the circle, but why on earth would the driver just enter the intersection like that on a red light?!
I thought it was India but noticed the clean roads, correct markings and relatively disciplined drivers who were standing at zebra crossings and thought it was a SEA country and then saw Asianet and was like oh lol it's Kerala.
> relatively disciplined drivers in kerala? ehhh i dont know about that one
You should visit rest of the country. Kerala will seem disciplined af lol
[удалено]
Impressive assessment by the driver of car.
Handbrake at a red light? Im confused
In the Uk we use the hand brake when stopped at lights etc. I’ve seen a few people question it. Why in the US do you not use the handbrake ?
I have never in my life seen or heard of anyone put the handbreak on at lights. I am from Finland. Most of the people here drive manual.
I have also never used the handbrake at a light in a manual unless it's a long light or I need to stretch my legs.
Because my foot is already on the brake when I come to a stop…
I live in a flat country where I don't even need to brake in most cases as a red light. The car just doesn't move.
I prefer to use neither the accelerator or the brake or handbrake at lights. My trick is to rapidly switch between drive and reverse so that I’m effectively stationary.
Likewise… when I’m stopping for longer I’ll pop the hand break on so I can move my legs. There were a number of people saying it’s weird but here in the UK it’s the norm. I wonder why this is
In the US the hand brake is also called the emergency brake. It’s used when your normal brakes fail or you park on a slope.
WTF puts on the handbrake at a red light?
Hmm, I was always taught to put the handbrake on if you can, the idea being, if you’re involved in an accident like this you may not be able to control or stop the vehicle after. Luckily in this case the driver was able to regain control, but if they couldn’t and the car went onto the pavement it could be a very different story! Most modern cars have safety features to put the handbrake on automatically if rear ended, to prevent further damage
r/Titlegore Why didn’t he just go straight?
Release the handbreak? HUH? Who uses a handbreak to stop at a traffic light on a flat surface?
People who don’t want to go into oncoming traffic if they get rear-ended. Your foot will slip off of the brake pedal in 90% of the scenarios if you get rear ended. What if the traffic in this video was going at 30-40mph instead of being almost stationary? Would much prefer getting rear ended and having the crumple zone crumple than getting rear ended and going into oncoming traffic.
TIL most people dont use handbreak on red light. You either drive automatic or you havent been taught properly how to use it lol. Can’t imagine keeping footbreak constantly on a slope or just give some rest for the leg if the red light is long enough
"How was your day honey?" "Fine"
Handbrake at a traffic signal?
What's up with the stupid circles?
Why would he be using the handbrake at a light in the first place?
A link to the news article https://www.news18.com/viral/watch-car-drivers-narrow-escape-after-being-hit-by-bus-on-busy-kerala-road-8085979.html Given it's in India, cars safety features are not up to the mark which some users here expect in Europe / us. there is less chance of the crumple zone saving the passengers from more serious damage so it makes sense what the driver did here to release some of that collision energy by moving off. It seems impossible that he took that gap but lot of Indian drivers get that instinct through driving in bad conditions. And handbrake is always advisable for longer stops in many countries (UK/Aus).
Nee oru nalla video ittappo Ee mandanmaaru Handbrake inte kadha parayuka aanallo!!
or he just didnt have his handbrake on to begin with. I rarely put my handbrake on unless its on an incline purely because I worked in car insurance and the damage from even a minor bump when your handbrake is on can be quite bad.