Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't miss a thing and telling the driver that he is doing something wrong by putting on his brakes is just wrong. One should follow far enough back to be able to stop when the driver in front of you puts on his brakes. A dog could suddenly run out in front of him. Would it be his fault if he put on his brakes not to hit it. That would just be instinct.
Meanwhile here on Planet Reality, brake-checking, especially done to try to instigate a collision, is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. You don't address a dangerous situation by compounding the danger. If you do, then you share the intent to cause any ill effects that follow and the liability that stems therefrom. In fact from a legal standpoint brake-checking is worse than tailgaiting. The latter is negligent while the former involves malice.
I didn't miss a thing and telling the driver that he is doing something wrong by putting on his brakes is just wrong. One should follow far enough back to be able to stop when the driver in front of you puts on his brakes. A dog could suddenly run out in front of him. Would it be his fault if he put on his brakes not to hit it. That would just be instinct.
To the driver that says the driver in front that put on his brakes is the one starting an accident, you are wrong. The person who would have caused the accident is the one that was following too close. Let's get things in the right order here. You cannot help how close someone comes up behind you, but the person in the car behind you has a choice not to follow too close. You should be ready to stop any time it is necessary not to hit the car in front of you. As one poster said, when you are driving your focus should be in front of you and not behind you. So the person causing the accident is the one following too close.
Meanwhile here on Planet Reality, brake-checking, especially done to try to instigate a collision, is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. You don't address a dangerous situation by compounding the danger. If you do, then share the intent to cause any ill effects that follow and the liability that stems therefrom.
Good luck proving that an animal wasn't running out in the road. Maybe I should put on my "Keep Honking, I'm Reloading" bumpersticker.
Good luck proving that an animal wasn't running out in the road. Maybe I should put on my "Keep Honking, I'm Reloading" bumpersticker.
Actually that burden would fall on your shoulders. And good luck proving it.
Bottom line: don't be a dick. If someone is tailgating you, you have better options at your disposal. Use them before you get someone killed, possibly yourself.
In this state, if you are following too close and you hit the driver in front of you, it is your fault, whether he was brake checking or not. Not to hit the driver in front of you is your responsibility. That's the way it should be.
To have someone hitting you from behind be your fault is the dumbest thing I have heard lately, and you say Southerners are dumb. How can the car in front help it if the driver behind slams into them. That is just stupid. I don't think I ever want to visit your state again. We went through the bottom end of it last year and it was a nightmare. There were times I wondered if we would reach Missouri alive.
It is not that I don't get it. I don't agree with something that stupid. You are the ones that don't get it. Why would you take up for someone following too close. They ought to have the book thrown at them. The person tailgating is the person who is doing wrong.
Actually that burden would fall on your shoulders. And good luck proving it.
Bottom line: don't be a dick. If someone is tailgating you, you have better options at your disposal. Use them before you get someone killed, possibly yourself.
"Gee officer, that dog ran out and SOMEHOW I got hit from behind. OHH MY NECK!!!"
I do carry a backup plan inside the cab. How'd you know I had better options?
th OP would deliberately cause a dangerous and some times fatal high speed accident and then sue the guy just to prove a point. that is pretty god damned reckless IMO
th OP would deliberately cause a dangerous and some times fatal high speed accident and then sue the guy just to prove a point. that is pretty god damned reckless IMO
But the person tailgating is not reckless and it shouldn't matter that they should have been following at a safe distance.
wow so you would deliberately cause a accident then possibly grab a gun and shoot the guy to teach him a lesson.
No no...that's for someone who is dumb enough to try and steal my vehicle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How'd you know I had better options?
wow so you would deliberately cause a accident then possibly grab a gun and shoot the guy to teach him a lesson.