Neutral at red lights w/ handbrake up?

illumination on 10/06/2013 - 13:59

I've been driving an automatic, and I've developed a habit of changing to neutral gear and pulling up the handbrake while at a red light. I used to change gears to neutral while going downhill but changed that habit as people told me it's not good to change to N while in motion. The logic is as follows:

  • On drive, the car moves forward (albeit at a slow speed) i.e. it uses up some petrol doing so
  • While at a red light on drive, you are stepping on the brakes to prevent it from moving forward. AFAIK, accelerating AND braking use up petrol
  • Change to neutral and the momentum of the car is determined by the slope
  • Pull the handbrake up and you're not wearing down your brake pads

Sounds like everything is a win-win. Everything makes sense.

Based on some comments from the recent Fiat 500 deal, I decided to try and Google to see if I could get any conclusive answer as to whether it's worth it or not.

Whirlpool forum post from 2006 - first few posts seem to say it's not a problem, while the posts further down talk about wearing down the gearbox
Forum post from 2008 on Gas Savers - they mostly seem to be in support of changing to Neutral while at red light
Forum post from 2003 - seem to be against it.

TLDR: Is it bad to change to neutral gear with handbrake up at a red light?
From reading various forum posts..
Arguments for: Yes it is fine. It saves a bit of petrol (minimal) but it doesn't take much effort.
Arguments against: No don't do it. It wears down the gearbox.

What's your 2 cents?

Automotive

Comments

  • Paul Atreides on 10/06/2013 - 14:05
    -5

    "No don't do it. It wears down the gearbox"

    LOL WUT??!

    I do this all the time, cos I rather stretch my legs than have it down on the brake. I doubt it saves much petrol.

    But seriously, wears down the gearbox?? not sure if srs or trolling

    and it doesn't wear your pads

    • tonyjzx on 10/06/2013 - 16:45
      +12

      it "does wear out the gearbox"

      when you shift from N to D to R whatever, you are shifting the bands in the box and it does induce wear, of course whether it has any appreciable wear over the 3-4-5 yrs you keep a car is another matter

      this is what I do and i do it because it makes me feel comfortable…

      if the car is stopped for a short time, i just hold the brake

      if the car is stopped for an extended time, i move it into neutral and use the handbrake, i too dislike that "creeping" that automatics have

      if you need to watch someones tailights to see that they are stopped you should kill yourself right now

      shifting in neutral is a no-no and is a failure in the L test simply because it lessens your control over the car

      but… my car is a 6 spd manual so… automatic driver? lol

      • johnno07 on 13/06/2013 - 12:18
        +9

        if you need to watch someones tailights to see that they are stopped you should kill yourself right now

        I've only been driving for a bit over 5 years, but have done about 150,000km in that time. And in my (admittedly, relatively little) experience, the majority of drivers are shit drivers. They have shit awareness of their own vehicle, shit awareness of the road conditions and particularly shit awareness of the drivers around them. These are the kind of people you need to be worried about on the road, and the sort of people that kill themselves (and others) because they don't have two dirty big red lights to tell them a person is stopped.

        • davedrastic on 15/06/2013 - 10:49
          -5

          For sure a very significant proportion of drivers are shit drivers. For a multitude of reasons.

          When I go for a walk, I can hear cars driving past and so many are accelerating as if they're in a race - you can hear the high revs. It's completely unnecessary.

          Stand in an island (in the middle of a road) and wait for a driver to stop for 2 seconds to let you walk across the road - you'll be waiting for several minutes. I've literally had dozens of cars pass me before one will realise that legally they're required to let me walk across the road.

          Australian drivers are just idiots.

          They can't even get parking right. Too many park on the pavements so that pedestrians have to walk IN THE ROAD. And councils don't do a thing.

        • emibel19 on 15/06/2013 - 11:34
          +9

          What sort of island do you mean? Unless it's part of a pedestrian crossing (and perhaps a few other cases, such as turning at an intersection), I'm not aware of any law requiring motorists to stop for a pedestrian on an island in the middle of the road.

