tailgating
n...@juno.com
can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket was
given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate any
advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
not browse internet too frequently.
regards/nick
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Walt Horning
n...@juno.com wrote:
>can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
>Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
>front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
>tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket was
>given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
>quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate any
>advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
>not browse internet too frequently.
Go to court and ask the cop how he assessed the actual distance
between your car and his. He will probably have to say he looked in
his rear-view mirror. In a 25 mph zone, using the standard rule in any
drivers manual, for 1 car length per 10 mph, you only have to be 2.5
car lengths back.
If the cop does say he assessed the distance looking in his rear view
mirror, then tell the judge what you think the distance was. If your
assessment happens to be closer to 2.5 car lengths, because you were
in a much better position to assess your distance than a cop looking
in a mirror, the judge may give you the benefit of the doubt and let
you off the hook completely.
And even if you were a bit too close, the cop was not in that good a
position to assess the distance looking in a mirror, so his
"judgement" was essentially impaired. Because it was impaired, its
causes reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt is the same thing as not
guilty, since evidence must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Point this out to the judge, politely!!! The judge may be inclined to
agree.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. Consult a lawyer if you want legal
advise. I offer such advise only as a friend. I also do *not*
encourage lying.
Osman Ullah
|| And even if you were a bit too close, the cop was not in that good a
|| position to assess the distance looking in a mirror, so his
|| "judgement" was essentially impaired. Because it was impaired, its
|| causes reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt is the same thing as not
|| guilty, since evidence must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
|| Point this out to the judge, politely!!! The judge may be inclined to
|| agree.
Especially when they are driving those boats around.
Osman Ullah
|=------------------------------------------=|
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte213f
P.J. Hartman
n...@juno.com wrote:
>can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
>Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
>front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
>tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him.
From your description of events (25mph, 1.5 car lengths) you *were*
tailgating.
--
P.J. Hartman mailto:har...@tconl.com
Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, GS450LX, and Neon
http://www.tconl.com/~hartman
John A. Limpert
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:12:14 -0600, n...@juno.com wrote:
>can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
>Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
>front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
>tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket was
>given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
>quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate any
>advise as soon as possible.
Pay the ticket. At 25 mph you should have been ~73 feet behind his car
based on the 2 second rule. 1.5 car lengths is ~25 feet, giving you
about 0.7 seconds to react to an emergency. If the road is wet you
should be even farther behind the car in front of you.
--
John A. Limpert Kook Bait: Archimedes Plutonium Riboflavin
jo...@Radix.Net
ken$...@clark.net
Pay the ticket and thank the nice man for making the road a bit safer.
Seven-tenths of a second headway is tailgating.
In dc.driving n...@juno.com wrote:
: can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
: Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
: front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
: tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket was
: given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
: quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate any
: advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
: not browse internet too frequently.
: regards/nick
: -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
Kenneth T. Cornelius
ken...@clark.net
David P. Head
n...@juno.com wrote:
>
> can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
> Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
> front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
> tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him.
Not a bs ticket. 1.5 carlengths = about 30 feet. Old standard taught
in drivers ed was 1 car length for each 10 mph, so you should have been
2.5 car lengths behind, or better. New standard is 2 seconds behind.
25 mph is 36 2/3 feet per second, so at 30 feet behind, you were less
than a second behind the officer. Had he slammed on the brakes for
something, he'd have had a new trunklid decoration, and you a new hood
ornament. No one can react that fast without prior warning that
something is coming - not you, not AJ Foyt, not Chuck Yeager.
Pay the ticket, and give people more room the next time.
DPH
ZyggiStar
> can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
Yeah - don't tailgate. The way I learned it was 2 carlengths for every 10
miles per hour. If you were doing 35 miles per hour, there should have been 7
car lengths between you and him.
Gordon LeRoux
> front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
> given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
> quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate any
> advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
> not browse internet too frequently.
>
> regards/nick
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
First of all you are a loser. In many ways. If you had an average IQ you
wouldn't be following closely behind a police vehicle, especially if you
lived out of state.
