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?
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.
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....
Quote from: Zeffy on March 16, 2016, 10:25:43 PM
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.)
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 16, 2016, 10:29:52 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on March 17, 2016, 01:08:08 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 17, 2016, 05:59:16 AM
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.
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!
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 16, 2016, 11:19:38 PM
"...[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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 07:34:07 AMI'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.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 17, 2016, 08:17:55 AM
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.
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 . . . . .
:-D
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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 07:34:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2016, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 07:34:07 AM
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....
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2016, 01:08:51 PM
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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 17, 2016, 01:38:37 AM
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.
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 . .
:poke:
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.
I didn't rely on the video in the article. Instead, I went to the actual YouTube video.
Upon review of this footage, it's patently obvious that the lead driver didn't have enough room to get into the right lane without creating an unsafe situation for the drivers in the right lane. Furthermore, this video actually shows the lead driver getting into the right lane, as the SUV in the right lane (in front of the truck from which this video is recorded) gets off onto the right shoulder. Given this context, the lead driver's only transgression was the brake check (and PERHAPS leaving the scene). The rest of this is the tailgater's fault.
Usually when I can see someone who is gunning it down the lane, I would get over before they end up on my bumper. Besides, the guy entering the roadway is supposed to yield anyway, so the lead driver could've switched lanes (given the distance at when he could've gotten over, which would've given the merging car time to safely tap the brakes and ease in).
But yes, it appears that most of the fault is the douchebag SUV tailgater.
If there's someone in the left lane and no one in the right lane, there's no reason to yield on the acceleration lane. A motorist is supposed to be in the left lane in order to allow the oncoming motorist room to merge into the right lane!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2016, 07:18:11 PM
If there's someone in the left lane and no one in the right lane, there's no reason to yield on the acceleration lane. A motorist is supposed to be in the left lane in order to allow the oncoming motorist room to merge into the right lane!
Unfortunately, not many drivers in this area seem to realize that. :no: I almost always ride the center lane until the last merge before my exit before I switch lanes. But there are times where many people do NOT get over when they have the ability too, and instead speed up to prevent the person merging from accelerating into the flow of traffic!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2016, 07:18:11 PM
If there's someone in the left lane and no one in the right lane, there's no reason to yield on the acceleration lane. A motorist is supposed to be in the left lane in order to allow the oncoming motorist room to merge into the right lane!
IF they are using their turnsignal correctly. Otherwise, I 100% totally ignore the sons of bitches.
:-D
Quote from: Jardine on March 19, 2016, 08:37:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2016, 07:18:11 PM
If there's someone in the left lane and no one in the right lane, there's no reason to yield on the acceleration lane. A motorist is supposed to be in the left lane in order to allow the oncoming motorist room to merge into the right lane!
IF they are using their turnsignal correctly. Otherwise, I 100% totally ignore the sons of bitches.
:-D
I prefer to yield when practical. I have no reason to assume the person in the left lane is going to do the right thing and sufficiently warn of their intentions, and the cost to me and everyone else is minimal (particularly when compared to the potential cost of being wrong).
Southbound (compass westbound) I-41 at County 'N', interchange 146, in Little Chute, WI. The next interchange is the WI 441 freeway (Northeast Interchange), interchange 145, in Appleton, my hometown. That is normal workday traffic for that highway and I do understand that WisDOT is beginning to study the remaining four-lane part from WI 15 on the northwest corner of Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere for six-lane upgrades.
Tailgater's plate (WI) 'PRINSES'. :rolleyes:
I do note that the tailgater almost *missed* the cable median barrier at that cop crossover, which would have had far, far worse, very possibly multi-fatal, consequences. IMHO, those crossovers should be prohibited on interstates and compatibles unless there is no other practical way for someone with a need to get to the other side of the highway.
Mike
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 19, 2016, 09:56:06 PM
Quote from: Jardine on March 19, 2016, 08:37:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2016, 07:18:11 PM
If there's someone in the left lane and no one in the right lane, there's no reason to yield on the acceleration lane. A motorist is supposed to be in the left lane in order to allow the oncoming motorist room to merge into the right lane!
IF they are using their turnsignal correctly. Otherwise, I 100% totally ignore the sons of bitches.
:-D
I prefer to yield when practical. I have no reason to assume the person in the left lane is going to do the right thing and sufficiently warn of their intentions, and the cost to me and everyone else is minimal (particularly when compared to the potential cost of being wrong).
I would love to travel behind people that say one thing but do the complete opposite. I doubt that anyone here would slow down in an accel lane when there is no traffic in the adjacent lane.
Unless you're a hemorrhoid, get the fuck off my ass. I don't care what lane I'm in or what is the speed limit. Get. Off. My. Ass.
Having said that, I'm generally not looking to deliberately piss off someone or incite reckless driving. I don't camp out in the left lane. But if I'm there because I'm passing someone or my exit (within the next mile or so) is on the left, and I happen to not be going fast enough for you, that's tough shit on you. Life is full of disappointments. I will take my foot off the gas and coast, and then tap my brakes if that doesn't get your attention. I don't need you plowing into my back seat if someone cuts me off and I have to brake suddenly.
I actually had some a-hole pull this on me just a couple days ago when I was in the RIGHT lane -- freeway carriageway was two lanes wide with heavy traffic volume in both lanes, I was in the right lane which actually was moving a little faster than the left lane. A-hole was right on my bumper. I know it's not right, but that's a situation where I deliberately slowed way down (but not slamming on the brakes) to get the message across.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2016, 07:18:11 PM
If there's someone in the left lane and no one in the right lane, there's no reason to yield on the acceleration lane. A motorist is supposed to be in the left lane in order to allow the oncoming motorist room to merge into the right lane!
It's certainly polite, but I don't think it's a legal requirement anywhere; certainly isn't in NY. People merging are supposed to find a gap where they can slip in at speed and not affect traffic on the mainline. Unfortunately, in the real world people usually pork on 15 mph below the limit, merge left wherever they can butt in, and only then speed up.
First, tailgater simply lacked the driver skills and the quality of motor vehicle to perform at the level he was attempting to. By being "break checked" he lost control. S/he should improve her skills and replace his/her SUV with a more appropriate car for the type of driving being attempted.
