Current Events > Are brake checkers suicidal?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Break checking is more direct.

Again, if the tailgater was the proper distance behind then regardless of why somebody in front of them has to hit their brakes nothing would happen.

It was a tailgater who fucked up my neck, you'll never convince me those fuckers aren't primarily to blame for the accidents they cause. Let's say you rear end somebody and you just assume they're a brake checker. How do you know? Do you just assume they're brake checking because you were on their ass driving like a fucking lunatic? I mean probably but let's be real, there could be any number of reasons why they pressed their brakes. Maybe there was something on the road, maybe there wasn't but they thought there was, people after all make mistakes when they're in a high stress environment such as being tailgated by a lunatic who should have their license taken away and never be allowed behind the wheel again.

You are confusing genuine brakers with brake checking.

Brake checking is deliberate road rage and a dangerous act that is retaliatory. An act that intentionally is trying to risk the lives of others as a retaliatory act. Lives that btw can include innocent bystander.

Someone genuinely slamming the brakes for genuine reasons that had nothing to with with trying to retaliate against the person behind them is not a brake checker.

When talking to insurance they were trying to see if I shared blame, I pointed out that I had time to stop without hitting the person in front of me and the insurance agent chuckled and agreed.

Nonsense, you can't brake check without an initiator in the first place.

It absolutely does matter why you decided to slam the brakes.

Interesting that they would even ask that. Around here, if someone rear-ends someone else they are automatically assumed to be at fault unless they can prove that there were extenuating circumstances (e.g. someone made a sudden turn or unsafe lane change and cut them off). It's written right into our driving laws that you must always leave enough space in front of you so that you can safely come to a stop if something happens on the road in front of you that requires you to brake suddenly (generally 2-3 seconds at city speeds, 4-6 seconds at highway speeds, unless poor road conditions would necessitate a larger gap).

No, more like it's a discussion for people like you to justify putting innocent bystander lives in danger because you need to convince yourself that your reckless actions you chose to do in deliberate retaliation is justified.

Again, if the tailgater was the proper distance behind then regardless of why somebody in front of them has to hit their brakes nothing would happen.

It was a tailgater who fucked up my neck, you'll never convince me those fuckers aren't primarily to blame for the accidents they cause. Let's say you rear end somebody and you just assume they're a brake checker. How do you know? Do you just assume they're brake checking because you were on their ass driving like a fucking lunatic? I mean probably but let's be real, there could be any number of reasons why they pressed their brakes. Maybe there was something on the road, maybe there wasn't but they thought there was, people after all make mistakes when they're in a high stress environment such as being tailgated by a lunatic who should have their license taken away and never be allowed behind the wheel again.

I'm not confusing anything, if you're tailgating how do you know the person ahead of you is brake checking vs actually having a legitimate reason to hit their brakes? I'm sure you like to assume they are but how do you actually know?

You are confusing it.

The discussion is about brake checkers. There's nothing to debate here on if the person is doing it for legitimate reasons or not.

The topic terms are clear, the person is a confirmed brake checker. Which means they intentionally are driving reckless in a retaliatory fashion which also possibly endangers innocent lives around them.

Your spin trying to ask if it was a genuine sudden stop is an irrelevant question. The topic title confirms the scenario isn't a genuine stop.

You are confusing it.

The discussion is about brake checkers. There's nothing to debate here on if someone if the person is doing it for legitimate reasons or not.

The topic terms are clear, the person is a confirmed brake checker. Which means they intentionally are driving reckless in a retaliatory fashion possibly endangering innocent lives around.

Your spin trying to ask if it was a genuine sudden stop is an irrelevant question. The topic title confirms the scenario isn't a genuine stop.

You are confusing it.

I absolutely am confusing nothing, but people like you who I can only assume tailgate people don't like that there's people who consider you the significantly larger problem

this is 5yo logic, cmon

You should stop tailgating people.

this is 5yo logic, cmon

this is 5yo logic, cmon

I'm sure you've heard the term "flying too close to the sun". That's exactly what tailgaters are doing, sudden stops can occur at any given second. Don't fly too close to the sun.

i don't tailgate, i'm probably the safest driver i know

dont you think youre better than this?

obviously, but that doesnt make sense as a response to me or this topic

Better than what? I've made my point in this thread clear repeatedly, some seem to struggle to understand it for some reason and you're saying "this is 5yo logic" to me, it's ridiculous.

If people would stop flying to close to the sun, very few are going to get burned.

that doesnt make sense as a response to me or this topic

You're the one who doesn't understand the fundamentals of driving. No tailgating, far far less sudden stop crashes. Very simple.

My entire point this thread has been people shouldn't brake check but it's the tailgaters who are the real problem.

I absolutely am confusing nothing, but people like you who I can only assume tailgate people don't like that there's people who consider you the significantly larger problem.

If somebody hits their brakes FOR ANY REASON should under no circumstance end up being rear ended, the person behind them should have had time to stop. The time I got rear ended? I don't fucking know why the person in front of me stopped so quickly and it doesn't matter because I was able to stop before hitting them unlike the person behind me.

The topic terms are clear, the person is a confirmed brake checker. Which means they intentionally are driving reckless in a retaliatory fashion which also possibly endangers innocent lives around them. They chose to intentionally raise the risk of an accident on the road in retaliation to someone else's driving. It was not an accident.

a brake checker is intentionally causing an accident out of petty ego. both the brake checker and the tailgater would liable in the event of an accident. the brake checker would be majority liable if the tailgater had footage

"that's not the prompt of this topic"
"yea well you must be a dirty tailgater"

you argue like a 5 year old yea. like the equivalent to ppl who say "whatre you, gay?" in response to a straight person defending gay rights. like bruh

Not saying otherwise, or arguing about the legality of it. Someone said they're equivalent, but, in the moral and technical sense, they're not.

morals do not work that way

obviously, but that doesnt make sense as a response to me or this topic

For all the people saying both, you do realize that without one, tailgaters, there wouldn't be the other, crashes because of sudden stops. Again aside from a scammer scenario, but that's rare and typically happens on city streets anyway, because even most scammers aren't dumb enough to try that shit at highway speed.

that doesnt make sense as a response to me or this topic

This is exactly what tailgaters are doing though. They think somebody else is driving too slow, so they are risking an accident by getting too close to them. I bet they also turned on their high beams as well in order to "motivate" the other driver to speed up or pull over.

If you see somebody hit their brakes unless you can read minds how can you know exactly why they hit their brakes?

Nonsense, you can't brake check without an initiator in the first place.

The tailgater being reckless intentionally doesn't justify retaliatory intentional reckless driving

Well, I suppose I shouldn't expect it to from a tailgater.

Well, I suppose I shouldn't expect it to from a tailgater.

"yea well you must be a dirty tailgater"

you argue like a 5 year old yea. like the equivalent to ppl who say "whatre you, gay?" in response to a straight person defending gay rights. like bruh

What am I supposed to think about people going to bat for tailgaters?

See this is the disconnect. There wouldn't be a crash from retaliation or legit stop if there was no tailgater to begin with.

You realize that's the same defense for insurance fraud brake checking/backing a car into another person's car, right? With this special device called a camera, we can get a look at the conditions of the road to see if it was justified. If no camera, generally going to be out of luck in both cases.

See this is the disconnect. There wouldn't be a crash from retaliation or legit stop if there was no tailgater to begin with.

The disconnect here is you thinking another driver on the road being reckless means you are justified to intentionally in response endanger lives as well in a retaliatory road rage response.