A good percentage of auto accidents are caused by tailgating. I'm glad
you got a ticket and hope you get more tickets if you continue to
tailgate. At higher speeds, these types of accidents become fatalities.
And you are the one to blame!
I have crossposted this to New Jersey General. I want the citizens and
cops in New Jersey to see how you received a ticket, then posted this on
DC groups for answers to beat your ticket.
Pay the fine and quit whining......
Gordon LeRoux
Paul Ivanauskas
It _is_ Me wrote:
>
> Gordon LeRoux <ler...@netmail.com> wrote in article
> <34F8B8...@netmail.com>...
> 25 miles per hour. What is wrong with posting information on groups? He
> did not state a town so he not bashing a particular town.
Some people just like to feel full of themselves by putting other people
down...that's all....*sigh*.....It was a legitimate question which
started this......just takes all kinds I guess...a shame....
Toe Jam
E. Faubion wrote:
> 25 mph = 36.6 feet per second.
> avg. car length = 15 feet
> 1.5 car lengths = 22.5 feet.
>
> This means there is a 6/10ths second interval between you and the
> police unit you were following. Research has shown that the averge
> driver's reaction time is about 1.6 seconds (hence why the 2 second
> following distance rule is taught in Drivers Ed) and even if you are
> above average it is extremely unlikely your time would be the .6
> seconds necessary to avoid a collision in the event the vehicle in
> front of you makes an emergency stop.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me like this explanation assumes theleading
vehicle is able to come to an absolute stop in 0 feet. In real
life, it would seem that during the 1.6 seconds of perception/reaction
time, the trailing vehicle would not be catching up to the lead vehicle
at 36.6 fps, since the lead vehicle (although slowing down) is still
moving. I believe that needs to be accounted for.
Toe Jam
John F. Carr wrote:
> 1.6 sounds reasonable as an average, but there is variation according to
> situation as well as driver. It takes less time to stop if one is expecting
> to need to brake.
Well, if you think about it, the 1.6 seconds that was mentioned is for the
combined PERCEPTION -and- reaction time - and you said if one is
'expecting' to need to brake - that implies that the perception phase is
already under way.
mp...@tidalwave.com
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:12:14 -0600, n...@juno.com wrote:
>can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
>Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
>front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
>tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket was
>given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
>quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate any
>advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
>not browse internet too frequently.
>
>regards/nick
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
sorry....but you're a dumbass for tailgating a cop
even you didnt know the 10mph/car lenght rule or whatever
shit.....following a testosrone pumped male who's been given the
authority to ticket you that close is real stupid
It _is_ Me
Gordon LeRoux <ler...@netmail.com> wrote in article
<34F8B8...@netmail.com>...
> n...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
> > Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going
in
> > front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
> > tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The
ticket was
> > given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil
ticket
> > quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly
appreciate any
> > advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for
I do
> > not browse internet too frequently.
> >
> > regards/nick
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based
newsreading
>
E. Faubion
>n...@juno.com wrote:
> can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
> Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
> front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
> tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him.
My advice is to pay the ticket. Why? Because your own math convicts
you. Here's why:
25 mph = 36.6 feet per second.
avg. car length = 15 feet
1.5 car lengths = 22.5 feet.
This means there is a 6/10ths second interval between you and the
police unit you were following. Research has shown that the averge
driver's reaction time is about 1.6 seconds (hence why the 2 second
following distance rule is taught in Drivers Ed) and even if you are
above average it is extremely unlikely your time would be the .6
seconds necessary to avoid a collision in the event the vehicle in
front of you makes an emergency stop.
>The ticket was given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed
>to fulfil ticket quota).
Which, if true, you made easy by tailgating him.
ef
* fix the net to email *
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/
NLW TFW NM
Rick --
By any definition, you WERE tailgating. What's your beef?
By the two-second following rule, you should have been at least 73 feet back;
you were back less than half of that amount. That's serious tailgating in
anyone's book.
RE:"1.5 car lengths would be enough at 25 miles per hour."
Not in any state or town, and not behind me.
