Tailgater gets brake checked... and loses control of his car in the process

[Zeffy]

Title says it all. Someone who was being tailgated intentionally brake checked the person behind them, the person attempted to swerve out of the way, overcorrected, and found himself in the median. Police are looking for the brake checker, but so far only the tailgater has been cited. This took place on I-/US 41 in Fox Valley, WI, in the left lane.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/brake-checking-crash-that-went-viral-under-investigation/ar-BBquNWy?li=BBnbcA1

I hate tailgaters, but I'm not an idiot to intentionally slam on my brakes if I don't have to. The guy in the left lane should've moved - that's the kind of thing you're supposed to do if you have the ability (ESPECIALLY when someone is trying to go faster than you), and looking at the video, he had the room (enough space from the minivan) to do so.

What are your guys' views on the video?

[hbelkins]

I saw the video and find no fault with the brake-checker. He could not merge into the right lane because there were vehicles there. The idiot tailgater got what they deserved. And I didn't see a slam-on-the-brakes as much as just putting their foot on the brakes to activate the lights. I didn't detect an abrupt slowdown. Heck, I may start doing that to tailgaters -- tapping the brake pedal with my left foot while maintaining speed.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not that I'm encouraging what the driver in front did, but it's hard to feel bad for someone who was being a complete prick and had it come back to bite them in the ass.  Some kid did this to me a couple months back out on California 99.  I just ignored him until I got past the next car and he sped off probably hitting something like 95-100 MPH.  Apparently he was racing some other car a couple slots back so I just called CHP and the first driver was pulled over about 15 miles down the road.... 

[Ned Weasel]

Title says it all. Someone who was being tailgated intentionally brake checked the person behind them, the person attempted to swerve out of the way, overcorrected, and found himself in the median. Police are looking for the brake checker, but so far only the tailgater has been cited. This took place on I-/US 41 in Fox Valley, WI, in the left lane.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/brake-checking-crash-that-went-viral-under-investigation/ar-BBquNWy?li=BBnbcA1

I hate tailgaters, but I'm not an idiot to intentionally slam on my brakes if I don't have to. The guy in the left lane should've moved - that's the kind of thing you're supposed to do if you have the ability (ESPECIALLY when someone is trying to go faster than you), and looking at the video, he had the room (enough space from the minivan) to do so.

What are your guys' views on the video?

The way that article was written is very irresponsible.  The only person who caused that crash is the driver who first failed to leave even a reasonable fraction of a safe following distance and then failed to control his or her vehicle when something potentially unexpected happened (the car in front braking)--and drivers should always be taught to expect the unexpected.  Sure, braking suddenly when there's nothing in front of you to warrant it is a bad idea--it could be bad for traffic flow and even illegal in some cases--but the driver who was tailgating couldn't have been 100% certain that the driver in front didn't have a legitimate reason to use the brakes.  And, yes, I'm aware that using the left lane on a freeway without passing is illegal in many jurisdictions, although, from the video given in the article, it appears that the driver in front was passing a driver to the right and might not have yet reached a safe position from which to return to the right lane (it is difficult to determine from the video whether the driver was in safe position from which to move to the right lane).

"...[T]he left-lane squatting, brake-checking driver proved to be the most dangerous driver in this instance" (quotation from the article linked to above) is an incorrect statement.  Nothing presented in that article or in the given video proves that the behavior of the driver being tailgated was more dangerous than the irresponsible, illegal behavior of the driver who was following way too closely.  Situations like these would probably be far less frequent if cops actually enforced the legal following distance.  Even if they enforced half of a two-second following distance, you wouldn't see so many people tailgating the way the idiot who ended up in the median did.  It's a sad state of affairs when you can drive right past a cop looking for speeders, while you're going the speed limit and in the right lane, and the driver following you too closely doesn't get pulled over.

(Edit: I corrected myself in the last sentence of the first paragraph, regarding whether the driver being tailgated was in a safe position from which to move into the right lane, as it is difficult to determine this from the video.)

