Tapping brakes on Tailgaters? Ethics?

Wallyt99 on 02/12/2018 - 19:07

Just wondering people's thoughts on tapping brakes on Tailgaters.

Had some young hoons come up speeding behind me. Started tailgating and waving their arms. I was in the FAR LEFT lane. Going slightly below speed limit due to heavy traffic (maintaining stopping distance / matching speed of traffic). There was a truck in the centre lane so they couldn't easily overtake.

When this occured I slowed down further.

They got more and more agressive and so I tapped the brakes. No collision - but they shit themselves and backed off.

They eventually passed - winding down their window and trying to have a go at me…. But when they saw me they decided that would be a bad idea.

I was driveing a large SUV and they were driving a small Japanese car - so I wasn't worried for my safety if they did impact me. I was more concerned that their appalling driving could cost lives…and as a motorcyclist on other days - that includes mine. Basically I hate pricks like this and wanted to teach them a lesson.

What are your thoughts on this?

Automotive

Comments

- buckster on 03/12/2018 - 21:39
  
  +2
  
  This is great (I usually drop from 6th to 4th), because they usually have to flip out since they get less warning. And technically you're not brake checking, so you can't get pinged
- bmerigan on 03/12/2018 - 21:57
  
  +2
  
  I have used this method before
armdrags on 02/12/2018 - 21:21

+4

Bad idea. They might hit your car if you sudden brake like that. Just take your foot off the accelerator or change your gear down and let the car slow down naturally until they pass you. You can also brake slowly to achieve the same result. But never try to sudden brake. After that stop your car and call your bikies connection to teach them a lesson.
[Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 21:24

+15

It's one thing to slow down (even to a stop, if you're not going to hold up other traffic). It's an entirely different thing to brake check them. You should not do this under any circumstances, it is extremely stupid and dangerous.
- HighAndDry on 03/12/2018 - 12:08 Comment score below threshold.
  - [Deactivated] on 03/12/2018 - 16:35
    
    +1
    
    Definitely not the same thing.
    - HighAndDry on 03/12/2018 - 16:35
      
      -6
      
      You don't tap your brakes to slow down normally…?
      - [Deactivated] on 03/12/2018 - 16:36
        
        +2
        
        @HighAndDry: No, when I say slow down, I mean let the car roll to a lower speed. To tap your brakes when someone is tailgating you is extremely dangerous.
        
        HighAndDry on 03/12/2018 - 17:20
        
        -5
        
        @[Deactivated]: That makes no sense. What if there is traffic and you actually need to brake? IMO, braking normally is fine - so long as you're not braking especially suddenly or forcefully. Per my above comment - far better to do this when there is open road ahead of you, rather than wait until there's built-up traffic and you have to.
      - bargainhunter87 on 05/12/2018 - 20:53
        
        @HighAndDry: lol stop
Corrugated Ironman on 02/12/2018 - 21:33

+5

I slowed down to 40kmh on the Hume freeway because of a tailgater once. Hoping they’d just overtake.
Unfortunately the idiot didn’t overtake even though there was no other traffic around. I’m not sure they realised it was a 2 lane freeway. I guess they thought they’d get hit by oncoming traffic if they tried to overtake? Maybe they only knew how to turn left?? Anyway 10km later they exited. Tailgaters are scumbags.
- Hoofee on 03/12/2018 - 21:59
  
  +4
  
  They were slipstreaming!
  - THICKnSLOW on 04/12/2018 - 11:43
    
    +1
    
    Slipstreaming at 40kmh must mean they jumped out of the car and jogged.
mbck on 02/12/2018 - 21:34

+17

Just drive safely. Doesnt matter what others are doing. As long as you are safe, you are not in the wrong. Don't get forced to do anything.
chumlee on 02/12/2018 - 21:45

+9

That's why I drive a hearse. No one harasses me now
- elgrande on 02/12/2018 - 22:03
  
  Nice one
elgrande on 02/12/2018 - 22:07

+18
What I dont understand about tailgaters:

I am doing the speed limit

I'm getting tailgated.. honked etc.

They want me to disregard the rules and speed.. but..

they refuse to overtake on double lines.

If you want me to disregard the road rules, why not just disregard the double lines?

Drives me nuts.

And yep, I slow down more.. but never tried a break check.
- CMH on 03/12/2018 - 09:19
  
  You forgot to mention you were
  * keeping left or
  * it's a single lane or
  * you were overtaking or
  * the road was congested.
  
  Otherwise you're still a twat.
  - elgrande on 03/12/2018 - 10:59
    
    +6
    
    Which one of the above scenarios allows you to go faster than the speed limit?
    - SlickMick on 03/12/2018 - 12:18
      
      +9
      
      ouch hold on, are you one who will enforce your right to overtake a vehicle doing 99, but you won't exceed 100, and therefore holdup the right lane for umpteen kms??
      
      if you refuse to exceed the speed limit, you need to stay in the left lane when someone else wants to overtake.
      Yeah I don't like having to slow down either, and I hate that I can't get past the idiots that speed up in the overtaking lanes, but if we're going to live in a society we need to be considerate - let those that are faster than you go first.
      - MattyD on 03/12/2018 - 15:15
        
        -8
        
        @SlickMick: I strongly disagree: any justification of speeding is contributing to our national road death toll. Your two scenarios are limited to (a) speed in the overtaking lane, or (b) stay in the left lane. Attitudes like yours are dangerous, and serve only to propagate the problems on our road with speeding and road rage.
        