Mike
Osman Ullah
|| This means there is a 6/10ths second interval between you and the
|| police unit you were following. Research has shown that the averge
|| driver's reaction time is about 1.6 seconds (hence why the 2 second
1.6? I was almost in a head on because someone was cutting a sharp
blind turn...I was going about 25. I think I was STOPPED by about 2
seconds...one-one thousand-two is a rather large amount of reaction
time in that kind of situation...
Osman Ullah
After reading all the responses ot this post, its kinda scary
actually...you know, the thought that some people tailgate and think
they aren't...
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <34f9ef5a...@news.gatech.edu>,
Osman Ullah <os...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>After reading all the responses ot this post, its kinda scary
>actually...you know, the thought that some people tailgate and think
>they aren't...
But isn't it delicious that that moron was tailgating a COP?!? (I guess
that's what you have to do to get ticketed for tailgating... Sure as
hell, nobody ever got ticketed for tailgating ME.)
Tony Wang
John A. Limpert wrote:
> Pay the ticket. At 25 mph you should have been ~73 feet behind his car
> based on the 2 second rule. 1.5 car lengths is ~25 feet, giving you
> about 0.7 seconds to react to an emergency. If the road is wet you
> should be even farther behind the car in front of you.
Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some theoretical
"you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
Sheesh, if I get two car lengths on the Beltway, I'm happy.
--
Tony Wang
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/2544
Remove the nospam from my name to send me mail
E. Faubion
os...@cc.gatech.edu (Osman Ullah) wrote:
>1.6?
Yes. The 1.6 second figure includes the total time to perceive and
react and is based on extensive research done in the mid-1980's at the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
>I was almost in a head on because someone was cutting a sharp
>blind turn...I was going about 25. I think I was STOPPED by about 2
>seconds...
The total time to perceive, react and stop at that speed is closer to
three seconds In a stressful situation the concentration is on
doing, not timing.
>one-one thousand-two is a rather large amount of reaction
>time in that kind of situation...
Not really. 1.6 seconds plus another 1.5 to stop from that speed
(assuming a dry road) equals about 3 seconds. That's pretty normal.
The 1.6 seconds is actually a rather liberal figure based on some of
the research I've seen in recent years.
John A. Limpert
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 05:17:54 GMT, os...@cc.gatech.edu (Osman Ullah)
wrote:
>After reading all the responses ot this post, its kinda scary
>actually...you know, the thought that some people tailgate and think
>they aren't...
The people that really scare me are the ones I see driving 5-10 feet
behind the preceding car at 65 mph. They are usually the same people who
weave through traffic. There are some incredibly dangerous drivers on
the roads.
John A. Limpert
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 01:26:04 -0500, Tony Wang
<ton...@prodigy.net.nospam> wrote:
>Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some theoretical
>"you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
>
>Sheesh, if I get two car lengths on the Beltway, I'm happy.
I drive on the Beltway and have never had any major difficulty with
staying 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. If someone cuts in
front of me I just gradually back off until I am at a safe distance
again.
George Tatem
John A. Limpert wrote:
>
> On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 01:26:04 -0500, Tony Wang
> <ton...@prodigy.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> >Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some theoretical
> >"you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
> >
> >Sheesh, if I get two car lengths on the Beltway, I'm happy.
>
> I drive on the Beltway and have never had any major difficulty with
> staying 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. If someone cuts in
> front of me I just gradually back off until I am at a safe distance
> again.
>
> --
> John A. Limpert
You are missing the point - pay attention:
Understand now?
George
George Tatem
> >After reading all the responses ot this post, its kinda scary
> >actually...you know, the thought that some people tailgate and think
> >they aren't...
>
> that's what you have to do to get ticketed for tailgating... Sure as
> hell, nobody ever got ticketed for tailgating ME.)
It certainly wasn't very bright. Especially in New Jersey. The police
and troopers are very strict in that state.
