^^ is not legal, and opens you up to civil liability

Also just a dick thing to do

9/25/2012 7:15:11 PM

^ The same can be said for tailgating. It's not legal and opens you up to civil liability. Oh, and it's a dick thing to do.

9/25/2012 7:17:26 PM

And that excuses your entirely dangerous behavior... how?

Tailgating isn't safe or excusable either, but it would probably happen less if people moved the fuck over

9/25/2012 7:19:05 PM

It would also happen less if people who tailgate did it less.

9/25/2012 7:22:28 PM

Uh, there would be no one to tailgate if the lane was clear, dumbass

9/25/2012 7:23:53 PM

Uh, there would be no tailgater if the person behind drove at a reasonable distance, dipshit.

9/25/2012 7:24:40 PM

You're in front, you're in the wrong

9/25/2012 7:25:50 PM

I knew you were trolling several posts ago but now you're not even being subtle about it.

9/25/2012 7:30:56 PM

Quote :

" And that excuses your entirely dangerous behavior... how?"

It wouldn't be dangerous if they didn't tailgate.

You can put all the blame on the slower car all you want, but the fact is the slower car isn't doing anything illegal or dangerous. The tailgater is.

9/25/2012 8:09:33 PM

Slamming on brakes is both illegal and dangerous

9/25/2012 8:27:17 PM

plenty of people tailgate without any intentions of passing. Drive on I-95 for long enough and you're guaranteed to have someone ride your ass with no intentions of passing you. I think it's a product of eye fatigue from long distance driving.

9/25/2012 9:34:20 PM

Quote :

"Say the speed limit is 65. I am in the left lane in the car going 76, trying to pass a group of four cars going 70. A driver comes up behind me at 85. Now, I could follow this advice and merge right into the first available gap, slow to 70, let the other driver pass, and then get left again and speed back up to 76 until I have passed. In that case, I have inconvenienced myself to benefit the other driver. Or, I could stay at 76 until I have passed the remaining cars in the cluster, then merge right and stay there and let the driver who was going 85 accelerate back to his preferred speed. In that case I have inconvenienced the other driver. So if it's a choice between my inconvenience or his inconvenience, given the fact that I had position first anyway, I'm going to let him slow down for the moment it takes me to complete my pass. Now, if the prevailing speed in the left lane is 85, it's a different story as I would be stacking traffic up to complete a multi-car pass, which is rather a dick move. But for one driver--you can wait."

I don't get bothered at all if I have to slow down in the passing lane to wait for someone else to pass more slowly, as long as (1) they don't cut me off to do it, and (2) they are reasonably expeditious about it. Don't take 2 miles to do it, going 0.1 mph faster than the other car.

Quote :

"I did today too'ad someone tailgating me on a two lane country road with plenty of dotted lines when I was going 10 over and they would never pass, so I slowed down to 5 under and they still wouldnt pass. Pussies."

I basically don't tailgate people on 2-lane roads unless they are going just egregiously slow.

Quote :

" I try my very best to not cut anyone off. If my only offense is not going the speed you want me to, then how am I douche when the person doing the tailgating is the one endangering my life? Right..."

Because if you're in the passing lane and not passing anyone, you're a fucking douche and a roadway hazard.

Quote :

"Why? Hitting my brakes is not illegal. Jamming on my brakes is not illegal. That's why if you're following someone you're supposed to leave enough distance in front of you to allow for the car your following to coming to an emergency stop. If you don't, then you're tailgating and if you hit them, it's your fault. Proving that the person jammed on the brakes just to be a dick is damn near impossible to prove. But what is possible to prove is tailgating/not paying attention."

I'm pretty sure that intentionally causing a wreck is illegal, and speaking as an engineer, a person armed with EDR data could probably pretty easy prove it was intentional, at least to a preponderance of the evidence standard, which I think would be good enough for a civil suit (and maybe even beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the circumstances). Now, doing so would also probably prove that the other car was tailgating (and definitely would if you pulled EDR data from both cars), but you would probably not be able to lie your way out of it.

If you want to talk about intentionally braking hard for no reason other than to cause a crash, I could do that any day I wanted in my Z06 Corvette just due to sheer braking power and traction. You wouldn't even have to be extreme-tailgating me. I happen to need some minor paint touch-up on my rear bumper. I'm pretty sure it would be illegal for me to stand on my brakes just to make someone hit me.


Oh, and:

Quote :

" (a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway. (b) The driver of any motor vehicle traveling upon a highway outside of a business or residential district and following another motor vehicle shall, whenever conditions permit, leave sufficient space so that an overtaking vehicle may enter and occupy such space without danger, except that this shall not prevent a motor vehicle from overtaking and passing another motor vehicle. This provision shall not apply to funeral processions. (1937, c. 407, s. 114; 1949, c. 1207, s. 4; 1973, c. 1330, s. 17.) "

Pretty open ended. I guess it would be clear-cut only if you were within a car length and not making an effort to pass the car in front of you (which, normally, you would be if the car is hogging the passing lane). I would argue that my judgment of reasonable and prudent should be assumed accurate up until the point that I hit someone due to following too closely (and not intentional causation of a wreck on their part).

