Not really; it's pretty much impossible to stop suddenly via engine braking alone in a stick shift without forcing the transmission into a much lower gear (fourth to second or first, for example) and engaging the clutch, which will damage the drivetrain if done more than a few times. Engine braking, if done correctly, is a gradual slowdown with the ability to immediately accelerate again, all without wearing on your brakes, and once it's learned it becomes a natural part of driving a manual. If someone is following you close enough to hit you while you gradually slow down, tail lights or not, that's their fault for tailgating.

That said, engine braking isn't appropriate in all situations; I personally wouldn't do it in heavy stop-and-go traffic, but for highway and around-town driving it's perfectly safe. I definitely wouldn't do it with a tailgater behind me, just out of common sense.

Your last sentence pretty much puts us in agreement. I will add an edit that says I am not trying to say never consider engine braking. Just realize that cars can get behind you quite quickly without you realizing it, and not signaling that you are stopping is dangerous.

I have the same problem on my bike. I don't always signal when I'm about to stop at a corner, and have had folks near hit me for it. (Granted, if you are stopping on a bike, it is literally harder to signal that you are stopping. Point stands that if I could, it would be safer.)

> Just realize that cars can get behind you quite quickly without you realizing it, and not signaling that you are stopping is dangerous.

One can always use hand signals too; that was something I was taught when I first learned to drive. Open hand out the window pointed up for a right turn, pointed straight for a left turn, and pointed down at the ground for slowing/stopping.

Of course that was 25 years ago; I wonder if hand signals are even still taught in driving schools.

I'm a biker, so hand signaling is most of what I do. Though, much easier said than done. And, most people in cars are highly focused on key features. The brake light in front of them being one of them.

Engine braking is a pretty gradual deceleration - if the car behind you doesn't notice that you're slowing down in the ~30 seconds it takes to close a safe distance with a car that's gradually slowing down, you got bigger problems. For that matter, automatics do it too. Take your foot off the gas in an automatic and wind/rolling resistance will eventually slow you down too.

I find that the fuel economy savings from engine breaking are largely a matter of incentives. You can drive the same way in an automatic, and you will get nearly the same fuel economy savings. You're just not incentivized to do so, since the break/gas dance is much easier in an automatic and you don't have the cognitive feedback of needing to shift gears each time you accelerate or decelerate.

Most people I know that refer to engine braking have always meant something faster than an automatic would do. Unless you are talking about letting of the gas and downshifting in an automatic.

Is it guaranteed to get you in a wreck? Not at all. But, I would be surprised if people weren't more keyed to the "red light" in front of them than you are letting on.

More blame should be assigned for being dangerous to the person who only glances up from his phone when he sees red lights than to the engine braker.

This implies I was giving less blame to those folks. I'm not taking away any responsibility from anyone for dangerous behavior. However, especially with how highly visible lights are on modern vehicles, it is silly to not realize any situation that at all inhibits visibility will benefit from extra signaling.

As I said down thread, I think I can logically and in full conscious support both of those statements. :)

So, yes, folks that are being negligent deserve the blame in wrecks they cause. However, signaling benefits everyone. Including folks driving in fog/rain/night/whatever.

Being able to assign the blame elsewhere is cold comfort when you've been in an auto accident.

To be fair, engine braking is quicker deceleration than an automatic does, a modern automatic will freewheel the transmission when coasting.

One of the first things i notice when driving an automatic that scares me the most is that it doesn't stop.

Thankfully electric cars are bringing this back. And i think studies are showing its safer.

That can happen with a automatic transmission as well. You should not rely on the "brake lights" to realize that the car in front of you is slowing down or stopped.

Agreed.

In particular, I agree with both points that "you should signal folks behind you that you are slowing down" and "you should pay attention to how fast the car in front of you is going." Neither point diminishes the other.

>This is dangerous, as you aren't signaling people behind you if you are braking...

Engine braking results in a slow drop in speed. If the car behind you cannot handle a slow speed decline, he is the problem, and is driving too close to you.

Most good instructors teach students to try to slow down as much as possible just by getting your foot off the accelerator (not with engine braking, and not with real brakes).

As in don't wait till you are near the stop light to apply the brakes - just get your foot off the gas much earlier, and apply the brakes when you have to. In real terms, when driving at 45mph, I usually don't need to apply the brakes until I'm at 35 or 30mph. Puts less load on the brakes, and is supposed to be safer - you are easing into a lower speed as opposed to doing it suddenly.

The people behind you will not see a brake light, but will still slow down behind you. If they hit you, they are driving poorly.