        Let's go with the road rules instead: (1) you must not exceed the speed limit under any circumstances. (2) In speed zones of 90km or over, stay in the left lane(s) unless overtaking. Your logic justifies the morons who think it's okay to get frustrated at a driver who is overtaking others in the right lane, just not at the (excessive) speed you're prepared to drive. These same idiots will tailgate you in an 80km/h zone too, believing it's their right to a free right lane because of the speeds they're prepared to do. If a vehicle is in the right lane of a 90km/h zone or higher, travelling at the speed limit and overtaking other vehicles it is well within its rights (and the law).
        
        The worst thing is that often these deadbeats will get frustrated at you for keeping a safe following distance in the right lane, seeing it as their 'right' to occupy that space and tailgate the person in front of you.
        
        People need to slow down and stop seeing themselves (and their stupid, imaginary 2min time-saving) as fair justification for inconsiderate, dangerous driving.
        
        Your manners on the road are an extension of your character: try not to be a dangerous moron.
        
        CMH on 03/12/2018 - 15:22
        
        +7
        
        @MattyD:
        
        Your two scenarios are limited to (a) speed in the overtaking lane, or (b) stay in the left lane.
        
        That's incorrect. Your scenario is limited to staying in the left lane as REQUIRED BY LAW.
        
        You can move over to the right only to overtake, otherwise stay on the left.
        
        MattyD on 03/12/2018 - 15:35 Comment score below threshold.
        
        CMH on 03/12/2018 - 15:41
        
        +3
        
        @MattyD: You can stay right while overtaking. That's the gist of it.
        
        If you're overtaking and others are tailgating you for it, they're idiots.
        
        But once you're done overtaking, you go back to the left. Simple.
        
        Problem is there's always idiots sitting in the right or middle lanes while NIT overtaking. That's the issue.
        
        As for legally exceeding the speed limit, there's quite a few but all require a time-sensitive emergency of some sort.
        
        MattyD on 03/12/2018 - 15:48
        
        -3
        
        @CMH: Yep, we're in agreement. But check on your state laws regarding speeding excuses, because what constitutes a valid excuse is subject to too many myths. Parent had a fall and got rushed to hospital: nope. Short of life&death (you literally have the baby poking out, or someone bleeding out on your back seat), you're not getting off a fine. You'd be on the phone to 000 already, anyway.
        
        Everything else: stick to the posted limit.
        
        SlickMick on 03/12/2018 - 17:39
        
        @CMH: … and idiots who will take a day and a half to overtake, and would rather cause congestion behind them than wear a little inconvenience for the sake of everyone else… then justify it by saying they're helping others obey the speed limit.
        
        HighAndDry on 03/12/2018 - 15:25
        
        @MattyD:
        
        any justification of speeding is contributing to our national road death toll.
        
        No, reality doesn't fit into neat little boxes. Speed as a factor in an accident for someone doing 101 in a 100 zone is effectively the same as it would be for the same person doing 100.
        
        Also,
        
        Let's go with the road rules instead: (1) you must not exceed the speed limit under any circumstances.
        
        This is just wrong. There are plenty of circumstances in which you can exceed the speed limit.
        
        MattyD on 03/12/2018 - 16:04
        
        -3
        
        @HighAndDry: https://i.imgflip.com/21johh.jpg
        
        HighAndDry on 03/12/2018 - 16:06
        
        @MattyD: Ah sorry, didn't realise I was talking with a kid who communicates using memes.
        
        MattyD on 03/12/2018 - 16:16
        
        -8
        
        @HighAndDry: Oh that wasn't for you bud, I was entertaining myself. I wouldn't even know where to start pointing out the factual inaccuracies in your comment and the thinking behind it, and I doubt from your reasoning you'd be open to rational discourse. But okay…
        
        You'd argue your first point against a cop, a judge, or any of the experts who speak with authority on the increasingly problematic attitudes we have toward speeding. And you'd be categorically wrong.
        
        You'd argue your second point against the unambiguous wording of traffic legislation in your state. And you'd be categorically wrong.
        
        You'll find a spelling or grammatical error in my post, or argue something I'm not saying (like CMH did), because some small win makes you feel better. But you'd be categorically wrong.
        
        SlickMick on 03/12/2018 - 17:35
        
        +2
        
        @MattyD: I need to come back tomorrow when I have more downvotes.
        
        I've never met one of your species before (besides on the road), and am very surprised at all the name calling. I honestly thought that only went in one direction. So you are actually annoyed by the one's you're annoying!!?? Do you realise that the only reason those people are taking the actions they are, is because you are provoking them.
        
        I wish we could clear a state and let you all suffer among yourselves and stop bothering those that are willing to cooperate with each other to make a functioning society.
        Is that your own 90km/hr rule or do you all get together to make your own laws?
        
        No one is saying it is legal to exceed the speed limit. But you don't have a right to enforce speed limits for others, and you can be fined for being a nuisance. Do you hit your brakes when approaching a speed camera, and slow everyone down to 10-20km below the speed limit? I bet that's you too.
        One of my most favorite things is to see a police car come up behind someone like you. Usually you'll brake and get back in the left lane, am I right?
        
        I personally don't speed, but I'm not one of your kind. I stay in the left lane until I have an opportunity to overtake without being a nuisance by hogging the right lane for an extended period (or an overtaking lane for the entire length of it.) And yes, I get back in the left lane if I see someone coming up behind me and I know I'll take a while to get past the vehicle I'm overtaking. It's just common courtesy.
        I'd advise you to never drive in Europe.
        
        MattyD on 04/12/2018 - 00:36
        
        -2
        
        @SlickMick: Mate the only thing remotely lucid about what you just said is you confessed to being utterly oblivious to the road rule that governs proper use of lanes.
        
        Thanks dude, I'm going to use your comment in my next class.
        
        SlickMick on 04/12/2018 - 09:51
        
        @MattyD: I said nothing of the sort, but if it wasn't lucid to you, I guess we have a comprehension problem.
        
