• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

tailgater gets owned

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
WelshBloke said:
You disagree that slamming your brakes on at high speed when there's a car dangerously close behind you isn't a risky thing to do?

And they let you drive?
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much?

A brake check is a tap on the brakes to signal those behind you that you wish to slow down. It is 100% legal in all cases in all states.
 
SSSnail said:
It's obvious you didn't read anything I wrote. I don't tailgate or brake check, I used to long ago. In my daily life, I find the left lane hoggers and brake checkers are more annoying and dangerous.
Click to expand...

How is a brake checker more dangerous to you if you're not tailgating?

I did read what you wrote, that's why I'm saying that tailgaters are more of a risk to you.


Schmide said:
Hyperbole much?

A brake check is a tap on the brakes to signal those behind you that you wish to slow down. It is 100% legal in all cases in all states.
Click to expand...
Ah! I see the problem now. You have no idea what you're talking about. Carry on.
 
Schmide said:
I'm still waiting for the evidence? One case. Just one and I'll shut up.
Click to expand...
What the fuck are you talking about?

Evidence? Case?

Brake checking is applying your brakes heavily in order to make the guy behind you slam his on.

It's not lightly tapping your brake pedal to make your brake lights come on without your brakes applying.
 
Schmide said:
It has not been covered. It is not true and you can pretend it is and state it as pretend fact but, I'm still waiting!!! One court case. Please. Anyone.

Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis Stare Decisis

PS you won't find one.
Click to expand...

How many do you want?
http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch....e+check&anyword=&withoutword=&qsearchsubmit=1

PS found way more than one...

OutHouse said:
maybe in your warped sense of the law. but in reality umm no.

so you even know what assault is? again, im thinking no you dont.
Click to expand...

Ignorance of the law does give you the right to break it...
 
Last edited:
WelshBloke said:
What the fuck are you talking about?

Evidence? Case?

Brake checking is applying your brakes heavily in order to make the guy behind you slam his on.

It's not lightly tapping your brake pedal to make your brake lights come on without your brakes applying.
Click to expand...

Really? I was under the impression it was more along the lines of "light" tapping of the breaks. Mostly, for the other driver to pay attention.

Not justifying it. Not saying it's smart. It's incredibly stupid. But I'm *FAIRLY* sure that the general concept is to tap the breaks to show red-lights to the driver behind. Not slam the break. Just my experience - Everyone has had it done to them if you have ever been in a left lane. There are plenty of douchebags that will just sit there going at or below the speed limit, and if you ever get near them in the slightest they tap their breaks.
 
TechBoyJK said:
Pretty sure I did already.

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

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-701
Click to expand...

TechBoyJK said:
I don't know if any state says exactly otherwise, but what is said (for Illinois as an example) is that you have to yield the lane to faster traffic. My understanding of this is

You are in left lane passing cars. You're doing 70 in a 65zone.
Another driver comes up behind you doing 80.
Immediately after you finish your current pass, you move right, let the driver pass you, then you get back in the left lane and proceed to pass traffic again.
Click to expand...
I spent a few minutes looking at all of your links. Not a single one provides any evidence of your claims. None of them say anything about the 1/4 mile claim you made up. None of them say you necessarily have to yield to a car behind you in the case that has been pointed out to you - impeding traffic is defined in your state as preventing the normal flow of traffic. So, as I said, if the left lane is normally moving 75, while the right lane is normally moving 65, if you're moving 75 in the left lane, and passing traffic, you do not have to move over and slow down to 65 so that some asshat who wants to do 80 can pass you. I presume you're such an asshat, since you keep providing lengthy links, claiming they verify your claims, when in fact, they do nothing of the sort. I'll publicly apologize for calling you an asshat, if, of course, you can point out specifically where the language is that backs up your claim of 1/4 mile to pass, or that impeding means blocking anyone, regardless of your own speed. In fact, one of the articles you linked to specifically was talking about people setting their cruise control at 55 and hanging out in the left lane to force everyone else to follow the speed limit - that's the other type of asshat on the road - the ones driving much slower than the vast majority of people on the road (in addition to the asshats who believe they can travel at whatever speed they want, and the other 95% of the traffic needs to yield to them.)
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Really? I was under the impression it was more along the lines of "light" tapping of the breaks. Mostly, for the other driver to pay attention.

Not justifying it. Not saying it's smart. It's incredibly stupid. But I'm *FAIRLY* sure that the general concept is to tap the breaks to show red-lights to the driver behind. Not slam the break. Just my experience - Everyone has had it done to them if you have ever been in a left lane. There are plenty of douchebags that will just sit there going at or below the speed limit, and if you ever get near them in the slightest they tap their breaks.
Click to expand...

That is (one reason) why the thread is an absurd 17 pages long. A brake check can legitimately be anything from furiously mashing the pedal in an attempt to kill yourself and everyone around you to the lightest possible touch that will engage the brake lights to signal the gentleman behind to kindly give a little more space.

Everyone has come up with their own version of reality because no one really knows where on the scale the event in the video actually falls.

Personally, I think it's lulzy as all get out that tailgate douche ended up in the ditch while brake check douche gave no fucks, calmly signalling and switching lanes, before driving off into internet lore, which is what this thread would be about if there was more cool people here. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Matthiasa said:
How many do you want?
http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch....e+check&anyword=&withoutword=&qsearchsubmit=1

PS found way more than one...



Ignorance of the law does give you the right to break it...
Click to expand...

I checked 10 of those. No one was charged with a brake check. It was mentioned in a couple under the influence cases.

Sorry dude. Try harder.

