tailgater gets owned

[XavierMace]

On a two lane highway, if you are in the left lane and someone is coming up on you, it is on YOU to move over, NOT for them to slow down, even if you are going the speed limit or higher.

Legally (and morally) the fault is ENTIRELY on the brake-checker.

If someone did that to me, and caused me to crash, I'd end up owning his house and the houses of his descendants for three generations.

MotionMan

Wait, so let me get this straight. If I drive in the fast lane, I can run people off the road as long as I'm going faster than them? Shit, that wasn't covered in the manual.

 

[ImpulsE69]

So what if that person in the left lane is texting or on their phone? Because most of the time that's what is going on? (watches as brains explode)

 

[DrPizza]

In many states though, yes they are obligated to clear a path for those faster drivers.

I'm not aware of any state that states that if someone's tailgating you and wants to do 85, while you're going 75, actively passing people going 65, that you need to get out of their way.

So, any links to back up your claim? Sometimes, you simply have to accept that the "flow of traffic" in each lane is a different speed, though the left lane occasionally has their speed slowed down by an idiot who is willing to get into the left lane to pass someone, but is not willing to maintain the speed of the left lane. Personally, if I'm in the right lane (sometimes, when I'm hauling the boat and traffic is light enough that the right lane is moving 75), if I have to get into the left lane to pass someone going 65, and the traffic in the left lane is 80, I'll speed up to accommodate that speed until I can safely get back into the right lane.

And I especially agree with analysis above in the thread about leaving a safe distance. If I'm in a 6000 pound pickup, hauling a 3500 pound boat, plus up to 1000 pounds or so of gear and passengers, trying to leave a somewhat safe distance leads to morons cutting you off to gain one car space. I'd love to see troopers ticket people who start in the left lane, pass on the right, and quickly veer back into the left lane, only to pass one vehicle. And, I'll admit, sometimes I take pleasure in seeing such morons suffer - if there's a particularly aggressive driver on the road doing that, when he starts moving right, I'll start closing the distance between me and the vehicle in front of me, denying him his God-given right to be 30 feet and 0.27 seconds closer to his destination. If other drivers are cooperating, it's wonderful seeing such asshats get boxed in by a mile long string of 75 mph vehicles while that idiot is on the right is stuck behind someone going 60.

 

[dainthomas]

Look dude, I get it that you think the brake checker was more at fault and dislike anyone who slows you down from going the speed you want. What I'm saying is that if you're one of the people who does tailgate, ever, even once then you deserve to be fucking keelhauled then dipped in honey and left on an anthill. That's the only principle at play here.

Did I say I tailgated?

I teach my daughter that no matter what other people do, bad behavior is not acceptable. Apparently you subscribe to the other school of thought. Hopefully your kids are able to mature past your philosophy.

 

[Humpy]

Wait, so let me get this straight. If I drive in the fast lane, I can run people off the road as long as I'm going faster than them? Shit, that wasn't covered in the manual.

This has been already been covered. It's not you running someone off the road. It's them failing to meet the obligation of getting out of the way.

 

[Ns1]

This has been already been covered. It's not you running someone off the road. It's them failing to meet the obligation of getting out of the way.

well, in that case they both still have to meet the obligation of driving no faster than 65mph right?

 

[Drako]

I'm not aware of any state that states that if someone's tailgating you and wants to do 85, while you're going 75, actively passing people going 65, that you need to get out of their way.

There are 6 states with such laws.

 

[destrekor]

The application of some fricken common sense goes a long way here. If the roads are fairly congested, and you're in the left lane, behind someone who is behind someone who is behind someone who is behind someone, and the left lane is moving 75 in a 65, while the right lane is going 65, all of us, the left lane people and the right lane people, don't give a shit that you're behind 500 of us, and want all 500 to move out of your way so that you can happily go 80 for the next 50 miles. It's not going to happen. It can't happen - there isn't enough room for *all* of us to get out of your way.

Agreed. In those situations, you just have to be patient, you can't change the traffic pattern.