Second, leaving out the possible exception that the left lane bandit was laying over to allow a merge, he, while not doing anything illegal, is simply, like all left lane bandits, a piece of s**t. One the right, one the ass (which is different than tailgating), passing at the highest rate of speed possible, on the side road, stay home. The only acceptable places to be. Don't be a selfish f**k, KEEP RIGHT.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2016, 10:21:56 AM
First, tailgater simply lacked the driver skills and the quality of motor vehicle to perform at the level he was attempting to. By being "break checked" he lost control. S/he should improve her skills and replace his/her SUV with a more appropriate car for the type of driving being attempted.
Second, leaving out the possible exception that the left lane bandit was laying over to allow a merge, he, while not doing anything illegal, is simply, like all left lane bandits, a piece of s**t. One the right, one the ass (which is different than tailgating), passing at the highest rate of speed possible, on the side road, stay home. The only acceptable places to be. Don't be a selfish f**k, KEEP RIGHT.
And they say half of conflict on the road is people showing up with a chip on their shoulder. Wherever do they get that idea?
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 20, 2016, 12:29:56 PM
Unless you're a hemorrhoid, get the fuck off my ass. I don't care what lane I'm in or what is the speed limit. Get. Off. My. Ass.
Having said that, I'm generally not looking to deliberately piss off someone or incite reckless driving. I don't camp out in the left lane. But if I'm there because I'm passing someone or my exit (within the next mile or so) is on the left, and I happen to not be going fast enough for you, that's tough shit on you. Life is full of disappointments. I will take my foot off the gas and coast, and then tap my brakes if that doesn't get your attention. I don't need you plowing into my back seat if someone cuts me off and I have to brake suddenly.
I actually had some a-hole pull this on me just a couple days ago when I was in the RIGHT lane -- freeway carriageway was two lanes wide with heavy traffic volume in both lanes, I was in the right lane which actually was moving a little faster than the left lane. A-hole was right on my bumper. I know it's not right, but that's a situation where I deliberately slowed way down (but not slamming on the brakes) to get the message across.
Did you get the message across to the guy behind him...and the guy behind him? You know...the ones that had nothing to do with the supposed tailgater?
I'll see it often on a highway - a car many cars ahead of me. They brake, because they're approaching a clearing thinking there may be a cop there, or because they think they're being tailgated, or just because they have no clue what they're doing. That causes the car behind them to slow down...and the next car...and the next car...and so forth. Me, being 6, 8, 20 or whatever cars behind, is now also forced to slow down, and because of the chain reaction, most likely I'm slow doing further than the car that originally did the slowing down, and often times now the entire line of cars is travelling 20 mph or more slower than we had been. And of course, this continues for the cars behind me as well.
So thanks to people like wanderer who is pissed at the car behind them for whatever reason, they have now instigated an entire traffic slowdown at best, or jam at worst, all because they wanted to send a message to one car.
These are the people who should be handed tickets related to aggressive driving. They are only concerned about the car behind them, but fail to see, or care about, the others in the vicinity.
I'm not going to drive more than 5 over if there is a spot where a cop could easily be hiding (around a curve, on the other side of a slope, etc). I'm sorry if that inconveniences everyone behind me, but considering the fact that the law is you shouldn't be going faster than the speed limit at all, I really don't see the point of getting angry that someone is, shockingly enough, following the law.
I'm well aware of the flow of traffic rule; If I'm in front and no one is visible in front of me, then I control the flow. If I choose to do 40 in a 40, then whenever possible go around me. Riding my ass isn't going to do much to change my decision.
If that's "unsafe" driving then have fun getting a ticket going 10 over just to move slightly quicker.
Quote from: JMoses24 on March 19, 2016, 05:59:52 PM
I didn't rely on the video in the article. Instead, I went to the actual YouTube video.
I pinpointed it to near the Vandenbroek Road overpass, Interstate 41 in Little Chute, WI. The video must be new, since the mile markers signs on Google Street View still showed US Route 41 on them. :hmmm:
For some reason, in my five years of driving (not that long, I know, but bare with me), I really haven't had any problems with tailgaters. Most often, my run-ins are when I'm on a back-country road, and there's usually someone else in front of me preventing me from going faster, but the car behind me doesn't realize that. In the end, I usually overtake, then they overtake, and then we all spread out.
Most of the freeways around here are posted at 60 mph. I usually travel around 68-70. At that speed, I'm passing 80% of all cars, but there's still plenty of drivers who are going faster. Sometimes I'll find myself in the left lane because of semi trucks in the right lane. Because I'm in the left lane, inevitably a driver approaches going faster than me. If there's no one in front of me, I'll speed up to his speed, or faster, and then merge right once there's a gap. I signal early to let him know my intentions. I rarely see brake-checking end well (someone gets pissed, road-rage ensues, or they lose control and crash), and I don't like the water spots that washer-fluid leaves, so I don't use that either. My current method of speeding up and merging over has never failed me. The legality of driving 20 over the limit is questionable, obviously, but neither is brake-checking, at least in Washington: http://goo.gl/sp9RZK (~ 3).
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2016, 01:51:33 PM
The legality of driving 20 over the limit is questionable, obviously, but neither is brake-checking, at least in Washington: http://goo.gl/sp9RZK (~ 3).
Um...nobody shall brake without using brake lights (or a hand signal)?
Quote from: NE2 on March 22, 2016, 02:13:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2016, 01:51:33 PM
The legality of driving 20 over the limit is questionable, obviously, but neither is brake-checking, at least in Washington: http://goo.gl/sp9RZK (~ 3).
Um...nobody shall brake without using brake lights (or a hand signal)?
Good point. That subsection has more to do with signals than sudden movements, it would seem.
Brake-checking could be perceived as an attempt at insurance fraud. That's definitely illegal.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2016, 02:22:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 22, 2016, 02:13:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2016, 01:51:33 PM
The legality of driving 20 over the limit is questionable, obviously, but neither is brake-checking, at least in Washington: http://goo.gl/sp9RZK (~ 3).
Um...nobody shall brake without using brake lights (or a hand signal)?
Good point. That subsection has more to do with signals than sudden movements, it would seem.
Brake-checking could be perceived as an attempt at insurance fraud. That's definitely illegal.
That's a reach. Fraud is a serious charge with presumably a much higher standard of proof than that.
Do people that tailgate like this ever consider that they risk their lives to do so? I'm really impressed with the degree to which we've suppressed not only good sense and patience, but our very survival instincts. I mean, there are going to be slow people. You can't fix this by tailgating or complaining about it on the Internet.
Fraud is lying to get money, more or less. Break checking is not fraud.
It's simple, really. Car A is tailgating car B. Car B slams on their brakes, knowing that car A will be unable to stop in time. Because the rear car is legally at fault in any rear end accident, car B then collects insurance money from car A. Anything other than "car A hit car B" is theoretically "he said, she said", so in the absence of dash cams, it's a flawless plan.
