tailgater gets owned

[LTC8K6]

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/15/brake-checking-car-crash-viral-video-investigation/

Tailgater was a 42 year old woman, and they are looking for the lead vehicle.

One thing I notice from looking at the video a few more times is that she is really close to the lead vehicle. Much closer than I initially thought.

I wonder if she was on the phone or texting while she was running up on the lead car?

It looks to me like the lead driver can simply say that they braked when they realized that the merging vehicle was coming up fast, preventing them from getting over to the right to exit.

That is, they would have cut off the vehicle in the right lane, so they decided to brake and get over behind that vehicle to exit.

 

[jdoggg12]

wordpress is a valid source in legal arguments. I read it once on a wordpress site.

Damn, you're right, there's no other sources that agree

 

[Schmide]

BTW - in many states, brake checking is illegal and is considered assault. Example https://jimcorleylaw.wordpress.com/...inal-charge-prevent-accident-injury-recovery/

Will you stop quoting that ambulance chaser. He is not law.

Edit:

Damn, you're right, there's no other sources that agree

None of which come up as legal sourced law. All blogs all the time.

More like let me googlewish it was there to source my opinions.

 

[Schmide]

Do that to me in Illinois and I'll call the police and give them dash cam footage of your crime. I'll report that just like I'd report a drunk. You're going to cause an accident by driving so carelessly and there's a reason what you're doing is illegal.

Regardless of how you feel, you should re-evaluate your relationship with the police. You are not a credible source.

PS if you tale-gate someone they have every right to slow down and move over.

 

[Humpy]

That's NOT the same as brake checking. That's activating your tail lights to send a message that you'd like them to back off. Brake checking is slamming on the brakes to shove your cars ass in their face to send a message and scare them.

LOL What would you call "activating your tail lights to send a message that you'd like them to back off"?

BTW - in many states, brake checking is illegal and is considered assault. Example https://jimcorleylaw.wordpress.com/...inal-charge-prevent-accident-injury-recovery/

More shit logic. Assault is illegal. Brake checking, along with thousands of other things, may or may not be considered assault.

 

[TechBoyJK]

LOL What would you call "activating your tail lights to send a message that you'd like them to back off"?

There's a big difference between that and brake checking as most people understand it.

Brake checking implies a sudden drop in speed to freak out the car behind it.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Regardless of how you feel, you should re-evaluate your relationship with the police. You are not a credible source.

PS if you tale-gate someone they have every right to slow down and move over.

I really don't care what you think or say. You're not an authority to say I'm credible or not, so what you say doesn't matter.

 

[TechBoyJK]

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/15/brake-checking-car-crash-viral-video-investigation/

Tailgater was a 42 year old woman, and they are looking for the lead vehicle.

One thing I notice from looking at the video a few more times is that she is really close to the lead vehicle. Much closer than I initially thought.

I wonder if she was on the phone or texting while she was running up on the lead car?

It looks to me like the lead driver can simply say that they braked when they realized that the merging vehicle was coming up fast, preventing them from getting over to the right to exit.

That is, they would have cut off the vehicle in the right lane, so they decided to brake and get over behind that vehicle to exit.

Not sure if it's the author simply implying it, but they end the article by saying that the police are now looking for the driver who brake checked AND caused the crash.

Of which I agree with that. Of course, the tailgater created a dangerous situation, but the brake check is ultimately what caused the accident.

 

[Schmide]

I really don't care what you think or say. You're not an authority to say I'm credible or not, so what you say doesn't matter.

You're right. Your 10 ish tickets and accident are what determines your credibility.

Edit: and lame interpretation of logic.

 

[TechBoyJK]

You're right. Your 10 ish tickets and accident are what determines your credibility.

Edit: and lame interpretation of logic.

10 minor speeding tickets and an accident in which I wasn't at fault...

You're trying too hard to be authoritative and relevant.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Edit: and lame interpretation of logic.

You don't matter.

 

[thesmokingman]

but the brake check is ultimately what caused the accident.

Eh, wouldn't the fact that tailgating at an incredibly unsafe distance be the cause, because if ya kept your distance like yore supposed to then you'd be able to maintain safe control?

 

[Schmide]

Not sure if it's the author simply implying it, but they end the article by saying that the police are now looking for the driver who brake checked AND caused the crash.

Of which I agree with that. Of course, the tailgater created a dangerous situation, but the brake check is ultimately what caused the accident.

Guarantee lead car will never be charged.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Eh, wouldn't the fact that tailgating at an incredibly unsafe distance be the cause, because if ya kept your distance like yore supposed to then you'd be able to maintain safe control?

