Current Events > Are brake checkers suicidal?

(+) Yeah! (+)

josifrees posted...

I slow down when they tailgate and continue slowing down until they stop tailgating.

Same exactly. The goal of a tailgater is to make you go faster. I don't brake check them. I slow down. If I was going 5 over the speed limit, now I'm going 5 under.

1) I'm giving them the opposite of what they want.
2) If they're going to hit me, I'd rather it be at a slower speed.
3) I'm easier to pass, so they can do us both a favor, nut up and pass me.

I will absolutely never speed up to placate a tailgater.

DrizztLink posted...

Yeah, the fact that brake-checking only occurs as a response to tail-gating doesn't make it safe or smart.

It just means it's a stupid and dangerous reaction to someone else's stupid and dangerous behavior.

Tell the people who lost family in the pileup you caused that while they might have a dead sister, it's not your fault, you just drove dangerously as a reaction to someone driving dangerously. I'm sure they'll accept the logic instead of blaming both of you.

This one is good.

Brake checking a tailgater is not a good idea. You want to punish them, just take your foot off the gas. If they are dumb enough to still hit you, the collision will at least not wreck your cars. Otherwise they will usually just pass you.

This seems to actually encourage them to pass you sooner if they can too, which means they are less angry when they pass you, in the event they are one of the especially dangerous road rage tailgaters who are just steaming off into a pressure cooker explosion of the mind if you go fast enough to not pass, but apparently too slow for them.

This is a thing btw. I actively make an effort to make sure I do not maintain speed with adjacent lanes on a highway during normal traffic to AVOID creating annoying walls of cars all going the same speed across all lanes. But sometimes you still see people who refuse to just pass you in a different lane in reasonable traffic until they get proper pissed and just stay a car length or less from you unless you defuse it early by slowing down without brakes until they just pass you before they get any more angry.

ultimate_reaver posted...

When I was in drivers ed back in the early 2000s they absolutely taught it as car lengths.

I didn't realize the seconds thing was that recent.

My mom once tried to give me a figure in feet per (miles per hour), which you may notice cancels to time.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

I didn't realize the seconds thing was that recent.

My mom once tried to give me a figure in feet per (miles per hour), which you may notice cancels to time.

I was in drivers ed in the 90s and they told us 2-3 seconds.

The rule of thumb is 1 car length for every 5mph. Good luck getting anyone to do that lol

josifrees posted...

The rule of thumb is 1 car length for every 5mph. Good luck getting anyone to do that lol

Rule of thumb in car lengths is rule of dumb

go by seconds and enforce via police. Jail tailgaters

josifrees posted...

The rule of thumb is 1 car length for every 5mph. Good luck getting anyone to do that lol

I thought that was after a certain threshold. 2 car lengths is ample for city driving, or basically anything 45 or below.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

How do these compare with pulling over to let the asshole pass?

Why should we give in to the asshole?

being safe on the road isnt about being fair

Rika_Furude posted...

Rule of thumb in car lengths is rule of dumb

go by seconds and enforce via police. Jail tailgaters

it seems a lot more dumb to have a rule that doesnt compensate for speed. I dont need 2-3 seconds gap to follow someone going 15 through a school zone.

josifrees posted...

it seems a lot more dumb to have a rule that doesnt compensate for speed. I dont need 2-3 seconds gap to follow someone going 15 through a school zone.

Reaction time, for one thing. And no car stops on a dime.

TyVulpine posted...

Reaction time, for one thing. And no car stops on a dime.

Yeah three car lengths

TyVulpine posted...

Why should we give in to the asshole?

Self-preservation instincts?

Akuryu posted...

Same exactly. The goal of a tailgater is to make you go faster. I don't brake check them. I slow down. If I was going 5 over the speed limit, now I'm going 5 under.

1) I'm giving them the opposite of what they want.
2) If they're going to hit me, I'd rather it be at a slower speed.
3) I'm easier to pass, so they can do us both a favor, nut up and pass me.

I will absolutely never speed up to placate a tailgater.

You're making it more likely that they'll hit you. You're not any more righteous than they are. Check your fragile ego.

ModernPost posted...

You're making it more likely that they'll hit you. You're not any more righteous than they are. Check your fragile ego.

If they hit him, it's their fault, not his. Tailgating is still illegal, and 99.9% of the time, if you hit from someone from behind, you're held liable.

TyVulpine posted...

If they hit him, it's their fault, not his. Tailgating is still illegal, and 99.9% of the time, if you hit from someone from behind, you're held liable.