        You clearly aren't interested in how your actions affect others, so no point continuing this conversation.
        
        MattyD on 04/12/2018 - 10:32
        
        -1
        
        @SlickMick:
        
        [ME] Here's the law in Qld: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/left
        [YOU] Is that your own 90km/hr rule or do you all get together to make your own laws?
        
        Yes, I make my own rules. Then I post them to the state transport sites, just for kicks.
        
        [ME] Here's where the QLD transport laws clearly state "it is not safe to speed in any circumstances": https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-… (edit: either of these links. "It is never legal to exceed the speed limit to overtake another vehicle." and "It is not safe to speed in any circumstance.")
        
        [HighAndDry] There are plenty of circumstances in which you can exceed the speed limit.
        [CMH] As for legally exceeding the speed limit, there's quite a few but all require a time-sensitive emergency of some sort.
        [YOU] No one is saying it is legal to exceed the speed limit.
        
        Well read. Unless by 'no one' you meant 'literally everybody who was discussing this point'.
        
        [YOU] "Do you hit your brakes when approaching a speed camera, and slow everyone down to 10-20km below the speed limit? I bet that's you too"…"see a police car come up behind someone like you. Usually you'll brake and get back in the left lane, am I right?"…
        
        Amazing. It's like you've pictured me perfectly. And are categorically wrong on all counts.
        
        Seriously champ, are you actually several people on one account, vying for the title of "lowest comprehension"?
        
        SlickMick on 04/12/2018 - 15:28
        
        @MattyD: Just came back coz got my new quota of downvotes. See you tomorrow.
        
        MattyD on 04/12/2018 - 16:00
        
        -1
        
        @SlickMick: Awesome!
        
        no point continuing this conversation.
        
        I'm impressed that your unwavering commitment to being demonstrably wrong motivated you to press on, despite me posting studies from NSW, QLD, VIC and SA which single out your mindset as the cause of the majority of fatalities on Australian roads.
        
        But seriously, keep working on your ABCs tiger. There are some awfully big words in all of those studies, laws and research. The next life you save could be your own.
        
        ozoner on 04/12/2018 - 18:50
        
        @MattyD: Ahhh. Your self-righteous attitude makes more sense in the context of your "using it in my next class" comment. Can I suggest you invest some time in studying how to get your point across without being such a douche. People may begin to take you seriously.
        
        MattyD on 04/12/2018 - 21:15
        
        @ozoner: Ah yes, projecting some imagined personality flaw onto a person who has effectively mic-dropped undeniable proof that you are wrong: the last bastion of the keyboard warrior bereft of reason, logic or teachability.
        
        Zounds: your attack pierced me to the core. I am beaten, worthy opponent. Well played!
        
        Well I’m glad we’ve moved this scintillating but one-sided internet debate into an end phase and I can dispense with researching actual facts, expert views and legislated laws on your behalf. That was getting exhausting doing all the thinking for two!
        
        Now if it helps you with your witty closing arguments I also had buck teeth as a child, am terribly mediocre on the guitar and twice dated girls of another race.
        
        [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 21:23
        
        +1
        
        @MattyD: This was a reasonably funny comment.
        I hope we can all agree .
        
        ozoner on 04/12/2018 - 22:20
        
        @MattyD: Many thanks for proving my point.
        
        MattyD on 04/12/2018 - 22:39
        
        @ozoner: Your point being that your thinking on low-level speeding is succinctly, comprehensively and dangerously incorrect in the face of all authoritative research into the topic?
        
        Gosh, you're welcome son. Come back any time. You drive safely now!
        
        ozoner on 04/12/2018 - 23:34
        
        +1
        
        @MattyD: Actually, the one about your personality traits. People may listen to your points more if you didn't come across as a such a tosser. As it stands, I just want to drive 5k's over the limit all the time because I know it'd annoy the hell out of you.
        
        MattyD on 05/12/2018 - 00:16
        
        -2
        
        @ozoner: Excellent! Here in a winding-down 2-day old discussion topic on an Australian bargain website you've expertly convinced a complete stranger of their own inadequacies without a shred of learned sense. Cut right to the heart of my crippling (and hitherto secret!) social shortcomings without expressing a single salient point on the matter being discussed. The tears flow freely now; my keyboard ruin'd. It is indeed a public and Herculean victory, worthy of the annals of this fine brown land.
        
        And you've conducted yourself admirably to the end no-less: avoiding logic, expertise and good sense at every turn. "None of that facts-and-figures ballyhoo for me!" you scream defiantly, yet confirming your commitment to perpetuating a nationally-recognised cause of deaths in our country to assuage nothing more than the bile that's building up inside you at the sheer futility of salvaging even a shred of credibility. Your ass handed to you, repeatedly, by the expertise of so many wiser people.
        
        But lo! I personally am, again, vanquished by your keen insight. I shall forthwith commit to a course of whiskey, therapy, social withdrawal. Probably all three. And I'm buying a scooter tomorrow :)
        
        ozoner on 05/12/2018 - 01:03
        
        @MattyD: Again, thank you for proving my point.
        
        MattyD on 05/12/2018 - 01:13
        
        -1
        
        @ozoner: Your point being that your thinking on low-level speeding is succinctly, comprehensively and dangerously incorrect in the face of all authoritative research into the topic AND that you're going after me personally because cognitive bias renders you utterly unable to read the facts, findings, and research of so many expert others?
        
        Seriously: don't mention it friend. The world needs more of your brand of ignorant perseverance coupled with chronically erroneous thinking and the ability to disregard all facts.
        
