the following detailed description is merely exemplary in nature and is not intended to limit application and uses . furthermore , there is no intention to be bound by any theory presented in the preceding background or summary or the following detailed description . fig1 shows a typical traffic situation which can be handled by the driver assistance system . a motor vehicle 1 fitted with a driver assistance system is moving along a road 2 behind a preceding vehicle 3 , which , for example , is suddenly delayed ahead of a road junction , at an end of a queue , or for some other reason which is not identifiable for the driver of the vehicle 1 . the driver assistance system of the motor vehicle 1 comprises a plurality of environment sensors such as , for example , a radar sensor 4 for detecting the distance from the preceding vehicle 3 , cameras 5 , which are aligned towards a right or left boundary marking 6 of the lane 7 of the road 2 on which the vehicle 1 is traveling , in order to determine the distance of the vehicle 1 from the respective boundary 6 , a processor unit 8 and sensors not shown for detecting a steering wheel and / or brake pedal actuation . the radar sensor 4 regularly measures the distance d of the vehicle 1 from the preceding vehicle 3 according to step s 1 from fig2 . by reference to distance measured values obtained earlier , the processor unit 8 extrapolates the future development of the distance d and calculates a time ttc ( time to collision ) after which the distance d is prospectively 0 ( step s 2 ). as long as the result of this calculation is negative , the distance d increases and there is no danger . a slightly critical situation exists it is determined in step s 3 that ttc is positive and smaller than a first limiting value lim1 of , for example , approximately 2 seconds . in this case , ttc is initially compared in step s with a second smaller limiting value lim2 of , for example , approximately 1 . 0 seconds . if ttc & gt ; lim2 , it is initially sufficient to warn the driver ( s 5 ). such a warning which does not yet influence the movement of the vehicle 1 itself , can , for example , involve triggering an actuator which causes the steering wheel of the vehicle 1 or an accelerator or brake pedal touched by the driver to vibrate and thus makes it clear to the driver that a speed correction is recommended to avert the danger . if as a consequence , in step s 6 the processor unit 8 identifies a correcting intervention of the driver , it is assumed that the driver has the situation under control and will take suitable remedial measures and will interrupt the process ( s 7 ). expediently it is subsequently automatically re - started when the current critical situation has been overcome and a new independent hazard situation could arise , i . e ., if ttc has in the meantime become greater than limt 1 at least once . an actuation of the brake by the driver which will lead to an increase in ttc or cause it to become negative naturally comes into consideration primarily as a correcting intervention of the driver . however , an actuation of the steering wheel or acceleration can constitute an appropriate correcting intervention if this is used to prepare to overtake the vehicle 3 and therefore also leads to interruption of the process . if no correcting measure is identified in step s 6 , the process returns to the starting point and since the approach to the vehicle 3 continues without a suitable correction measure , ttc also decreases . if no additional hazard influences are added , after the triggering of the warning in step s 5 it therefore takes a fixed time interval δ1 = lim2 − lim1 until ttc falls below the second limiting value lim2 . this time interval is therefore available to the driver in order to respond to the warning of step s 5 through a correcting intervention and thereby avert an intervention of the processor unit 8 in the movement of the vehicle 1 . if it has been determined that lim2 has been fallen below in step s 4 , a comparison s 8 is made with a third , even smaller limiting value lim3 . as long as this is not fallen below , it is sufficient if the processor unit 8 triggers a braking as a hazard - mitigating measure s 9 that certainly mitigates the risk of collision but is not yet sufficient to eliminate this risk . the braking should be clearly perceptible for the driver but should be controllable without any difficulties ; therefore the braking deceleration here is less than approximately 0 . 4 g . here the driver still has the opportunity to end the automatic intervention by the processor unit 8 and bring about the interruption s 7 of the process through his own correcting intervention which is identified in step s 6 . if this does not take place , the process goes back to the beginning again where , since the braking of step s 8 is not sufficient to prevent the collision , in the next iteration of the process ttc is again smaller . as soon as ttc finally falls below lim3 , the processor unit 8 initiates a complete braking s 10 . in order to ensure that this complete braking is sufficient to actually avoid a collision , lim3 can be specified as a function of the speed of the vehicle 1 . in other words : if a is the maximum deceleration which the vehicle 1 can achieve during braking and v is its speed , then lim3 must be at least v / a in order to be able to avert a collision with a stationary obstacle by full braking . in order that the driver has time to respond to the warning s 5 or the hazard - mitigating measure s 9 in good time before triggering the full braking , the limiting values lim1 , lim2 can also be predefined depending on the vehicle speed and each differ from lim3 by a constant value δ1 or δ2 . the method of fig2 can be applied similarly when the monitored distance d is not that from the preceding vehicle 3 but that from an adjacent lane boundary marking 6 . here in particular the triggering of an actuator is considered as warning s 5 that causes the steering wheel to vibrate in order to make a steering movement obvious to the driver . as a hazard - mitigating intervention , the actuator can be triggered to exert a small torque on the steering wheel , which can easily be compensated by the driver , by which means , if it is not compensated , the vehicle is steered away from the adjacent lane boundary marking 6 or at least the speed is reduced at which the vehicle approaches the lane boundary marking . if the driver is not in a position to compensate on account of falling asleep for a second or loss of consciousness , such an intervention can , depending on the intensity , already eliminate the risk of leaving the lane or at least lengthen the time available for going below lim2 . then in particular the application of a strong torque to the steering wheel comes into consideration as emergency intervention s 10 , which brings the vehicle back onto its lane again and which requires a physical effort of the driver to overcome this , if this is desired . alternatively the emergency intervention s 10 here can also be a deceleration of the vehicle 1 to a standstill . while at least one exemplary embodiment has been presented in the foregoing summary and detailed description , it should be appreciated that a vast number of variations exist . it should also be appreciated that the exemplary embodiment or exemplary embodiments are only examples , and are not intended to limit the scope , applicability , or configuration in any way . rather , the foregoing summary and detailed description will provide those skilled in the art with a convenient road map for implementing an exemplary embodiment , it being understood that various changes may be made in the function and arrangement of elements described in an exemplary embodiment without departing from the scope as set forth in the appended claims and their legal equivalents .