George
George Tatem
Tony Wang wrote:
>
> John A. Limpert wrote:
>
> > Pay the ticket. At 25 mph you should have been ~73 feet behind his car
> > based on the 2 second rule. 1.5 car lengths is ~25 feet, giving you
> > about 0.7 seconds to react to an emergency. If the road is wet you
>
> Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some theoretical
> "you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
>
> Sheesh, if I get two car lengths on the Beltway, I'm happy.
>
I know what you mean. I'm surprised we don't have more accidents, than
we do!
George
John F. Carr
In article <34f8cff9...@news.okc.oklahoma.net>,
E. Faubion <efau...@oklahoma.ten> wrote:
>Research has shown that the averge driver's reaction time is
>about 1.6 seconds (hence why the 2 second following distance
>rule is taught in Drivers Ed)
1.6 sounds reasonable as an average, but there is variation according to
situation as well as driver. It takes less time to stop if one is
expecting to need to brake. That makes fair law enforcement difficult,
because the driver one second behind with his foot ready over the brake
pedal is probably safer than the driver three seconds back who is
studying the mileposts and signs trying to figure out what font they
use.
There is an interesting discussion of time scales associated with
conscious perception in one of Roger Penrose's books, I think
_Shadows Of the Mind_. He cites other studies (not in driving
situations) which show ~2 second reaction times to unexpected
events, but less if a person has prepared a response ahead of time.
--
John Carr j...@tiac.net
DavPLaC
n...@juno.com wrote:
>can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
>Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
>front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
>tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket was
>given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
>quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate any
>advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
>not browse internet too frequently.
You admit to being 1.5 car lengths behind him. At 25 mph, you are traveling
about 37 feet/sec. Your reaction time is close to a second, so
if he made an emergency stop, you would travel about 37 feet before you
applied your brakes. A car length is about 16 feet, so you were about 25
feet behind him. If he made an emergency stop, you would have hit him. Even
if your reaction time was .75 secs, you would still hit him.
Forget the one car length for every 10 mph; use 2-3 seconds to follow behind a
car. This method is not speed sensitive and it is easy to do. I can not judge
5 car lengths very accurately at 50 mph, but if the car in front of me passes a
"marker" (crack in the road, shadow, etc) and I start counting, if I get to the
"marker" before 2, I am tailgating.
Dave L.
DavPLaC
John Limbert quotes and writes:
<<>Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some
theoretical
>"you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
>
>Sheesh, if I get two car lengths on the Beltway, I'm happy.
I drive on the Beltway and have never had any major difficulty with
staying 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. If someone cuts in
front of me I just gradually back off until I am at a safe distance
again.>>
Exactly, John. I drive Rt128, the beltway around Boston and keep *at least* 2
seconds behind the car in front. Yes, other cars jump in front of me, but in
the long run, it doesn't cost me a heck of a lot of time. A pick-up truck once
cut in front of me, then changed lanes and someone else cut in, etc. Ten miles
down the road, when I got off at my exit, the pick-up truck was in front of me
at the top of the ramp waiting at the yield sign.
Dave L.
ZyggiStar
In article <6dajbj$a...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Paul Ivanauskas
<knigh...@att.net> writes:
>Some people just like to feel full of themselves by putting other people
own...that's all....*sigh*.....It was a legitimate question which started
this......just takes all kinds I>guess...a shame....
Legitimate - probably, but the guy's a slug. He was guilty. He should pay the
fine and stop whining.
Bob Scheurle
>> Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some theoretical
>> "you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
Yeah, but in the real world, you don't tailgate police cars!
--
Bob Scheurle
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net
sche...@z-avionics-z.itt.com
NJ Transit schedules at http://www.nj.com/njtransit/
Shalmaneser the First
I cannot believe the idiocy of supporting tailgating, at high speeds
I consider your tailgating the equivalent of trying to kill me, and
I have opted lately to try to correct this on my own, it is good
to see at least one police unit doing something about it, most of them
do not.
Mr. "real world", try aiming your couple of tons of gun at me
at high speed and you may find yourself in the nearest ditch.
Fool, you proport that where ever you are going or whatever you
are doing is important enough to risk my life (yours I care not about),
in your "real world".