I don't know if that's ever happened, but people backing into the cars behind them definitely does. It's the reason why dash cams are so popular in Russia.
Just because tailgating is wrong doesn't mean brake checking is right.
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2016, 07:52:15 PM
Just because tailgating is wrong doesn't mean brake checking is right.
But tapping the brakes is harmless unless someone is tailgating. The reverse is not true. Thus, the creator of the danger is the tailgater, upon whom the burden of safe distance rests.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2016, 12:11:31 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2016, 07:52:15 PM
Just because tailgating is wrong doesn't mean brake checking is right.
But tapping the brakes is harmless unless someone is tailgating. The reverse is not true. Thus, the creator of the danger is the tailgater, upon whom the burden of safe distance rests.
The tailgater is certainly not the person in the right here. But "tapping" your brakes puts you in a legally questionable bind: on one hand, you want the driver to back off to create a safe following distance, but in order to achieve that, you have to effectively scare them into backing off. That "scare" only exists because you made a sudden, dangerous movement. What if they aren't paying attention and hit you? Instead of playing chicken with them, speed up and get out of their way. Certainly it's not legal to exceed the limit, but it's far less dangerous than brake-checking, and is far less likely to incite road rage. Like I said before, I don't have run-ins with tailgaters because I speed up and get out of their way.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2016, 12:15:19 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 20, 2016, 12:29:56 PM
Unless you're a hemorrhoid, get the fuck off my ass. I don't care what lane I'm in or what is the speed limit. Get. Off. My. Ass.
Having said that, I'm generally not looking to deliberately piss off someone or incite reckless driving. I don't camp out in the left lane. But if I'm there because I'm passing someone or my exit (within the next mile or so) is on the left, and I happen to not be going fast enough for you, that's tough shit on you. Life is full of disappointments. I will take my foot off the gas and coast, and then tap my brakes if that doesn't get your attention. I don't need you plowing into my back seat if someone cuts me off and I have to brake suddenly.
I actually had some a-hole pull this on me just a couple days ago when I was in the RIGHT lane -- freeway carriageway was two lanes wide with heavy traffic volume in both lanes, I was in the right lane which actually was moving a little faster than the left lane. A-hole was right on my bumper. I know it's not right, but that's a situation where I deliberately slowed way down (but not slamming on the brakes) to get the message across.
These are the people who should be handed tickets related to aggressive driving. They are only concerned about the car behind them, but fail to see, or care about, the others in the vicinity.
When the car behind me will plow into my back seat if I should HAVE to stop suddenly, yeah, I'm concerned. Sorry about that.
I thought I stated pretty clearly that I don't plant myself in passing lanes, and I'm not a crusader out to preach any gospel. The matter is simply that if you're on my bumper, there is no way in hell you will avoid hitting me if I have to stop suddenly for any reason. If you're behind me and not keeping a safe stopping distance, I'll do the adjusting.
Quote
I'll see it often on a highway - a car many cars ahead of me. They brake, because they're approaching a clearing thinking there may be a cop there, or because they think they're being tailgated, or just because they have no clue what they're doing. That causes the car behind them to slow down...and the next car...and the next car...and so forth. Me, being 6, 8, 20 or whatever cars behind, is now also forced to slow down, and because of the chain reaction, most likely I'm slow doing further than the car that originally did the slowing down, and often times now the entire line of cars is travelling 20 mph or more slower than we had been. And of course, this continues for the cars behind me as well.
Or someone changed lanes suddenly, or merged in at slow speed. That chain reaction is the cause of pretty much every "free-flowing" freeway traffic jam anywhere. Is this a new phenomenon to you? It's overreaction due partly to general nervousness with high-density traffic and partly because everyone's driving too close to the vehicle ahead to calmly react to variances ahead. And that's when people think they ARE leaving enough room between cars.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 12:26:45 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2016, 12:11:31 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2016, 07:52:15 PM
Just because tailgating is wrong doesn't mean brake checking is right.
But tapping the brakes is harmless unless someone is tailgating. The reverse is not true. Thus, the creator of the danger is the tailgater, upon whom the burden of safe distance rests.
The tailgater is certainly not the person in the right here. But "tapping" your brakes puts you in a legally questionable bind: on one hand, you want the driver to back off to create a safe following distance, but in order to achieve that, you have to effectively scare them into backing off. That "scare" only exists because you made a sudden, dangerous movement. What if they aren't paying attention and hit you? Instead of playing chicken with them, speed up and get out of their way. Certainly it's not legal to exceed the limit, but it's far less dangerous than brake-checking, and is far less likely to incite road rage. Like I said before, I don't have run-ins with tailgaters because I speed up and get out of their way.
What if somebody's in front of you and you can't speed up?
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 23, 2016, 12:49:02 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 12:26:45 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2016, 12:11:31 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2016, 07:52:15 PM
Just because tailgating is wrong doesn't mean brake checking is right.
But tapping the brakes is harmless unless someone is tailgating. The reverse is not true. Thus, the creator of the danger is the tailgater, upon whom the burden of safe distance rests.
The tailgater is certainly not the person in the right here. But "tapping" your brakes puts you in a legally questionable bind: on one hand, you want the driver to back off to create a safe following distance, but in order to achieve that, you have to effectively scare them into backing off. That "scare" only exists because you made a sudden, dangerous movement. What if they aren't paying attention and hit you? Instead of playing chicken with them, speed up and get out of their way. Certainly it's not legal to exceed the limit, but it's far less dangerous than brake-checking, and is far less likely to incite road rage. Like I said before, I don't have run-ins with tailgaters because I speed up and get out of their way.
What if somebody's in front of you and you can't speed up?
Are you suggesting that the next viable option is brake-checking? If there's someone in front of you, I don't think there's much you can do. Following closely in heavy traffic is a cherished part of driving in America. Get over it. And if traffic isn't heavy, put on your blinker or something. Tell them you know they want by. Keep them calm.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 23, 2016, 12:47:18 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2016, 12:15:19 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 20, 2016, 12:29:56 PM
Unless you're a hemorrhoid, get the fuck off my ass. I don't care what lane I'm in or what is the speed limit. Get. Off. My. Ass.
