Victim of road rage - advice needed

L1011

briankeating wrote: »

Nonsense, if a car in front of me brakes a lot it is my responsibility to back off to safe distance. If the car behind me is tail gating me, its my responsibility to leave an even bigger gap to the car in front of me so I don't have to brake hard. Its called defensive driving.

If everyone drove like this no one would ever get rear ended.

Its absolutely not nonsense. Someone who's tailgating you is clearly a poor driver to begin with - if you're tapping the brakes needlessly they will, over a period of time, grow to ignore them. So when you actually have to brake, they ram you.

As goes being dangerous driving - you can be charged with driving with lack of due consideration, for one thing. People can and *do* get charged with it. Stop trying to pretend its not dangerous and illegal.

Calina

briankeating wrote: »

No, I'm not wrong.

If I brake hard to avoid running over a child and get hit from behind is this my fault? No its not. It amounts to exactly the same thing, the person following should always allow enough room for the car in front to make an emergency stop.

I disagree slightly. No one is arguing against the idea that the driver behind was fully in the wrong. The issue here is whether the OP was justified in braketesting to disrupt the driver behind. They are now conceding that "maybe" they might have been wrong. There is no maybe about it. The driver behind, they said, was 7 feet behind, and they were driving at 80kph or so AFAIR. Under the circumstances, braking could have caused an accident. Accident in the event of avoiding a child, fine, accident in the event of wanting to teach another driver a lesson bad. It was not a wise thing to do and it led directly to the aggressive behaviour that the other driver apparently displayed following the incident.

OP does not have the moral high ground any more once they did that.

Blue850

fletch wrote: »

if that doesn't work, go into too high a gear and floor it (which billows out smoke from my diesel ),

^+1 or dropping it from 5th to 3rd at 55mph, amazing how quick a tailgater backs off when their cabin fills with sooty black smoke:D

Brian?

MYOB wrote: »

Its absolutely not nonsense. Someone who's tailgating you is clearly a poor driver to begin with - if you're tapping the brakes needlessly they will, over a period of time, grow to ignore them. So when you actually have to brake, they ram you.

And who's fault is the accident, its the tailgaters. Absolutly and without any doubt.

[/QUOTE]As goes being dangerous driving - you can be charged with driving with lack of due consideration, for one thing. People can and *do* get charged with it. Stop trying to pretend its not dangerous and illegal.[/QUOTE]

I never said it was good driving, I said all along its bad driving. I also said I though the OP was wrong for tapping the breaks and that I'd never do it.

My point is, again, it is not dangerous unless the person behind is tailgating. If the person behind maintains a safe and correct distance no amount of braking would cause an accident.

Find me one case a person being charged with dangerous driving because they braked too much and I'll believe you. Not anicdotal, proof and I'll believe you.

L1011

No, its dangerous at all times. You are putting out a warning signal when you are not actually doing what you're warning for. Wheter you are being tailgated or not, brake-testing someone is always dangerous. This is like claiming drink driving isn't dangerous if theres no other cars nearby.

Do you understand what I'm talking about here? Brake testing is "tapping" the brakes, not actually causing any real deceleration, to attempt to 'scare' the driver behind in to pulling back. It is not actual braking which is what you appear to be convinced it is.

I'll get you proof when I have some time to dig it up, may be UK rather than Ireland but its dangerous driving in all 4 legal systems.

Zube

briankeating wrote: »

My point is, again, it is not dangerous unless the person behind is tailgating.

But the OP was doing it because the guy behind was tailgating, so it certainly was dangerous driving.

Fozzie Bear

God almighty some of the replies here to the OP are smug, patronising, self righteous muck.

Despite the OP stating he tapped/gently pressed his brake pedal, (something he and a hell of a lot of other drivers are trained to do by instructors), was driving on a single lane road at the speed limit and doing nothing to antagonize the prat behind him we have people here accusing him of braking too hard, blocking an overtaking lane and generally being a danger to other road users all of which he is/was not.

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of those replies come from people atop their moral high horse who have never had a moron behind them driving too close or with their high beams on. It is extremely distracting/off putting and a bigger bloody danger then simply tapping a brake pedal to illuminate your brake lights.