--
The Just Man,
Though He die early,
Shall be at rest.
MrKablooey©
Tony Wang wrote in message <34F8FF7B...@prodigy.net.nospam>...
>> Pay the ticket. At 25 mph you should have been ~73 feet behind his car
>> based on the 2 second rule. 1.5 car lengths is ~25 feet, giving you
>> about 0.7 seconds to react to an emergency. If the road is wet you
>
>Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some
theoretical
>"you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
Not really. The real world dictates that we should drive safely, not
however one pleases. If the guy was driving too close, he was too close.
He should pay the fine. If 1 car length per 10mph is safe, then that's how
you should drive. Don't make up your own rules along the way.
>Sheesh, if I get two car lengths on the Beltway, I'm happy.
Enjoy eating glass, Mr Wang.
lcbmandg
Shalmaneser, this is not about supporting tailgating, it is about the fact
that the 2 second rule is not practical today, (try any major beltway or
parkway in a big city just before or just after the rush hour), and that
cops, (at least the one in this instance), was quick to issue a ticket when
HE is being tailgated, but not so when citizens are being tailgated.
Neither of these things support tailgating or any other driving violation,
but they do point out that there is a major problem with the way cops do
their job.
Tigress
In article <34F8FF7B...@prodigy.net.nospam>, Tony Wang
<ton...@prodigy.net.nospam> wrote:
> John A. Limpert wrote:
>
> > Pay the ticket. At 25 mph you should have been ~73 feet behind his car
> > based on the 2 second rule. 1.5 car lengths is ~25 feet, giving you
> > about 0.7 seconds to react to an emergency. If the road is wet you
> > should be even farther behind the car in front of you.
>
> Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some
theoretical
> "you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
>
> Sheesh, if I get two car lengths on the Beltway, I'm happy.
No way. I hate tailgating, and I wish cops would give more tickets for it.
There is no excuse for tailgating (specially at 70 mph).
Yeah, he was only going 25, but the guy behind me hit me when I stopped at
that speed, he was probably 1 car to 1.5 car lengths behind me.
Tigress
--
Lover of all that is Lamborghini, Defender of Porsches:
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt3220a
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat drawn by Felix Lee
Walt Horning
jo...@Radix.Net (John A. Limpert) wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 05:17:54 GMT, os...@cc.gatech.edu (Osman Ullah)
>wrote:
>
>>After reading all the responses ot this post, its kinda scary
>>actually...you know, the thought that some people tailgate and think
>>they aren't...
>
>The people that really scare me are the ones I see driving 5-10 feet
>behind the preceding car at 65 mph.
Where I commute, 90% of drivers drive about 10 foot a part constantly.
>They are usually the same people who
>weave through traffic.
90% of drivers do not weave through traffic. "Weavers" are certainly
no more than 1% and probably more like .1 to .01%.
You have a techical error, therefore, in your statement.
Scott M. Kozel
Bob Scheurle <sche...@z-eclipse-z.net> wrote:
>
> >> Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some theoretical
> >> "you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
>
A few years ago, this happened on a Maryland urban interstate highway.
This shows the dangers of speeding, tailgating, and reckless driving.
A motorist was tailgating other motorists, and flashing his lights, to
bulldoze them out of the way. Witnesses saw no sign of any emergency.
Another motorist was in the left lane of a six-lane (3 each way)
expressway, passing a line of cars, going at or just above the speed
limit, according to witnesses. The tailgater lost his patience, and
zoomed around on the right. He decided to express his road rage by
cutting in across the front of the guy he had been tailgating. He cut it
too close, and the rear bumper of his Chevy Lumina clipped the front
bumper of the Chevrolet Caprice. His car spun out of control into the
median, rolled over the guardrail into the oncoming lanes of traffic,
and was broadside when he hit a large pickup truck head-on (or
head-side, whatever). He had two unfortunate passengers with him.
The car was torn into three major pieces, and many minor pieces, and
their bodies were strewn in pieces along the highway. The Caprice
driver was not injured, and the pickup driver was moderately injured.