Having said that, I'm generally not looking to deliberately piss off someone or incite reckless driving. I don't camp out in the left lane. But if I'm there because I'm passing someone or my exit (within the next mile or so) is on the left, and I happen to not be going fast enough for you, that's tough shit on you. Life is full of disappointments. I will take my foot off the gas and coast, and then tap my brakes if that doesn't get your attention. I don't need you plowing into my back seat if someone cuts me off and I have to brake suddenly.
I actually had some a-hole pull this on me just a couple days ago when I was in the RIGHT lane -- freeway carriageway was two lanes wide with heavy traffic volume in both lanes, I was in the right lane which actually was moving a little faster than the left lane. A-hole was right on my bumper. I know it's not right, but that's a situation where I deliberately slowed way down (but not slamming on the brakes) to get the message across.
These are the people who should be handed tickets related to aggressive driving. They are only concerned about the car behind them, but fail to see, or care about, the others in the vicinity.
When the car behind me will plow into my back seat if I should HAVE to stop suddenly, yeah, I'm concerned. Sorry about that.
You mean like when you brake-check them and they crash into you? You're creating the situation that you're trying to avoid. And even if they don't hit you, you've probably pissed them off. Problem solved? Not likely.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 01:00:33 AM
Are you suggesting that the next viable option is brake-checking? If there's someone in front of you, I don't think there's much you can do. Following closely in heavy traffic is a cherished part of driving in America. Get over it. And if traffic isn't heavy, put on your blinker or something. Tell them you know they want by. Keep them calm.
When someone is tailgating me at 70 mph, they are not calm to begin with. They are engaging in the "cherished part of driving in America" that equates to waving a loaded pistol in my direction.
And as has been noted plenty in this thread, one can flick one's brake lights without slowing down, without inducing a rear end crash.
Interesting (and probably unrelated) timing:
Press Release by PennDOT today: http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-6/Pages/details.aspx?newsid=349#.VvK8r3fD_mI
Quote65 Police Departments Across Southeast Pennsylvania to Target Aggressive Drivers During Spring Mobilization
QuoteMunicipal police departments from Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties will target motorists exhibiting aggressive-driving behaviors such as running red lights, speeding and tailgating.
QuoteIf you encounter an aggressive driver, PennDOT offers these tips:
- Get out of their way and don't challenge them;
- Stay relaxed, avoid eye contact and ignore rude gestures; and
- Don't block the passing lane if you are driving slower than most of the traffic.
QuoteMunicipal police departments from Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties will target normal, everyday behaviors such as running red lights, speeding and tailgating.
Fixed
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2016, 08:01:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 01:00:33 AM
Are you suggesting that the next viable option is brake-checking? If there's someone in front of you, I don't think there's much you can do. Following closely in heavy traffic is a cherished part of driving in America. Get over it. And if traffic isn't heavy, put on your blinker or something. Tell them you know they want by. Keep them calm.
When someone is tailgating me at 70 mph, they are not calm to begin with. They are engaging in the "cherished part of driving in America" that equates to waving a loaded pistol in my direction.
The "cherished part of driving in America" is driving closely in
heavy traffic, Pete, not at 70 mph (though perhaps that's true back East anyways).
That said, if they're not calm, why challenge them with a brake-check? How is that suddenly going to make them behave? My opposition to brake-checking stems from how often brake-checking not only fails to force the person to back-off, but actually gets them to follow closer.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2016, 08:01:01 AM
And as has been noted plenty in this thread, one can flick one's brake lights without slowing down, without inducing a rear end crash.
It still has a worse safety record than my solution: speeding up and merging over, or on a single-lane road, pulling off into the shoulder.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 23, 2016, 12:23:36 PM
QuoteMunicipal police departments from Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties will target normal, everyday behaviors such as running red lights, speeding and tailgating.
Fixed
HA! It's funny 'cause it's true.........
IMHO, neither running a red light nor so-called speeding are "agressive driving". Running a red light is stupid driving. So called speeding can be anything, depending on to what degree the SL varies from the science based 85th %ile.
Agressive driving is things such as weaving in and out of lanes, especially passing on the right in a short space before bobbing back left and setting up a lane change where the left driver has no option but to hit you or let you back in. True tailgating can be a part of that.
None of these behaviors are generally the target of traffic cops, because these are subjective.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 01:09:09 PM
It still has a worse safety record than my solution: speeding up and merging over, or on a single-lane road, pulling off into the shoulder.
Aside from unwarranted, sudden braking, speeding up is the worst thing one can do when being tailgated. Not only does it reinforce bad behavior, it could jeopardize one's driving record if one is exceeding the speed limit. I don't think speed cameras really care
why a person is speeding, and I'd imagine the discretion cops use varies from situation to situation. If one is being tailgated and has through lanes to the right, the correct procedure is to drive the speed limit, if possible, until it is safe to move to the right lane, signal, and then move to the right lane. If one is driving the speed limit in the far-right through lane, or the only through lane, there is no obligation to speed up or move over for anything other than emergency vehicles, except in special cases such as when turn-outs are implemented.
Furthermore, speeding up can worsen one's ability to react to situations ahead, which is an important ability to have when one is being tailgated, as the person doing the tailgating will not have much of it.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 01:09:09 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2016, 08:01:01 AM
And as has been noted plenty in this thread, one can flick one's brake lights without slowing down, without inducing a rear end crash.
It still has a worse safety record than my solution: speeding up and merging over, or on a single-lane road, pulling off into the shoulder.
Exactly. Tailgaters know they're tailgating. Brake checking just brings on even more road rage than they already had. It's not my job to make other drivers conform to my ideas of appropriate speed and distance, no matter how right I am. Let them by as soon as it's safe to do so, and let them get into an accident with some other poor schmuck.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 23, 2016, 02:29:05 PM
IMHO, neither running a red light nor so-called speeding are "agressive driving". Running a red light is stupid driving. So called speeding can be anything, depending on to what degree the SL varies from the science based 85th %ile.
Running a red light is aggressive, in my opinion. It's deciding that saving a cycle of the light is more important than the other person's right to go, and daring them to run into you if they don't wait.
Speeding can be aggressive if there's a fair amount of other traffic on the road, so that you're weaving or tailgating in order to maintain your speed faster than other traffic.
Quote from: kkt on March 23, 2016, 03:59:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 01:09:09 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2016, 08:01:01 AM
And as has been noted plenty in this thread, one can flick one's brake lights without slowing down, without inducing a rear end crash.
It still has a worse safety record than my solution: speeding up and merging over, or on a single-lane road, pulling off into the shoulder.