 

[destrekor]

Who said anything about me being the police? I'm just saying that as long as I'm passing cars, I'll stay in the left lane. It's not my responsibility to slow way down and get over just so some asshole can get by me. When I can move back to the left lane, I do. But tailgaters will ride your ass even while you're blowing by slower right lane traffic.

True, I agree with that. It's when there IS an obvious ability to cede the lane without screwing yourself over, that's when I'd get upset. But if you can't cede without slowing down, then I stay patient. Annoyed, but patient.


What gets me riled up the most is when there is a whole clear road ahead, and there's a car in each the left and right lane. And they are going the exact same speed. Exactly. Not passing at all. Traffic gets backed up because neither driver wants to be courteous to the rest of us.
Or similar situations where the car is ever so slightly, if you measured carefully, passing someone, so you have to wait miles before they finish and clear the lane. How harmful is it to slightly increase your speed to help pass faster?

But as in your case, that's perfectly fine if people are actively passing others... that's all I can truly ask for. Would I like to go faster? Sure, but no biggie.


But my main complaint in this thread is not those who are actively passing, rather, it is those who have a clear open road all around them and refuse to cede the lane as you come up behind them. Either they aren't paying attention one bit (I've missed this myself, though I could count on one hand how many times), or they are ignorant of courteous driving and the codes.

I hate coming up to someone in the left lane, the right lane is clear for miles, and they just sit there. I'll usually get fairly close, camp behind them for a little bit, and if they still don't get it, I'll pass on the left.

I've been in traffic where more than one person has to pass on the right, and it's not until everyone has passed that the person finally acknowledges that, "oh shit, I guess I should have moved over." I just hate passing on the right so I try to give them a chance to make that move, even when it inconveniences me.

 

[DrPizza]

There are 6 states with such laws.

Yes, and no. If you look here, http://jalopnik.com/5501615/left-lane-passing-laws-a-state-by-state-map , yes, there are six of them. However, if you look at the actual law - I'll use Nevada for example - this isn't quite true. The heading for Nevada's law states:

NRS 484B.627  Duties of driver driving motor vehicle at speed so slow as to impede forward movement of traffic; prohibition against stopping vehicle on roadway so as to impede or block normal and reasonable movement of traffic; exception.

bolded emphasis mine. So, if the traffic in the right lane for the past 50 miles has been going 65 in a 65, and heavy traffic in the left lane for the past 50 miles has been going 75, I don't think it's "reasonable" to expect to go 85mph. However, if you're going 66, overtaking someone going 65 in the same situation, then yes, you're impeding reasonable movement of traffic. Yet, in that same section under exceptions,

If the highway has two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the direction in which the driver is traveling, drive in the extreme right-hand lane except when necessary to pass other slowly moving vehicles;

. So, if you're going 66 to pass someone going 65, so long as you return to the right lane after passing, it appears you're within the law.
Your 6 is down to 5.




edit: Virginia - you must move over if you're impeding the "normal flow" of traffic. Per their state police, even if that "normal flow" is above the speed limit. 6 is down to 4.


Again, I don't think you legally have to move over if you're actively passing traffic and going above the speed limit in a single state. Can someone find where it explicitly states otherwise?

 

[soulcougher73]

Except that it could have ended badly for the person doing the checking. There was absolutely nothing dangerous happening until they did that.

Tailgating is dangerous.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's amazing to me that people will be that mad at the guy in the left lane. He was going way faster than the vehicles he was passing. It just wasn't fast enough for the tailgater.

You are endangering me by tailgating me, because if I have to stop, you are going to crash into me. Tailgaters are very dangerous.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

On a two lane highway, if you are in the left lane and someone is coming up on you, it is on YOU to move over, NOT for them to slow down, even if you are going the speed limit or higher.

Legally (and morally) the fault is ENTIRELY on the brake-checker.

If someone did that to me, and caused me to crash, I'd end up owning his house and the houses of his descendants for three generations.