          Surely you're not suggesting that, if you are standing on an island in the middle of the road, and not near an intersection or marked crossing, motorists should give way to you?

        • hornoscous on 16/06/2013 - 12:05
          +7

          Dave, If you see the little green man at signalised intersections flashing you have right of way as a pedestrian. If you are walking over a zebra crossing or are walking across the road in a 'shared zone' you have right of way and cars will stop, but if you are standing in the centre of the median strip, or even in a pedestrian refuge built into the median strip, that does not by default give you right of way.

          Generally speaking it is the responsibility of motorists to be aware of pedestrians but it is also the responsibility of pedestrians to use the facilities provided and cross the road legally and safely.

        • John Dough on 16/06/2013 - 15:44
          -2

          "At intersections, drivers must give way to any pedestrians at or near the road they are turning into."

          Pedestrians have the right of way a lot more than drivers realise, but common sense dictates when you can safely enter a roadway without getting run down, and it would be foolish to use this 'power' without fear of consequence.

          Some drivers could really do with brushing up on the actual rules.
          http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/RoadRules…

          From all accounts, if you roll to a stop at an intersection in which you are going straight ahead, there is no rule to say you must give way to a pedestrian crossing the road in front of you. If they step out and you do not take action to avoid them, you will probably find yourself in jail.

          In most cases when peds are hit, the driver will usually be found to be at fault (however unjustly), just be aware of that at all times when driving.

        • Timocracy on 17/06/2013 - 22:10
          +2

          I've hit someone when they didn't look and walked right in front of my car. (It was a serious accident)

          I gave a police report, they said that I'm the "victim" as I'd done nothing wrong and had to deal with the consequences of someone else's actions. I submitted the report and never heard anything more of it.

        • Splashtash on 25/06/2013 - 00:41

          I feel ya…. some of those youtube clips r so fking funny. U know the ones where people have cams on their dashboards and cars driving up the emergency lane. I read a study about a year ago about how dangerous emergency lanes can actually be.

          If you read the statistics of road accidents you will see quite a few accidents about cars parking in emergency lanes. E.g cars coming around the corner while driving in the emergency lane just to beat the traffic have collided with parked cars. Or when the guy on the emergency lane goes to get out of his passenger side door and doesnt look and walks a little to close to the road were cars are travling at speeds of over 80kph, then gets hammered by another car.

          One example recently when I was driving down the cost was when a light trucker over took another car and then stayed in the over taking lane and wouldnt let me pass. I then turned to the left lane and bam he also turned to cut me off… so I had no choice as I had to sit behind him~ and this wasnt a slow speed either…

        • Splashtash on 25/06/2013 - 00:42

          wow…thats a first I have heard of this ~ I have always thought what the hell would happen if i was to ever do that…..

        • John Dough on 25/06/2013 - 10:05
          -3

          Neg me some more you morons… This thread is so idiotic I don't even know where to begin, its actually that pathetic reading some of this crap, this thread should be deleted with all the misinformation and absolute bullshit explanations and theories!

    • rmamila on 11/06/2013 - 15:12

      So it's you who create all the traffic on my way to work in the morning everyday. I was wondering why vehicles take too long to start moving after having the green light. This pretty much restrict the number of vehicles moving forward on one Green light very low and adds onto the long queue of traffic in the morning.
      PLEASE DON'T DO IT.

      When you move to Neutral while in moving in a slope it adds greater risk for your life as well as others lives as your breaks doesn't work well while you are moving down hill on Neutral.
      SO PLEASE DON"T DO THIS EITHER.

      :)

      • _Bruce_ on 11/06/2013 - 15:36
        +8

        When you move to Neutral while in moving in a slope it adds greater risk for your life as well as others lives as your breaks doesn't work well while you are moving down hill on Neutral.

        This is just wrong. Being in gear on a steep hill does provide engine braking which can help, but does not change how well your brake pads work (unless you turn the engine off).

        If you are consistantly going down big slopes (ie: down a mountain) however it is best to force (even an auto) into a lower gear to increase the amount of engine braking and stop the brakes from overheating. This is a corner case though.