The tailgater created an unsafe situation, however, there was no accident until the brakes came on which lead the driver to lose control. While it's all speculation to suggest what would have happened had there been no brake check, it's easy to determine that the ultimate cause was the brakes coming on.

I still fault the tailgater for creating the situation as it's impossible to know if the brake check was intentional or not. However, the lead car did just drive off which doesn't look good.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Guarantee lead car will never be charged.

Oh yea? Never say never.

http://www.journalscene.com/article/20141111/SJ01/141119952/

However, in the case above the driver was found to have been doing it intentionally.

That will be the biggest factor. If they can't pin intention on the lead car, then I think the only possible charges could be related to leaving the scene of an accident.

 

[Humpy]

There's a big difference between that and brake checking as most people understand it.

Brake checking implies a sudden drop in speed to freak out the car behind it.

But what would you call "activating your tail lights to send a message that you'd like them to back off"?

 

[Schmide]

Oh yea? Never say never.

http://www.journalscene.com/article/20141111/SJ01/141119952/

However, in the case above the driver was found to have been doing it intentionally.

That will be the biggest factor. If they can't pin intention on the lead car, then I think the only possible charges could be related to leaving the scene of an accident.

Jeep, his car hit the Jeep's rear tire, causing Watkins to lose control and flip the Jeep, ejecting both Watkins and Carey.

So a pit maneuver. Nice try.

 

[Genx87]

Oh yea? Never say never.

http://www.journalscene.com/article/20141111/SJ01/141119952/

However, in the case above the driver was found to have been doing it intentionally.

That will be the biggest factor. If they can't pin intention on the lead car, then I think the only possible charges could be related to leaving the scene of an accident.

Eh brake checking didnt cause this accident. The guy was being an asshole and break checking people while intentionally driving slow. Then when the Jeep tried passing him he clipped the rear tire in an attempt to keep the jeep from passing him. Which caused the Jeep to roll into water.

 

[thesmokingman]

Oh yea? Never say never.

http://www.journalscene.com/article/20141111/SJ01/141119952/

However, in the case above the driver was found to have been doing it intentionally.

That will be the biggest factor. If they can't pin intention on the lead car, then I think the only possible charges could be related to leaving the scene of an accident.

Lmao, contrarian really reaching there.

 

[purbeast0]

Oh yea? Never say never.

http://www.journalscene.com/article/20141111/SJ01/141119952/

However, in the case above the driver was found to have been doing it intentionally.

That will be the biggest factor. If they can't pin intention on the lead car, then I think the only possible charges could be related to leaving the scene of an accident.

come on, that isn't even a comparable case. it said that kid was doing it to multiple people and speeding up when cars tried to pass him to not let them pass him. he did a lot more than a love tap on the brakes that is shown in the video of this recent incident.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Eh brake checking didnt cause this accident. The guy was being an asshole and break checking people while intentionally driving slow. Then when the Jeep tried passing him he clipped the rear tire in an attempt to keep the jeep from passing him. Which caused the Jeep to roll into water.

I was referring to the guy leaving the scene of an accident. I agree these weren't identical situations. And that it would come down to if they can determine intention which I said would be difficult. In the case above they had witnesses who said he was brake checking and driving unsafe intentionally.

Looking back, I did a very poor job at articulating that and I can see where I was misunderstood and I accept any and all criticism.

 

[Genx87]

I was referring to the guy leaving the scene of an accident. I agree these weren't identical situations. And that it would come down to if they can determine intention which I said would be difficult.

Looking back, I did a very poor job at articulating that and I can see where I was misunderstood.

I think leaving the scene of an accident doesnt apply here unless the brake checker was actually hit by the tailgater.

In that case the brake checker had physical contact with the car when it clipped the rear tire. He absolutely had to stop as he had been in an accident. Im not certain in this case the brake checker has to stop.

 

[Humpy]

...but the brake check is ultimately what caused the accident.

Come on now. The accident wasn't ultimately caused by the trailing driver's overreaction to what she saw in front of her?

Instead of the event (the overreaction) that immediately preceded loss of control why would you choose to only look back as far as the brake check for blame? Why wouldn't you go back by three steps and put the ultimate cause on the tailgating? Or four steps, or blame their parents?

The argument just doesn't make sense.

 

[cbrunny]

10 minor speeding tickets and an accident in which I wasn't at fault...

You're trying too hard to be authoritative and relevant.

Nobody with that many tickets should ever tell anyone how to drive. Ever.

 

[thesmokingman]

^^True that.