Rules of the Road - Formal vs. Informal

[darin]

Interesting write-up discussing rules of the road (Canada, however) in terms of absolute speed limits and such.


http://www.drivers.com/article/149/


A traffic ticket and a criminal record for driving at the speed limit? When Ontario teacher Gordon Thompson's story hit the media recently, it triggered a wave of letters and phone calls and even a few editorials.

It was a story that appeared to fall right into the laps of advocates of higher speed limits and present an acute embarrassment for advocates of stricter speed limit enforcement. How could anyone be charged with obeying speed limit laws?

With a sign protesting the 100 km/h limit fixed to his car, Thompson and a friend drove side by side at exactly the limit on Ontario's highway 401 last summer. Between them they created a moving roadblock that infuriated some drivers to the extent that they passed on the shoulders. Every now and then the duo pulled off to relieve the pressure but they kept this up for over 80 km on what is one of the province's major arterial roadways.

They were charged with obstructing the highway and public mischief. The latter, a criminal offense, was later dropped in return for pleading guilty to the obstruction charge. Both wound up with a fine and a six-month license suspension.

..................

However, it's obvious that Thompson's strict obedience of the law wasn't the real issue here, or the source of the charges. There was much more to this incident that being a left-lane bandit or merely driving too slowly for traffic conditions. The real issue was Thompson's challenge to what traffic sociologist J. Peter Rothe calls "the moral order of the roadway," the system of trust and expectations that allows drivers and other road users to interact with one another efficiently in the everyday practical circumstances of driving. What Thompson and his friend did was engage in a conspiracy to disrupt the delicate balance between the written law and the moral order.

...................


As well, there are costs to higher speeds, not just in pollution and crash risk, but to the rights of those who would like to use the highways at slower speeds. As one motorist said, "It's getting harder to drive at 100 km/h. There's too much pressure to drive faster."

I hadn't-before thought about those who wish to drive slower on the freeways, when discussing speed laws. While I believe I 'should' have the right to drive at 120mph (not kph, like in this story) if the situation dictates, I suppose slower-drivers 'do' have just as much right to drive 60mph - AS LONG AS THEY KEEP TO THE RIGHT!

:D

[Hagbard Celine]

IMO, it's the slow drivers who are creating the unsafe conditions on the roadway. If everyone drove 100mph all the time, everyone would get to where they were going smoothly and on time. The way it is though, you come over a hill doing 100mph and come roaring up on some oldie doing 40mph and you have to come to an almost complete stop. It's dangerous and it causes traffic to clog-up behind you.

[theHawk]

IMO, it's the slow drivers who are creating the unsafe conditions on the roadway. If everyone drove 100mph all the time, everyone would get to where they were going smoothly and on time. The way it is though, you come over a hill doing 100mph and come roaring up on some oldie doing 40mph and you have to come to an almost complete stop. It's dangerous and it causes traffic to clog-up behind you.

Hell yea! :beer:

[Hagbard Celine]

When you guys let someone into traffic does it piss you off when you don't get the "courtesy wave?" I take it as a slap in the face. If I take the time to bestow my benevolence upon another driver and let them into traffic, they'd better give me the wave.

Also, do you guys pump your brakes when somebody's tailgaiting you? I love seeing the look on their faces in my rearview when they have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting me. Ha!

[Sitarro]

IMO, it's the slow drivers who are creating the unsafe conditions on the roadway. If everyone drove 100mph all the time, everyone would get to where they were going smoothly and on time. The way it is though, you come over a hill doing 100mph and come roaring up on some oldie doing 40mph and you have to come to an almost complete stop. It's dangerous and it causes traffic to clog-up behind you.

Once again, showing that youthful intelligence........ what type of car are you driving at 100 miles an hour ace? How are the tires? Any deer in the area? Do you have someone you care about in the vehicle when you attempt to drive it at 100 mph(40 miles an hour above the speed limit on Houston highways)? Texting? Have you ever gone out to a remote area, hit 100 miles an hour and hit your brakes hard to simulate an emergency occuring in front of you?

I doubt that there are a handful of real race car drivers that would even think of driving at those speeds on public highways.

[Jon]

Once again, showing that youthful intelligence........ what type of car are you driving at 100 miles an hour ace?

It the car is proven safe and completely capable at that speed, would you be OK with it?



How are the tires?


If the tires are proven safe and completely capable at that speed, would you be OK with it?



Any deer in the area?


Surely you aren't advocating someone be kept from doing hazardous things that might harm only themselves (and a deer)? Personal responsibility ring a bell?



Do you have someone you care about in the vehicle when you attempt to drive it at 100 mph(40 miles an hour above the speed limit on Houston highways)?


If the person in the car that he cares about is OK with him doing 100mph are you OK with it?




Texting?


If he isn't texting, is it OK with you?



Have you ever gone out to a remote area, hit 100 miles an hour and hit your brakes hard to simulate an emergency occuring in front of you?


If he has been appropriately trained to react to emergencies at 100mph, would you be OK with it?




I doubt that there are a handful of real race car drivers that would even think of driving at those speeds on public highways.

If you are wrong, would you be OK with it?


Speed limits are, for the most part, arbitrary at best. At worst, they're designed for revenue collection.

[dan]

I think it's safe to say that in the average American car, a highway accident at 100 MPH would be drastically more devistating than a highway accident at 70 MPH.

[red states rule]

When you guys let someone into traffic does it piss you off when you don't get the "courtesy wave?" I take it as a slap in the face. If I take the time to bestow my benevolence upon another driver and let them into traffic, they'd better give me the wave.

Also, do you guys pump your brakes when somebody's tailgaiting you? I love seeing the look on their faces in my rearview when they have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting me. Ha!

Why not just get out of the way instead of trying to cause an accident?