        • ESEMCE on 12/06/2013 - 16:37

          Power assist brakes will be affected by a low revving engine if you are using the brake too much.

        • Mungulz on 15/06/2013 - 16:33
          +2

          No they won't…

  • PissLUR on 10/06/2013 - 14:44
    +2

    I prefer to do it that way too..

    but dont wait til the light changes to green to make your next move. Hate it when people take their own sweet time.

    • onlyletters on 12/06/2013 - 16:53
      +15

      Just leave it in D. Keep your foot on the brake, release when it goes green, why do people complicate this shit just to save $1 at the bowser and then end up paying $2000 for a replacement transmission and they wonder why?

      • [Deactivated] on 18/06/2013 - 07:08
        +1

        100% correct. Maybe people need to learn to drive correctly………and use common sense.

  • mskeggs on 10/06/2013 - 15:58
    +10

    When somebody rear-ends you because they don't see any break lights indicating you are stopped, the petrol savings will be outweighed ;-)

    • strangeloops66 on 10/06/2013 - 19:35
      +11

      The brake lights would break in the collision.

      • Davo1111 on 14/06/2013 - 12:38

        Watching that cop accident show, they can tell if the bulb was on or off when impacted.

        • John Dough on 14/06/2013 - 14:02
          +1

          They would only ever do that if there was a serious injury or fatality.

    • drexxx on 10/06/2013 - 21:58
      +3

      well it wouldnt be your fault. liek someone tonyjzx said above:

      "if you need to watch someones tailights to see that they are stopped you should kill yourself right now"

      hahahaha.

      their insurance (if they have any) will cover it.

      but there's of course the "time" hassle

    • pmupsinep on 13/06/2013 - 19:04
      +2

      When somebody rear-ends you because they don't see any break lights

      What are break lights? Do they light up when something is broken?

  • berger on 10/06/2013 - 16:47
    +2

    i drive 1000km a week, and car is never placed in neutrel. the wear and tear isn't noticeable, and if i take foot off the brakes, the chance of getting rear ended are higher.

    • MATTDAMON on 10/06/2013 - 18:05
      +1

      I do 1000km a DAY and i never angel gear at lights, if i can keep the clutch pedal of a 600HP Cat16 w/ 18spd Eaton box, anyone can.

      • illumination on 10/06/2013 - 22:51

        Why's it called angel gear? Angel gear = Neutral right?

        • MATTDAMON on 11/06/2013 - 04:38
          +3

          Yeah means neutral, its called angel gear because if you hit it in a crash box going down hill you will crash and float away as an angel.

      • montorola on 18/06/2013 - 19:52

        Ok, the big question…..what the hell do you do that requires 1000k's a day!?

        • issh on 18/06/2013 - 21:40

          If you look at his profile pic he drives a lorry, you can easily rack up 1000k a day

        • MATTDAMON on 19/06/2013 - 15:46

          Yep, don't work for that company now (hmmm should change the avatar) but yeah last year i averaged 821km a day, this year im closer to 1050km a day at this stage.

  • _Bruce_ on 10/06/2013 - 16:56
    +30

    Your arguements show a lack of understanding of physics:

    On drive, the car moves forward (albeit at a slow speed) i.e. it uses up some petrol doing so

    Yes.

    While at a red light on drive, you are stepping on the brakes to prevent it from moving forward. AFAIK, accelerating AND braking use up petrol

    No. The engine is running anyway and using the petrol to idle (turning the engine off is a different topic). The engine needs to consume petrol to keep going but it isn't much. As the car is stopped there is no additional power required to move the car, except for loss in the automatic clutch, which unless you car is broken will be very small. Braking only 'uses' the pads when you are applying power (ie: stopping, not stopped). Even if it did the hand brake uses the same brake pads as the foot brake anyway.

    Change to neutral and the momentum of the car is determined by the slope

    No. The car gets the force from the slop regardless. Changing to neutral removes the load on the clutch, which should be slipping anyway.

    Pull the handbrake up and you're not wearing down your brake pads

    You aren't anyway. And if you were the handbrake wouldn't help (how do you think this works if no through pads?