        I mean, we'll need another Prime Minister soon won't we?
        
        ozoner on 05/12/2018 - 01:15
        
        @MattyD: Hugs x
        
        MattyD on 05/12/2018 - 01:21
        
        -1
        
        @ozoner: No, no. <raises glass> To you, friend!
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/12/2018 - 19:29
        
        +2
        
        @MattyD:
        
        Your logic justifies the morons who think it's okay to get frustrated at a driver who is overtaking others in the right lane
        
        And a driver rushing someone to the hospital should wait behind you on the right lane because your ~~stupidity~~ sense of road morality.
        
        I'm sure most people speeding through the right lane are just speeding. Let the cops take care of it. You'll never know when it is someone rushing to a burning house so don't be dick.
        
        MattyD on 04/12/2018 - 00:29
        
        -2
        
        @[Deactivated]: Oh heck no. Goodness, not at all! No, those thousands of tailgating, speeding and road-raging Samaritans with actual life and death cases HAPPENING RIGHT IN THEIR CARS ('cause everybody knows that's 50% of them, right?), and those who carry high-tech private firefighting equipment (the other 50%) should definitely keep carrying on like total deadshts on public roads. I meant the *other 1%.
        
        Like the ones who put my cousin in pain for the last 35 years of her life. Or the tradie that broke all the bones in a 17 y.o. aspiring dancer's arm in their haste to get to work one Monday. Or the cycling store owner who ran my student's family off the motorway at 100km/h intentionally. How about that civic-minded chap who pushed the other motorist to his death via an oncoming garbage truck, in plain view of the 60 people on my bus, over a traffic disagreement?
        
        No, go on: remind me all of the reasons why your extra 5km/h warrant openly vilifying motorists who are keeping to the very letter of the law in regards to the 90km/h+ rule of lane use.
        
        ozoner on 04/12/2018 - 13:05
        
        @MattyD: I think you may be confusing "driving a few k's over the limit" with "driving like a reckless (profanity)". They're quite different.
        
        MattyD on 04/12/2018 - 13:59
        
        -1
        
        @ozoner: Nope ozoner, they're exactly the same. Believing otherwise speaks to the root of the very problem we have in Australia with low-level speeding, why states spend a motser of our tax dollars on specific speed-campaigns that such comments prove are not getting through.
        
        Here's just one example of a university study from my state showing that exceeding speed limits by even small amounts (5km/h) can double the risk of casualty crash.
        
        Mob rule may determine how many OB +/- I get here, but I'd rather be compelled by studies which suggest there'd be around 600 Australians who'd still be alive after 2017 (mothers, babies, children, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, husbands, wives) if people get the message that low-level speeding is JUST. PLAIN. STUPID.
        
        [edit] Here's a NSW fact sheet showing the exact same thing. Victoria? Sure!. The SA equivalent actually calls people out for shunning evidence and research in favour of intuition when it comes to views on speeding, which kinda makes me proud to be receiving all these negative votes.
        
        So by all means, bargain-hunters, smash that '-' button. Give your family an extra cuddle this Christmas-New Years, because statistically speaking we're set to lose another 40-50 loved ones…
        
        [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 21:25
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Yes everybody is rushing to the hospital , Not.
        
        [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 21:29
        
        @[Deactivated]: And for the one that is, I guess whoever is in that backseat deserves to die because of your narcissism.
        
        MattyD on 04/12/2018 - 22:29
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Just to make sure we understand your position here:
        * you don't believe as a nation we should address the delusional attitude toward low-level speeding which our national and state road authorities agree is a major contributor toward casualty accidents (circa 1200 deaths per annum, and sources/links above),
        * but you do believe that it's reasonable to accept this national pandemic because someone, one day, might save 42 seconds getting someone to the hospital?
        
        Probably dial back the Bruce Willis movies just a notch. Put on some pants. Go outside for some fresh air.
        
        [Deactivated] on 05/12/2018 - 08:49
        
        +2
        
        @MattyD: I'm not making any concessions for the speeding. You just keep bringing it up and arguing against it.
        
        All I'm saying is keep the right lane clear. Let the cops deal with the speeding.
        
        MattyD on 05/12/2018 - 10:52
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        And a driver rushing someone to the hospital should wait behind you on the right lane because your stupidity sense of road morality.
        You'll never know when it is someone rushing to a burning house so don't be dick.
        
        You've cited two ridiculously rare and unlikely scenarios as your justification for asking law abiding motorists who use the right lane for overtaking perfectly according to the laws governing road use to be more accommodating of speeding motorists who are breaking the law and endangering others.
        
        I couldn't find a better example of "concession" on this issue if I made one up myself.
        
        The studies I referenced specifically name and shame your very attitude as the problem: the grave disparity between "how the majority of Australians intuitively feel roads/motorists should operate" and "what the evidence overwhelmingly shows would serve to reduce road fatalities" when it comes to low-level speeding.
        
        Sorry tshow: you're wrong, and all the experts say so. But you're part of a majority when it comes to your thinking so hey: swings and roundabouts, amiright?
        
        [Deactivated] on 05/12/2018 - 11:21
        
        @MattyD: You seem to think right and wrong depends on who makes the exclamation first.
        
        It's fine, you stir up speeding arguments and win uncontested. By that extension, feel free to feel as if your entire view on traffic is correct.
        
        I guess as long as you use a lot of rhetorics and have lots of rebuttals to arguments not made, you must be correct. Amiright?
        
        MattyD on 05/12/2018 - 11:49
        
        -2
        
        @[Deactivated]: sigh Right on script, we transition into a meta-argument about how - whilst objectively and factually you are definitively wrong - you definitely have some moral victory to take away. It's like you, ozoner and slickmick are Turing machines running "Internet Argument 101".
        