[Jon]

I think it's safe to say that in the average American car, a highway accident at 100 MPH would be drastically more devistating than a highway accident at 70 MPH.

Since the average American car is unsafe in an accident at 100MPH, can you list for me the cars that are safe to crash at 100MPH, and those that aren't? Perhaps you could qualify this with the type of accident(s) as well? :poke:

FWIW, I won't argue that it's safer to crash at 100MPH. However, my understanding is that some are implying that it's more dangerous to drive at 100MPH. ;)

[red states rule]

Since the average American car is unsafe in an accident at 100MPH, can you list for me the cars that are safe to crash at 100MPH, and those that aren't? Perhaps you could qualify this with the type of accident(s) as well? :poke:

FWIW, I won't argue that it's safer to crash at 100MPH. However, my understanding is that some are implying that it's more dangerous to drive at 100MPH. ;)

:clap:

[Hagbard Celine]

Why not just get out of the way instead of trying to cause an accident?

Because it's rude, dangerous and against the law to tailgait. And if they hit me from behind, it's their fault under the law. Giving them one good pump of the brakes encourages them to back the hell off. I try to be encouraging to other people.

[Hagbard Celine]

Once again, showing that youthful intelligence........ what type of car are you driving at 100 miles an hour ace? How are the tires? Any deer in the area? Do you have someone you care about in the vehicle when you attempt to drive it at 100 mph(40 miles an hour above the speed limit on Houston highways)? Texting? Have you ever gone out to a remote area, hit 100 miles an hour and hit your brakes hard to simulate an emergency occuring in front of you?

I doubt that there are a handful of real race car drivers that would even think of driving at those speeds on public highways.

I drive a Black, 1997 BMW 318i Sedan. I don't really ever drive 100mph--I used an outrageous speed to illustrate a lighthearted point in what I thought was a lighthearted thread about "rules of the road." Now that I see my post has been taken seriously, dissected and the thread has had all the fun and lightheartedness sucked out of it, I'm going to put on my Vulcan cap and respond to all your grievances methodically. Normally I keep it under 80mph to increase my gas mileage. The tires are under a year old and are rotated every 5,000 miles. This is the south, of course there are deer in the area. Normally, my driving consists of a 30 to 45 minute commute to and from Atlanta on the interstate and a once a week trip to Athens also via the interstate and normally I drive these alone. I do text while I'm driving if need be. I can honestly say I've never gone out to a remote area and slammed on the brakes going 100mph, however after I replaced my pads and rotors I did drive my Bimmer out to a remote area to test that I had done a good job--it turned out that I had.

Please submit any further questions to:

Debate Policy forum "Rules of the Road - Formal vs. Informal"
"ATTENTION: Hagbard Celine"

[darin]

And if they hit me from behind, it's their fault under the law. Giving them one good pump of the brakes encourages them to back the hell off. I try to be encouraging to other people.

At least in our state, if YOU were to cause an accident by brake-checking a tailgater, YOU would be at fault. Tailgating is NOT an accident. It's not SAFE, but the person who CAUSED the accident is more un-safe. You are a dangerous, reckless driver.

[darin]

I did drive my Bimmer out to a remote area to test that I had done a good job--it turned out that I had.


:cheers2: for the correct use of 'bimmer'. :)

[Jon]

At least in our state, if YOU were to cause an accident by brake-checking a tailgater, YOU would be at fault. Tailgating is NOT an accident. It's not SAFE, but the person who CAUSED the accident is more un-safe. You are a dangerous, reckless driver.

:link: to the RCW? Not saying you're wrong, just saying that's not the way I understand it.

[Hagbard Celine]

At least in our state, if YOU were to cause an accident by brake-checking a tailgater, YOU would be at fault. Tailgating is NOT an accident. It's not SAFE, but the person who CAUSED the accident is more un-safe. You are a dangerous, reckless driver.

Thanks DAD.

[Gunny]

Because it's rude, dangerous and against the law to tailgait. And if they hit me from behind, it's their fault under the law. Giving them one good pump of the brakes encourages them to back the hell off. I try to be encouraging to other people.

Not necessarily so anymore. If you're locking up your brakes and or fucking around pumping them and YOU cause the accident, you get nailed for it here.

Simple solution to your problem is get the fuck out of the way. If you're tooling along in the left lane in front of me, I WILL be on your ass, and that brake checking crap doesn't work on me.

[Hagbard Celine]

Not necessarily so anymore. If you're locking up your brakes and or fucking around pumping them and YOU cause the accident, you get nailed for it here.

Simple solution to your problem is get the fuck out of the way. If you're tooling along in the left lane in front of me, I WILL be on your ass, and that brake checking crap doesn't work on me.

Scenario: I'm going the speed limit and you come roaring up on my ass speeding. Obviously you'd be in the wrong, so why should I change lanes to accomodate you? Shouldn't you go around me since you're intent upon breaking the speeding laws?

It's my opinion that tailgaiting is never a good thing to do. It's dangerous and illegal, not to mention rude as hell. If I pump my brakes and the loser hits me from behind, it's my word against his and in the end, he/she rear-ended me, which puts them at fault through default. That's what a cop is going to see. Either way, I was being tailgaited, which is against the law. Who's side is the cop going to come down on?

[Jon]

Not necessarily so anymore. If you're locking up your brakes and or fucking around pumping them and YOU cause the accident, you get nailed for it here.

Simple solution to your problem is get the fuck out of the way. If you're tooling along in the left lane in front of me, I WILL be on your ass, and that brake checking crap doesn't work on me.


In WA state, you have to prove that there was an "unusual or emergency" situation. Otherwise, the fault lies directly on the following driver. Unless there are skid marks or possibly corroborating witnesses, good luck with that.