    Summary, there are two very small advantages and two small disadvantages to doing this:

    Pro:
    1: Very slight reduction in power due to loss over the clutch
    2: Very slight reduction in wear to the clutch

    Con:
    1: No Brake lights! To get around this, just use the foot brake, it makes (almost) no other difference.
    2: Changing in and out of drive causes a (quite small) about of shock through the drive chain which may add up to.. not much really.

    Second topic:

    I used to change gears to neutral while going downhill but changed that habit as people told me it's not good to change to N while in motion.

    This has Con 2 from above, but far more importantly this will increase your fuel usage. You engine has to idle anyway which uses fuel. Leaving it in drive means that the force from the hill will turn the engine over and you will consume 0 fuel. Neutral has no benefit at all.

    • b0redd on 10/06/2013 - 17:28
      +10

      Game. Set. Match.

      Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys.

    • Domingo on 10/06/2013 - 19:53
      +5

      Another thing I'd mention is the increased risk of being rear ended, especially if there are no cars stopped in front of you. Often you'll notice something coming and can at last take your foot off the brake, which means the car will move forward and lessen a lot of the damage.

      This happened to me about three years ago - I was doing a left turn, had to stop to give way to traffic and instinctively took my foot off the brake about half a second after someone ran into the back of me at about 20km/h. Ended up not even scratching my car as my car ended up being pushed forward.

      With a handbrake on, you have next to no chance to do this.

      • strangeloops66 on 10/06/2013 - 20:00
        +1

        half a second after?

        • Domingo on 10/06/2013 - 21:30
          +2

          Typo. before*

      • Dacs on 11/06/2013 - 14:39
        +7

        In an advanced driving course I did, the instructor said to always pull up the handbrake. The logic is that if you get hit from behind, a natural reflex may be to lift your foot off the brake which could push you into the pedestrian crossing in front of you or push you into the path of other traffic.

        • Riczter on 11/06/2013 - 15:56
          +4

          depends what you care about more i guess, your car or the people in front of you….. hmmm. I'm conflicted.

        • emibel19 on 11/06/2013 - 16:11
          +2

          Perhaps this is a recent innovation among driving instructors. It certainly wasn't the norm when I learned to drive (admittedly nearly 40 years ago). I won't be changing my behaviour.

        • Agret on 17/06/2013 - 01:20

          He said 'advanced driving course' which is a course where they talk through advanced driving techniques and how to get out of dangerous situations on the road (i.e. if you slide out on gravel/wet road cause of poor tyres/shit driving)

    • illumination on 10/06/2013 - 22:51
      +1

      Physics was never my forte. Even reading this post I'm a little unsure about the meaning of some of your points but it all sounds plausible.

      I'm still unable to find a conclusive "answer" though from this post even though this seems to be the most informative and "factual".

      But I get that changing to neutral while in motion going downhill was a bad choice. I do still do this when in a stationary position though or at low speeds (e.g. moving forward at a traffic light that has just turned green, then changing to D)

      • _Bruce_ on 11/06/2013 - 07:05
        +3

        I do still do this when in a stationary position though or at low speeds (e.g. moving forward at a traffic light that has just turned green, then changing to D)

        If you want to change while stationary it is little more than a waste of time. While rolling however, being in Drive will be more efficient. I can link more detailed information but it doesn't sound like it will get me anywhere. Do you own research (not people raving on forums) if you want to learn more.

    • rmamila on 11/06/2013 - 15:18

      Can't agree more. It's quiet funny when if you think the pad is worn for the time you are stopped rather than the force you applied and the time it takes to stop.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/06/2013 - 17:31
    +1

    Hmm… I've only seen people and myself use Neutral when their car's engine is broken and they need to rev it back up to check if it will fix it.

    I had an old car where I had to put it into neutral and rev it at the red lights, otherwise it would stall.

  • MITM on 10/06/2013 - 21:33
    -5

    Hand brake should always be on at a red light - you're most vulnerable position on the road where you cant take evasive action (ie speed up, slow down, or swerve - you're a sitting duck.)
    If a car hits another car behind you with no hand brake on, he will hit you and you will be propelled forward - and if you're at the front of the line, you will enter into moving traffic.