        I began with a strongly worded and unpopular opinion challenging the assertion of another. It was only after it was duly voted down, misread and argued (poorly) against that I introduced myriad facts, studies and expert opinions to support that challenge. At that point it really isn't about me, it's about how your assertions (a) fly thoroughly in the face of all research on the matter and (b) serve as perfect examples of the very problem authorities are trying to address. Much as I'd love to help you, I can't very well go back and be wrong about that which experts agree is right.
        
        Which leaves you with two options:
        * "Interesting to read that. I hadn't considered that majority attitude on Australian roads actually serve to perpetuate and encourage practices which, while they intuitively feel like the considerate/correct way to use our roads, are actually killing Australians in significant numbers." (Said no keyboard warrior ever)
        * Flail about and hurr durr yourself until your brain is done processing the chemical imbalance caused when ingrained beliefs are challenged and must be either replaced or blindly reinforced.
        
        Butthurt away, my friend.
        
        [Deactivated] on 05/12/2018 - 12:14
        
        -1
        
        @MattyD: Okay. New arguments to win eh?
        
        I'm sure whomever you're arguing with is butthurt. At this point, I don't think anyone knows who that is. :S
        
        Ps. Can't be bothered reading more of your enlightened views. Anymore illumination and we'd all be blind.
        
        MattyD on 05/12/2018 - 12:22
        
        -2
        
        @[Deactivated]: Well, so long as you've reached a place of peace and enlightenment, tshow. Your growth in wisdom and understanding is thanks enough for me.
        
        CMH on 05/12/2018 - 15:19
        
        -1
        
        @MattyD: I just had a look at all the studies you posted.
        
        All of them state the importance of a lower speed in the event of a crash, with their main evidence being calculations on how fast you hit a stationary object at a given speed.
        
        This completely ignored all other safe driving practices like keeping a safe distance to the vehicle ahead and driving to road conditions (might be a clear day, but a windy road for example).
        
        These studies are actually quite useless other than to further arguments to reduce speed for the sake of reducing speed, and to be used to argue that speed limits on highways shouldn't be more than 60 for example.
        
        A more useful study would be a comparison between a piece of road (or many roads) and how having higher (or lower) speed limits on said roads have changed the number of serious accidents.
        
        MattyD on 05/12/2018 - 16:02
        
        @CMH: That may well be; I have no expertise in such things CMH. I simply challenged SlickMick's dangerous yet popular assertion that the right thing for motorists to do is either exceed the speed in the overtaking lane or keep left for others who will, and that this improves overall traffic conditions on our roads. I contest there is a third option: use the overtaking lane according to the road rules of your state, and as a nation we all work on addressing our own shortcomings in regards to other motorists (speeders, tailgaters, brake-checkers, lane-hoggers alike). To that end the relevant conclusions of state road authorities include (and I quote):
        
        "keeping to the speed limit may actually assist with reducing traffic congestion by improving the smoothness of traffic flow through reductions in speed variation and improved vehicle headway."
        "Past improvements to enforcement and reductions in average speeds (even by 1 or 2%) have resulted in substantial reductions in deaths and injuries in many jurisdictions"
        "[Police] message to the motoring public remains the same: Any speed above the posted speed limit is illegal."
        "Low level speeding is such a large issue because the cumulative effect of the additional risk associated with low level speeding multiplied by a high number of drivers speeding at the lower levels, results in more casualty crashes than high level speeding"
        "[The] above findings show, collectively, this large amount of low level speeding is leading to a considerable amount of trauma on NSW roads."
        
        But I contest that your interpretation of these studies becomes seriously flawed when you categorise them all as useless. Your conclusive leap from "studies which apply to 60km/h" to "[argue that] speed limits on highways shouldn't be more than 60" is straight up non sequitur. You're punching way out of your weight division there.
        
        Crazy, I know, but I'm inclined to stick with the universal agreement of experts in the field of accident prevention and road management, than your extremely sketchy conclusions drawn from a cursory read of so much collective expertise.
        
        [Deactivated] on 05/12/2018 - 20:44
        
        +1
        
        @MattyD: I'm with you Matty, absolutely detest speeders. Force doesn't increase linearly with speed. It's a shame we have to keep a lane clear for people who want to speed. I saw some guy on the highway with a trailer go at least 120khm. Leave it for the cops? I see people speeding every single day and I almost never see anyone get busted.
        
        The cockiness and arrogance of these people who think they're above the law. Worse than on the freeway is the people who constantly go 60+ in suburbs and school zones. I was driving a while ago near a school zone and a little kid on a bike appeared in front of me, he was behind a large van. I was going 40 and braked in time. I wouldn't imagine making it if i was going 60 or even 50.
        
        I don't see why people just can't go the speed limit.
        
        CMH on 05/12/2018 - 21:09
        
        -1
        
        @MattyD: The studies you quoted only scratch the surface of road safety, but make big claims. Like I previously mentioned there's many issues to road safety including but not limited to driver education, car safety, road design, road conditions… The list goes on really.
        
        I am pointing out that the studies are written so generally it would have applied to everything. Wipe off 5? So from 60 let's do 55. Repeat? Now do 50. And so on and so forth. And each time this study would support that statement 100%.
        
        If the study was specific, say by reducing all 2 lane roads to 60 we could reduce road tolls by X amount I would be more willing to stand by it.
        
        Btw, who is it you're quoting there, because without numbers to back it up, they're empty statistics. Besides, it's very anecdotal if they're quoting that police presence has reduced the number of accidents.
        
        MattyD on 06/12/2018 - 13:39
        
        -1
        
        @CMH: Dude, did we actually read the same studies??
        
        Initially I thought you were trolling, that you could so flippantly dismiss the collective views of our National and State road authorities, the informed consensus of the top experts in the field AND the researchers and practitioners whose life work they cross-reference.
        
        Then I realised you're serious. You're actually convicted by your own superficial analysis, intuition and blatant misinterpretation over those whose very expertise lies in planning and managing roadways to keep more people alive.
        
