Going back to manual from automatic?

prowla

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Should not must, so I will make my own decision as to when and where it is appropriate to use the parking break and will if traffic is likely to be stationary for any length of time.

Point still stands, if brake lights were that uncomfortable that it was an real issue and not just something else to moan then I would see an optician.

Sure - the "should" items tend to refer to common sense and courtesy toward other road users.

I agree that you don't have to go to the parking brake immediately you stop, if you can see that you're going to be going again in a matter of seconds.

However, in my car, I like to drop out of gear into neutral when stationary, and will use the parking brake then.

prowla

=rizla= wrote: »

I used to as well, but 10 years ago I had one of those track driving experiences, the instructor who sat with me didn't like it at all, gears are for going, BRAKES are for slowing!!! He said using gears to slow down upsets the balance of the car and can get you into a sticky situation.

About the same time I read an article that said gears for slowing was from an era where brakes were rubbish, nowadays with better brakes, and the fact brake pad/shoes are cheaper to replace than clutches you shouldn't slow with the gears, unless using engine braking for hills.

Ah, I had a track day too, and used the gears...

facade

reeac wrote: »

Seems to me that if brake lights are intended to be a warning then the need for that warning is over once you've stopped and, if you want to be cautious, the following car has also stopped. Like would you keep indicators flashing after you've completed a turn?

As a rule, if I can see the face of the driver behind, bathed in a red glow, with his eyes screwed up, and face contorted with fury, I take my foot off the brake and pull the handbrake on

However, you would think that the high level dazzling light should time out after a couple of seconds stationary, as you say, it is not needed once you stop.

The only use I can think of for it is seeing that a car in front of the one in front of you is braking, provided you get a view through the windows of the car in front.
If you can't see the normal low level brake lights of the car in front you really shouldn't be driving

prowla

facade wrote: »

As a rule, if I can see the face of the driver behind, bathed in a red glow, with his eyes screwed up, and face contorted with fury, I take my foot off the brake and pull the handbrake on

However, you would think that the high level dazzling light should time out after a couple of seconds stationary, as you say, it is not needed once you stop.

The only use I can think of for it is seeing that a car in front of the one in front of you is braking, provided you get a view through the windows of the car in front.
If you can't see the normal low level brake lights of the car in front you really shouldn't be driving

Actually, it is really handy seeing that cars in front are braking.
I remember going to the US in the early 90s when they had them before us, and I remember thinking what a good idea they were.

takman

reeac wrote: »

Seems to me that if brake lights are intended to be a warning then the need for that warning is over once you've stopped and, if you want to be cautious, the following car has also stopped. Like would you keep indicators flashing after you've completed a turn?

At night when your stopped on a country lane waiting for another car to pass for example; then the brighter the lights on the back the better, so cars approaching from behind have more of a chance of seeing that you are stopped.

prowla

takman wrote: »

At night when your stopped on a country lane waiting for another car to pass for example; then the brighter the lights on the back the better, so cars approaching from behind have more of a chance of seeing that you are stopped.

Or that the car passing you might not be able to see past you.

takman

prowla wrote: »

If you are hit, your foot will come off the brake.

I've never been hit so it's impossible to say for certain but my first reaction to unwanted car movement is pressing the brake. Plus having twice the breaking force in the initial impact is more likely to stop you hitting the car in front than just having the handbrake on.

takman

prowla wrote: »

Or that the car passing you might not be able to see past you.

The car passing you will be coming towards you and your stopped because the road ahead is too narrow for both cars to come through.

prowla

takman wrote: »

The car passing you will be coming towards you and your stopped because the road ahead is too narrow for both cars to come through.

Oh, I mistakenly thought you were allowing someone to overtake.

almillar

Did they do a diesel Murano?

Yep. 2.5dCi

That was only from facelift onwards IIRC, the originals only had one big thirsty petrol, 3.5 V6, shared with the 350z!

So you're not in full control of your vehicle.

Officially, no, you're not. If you don't want to think too much about your driving, that's where the conversation ends, but there's nothing wrong with coasting AT THE RIGHT TIME and when you understand what 'control' you're losing. Just one example - you're approaching a red light on a nice dry day at 30mph on a flat surface. You know it's going to turn green. Slowing down in gear would slow you down too much, so intead, you coast (clutch in, or into neutral) to the lights. They turn green, you accelerate again, and you've saved fuel, brakes, time. The loss of control, in this case, doesn't matter.

Having the break lights on (especially with the middle one on) will help notify cars that you are stopped if they are approaching fast from behind so this helps to prevent accidents.

That's true, and a legitimate reason to do it, but just like foglights, you shouldn't do it when you're in traffic.

But I think the only people who get annoyed at brake lights are the ones who can't hold a car on the clutch themselves

Hopefully that smiley face means you know you shouldn't be holding a car on the clutch!

So the handbrake which only operates the two rear calipers is better than the footbrake which operates all four?????.

When your foot goes flying off the pedal from the impact, yes. I imagine there's also more risk of injury to your legs or feet if they're down around the pedals if it's a bad crash.

Oh, and I hold on the foot brake (as do most people I see nowadays)

Don't be a sheep! It's still bad to do and it still annoys drivers behind. It's more effort to hold your foot on the brake pedal, but people still seem to do it out of laziness!
It IS annoying, NOT blinding, and I don't need an optician either.

Should not must, so I will make my own decision as to when and where it is appropriate to use the parking break and will if traffic is likely to be stationary for any length of time.

Would you agree with, say, a minute as a guide time?
By the way people, it's brake, not break!