    Think of the reflex, if you're hit from behind (even a tap), your car will move forward, you leg will stay in the same location in space, ie; your foot will come off the brake pedal - unless it's glued there.

    Or if you dont use your hand brake, and you're hit from behind, your car will hit the car in front and YOU will be responsible for the damage to that car, which you would claim from the driver behind - IF he's insured. You will also lose your no claims bonus because it was your fault for running into the back of the car in front - even though it's wasn't your crash.

    So, regardless of whether you save petrol or wear the gears out or whatever, use your hand brake, please.
    Besides, it's the law to operate the handbrake while stationary.

    • issh on 10/06/2013 - 21:38
      +2

      Besides, it's the law to operate the handbrake while stationary.

      Really?

      I passed my driving test for Ps without using the handbrake at Red Lights, only used it for hillstarts

      • MITM on 12/06/2013 - 22:03

        Standards are slipping. Too easy to get a licence these days.
        "when a pause becomes a wait - use the handbrake" good habit to get into.

        • issh on 12/06/2013 - 23:06
          +2

          Yeah, also straightening the wheel at stops(especially when you are turning into a street is helpful as well

          I've only used the handbrake for hillstarts

          Too easy to get a licence these days.

          I don't really think so, I think that it's harder to get a license these days, back then I reckon it would've been quite easy considering the amount of testing done today

        • RockyRaccoon on 13/06/2013 - 13:15
          +3

          Standards are slipping. Too easy to get a licence these days.

          my god that takes the cake.

          80 plus hours of L plate driving
          P Plates for 3 plus years

          vs the old Copper down the road, who took you round the block while munching on his sanga's and if you were unlucky another car might appear on your right every now and again…

          No way would I like to go for my license again, if I didnt have my years of experience behind me to assist…

        • airzone on 13/06/2013 - 17:08
          +2

          My old man got sent down to the bottle-o to pick up a slab.. If the bottles arrived unbroken, pass the test. High standards back then… Really tough to pass.

          That said, my wife got her license a couple of years back and did the test a couple of weeks before popping out a kid… The tester must have felt sorry for her or something, she just had to drive around the block.

        • Agret on 17/06/2013 - 01:21

          Not 80hrs, it's 120hrs minimum

    • illumination on 10/06/2013 - 22:54

      Some very interesting and good points that I hadn't thought of but make perfect sense.

      I'm wondering whether there's still a small chance of rear-ending the car in front of you after being rear-ended even with handbrake? In which case, I guess the damage would be less than if you were using the foot brake but you would still have the same issues of losing your no claim bonus.

      • _Bruce_ on 11/06/2013 - 07:06
        +3

        Actually the damage would be more unless you are using both. The foot brake is much more effective than the hand brake.

        • MITM on 12/06/2013 - 22:35
          -1

          Huh ?
          The foot brake is for deceleration, the hand brake is for "parking"

          You miss the point. Your foot comes OFF the pedal if hit from behind. Simple physics.

          Standing on the pedal is not as effective as using the hand brake.

        • _Bruce_ on 13/06/2013 - 07:10

          You disagree then repeat my point? I think you misunderstood illumination's post.

    • emibel19 on 10/06/2013 - 23:20
      +4

      It's never occurred to me to apply the handbrake at a red light, and I've never heard of anyone who does it, nor any such law requiring it. If there is such a law, it's probably broken more than any other.

      • jagsman on 16/06/2013 - 20:20
        +1

        It's pretty normal if you drive a manual. Pop it in neutral, handbrake on, and give your left foot a rest. It is safer too in the event of being rear-ended.

    • Cheapo333 on 11/06/2013 - 00:47
      +3

      Would be hilarious watching this guy pull his handbrake every time he came to a stop.
      It makes perfect sense to apply your handbrake whenever stationary.
      Do it at every stop sign, traffic light, round-a-about, T intersection, start stop traffic.

      • Agret on 17/06/2013 - 01:23

        If you ever wonder why sometimes cars take forever to move from the lights this is why.