Very tragic, the motorist's impatience and reckless driving cost him his
life and the lives of his two passengers. They had to be shoveled up.
He collided with two other cars in the process, and created a ten-mile
long traffic jam.
--
Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
PHL area http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
David P. Head
...And none of the above relieves the "left lane bandit" from at least
partial responsibility for the resultant carnage. He should have gotten
out of the way. There was no positive way for him to know that the
insistent passer did _not_ have a life and death emergency, nor did he
have any reasonable exception from the law requiring slower traffic to
keep right. Sure the tailgater/reckless driver bears most of the blame,
but not all of it.
Dave Head
David P. Head
Tigress wrote:
>
> In article <34F8FF7B...@prodigy.net.nospam>, Tony Wang
> <ton...@prodigy.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> > John A. Limpert wrote:
> >
> > > Pay the ticket. At 25 mph you should have been ~73 feet behind his car
> > > based on the 2 second rule. 1.5 car lengths is ~25 feet, giving you
> > > about 0.7 seconds to react to an emergency. If the road is wet you
> > > should be even farther behind the car in front of you.
> >
> theoretical
> > "you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
> >
>
> No way. I hate tailgating, and I wish cops would give more tickets for it.
Exactly. The laws of physics and the limitation of humans in general
don't change with the traffic density. Richard Petty may be able to get
away with following a little closer than the rest of us due to highly
conditioned reflexes, but he is also capable of getting too close.
Ticket tailgaters repeatedly and often.
Dave Head
E. Faubion
j...@tiac.net (John F. Carr) wrote:
>1.6 sounds reasonable as an average, but there is variation according to
>situation as well as driver. It takes less time to stop if one is
>expecting to need to brake.
This is true. The quoted research is for unexpected hazards such as
those typically encountered in everyday driving.
>That makes fair law enforcement difficult,
>because the driver one second behind with his foot ready over the brake
>pedal is probably safer than the driver three seconds back who is
>studying the mileposts and signs trying to figure out what font they
>use.
Also true. Some people can be 100 yards behind you and still be "too
close" because they are paying no attention at all. Obviously those
aren't going to be caught until they crash. The 1.6 second figure is
indeed an average however those who can better it won't beat it by
much.
>There is an interesting discussion of time scales associated with
>conscious perception in one of Roger Penrose's books, I think
>_Shadows Of the Mind_. He cites other studies (not in driving
>situations) which show ~2 second reaction times to unexpected
>events, but less if a person has prepared a response ahead of time.
Some unofficial research I've been associated with supports the 2
second figure and even the folks at the U. of Mich. who did the
original research acknowledge the 1.6 figure may be somewhat liberal
because no matter how hard they tried, the hazards presented to the
test subjects were anticipated to some small degree thereby possibly
flawing the outcome a bit.
E. Faubion
"lcbmandg" <lcbm...@vermontel.com> wrote:
>Shalmaneser, this is not about supporting tailgating, it is about the fact
>that the 2 second rule is not practical today,
What we face is a dilemma between driving at a reasonable following
distance and not crashing into the car in front of us when things
unexpected go bad. We win far more often than we lose... but when we
lose we do it in grand style!
>parkway in a big city just before or just after the rush hour), and that
>cops, (at least the one in this instance), was quick to issue a ticket when
>HE is being tailgated, but not so when citizens are being tailgated.
>Neither of these things support tailgating or any other driving violation,
>but they do point out that there is a major problem with the way cops do
>their job.
Some cops love nothing better than to cite tailgaters. I know one
who prefers them over all other violators yet he'll be the first to
acknowledge they are some of the more difficult tickets on which to
win convictions in court unless an accident was involved. Unlike a
speeding ticket where a specific figure can be given (speed versus the
speed limit) the tailgating ticket usually involves data that is
subject to interpretation. What the officer says is 2 car lengths
may be interpreted by the offending driver as 4 car lengths.... etc.
etc.
lcbmandg
Agreed wholeheartedly, David! I heard a head-up-ass bit of advice last week
dispensed by AAA, of all people. They advised that to discourage or avoid
"road rage" on the part of another motorist, never make eye contact with
them, and just hold a steady course. That's insane. Ignoring someone on the
road who wants your attention guarantees an escalation. If the tailgated
motorist wants to diffuse the rage, they need to immediately get out of the
way of the heavy-footed motorist. Just pull over, and the sphincter will
pass by smoother than owl snot. Too many people have some childish
competition issue inside that prevents them from taking advantage of the
obvious solution.
