Victim of road rage - advice needed

Steve

peasant wrote: »

This statement is very particular in that it applies to small animals only.

I responded because your statement seemed very much to be saying that the fault was 100% with the driver of the car in front.

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.

The discussion is on the legality, not the opinions on insurance companies though.
(I don't get the german reference, did I miss something?)

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

I disagree, the fact that the driver behind was too close to stop within the space he chose to allow would carry more weight IMO. The tailgater is not privvy to the lead cars view of the road ahead and must therefore anticipate that the car in front is likely to brake unexpectedly at any time.

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.

I am not in any way disputing the fact that preservation of life is paramount, I am just questioning how you are apportioning blame to the driver in front.

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

Nothing, I agree.

Picture an Irish motorway during commuting traffic..........

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.

Picture a scenario where I'm driving along and 'something' appears from behind a parked car. My immediate reaction is to first slam on the brakes and identify it at a future point in time. I seriously don't think I would even have time to think about it - the reaction is instinctive. Am I wrong because it turned out to be a large dog instead of a small child?

Steve

Calina wrote: »

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.

Threads here tend to meander a wee bit alright.

I think it is relevant that the tailgater effectively bullied the OP into their actions and as such the people who are hopping on him whilst seemingly excusing the actions of the tailgater are wrong.

Calina

I have not seen anyone excuse the actions of the tailgater. Not one. The point that is being constantly made is that the OP exacerbated the situation by braking in a dangerous situation. OP did not have to react in this way and it's an abdication of their own responsibility to say they were bullied into it.

Steve

Calina wrote: »

I have not seen anyone excuse the actions of the tailgater. Not one. The point that is being constantly made is that the OP exacerbated the situation by braking in a dangerous situation. OP did not have to react in this way and it's an abdication of their own responsibility to say they were bullied into it.

I didn't say anyone specifically excused the tailgater, I said they are seemingly excusing him by saying what the OP did was worse.

I really cannot understand how you interpret "So i broke gently to send him a hint to pull back from me." as being dangerous in any way.

Blazer

I find the best way is to just let them pass.
Once I'm satisfied that it's safe to let them pass I'll let them off
I don't care how much the asshole is wrong I don't want him behind me and preferably way ahead in front of me.
For someone that's being really really agressive well I continue to smile sweetly into the review mirror till they pass.

cashmni1

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?

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.

SteveC, no harm but FFS!!!

Are you for real??

Do you behave like this on a daily basis?

mukki

love the way people are replying for or against the poor OP, always happend in motors no matter what is being discussed about road law


now to mess it up even more :P

what about the poor tailgater with his headlights on and driving 2 feet behind the OP....
tailgator FTW IMHO :rolleyes:


LOL

peasant

Leaving aside how dangerous it is / isn't/ might be to use the brakes when someone is tailgating you ...the other thing you don't want to be doing is provoke them even further.

Aside from a few dozy people who haven't got a clue, most tailgaiters ride up your a*se because they are boiling inside (for whatever real or perceived reason) and they want to "teach you a lesson".

Like with any bully, it simply is the safest thing not to rise to it and not to provoke them any further. Do not try to "teach" them back. Pull in, let them pass, take a deep breath, let it go.

This has nothing to do with being "weak" or letting the other guy "win" ...but everything with staying safe.

Omcd

Havn't had time to read all the posts in this long thread, so may be repeating some things already said.

IMO, if you've a tailgater behind you, showing them your brake lights without actually braking (in most cars the brake lights will go on if you just rest your foot lightly on the pedal without oushing it) to make them think and maybe back off when there is no emergency is not dangerous driving - better to make the tailgater to think what if before you really have to brake for something. However actually braking significantly in this situation would be dangerous and quite possibly lethal (which is probably why you should try to resolve the situation before you have to brake)

Also, you would have to brake anyway wouldn't you in order to pull in to let the vehicle past - this course of action depends on how close the following vehicle is - if its only a matter of inches then pulling in might be as dangerous as brake checking as they would not be expecting it - they may be too close to see your indicator even if you did indicate. Though if there is a distance of a few feet then pulling in where appropriate after clearly indicating is probably best.