Sounds great. As for me, I'd rather not get into avoidable accidents. But you do you. Getting the back of your car smashed in will really teach this unhinged stranger a lesson.

TyVulpine posted...

If they hit him, it's their fault, not his. Tailgating is still illegal, and 99.9% of the time, if you hit from someone from behind, you're held liable.

The insurance companies and legal system disagree. Brake checking and tailgating can get your license suspended, liable for damages and put you in prison.

GeraldDarko posted...

The insurance companies and legal system disagree

no they dont. if you crash into the rear of someones vehicle, you have one hell of an uphill battle when the police say "please explain"

sure, unless there's dash footage. i've settled claims at 100% on the brake checking party before

Dungeater posted...

sure, unless there's dash footage. i've settled claims at 100% on the brake checking party before

that sounds like fraud. the tailgater created the dangerous scenario so they have more than half the blame at the absolute least

Rika_Furude posted...

no they dont. if you crash into the rear of someones vehicle, you have one hell of an uphill battle when the police say "please explain"

Cameras
Sure, if there aren't any cameras you may get away with it, but getting away with something doesn't mean it's legal.

Rika_Furude posted...

that sounds like fraud. the tailgater created the dangerous scenario so they have more than half the blame at the absolute least

A dangerous reaction to dangerous behavior is not an intelligent response, it is making what was already dangerous more dangerous.

Hence why the insurance payout disagrees with your assessment.

Rika_Furude posted...

that sounds like fraud. the tailgater created the dangerous scenario so they have more than half the blame at the absolute least

Not in the eyes of the law or insurance companies. Well, I dunno if anyone has used the fraud defense, but I suspect it wouldn't go well.

GeraldDarko posted...

Cameras
Sure, if there aren't any cameras you may get away with it, but getting away with something doesn't mean it's legal.

do these cameras show that there was no tailgating?

DrizztLink posted...

A dangerous reaction to dangerous behavior is not an intelligent response

of course not, but, it doesnt constitute 100% of the blame of a crash where tailgating initiated it

Rika_Furude posted...

that sounds like fraud. the tailgater created the dangerous scenario so they have more than half the blame at the absolute least

what? no. if you are the proximate cause of the accident, you are majority or totally liable. if you brake check, you ensured the collision.

Rika_Furude posted...

of course not, but, it doesnt constitute 100% of the blame of a crash where tailgating initiated it

Sure it does, because you aren't supposed to brake-check tailgaters.

Because it causes wrecks.

Because it is driving dangerously and without thinking through the consequences of your actions.

Just.

Like.

Tailgating.

Rika_Furude posted...

do these cameras show that there was no tailgating?

Yes, and the insurance companies and the law will still find the brake checker culpable.

Just gonna leave this here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism

Egocentrism refers to difficulty differentiating between self and other. More specifically, it is difficulty in accurately perceiving and understanding perspectives other than one's own.[1] Egocentrism is found across the life span: in infancy,[2] early childhood,[3][4] adolescence,[5] and adulthood.[3][6] Although egocentric behaviors are less prominent in adulthood, the existence of some forms of egocentrism in adulthood indicates that overcoming egocentrism may be a lifelong development that never achieves

Rika_Furude posted...

Rule of thumb in car lengths is rule of dumb

go by seconds and enforce via police. Jail tailgaters

I honestly do think that a first offense for a tailgater should be 10 community service hours with it doubling with every offense after that.

Tailgating isnt far from drunk driving.

GeraldDarko posted...

The insurance companies and legal system disagree. Brake checking and tailgating can get your license suspended, liable for damages and put you in prison.

If someone is tailgating, you are under no legal obligation to move over just because they're being a fucking asshole.

TyVulpine posted...

If someone is tailgating, you are under no legal obligation to move over just because they're being a fucking asshole.

How is this an argument to what I said?

imagine606 posted...

I honestly do think that a first offense for a tailgater should be 10 community service hours with it doubling with every offense after that.

Tailgating isnt far from drunk driving.

I think we should bring back the guillotine as a method of execution, but ONLY for tailgaters.

Dungeater posted...

what? no. if you are the proximate cause of the accident, you are majority or totally liable. if you brake check, you ensured the collision.

the cause of the event is the tailgater. brake checking isnt an appropriate, safe or legal response to tailgating, but it is nonetheless a response to tailgating.

DrizztLink posted...

Sure it does, because you aren't supposed to brake-check tailgaters.

Because it causes wrecks.

Because it is driving dangerously and without thinking through the consequences of your actions.

