How do you deal with 'Tailgaters' ?

Carpentry

Snotaul Goodman wrote: »

No he didn't

The only time he stopped is when the cyclist appeared

I think we are watching different videos...

Carpentry

mike_ie wrote: »

You seem to have some notion that what you just said disqualifies what I've just proven...

You just gave me some examples based on vehicle you are driving and are not really correct :eek:

the_syco

Snotaul Goodman wrote: »

Tapping the brake pedal without actually applying the brakes usually does the trick.

If they have a dash-cam, and crash into you shortly after you "brakecheck", I wonder could they have a case that you braked for no reason?

Personally, I take the foot off the gas, and see how slow can I go. They were up my ass at 60, still up my ass at 30. F**k im!

Tokyo

Carpentry wrote: »

You just gave me some examples based on vehicle you are driving and are not really correct :eek:

Um... I have some examples based on 'metres' and 'seconds' ... things like time and distance are as fixed of values as you could be dealing with. The vehicle I drive doesn't change that - it gives a sense of scale...

But please, feel free to prove me wrong on that. I await your answer with bated breath....

:rolleyes:

Carpentry

Carpentry wrote: »

I think we are watching different videos...

I'd hope so because if you think that the dashcam car stopped anywhere in the video before the cyclist appeared then I'd question whether you should be allowed on the road yourself.

Carpentry

Snotaul Goodman wrote: »

I'd hope so because if you think that the dashcam car stopped anywhere in the video before the cyclist appeared then I'd question whether you should be allowed on the road yourself.

Thank god you're not the one to judge. And if he was going faster than 5 kph than I am walking barefoot everywhere from tomorrow.

FullblownRose

the_syco wrote: »

If they have a dash-cam, and crash into you shortly after you "brakecheck", I wonder could they have a case that you braked for no reason?

Personally, I take the foot off the gas, and see how slow can I go. They were up my ass at 60, still up my ass at 30. F**k im!

Theoretically they could have to brake if something ran out ahead in the dark with poor visibility. Whether that something turned out to be a plastic bag blowing in the wind is irrelevant. A dashcam is not going to disprove or prove that something appeared to come out in front of the car ahead.
Braking for no reason in itself is not the problem, you dont drive too close thereby eliminating the danger of someone else braking suddenly by acting responsibly and pre emptively yourself. Someone could have a petit mal fit unknown to themself at the wheel, almost anything can happen to cause a change in the driver behaviour ahead.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

If they have a dash-cam, and crash into you shortly after you "brakecheck", I wonder could they have a case that you braked for no reason?

Personally, I take the foot off the gas, and see how slow can I go. They were up my ass at 60, still up my ass at 30. F**k im!

My brakes are never actually applied when I do it. The brake pedal switch in my car is ultra sensitive. You barely have to brush your foot off the pedal and the lights come on.

I'd imagine they'd only have a case if it was insurance fraud or the likes.

TheBrinch

I skimmed the entire thread and didnt see one mention about just speeding up. Simple.

danrua01

Carpentry wrote: »

Thank god you're not the one to judge. And if he was going faster than 5 kph than I am walking barefoot everywhere from tomorrow.

Seems a good idea to take you off the road anyway, but please stop posting replies that'll get nowhere. You're acting like the tailgates equivalent of a board poster now.

Ave Sodalis

Am I the only one slightly concerned about sharing a road with Carpentry?

FullblownRose

jpb1974 wrote: »

Carpentry must be a wind up merchant.

I really, really hope so.

Carpentry

danrua01 wrote: »

Seems a good idea to take you off the road anyway, but please stop posting replies that'll get nowhere. You're acting like the tailgates equivalent of a board poster now.

wow, you have just added up something really valuable...

Carpentry

sup_dude wrote: »

Am I the only one slightly concerned about sharing a road with Carpentry?

sorry to dissapoint you dude, van driver here, if everything said so far haven't put you off the road, and again, never had a trouble on the road:)

FullblownRose wrote: »

I really, really hope so.