Exactly. Tailgaters know they're tailgating. Brake checking just brings on even more road rage than they already had. It's not my job to make other drivers conform to my ideas of appropriate speed and distance, no matter how right I am. Let them by as soon as it's safe to do so, and let them get into an accident with some other poor schmuck.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 23, 2016, 02:29:05 PM
IMHO, neither running a red light nor so-called speeding are "agressive driving". Running a red light is stupid driving. So called speeding can be anything, depending on to what degree the SL varies from the science based 85th %ile.
Running a red light is aggressive, in my opinion. It's deciding that saving a cycle of the light is more important than the other person's right to go, and daring them to run into you if they don't wait.
Speeding can be aggressive if there's a fair amount of other traffic on the road, so that you're weaving or tailgating in order to maintain your speed faster than other traffic.
Running a red light well after the light has turned red is aggressive. Running it because it just barely turned red, or because the yellow is too short, isn't really all that aggressive, and many times (especially with a short yellow), it's the fault of the DOT, not the driver.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 01:09:09 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2016, 08:01:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2016, 01:00:33 AM
Are you suggesting that the next viable option is brake-checking? If there's someone in front of you, I don't think there's much you can do. Following closely in heavy traffic is a cherished part of driving in America. Get over it. And if traffic isn't heavy, put on your blinker or something. Tell them you know they want by. Keep them calm.
When someone is tailgating me at 70 mph, they are not calm to begin with. They are engaging in the "cherished part of driving in America" that equates to waving a loaded pistol in my direction.
The "cherished part of driving in America" is driving closely in heavy traffic, Pete, not at 70 mph (though perhaps that's true back East anyways).
I was going to say...traffic is just so heavy, you can have the entire highway moving at highway speeds of 70 mph and greater, but everyone would be considered 'tailgating' if you take into consideration what should be normal gaps between cars.
The biggest issues I see are those that aren't used to the rush hour traffic...or a slow vehicle going well below the speed limit. In both cases you have people moving over towards the left that aren't used to the fast, heavy traffic without speeding up to what had been the flow of traffic. Then think they're being tailgated, and start brake checking...which then compounds the problem for everyone.
In my carpool, I see them often times get upset at being tailgated, or having someone move into the gap between my driver and the car in front of us. I will also see them do the exact same thing to others...but because they're doing it, it's OK.
The tailgater got off very easy. In a perfect world . . . .
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m4l6kxdI9l1qe6oczo1_500.gif&hash=0f8d286ca0225e31ed1d6b0f5acf9177940b95d4)
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2016, 06:16:41 PM
It's simple, really. Car A is tailgating car B. Car B slams on their brakes, knowing that car A will be unable to stop in time. Because the rear car is legally at fault in any rear end accident, car B then collects insurance money from car A. Anything other than "car A hit car B" is theoretically "he said, she said", so in the absence of dash cams, it's a flawless plan.
I don't know if that's ever happened, but people backing into the cars behind them definitely does. It's the reason why dash cams are so popular in Russia.
Not sure about other states, but in Massachusetts the driver who strikes the front vehicle in a rear-end collision is presumed to be at least 50% at fault, but not 100% at fault. However, if a driver is backing up and collides with another vehicle, they are 100% at fault.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 22, 2016, 12:55:47 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on March 19, 2016, 05:59:52 PM
I didn't rely on the video in the article. Instead, I went to the actual YouTube video.
I pinpointed it to near the Vandenbroek Road overpass, Interstate 41 in Little Chute, WI. The video must be new, since the mile markers signs on Google Street View still showed US Route 41 on them. :hmmm:
As I mentioned upthread, that is on southbound (compass westbound) I-41 at County 'N', interchange 146, in Little Chute, WI, continuing westward to Vandenbroek Rd. The FHWA laid hands upon US 41, conferring it as I-41, a couple of years ago, with their solemn blessing being administered last spring. The signs went up over the mid to late summer of 2015.
The Village of Little Chute, WI shares a common border with the northeast side of my home town City of Appleton, WI. The next interchange from that clip is the WI 441 Appleton beltline freeway, interchange 145.
From what I can tell, the clip was shot about two or three weeks ago.
Mike
This would be the one time you do NOT want to brake check in the left lane:
Surprised the cop let the van play Brake Check for that long...
Quote from: thenetwork on March 25, 2016, 01:47:31 AM
This would be the one time you do NOT want to brake check in the left lane:
Surprised the cop let the van play Brake Check for that long...
Cop shouldn't be tailgating either. If there's a dashcam that can be reviewed by his supervisor, he should be reprimanded for it.
I got tailgated by a cop yesterday and when I got over to the right lane he blew by me, and the speed limit was 40 MPH. I'm pretty sure he was doing near 50. Then I witnessed him roll by a stop sign (but you know what would've happen if he saw someone else do that).
I'm pretty sure that if cops are going to uphold these rules they should have to obey them as well...Unless they are responding to an emergency.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 25, 2016, 12:40:04 PM
I got tailgated by a cop yesterday and when I got over to the right lane he blew by me, and the speed limit was 40 MPH. I'm pretty sure he was doing near 50. Then I witnessed him roll by a stop sign (but you know what would've happen if he saw someone else do that).
I'm pretty sure that if cops are going to uphold these rules they should have to obey them as well...Unless they are responding to an emergency.
And well, the cop was probably texting as well. The real question is, why should they obey them when nobody polices the police. I learned all of this when I saw what happened (on TV and Youtube videos) downtown Toronto back in June 2010, and I have had a totally different opinion on the cops since then.
To make a long a story short, just tell me how often you see a police officer go to jail when he is accused of doing something bad, or even at the very least fired. You'll have to do a lot of research to find that.
The cop, like all traffic cops, is scum. Out random taxing motorists for something he does himself every day. The lowest form of hypocrite on the earth. And, probably the first to take cover when actualy police work needs done.
So, for all you law abiding people out there, there's a law call Keep Right Except to Pass.
The cops can come right on up to you and stop you immediately. Instead, they provide discretion.
In the van video, the van driver finally figured it out after 90 seconds (and that's just what we see on the video). The cop is running video, gathering evidence. No doubt the van driver gave the cop the middle finger when he passed by. The cop may have been willing to ignore the infraction, but decided to stop the guy once he got the middle finger. If the van driver wants to claim he didn't get a chance to move over, the video has it shown he had plenty of opportunity. Maybe, the cop did hang back for a while, but we don't see that on the video. Because people will start up their own video when they see something wrong...not when they see something right.