[Jon]

Scenario: I'm going the speed limit and you come roaring up on my ass speeding. Obviously you'd be in the wrong, so why should I change lanes to accomodate you? Shouldn't you go around me since you're intent upon breaking the speeding laws?

It's my opinion that tailgaiting is never a good thing to do. It's dangerous and illegal, not to mention rude as hell. If I pump my brakes and the loser hits me from behind, it's my word against his and in the end, he/she rear-ended me, which puts them at fault through default. That's what a cop is going to see. Either way, I was being tailgaited, which is against the law. Who's side is the cop going to come down on?

Pretty much the way it really works.

[dan]

Since the average American car is unsafe in an accident at 100MPH, can you list for me the cars that are safe to crash at 100MPH, and those that aren't? Perhaps you could qualify this with the type of accident(s) as well? :poke:

FWIW, I won't argue that it's safer to crash at 100MPH. However, my understanding is that some are implying that it's more dangerous to drive at 100MPH. ;)

My point is, it's unsafe to drive cars on American highways at those speeds. Your argument is seriously "I'm not talking about crashing at those speeds, I'm talking about driving at those speeds?" Because that's outrageous.

...or am I misreading you? I can't really tell if you're being serious or what.

[Jon]

My point is, it's unsafe to drive cars on American highways at those speeds. Your argument is seriously "I'm not talking about crashing at those speeds, I'm talking about driving at those speeds?" Because that's outrageous.


Your point is an opinion. It's certainly one that you can't support with fact. It's not outrageous. Driving and crashing are two separate things.

I assert that in many cases it is perfectly safe to travel at 100mph on US highways. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[darin]

Thanks DAD.
doesn't change the fact
I'm right.

[Gunny]

Scenario: I'm going the speed limit and you come roaring up on my ass speeding. Obviously you'd be in the wrong, so why should I change lanes to accomodate you? Shouldn't you go around me since you're intent upon breaking the speeding laws?

It's my opinion that tailgaiting is never a good thing to do. It's dangerous and illegal, not to mention rude as hell. If I pump my brakes and the loser hits me from behind, it's my word against his and in the end, he/she rear-ended me, which puts them at fault through default. That's what a cop is going to see. Either way, I was being tailgaited, which is against the law. Who's side is the cop going to come down on?

What about that sign that says: Left Lane for Passing Only? It doesn't say: Left Lane for Toolers Along.

THAT would make YOU equally wrong.

I already covered your hit from behind deafault thing ... that's a "used to be" mentality.

The cop could come down on either side. One, you tooling in the passing lane and two, whether enforced much or not, it is against the law to impede traffic.

[darin]

Pretty much the way it really works.

Except if he 'causes' an accident, it's HIS fault, and he could be ticketed. :)

I can't find the specifics - but can you find in the RCW where if he does a brake-check and the person behind hits him, it's 'automatically' that person's fault?

In this state, Neg2 charges could be brought:


(1)(a) A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property.

[Hagbard Celine]

What about that sign that says: Left Lane for Passing Only? It doesn't say: Left Lane for Toolers Along.

THAT would make YOU equally wrong.

I already covered your hit from behind deafault thing ... that's a "used to be" mentality.

The cop could come down on either side. One, you tooling in the passing lane and two, whether enforced much or not, it is against the law to impede traffic.

Are you talking about rural highways or interstates? Because on interstates, the far left lane is the fast lane--it's definately not reserved just for passing in Georgia. Since the speed limit is 70 on most interstates, optimal speed in this lane should be between 70 and 75mph. If you're traveling faster than that, you're speeding and you're in the wrong.

Only a jackass would camp out in the interior, passing lane of a highway.

Believe me, I'm not a slow driver. If you're tailgaiting me, you're going way too fast for any conditions.

I can't believe you guys are defending tailgaiters. Another thing I do when I'm being tailgaited at night is I adjust my mirrors so that their bright-ass lights shine back at them. They usually back-off within a few moments. I've thought about carrying one of those 2-million watt spot lights in my car so that I can spot-check these assh*les.

[Gunny]

In WA state, you have to prove that there was an "unusual or emergency" situation. Otherwise, the fault lies directly on the following driver. Unless there are skid marks or possibly corroborating witnesses, good luck with that.

You'd have to lock-up to get me to hit you, and if you lock up at 70 mph, there're going to be skidmarks.

All of which are mean nothing if you don't survive a big f-ing red truck squashing your little car. And fo rsome reason, it's RARELY other trucks doing it ... always some nimrod who doesn't give a damn who he/she is inconveniencing in their little econo-box.

[Hagbard Celine]

You'd have to lock-up to get me to hit you, and if you lock up at 70 mph, there're going to be skidmarks.

All of which are mean nothing if you don't survive a big f-ing red truck squashing your little car. And fo rsome reason, it's RARELY other trucks doing it ... always some nimrod who doesn't give a damn who he/she is inconveniencing in their little econo-box.
Read: "A lib."

[darin]

I can't believe you guys are defending tailgaiters. Another thing I do when I'm being tailgaited at night is I adjust my mirrors so that their bright-ass lights shine back at them. They usually back-off within a few moments. I've thought about carrying one of those 2-million watt spot lights in my car so that I can spot-check these assh*les.

I'm NOT defending tailgaters - I'm 'persecuting' accident-makers. Brake-Check folk are a danger to society, because it's not the tailgating that causes the wreck - it's the asshole who decides to CAUSE the tailgater to wreck. See the difference?

Also - If a Cop in THIS state were to see you intentionally blind another driver, he'd likely ticket you.

[dan]

Your point is an opinion. It's certainly one that you can't support with fact. It's not outrageous. Driving and crashing are two separate things.