    • Cheapo333 on 11/06/2013 - 00:48
      +3

      Never heard that the most vulnerable position you can be while driving is stopped at a traffic light.

      So you think if you're stopped at a red light and I drive at 160km/h and smash into the back of your $300 car, and you consequently propel forward and collide and destroy a $750,000 Lamborghini Aventador, then I'm only liable for $300 damages and you are at fault for the damages to the Lambo?

      Genius.

      • tonyjzx on 11/06/2013 - 03:38
        +1

        in many cars with a footbrake or a dash mounted push button brake, its impractical to use the handbrake at EVERY intersection

        just plain dumb and i'd say a troll because no one can be that stupid… can they?? O_o

      • [Deactivated] on 12/06/2013 - 07:22
        +1

        If you collide with a $300.00 car at 160 kph, I doubt you'd be alive to worry about the $300.00 damage.

        • onlyletters on 12/06/2013 - 16:51

          Maybe he got the car for a bargain and its actually a good car that can withstand such an impact?

      • MITM on 12/06/2013 - 22:01
        +1

        Yes I know so, not only do you ruin my day and my $300 car, but now I have to pay for the Lambo.
        But that's why I drive a $300 car, and not a Lambo, with so many clowns driving at 160kph up to a red light. I prefer to risk my money elsewhere -like the ASX.

        Curious to know Cheapo, where do you think you feel the most vulnerable on the road ? Mine's at red lights-I cant wait to get moving again.

        Another is when I'm beside a pantec, because the car in front wont accelerate further ahead to let me through. (ie going the same speed as the truck) I like to get the hell past trucks. Anything can go wrong there.

        And I dont use the hand brake at every intersection etc - you're being ridiculous. Just at stop signs when in a queue and red lights.
        Jeez, I hope we never meet on the road, especially at 160kph !!

        • emibel19 on 12/06/2013 - 22:11
          +2

          I certainly don't feel the most vulnerable at red lights. In my case, it would probably be when being tail-gated.

        • MITM on 12/06/2013 - 22:15
          +1

          easy fix- gradualy slow down till he overtakes - wont take long.
          If he's in that much of a hurry or late, he should wake up earlier.

        • emibel19 on 12/06/2013 - 22:21
          +1

          In heavy city traffic, he may not be able to overtake. And what's with this driving at 160 km/h? Is that even legal anywhere in Australia?

        • MITM on 12/06/2013 - 22:32
          +1

          Slow down* just the same - the opposite of what he wants.
          *g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y, so he wont notice.

          160kph - ask Cheapo333, seems to think so.
          There are reported cases though, and many unreported, I bet.

        • RockyRaccoon on 13/06/2013 - 13:22

          whats with the $300 car…

          Having a car hit you with your handbrake on makes it more a stationary object which absorbs more energy, it it moves on then the energy is dispersed. Using very simple physics 2 X 80 KPH crashes would be kinder on your body than 1 X 160KPH

          So F the car, its your body that cant be replaced even for $300K

        • Cheapo333 on 13/06/2013 - 22:10

          No you're right. Pay for the lamborghini. It's cool.

    • onlyletters on 12/06/2013 - 16:52

      Who employed this guy?

    • Brick50 on 12/06/2013 - 22:42
      +2

      I would rather be rear ended and move foward a bit, Instead of being rear ended and all the impact going into the back seat (if you have children)

    • Duff5000 on 13/06/2013 - 11:00

      I dont buy that at all.

      Generally the footbrake has a far better at keeping the car stopped than the handbrake. As long as your foot doesnt come off the pedal you will stop quicker after being hit with your foot on the brake.

      Also if someone slams into you hard enough to ram you into the car in front that does not make it your fault. My brother had this happen to him and fault for both cars was given to the guy that hit him. If the car infront said you hit them first then you would be in trouble but that is a pretty small chance and would probably still have happened with the handbrake on.

      It isnt the law to put the handbrake on, you are just making stuff up now.