In Zeffy's case, he was ignoring the Keep Right Except to Pass law too. The cop didn't stop him. Yet, he quickly criticizes the cop when the cop is going over the speed limit and rolls thru a stop sign, and that if he's going to uphold others to the law, he should do the same...except he didn't uphold the law in Zeffy's case. And he's already admitted he speeds, but "only by 5 mph", which somehow makes it right.
Trust me - if the cops obeyed every law, then you would all be bitching at the cops going 25 in 25 zones when everyone could be doing 40, 55 in 55 zones when everyone could be doing 70, and a host of numerous other laws that in many cases you don't even know exist.
I know, I know...cop bashing is cool. Sadly, the cops tries to give leniency as much as possible, and people still want to aggravate them. There are reasons why cops turn on their lights, and don't. Just like I'm sure in every one of your jobs, there's reasons why you do things the way you do them, even though to an outsider those rules seem stupid.
If fascism has a religion, it is worship of the police.
"leniency" ???? How is randomly taxing ANYONE for something you do yourself (and do yourself because you know it is a safe thing to do) lenient? Ever? It is not. It is hypocracy.
"cops obey every law". Name another job (other than POTUS) where you don't expet people to obey the law?
Of course cops should drive at the SL 100% of the time when not responding to an emergency. Period.
And, yes we need cops. And it increasingly evident that traffic cops and actual productive cops are two different things.
Quote from: roadman on March 23, 2016, 07:05:29 PM
Not sure about other states, but in Massachusetts the driver who strikes the front vehicle in a rear-end collision is presumed to be at least 50% at fault, but not 100% at fault. However, if a driver is backing up and collides with another vehicle, they are 100% at fault.
...unless the driver is backing up and collides with another vehicle that is also backing up.
(It happens more often than you might think.)
Sometimes there's an emergency that requires quick response, but no sirens or lights. They sometimes have a better chance of catching a perpetrator if they don't announce they're coming from blocks away.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 25, 2016, 12:59:29 PM
The cop, like all traffic cops, is scum. Out random taxing motorists for something he does himself every day. The lowest form of hypocrite on the earth. And, probably the first to take cover when actualy police work needs done.
Adults really speak in these terms?
Quote from: SP Cook on March 25, 2016, 01:54:25 PM
If fascism has a religion, it is worship of the police.
"leniency" ???? How is randomly taxing ANYONE for something you do yourself (and do yourself because you know it is a safe thing to do) lenient? Ever? It is not. It is hypocracy.
"cops obey every law". Name another job (other than POTUS) where you don't expet people to obey the law?
Of course cops should drive at the SL 100% of the time when not responding to an emergency. Period.
And, yes we need cops. And it increasingly evident that traffic cops and actual productive cops are two different things.
So basically you are expecting cops to be the paragon of perfect driving skill and masters of the state traffic manual? So does that apply to a cop going 66 MPH in 65 MPH zone?...does that a hypocrite make? Have you ever read a traffic manual?...if you had you would know it's basically impossible for any driver to go more than a couple miles without at least some sort of minor infraction. If you are expecting perfection in policing much less anything in life you are going be sorely disappointed and frustrated. True, there are some cops that are better than others...but that's someone being crappy at their job just like any other profession. That's hardly the definition of fascism or unfair taxation.
There's minor imperfections necessary to get where one's going in real world traffic conditions, and then there's brazenly violating the law while using the cop car as a shield against getting a ticket.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 25, 2016, 09:39:53 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 25, 2016, 12:59:29 PM
The cop, like all traffic cops, is scum. Out random taxing motorists for something he does himself every day. The lowest form of hypocrite on the earth. And, probably the first to take cover when actualy police work needs done.
Adults really speak in these terms?
I'm guessing SP Cook is young enough or sheltered enough never to have needed a cop.
Quote from: kkt on March 26, 2016, 12:55:31 PM
I'm guessing SP Cook is young enough or sheltered enough never to have needed a cop.
More likely, most of his interactions have been with cops who do take advantage of their position, rather than the good (or at least pragmatic) cops who make up the quiet majority.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 26, 2016, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 26, 2016, 12:55:31 PM
I'm guessing SP Cook is young enough or sheltered enough never to have needed a cop.
More likely, most of his interactions have been with cops who do take advantage of their position, rather than the good (or at least pragmatic) cops who make up the quiet majority.
Friendly police/public interaction generally doesn't make its way online, so most of the videos online show police at their worst, with the suspect (IMO) almost always exacerbating things. I've been pulled over for speeding three times. Each time, I did exactly as he asked, admitted to the misdemeanor (a mistake, depending on who you ask, but both him and I know I was speeding), and was let off without a ticket. It's all about how you interact with the police. They are trained to inspect suspicious behavior. When they do, don't act surprised -- people who take their "rights" too seriously are usually suspicious.
QuoteMore likely, most of his interactions have been with cops who do take advantage of their position, rather than the good (or at least pragmatic) cops who make up the quiet majority.
QuoteThat's a huge statement you're making there, Mike. You seem to imply that the majority of cops are crooked. Is that your final answer?
What
Quote from: corco on March 26, 2016, 08:24:17 PM
QuoteMore likely, most of his interactions have been with cops who do take advantage of their position, rather than the good (or at least pragmatic) cops who make up the quiet majority.
QuoteThat's a huge statement you're making there, Mike. You seem to imply that the majority of cops are crooked. Is that your final answer?
What
Fixed. Misread post. Though, I stand by the rest of what I wrote.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 26, 2016, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 26, 2016, 12:55:31 PM
I'm guessing SP Cook is young enough or sheltered enough never to have needed a cop.
More likely, most of his interactions have been with cops who do take advantage of their position, rather than the good (or at least pragmatic) cops who make up the quiet majority.
No. I've met him and I'm guessing he's close to my age. What he is, is a West Virginian who is familiar with the WV State Police troop that patrols the WV Turnpike, which from what I've heard is enough to give anyone a bad impression.
I'm one of those who is generally supportive of police, having had a few close friends in law enforcement, but I'm also one of those who thinks they should be out solving real crimes instead of patrolling roads looking for speeders. I'd rather have a cop parked across the street from a known drug dealer's home than zipping up and down the four-lane at 90 miles an hour, running radar and recklessly cutting through the median to pull over oncoming drivers who are breaking the arbitrarily-chosen speed limit.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 26, 2016, 09:36:48 PM
I'm one of those who is generally supportive of police, having had a few close friends in law enforcement, but I'm also one of those who thinks they should be out solving real crimes instead of patrolling roads looking for speeders. I'd rather have a cop parked across the street from a known drug dealer's home than zipping up and down the four-lane at 90 miles an hour, running radar and recklessly cutting through the median to pull over oncoming drivers who are breaking the arbitrarily-chosen speed limit.