I assert that in many cases it is perfectly safe to travel at 100mph on US highways. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Like hell we will!!!!!:laugh2:

Anyway, I guess I'm wording it wrong, and it is definitely something I can't back up with fact. But, what I'm sort of trying to say is that it may be safe for some people to drive 100 MPH, but I don't think it's a good idea to make that the speed limit, as there are a lot of idiots out there who can't handle themselves on the road.

For the record, I've got a lead foot, so I'd be very happy if they made it 100!

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm NOT defending tailgaters - I'm 'persecuting' accident-makers. Brake-Check folk are a danger to society, because it's not the tailgating that causes the wreck - it's the asshole who decides to CAUSE the tailgater to wreck. See the difference?

Also - If a Cop in THIS state were to see you intentionally blind another driver, he'd likely ticket you.

You know what else is blinding? When an assh*le tailgaits you at night and all you can see is white light because everything in your field of vision is blotted-out by their headlights. Inconsiderate drivers can f*ck-off. I'd throw paint-filled balloons on their windshields if I had them readily available.

[Gunny]

Are you talking about rural highways or interstates? Because on interstates, the far left lane is the fast lane--it's definately not reserved just for passing in Georgia. Since the speed limit is 70 on most interstates, optimal speed in this lane should be between 70 and 75mph. If you're traveling faster than that, you're speeding and you're in the wrong.

Only a jackass would camp out in the interior, passing lane of a highway.

Believe me, I'm not a slow driver. If you're tailgaiting me, you're going way too fast for any conditions.

I can't believe you guys are defending tailgaiters. Another thing I do when I'm being tailgaited at night is I adjust my mirrors so that their bright-ass lights shine back at them. They usually back-off within a few moments. I've thought about carrying one of those 2-million watt spot lights in my car so that I can spot-check these assh*les.

I'm referring to the interstate -- or 2 lanes each direction highways. If you're on a two lane only rural highway of course you have to adjust, BUT you cannot pass with any kind og efficiency if you are not accelerating up behind the car in front.

I drive no faster than I can handle; which, is a lot faster than most people drive.

I'm not defending tailgaiters. I'm defending the fact slow-ass ignorant jackasses need to get off the road and buy buss passes or bicycles. Hell, even a horse.

[darin]

You know what else is blinding? When an assh*le tailgaits you at night and all you can see is white light because everything in your field of vision is blotted-out by their headlights. Inconsiderate drivers can f*ck-off. I'd throw paint-filled balloons on their windshields if I had them readily available.

You should have your license revoked - you obviously can't deal with stress. Instead of bitching about people's bright lights, simply build yourself a mental bridge, and get over it. You're road-rage waiting to happen.

[darin]

I'm not defending tailgaiters. I'm defending the fact slow-ass ignorant jackasses need to get off the road and buy buss passes or bicycles. Hell, even a horse.

http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/applause.gif

[PhotonMac]

I do text while I'm driving if need be.


My first post.....I apologize if the format is incorrect....I will try harder!

That in and of itself is mor dangerous than the tailgating thing. There is no reason [B]ever[B]to text while driving or talking on the cell phone either. I have seen enough accidents involving cell phone users who were distracted. Some involving loss of life. As a health care worker who has seen more than my fair share of trauma victims, involving cell phone use, it should be outlawed with a mandatory period of suspension of driving privleges depending on the severity of the action and the subsequent indictment of the guilty individual.


'nuff said

[Hagbard Celine]

I do text while I'm driving if need be.


My first post.....I apologize if the format is incorrect....I will try harder!

That in and of itself is mor dangerous than the tailgating thing. There is no reason [B]ever[B]to text while driving or talking on the cell phone either. I have seen enough accidents involving cell phone users who were distracted. Some involving loss of life. As a health care worker who has seen more than my fair share of trauma victims, involving cell phone use, it should be outlawed with a mandatory period of suspension of driving privleges depending on the severity of the action and the subsequent indictment of the guilty individual.


'nuff said

Pro-Police State, anti individual rights. Got it.

[Hagbard Celine]

You should have your license revoked - you obviously can't deal with stress. Instead of bitching about people's bright lights, simply build yourself a mental bridge, and get over it. You're road-rage waiting to happen.

Tailgaiting is illegal dmp. If so-called law-enforcement won't do anything about it, I will. Pumping your brakes and adjusting your mirrors to make tailgaiters back-off isn't illegal.

I'm just saying if you're going to ride my ass within two feet, there'll be consequences. There are much worse things than being momentarily blinded by the reflection of your own headlights.

[PhotonMac]

When you're driving on the same road with me and your texting and endangering my life and my family's life your right to text is non-existent

[Hagbard Celine]

When you're driving on the same road with me and your texting and endangering my life and my family's life your right to text is non-existent

What would you do about it? Call the police? I'd love to hear that call:

"Um yes, 911? Yes, there is a man *texting* while driving one car ahead of me."

"Yes sir, we'll alert homeland security."

[PhotonMac]

All motorists should be able to report impaired drivers....of which you emminently qualify.

[darin]

Tailgaiting is illegal dmp.

As is going 61mph in a 60 zone in most cases. So what? Tailgating is DANGEROUS only if an accident happens - you seem to have NO problem with causing wrecks.



If so-called law-enforcement won't do anything about it, I will.

Logical fallacy - but I'll entertain your foolishness/ego:

It's not your JOB to enforce laws. It's YOUR JOB to operate YOUR vehicle safely. People like you get shot.



Pumping your brakes and adjusting your mirrors to make tailgaiters back-off isn't illegal.

If you pump your brakes and the tailgater hits you, don't be surprised to be cited.

[Hagbard Celine]

All motorists should be able to report impaired drivers....of which you emminently qualify.

I don't know, usually, impaired drivers report themselves when they get their driver's licenses. You can pick them out because they all have big, blue handicapped tags that hang from their rearview mirrors.

Thanks for letting me know that I'm about to qualify for impairedness. I'll keep a look-out.

