Idiots who tailgate

[DRZ]

In that situation the police would only give you a warning because the video camera in their car that would be used to convict you would also show them driving dangerously close behind you so they wouldn't be stupid enough to try and take it to court.

Im not advocating the endangerment of innocent people here im advocating trying to scare some sense into people already committing dangerous driving (following too closely)

Bull.

There is nothing in the highway code that says you must leave a gap of x. There is rule 126 which states that you should leave a gap but, crucially, not MUST leave a gap. That would mean that the only test left to prosecute the Police driver would be "the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competant and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous". Under the circumstances and depending on the distances and speeds involved, a Police driver is probably unlikely to fail this test based on my experiences of where people have judged others to be tailgating but were in fact a reasonable distance back. Perhaps not the "two second" rule but as per my posts earlier in the thread, that is not demonstrative of an absolute distance.

Furthermore, save for a few special circumstances, committing one crime is not a bar to prosecuting someone else for another. If I assaulted you and then you went on to murder me, your murder charges would not be dropped because of the assault.

Brake-testing people IS dangerous driving and anyone that does it should wherever possible be prosecuted for it.

 

[Fr0dders]

In that situation the police would only give you a warning because the video camera in their car that would be used to convict you would also show them driving dangerously close behind you so they wouldn't be stupid enough to try and take it to court.

Im not advocating the endangerment of innocent people here im advocating trying to scare some sense into people already committing dangerous driving (following too closely)

who said anything about the police tailgaiting.

I said go try and brake test the police (ie by pulling in front of them and slamming on your brakes) and see how you get on if theres nothing they can do about it because its " adjusting your speed"

 

[bloodiedathame]

If you're massively concerned, pull over and let them pass. It's in the highway code.

 

[woodpigeon4]

I had someone in a corsa do this to me on an icy road and when I stopped at the lights, he couldn't and went straight into my towbar. Wrote his car off, net damage to mine £0.00

 

[ubersonic]

who said anything about the police tailgaiting.

Er well technically you did, I was talking about break testing people driving too close and you said to try it on the police, I pointed out that police cars have cameras so if you tried it on them (requires them to be tailgating) their evidence would also incriminate them for dangerous driving.


At the end of the day we have something in this country called the highway code which gives you a good idea of correct following distances for following another car and before somebody comes along and says "oh that's 50 year old info for triumph heralds following triumph heralds" it makes no difference, your safe following distance need to be far enough for you to see them apply full breaks, react and apply them yourself and slow quickly enough to not hit them. The obvious factor in this is that the distance varies depending on the vehicles involved, a focus following a focus will have an X distance, a 911 following a focus will have a <X distance, a focus following a 911 will have a X> distance.

Unless your in super car following a Capri then tailgating is dangerous and your risking an accident. If somebody behind me is following too close and risking an accident then I will do everything in my power bar causing an accident to attempt to warn them off (usually try the rear fogs before braking).

 

[agw_01]

I tend to leave quite a few car lengths from the car in front anyway so slowing down to increase the gap in front isn't a problem.

If I do think someone is particularly close though, I do this...

slow down... drop gears to slow down not brakes, so they get scared... that normally makes em drop back

The turning into my street is a very tight blind junction on a busy main road. Usually, I'll move over as far left as I can so that while I'm completing my low speed turn, it gives other road users the chance to pass on my right.

If I've had some **** up my rear end, I take great pride in taking up as much of my side of the road as I can and going as slowly as I can to complete my maneouver.

More often than not they'll glare at the car as they go past so I give them a cheerful wave just to **** them off that little bit more.

I absolutely hate moronic tail-gaiters. Why the **** should I take such pride in my car when all it takes is one of these ***** to rear end me and write it off. It's all well and good them crashing into me as no doubt their car will be easily replaceable. Mine isn't.

 

[ubersonic]

If I assaulted you and then you went on to murder me, your murder charges would not be dropped because of the assault.

Sorry but they would, that's a classic self defence fatality which contrary to what the tabloids moan about is perfectly excusable under UK law.

I don't get why your so eager to defend the bad guys here, saying its dangerous/bad/etc to try and scare off tailgaters is like saying its bad to own a dog to scare of burglars...

 

[Fr0dders]

Sorry but they would, that's a classic self defence fatality which contrary to what the tabloids moan about is perfectly excusable under UK law.

I don't get why your so eager to defend the bad guys here, saying its dangerous/bad/etc to try and scare off tailgaters is like saying its bad to own a dog to scare of burglars...

WTF have you been smoking ?

 

[ubersonic]

WTF have you been smoking ?

If your taking exemption to one of my points can you specify it so I can back it up instead of just hurling a random insult at me?

 

[DRZ]

Sorry but they would, that's a classic self defence fatality which contrary to what the tabloids moan about is perfectly excusable under UK law.