[corco]

I think brake checking is generally a bad idea - that collision could have involved a lot more vehicles, and it's flat dangerous to arbitrarily apply brakes on the freeway.

That being said, the tailgater is a prick and I'm not condoning that kind of behavior at all. I find slowing down without braking to be equally effective - just take my foot off the gas and slow to the speed limit or below, staying parallel to other cars for a couple seconds so the dipshit can't get around - typically until somebody comes up behind the tailgater actually needing to pass.

[Rothman]

Heck, I may start doing that to tailgaters -- tapping the brake pedal with my left foot while maintaining speed.

My father taught me this questionable habit.  Gets most of them off my butt.  What's frustrating is that I think I'm okay at moving over from blocking the left lane; I usually get tailgated when there's no where for me to go (i.e., cars in front and to the side of me).  What do they think they're accomplishing?

[pumpkineater2]

Others here are saying that the car in front didn't have enough room to merge right, but to me it looks like that car had plenty of room to get in the right lane. The white/silver van looks far enough ahead that the slow car could have hopped over for just a few seconds to let the other car pass rather than staying there and braking (even if it was just a tap) in retaliation for the other driver's tailgating. But of course I'm not condoning the tailgater's actions at all; they're both at fault.

[Ned Weasel]

Others here are saying that the car in front didn't have enough room to merge right, but to me it looks like that car had plenty of room to get in the right lane. The white/silver van looks far enough ahead that the slow car could have hopped over for just a few seconds to let the other car pass rather than staying there and braking (even if it was just a tap) in retaliation for the other driver's tailgating. But of course I'm not condoning the tailgater's actions at all; they're both at fault.

You're not supposed to cut immediately in front of another vehicle; you're supposed to leave a safe distance in front of the other vehicle before moving in front of it.  The rule of thumb is that you should see the other vehicle's headlights in your rear-view mirror before you move in front of it.

[Pete from Boston]

There's not an exception to the rules of safe following distance.  Rear-end collisions are never the fault of the driver in front going too slow for the comfort of the driver behind.  Safe distance is 100% the responsibility of the driver behind.

In other words, the question of the validity of the brake check is ultimately immaterial.  It was the responsibility of the follower to be able to accommodate much worse.

[jeffandnicole]

There's not an exception to the rules of safe following distance.  Rear-end collisions are never the fault of the driver in front going too slow for the comfort of the driver behind.  Safe distance is 100% the responsibility of the driver behind.

In other words, the question of the validity of the brake check is ultimately immaterial.  It was the responsibility of the follower to be able to accommodate much worse.

It's never 100%.  For example, if someone were to cut in front of you or turn in front of you and stop at such close range that it would have been impossible for you to back off, that front driver could be cited.

[1995hoo]

Rather than brake-checking, I activate my windshield washers. They're aimed slightly high and some of the spray goes over and hits the windshield of the vehicle behind mine. It almost always startles them into backing off. Of course this only works once on a given driver at a given time.

I've sometimes wondered whether a driver who brake-checks someone, leading to a multiple-car pileup, would be prosecuted or sued. I hope never to find out unless it's via a news story about somebody else!

[jemacedo9]

"...[T]he left-lane squatting, brake-checking driver proved to be the most dangerous driver in this instance" (quotation from the article linked to above) is an incorrect statement.

THIS.  It doesn't matter that the tailgater crashed, this WAS the tailgaters fault...and it's QUITE irresponsible for this article to give the tailgater an implied right in this case. 

BUT...it will be interesting to see how this plays out...because unless the first driver can give a rational reason for braking, even if fake (I'd use...a bug flew in my eye and it startled me), if the first driver admits to doing this on purpose, I'll bet he'll be partially at fault in this case.

[MikeTheActuary]

I've sometimes wondered whether a driver who brake-checks someone, leading to a multiple-car pileup, would be prosecuted or sued. I hope never to find out unless it's via a news story about somebody else!

In today's legal climate, even if the brake-checking driver were 100% innocent, there's a decent chance he/she would be sued.

My vote would be that the brake-checking driver would be liable for contributing to an accident.   He/she would probably be found less than 50% at fault (which, depending on the state, could be sufficient to avoid any financial consequences beyond a ticket), but still not blameless.

