Top Gear electric hand brake in a golf.
Just in case any of you are wondering...... following a query from Karoq Forum.
Just in case any of you are wondering...... following a query from Karoq Forum.
I'm sure there's a braver person out there than me....Colin Lambert said:Find a large, wet, empty car park and try it......
If you do, please let us know!
To use the 'emergency braking' function of the EPB, you must hold it up. The car won't lock up but it bloody tugs the anchors that's for sure.Marinfullsuss said:I was wondering about this. For example, could (hypothetically speaking) an inquisitive grandson in the passenger seat apply the parking brake (with very little effort) such that I might lose control of the car? It seems the answer is no. Would the same apply if the road was wet, I wonder?
No different than if you just hit the brakes full force though is it? Actually, if it's just using the rear wheels, as I presume it is, then it will slow down less quickly than doing that so less chance of a rear end than an actual emergency stop.Daddy2Bears said:Wouldn't fancy your chances if it was a fully laden artic behind you.
Not if your front seat passenger activated it because you're having a heart attack, which is the question I posed in my original thread.So I think that you'd probably already have your foot on the brake, activating the brake lights, and that you probably have more to worry about than a car behind you potentially rear ending you. Lol.
Fair enough, I must've missed that by skimming through responses. It looks like it also applies the brake lights when you use it judging by the Top Gear video when they try to do the handbrake turn which would hopefully minimise any issues.old man said:Not if your front seat passenger activated it because you're having a heart attack, which is the question I posed in my original thread.So I think that you'd probably already have your foot on the brake, activating the brake lights, and that you probably have more to worry about than a car behind you potentially rear ending you. Lol.
A citation will be required [from me] but I don't think the driver behind you will **always** be found at fault. You need to have cause to brake excessively.Colin Lambert said:As far as someone rear ending you, apart from the inconvenience, the car that rear ends you is automatically at fault in the U.K. So his insurance has to pay.
The emergency braking function does not apply the parking brake i.e. lock the rear calipers. It will use the ABS system on all four wheels to brake.Silverbear said:I can just imagine explaining to the insurance company that ones method of stopping was the handbrake rather than the foot brake and of course this is a handbrake that is binary, either off or on, you can't feather it like a traditional handbrake. I would imagine it very difficult to stop quickly just by locking the rear wheels, much less remain in a straight line.
No that is clever, or should I say, "Simply Clever"?Zach said:The emergency braking function does not apply the parking brake i.e. lock the rear calipers. It will use the ABS system on all four wheels to brake.Silverbear said:I can just imagine explaining to the insurance company that ones method of stopping was the handbrake rather than the foot brake and of course this is a handbrake that is binary, either off or on, you can't feather it like a traditional handbrake. I would imagine it very difficult to stop quickly just by locking the rear wheels, much less remain in a straight line.
I really don't know the law well enough to make an informed comment, but my personal opinion is that if the car following has been behind the lead car for any period of time (as in, the lead car hasn't just pulled out in front of the following car without enough time for them to brake and avoid a collision) then the following vehicle is always at fault. I only say that because you should be leaving enough room for exactly this kind of reason, surely?iwarv said:A citation will be required [from me] but I don't think the driver behind you will **always** be found at fault. You need to have cause to brake excessively.Colin Lambert said:As far as someone rear ending you, apart from the inconvenience, the car that rear ends you is automatically at fault in the U.K. So his insurance has to pay.
Vermin on the road(*) is one of those clauses where the law rules in favour of the driver at the rear of the accident.
I know of one instance when the rear car was held not to be at fault because the front car's brake lights were not working, (in the days of relatively simple wiring looms and before high level brake lights).Daggerit said:I really don't know the law well enough to make an informed comment, but my personal opinion is that if the car following has been behind the lead car for any period of time (as in, the lead car hasn't just pulled out in front of the following car without enough time for them to brake and avoid a collision) then the following vehicle is always at fault. I only say that because you should be leaving enough room for exactly this kind of reason, surely?iwarv said:A citation will be required [from me] but I don't think the driver behind you will **always** be found at fault. You need to have cause to brake excessively.Colin Lambert said:As far as someone rear ending you, apart from the inconvenience, the car that rear ends you is automatically at fault in the U.K. So his insurance has to pay.
Vermin on the road(*) is one of those clauses where the law rules in favour of the driver at the rear of the accident.
I have some sympathy for the following driver if the lead car is not roadworthy but surely a lead car has the right to expect that should the rear brake lights fail the following driver is sufficiently smart to have left sufficient space to allow for the unexpected. Huge numbers of drivers follow too close to the car in front. I was taught to drive defensively and to assume everyone else on the road is an idiot.Old and Grumpy said:I know of one instance when the rear car was held not to be at fault because the front car's brake lights were not working, (in the days of relatively simple wiring looms and before high level brake lights).Daggerit said:I really don't know the law well enough to make an informed comment, but my personal opinion is that if the car following has been behind the lead car for any period of time (as in, the lead car hasn't just pulled out in front of the following car without enough time for them to brake and avoid a collision) then the following vehicle is always at fault. I only say that because you should be leaving enough room for exactly this kind of reason, surely?iwarv said:A citation will be required [from me] but I don't think the driver behind you will **always** be found at fault. You need to have cause to brake excessively.
Vermin on the road(*) is one of those clauses where the law rules in favour of the driver at the rear of the accident.
That last bit made me chuckle because it's so true. :lol: :lol:Silverbear said:While I'm rubbishing the driving test, what about stopping distances! What is the point? Who can meaaure out a stopping distance by eye and even worse while driving? I can measure a yard reasonably well when sat on the sofa, but 50 or 100 yards in a moving car through a windscreen? No chance.Old and Grumpy said:I know of one instance when the rear car was held not to be at fault because the front car's brake lights were not working, (in the days of relatively simple wiring looms and before high level brake lights).Daggerit said:I really don't know the law well enough to make an informed comment, but my personal opinion is that if the car following has been behind the lead car for any period of time (as in, the lead car hasn't just pulled out in front of the following car without enough time for them to brake and avoid a collision) then the following vehicle is always at fault. I only say that because you should be leaving enough room for exactly this kind of reason, surely?