Brake checking that causes an accident= You could be liable?

[Ancalagon44]

Remember there was a video a couple of years ago about a biker who was brake checking a car. Got what he deserved.

 

[BoomerD]

https://jimcorleylaw.wordpress.com/...inal-charge-prevent-accident-injury-recovery/

 

[local]

I prefer dropping to a lower gear and not touching the breaks. I think it scares them more because they think they are accelerating into you or something. Either way it has worked every time.

 

[pcgeek11]

Dashcams are amazing things.

Everyone should have one.

End he said she said forever.

Say you have a dash camera and it is on.
The person in front slams on the brakes.
You swerve cause you were too close and hit a guard rail.
What is going to show on your camera.

Right:

It shows that you were following too close.
The car in front hit his brakes and you crashed.

It doesn't prove that there wasn't a reason to brake. You lose.

 

[pcgeek11]

Uhhhhh, no. Not even close. They're great tools for certain things. They can prove who had the green light, whether you came to a complete legal stop at an intersection, whether you rammed a stopped vehicle or whether he he backed up into you. It can't do dick to determine why a driver braked unless it records a long pattern of the driver brake-checking on an otherwise empty road. People brake for silly or inexplicable reasons all the time. It's not illegal and it doesn't lead to crashes unless some other driver is not in control of his vehicle.

Gust of wind
Saw a squirrel
Heard a siren
Wheel shudder
Piece of debris on the shoulder
etc etc etc

This is really simple. If you're driving in a manner that any other driver merely tapping their brakes sends you careening off the road you are driving like an asshole and you deserve to eat the guardrail.

This X 10,000.

 

[pcgeek11]

I have never did a brake check. I will however slow down, if they don't back off I'll slow down some more....

It is fun to watch them beating on the steering wheel.

 

[LTC8K6]

Tapping the brakes is not a brake check, though.

We all know what a brake check is...

The subject is brake checks, not "slowing down".

 

[LTC8K6]

Say you have a dash camera and it is on.
The person in front slams on the brakes.
You swerve cause you were too close and hit a guard rail.
What is going to show on your camera.

Right:

It shows that you were following too close.
The car in front hit his brakes and you crashed.

It doesn't prove that there wasn't a reason to brake. You lose.

Let's back up the video and show the rest of the incident...

Seldom is there a single brake check from that sort of interaction between two drivers.

 

[silicon]

anyone who brake checks is a king size twat. Get out of the way if you're going too slow.

This.

 

[Mike64]

The legal system (and the average "responsible adult on the street") tends to take a dim view of deliberately doing something that you know may cause an accident, even if the other person is also doing something wrong.

:thumbsup:

Civil court is a bit easier than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Just "a bit", where "a bit" = 40-50% easier, if you want to put theoretical numbers on it... The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is, let's say, 98%, the "preponderance of the evidence" is anything over 51%, though in actual practice, at least in jury trials, the former is usually quite a bit lower and the latter is somewhat higher...

The legal system has almost no way to determine why a driver might brake and it's pretty much impossible to prove it was done maliciously to cause a crash unless the driver is an asshole that brags about it on Facebook or Twitter.

"Your honor, a gust of wind hit my car, it drifted towards the centerline and I braked to assure I maintained control..." Yawn, case over.

Aside from the fact that you could be held liable in civil court even if your actions were "merely" negligent rather than "malicious", a lot of armchair lawyers (particularly those not of the "responsible adult" persuasion mentioned above) have very strange views of what goes in courtrooms. It's really not like being in the assistant principal's office in high school... If it actually got to court, you'd have to do a lot better than that. Juries, much less judges, aren't nearly as dumb and certainly not as gullible as many seem to believe. And judges especially take an extremely dim view of people they even think are trying to bullshit the court. And - trust me on this, as they say - whether you're truly in the right or wrong - being in court, criminal or civil, with the judge taking a "dim view" of you really isn't a place you want to be (aka, "it's all fun and games until a verdict is entered against you.")

 

[Exterous]

While it varies by state break checking typically runs afoul of the 'Improper Stopping' statues. And dashcams will remove much of the 'he said vs she said' issues

How you going to prove they brake checked? There could have been a squirrel crossing the road they were trying to avoid.

Since many laws prohibit stopping except "Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device" a squirrel does not provide sufficient reason to break check\slam on your breaks

 

[shortylickens]

Many times the law will say all the parties are liable by a percentage. Sometimes not.