[Hagbard Celine]

As is going 61mph in a 60 zone in most cases. So what? Tailgating is DANGEROUS only if an accident happens - you seem to have NO problem with causing wrecks.Nope, I'd rather not cause wrecks. But I can't do anything about accidents caused by tailgaiters who fail to stop when I slow down.


Logical fallacy - but I'll entertain your foolishness/ego:

It's not your JOB to enforce laws. It's YOUR JOB to operate YOUR vehicle safely. People like you get shot.No, people like me carry a pistol so that when maniacs try to shoot me I can shoot back. It's my JOB to look out for myself. If someone is endangering my property/life, I reserve the right to encourage them to back-off.


If you pump your brakes and the tailgater hits you, don't be surprised to be cited.I'm not surprised at anything cops do these days. Whatever it takes to make their quota you know?

[Jon]

I'm NOT defending tailgaters - I'm 'persecuting' accident-makers. Brake-Check folk are a danger to society, because it's not the tailgating that causes the wreck - it's the asshole who decides to CAUSE the tailgater to wreck. See the difference?

Also - If a Cop in THIS state were to see you intentionally blind another driver, he'd likely ticket you.


The law doesn't back you up in this matter. Here's an example that should make this crystal clear.

Let's say you're involved in a 5 car pile up on I-5. The first car in the line slammed on the brakes for no reason. You're the last car in the line and you rear end the car in front of you. You will be cited for following to close for conditions, regardless of the fact that the first guy in the line slammed on his brakes.

IOW, you are following too close if you can't stop even if the car in front of you slams on the brakes.

WA state RCW and case law supports this, as well as anecdotal evidence from a certain county sheriff I happen to know pretty well, and personal experience.

[darin]

Nope, I'd rather not cause wrecks. But I can't do anything about accidents caused by tailgaiters who fail to stop when I slow down.

You know GOOD and well you weren't merely 'slowing down' - you are actively trying to cause a situation.

[Jon]

You'd have to lock-up to get me to hit you, and if you lock up at 70 mph, there're going to be skidmarks.

All of which are mean nothing if you don't survive a big f-ing red truck squashing your little car. And fo rsome reason, it's RARELY other trucks doing it ... always some nimrod who doesn't give a damn who he/she is inconveniencing in their little econo-box.


Even if I lock up, in WA you will get the ticket. I can say that with the utmost of certainty. The onus is on the following vehicle to maintain a safe following distance. In WA, a safe following distance is one that will allow the following vehicle to stop even if the car in front of them slams on the brakes.

[darin]

The law doesn't back you up in this matter. Here's an example that should make this crystal clear.

Let's say you're involved in a 5 car pile up on I-5. The first car in the line slammed on the brakes for no reason. You're the last car in the line and you rear end the car in front of you. You will be cited for following to close for conditions, regardless of the fact that the first guy in the line slammed on his brakes.

Your speculating and making HUGE assumptions here, Jon. You'd have to show me where 'every' person involved in a chain reaction was cited - that's HUGE.


IOW, you are following too close if you can't stop even if the car in front of you slams on the brakes.

Except that's not true. If the person in front slams on their brakes for the purpose of causing you to panic, AND that results in a wreck, the brake-slammer-onner will be cited for reckless driving - regardless of what citations the guy behind gets.


WA state RCW and case law supports this, as well as anecdotal evidence from a certain county sheriff I happen to know pretty well, and personal experience.

Show me RCW which supports your claim the person doing the rear-ending (no gay jokes, please) WILL be at fault, all the time, as you're claiming.

The whole "Well, He hit ME, so it's HIS fault - ALL THE TIME" is urban legend.

[theHawk]

Tailgaiting is illegal dmp. If so-called law-enforcement won't do anything about it, I will. Pumping your brakes and adjusting your mirrors to make tailgaiters back-off isn't illegal.

I'm just saying if you're going to ride my ass within two feet, there'll be consequences. There are much worse things than being momentarily blinded by the reflection of your own headlights.

I agree, I hate tail-gaters. I live off a stretch of road that is largely a freeway loop but in the small segment I live its a two lane road with lights. Most poeple act like its still a freeway though and like to go as fast as possible (they often run red lights very LATE), so whenever I bring it down to the speed limit (50 and 45 just before the light) they always ride my ass since its a no pass zone too. And in my low to the ground car their big ass truck lights blind me.

[darin]

Even if I lock up, in WA you will get the ticket. I can say that with the utmost of certainty. The onus is on the following vehicle to maintain a safe following distance. In WA, a safe following distance is one that will allow the following vehicle to stop even if the car in front of them slams on the brakes.

At the same time - a BIGGER onus is on EVERY driver to 'not cause accidents'.

[Jon]

You know GOOD and well you weren't merely 'slowing down' - you are actively trying to cause a situation.


So you don't think that the retard that is following too close to stop has any responsibility? What if a tire blows out on the vehicle in front of you, or a dog runs out in the road? A person needn't be brake checking to slam on the brakes.

[Jon]

Your speculating and making HUGE assumptions here, Jon. You'd have to show me where 'every' person involved in a chain reaction was cited - that's HUGE.



Except that's not true. If the person in front slams on their brakes for the purpose of causing you to panic, AND that results in a wreck, the brake-slammer-onner will be cited for reckless driving - regardless of what citations the guy behind gets.



Show me RCW which supports your claim the person doing the rear-ending (no gay jokes, please) WILL be at fault, all the time, as you're claiming.

The whole "Well, He hit ME, so it's HIS fault - ALL THE TIME" is urban legend.



Pretty much doesn't happen that way D. I know you wish it did, but it doesn't. So rare it doesn't even need to be talked about. The reason? It's almost impossible to prove that someone brake checked you unless they admit it. They don't need your admission of following too closely. If you weren't , you wouldn't have rear ended the person in front of you.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.145

If you would like to speak to my father in law about this, I can get you his number. ;)

I can also describe to you my personal situation and a copy of my ticket.