Oh and do feel free to brake check a cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JrEf3-O2s8

Edit: Of those these have to do with trafic.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20OHCO%2020151231424/STATE%20v.%20WALSH

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20OHCO%2020151207709/STATE%20v.%20WESLEY

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20MOCO%2020150210225/STATE%20v.%20ISE

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20TXCO%2020150521797/GARZA%20v.%20STATE

This one even mentions what a normal brake check was

Wadkins stated that the driver did not merely do a normal "brake check"; rather, it was "a substantial reduction of speed enough to where traffic behind him was having to lock up their brakes, pass, change lanes to go around him because of his reduced speed."
Click to expand...

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20OHCO%2020140925602/STATE%20v.%20ADAMS

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20OHCO%2020140811399/STATE%20v.%20JONES

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20OHCO%2020080724329/STATE%20v.%20BROWN

Please tell me which one someone is convicted of brake checking. I read them all and none were sufficient
 
Last edited:
Hate tailgaters as much as anyone, but you never know when someone has a woman in labor or kid bleeding or can't breathe in the back of that car. Just move over when clear and be done with it. I don't need my nice car hit nor do I want to have to deal with the weeks of being in a bodyshop just to teach some guy a lesson. Maybe when I was 20 I didn't care and would've hit the brakes but my time is worth more now.

On the flipside I also used to tailgate at ~20 not realizing how dangerous or annoying it was. It took a brake checker to show me. No accident but close.

So anyway, what is the age and gender of the driver?
 
Last edited:
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Really? I was under the impression it was more along the lines of "light" tapping of the breaks. Mostly, for the other driver to pay attention.

Not justifying it. Not saying it's smart. It's incredibly stupid. But I'm *FAIRLY* sure that the general concept is to tap the breaks to show red-lights to the driver behind. Not slam the break. Just my experience - Everyone has had it done to them if you have ever been in a left lane. There are plenty of douchebags that will just sit there going at or below the speed limit, and if you ever get near them in the slightest they tap their breaks.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_test
 
Good god this thread is still going?

Why?

Break checks are bad. Period.

Tailgating is bad. Period.

Both are bad. Period.

Debating which bad thing is worse is a waste of bandwidth. Period.

/Thread.
 
the length that some of you go to argue your point on the internet and prove you are right to complete strangers is incredible.

thank you all for teh lulz!
 
Schmide said:
I actually disagree. A brake check is telling them to get off your ass. If they respond and get off your ass you have a much better chance of getting home alive.
Click to expand...

I think people are arguing with different definitions. I always understood a brake tap to be just flashing the lights and a brake check to be stomping on your brakes. I think most people would agree that the latter definitely would increase the chance of an accident, not decrease.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Not sure what state you are from, but last I checked ANYTIME someone is rear-ended it's basically a 99.999% chance it will be deemed their fault. It's pretty hard to be the one that hits and not be the person held liable.

Obvious exceptions being running a red light, stop sign, etc..
Click to expand...

In Rhode Island it is the fault of whoever's front end hit another vehicle UNLESS the other vehicle went through a stop sign, red light, etc. It is also illegal to tailgate. The guy who did the brake check would have been legally off the hook for that but could be pulled over for not getting out of the passing lane.
 
SSSnail said:
Actually drunk drivers are the worst.
Click to expand...

One thing I always find interesting... why is there always hate on drunk drivers but never sleepy drivers? At least for me, drinking usually makes me tired, so the net effect would be very similar. Both of them are a choice, so it seems both can be just as bad.

I wonder what would happen if a cop pulled you over because your driving was a bit erratic and they discovered that you were too tired to be driving. Would they arrest you? Would they take you home?

SSSnail said:
Both are passive-aggressive assholes, one tries to intimidate the person in front to get out of the way, the other retaliates because he/she felt threaten... If left to run its course, the action of one will most likely cause accidents. You decide.
Click to expand...

I've noticed some weird behavior here in regard to tailgaters. A car will come up behind me when I'm not in the left-most lane, and just stick on my ass for a while. The thing is... at least one lane next to me is clear, so they could pass me. Sometimes, they'll pass me after a few minutes, but other times, they'll just sit there right on my ass until one of us has to move.

Essentially, I think these wackadoodles just accelerate up to the person in front of them and just sit there. Maybe they're NASCAR fans or something? Anyway, I brought this up since in this case, they aren't on my ass to get me to move over.
 
Aikouka said:
I wonder what would happen if a cop pulled you over because your driving was a bit erratic and they discovered that you were too tired to be driving. Would they arrest you? Would they take you home?
Click to expand...

Careless driving, probs. Or unsafe maneuvers or whatever.

Aikouka said:
I've noticed some weird behavior here in regard to tailgaters. A car will come up behind me when I'm not in the left-most lane, and just stick on my ass for a while. The thing is... at least one lane next to me is clear, so they could pass me. Sometimes, they'll pass me after a few minutes, but other times, they'll just sit there right on my ass until one of us has to move.

Essentially, I think these wackadoodles just accelerate up to the person in front of them and just sit there. Maybe they're NASCAR fans or something? Anyway, I brought this up since in this case, they aren't on my ass to get me to move over.
Click to expand...

I see this all the time. I guess some people are just bad drivers.
 
SSSnail said:
If you somehow equating that braking during normal driving is the same as brake-checking, then sorry, not wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are wasting your time because you're arguing a monumentally idiotic point from a position of pure ignorance. First and foremost, you cannot possibly determine that was in fact a brake check and not braking during normal driving. Second, and here is the kicker, in that case equating the two is perfectly valid because the result was the same. If, and I repeat IF, that was in fact a brake check, the tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle. And if it was "braking during normal driving" the tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle. The common factor is that the tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle. Period.

The tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle.
The tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle.
The tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle.
The tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle.
The tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle.
The tailgater went spinning off the road because he was not in control of his own vehicle.

If the tailgater had been in control of his own vehicle the driver in front could not have forced him off the road by braking. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top