        I'm looking forward to reading your next published work:
        "We all agree, based on years of research and experience, that the following factors would save lives on Australian roads…" [Experts et al., 1913-2017]
        "I fink numbers are dumb." [CMH, 2018]
        
        CMH on 06/12/2018 - 14:15
        
        -1
        
        @MattyD:
        
        Here's just one example of a university study(research.qut.edu.au) from my state
        Here's(rms.nsw.gov.au) a NSW fact sheet showing the exact same thing. Victoria? Sure!(tac.vic.gov.au). The SA equivalent(dpti.sa.gov.au) actually calls people
        
        "Hurr Durr, I can't tell the difference between advertising and academic studies" - MattyD
        
        None of them are academic studies, which explained why I couldn't find any actual arguments, data or… Anything academic really.
        
        I have no expertise in such things
        
        You clearly don't know anything about reading reports so just stick to watching advertisements ok?
        
        MattyD on 06/12/2018 - 14:31
        
        -1
        
        @CMH: You're so right. Let's disregard all the in-text referencing, bibliographies and links to studies. I'm sure it's, like, product placement stuff bro?
        
        By the way, that poisons warning manufacturers put on industrial drain cleaner? Advertising. Drink up.
        
        The warning signpost next to your favourite NQ beach with all the stingers, crocodiles and sharks on it? Spam! Who's for a dip?
        
        I saw on YouTube there was a video of a brain-damaged monkey trying to make love to a doorknob. Still made way more sense than your summation of our National road authorities' collective views on low-level speeding.
        
        CMH on 06/12/2018 - 15:54
        
        -1
        
        @MattyD: You're making an argument and referencing someone else's references? Which you probably didn't even read, so you don't know what exactly they said.
        
        Anyway, it's clear you have no idea about evidence-based-research so continuing this discussion is like arguing with a child.
        
        So you win.
        
        If anyone else would like to continue this discussion I'm more than happy to.
        
        MattyD on 06/12/2018 - 16:03
        
        @CMH: Wait. You're disregarding the collective opinion of our nation's road authorities because they referenced OTHER EXPERTS' WORK?
        
        That's special mate. Seriously dude, stop. I'm going to pee if I laugh any harder.
        
        But seriously: don't give up on that doorknob. Love is love.
        
        MattyD on 06/12/2018 - 15:44
        
        @CMH: Definitely not laughing at you CMH. Even some of us adults struggle with literacy and comprehension. But we've taken the first step together (well done, brave little tiger!). When you've got all your letters down, below is a bunch of your so-called 'advertising' referenced by the links I shared. But careful: they have some of those fact & figure thingies you seem to carefully avoid.
        
        Shall we anticipate your next brilliant riposte: "Some of those studies aren't even in Australia. Everybody knows physics works differently here herpy derp derp!"
        