When I get tailgated, I take extra care to reduce the chance that I will need to make a sudden change in speed.  Sometimes that might mean that I might slow down to give myself some extra following distance.  Sometimes that might mean using a turn signal a bit further in advance than I would otherwise choose. And yes, sometimes that might mean tapping on my brakes before I actually use them....although after seeing that video, perhaps I will rethink how I provide warning.

[MikeTheActuary]

BUT...it will be interesting to see how this plays out...because unless the first driver can give a rational reason for braking, even if fake (I'd use...a bug flew in my eye and it startled me), if the first driver admits to doing this on purpose, I'll bet he'll be partially at fault in this case.

One additional thought just occurred to me: the lead driver could be seen as guilty of leaving the scene of an accident.

[Jardine]

One of my vehicles has a switch on the dash so I can blink my back-up lights.

Most (but not all) tailgaters are smart enough to realize they need to ease off when I use them.  For the ones who don't, if I'm on a 2 lane road, I then disengage cruise control and keep slowing down till they pass. 

If they seem to be really jerky about the situation, I can disengage cruise control, AND set automatic transmission one gear lower.  There are no flashes from the brake lights that way . . . . .

[1995hoo]

Another way to make people think you tapped your brakes during the day is to flick your parking lights on and off. Doesn't work at night for obvious reasons. It doesn't fool everyone because the high-mount brake light won't illuminate, but it sometimes works and it's certainly a safer thing to try as a first step as opposed to going straight for the brake-check.

[Max Rockatansky]

Rather than brake-checking, I activate my windshield washers. They're aimed slightly high and some of the spray goes over and hits the windshield of the vehicle behind mine. It almost always startles them into backing off. Of course this only works once on a given driver at a given time.

I've sometimes wondered whether a driver who brake-checks someone, leading to a multiple-car pileup, would be prosecuted or sued. I hope never to find out unless it's via a news story about somebody else!

This technique has varying degrees of effectiveness depending on what your driving.  If you're in an SUV there probably a pretty good chance the spray will fly just straight over the vehicle behind you.  A car, especially a small one usually will get pretty much anyone unless they are in a vehicle just as small.

[1995hoo]

Rather than brake-checking, I activate my windshield washers. They're aimed slightly high and some of the spray goes over and hits the windshield of the vehicle behind mine. It almost always startles them into backing off. Of course this only works once on a given driver at a given time.

I've sometimes wondered whether a driver who brake-checks someone, leading to a multiple-car pileup, would be prosecuted or sued. I hope never to find out unless it's via a news story about somebody else!

This technique has varying degrees of effectiveness depending on what your driving.  If you're in an SUV there probably a pretty good chance the spray will fly just straight over the vehicle behind you.  A car, especially a small one usually will get pretty much anyone unless they are in a vehicle just as small.

Yeah, of course. I drive a 2004 Acura sedan, so it's fairly average-sized.

Funniest thing I ever saw with washer fluid was when I was a kid. My mom had a 1979 Volvo 265 wagon and we lived on a court with assigned parking. Other kids used to turn the rear wiper's nozzle and my mother would forget to check it because she seldom used the rear wiper and she used the rear washer even less often. So the one day she went to use the washer, some kid had rotated it.....the guy next to us had his window open and took the spray right in the side of the head....

[hbelkins]

If you're not involved in an accident, how can you be liable for leaving the scene of it? I've passed by many wrecks on the highway, and have seen a few occur, such as a driver spinning out into the median of I-64 a few years ago, and I never stopped.

If I'm the front driver, I claim a small animal ran across the road and I hit my brakes. Not my fault that the idiot behind me wrecks.

[Brandon]

Had a very strange, yet similar event happen to me while I was on my way from the Lebanon, Tennessee meet in 2014.  It was about 1 am, local time near Columbus, Indiana when I was finishing a maneuver to let someone on the freeway (I-65 northbound).  I'm just getting ready to move back over, behind the vehicle I let on when some twit come roaring up behind me.  I'm about ready to fall back and fall in behind that vehicle I let on when the twit decides to try to pass me on the left shoulder (all 4 feet of it, between me and the arrester cables!).  I immediately slow slightly and swerve into the right lane.  This was enough for twit to lose total control of his vehicle behind me and land in the right side ditch.