  • No ONE on 11/06/2013 - 02:28
    +1

    Really…
    If someone hits me from the back and as a result I hit the front vehicle, so i would be liable to for the damage caused to the front vehicle… if so, that's ridiculous and nonsense

    Please give a reference so that I should really check on that.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/06/2013 - 07:34
      +4

      Yes, you might. Every driver is legally required to maintain a safe distance from the car in front of them. This law applies to whether you're in motion or stationary. It's not only the law but it's plain common sense.

      It defies belief that drivers pull up to a stationary vehicle at traffic lights and stop within a few millimetres of the rear of the car in front of them. What purpose does this serve? What possible benefit does one get? Absolutely none that I can see.

      The other thing I don't get is drivers who creep forward when stopped at traffic lights. This is another totally stupid thing that the majority of drivers do. Again, it doesn't serve any purpose.

      • Davo1111 on 14/06/2013 - 12:47

        The other thing I don't get is drivers who creep forward when stopped at traffic lights. This is another totally stupid thing that the majority of drivers do. Again, it doesn't serve any purpose.

        We were taught to do so in driving school. You're supposed to stop a reasonable distance behind the drive in front (so if a car hits you, you're not responsible for hitting another vehicle), however once a car stops behind you can move up. Therefore the car behind takes responsibility. If a car is going fast enough to take out more than 1 car in-front, then they were going too fast.

        if there is a feeder to the left or right cars will want to take those feeders. By reducing the gap, you may free up enough space for a car to go down there. This happens regularly in areas which are turn on red permitted after stopping.

        • _Bruce_ on 14/06/2013 - 13:27

          I agree with this, however I suspect the intend was talking about people who constantly move forward very slowly or stop and start rolling constantly, often into the intersection.

        • emibel19 on 14/06/2013 - 14:22

          Speaking of distances between cars at lights reminds me of behaviour I see a lot of recently, and that's the first car stopping well before (like 1-2m) the stop line. Is this something taught these days, perhaps to reduce the likelihood of being pushed into the cross traffic by a rear-end collision?

        • RockyRaccoon on 17/06/2013 - 08:04
          +1

          and sometimes, that wont trigger the light change, so everyone has to wait…

    • onlyletters on 12/06/2013 - 16:51
      +3

      The person who hit you from the back has to cover everything, but if he doesn't have insurance, you just send a letter of demand to the guy behind you, or if they dont pay then.. the guy infront will sue you, then you have to sue the guy behind you because thats how the chain of events occurred.

    • MITM on 12/06/2013 - 21:47
      -1

      Yes, that's correct. Ring your insurance company.
      Car A damages your car (B) , B damages C. C insurance will claim against B, while B will claim against A. C does not claim against A because A did not hit C. So using your handbrake when STOPPED will help prevent hitting C.
      Most rear-enders at intersections are at slow speed (not 160kph per cheepo333) and the handbrake DOES prevent your car moving forward (and so long as you've left sufficient space in front.)
      Pedal brake is useless in a rear end collision, because your foot can't maintain your applied pressure.
      You effectively take your foot off the brake as a reflex, some reason why cars have headrests. No, they're not for your personal comfort or for DVD players for rear passengers.
      PS. "When stopped" means at a red light or stop sign. ie Wheels are at a standstill.
      A roundabout or give way are different situations - it would be ridiculous to use the handbrake, as it's not necessary to come to a complete stop.
      Thanks for the backup DACS 11/6 14;39

      • emibel19 on 12/06/2013 - 22:06

        While there may be some logic in applying the handbrake in these circumstances, do you still think it's the law? If so, in what state? I can find no mention of it in the Australian Road Rules.

        • MITM on 12/06/2013 - 22:23
          +2

          I concede it may not be in the road code - but it's good driving practice that could prevent serious injuries (whiplash) and other damage.
          It is something I was taught "when a pause becomes a wait - use the handbrake"
          and is part of my driving skillset. Perhaps it should be law after reading some of the logic of others above.

      • Cheapo333 on 13/06/2013 - 22:04
        -1

        I'm gonna get a dozer destroy the city, but your car will be used as the blade. You will be liable for everything according to your logic.

  • slix_88 on 11/06/2013 - 02:34
    -5

    First World Problem of a person who drives auto…

  • Tcm9669 on 11/06/2013 - 08:47

    I think it's the law to use handbrake when driving manual car when coming to a complete stop.