OP you were dead right to attempt to get the moron to back off. If you came to a situation where you did have to brake suddenly where was said moron going to end up? With his front bumper pressing against the back of your drivers seat. Anyone in the back of your car faced serious injury or death as well as yourself and any front seat passenger and all because of some impatient prat who was either in a rush and trying to bully you out of his way or just not paying attention to his driving. When someone like the OP brought this to his attention his reaction was a childish puerile throw the rattle out of the pram one. I hope to God he gets nailed to the wall by the Guards/courts and my hat is off to you for reporting him. Better this then him being left alone to continue this kind of bully boy type driving.

And people on here then have a go at you! God almighty.

L1011

ROTR on when being tailgated or otherwise a 'victim of road rage':

"If another driver is attempting to provoke you, don’t react. Don’t be tempted to
speed up, brake or swerve suddenly. This could cause a crash or make other
drivers think you are confronting them."

hot2def

peasant wrote: »

Also ...consider this ...if you brake hard to avoid running over a small animal and this causes the car behind you to crash into you ...it will be your fault. You should have just run over the bunny-wabbit and not endangered the people in the other car behind you.

hang on, I had this happen to me a few years ago in Palmerstown village. I was driving along the main street, well below the speed limit, when a German Shepard jumped out from between two parked cars. I slammed on the brakes, doggie survived. there was a healthy count of 1 2 3 before a car hit me from behind. The jerk hops out and starts freaking out about his headlight being smashed, and how I should have run over the dog.

But, i didn't even know it was a dog when I hit the brakes, it was a huge dog, could have been a small child. plus, what ridiculous speed or complete lack of observation must your man have had to not see me at all with that 1 2 3?

Zube

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Despite the OP stating he tapped/gently pressed his brake pedal, (something he and a hell of a lot of other drivers are trained to do by instructors),

My driving instructor recommended holding the wheel with one hand, AK47 out the window with the other, and try and take out his tyres.

Calina

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Despite the OP stating he tapped/gently pressed his brake pedal, (something he and a hell of a lot of other drivers are trained to do by instructors), was driving on a single lane road at the speed limit and doing nothing to antagonize the prat behind him we have people here accusing him of braking too hard, blocking an overtaking lane and generally being a danger to other road users all of which he is/was not.

NO driving instructor has ever told me to apply the brakes when I am being tailgated. None.

The act of applying the brakes did antagonise the driver behind and led directly to the aggressive behaviour with the lights that the OP is now complaining about.

Keedowah

Fozzie Bear - 100% agree with you.

I am sick of people driving up my arse while driving. I am also sick of people who don't know how to use their lights and insist on having high beams or foglights on.

Can all of the suv drivers out there adjust the throw of your beam - its not like your all towing huge loads all of the time!

My thanks.

peasant

Zube wrote: »

My driving instructor recommended holding the wheel with one hand, AK47 out the window with the other, and try and take out his tyres.

Warning ...try to contribute sensibly or not at all

cpoh1

While from an insurance viewpoint you would certainly be in the right if someone was tailgating you and after brake testing them they rear ended you, from a courts point of view you could end up in big trouble and get charged with dangerous driving.

Brake testing is dangerous and petty, those that do it are no better than the tailgater behind them.

Zube

peasant wrote: »

Warning ...try to contribute sensibly or not at all

OK, making the same point without any trace of humour:

No driving instructor anywhere ever instructed anyone to jab at their brakes to scare tailgaters into backing off.

HashSlinging

Break testing in an incident like this is my pet hate and anyone who admits doing it should be warned that it is just as bad as tailgating. There are two "victims" here, the OP and the person allegedly tailgating who cant stand up for themselves.

There are many ways to avoid road rage discussed here OP please take on board that you made the situation worse by flashing the driver behind. By flashing your break lights your only highlighting your incapacity to deal with the stresses of every day driving..

BrianD3

HashSlinging wrote: »

Break testing in an incident like this is my pet hate and anyone who admits doing it should be warned that it is just as bad as tailgating.

Why is it your pet hate? If you are leaving enough gap to the car in front
a) it is highly unlikely that you'll ever get "brake tested"
b) even if you do all that'll happen is you need to slow down

Funny how in well over 300k miles of driving on Irish roads I have NEVER ONCE had anyone "brake test" me. And it's not as if I drive slowly and don't come up behind slow moving traffic. I spend much of my day overtaking dawdlers doing well below the speed limit on national routes.

Now a few general comments on the thread. First of all it's pointless talking about how the courts will do this or that if you "brake test" someone. If you brake and somebody rear ends you it will be nearly impossible for anyone to prove intent or that you did anything wrong. The only scenario where I could see this happening is if there was actual evidence of intention to commit insurance fraud by causing a deliberate crash.