This, this, this!!!!! Hear, hear!!!!
Fwiw, just this afternoon I had someone step on it to cut in front of me, then do the brake check for no reason other than to screw around. Too bad a cop wasn't around to see the whole thing. They tried to do it again but I wasn't close enough to them (knew they would probably do it again and I was right). They slowed down to try to incite something, then stepped on it to go through a light 1.5 seconds after it turned red. Someday he's either going to kill someone or incite some road rage incident where someone will have a weapon in their car and pull it on them. They are unlikely to last forever pulling that stuff on people out of nowhere.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 26, 2016, 09:36:48 PM
No. I've met him and I'm guessing he's close to my age. What he is, is a West Virginian who is familiar with the WV State Police troop that patrols the WV Turnpike, which from what I've heard is enough to give anyone a bad impression.
I'm one of those who is generally supportive of police, having had a few close friends in law enforcement, but I'm also one of those who thinks they should be out solving real crimes instead of patrolling roads looking for speeders. I'd rather have a cop parked across the street from a known drug dealer's home than zipping up and down the four-lane at 90 miles an hour, running radar and recklessly cutting through the median to pull over oncoming drivers who are breaking the arbitrarily-chosen speed limit.
When HB and I agree on something, it's pretty much definitively the correct opinion.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2016, 07:45:28 PM
They are trained to inspect suspicious behavior. When they do, don't act surprised -- people who take their "rights" too seriously are usually suspicious.
I guess we shouldn't take our rights very seriously, then. To hell with that whole Constitution thing--it's just a crumbly, old piece of paper!
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 26, 2016, 10:56:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2016, 07:45:28 PM
They are trained to inspect suspicious behavior. When they do, don't act surprised -- people who take their "rights" too seriously are usually suspicious.
I guess we shouldn't take our rights very seriously, then. To hell with that whole Constitution thing--it's just a crumbly, old piece of paper!
When you do something that most people don't do, you look suspicious. Lots of these videos online show people very openly recording their conversations with the police*, barely cracking the window, often just enough to tell them that they are remaining silent.
Most people don't do that, so, rather often, it strikes an officer as strange when someone, who really hasn't done that much wrong, acts so defensive.
* I am pro-video recording, but it's still suspicious behavior, given how few people actually do it.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 26, 2016, 09:36:48 PM
I'm one of those who is generally supportive of police, having had a few close friends in law enforcement, but I'm also one of those who thinks they should be out solving real crimes instead of patrolling roads looking for speeders. I'd rather have a cop parked across the street from a known drug dealer's home than zipping up and down the four-lane at 90 miles an hour, running radar and recklessly cutting through the median to pull over oncoming drivers who are breaking the arbitrarily-chosen speed limit.
I don't disagree with this...but I do note that I don't mind the concept of traffic cops patrolling highways to discourage or intervene in reckless behavior by idiots on the road. And, while entrapping someone for driving one mile over a ridiculously low speed limit is well over that line, I'm not too upset when someone driving at excessive speeds (given conditions, including prevailing traffic flow) is pulled over for a stern talking-to.
If we're going to have laws and limits, I'd like to see them enforced. But I'd also like to see the laws/limits that aren't worth enforcing consistently amended or removed from the books.
(Of course, I might have a slightly different viewpoint than most because of my job. Among other things, I get to price insurance for police departments...so I happen to have a little more than an inkling as to how the behavior of a few reckless cops impacts their sponsoring government agencies.)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2016, 01:14:27 PM
So, for all you law abiding people out there, there's a law call Keep Right Except to Pass.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that technically illegal in only 10 states? (scroll through (https://www.justpark.com/creative/is-it-illegal/))
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 27, 2016, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2016, 01:14:27 PM
So, for all you law abiding people out there, there's a law call Keep Right Except to Pass.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that technically illegal in only 10 states? (scroll through (https://www.justpark.com/creative/is-it-illegal/))
While it's not the law in every state, that list has been noted for not being very accurate.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2016, 09:42:39 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 27, 2016, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2016, 01:14:27 PM
So, for all you law abiding people out there, there's a law call Keep Right Except to Pass.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that technically illegal in only 10 states? (scroll through (https://www.justpark.com/creative/is-it-illegal/))
While it's not the law in every state, that list has been noted for not being very accurate.
This list might be better: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 27, 2016, 01:54:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2016, 09:42:39 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 27, 2016, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2016, 01:14:27 PM
So, for all you law abiding people out there, there's a law call Keep Right Except to Pass.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that technically illegal in only 10 states? (scroll through (https://www.justpark.com/creative/is-it-illegal/))
While it's not the law in every state, that list has been noted for not being very accurate.
This list might be better: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
Yes, it is. (although the note for NJ passing on right means going around a left turning car on the shoulder, and doesn't have anything to do with passing on a highway!)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2016, 03:17:40 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 27, 2016, 01:54:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2016, 09:42:39 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 27, 2016, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2016, 01:14:27 PM
So, for all you law abiding people out there, there's a law call Keep Right Except to Pass.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that technically illegal in only 10 states? (scroll through (https://www.justpark.com/creative/is-it-illegal/))
While it's not the law in every state, that list has been noted for not being very accurate.
This list might be better: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
Yes, it is. (although the note for NJ passing on right means going around a left turning car on the shoulder, and doesn't have anything to do with passing on a highway!)
Thanks for that! That'll be useful for interstate travel.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2016, 09:47:03 PM
So basically you are expecting cops to be the paragon of perfect driving skill and masters of the state traffic manual?
Umm, yes. You mean obey the law? Yes.
Every cop has a choice to make everytime he gets behind the wheel. Obey the SL, or violate it. Most, of course, violate it. As do I, and I suspect, as do you. We do this because the SL makes no sense and we know that we can drive safe and fast at science based speeds.
I have an honest job. I don't lurk around highways randomly (or worse yet not randomly) taking money away from people for something I do.
Remember, every traffic cop knows one person who violated the SL today. Himself. How many turned themsleves in?
Hypocrites.
And, BTW, most often a totally different set of people than serious cops who do serious work. Most traffic cops "work" traffic, nothing else. All day, every day. Garbage.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 28, 2016, 11:53:39 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2016, 09:47:03 PM
So basically you are expecting cops to be the paragon of perfect driving skill and masters of the state traffic manual?
Umm, yes. You mean obey the law? Yes.