Oscar Voss
David P. Head wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > A motorist was tailgating other motorists, and flashing his lights, to
> > bulldoze them out of the way. Witnesses saw no sign of any emergency.
> > Another motorist was in the left lane of a six-lane (3 each way)
> > expressway, passing a line of cars, going at or just above the speed
> > limit, according to witnesses. The tailgater lost his patience, and
> > zoomed around on the right. He decided to express his road rage by
> > cutting in across the front of the guy he had been tailgating. He cut it
> > too close, and the rear bumper of his Chevy Lumina clipped the front
> > bumper of the Chevrolet Caprice. His car spun out of control into the
> > median, rolled over the guardrail into the oncoming lanes of traffic,
> > and was broadside when he hit a large pickup truck head-on (or
> > head-side, whatever). He had two unfortunate passengers with him.
> >
> partial responsibility for the resultant carnage. He should have gotten
> out of the way. There was no positive way for him to know that the
> insistent passer did _not_ have a life and death emergency, nor did he
> have any reasonable exception from the law requiring slower traffic to
> keep right. Sure the tailgater/reckless driver bears most of the blame,
> but not all of it.
>
right lanes. Even people who obey the speed limit have a right to do
that, without hassles from those of us who like to go faster. FWIW, the
"left lane bandit" was probably complying with any applicable "slower
traffic keep right/keep right except to pass" law, too.
Now maybe the "left lane bandit" could have ducked into the center lane
to get out of the way of the overtaking car. Of course, he might have
figured that the guy behind him was going to move into the center lane
first, taking away that spot, without signalling -- not an unreasonable
concern, that kind of stupid manuever happens often enough. Or he might
have figured that there wasn't enough room in the center lane to move
there and leave a safe distance between the cars ahead and behind in the
center lane. (Of course, the tailgater did find a way to get into that
space, and -- almost -- get back out of it. But considering the end
result of that manuever, that's not really persuasive evidence that the
guy he was tailgating could've safely moved over.)
--
Oscar Voss, Arlington, Virginia
ov...@erols.com
Banty
>.And none of the above relieves the "left lane bandit" from at least
>partial responsibility for the resultant carnage. He should have gotten
>out of the way. There was no positive way for him to know that the
>insistent passer did _not_ have a life and death emergency, nor did he
>have any reasonable exception from the law requiring slower traffic to
>keep right. Sure the tailgater/reckless driver bears most of the blame,
>but not all of it.
>
>
>
::::sigh::::::: this old saw.
1. If the guy is passing a line of cars, he belongs in the passing lane.
2. If anyone has an emergency - the proper thing to do is to call for
emergency assistance.
(And tell me a guy who clipped off the car he was passing to the right was
taking his pregnant wife to the hospital now tell me that.)
Cheers,
Ba...@aol.com
Banty
>Now maybe the "left lane bandit" could have ducked into the center lane
>to get out of the way of the overtaking car. Of course, he might have
>figured that the guy behind him was going to move into the center lane
>first, taking away that spot, without signalling -- not an unreasonable
>concern, that kind of stupid manuever happens often enough.
Where I live, with tailgaters, it happens more often that not. To the point
that I don't move over for them, although in general I actually prefer to be in
the right lane.
> Of course, he might have
>figured that the guy behind him was going to move into the center lane
>first, taking away that spot, without signalling -- not an unreasonable
>concern, that kind of stupid manuever happens often enough. Or he might
>have figured that there wasn't enough room in the center lane to move
>there and leave a safe distance between the cars ahead and behind in the
>center lane. (Of course, the tailgater did find a way to get into that
>space, and -- almost -- get back out of it. But considering the end
>result of that manuever, that's not really persuasive evidence that the
>guy he was tailgating could've safely moved over.)