9/25/2012 10:20:56 PM

9/25/2012 10:22:24 PM

I just came in to say I read the title as "why do BMW drivers like it in the ass?"

9/25/2012 10:23:29 PM

Quote :

"The worst thing is that half of the left lane offenders are too fucking oblivious to even realize they're blocking. In other words, they're not aware of their surroundings and are a hazard to everyone around them. When you're driving down the interstate you should constantly be aware of the vehicles around you and approximately what amount of speed differential exists between you and them. If you can't manage to do that you are a danger behind the wheel."

Yep, I think most of them are totally ignorant of the fact that they shouldn't be in the left lane, and most are probably oblivious to the fact that they are holding anyone up, because they don't fucking watch their mirrors (or blind spots, for that matter).

You should maintain awareness of what's around you in every direction. When I check my mirrors/blind spots to change lanes, I'm just doublechecking what I already know, because I've been keeping aware of it all along.

9/25/2012 10:25:32 PM

[quoteSlamming on brakes is both illegal and dangerous[/quote]

Slamming on the brakes is not illegal depending on the intent and its only dangerous if the person behind you makes it so. If there is plenty of space and they're paying attention, it shouldn't be dangerous at all.

Plus, in most states, if you put your car up another persons ass, you're automatically found at fault. And unless you can somehow prove that the other person in front of you was negligent in someway, you have no defense as you failed to provide enough stopping distance to keep from hitting the car in front.

9/25/2012 11:51:58 PM

Quote :

"because I've been keeping aware of it all along."

relying on this will be the death of you

9/25/2012 11:53:22 PM

^ Wait, what? Being aware of my surroundings while driving is bad?

^^ You don't think it would count as negligence to intentionally cause an accident?

[Edited on September 26, 2012 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ^ I don't rely on it in the sense of not checking before i change lanes, unless it's an emergency.]

9/26/2012 12:11:52 AM

Quote :

"Because if you're in the passing lane and not passing anyone, you're a fucking douche"

Agreed.

But who is saying this is the case?

Quote :

"and a roadway hazard."

When it comes to roadway hazards:

tailgating>slower cars.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure that intentionally causing a wreck is illegal, and speaking as an engineer, a person armed with EDR data could probably pretty easy prove it was intentional, at least to a preponderance of the evidence standard, which I think would be good enough for a civil suit (and maybe even beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the circumstances). "

Oh jeeze. You're speaking as an engineer? Golly! Nigga please. I too have a degree in ME, so quit the bullshit.

And crash data from the computer is only going to tell you the speed at which a crash-like event was triggered, whether brakes were applied, and I would assume its deceleration.

What it doesn't tell the investigator/officer is why you jammed on your brakes.

All I would need to tell them is that the car besides me was going to cut me off, so I slammed on my brakes to avoid a collision. Or the car in front of me had begun jamming on his brakes for some inexplicable reason. Or that I thought there was something on the road that could damage my car, and that I happened to be wrong.

Again, jamming on your brakes is NOT illegal. Yes, intentionally causing an accident is illegal. No doubt. And, I never said that I would try to have the other person hit me, I only said I jam on my brakes. But if he were to hit me, he would be at fault. Trying to prove I did it intentionally would be next to impossible and it would only devolve into an argument of "he said she said," with the law taking my side for the simple fact that the guy behind me is the one who hit me.

Quote :

"You don't think it would count as negligence to intentionally cause an accident?"

It sure would buddy. Being able to prove it would be a bitch.

[Edited on September 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2012 12:16:33 AM

Quote :

"And crash data from the computer is only going to tell you the speed at which a crash-like event was triggered, whether brakes were applied, and I would assume its deceleration. "

False. Not even close to being accurate, actually...and the rest my argument follows from there. I mean, the only meaningful difference in what we're saying on this one is that you claim that nobody would ever get busted, and I'm saying that I wouldn't be so sure, if anyone was inclined to pull the data and pursue it, because there's a lot more data available in most cases than you seem to realize.

I mean, it varies from car to car, but most of them record a LOT of data--enough, in my view, to paint a fairly damning picture in many cases...particularly if you combined the data from both cars. I think it would be tough to make an airtight case that the crash was caused intentionally, but I think you could probably get to a high enough standard in many cases for at least a civil suit.

We're talking stuff like (for a certain period...like 5-10 seconds before crash) speed, RPM, amount/duration of throttle application, amount/duration of brake application, steering input angle, yaw rate, deceleration during impact, seatbelt usage, lateral/longitudinal results of impact, etc. That's enough to pretty much recreate every input that the driver made and everything the car did. The only thing that isn't laid out pretty explicitly is what was going through the driver's head, but I would argue that you could make pretty solid inferences in some cases.