Now, in order to consider your claim valid, I'll need you to provide the same:

1) a RCW that supports your position
2) a WA state police officer willing to back up what you're saying
3) a copy of the ticket, that you or someone you know has received, for brake checking someone

Otherwise, I'm not convinced.

In lieu of the above, we can agree to disagree and we can both keep on believing whatever we like. :D

[darin]

So you don't think that the retard that is following too close to stop has any responsibility? What if a tire blows out on the vehicle in front of you, or a dog runs out in the road? A person needn't be brake checking to slam on the brakes.

That's different - I'm saying "Doing a brake check 'because' somebody is following too closely is against the law. I'm saying the adage "It will be HIS fault, cuz he was tailgating" may find some people, depending on the circumstances, in hot water.

I literally just got off the phone with the W$P -

"If it can be shown somebody intentionally applied their brakes in an aggressive way, and doing so causes an accident, or leads to the cause of an accident, charges - up to and including felony charges - can be brought against the person doing the braking. It boils down to 'situation dictates' - while there are rules against tailgating, there is also an expected underlying expectation that each driver operates their vehicle in a safe manner."

That's my point.

Tailgating - Bad.
Brake-checking a Tailgater because you're angry or annoyed at his tailgating - could land you in trouble.

[darin]

Pretty much doesn't happen that way D. I know you wish it did, but it doesn't. So rare it doesn't even need to be talked about. The reason? It's almost impossible to prove that someone brake checked you unless they admit it. They don't need your admission of following too closely. If you weren't , you wouldn't have rear ended the person in front of you.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.145

If you would like to speak to my father in law about this, I can get you his number. ;)

I can also describe to you my personal situation and a copy of my ticket.

Now, in order to consider your claim valid, I'll need you to provide the same:

1) and RCW that supports your position
2) a WA state police officer willing to back up what you're saying
3) a copy of the ticket, that you or someone you know has received, for brake checking someone

Otherwise, I'm not convinced.

In lieu of the above, we can agree to disagree and we can both keep on believing whatever we like. :D


You are absolutely assuming-away the problems with your position Jon. You are speculating on things which don't matter; the 'absolute point' I'm making; the point you are trying to argue, or should be arguing was outlined above, in my most-previous reply to this thread.

(shrug)

[Hagbard Celine]

You know GOOD and well you weren't merely 'slowing down' - you are actively trying to cause a situation.

As far as the law is concerned, I was slowing down and the tailgaiter was following too closely to stop safely. He would be in the wrong, not me.

[Hagbard Celine]

At the same time - a BIGGER onus is on EVERY driver to 'not cause accidents'.

I don't want to hear you talking about your onus. :poke:

[darin]

As far as the law is concerned, I was slowing down and the tailgaiter was following too closely to stop safely. He would be in the wrong, not me.

You 'might' luck out and have people believe it - honestly. Or, somebody could witness what you did and you might get cited.

Here's what I do - I use the e-brake. I pull up on the ebrake slowly, to slowly reduce my car's speed w/o attracting a LOT of attention. When the guy suddenly sees my car's arse-end up in his face, he'll do one of two things: back off, or stay there. The longer he stays the progressively harder I tug the brake until he gets the point.

I've also used the ebrake when cops suddenly appear to keep the tell-tale 'hard braking nose-dive' from happening.

:)

[Hagbard Celine]

You 'might' luck out and have people believe it - honestly. Or, somebody could witness what you did and you might get cited.

Here's what I do - I use the e-brake. I pull up on the ebrake slowly, to slowly reduce my car's speed w/o attracting a LOT of attention. When the guy suddenly sees my car's arse-end up in his face, he'll do one of two things: back off, or stay there. The longer he stays the progressively harder I tug the brake until he gets the point.

I've also used the ebrake when cops suddenly appear to keep the tell-tale 'hard braking nose-dive' from happening.

:)

Yeah, I use the e-brake when I need to perform a 75mph 180. Sometimes I just get those urges you know? :laugh2:

[Jon]

I literally just got off the phone with the W$P -

"If it can be shown somebody intentionally applied their brakes in an aggressive way, and doing so causes an accident, or leads to the cause of an accident, charges - up to and including felony charges - can be brought against the person doing the braking. It boils down to 'situation dictates' - while there are rules against tailgating, there is also an expected underlying expectation that each driver operates their vehicle in a safe manner."

That's my point.

Tailgating - Bad.
Brake-checking a Tailgater because you're angry or annoyed at his tailgating - could land you in trouble.


I'm not saying it isn't against the law, and what the WSP told you doesn't disagree with what I've stated. Sure, you can get in trouble. The thing is, how often does it happen? So rarely that we don't even need to consider it. Seriously, good luck proving that unless the guy admits it. You are far more likely to get the ticket for following too close.

Secondly, your point wasn't that it could land you in trouble. Your point was that the brake checker would get in trouble.

[darin]

I'm not saying it isn't against the law, and what the WSP told you doesn't disagree with what I've stated. Sure, you can get in trouble. The thing is, how often does it happen? So rarely that we don't even need to consider it.

That's so completely beside the point it's funny. That belongs in a thread called "How often is somebody likely to get a ticket for doing a brake-check" - and is NOT pertinent to the discussion of "Is it ALWAYS the guy's fault who rear-ends another person" and your implied position "Go ahead and brake-check - it won't be your fault"


Seriously, good luck proving that unless the guy admits it. You are far more likely to get the ticket for following too close.


What's more or less likely is fine - but it's not the point I happen to be debating - which is the illegal practice of doing a brake-check because you're mad at somebody being too close behind your car.