[wxfree]

It's pretty clear that the responsibility for maintaining a safe following distance is on the follower.  If there had been a traffic incident, damage to the road, or an animal, the first driver would have a legitimate reason to slow down, and the second driver should be ready to respond appropriately.

On the other hand, even though it's clear that the second driver was in the wrong, the first driver is not blameless.  It's also the responsibility of every driver not to cause unsafe conditions.  Every driver has been in a situation in which he was doing nothing wrong but was less safe because of the actions of another driver.  Even if you're doing no wrong and someone else is causing the problem, it's always your responsibility to make the situation safer, not more dangerous.  As someone who's quite stringent about following the law, this is a situation I know well.  If I'm in the right lane going 60 in a 60 and there's a stream of cars passing me and causing danger because of constant weaving and merging, I'm in the right and they're in the wrong, but I take the action needed to resolve that danger, because I can only control what I do and how I contribute to the situation.

If the accident had involved other vehicles, the first driver's technical correctness would not have absolved him of the guilt of contributing to an accident that would not have occurred if he had acted differently.  If the following driver had panicked and accelerated and collided with the first vehicle, the first driver's technical correctness would make him no less injured or dead or his vehicle less damaged.

[Duke87]

If you're not involved in an accident, how can you be liable for leaving the scene of it? I've passed by many wrecks on the highway, and have seen a few occur, such as a driver spinning out into the median of I-64 a few years ago, and I never stopped.

If I'm the front driver, I claim a small animal ran across the road and I hit my brakes. Not my fault that the idiot behind me wrecks.

Sometimes legal liability and morality/practical nuance don't align.

Legally, any multi-vehicle collision is the fault of the person who first failed to yield the right of way when they were legally obligated to.


But there are plenty of examples where someone not involved in a collision can nonetheless create an unsafe circumstance that contributes to its occurrence.

Example: I've been in cases where I'm trying to merge onto a freeway from a ramp that ends in a stop sign. I stop, like I'm supposed to, and look over my shoulder to check and make sure I have a clear shot before proceeding. Except, I can't really see whether I have a clear shot because someone driving a big honking SUV has stopped right behind me and towards the left edge of the ramp, thus obscuring my view of the right lane on the freeway. I try my best to look around him but ultimately this situation makes it more likely that I will fail to see a vehicle coming and cause an accident when I pull out, which the SUV driver would likely escape unscathed from. Legally, I'd be 100% at fault, but practically speaking the accident would not have occurred if not for the dick SUV driver blocking my view.

It's the same sort of thing in this case. The tailgater is 100% at fault legally, but it's fair to say the accident would not have occurred if thee driver in front wasn't blocking the left lane and/or didn't brake check. The left lane blocking part is even against the law in many states, if Wisconsin is one of them he could get a ticket for that.

[pumpkineater2]

You're not supposed to cut immediately in front of another vehicle; you're supposed to leave a safe distance in front of the other vehicle before moving in front of it.  The rule of thumb is that you should see the other vehicle's headlights in your rear-view mirror before you move in front of it.

I never said that they should cut immediately in front of the car in the right lane. There's no reason that they should have to. There looks to be plenty of room between the white car far in front, and the nearest car in the right lane for the first car to move over.

So instead of brake checking the tailgater, they could have taken the opportunity to defuse a dangerous situation. Sure the tailgater was being an ass, but the first car should have let them go when they had the chance.

[Jardine]

Just noticed the incident in the OP took place in Wisconsin.  I lived there 30+ years ago and the only times I was ever tailgated there was during icy driving conditions.

I see things have changed a bit while I was gone . .

[GCrites]

The tailgater has to be a truly terrible driver if the lead SUV's light brake check makes him completely lose control like that. He shouldn't be driving aggressively if he has so little ability behind the wheel.