People brake for many reasons - some may annoy other driver but they are not illegal and are not any business of the tailgater behind.
-nervousness, poor judgement of speed etc.
-because they are poor at controlling their speed using only thottle input
-because of a hazard ahead which could be anything from a badger to a pothole to a puddle in the road.

I would love to see some proof (eg a reference to a specific case) of a driver in this country being convicted for dangerous driving (or driving without due care) after braking and being rear ended

Oh and it is also a valid defensive driving technique to slow down and increase the gap to the car in front when you're being tailhgated as it mean that if you need to stop you can do so more gradually and there is less chance of the tailgater running into you.

In general this is a crap thread. I'm not surpsied though seeing as in a previous thread I was accused of "brake testing" the car behind for having the temerity to stop at a red traffic signal. Wow.

meanmachine3

QUOTE=Fozzie Bear;56744013]God almighty some of the replies here to the OP are smug, patronising, self righteous muck.
Despite the OP stating he tapped/gently pressed his brake pedal, (something he and a hell of a lot of other drivers are trained to do by instructors), was driving on a single lane road at the speed limit and doing nothing to antagonize the prat behind him we have people here accusing him of braking too hard, blocking an overtaking lane and generally being a danger to other road users all of which he is/was not.
I'm willing to bet the vast majority of those replies come from people atop their moral high horse who have never had a moron behind them driving too close or with their high beams on. It is extremely distracting/off putting and a bigger bloody danger then simply tapping a brake pedal to illuminate your brake lights.
OP you were dead right to attempt to get the moron to back off. If you came to a situation where you did have to brake suddenly where was said moron going to end up? With his front bumper pressing against the back of your drivers seat. Anyone in the back of your car faced serious injury or death as well as yourself and any front seat passenger and all because of some impatient prat who was either in a rush and trying to bully you out of his way or just not paying attention to his driving. When someone like the OP brought this to his attention his reaction was a childish puerile throw the rattle out of the pram one. I hope to God he gets nailed to the wall by the Guards/courts and my hat is off to you for reporting him. Better this then him being left alone to continue this kind of bully boy type driving.
And people on here then have a go at you! God almighty.[/QUOTE]

i totally agree with fozzie on this one. i asked the O.P. if they did anything to antagonize the driver behind them like,e.g. pull out in front of them, cut them up etc. or was it that you were just sticking to the speed limit.i included the speed limit for the following reason
you'd be surprised at how many people get really pissed of just because the car in front is sticking to the speed limit and then try to bumper ride you to speed up and break the speed limit.
alot of posters in here also seem to be condoning tailgating.
if it's ok O.P. i'll like to ask if anyone that posts here tailgates and if they do why? or maybe it should be for a new thread

Steve

peasant wrote: »

Also ...consider this ...if you brake hard to avoid running over a small animal and this causes the car behind you to crash into you ...it will be your fault. You should have just run over the bunny-wabbit and not endangered the people in the other car behind you.

Peasant, you're an intelligent guy and from your posts here have plenty of driving experience, however, that statement is possibly the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. How can the incompetence and stupidity of the tailgater possibly be construed as being the fault of the driver in front?

My approach to tailgaters is not to get annoyed - I let the car coast to a reasonably slow speed and they will eventually overtake and become somebody else's problem. If they do succeed in getting my back up (and that would take an awful lot), I also have other tactics to humiliate them on the road but I'm not going into them here.

As far as people saying that the OP could be convicted of dangerous driving for this - it would be impossible to provide proof that out of the many hundreds of reasons a driver may have for applying his brakes, none of them were relevant and the intent was purely malicious.

I'd also like to add that in wet conditions, I frequently 'test' my brakes by lightly applying them to keep them dry - regardless of who is behind me or how close they are.

balon

peasant wrote: »

Also ...consider this ...if you brake hard to avoid running over a small animal child and this causes the car behind you to crash into you ...it will be your fault. You should have just run over the bunny-wabbit and not endangered the people in the other car behind you.

In the above scenario, would the same rules apply?
Is the original statement based on fact or conjecture?

BrianD3

SteveC wrote: »

Peasant, you're an intelligent guy and from your posts here have plenty of driving experience, however, that statement is possibly the most ridiculous thing you have ever said.

Although I could be wrong I think there is specific rule in Germany "obliging" a driver to run over a small animal rather than braking to avoid it.

If this is the case, IMO it shows that even the Germans get it badly wrong sometimes.