Also, I'm thinking of an 08 D 4 axle tipper lorry at Tallaght last week that came up almost touching the back of my car approaching the end of a 60 zone (doing 60, in the correct lane, minding my own business) and then going into a 50 zone, not a chance of being able to slow to 50 :mad::mad:, and this past a set of pedestrain lights.. even if I had sneezed...:eek:

Mr 08 D tipper is not the first trucker to do this, but by far the closest, there are definately some drivers who get a kick out of seeing how close they go without actually touching, and a lot of them are driving lorries. I see a lot of posters referring to feet and yards, but I've had plenty of <SNIPS>'s keeping only inches, cos, ye see, I tend to respect the speed limits, and I pay for that by having to put up with this crap constantly.
And they'll do it even if there's a traffic corps car at the side of the road :rolleyes:

meanmachine3

come on guys, the O.P. brake tested so what, if you driving at a proper safe distance it should have no affect on you what so ever. i can honestly say i never tail gate therefore rarley have to use the break, all i have to do is take my foot of the gas plain and simple. even when lights are red i do the same thing ,so by the time i reach them 9 times out of 10 there back green again.
who's fault would it have been if the O.P. simply did what i normally do and was rear ended. would it be his fault because some muppet ran up his arse just because he slowed down by taking his foot of the gas. ( NOW REMEBER WHEN DOING THIS BREAK LIGHTS DO NOT COME ON).
my wife never drives but anytime we're out she always comments on the tailgaters by watching the break lights come on in front of us all at once.
T.B.H. if i came across anyone that drivers like a madman in an accident e.g. dangerous overtakers, tailgaters that got ahead of me and the michael schumackers, i'd drive straight past and probably give them the two fingers.
there aint no way on this earth i'd give any help. if they drive like that then they deserve what ever comes their way be it a tree or lamp post.

cormac_byrne

Omcd wrote: »

Also, I'm thinking of an 08 D 4 axle tipper lorry at Tallaght last week that came up almost touching the back of my car approaching the end of a 60 zone (doing 60, in the correct lane, minding my own business) and then going into a 50 zone, not a chance of being able to slow to 50 :mad::mad:, and this past a set of pedestrain lights.. even if I had sneezed...:eek:

Sensible Suggestion:-

In this situation you could put on your hazard lights and slowly lift your foot from the accelerator,till you roll to a halt or they have gone around you. (It will appear as if you have broken down rather than being confrontational)

Stupid Dangerous Suggestion:-

Flash them a message

see http://www.hactivist.com/flashpoint/ (click the video link)

replace the 'NO WAR' template with 'BACK OFF' and don't reverse it as you will be rear projecting.

Mount on rear window, needs a control cable long enought to reach your dashboard.

Steve

cashmni1 wrote: »

SteveC, no harm but FFS!!!

Are you for real??

Do you behave like this on a daily basis?

Care to explain what you mean by that?

Of the three things you highlighted:
1. I let them overtake, whats wrong with that?
2. That's for another discussion and not really relevent.
3. Yes I like to keep brakes fully functional in wet conditions - I also brake test in conditions where there may be a risk of ice to acertain the grip level available so I can adjust speed appropriately.

cashmni1

SteveC wrote: »

Care to explain what you mean by that?

Of the three things you highlighted:
1. I let them overtake, whats wrong with that?
2. That's for another discussion and not really relevent.
3. Yes I like to keep brakes fully functional in wet conditions - I also brake test in conditions where there may be a risk of ice to acertain the grip level available so I can adjust speed appropriately.

1. Letting the car "coast" to a slow speed.--> You should never let your car coast anywhere.
2. Fair enough.
3. "testing" your brakes and "irrelivant who is behind me". --->You don't test or jab your brakes in the dry, (maybe you do?), you should know if your brakes are working when you leave the car park or house etc. And you should always be aware who is behind you. If they are too close, do you continue to "test" the brakes?
As for testing your brakes in the ice.......you don't drive in ice much do you? (neither do I in this country by the way).

Steve

cashmni1 wrote: »

1. Letting the car "coast" to a slow speed.--> You should never let your car coast anywhere.

Maybe coasting was a poor choice of word if you took it to mean freewheeling in neutral. I simply lift off the accelerator.