As I said up thread, there is usually a big difference in what folks refer to as engine braking and coasting a bit. In particular, my stick shift will slow dramatically faster when I engine brake in first/second compared to what will happen in any automatic I've ever driven. (In particular, it is entirely possible for me to completely engine brake to a stop sign. That is considerably more than just coasting to a stop.)

Also as I said, though, I should have been a bit softer there. I'm not saying it will get you in trouble guaranteed. But, just as I agree it is more dangerous to ride a bike without a helmet, I recommend against not signaling folks behind you that you are stopping.

And, also as I mentioned up thread. If someone hits you because they didn't see you stopping, yes, it is their fault. I don't exactly care who is at fault in many ways, if I'm hit. I'd just as soon not get hit. :)

Coasting in first is a rarity. Requires a really big downshift (with intense rev matching - older cars with less of a 1st synchro left will even require double clutching) or you to be in high rpms to start

Engine breaking just means slowing down by letting the foot off the gas. You aren't really slowing down that quickly. Someone has to really not be paying attention to miss it. It would be the equivalent of someone merging.

I agree, but you actually can slow down relatively quickly at stop-and-go speeds if you have some RPM on a big V8 and you take your foot off the gas. Certainly I try to remember that, because I tend to avoid using the brake pedal except when strictly necessary. I've seen some people behind me act kinda surprised that I can slow down without activating the lights. Yes they should be watching my car, not my lights, but this is the real world.

I know what it means. And I've seen some folks do it fast enough to catch followers by surprise. Especially at night.

To that point, I'm not trying to claim it is insurmountably dangerous. It is more dangerous that just using the brakes, though.

Yep, one of my favorite ways to mess with tailgaters was to drop a gear or two and drop the clutch. *of course not recommending anyone ever do this since it's dangerous as hell.

Idea: have the brakes come on when the car decelerates independent of whether or not the brakes are engaged. Simple a sensor that detects deceleration in excess of 'X' Gs will enable the brake lights.

These exist, for example:

https://gearbrake.com/collections/shop/products/gearbrake-sm...

Some electrics do that because the regeneration system makes them lose a lot of speed quickly so they automatically turn them on.

>Engine breaking just means slowing down by letting the foot off the gas.

Given how often I've driven on stretches of road where engine braking is prohibited, I beg to differ.

Engine braking is usually braking by shifting to a lower gear.

In my experience, places where engine braking is prohibited tend to be with the intent to reduce engine braking by tractor trailers or other large apparatuses, which can be very loud. In much of the U.S, posted signage prohibits "Jake braking" which specifically targets tractor trailers and other large trucks. [0]

[0]: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/96447/why-prohibi...

I will chime into that, though, that they are prohibiting large trucks from doing it. They don't care about cars doing it. (The wikipedia page explains the difference and why some places prohibit trucks from doing it.)

Edit: That said, I fully agree that most times I hear folks talk of engine braking, they mean shifting down to slow somewhat faster than just coasting.

Engine braking is prohibited due noise from large diesels using compression brakes aka "jake brakes" - specialised engine braking hardware. They make engine braking much more effective, so that trucks can slow down more without heating the regular brakes as much, but they can be loud.

The parent is essentially right; engine braking is using the engine to slow the vehicle down.

I've wondered how this is issue is addressed in EVs that offer one-pedal driving. Do they show the brake lights when deceleration exceeds a certain rate?

Similarly, when I'm braking very lightly in my plugin-in hybrid in order to charge the battery all the way down a long hill, I wish there were a way to not have the brake lights activated the whole time. It's only barely slowing me down, and I've driven other cars that decelerated more going down the same hill just due to wind drag and rolling resistance.

Since engine braking is an extremely common way for motorcycles to reduce speed, there are any number of aftermarket products that are essentially an accelerometer inline with the brake light, which will turn on or flash the brake light when sudden deceleration is detected.

I can see no reason why this wouldn’t work equally well for cars.

I was curious on this, so quickly checked a search. Some quora answers indicated it is a matter of regulation. General feel I got was it was expected to change with newer vehicles, but inertia in the current way things are certified will be a barrier.

Federal regulation requires brake lights to be on if deceleration from regenerative braking to be over specified thresholds.

edit: apparently, it's UN regulation, not federal.

Cool to know. Do you have up to date links to that regulation?

See below link for references to relevant regulation.

https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/traffic/rules-of-the-r...

I'm curious why you care about the brake lights being on if you are actually braking. Even only slightly.

Though, to directly answer your question, I don't know how cars that only have a single pedal work with this. Embarrassingly, I didn't realize those existed, so would be as interested as you in the answer.

It's not that the cars have one pedal, it's that you can get by with one pedal as lifting off the accelerator will induce the regenerative braking and slow the car down. On the Tesla at least this is an optional feature since it can be jarring to people who haven't used it.