Secondly, your point wasn't that it could land you in trouble. Your point was that the brake checker would get in trouble.

Don't take things out of context -


At least in our state, if YOU were to cause an accident by brake-checking a tailgater, YOU would be at fault. Tailgating is NOT an accident. It's not SAFE, but the person who CAUSED the accident is more un-safe. You are a dangerous, reckless driver.

That statement was upheld by my conversation with the WSP. Whether or not somebody is 'cited' is of no consequence to their fault for having caused the accident. The officer would decide to write a citation - based on the circumstances. 'Being at Fault' "may" but not always lead to a ticket. Further, having a ticket doesn't mean one is 'at fault'.


If you pump your brakes and the tailgater hits you, don't be surprised to be cited.


Except if he 'causes' an accident, it's HIS fault, and he could be ticketed. :)


Then you started talking about 'proof' and other things which aren't related to what I said.

It's illegal to cause an accident. If somebody has been shown to cause an accident by doing a brake-check, they can be cited. They Will be cited (situation depending). If you want to play semantics games with my use of 'would be' and 'could be' I'll let you continue and go on to other threads.

[Jon]

You know what? I just reread the whole thread and realized that sometimes you say a person would get a ticket, sometimes you say they could... I don't really care. It's just as it often is when you and I disagree. We're arguing around each other.

[darin]

You know what? I just reread the whole thread and realized that sometimes you say a person would get a ticket, sometimes you say they could... I don't really care. It's just as it often is when you and I disagree. We're arguing around each other.

Translation:

Darin, oh MASTER (de)Bater...I yield to your awesomeness.

:D

Enjoy your weekend, brother.

-dp

[red states rule]

As far as the law is concerned, I was slowing down and the tailgaiter was following too closely to stop safely. He would be in the wrong, not me.

If you would just move into the other lane, there would not be a problem.

[Nukeman]

Pro-Police State, anti individual rights. Got it.
Are you nuts or just high. You actually think someone tailgating because your slow ass is in the passing lane "texting" is more dangerous than yourself.

Get over it and realize yo are more of a danger out on the roads than most other people.

I hope you dont live anywhere neer me!!!!!

[Gunny]

Read: "A lib."

I didn't say that ... YOU did. I'm referring to stupid drivers, not their political affiliations.

Although, now that you mention, there usually IS a Kerry or Billary sticker attached to said poke-along's bumper.:poke:

[red states rule]

I didn't say that ... YOU did. I'm referring to stupid drivers, not their political affiliations.

Although, now that you mention, there usually IS a Kerry or Billary sticker attached to said poke-along's bumper.:poke:

It seems they never want to get over into the right lane

[Gunny]

Tailgaiting is illegal dmp. If so-called law-enforcement won't do anything about it, I will. Pumping your brakes and adjusting your mirrors to make tailgaiters back-off isn't illegal.

I'm just saying if you're going to ride my ass within two feet, there'll be consequences. There are much worse things than being momentarily blinded by the reflection of your own headlights.

Impeding traffic is illegal, HC. If so-called law enforcement won't do anything about it, I will. Pumping your brakes COULD cause an accident, so it i sstupid AND dangerious.

Get out of the left lane.

[red states rule]

I do text while I'm driving if need be.


My first post.....I apologize if the format is incorrect....I will try harder!

That in and of itself is mor dangerous than the tailgating thing. There is no reason [B]ever[B]to text while driving or talking on the cell phone either. I have seen enough accidents involving cell phone users who were distracted. Some involving loss of life. As a health care worker who has seen more than my fair share of trauma victims, involving cell phone use, it should be outlawed with a mandatory period of suspension of driving privleges depending on the severity of the action and the subsequent indictment of the guilty individual.


'nuff said

Why should the government ban the use of cell phones? What is next - no playing the radio, or eating while driving?

If you are in an accident, and you are at fault - there are already laws on the books for it

[The ClayTaurus]

My Take:

Tailgating is one of the dumbest things you can do. Brake checking (especially hard brake checking) is an asshole response, but the responsibility is (IMO) always on the overtaking driver, not the driver BEING overtaken. The reason tailgating is idiotic is because of the obvious reduction in response time, but also you severely narrow your field of vision of the road, especially on large freeways. If there are sudden stops, you'll have a significantly reduced chance of seeing the warning signs, and you'll be picking your fan belt out of some guy's bumper. Is brake checking reckless? Yes, but no more reckless than tailgaiting. As far as getting ticketed, I'd say the chances are 90% the guy in behind gets it, if not higher. Anecdotal percentages, FWIW.

If I'm in the left lane passing someone and there's a camper, I stay back and flick my brights on and off a couple times. I'll do it about 3 times to try and wake the driver up and help them realize what they're doing. I'd say about 70% of the time they were just spacing out and forgot what lane they were in, and they merge over. The other 30% are either idiots, unaware, or assholes. I pass those guys on the right.

As for the left lane, get the fuck out of it. I don't care how fast you're going, the left lane should be used as little as possible. Get over, pass the guy, get back. The law may not have provisions to punish someone going the speed limit in the left lane, but it should. If the interstate system in the United States were to be policed so that you could only overtake a car on it's left side, the roads would, IMO, be much safer.

As for driving in general, I think each driver should approach the road with the mentality that no one is going to cause me to have an accident, even if someone intentionally tries. This mentality avoids slamming into people who brake check you or getting run off the road by someone cutting you off. Unless the freeway is busy, usually most roads have pockets of cars. I do whatever I can to get out of those pockets and onto an unoccupied stretch of road. I don't like leaving my driving safety in the hands of some other driver who I know nothing about.

[dan]

My Take:


As for the left lane, get the fuck out of it. I don't care how fast you're going, the left lane should be used as little as possible. Get over, pass the guy, get back. The law may not have provisions to punish someone going the speed limit in the left lane, but it should. If the interstate system in the United States were to be policed so that you could only overtake a car on it's left side, the roads would, IMO, be much safer.