3. "testing" your brakes and "irrelivant who is behind me". --->You don't test or jab your brakes in the dry, (maybe you do?), you should know if your brakes are working when you leave the car park or house etc. And you should always be aware who is behind you. If they are too close, do you continue to "test" the brakes?
As for testing your brakes in the ice.......you don't drive in ice much do you? (neither do I in this country by the way).

Brakes don't suffer from fade due to moisture in the dry. A lot of higher end cars with predictive braking systems also use them for disc drying in wet conditions by briefly applying the brakes every so often - eg the Mercedes sensotronic system. It only needs to be very light to clear moisture and maintain some temperature.
Maybe I was being a bit arrogant in saying 'irrelivant who is behind me', I wouldn't do it if it was unsafe or there was someone too close behind.
As for driving on ice? Driving on ice is easy once you are aware of it - if the OT sensor goes below zero, I will always test for grip on a straight part of the road - it's not nice finding out there's none as you enter a bend. I have had a lot of experience in North America and Canada in marginal icing conditions not to mention the daily commute over the Dublin mountains in the winter (not any more thankfully). I think I can say I have experience of driving on ice.

Calina

SteveC wrote: »

Maybe I was being a bit arrogant in saying 'irrelivant who is behind me', I wouldn't do it if it was unsafe or there was someone too close behind.

Here in is the issue. There was someone very close behind the OP and that is why quite a few posters are less than supportive of the OP's predicament.

Steve

Calina wrote: »

Here in is the issue. There was someone very close behind the OP and that is why quite a few posters are less than supportive of the OP's predicament.

They would be correct if the OP had said that he slammed on the anchors with a muppet a few feet behind - he didn't.

To repeat myself: I really cannot understand how you interpret "So i broke gently to send him a hint to pull back from me." as being dangerous in any way.

Please enlighten me.
What am I missing here?

Calina

Stopping distance at 55mph is some 450feet. I have to say that with the best will in the world with someone 7 feet behind me I would not be applying the brakes at that speed unless I had to. The risk of being run into by the clown behind me on the sight of brakelights is too high.

Tailgater was a muppet of the highest order. That does NOT justify the OP's decision to brake to get him off his back. All it did was exacerbate the situation.

Thoie

Just came across this thread, and am curious about a few things.

One suggestion made for these situations is to pull into the hard shoulder and let them pass. What do you consider to be correct procedure in areas with no hard shoulder, and no room to pass?

What about driving at night time, in a populated area with a hard shoulder, but no lights? I frequently drive in these kind of areas, and there are often pedestrians on the hard shoulder. More and more pedestrians are starting to wear reflective clothing/carry torches in these areas, but certainly not all. If I'm blinded by the driver behind, should I pull into the hard shoulder with no night vision and just hope that oul' Jimmy isn't on his way home from the pub?

If a ball shoots out onto the road I will automatically slam on the brakes on the basis that it's highly likely a child will follow after it. I avoided killing a child in front of his mother just last month by having this reaction (she was very grateful - he just got away from her in a second). Do balls count in the same area as animals, and should I have continued driving?

I switch between a manual and automatic transmission. When driving the manual I can slow down (coming up to corners, for example) by downshifting. The only way to do this in the automatic is to brake (though correct me if there's an alternative method to do this). Does this mean that someone driving behind me when I'm in the automatic has become immune to my braking, and will therefore rearend me if I need to actually stop in a sudden?

peasant

Thoie wrote: »

?
Do balls count in the same area as animals, and should I have continued driving?

Just on that note ....ball equals child running after it. You're doing the right thing.

BlackWizard

Calina wrote: »

Stopping distance at 55mph is some 450feet. I have to say that with the best will in the world with someone 7 feet behind me I would not be applying the brakes at that speed unless I had to. The risk of being run into by the clown behind me on the sight of brakelights is too high.

I think the OP used the word gently meaning he didn't actually come to a full stop. So I'd image he just gently pressed the pedal so that the brake lights come on and the car is slow a little. I've done it plenty of times myself.

Edit: I only seen StevesC post about "coasting" to slow down, although he admitted he used the wrong word. But it's the EXACT same thing I do. I would keep applying the brakes time after time until the guy behind overtakes me, which always happens.