    Also, if you are worried about saving that little bit of petrol when on a red light pressing the brakes.. Maybe consider a manual car.

    • _Bruce_ on 11/06/2013 - 09:30

      Against the law where? Source?

      As I describe above, changing to manual won't make much difference.

    • onlyletters on 12/06/2013 - 16:49
      -2

      No law, your allowed to roll back, the person behind you must keep their distance, if you roll into them, its actually their fault if they're too close, did you know that too??

      • [Deactivated] on 12/06/2013 - 20:25

        I know that but it appears that the majority of the population doesn't. There is a law in most states that requires every motorist to maintain a safe distance behind the car in front whether in motion or stationary. Most people will know it as tailgating.

        Check the relevant road rules in your state.

      • MITM on 12/06/2013 - 22:25
        +2

        Rollback is failure to operate the car correctly.

      • Davo1111 on 14/06/2013 - 12:48
        +1

        citation?

        How about failure to maintain proper control of your vehicle?

        In the Ps test you fail if you roll too far back.

  • mikzter on 11/06/2013 - 09:20
    +3

    I usually use my handbrake and shift to neutral as long as I am not in the first couple of vehicles. I put my foot on the brake and shift back into gear as soon as it looks like the lights are about to change. Seems that everbody want to accelerate away from the lights in the first 2ms. A mate who works with auto transmissions reckons it makes no difference to wear whether you just put your foot on the brake or take it out of gear and use the handbrake.
    I still like to put it in neutral even if I just put my foot on the brake, maybe I'm just old school but thats the way they used to teach you.

  • freddofrog42 on 11/06/2013 - 10:21
    +2

    It's going to depend on the car but if you have something like a Scanguage ODBII reader it will generally indicate a higher BHP reading for a automatic car in D Vs the same car in Neutral.

    In one of my cars for example, it's about 8 BHP in D and just 5 BHP in N. That power and hence heat goes somewhere. The engine itself will displace that heat through the Radiator and the transmission through the Torque Converter, which in turn will heat up the oil. You will also of course use a bit more fuel.

    Personally, it's all down to likely lights delay and gradient mixed with transmission type. E.g.

    If I know the lights will take a while to change e.g. at a junction I'm familiar with, then I'll drop to N with the handbrake with both transmissions. If I'm pointing down hill then the option remains to use the footbrake instead but feet do slip and it's easy to nose into the car in front. Uphill, with a manual I would ALWAYS use the handbrake and never ride the clutch as that's $$$$ for a new one. With an Auto uphill it's a debate. If in doubt always apply the handbrake.

    BTW - if you're used to it, then left foot braking, at least with an automatic gives you more security and better ability to accelerate more quickly away from the lights. I stress though that you have to be used to it. Anyone with motorsport basics in karts or Formnula cars will feel very at home but most will not have the necessary degree of sensitivity in the left foot….

  • John Dough on 11/06/2013 - 11:36
    +3

    Put it in 'D' and leave it in 'D', or learn to drive stick.
    That was easy.

  • WT on 11/06/2013 - 11:46
    +3

    My uncle shifts to N at the lights, when it clunks into D when he wants to take off, I feel like punching him

  • [Deactivated] on 11/06/2013 - 11:51
    -1

    Sitting a red light in drive in an automatic engine revs are lower than if you shifted to neutral. i.e. The engine turns slower due to the gearbox being engaged. So sitting in D with the brakes on must use less fuel.

    • _Bruce_ on 11/06/2013 - 12:01

      Sorry but your logic is flawed. The fuel usage is only indirectly connected to engine RPM. When in drive some torque is applied to the engine which lowers the RPM. The engine then needs to put more fuel in, but only if the idle RPM drops below a minimum.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/06/2013 - 12:07

        Ok.

        They claim after 8 seconds with the engine off you're saving fuel. They go on to say if you turn the engine off at every set of lights, overall you'll come out using less fuel. So this is what I've been trying to remember to do anyway, rather than deciding if to use D or N.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join