I know in New Jersey, they'll ticket people who ride the left lane. Down here in the south, it's not considered a big deal at all. I'd say I pass just as many people on the right as I do on the left. Obviously, there are a lot less cars on the road, so it's generally not a problem.


As for driving in general, I think each driver should approach the road with the mentality that no one is going to cause me to have an accident, even if someone intentionally tries. This mentality avoids slamming into people who brake check you or getting run off the road by someone cutting you off. Unless the freeway is busy, usually most roads have pockets of cars. I do whatever I can to get out of those pockets and onto an unoccupied stretch of road. I don't like leaving my driving safety in the hands of some other driver who I know nothing about.

Yeah, but you're more likely to get pulled in an open stretch than you are in a pocket.

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah, but you're more likely to get pulled in an open stretch than you are in a pocket.True. If the pocket is moving fast enough, however, you can lurk about 500-1000 feet behind the pocket... usually pockets go slower than what you can get away with on the open road anyways, so it's not an issue.

[Nukeman]

Why should the government ban the use of cell phones? What is next - no playing the radio, or eating while driving?

If you are in an accident, and you are at fault - there are already laws on the books for it
Here's the problem as I see it. You are both right because you have to remember that with freedom comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. If you aren't going to be responsible for yourself than obviously someone else has to be. Unfortunately that usually means the government.

So in a nut shell if your a responsible driver who can talk and drive at the same time thats great, also if you know your limits on if you get into heavy trafic and need to get off the phone; however, if you one of those idiots out there trying to "type" on a hard to see keyboard 1/2 the size of a post card steering with your legs while trying to eat a hamburger in fat face, than you desperatly need a lot of guidance.....

In other wrods PAY ATTENTION.

[Yurt]

At least in our state, if YOU were to cause an accident by brake-checking a tailgater, YOU would be at fault. Tailgating is NOT an accident. It's not SAFE, but the person who CAUSED the accident is more un-safe. You are a dangerous, reckless driver.

Do you have code for that? Because as I understand it, tailgating laws are designed to keep you a set distance back so if the person in front of you does slam on their brakes, you can safely stop.

Will concede that if you can prove they solely slammed on their brakes to force you to hit them, then you have a different story. But very hard to prove, at least in medium to heavy usuage roads.

[Yurt]

I know in New Jersey, they'll ticket people who ride the left lane. Down here in the south, it's not considered a big deal at all. I'd say I pass just as many people on the right as I do on the left. Obviously, there are a lot less cars on the road, so it's generally not a problem.



Yeah, but you're more likely to get pulled in an open stretch than you are in a pocket.

If I recall from my days in Oregon, they do as well. Or was it Washington. I think WA because in OR you have people who pitch tents in the fast lane, set up campfires and then roast marshmellows and the "park rangers" do nothing. Anyway, one of those states has nice big ol signs that say KEEP RIGHT and they actually mean it. I think I remember a sign that said: unless passing keep rigth.

[red states rule]

Here's the problem as I see it. You are both right because you have to remember that with freedom comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. If you aren't going to be responsible for yourself than obviously someone else has to be. Unfortunately that usually means the government.

So in a nut shell if your a responsible driver who can talk and drive at the same time thats great, also if you know your limits on if you get into heavy trafic and need to get off the phone; however, if you one of those idiots out there trying to "type" on a hard to see keyboard 1/2 the size of a post card steering with your legs while trying to eat a hamburger in fat face, than you desperatly need a lot of guidance.....

In other wrods PAY ATTENTION.

Agreed. If you are in an accident because you were talking on the phone, or eating a hanburger - the charge may be reckless driving

[Hagbard Celine]

Are you nuts or just high. You actually think someone tailgating because your slow ass is in the passing lane "texting" is more dangerous than yourself.

Get over it and realize yo are more of a danger out on the roads than most other people.

I hope you dont live anywhere neer me!!!!!

I hope I don't live anywhere "neer" you either. I'd hate for my property value to go down.

[Hagbard Celine]

With you as a neighbor would give new meaning to "There goes the neighborhood"

So basically you copied what I just said. :clap:

[red states rule]

So basically you copied what I just said. :clap:

Not at all. Libs have to live somewhere - not just next to me. I would piss them off so bad with the Christmas decorations, the US flag in the yard, and other un-American things I am famous for doing

[Hagbard Celine]

Not at all. Libs have to live somewhere - not just next to me. I would piss them off so bad with the Christmas decorations, the US flag in the yard, and other un-American things I am famous for doing

Yeah, you copied me. You're a copycat. It's okay. The world needs copycats. :lol:

[red states rule]

Yeah, you copied me. You're a copycat. It's okay. The world needs copycats. :lol:

If you say so (sigh) YAWN.........

[Hagbard Celine]

If you say so (sigh) YAWN.........

Copycat.

[red states rule]

Is that the best the man from CNN has to offer?

No wonder you may be out a job with the way your network is falling behind Fox News - you are probably one of the writers

[Hagbard Celine]

Is that the best the man from CNN has to offer?

No wonder you may be out a job with the way your network is falling behind Fox News - you are probably one of the writers

Maybe, maybe not. Atleast I'm not a copycat.

[red states rule]

Maybe, maybe not. Atleast I'm not a copycat.

being an employee of the Clinton news Network - you dance around the facts very well

you also keep saying the same thing over and over - even when it is not true

no wonder your network is in the ratings basement

[Hagbard Celine]

being an employee of the Clinton news Network - you dance around the facts very well

you also keep saying the same thing over and over - even when it is not true

no wonder your network is in the ratings basement

HAHA, the Clinton News Network. Haha. Did you think of that all by yourself or did you copy it from somewhere else?