And I'd also presume a clown would see the brake lights and himself use his brakes instead of accelerating.

Plus, without a video of this I bet we are all imagining the situation differently.

Omcd

cormac_byrne wrote: »

Sensible Suggestion:-

In this situation you could put on your hazard lights and slowly lift your foot from the accelerator,till you roll to a halt or they have gone around you. (It will appear as if you have broken down rather than being confrontational)

Hmm, think you might have missed the 'almost touching' bit in my description of that experience - I really did want to take my foot off the acclerator - but that would have almost certainly meant contact (and he was too close to see my hazards anyway, he would only have been able to see the high level brake light) and I value the back of my car more highly than to have it crumpled for this <SNIP>s pleasure. No he got no reaction as he was obviously a psycho looking for trouble, and I had no choice but to keep going at a constant speed until he eventually did pass - I also wanted to go into the left turn lane (which morphs from a buslane) while he was behind, but could not see anything behind in any of the mirrors which were all full of truck radiator grill.

Generally though, I agree with your point, but if you are going to slow down for whatever reason or intention with someone close behind, brake lights must be shown otherwise it is much more dangerous than not showing them, some posters here seem to be asserting contrary to that, which I don't understand.

Thoie wrote: »

What about driving at night time, in a populated area with a hard shoulder, but no lights? I frequently drive in these kind of areas, and there are often pedestrians on the hard shoulder. More and more pedestrians are starting to wear reflective clothing/carry torches in these areas, but certainly not all. If I'm blinded by the driver behind, should I pull into the hard shoulder with no night vision and just hope that oul' Jimmy isn't on his way home from the pub?

+1 IMO This is one of the most sensible things that have been said in the entire thread, and probably the reason why the OP endured the main beams behind rather than move into the hard shoulder.

T-Maxx

What happened isn't road rage, it's called tailgating. It happens. It will most probably happen to the OP again. Move on.

grenache

T-Maxx wrote: »

What happened isn't road rage, it's called tailgating. It happens. It will most probably happen to the OP again. Move on.

Did you read ALL of the OP? He tried to blind me for 2 miles with his headlights on full. The tailgating was bad, but that was much worse. It was roadrage, no other way to describe it.

grenache

grenache wrote: »

I was just about to pull in, let him pass, and take down his number, when i saw a garda checkpoint in the near distance. So when i reached the checkpoint, i voiced my annoyance to the guard about the driver's behaviour. He took down the details, rang me back yesterday, and i am to make a statement on Friday.

Are you still planning to give a statement?

grenache

Calina wrote: »

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.

With all due respect, that is utter b*llox! Nodoby made him throw his full headlights on me, only himself. Its a sign of immaturity and pettyness on his behalf if he cannot take the correct course of action, and revert to a safe distance.

grenache

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you still planning to give a statement?

I'm not sure, in two minds. Perhaps i should do a poll on here

ask one of the mods

T-Maxx

The way I see it is that you got to ask yourself this: "Why would anybody tailgate anyone?"

a) Because the person in front is driving unnecessarily slowly, and oncoming traffic makes it impossible to overtake.
b) Because the person in front is driving too far out to the right, or swerving all over the place, making it difficult for faster vehicles to overtake.
c) Both of the above.
d) The tailgating driver is a crazy SOB getting kicks out of terrorizing other motorists by doing what they're doing.

Simple as.

(And I believe that in the majority of cases, the answer isn't (d));).

Steve

I hope you're joking T-Maxx.

peasant

T-Maxx wrote: »

The way I see it is that you got to ask yourself this: "Why would anybody tailgate anyone?"

a) Because the person in front is driving unnecessarily slowly, and oncoming traffic makes it impossible to overtake.
b) Because the person in front is driving too far out to the right, or swerving all over the place, making it difficult for faster vehicles to overtake.
c) Both of the above.
d) The tailgating driver is a crazy SOB getting kicks out of terrorizing other motorists by doing what they're doing.

Simple as.

(And I believe that in the majority of cases, the answer isn't (d));).

Sounds like a page out of the "excuses for tailgaiting"-handbook