L1011

meanmachine3 wrote: »

alot of posters in here also seem to be condoning tailgating.

Show me one.

Theres lots of posters condemning brake-testing. Theres not one condoning tailgating. These are not the same thing.

Alanstrainor

balon wrote: »

In the above scenario, would the same rules apply?
Is the original statement based on fact or conjecture?

Of course not. If a child were to step out infront of you, you would do everythnig in your power to stop/avoid. And yes, you are not supposed to jam on the breaks in the event of a small animal running across the road. By all means, slow down gradually if you can, but swerving wildly to avoid said bunny wabbit is madness.

peasant

SteveC wrote: »

Peasant, you're an intelligent guy and from your posts here have plenty of driving experience, however, that statement is possibly the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. How can the incompetence and stupidity of the tailgater possibly be construed as being the fault of the driver in front?

This statement is very particular in that it applies to small animals only.
For two reasons ...small animals are obviously deemed to be less worthy of being free of injury than fellow humans and they're very hard to spot from the car behind you.

If in normal traffic a hare/fox/ whatever runs out in front of your car and you slam on the brakes, thus causing the car behind you to crash into you, any insurance company worth its salt (not just German ones) will apportion at least part of the blame to you.

If you drive along and do an emergency break for no reason at all, you're likely to get 90% of the blame.

The whole scenario changes of course when you're throwing anchor to avoid human injury.

I know the saying usually goes that whoever crashes from behind is fully at fault ..but that is not always the case. They will never get away without blame because they obviously weren't driving with "due care and attention" and all that ...but if you just slam on the brakes for no reason (or a reason like a small animal that isn't visible from the other car) you won't get away without at least part of the blame.

The idea behind this all is to avoid a crash and the human injury that may come with it as much as is possible.

Steve

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Of course not. If a child were to step out infront of you, you would do everythnig in your power to stop/avoid. And yes, you are not supposed to jam on the breaks in the event of a small animal running across the road. By all means, slow down gradually if you can, but swerving wildly to avoid said bunny wabbit is madness.

"Swerving wildly" to avoid an obstacle is not the same as braking in a straight line.
Show me some rule or regulation in irish law or in the rules of the road that says you shouldn't brake in this situation.

Even a small animal can cause serious damage to a car when hit at high speed, why should a driver not wish to minimise this damage?

peasant

SteveC wrote: »

Even a small animal can cause serious damage to a car when hit at high speed, why should a driver not wish to minimise this damage?

Because the driver also has a responsibility towards other people in traffic.

Whats a cracked radiator (broken by rabbit) in comparison to a human life?


But forget about the whole animal issue for the moment:

Picture an Irish motorway during commuting traffic. Tightly packed traffic moving at high speed.
If one of the drivers now decides that now would be a good time and place to test emergency breaking for no reason, what would happen?

Yepp ...a more or less monumental crash, possibly with severely injured people. That driver would be deemed to have acted irresponsibly and to be at fault.


With me so far?

Now ...let him brake for a crow on the road ...or a rabbit ...or a fox ...it would still be irresponsible to do so as it would cause a crash.

balon

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Of course not. If a child were to step out infront of you, you would do everythnig in your power to stop/avoid. And yes, you are not supposed to jam on the breaks in the event of a small animal running across the road. By all means, slow down gradually if you can, but swerving wildly to avoid said bunny wabbit is madness.

Of course you would avoid the child, but it would be a natural reaction to do the same if an animal appeared from nowhere. I find it hard to accept someone would be at fault for someone else rear-ending them as a result of their trying to avoid something suddenly entering their path. The car behind should always be far enough behind to allow for the unexpected.

Cionád

balon wrote: »

Of course you would avoid the child, but it would be a natural reaction to do the same if an animal appeared from nowhere. I find it hard to accept someone would be at fault for someone else rear-ending them as a result of their trying to avoid something suddenly entering their path. The car behind should always be far enough behind to allow for the unexpected.

I agree, its instinct to react, and some people might react by braking. It's like when a bird or a bit of debris comes out of nowhere and hits your windscreen at head height, it's instinct to jolt your head or duck briefly.

The car behind should be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear.

Calina

But all that is missing the point. In this particular event, the driver in question who was applying the brakes has not claimed to be doing anything other than trying to alter the behaviour of a driver behind who was already too close.

peasant

Calina wrote: »

But all that is missing the point.

This is the motors forum ...missing the point is what we do best