From your own link:

> The two-second rule tells a defensive driver the minimum distance needed to reduce the risk of collision under ideal driving conditions. The allotted two-seconds is a safety buffer, to allow the following driver time to respond. [emphasis mine]

> Some authorities regard two seconds as inadequate, and recommend a three-second rule. […] The United States National Safety Council suggests that a three-second rule—with increases of one second per factor of driving difficulty—is more appropriate. Factors that make driving more difficult include poor lighting conditions (dawn and dusk are the most common); inclement weather (ice, rain, snow, fog, etc.), adverse traffic mix (heavy vehicles, slow vehicles, impaired drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.), and personal condition (fatigue, sleepiness, drug-related loss of response time, distracting thoughts, etc.). For example, a fatigued driver piloting a car in rainy weather at dusk would do well to observe a six-second following distance, rather than the basic three-second gap.

I've had to veer to avoid accidents. At least three sitautions I can remember on the interstate: a semi truck tire blowout in front of me leaving large parts of the tire in my lane; a bike rack with several bikes falling off the back of a car in front of me; a truck in front of me veering around a obstacle (it appeared to be a pickup truck bed liner) I was blind to because I couldn't see beyond the truck in front of me.

I was lucky to avoid all of these because I had a parallel lane or shoulder I could escape into. When I drive now, if it's congested I leave extra following diatance. If that reduces the road capacity so be it. Compared to drivers who follow much too closely (which itself causes sudden slowdowns since they tend to over brake) or who drive in the wrong lane for their speed, I don't think I'm the person you need to worry about.

FWIW, I haven't been in an accident in over 25 years.

Nowhere on my link does anyone recommend a general 4-second rule, and this doesn't even account for the fact that we should expect safety organizations to err on the side of too much safety. Note that your recommendation is specifically not a tailored approach designed to adjust to risky situations, but rather a fixed criteria.

Your strategy to take all possible precautions regardless of large efficiency loss doesn't align with the reasonable tradeoffs that the vast majority of humans make.

I disagree. On a congested road, If you can't see two cars ahead of you and react to the actions of that second car, you're not driving safely.

On a non-congested road, there's no excuse for putting sufficient distance between you and the car in front.

Your recommendation on non-congested roads is vague and I don't think your recommendation for congested roads conflicts with my critique of js2. Certainly, it's often impossible to see 200 yards ahead on various stretches of the highway, so any reasonable driver will be violating js2's advice if they follow yours.

If you think putting sufficient distance between you and the car in front is vague, you are a poorly educated driver and most likely a dangerous one.

If you can't see 200 yards ahead, you should not be travelling at a speed which precludes you from stopping within 200 yards.

On a single lane uncongested road, there's no excuse for putting a reasonable (at least 3 second) gap between you and the vehicle in front.

> If you think putting sufficient distance between you and the car in front is vague, you are a poorly educated driver and most likely a dangerous one.

Huh? The whole context of this discussion starting from js2's comment is about exactly how far is should be, and in particular whether 2 seconds or 4 seconds (which at highway speeds is 50 yards vs. 100 yards) is more reasonable as a rule of thumb. As you can see from my link, most government safety organizations recommend 2 or 3 seconds in good weather.