        Walker, E, Murdoch, C, Bryant, P Barnes, B & Johnson, B (2009). Quantitative study of attitudes, motivations and beliefs related to speeding and speed enforcement. Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference, Sydney, 2009.
        Petroulias, T (2009). Community attitudes to road safety – 2009 survey report. Road Safety Report No. 4. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra.
        Hatfield, J. & Job, RFS (2006). Beliefs and attitudes about speeding and its countermeasures. Report to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Report No: B2001/0342.
        Svenson, O, Fischhoff B & MacGregor, D (1985). Perceived driving safety and seatbelt usage. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17(2), 119-133.
        Weinstein, ND & Lyon, JE (1999). Mindset, optimism bias about personal risk and health-protective behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 289-300.
        Fernandes, R, Hatfield, J & Job, RFS (2010). A systematic investigation of the differential predictors of risky driving behaviours among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 13, 179-196.
        Job, RFS, Hamer, V & Walker, M (1995). The effects of optimism bias and fear on protective behaviour. In: Kenny, D, Job, RFS (Eds.), Australia’s Adolescents: A Health Psychology Perspective. New England University Press, Armidale, pp. 151–156.
        Kloeden CN, McLean AJ, Moore VM, and Ponte G (1997) Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, The University of Adelaide
        Gavin, A, Walker, E, Murdoch, C, Graham, A, Fernandes, R, Job, RFS (2010). Is a focus on low level speeding justified? Objective determination of the relative contributions of low and high level speeding to the road toll. Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference, Canberra, 2010.
        Australian Transport Council. (2014). National Road Safety Action Plan 2015 - 2017.
        World Health Organization. (2008). Speed management: A road safety manual for decisionmakers and practitioners. http://who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/speed_manual/en/i…
        Global Road Safety Partnership
        Wundersitz, L., & Baldock, M. (2008). Annual performance indicators of enforced driver behaviours in South Australia, 2006 Report No. CASR043. Adelaide: Centre for Automotive Safety Research.
        Corben, B., Lenne, M., Regan, M. A., & Triggs, T. (2001). Technology to enhance speed limit compliance. In 2001 Australasian Road Safety Research Policing and Education Conference.
        Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2015). Speeding. http://tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Driver-guide/Speeding/About-spe…
        Fildes, B. N., Langford, J., Andrea, D., & Scully, J.(2005). Balance between harm reduction and mobility in setting speed limits: A feasibility study AP- R272/05:Austroads.
        Australian Transport Council. (2003). National road safety action plan 2003 and 2004. Canberra, Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
        Adminiate, D., Allsop, R., & Jost, G. (2015). Ranking EU Progress On Improving Motorway Safety: PIN Flash Report 28. Brussels: European Transport Safety
        Council.
        Friedman, L., Hedeker, D., & Richter, E. D. (2009). Long-term effects of repealing the national maximum speed limit in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, epub.
        Newstead, S. V. (2006). Evaluation of the crash effects of the Queensland speed camera program in the year 2005: Consultancy Report. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre.
        Mackenzie JRR, Woolley JE, Stokes CS, Kloeden CN, Raftery SJ (2016) Analysis and modelling of crashes in Tasmania (CASR136), Centre for Automotive Safety Research, Adelaide.
        Cameron, M. (2008). Development of strategies for best practice in speed enforcement in Western Australia: Supplementary Report Number 277.
        Melbourne: MUARC.
        Office of Road Safety. (2006). Science of speeding. Western Australian Government. http://officeofroadsafety.wa.gov.au/campaigns/speed_august20…
        Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. (2000). New directions in speed management: A review of policy. London.
        Liu, C., Chen, C. L., Subramanian, R., & Utter, D. (2005). Analysis of speeding-related fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes. Washington D.C.: National
        Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
        Australian Transport Safety Bureau. (2005). Behavioural factors: The fatal five. Safety education material, ATSB.
        Cirillo, J. A. (1968). Interstate system crash research; study II, interim report II. Public Roads, 35(3), 71-76.
        Hauer, E. (1971). Accidents, overtaking and speed control. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 3, 1-13.
        Research Triangle Institute. (1970). Speed and Accidents. Volumes. I & II. North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute.
        Solomon, D. (1964). Crashes on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Public Roads. U.S. Department of Commerce
        Global Road Safety Partnership. (2008). Speed management: a road safety manual for decisionmakers and practitioners. Geneva: Global Road Safety Partnership.
        Kloeden, C. N., McLean, A. J., Moore, V. M., & Ponte, G. (1997). Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement: Volume 1 - Findings. NHMRC Road
        Accident Research Unit The University of Adelaide.
        Fleiter, J., Watson, B., Lennon, A., King, M., & Shi, K. (2009). Speeding in Australia and China: A comparison of the influence of legal sanctions
        and enforcement practices on car drivers. In Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference.
        Watson, B., Watson, A., Siskind, V., & Fleiter, J. (2009). Characteristics and predictors of highrange speeding offenders. In Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference, Sydney.
        VicRoads. (2005). Speeding Fact Sheet No. 4. http://vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/rdsafe/sdfs4.pdf
        Regan, M., Young, K., Triggs, T., Tomasevic, N., Mitsopoulos, E., Tierney, P., et al. (2007). Effects on driving performance of in-vehicle intelligent
        transport systems: Final results of the Australian TAC SafeCar project. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 18(1), 23-30.
        Rouwendal, J., Verhoef, E., Rietveld, P. & Zwart, B. (2002). A stochastic model of congestion caused by speed differences. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 36 (3), 407-445.
        Delaney, A., Diamantopoulou, K., & Cameron, M. (2003). MUARC’s Speed Enforcement Research: Principles Learnt and Implications for Practice. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre.
        Fleiter, J., & Watson, B. (2006). The speed paradox: The misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 17(2), 23-30.
        
        CMH on 06/12/2018 - 16:01
        
        -1
        
        @MattyD: This is just a data dump. You haven't read through them clearly. A random one I picked talked about a way to determine safe speed limits (which isn't what you're arguing here).
        
        Read them, then make YOUR argument referencing them, or my reply is just going to be
        
        "Here's my references: scholar.google.com. go find it."
        
        Anyway, I'm going to just ignore anything from here on out since it's really really pointless.
        
        MattyD on 06/12/2018 - 16:16
        
        -1
        
        @CMH: BWAHAHAHAHA. Oh stop, you're going to make me pee. Let's summarise your stance:
        (1) YOU: The national road authorities who referenced all of these studies and all reached the same conclusions are "advertising". HERP
        (2) ALSO YOU: Unless we specifically read the studies ourselves, we shouldn't listen to the experts and other academics who summarise them. DERP
        (3) YOU AGAIN: I'm not going to read it before I say something prodigiously ignorant, but there's no way that research into determining safe speed limits has any bearing on the relative dangers of low level speeding HURR DURR
        (4) UNFORTUNATELY, STILL YOU: Windy roads might make you safer. WHEEEE!
        
        Okay, that last one I did for fun. But I did check out scholar.google.com per your request. It says you're still wrong (7856 hits).
    - CMH on 03/12/2018 - 13:03
      
      +5
      
      None, but in those scenarios you were doing everything you are legally supposed to do.
      
      If you weren't, then you have failed to keep left when you're legally supposed to, and that's why you're getting tailgates, honked and basically raged on for being a twat.
    - Bargain80 on 03/12/2018 - 13:24
      
      +2
      
      you meant faster than your speedometer?
      the scenario is that your speedometer is 10% lower than the actual and the car behind is trying to drive up to the speed limit.
strapping young lad on 02/12/2018 - 22:32

+4

Just slow down a bit then go back to speed limit when they try to overtake and i laugh at them then they see me and back off or they turn off ….. me shaved head goatee wind my window down when they are near me and see me i watch them crap themselves or blow them a kiss even funnier i shouldn't but can't help myself sometimes 😀😁😂🤣
tanksinatra on 02/12/2018 - 22:52

+6

Pull over
Let them pass
Forget about it and continue going on with your life.
- Marty131 on 03/12/2018 - 17:45
  
  Difficult on a highway?
BertieBrown on 02/12/2018 - 23:15

+13

Never, ever, escalate. That’s my policy.

Always look for options to deescalate a situation like this.

For multiple reasons, most of which is that you can’t control chaos. It’s impossible to know how people will react.