 

[mikeford]

Brake check isn't slamming on brakes, its a tap on brakes to turn on the brake lights while tapping the accelerator to make the rear of the car move up and down. It looks like slamming on the brakes, but indeed you don't even slow down.

My friend did this to a tailgater and when they skid sideways he could see the medallion of a cop car. Got chewed out, but no ticket.

 

[edro]

All brake checkers I have encountered are slow left lane cruisers who do not understand what the left lane is for.
They remain in the left lane even when there is plenty of room to get over.
They are ignorant and feel insecure on the road, or are oblivious to traffic around them.
Once they see you in their rear view, they get startled and agitated, so they brake check.
It's best to just speed around them.

 

[Fingolfin269]

People who tailgate me when I obviously have someone directly in front of me are the most annoying type of tailgater. Especially when they assume I should be tailgating the person in front of me.

 

[isekii]

I prefer dropping to a lower gear and not touching the breaks. I think it scares them more because they think they are accelerating into you or something. Either way it has worked every time.

lol yea i see people that go by cops and brake all of a sudden. These are the assholes that get pulled over.
I just drop to a lower gear and let the engine do the braking and roll right by

 

[rh71]

Dashcams are amazing things.

Everyone should have one.

End he said she said forever.

We are beyond due for an affordable and practical solution for the mass market.

 

[rh71]

lol yea i see people that go by cops and brake all of a sudden. These are the assholes that get pulled over.
I just drop to a lower gear and let the engine do the braking and roll right by

Aren't taillights the only difference, which the cops don't see anyway?

 

[zinfamous]

The legal system has almost no way to determine why a driver might brake and it's pretty much impossible to prove it was done maliciously to cause a crash unless the driver is an asshole that brags about it on Facebook or Twitter.

"Your honor, a gust of wind hit my car, it drifted towards the centerline and I braked to assure I maintained control..." Yawn, case over.

If a person can be forced into a crash by another person brake-checking, the person who crashed is the bigger idiot. Period. Drive like a grown-up.

This.

By and large any type of rear-end accident is almost universally understood to be avoidable by the following car. Of course there are exceptions, but even in the case of brake-checking, that jerk remains the secondary jerk in that equation.

tailgating is far, far more dangerous.

The regulation has to be targeted primarily at what statistics tell us: the responsible party is almost always going to be the party with the best/only chance of avoiding the accident. thus, the following car is responsible until effectively proven otherwise.

 

[zinfamous]

You have to prove that in court. What pisses me off is when I'm trying to leave a reasonable space from the car in front of me and some moron has to jump in front of you, now tacking away that safety margin. If something happens up ahead just after Mr moron jumps in front of you and you slam into his rear YOU will get blamed for following too closely. A dash-cam is almost a necessity if your driving in crowded, down-town areas.

Not necessarily. Witnesses can successfully confirm that the person who cut you off is responsible for the lead car and the following car (you) pancaking the idiot.

This happened years ago with my brother, when he stupidly merged into a fast moving lane to avoid stoppage on an expressway. Pretty obvious that he was at fault, and also suffered the most damage.

 

[zinfamous]

I have never did a brake check. I will however slow down, if they don't back off I'll slow down some more....

It is fun to watch them beating on the steering wheel.

I have been known to do this as well. It amuses me.

 

[isekii]

Aren't taillights the only difference, which the cops don't see anyway?

Yea~ but also with the light and the abrupt jerk of the car~ it makes you look guilty vs engine braking slowly. I think the latter is hardly noticeable.

 

[bradly1101]

They get close enough to punch your tag # into their computer.

Don't cameras do that?

 

[preslove]

I have never did a brake check. I will however slow down, if they don't back off I'll slow down some more....

It is fun to watch them beating on the steering wheel.

I don't touch the brake, but I've been known to do this. This last road trip, some dumb bitch would tailgate me when in the passing lane, then follow me as I got back into the slower lane. WTF? So I slowed down until the fucking idiot passed me.

Tapping the brakes is not a brake check, though.

We all know what a brake check is...

The subject is brake checks, not "slowing down".

I thought tapping the brake to make the brake lights come on, but not significantly braking, was what a "brake check" was. I thought the point was to scare the tailgaiter with your brake lights. Can someone elaborate, please?

People who tailgate me when I obviously have someone directly in front of me are the most annoying type of tailgater. Especially when they assume I should be tailgating the person in front of me.

These people are pieces of shit.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is really simple. If you're driving in a manner that any other driver merely tapping their brakes sends you careening off the road you are driving like an asshole and you deserve to eat the guardrail.

Absolutely.