Just.

Like.

Tailgating.

you cant assign 200% blame in a crash. if you're implying a tailgater is 100% innocent, or even just a mere 51% innocent, you are completely wrong

GeraldDarko posted...

Yes, and the insurance companies and the law will still find the brake checker culpable.

so the video shows that the person who crashed into the rear of the vehicle in front of them... left enough space to ensure they didnt crash into the vehicle in front of them... and still crashed into the person in front of them... as in this person had multiple seconds to come to a stop and chose not to? is that what you're saying?

Are you going to keep quibbling over irrelevant shit to avoid admitting that brake-checking is dangerous, stupid, and not something good drivers do?

No deflecting to tailgating, nobody's defending tailgating.

You do, in fact, understand that good drivers neither brake-check nor tailgate, regardless of how much "the other guy MADE" you by doing something dangerous?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Thanks, but this is worthless.

Dungeater posted...

what? no. if you are the proximate cause of the accident, you are majority or totally liable. if you brake check, you ensured the collision.

What if the braking was done for a legitimate purpose? The accident would still occur because the tailgating driver left inadequate room to stop.

Im not defending brake checkers. I cant stand tailgating either. One ensures the collision and thats tailgating.

JohnEtrav posted...

What if the braking was done for a legitimate purpose? The accident would still occur because the tailgating driver left inadequate room to stop.

That's a completely different scenario. This scenario is the exact reason why tailgating is dangerous, but it's also a far cry from intentionally checking the tailgater to achieve some kind of karmic justice for their sleight. In this scenario, rapidly braking is very likely to cause an accident, so doing it intentionally is insane. Doing something to amplify the danger of tailgating is inherently dangerous, and of the two things you only have control over one of them.

ModernPost posted...

That's a completely different scenario. This scenario is the exact reason why tailgating is dangerous, but it's also a far cry from intentionally checking the tailgater to achieve some kind of karmic justice for their sleight. In this scenario, rapidly braking is very likely to cause an accident, so doing it intentionally is insane. Doing something to amplify the danger of tailgating is inherently dangerous, and of the two things you only have control over one of them.

Its not that different of a scenario when you think about it, the driver of the vehicle tailgating has no idea which one is happening.

As crazy as it is to suddenly brake for no reason with someone on your ass, its just as crazy to drive up someones ass like that for extended periods of time.

I cant stand either type of driver but I just feel that the tailgating party is the worse of the two.

Rika_Furude posted...

the cause of the event is the tailgater

no, thats not how this works.

JohnEtrav posted...

What if the braking was done for a legitimate purpose?

then thats fine and not what i am talking about, nor is it what this topic is about

Dungeater posted...

no, thats not how this works.

based on what? the scenario is that a brake checker is brake checking a tailgater. or are you trying to argue some scenario where a brake checker comes out of nowhere and does it for fun with no instigation?

DrizztLink posted...

Are you going to keep quibbling over irrelevant shit to avoid admitting that brake-checking is dangerous, stupid, and not something good drivers do?

i already said so earlier itt. what qty of times do I need to say it before you personally are satisfied? 5 times? 100 times?

Probably until your posts stop reading like you brake-check people three times a week.

DrizztLink posted...

Probably until your posts stop reading like you brake-check people three times a week.

That just sounds like you have a reading comprehension problem you need to resolve

Rika_Furude posted...

so the video shows that the person who crashed into the rear of the vehicle in front of them... left enough space to ensure they didnt crash into the vehicle in front of them... and still crashed into the person in front of them... as in this person had multiple seconds to come to a stop and chose not to? is that what you're saying?

You have not described an incident of tailgating and brake checking in this scenario, which is the entire topic. Brake checking and tailgating are both considered reckless driving.
What do you think insurance companies and the law don't understand for them to not see the issue as you see it?

Rika_Furude posted...

based on what? the scenario is that a brake checker is brake checking a tailgater. or are you trying to argue some scenario where a brake checker comes out of nowhere and does it for fun with no instigation?

"he provoked me" is not sufficient to place proximate cause on the tailgater. there are a number of ways to respond that do not amount to *intentionally causing an accident*

if you *intentionally cause the accident*, the blame is squarely on you

i dont understand what you mean by "based on what", thats just how cause and effect works. this is also my job

R_Jackal posted...

The real answer is both of them are, brake checkers and tailgaters. No defending either one and doing one doesn't justify the other. Both of them are fucking idiots sorely lacking in common sense.

this. the people defending the brake checkers by going on about how horrible tailgating is are oblivious.