I don't get why your so eager to defend the bad guys here, saying its dangerous/bad/etc to try and scare off tailgaters is like saying its bad to own a dog to scare of burglars...

No, I didn't say a "classic self defence fatality" I said murder. I can quote myself and bold the word murder for you if you like.

Two offences, assault and murder. One is no bar to the other. If you're going to change what I say to suit your point better then I might as well stop posting and let you just suck yourself off for the rest of the thread. You could change the assault to theft of an item belonging to you if you misunderstand what assault means and if you think it will make the thread a bit easier for you.

You're very misguided if you think you are right though.

EDIT:

In defence of my position which you have called into question:

I do not tailgate. I do not advocate tailgating but over and above that I do not advocate wanton recklessness as a reaction to someone committing what is essentially a pretty vague "offence" - an offence that isn't even an offence unless it is caught by the Dangerous Driving test as I quoted in an earlier post, which would have to be really quite close indeed and at that point would obviously be as indefensible as 'brake testing' someone.

Let's be clear so that there can be no misunderstanding. Applying full-force braking under ANY circumstances is a risky business no matter what the situation behind you and should be avoided wherever possible. Doing this solely because there is someone closer to the rear of your car than you would like is reckless and dangerous. Any attempt to argue to the contrary is baseless. Anyone that attempts to prevent an overtake once that overtake has commenced is fully deserving of a Dangerous Driving conviction.

BOTH of those actions are worse than the vast majority of tailgating.

 

[ubersonic]

No, I didn't say a "classic self defence fatality" I said murder. I can quote myself and bold the word murder for you if you like.

Two offences, assault and murder. One is no bar to the other. If you're going to change what I say to suit your point better then I might as well stop posting and let you just suck yourself off for the rest of the thread. You could change the assault to theft of an item belonging to you if you misunderstand what assault means and if you think it will make the thread a bit easier for you.

You're very misguided if you think you are right though.

I replied to what you posted, im sorry if it wasn't what you meant but you said "If I assaulted you and then you went on to murder me" in that situation my actions would fall under self defence, you dying would be tragic but it would be excusable under UK law.

My point about the burglars/dogs was that people were discussing a road menace (tailgater's) and how to deal with them, you then complained at people suggesting dangerous driving to deal with the dangerous drivers (id call that self defence too). My analogy was to compare that with people complaining about people buying attack dogs to defend their homes from burglars, hope that clears my points up.



*In response to your edit:

Let's be clear so that there can be no misunderstanding. Applying full-force braking under ANY circumstances is a risky business no matter what the situation behind you and should be avoided wherever possible.

Fully agreed.

Doing this solely because there is someone closer to the rear of your car than you would like is reckless and dangerous. Any attempt to argue to the contrary is baseless.

Somewhat agreed, while it is dangerous, the tailgater is putting your life in danger by following too close, breaking then pulling off again may put their life in danger but if it stops them from putting yours in danger I support that, as they say "do unto others", if somebody endangers my life I lose all regard for theirs.

Anyone that attempts to prevent an overtake once that overtake has commenced is fully deserving of a Dangerous Driving conviction.

Agreed but the guy you had a go at for saying he did that never actually said it, he said he tried not to let them get an opportunity to overtake, i.e long clear stretch in front of him, which they wouldn't have if he was doing the speed limit. Which is what most people have been complaining about, doing the speed limit, safe distance behind car in front and some ass comes up behind you and sits a few feet of your bumper like he expects you to drive through the car in front to get out of his way.

 

["andy"]

Pulling faces at them in my rear view mirror while is always a winner , funny how angry people get

 

[DRZ]

I replied to what you posted, im sorry if it wasn't what you meant but you said "If I assaulted you and then you went on to murder me" in that situation my actions would fall under self defence, you dying would be tragic but it would be excusable under UK law.

My point about the burglars/dogs was that people were discussing a road menace (tailgater's) and how to deal with them, you then complained at people suggesting dangerous driving to deal with the dangerous drivers (id call that self defence too). My analogy was to compare that with people complaining about people buying attack dogs to defend their homes from burglars, hope that clears my points up.

I posted murder clear as day, which I felt was sufficiently clear but never mind. Let us not get bogged down in such trivialities and move on to the point in hand.

Your burglar analogy applied to here is like going out and battering someone with a baseball bat (or setting your dog on them, perhaps) for looking through your window. Sure, he shouldn't be casing your house but your response is disproportionate.

To put my point into this context, purchasing a burglar alarm is certainly reasonable in such cases (translated to "backing out of the throttle for a moment").