So blow me Rose

jimgoose

bluewolf wrote: »

Slow down gradually to reduce any damage / stopping distance in the event of an impact, and drive tight left to let them know they can overtake if they want

The official method. Yus, we approve of this. However, RoSPA also points out that "a brake-test that also tests the seatbelts is not usually necessary."

Ave Sodalis

Carpentry wrote: »

sorry to dissapoint you dude, van driver here, if everything said so far haven't put you off the road, and again, never had a trouble on the road:)

Don't really care if you drive a van or a car, either way I wouldn't feel comfortable on a road with someone who doesn't understand basic distance principles, whether you've never had an accident or not...

jimgoose

Carpentry wrote: »

sorry to dissapoint you dude, van driver here...

Yes, I can tell! :):)

danrua01

Surely van drivers should be taking even more car with their behaviour on the road, and be leaving more room between them and any vehicle in front?

FullblownRose

Well done on single handedly debunking the myth thats its the baudi drivers who are arrogant and lady drivers who have no spatial awareness!

Ave Sodalis

danrua01 wrote: »

Surely van drivers should be taking even more car with their behaviour on the road, and be leaving more room between them and any vehicle in front?

Especially when there's stuff in the van.

Carpentry

sup_dude wrote: »

Don't really care if you drive a van or a car, either way I wouldn't feel comfortable on a road with someone who doesn't understand basic distance principles, whether you've never had an accident or not...

I just said about hundred of times that driving close to vehicle in front of you isn't dangerous as long as you can maintain the distance whether the person in front is braking or not.

Carpentry

FullblownRose wrote: »

Well done on single handedly debunking the myth thats its the baudi drivers who are arrogant and lady drivers who have no spatial awareness!

sorry again, but driving Lexus privately I wouldn't touch BMW nor Audi

kryogen

I generally slow down and speed up to annoy them, brake erratically and swerve around a little. They tend to back off then

P. Breathnach

kryogen wrote: »

I generally slow down and speed up to annoy them, brake erratically and swerve around a little. They tend to back off then

It's bad driving to do anything that is designed to annoy other drivers.

Ave Sodalis

Carpentry wrote: »

I just said about hundred of times that driving close to vehicle in front of you isn't dangerous as long as you can maintain the distance whether the person in front is braking or not.

The fact you don't know the difference between tailgating and driving behind is worrying. If you are driving far enough away that you can stop in time behind the person in front safely, then you are far enough back. If you cannot do this, then you are most likely tailgating and driving dangerously. Yes, you are correct. However, the problem is you had to ask and yet you managed to get a full license... People know the difference between tailgating and driving behind because there are rules and common sense... neither of which you don't seem to know very well

Tokyo

Carpentry wrote: »

I just said about hundred of times that driving close to vehicle in front of you isn't dangerous as long as you can maintain the distance whether the person in front is braking or not.

Actually you didn't - you stated afterwards that:

Carpentry wrote: »

2 seconds rule explanation, again from RSA

"A good way to see if you are four seconds behind the vehicle in front is to
choose a point such as a lamp post or road sign. When the vehicle in front of
you passes the post or sign, say the following rule twice – ‘only a fool breaks the
two second rule’. Check where your vehicle is in relation to the chosen point. If
you have moved past"

So, which is it? The 2 second rule (which apparently you don't grasp, based on your response to my post), or your own arbitrary rule?

Carpentry

mike_ie wrote: »

Actually you didn't - you stated afterwards that:



So, which is it? The 2 second rule (which apparently you don't grasp, based on your response to my post), or your own arbitrary rule?

Well, the 2 second rule applies to the driving on the motorway, so I guess on the city streets it's up to the driver to maintain safe distance.

Did my answer made you happy ?:)

jimgoose

Carpentry wrote: »

Well, the 2 second rule applies to the driving on the motorway, so I guess on the city streets it's up to the driver to maintain safe distance.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

Carpentry

jimgoose wrote: »

You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

jii, that was a bit harsh :rolleyes:

Nate--IRL--

Dig up! Dig up! LOL

Nate