People get convicted of stuff or successfully sued for stuff all the time with lesser hard forensics data and nothing but a pretty good inference of what was going through their minds.

Quote :

"But who is saying this is the case? "

Isn't that what people are largely arguing about, here?


[Edited on September 26, 2012 at 12:48 AM. Reason : ]

9/26/2012 12:26:49 AM

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't list every item that could potentially be included.

That shit only tells you what happened, not why it happened, which was my point. Considering that if, for whatever reason I jammed on my brakes, the person behind me had not been tailgating, the accident would not have happened. Correct? Like I said, it would turn into a case of he said she said and the case would likely get thrown out.

Unless data records can record thoughts and menacing glares, the only information you'll get from it is that I jammed on my brakes and the person behind me hit me. They can probably use the time between the two cars and the reaction time to extrapolate an approximate distance between the two cars, but the fact remains, if he hits me, then he didn't leave enough space. The following driver bears full responsibility in a fender bender for keeping a safe distance.

But do explain to me how a person who hit me could find me liable if I claim that the car in front of me jammed on their brakes, forcing me to follow suit (which would be a lie)? What in the recorder would be damning evidence? Would be the car that's following too closely to me? Would it be my foot going all the way to the floor?

Quote :

"People get convicted of stuff or successfully sued for stuff all the time with lesser hard forensics data and nothing but a pretty good inference of what was going through their minds."

Could you find something that specifically relates to fender benders and the leading car being at fault?

Quote :

"Isn't that what people are largely arguing about, here?"

Only the people who backup their claim that it is OK to tailgate when the person is cruising in the left hand lane. I thought most actually agreed that cruising in the left lane is a douchy thing to do.

9/26/2012 12:55:44 AM

There are no other witnesses on most roads, generally all abandoned

9/26/2012 7:21:19 AM

Quote :

"Unless data records can record thoughts and menacing glares, the only information you'll get from it is that I jammed on my brakes and the person behind me hit me."

your car doesn't do that? what do you drive? something from the 90's?

9/26/2012 12:31:31 PM

My motorcycle is a bmw. Guess I take the trophy; king of the asses.

[Edited on September 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM. Reason : ALL OF THEM]

9/26/2012 6:05:55 PM

are you passing people between lanes? hahaha





yesterday i was on a three lane highway. in front of me is like a f250-sized pickup seriously riding the ass of a little white car right in front and had been doing so for like 5 miles. for some reason there was a semi in the middle lane. I'm in the left, waiting to pass the big rig. I'm kinda nervous about getting boxed in behind trucks so i was waiting about 15 feet behind the semi for little white car and the pickup to finally clear the semi.

some car had been hanging in behind me for a while, but got pissed and squeezed between me and the truck and then had to slam the hell on the brakes. the little white car took 5 mins more to pass the fucking truck with the other two cars glued to its ass. finally it got over without signalling in a two-car-length gap between two cars in the middle lane. the douche that cut me off guns for the same hole, crosses to the right lane, passes the car in front on the right, then tries to pass the pickup, which was also accelerating heavily, and just about sideswipes it. I guess he needed a beamer, yall.


I just said to hell with it and slowed down 5 mph for 30 seconds just so the bitches would get the hell away from me.



I hate having to change what i'm doing for dangerous tards. the end.

9/27/2012 8:07:57 AM

9/30/2012 2:01:11 PM

^^15 feet is away too close to follow someone, way to call yourself out.

Also, I'm not entirely clear from your story, but it sounds like because you we're camped in the left lane not passing, other vehicles were forced do dangerously pass a semi on the right? Is that correct, because that would be your fault.

(At 60mph you should be at least 176' back)

[Edited on September 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2012 2:06:00 PM

i see that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, so i drawed you a picture since i can't sleep and have no emails to answer

10/1/2012 12:41:15 AM

I don't think writing is your strong suit, that was definitely not clear.

What is made clear by your drawing that you drawed is how the white car is causing unsafe conditions because they are camped in the fast lane. This is a great example of why you need to move over. I'll cut the truck a little slack, but the blue car should move behind the pink car and the white car should have noticed the black truck behind them and moved over before the semi. Everyone would be much much safer, much happier, and common sense would have prevailed.

10/1/2012 11:54:14 AM

Quote :

"I don't think writing is your strong suit"

Quote :

"drawing that you drawed "

10/1/2012 12:01:13 PM

yeah, that was on purpose.

see:

Quote :

"so i drawed you a picture "

which i'm assuming was also on purpose

smart guy

10/1/2012 12:05:03 PM

^^ Here is the double quote you should have used

Quote :

"I'll cut the truck a little slack"

Quote :

"At 60mph you should be at least 176' back"

10/1/2012 1:33:19 PM

dude called himself out

^talking about the giant orange semi truck

[Edited on October 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ^]

10/1/2012 2:09:50 PM

long as shit commute today because a girl in a civic merged into someone and caused a fender bender.

also, its misty on the interstate so turn on your fucking lights

10/2/2012 8:54:11 AM