MotionMan

Just because you make up laws in your head, doesn't make them true...

 

[OutHouse]

Except that it could have ended badly for the person doing the checking. There was absolutely nothing dangerous happening until they did that.

tailgating at high speed is not dangerous?

 

[OutHouse]

 

[ImpulsE69]

tailgating at high speed is not dangerous?

Read the thread before you cherry pick a sentence. Anyone who can't see the distinction between doing something irresponsible vs. purposely escalating a potentially dangerous situation probably shouldn't be allowed to drive. It is essentially road rage and a power trip. No better than the guy tailgating. A tailgater doesn't CAUSE issues, they just make them potentially worse if something does happen. Again, some of you are so set on blaming the tailgator you think that saying these things means someone thinks tailgating is ok. I'm certainly not saying that, but trying to purposely cause an accident is way worse. Brake checking in any scenario is just asking for trouble and you deserve whatever happens if you do it. In this case they got lucky because the person didn't hit them.

Here's another analogy. You have a loaded gun sitting on a table. Someone else comes in and says that's not safe, then shoots you with the gun. See, that's dangerous! It is a dumb hostile mentality.

You wouldn't recommend ramming someone who cuts you off would you? Even though the person doing the cutting is in the wrong and dangerous? Just because you could have an accident doesn't mean you make the possibility worse by being a bigger dick about it. It's about being the bigger person and getting yourself out of that situation.

 

[Schmide]

Regardless of all the made up laws in this thread. There is no brake check law. You can't prove that someone brake checked someone, even on video, unless they change lanes and slam on the brakes. The latter would constitute a charge of illegal lane change.

You have the right to be frightened by traffic, bugs, sun, cramps, erections, no apparent reason, etc; and the proper course of action is to slow your car in a straight line then pull over. For all anyone knows the person checked their mirror, was frightened by a car being so close, suddenly feared a collision, and then hit their breaks to avoid being pitted at a fast speed.

 

[BoberFett]

*snip*

We're pretty much in agreement.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I'm not aware of any state that states that if someone's tailgating you and wants to do 85, while you're going 75, actively passing people going 65, that you need to get out of their way.

It's important to note, that in most states that have laws about this, the actual speed is not a factor. It's that you have a limited legal window to make a pass in the left lane and then get out of it. My knowledge of this is most clear in regards to Illinois, which is why I use their example.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...04_1_new-illinois-law-construction-zones-lane

State Rep. John Millner (R-Carol Stream), who introduced the legislation in the General Assembly, says the law is designed to get slowpokes out of the left lane, where they block faster traffic and encourage other drivers to tailgate and pass on the right.

Also, there's this:

https://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a112.pdf

Lane Usage

When driving on an interstate highway or full access controlled freeway, a person may not
drive in the left lane(s), except when passing another vehicle. Exceptions include when:
• No other vehicle is directly behind the vehicle being driven in the left lane.
• Traffic conditions/congestion make it impractical to drive in the right lane.
• Weather conditions make it necessary to use the left lane(s).
• There is an obstruction or hazard in the right lane.
• The driver is changing lanes to yield to emergency or construction vehicles.
Additional rules apply in certain situations:
• Slow vehicles must use the right-hand lane except when passing or making a left turn.
• Weaving from lane to lane to move faster than the traffic flow is unlawful.
• Traffic must travel in the direction of posted one-way streets or roadways. This rule
does not apply to police and emergency vehicles using sirens or flashing lights.
• It is unlawful to drive across median strips such as unpaved strips or median barriers.
A driver may turn left across a paved dividing-space unless it is not permitted
by a traffic control sign or signal.
• A driver must not enter or leave any controlled-access roadway except at a posted
entrance or exit.

 

[Carson Dyle]

In the US the person who brake-checked would be legally responsible for that accident.

You didn't see the dog that ran across the road?

 

[ImpulsE69]

Regardless of all the made up laws in this thread. There is no brake check law. You can't prove that someone brake checked someone, even on video, unless they change lanes and slam on the brakes. The latter would constitute a charge of illegal lane change.