Every cop has a choice to make everytime he gets behind the wheel. Obey the SL, or violate it. Most, of course, violate it. As do I, and I suspect, as do you. We do this because the SL makes no sense and we know that we can drive safe and fast at science based speeds.
I have an honest job. I don't lurk around highways randomly (or worse yet not randomly) taking money away from people for something I do.
Remember, every traffic cop knows one person who violated the SL today. Himself. How many turned themsleves in?
Hypocrites.
And, BTW, most often a totally different set of people than serious cops who do serious work. Most traffic cops "work" traffic, nothing else. All day, every day. Garbage.
If every cop started obeying the speed limit and turned themselves in if they exceed it, would you do the same?
Most cops apply for and accept a position on a police force. It's up to their superiors to tell them what to do. I doubt many cops enjoy sitting on the side of the road looking for someone doing something wrong, then having to hear their sob stories or frustrations.
BTW, please don't be one of those "where's a cop when you need one" type people either...because if they weren't patrolling the roads and people knew that, you would encounter mayhem on the roads.
Actually, no. Science teaches us that freeway speeds are self-regulating. If there was no "enforcement", speeds would be the same as they are now. Just more police doing actual work, and thus less crime.
You do remember the NMSL. We were right, and they were wrong.
Really that simple.
In Kentucky, it's routine for cops to camp out in the left lane and exceed the speed limit, even if they are out of their jurisdiction. There's a state juvenile detention facility in the county where I work. It's common to see local law enforcement officers from halfway across the state driving 90 in the left lane of the Mountain Parkway while transporting juvenile prisoners to and from the lockup. It's also common to see cops from halfway across the state driving well in excess of the speed limit in the left lane when they're traveling to and from the state's criminal justice training facility in Richmond. They are in no danger of being pulled over, and even if they are, they're in no danger of getting a ticket because of what they call "professional courtesy."
I don't think it's too much to ask for cops to drive at a reasonable speed in the correct lane unless they are responding to a call and have their emergency equipment (at least their lights) operational.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 28, 2016, 03:40:51 PM
Actually, no. Science teaches us that freeway speeds are self-regulating. If there was no "enforcement", speeds would be the same as they are now. Just more police doing actual work, and thus less crime.
You do remember the NMSL. We were right, and they were wrong.
Really that simple.
Since when is every street in America a freeway? The vast majority of streets are local, residential streets.
Washington State Patrol was using their aircraft for speed enforcement in Eastern Washington a couple years ago, and caught multiple police vehicles speeding to a drug-enforcement conference. In the end, no on was ticketed, but it goes to show that even the police aren't too keen on each other speeding. Just listen to their comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5Es1RiupA0
Aircraft speed enforcement -- what a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Always good to know what speeds they do care about. From what I was gathering anything under 70 wasn't considered, but 20 over is generally frowned upon.
Easter Monday...traffic was lighter than normal for my ride home. 80-85 was commonplace for the left lane in the 65 zone I drive in. Only had to deal with a 2 - 3 mile backup where 10 miles is normal. I think speeds are up mostly due to a very generic rush hour commute by many people that travel long distances, with a traditionally very laxed rush hour speed enforcement. Outside of rush hours speeds are enforced a bit better (well, keep it below 80 in the 65 and most cops don't have an issue).
Quote from: hbelkins on March 29, 2016, 12:21:06 PM
Aircraft speed enforcement -- what a waste of taxpayer dollars.
If it's any consolation, they aren't used to pull over commuters going 6 above the limit. They are chiefly used in rural areas, often at night. And usually for only a couple of hours at a time.
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 27, 2016, 01:54:19 PMThis list might be better: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
Yes it's better, but it still doesn't have the Massachusetts law quite right. In MA you
may pass on the right on a multi-lane road, but drivers in the left lane still
must yield to faster traffic. (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 89, Section 2 - https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section2)
I hesitate to reopen this can of worms, but I've been driving a lot lately, and have noticed my own tendency to do something.
When I come upon traffic that slows quickly ahead, but not enough to need to brake, and someone's following close behind, I find I tap the brake as a courtesy and a well-intentioned warning that I'm going to slow down a lot now.
I haven't noticed hostile reaction to this–it's usually pretty clear that I'm actually slowing out of necessity and not being passive-aggressive. Unfortunately there's no warning for a necessary slowdown, just a brake warning, so I use what I've got.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 07, 2016, 08:56:16 PM
I hesitate to reopen this can of worms, but I've been driving a lot lately, and have noticed my own tendency to do something.
When I come upon traffic that slows quickly ahead, but not enough to need to brake, and someone's following close behind, I find I tap the brake as a courtesy and a well-intentioned warning that I'm going to slow down a lot now.
I haven't noticed hostile reaction to this–it's usually pretty clear that I'm actually slowing out of necessity and not being passive-aggressive. Unfortunately there's no warning for a necessary slowdown, just a brake warning, so I use what I've got.
There's nothing wrong with that, I kinda do the same thing. I usually drag the brake a little, so my brake lights are on for a few seconds but I'm not really on the brakes-I don't think the car really slows down all that much.
In any event, as the potential driver behind you I appreciate that when you do that!
Usually, when approaching a slowdown, I shift down several gears, only applying the brake when close to the "pack". If I didn't have a manual gearbox, I'd attempt to shift into a lower gear using the lever, if possible.
Quote from: slorydn1 on July 07, 2016, 09:00:33 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 07, 2016, 08:56:16 PM
I hesitate to reopen this can of worms, but I've been driving a lot lately, and have noticed my own tendency to do something.
When I come upon traffic that slows quickly ahead, but not enough to need to brake, and someone's following close behind, I find I tap the brake as a courtesy and a well-intentioned warning that I'm going to slow down a lot now.
I haven't noticed hostile reaction to this–it's usually pretty clear that I'm actually slowing out of necessity and not being passive-aggressive. Unfortunately there's no warning for a necessary slowdown, just a brake warning, so I use what I've got.
There's nothing wrong with that, I kinda do the same thing. I usually drag the brake a little, so my brake lights are on for a few seconds but I'm not really on the brakes-I don't think the car really slows down all that much.
In any event, as the potential driver behind you I appreciate that when you do that!
Seems reasonable. The flash of the brake lights is probably a good idea to get some followers out of orbit though. It does seem possible usually when cruising at speed to tap the brake enough to light the brake lights and slightly slow without drastically slowing that instant. Slowing with no brake light indication by gearing down may be invisible to the space cadet behind you who only realizes you've slowed down when they are too damned close.