EDIT:

Agreed but the guy you had a go at for saying he did that never actually said it, he said he tried not to let them get an opportunity to overtake, i.e long clear stretch in front of him, which they wouldn't have if he was doing the speed limit. Which is what most people have been complaining about, doing the speed limit, safe distance behind car in front and some ass comes up behind you and sits a few feet of your bumper like he expects you to drive through the car in front to get out of his way.

If someone pulls out for an overtake, how exactly do you go about preventing him from overtaking in a way that isn't at all dangerous? You can't. You can speed up which means he must spend more time on the other side of the road to pass or brake and try and get back in behind you. You could also swerve out, stopping him from getting past but risking putting both of you into the side of the road if you collide. No matter how you look at this, there is no way that once the person behind has made it clear that he is going to overtake that you can stop that from happening without it being dangerous. I'm open to be educated though so if you can come up with a situation that contradicts that I am all ears.

 

[Dr House]

I get very irritated when there is someone in the middle lane doing 70 mph so have done this to get them to move over.

I know its wrong so I try not to do it but I get especially irritated if its on a dual carriageway and they car is sitting in the fast late when the slow land is empty.

 

[andy_mk3]

I get very irritated when there is someone in the middle lane doing 70 mph so have done this to get them to move over.

I know its wrong so I try not to do it but I get especially irritated if its on a dual carriageway and they car is sitting in the fast late when the slow land is empty.

Me too. That's the only time I really get close to another car, just a way of saying get out of the damn middle lane!

A few weeks ago I had someone tailgating me, I was doing just over 40 and it was a 40 limit, it was late at night, no other traffic around, some guy in a honda was very very close to me, I tried slowing down and speeding up but he stayed glued to my tail, so I dropped a gear, slammed on the anchors then carried on. There was a screech from behind, I think he came to a complete stop, but he kept his distance after that!

 

[DRZ]

I get very irritated when there is someone in the middle lane doing 70 mph so have done this to get them to move over.

I know its wrong so I try not to do it but I get especially irritated if its on a dual carriageway and they car is sitting in the fast late when the slow land is empty.

Let me get this straight here...

Middle-lane drivers are sometimes annoying if they are causing a bit of a tailback behind them as people move to get past. I sometimes move over and leave my indicator on for a while before moving over to the left. Rational, proportionate response and one with very little danger.

Risking your own life and that of the person in the middle lane and probably a fair few other road users besides just because you are irritated by it?!

You're a medical professional, I would suggest that you have a quiet word with a colleague about getting a referral for some psychiatric help because that sort of reaction just isn't normal or healthy.

 

[Dabbles]

no the whole point of baby on board signs is a status symbol to brag to other motorists that they are parents.

Its never been about that.





go brake test your nearest police car then and see how you get on. I look forwarding to hearing of how there was nothing they could do because you were "adjusting your speed".

Deliberately braking harshly for no reason to try and brake test somebody and cause and accident WILL get you convicted of dangerous driving and a lengthy ban.

I think that this is a myth.




EDIT... http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/babysign.asp

Yeah it is

So why doesn't the sign simply say 'MY ***** WORKS!!!'?

 

[ubersonic]

If someone pulls out for an overtake, how exactly do you go about preventing him from overtaking in a way that isn't at all dangerous? You can't. You can speed up which means he must spend more time on the other side of the road to pass or brake and try and get back in behind you. You could also swerve out, stopping him from getting past but risking putting both of you into the side of the road if you collide. No matter how you look at this, there is no way that once the person behind has made it clear that he is going to overtake that you can stop that from happening without it being dangerous. I'm open to be educated though so if you can come up with a situation that contradicts that I am all ears.

Nobody ever said anything about stopping people from overtaking you, the guy said about stopping somebody from having the opportunity to overtake you, they can only overtake you if the is space in front of you to overtake into, if your following the car in front at a safe distance the person behind cannot overtake regardless of how frustrated about it they get and how close to your rear bumper they chose to get.

 

[hux]

A long time ago had a blonde lass doing this, right up my bumper anyway this irritates the hell out of me.

I knew this particular stretch it has a nice sharp turn, and there is me with a nice 309mi16 with an lsd. I proceed to take the corner at the speed limit, which is too fast for any regular car, i look behind and see said ka locking up with her wheels pointing left.

Never ever tailgate me.

 

[DRZ]

Nobody ever said anything about stopping people from overtaking you, the guy said about stopping somebody from having the opportunity to overtake you, they can only overtake you if the is space in front of you to overtake into, if your following the car in front at a safe distance the person behind cannot overtake regardless of how frustrated about it they get and how close to your rear bumper they chose to get.

I'll actually concede that point if that is what he meant but I think we both know that it wasn't, especially given the tone of the rest of the post.

However, unless he himself is tailgating the car in front with a gap of less than one car length, the guy behind that clearly doesn't care about such things as gaps to the car in front () is simply going to occupy that space anyway?