Consider that if you brake check a tailgater, and misjudge, you then are in a position to be exchanging details with an irate, potentially dangerous person.
Forskin on 03/12/2018 - 06:42

+3

Why would you brake test?
Not only are you going to possibly ruin your car (and you'd be at fault!) but the tailgaters car and maybe innocent cars around. Get off your high horse, you do not own the road
- brendanm on 03/12/2018 - 07:05
  
  +4
  
  How would you be at fault exactly?
  - Forskin on 03/12/2018 - 09:12
    
    -7
    
    Because the brake checker purposely caused the accident as there was nothing infront of him
    
    I've had experience with this twice, and both cases have determined the brake checker is at fault.
    - CMH on 03/12/2018 - 09:22
      
      +8
      
      I confirm this is true if they can prove there's no reason to brake.
      
      If they said they saw a cat and you can't prove there wasn't, you're out of luck.
    - HighAndDry on 03/12/2018 - 12:10
      
      +15
      
      I've had experience with this twice, and both cases have determined the brake checker is at fault.
      
      I doubt this, but I'd like to know the details. If someone brake checking you causes you to crash into them, by definition you weren't keeping a safe distance. That's why 99% of rear-end accidents are deemed the fault of the driver behind.
    - brendanm on 03/12/2018 - 14:24
      
      "Something ran in front of me, fell off a ute etc etc". Prove me wrong. If the person following had been leaving a safe distance, they wouldn't have hit you, therefore they are at fault.
      - Forskin on 03/12/2018 - 14:59
        
        -3
        
        @brendanm: Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes tailgating is illegal but so is break testing.
        Again, the brake tester purposely caused the accident. That's why they are at fault. Cheers
        
        brendanm on 03/12/2018 - 17:32
        
        +2
        
        @Forskin: It's actually not illegal, as it's impossible to prove. Unless some changes lanes an inch in front of you and then stomps the brakes, the person behind is always at fault. If the person behind was at a reasonable distance there would be no accident.
        
        Feel free to try to prove me wrong by tailgating someone until they brake check, I'm sure your premiums will increase next year with an "at fault" claim.
        
        Forskin on 03/12/2018 - 18:09
        
        @brendanm: Have a read, who is at fault?
        https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2653655
        
        "The insurance company has determined that since I stopped for no reason it's my fault"
        "I did argue that if I had time to stop then so did he. If he was truly following at a safe distance then he should have been able to stop in time."
        
        How thick can you be to automatically believe you are off the hook if you get rear ended? If you cause the accident, you are at fault.
        
        brendanm on 03/12/2018 - 18:14
        
        +2
        
        @Forskin: Haha this goes into the same basket as I mentioned above, can't pull in front of someone and slam on the brakes. Completely different situation than driving along minding your own business and then "seeing something on the road".
        
        That goose has video of him acting like a nutjob, probably breaking the speed limit, cutting the other person off and then slamming the brakes. He also admitted he stopped for no reason. Probably better to read the whole thread before seeing the first post and linking it. If you can't understand what the difference is with this I think we are done here.
        
        Forskin on 03/12/2018 - 18:20
        
        -1
        
        @brendanm: I don't think we can ever come to an agreement. OP Braked for no reason, so did that goose on the whirlpool thread.
        
        Thanks for the chat though!
        
        KFC Fan on 04/12/2018 - 13:56
        
        -1
        
        @Forskin: IDK Why you left this juicy detail out of your quotes from above: "Unfortunately no, i was honest and said i stopped for no reason."
        
        gromit on 04/12/2018 - 12:51
        
        @Forskin: I don't think linking someone that committed a road rage incident and admitted to intentionally cutting in front of someone and brake checking them as revenge is a good example to cite. If that is the best you have then I would say you have lost this one. In general the driver behind is going to be at fault, yes you can concoct scenarios like the cited road rage incident where it will go the other way, but those will be as common as hens teeth.
        
        Forskin on 04/12/2018 - 15:23
        
        @gromit: Thanks everyone, I accept defeat
Archi on 03/12/2018 - 09:57

+11
bottom line…

you have control of what you are doing and absolutely NO control of what others are doing or how they will react.

if people continue to rage on roads and other places as if it was their god given right then you might as well kiss your family goodbye for the last time in the morning when you leave, because your family will never know whether you'll make it home that evening. you'll either end up in jail or dead.

just because you can doesn't mean you should. can be applied in all aspects of life.

life is valuable, your actions affect not just you but everyone around you. whether you like it we are connected in some way, shape or form.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/video-captures…
GoodEnough on 03/12/2018 - 09:58

+3

Most brake lights come on before the brakes do, well in everything I've driven and checked on. You don't need to actually slow down.

For those who say brake checking is dangerous, it's not as dangerous as them tailgating when you really have to brake hard. Brisbane to Gold Coast can go from 110 to 0 in a couple of hundred metres, it's a surprise on a curve or over a rise.
Plug on 03/12/2018 - 11:09

If tbe lead car does something silly and the following car has a dashcam it'll be the driver of the lead car that will get the blame if there's a collision.
- SlickMick on 03/12/2018 - 12:26
  
  +7
  
  if the dashcam shows he's tailgating, I think he'll be hiding it, not using it as evidence.
  
  I can't think of a scenario where you could rear-end somebody and your dashcam can do anything but incriminate you.
Quagles on 03/12/2018 - 13:35

I always get slower and slower when tailgated till they back off. I love watching their rage.
QW3RTY on 03/12/2018 - 13:36

+4

If travelling at speed, just activate your windshield washer spray. The tailgater will be covered in your foamy liquids.
- Archi on 03/12/2018 - 13:59
  
  +5
  
  i'm not a tailgater… but i hate it when someone decides to clean their windscreens when they are travelling at speed and there are cars around them. especially when im behind them.
  - UNO on 03/12/2018 - 18:13
    
    +6
    
    I think they might be trying to tell you something.

Tapping brakes on Tailgaters? Ethics?

Comments

New Forum Topics