You have the right to be frightened by traffic, bugs, sun, cramps, erections, no apparent reason, etc; and the proper course of action is to slow your car in a straight line then pull over. For all anyone knows the person checked their mirror, was frightened by a car being so close, suddenly feared a collision, and then hit their breaks to avoid being pitted at a fast speed.

Yea, I'm not aware of one, but you are wrong about proving someone brake checked. Remember the motorcycle guys and the truck?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Regardless of all the made up laws in this thread. There is no brake check law. You can't prove that someone brake checked someone, even on video, unless they change lanes and slam on the brakes. The latter would constitute a charge of illegal lane change.

You have the right to be frightened by traffic, bugs, sun, cramps, erections, no apparent reason, etc; and the proper course of action is to slow your car in a straight line then pull over. For all anyone knows the person checked their mirror, was frightened by a car being so close, suddenly feared a collision, and then hit their breaks to avoid being pitted at a fast speed.

Um, you can very well be faulted if you cause an accident because you brake checked. It's hard to prove, but I know there's several states that have laws on the books that can be used against you. In fact, if you brake check someone and it causes bodily harm, you could be charged criminally.

Might want to talk to a local lawyer before telling yourself it's legal to brake check someone.

Here's just one article I found with a quick google.

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

 

[Schmide]

snip

None of which would have a brake checker charged for an accident.

 

[TechBoyJK]

None of which would have a brake checker charged for an accident.

Wrong. If by failing to cede the lane you can an accident, you're at fault. You committed a traffic violation and that caused an accident. In fact, if you brake check someone, which causes them to lose control and/or rear end you, you could end up failing to recover costs from injury.

What you may not know is that this tailgate stopping action can lead to both civil and criminal assault charges and can block the front driver from any injury recovery if it actually leads to an accident.

First, lets think about the idea of assault charges. Ask yourself what slamming on the brakes is supposed to accomplish? The easy answer is to say “to get the other car to back off.” But there is an underlying answer that is more important, it is “to scare the other driver into thinking they might rear-end the front car so that they decide to back off.” This is the important distinction. Slamming the brakes is intended to cause fear, fear of a potential accident and possible injury.

The Crime of Assault, in many states, includes any action that is intended to cause fear of immediate harm in the mind of another person. In Maryland, there is even a specific Criminal Jury Instruction under the category of Assault called “Intent to Frighten.” To be found guilty of 2nd Degree Assault in this context, the state must prove 4 things:

That the front car driver committed an act with the intent to place the driver of the second car in fear of immediate physical harm;
That the front car driver had the apparent ability at the time of the action to actually cause physical harm;
That the driver of the second car (or any other person in the area) was reasonably put in fear of physical harm; and
That the front car driver was not legally justified, or acting in self defense.
Lets analyze these elements in this context. (1) You intentionally slammed on your brakes, with the intent to scare the second car into thinking if they don’t slow down there might be an accident – Check; (2) you are driving a hunk of steel weighing upwards of a ton and if an accident occurs, it is likely to cause at least a minor injury – Check; (3) someone was actually put in reasonable fear that they might immediately be hurt as a result of your action — Maybe; (4) there is no legal justification for slamming on your brakes to scare someone – “he was tailgaiting me” is not a valid justification here — so, Check!
So, with 3 of the 4 elements being fairly obvious, as long as there is some proof or good faith belief that someone was actually scared as a result of your actions, you just committed an assault.

Ok, lets face it, not many people are going to come after you for scaring them, especially if they were tailgating you. But, there is an even bigger consequence to your actions, if by slamming on your brakes, you actually end up in an accident when the second car rear-ends you. You may not be able to recover any damages for your injuries!

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

 

[Schmide]

snip

An ambulance chaser on a wordpress site that not once mentions the law that is very clear. You must maintain a safe distance. I.e. it is the following car's responsibility.

Edit: He wants your money and is willing to defend you in court if you get into a rear end accident.