Right.
Cheers,
Ba...@aol.com
DavPLaC
"lcbmandg" <lcbm...@vermontel.com>
writes:
<<Shalmaneser, this is not about supporting tailgating, it is about the fact
that the 2 second rule is not practical today, (try any major beltway or
parkway in a big city just before or just after the rush hour), and that
cops, (at least the one in this instance), was quick to issue a ticket when
HE is being tailgated, but not so when citizens are being tailgated.
Neither of these things support tailgating or any other driving violation,
but they do point out that there is a major problem with the way cops do
their job.>>
I help teach advanced driving skills to Vermont cops.
When asked the question. "What is
more dangerous, speeding or tailgating," they always answer "tailgating".
When asked what they ticket the most, they answer "speeders".
The reason they give is that speeding is easy to prove because they have
"proof" in the form of a radar reading, timing, or matching speed.
Tailgating is more difficult because it is subjective, and really
based on the officer's estimation of distance. There is no "read out",
no testimony of timing or matching speed. Tailgating is therefore
easily defeated in a courtroom.
HOWEVER, (and I made that a *big* however) if you are tailgating a cop,
you will probably be easily convicted. They may even find you guilty
of DWS (driving while stupid)! #:0)
Dave LaCourse
Vernon Wright
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 19:01:09 GMT efau...@oklahoma.ten (E. Faubion)
wrote --
>...
>Some cops love nothing better than to cite tailgaters. I know one
>who prefers them over all other violators yet he'll be the first to
>acknowledge they are some of the more difficult tickets on which to
>win convictions in court unless an accident was involved.
Just so. I recall a exercise undertaken by Lincolnshire Constabulary
(with the assistance of the local road-safety officers).
The effort required beggared belief: they had to set up radar and
photographic equipment all over the relevant stretch of road.
One fellow in a small van came along with a heavy truck right on his
tail. The unit clocked the two vehicles for speed and took the
photographs; it then took the police about half-an-hour to stop the
bloke in the small van, which they eventually achieved by setting up a
road block.
"Didn't you see us trying to stop you?" they asked.
"Yes," he replied, pointing toward the truck that had been following
him. "I was too bloody scared to stop with that thing right up me
arse!"
Best regards,
Vernon
(If replying by eMail, substitute the usual
punctuation for the uncial German words; then
delete the spurious tail.)
DavPLaC
Dave Head writes:
<<Ticket tailgaters repeatedly and often.>>
Right on, Dave!!! The reason tailgaters are NOT ticketed more often is
that it is harder to prove in court. I say bring the judges out with
the cops and let them see exactly what tailgating is and how it
causes many, if not most, accidents. There is a driving exercise we
use with Vermont cops that illustrates perfectly how dangerous it is.
Get the judges in the cars and let *them* see for themselves.
Dave LaCourse
Mike Gandolf
In article <34F9AB...@richmond.infi.net> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> writes:
>Very tragic, the motorist's impatience and reckless driving cost him his
>life and the lives of his two passengers. They had to be shoveled up.
>He collided with two other cars in the process, and created a ten-mile
>long traffic jam.
Very tragic, because if the other driver had simply kept to the right, which
is the law here in NJ and most other states, the whole incident would have
been avoided.
What bothers me is that when self-righteous idiots pontificate about "road
rage", they usually leave out the main cause of the problem in the first
place.
I've been a commuter for ten years now, an hour each way, two hours a day. And
I can tell you the "boy racers" are no problem, just pull over and let them
pass.
But there is a kind of driver that just can't let that happen, and they go out
of their way to obstruct these guys, block their way, cut them off. They think
they're doing the public a favor by "preserving the speed limit" when in
reality they're pulling the pin on a hand grenade.
These are the guys that cause road rage in the first place, and they deserve
at least part of the blame for the damage caused.
So if someone is tailgating, flashing their lights, trying to pass on the
right - say whatever you want but for everyone's sake LET HIM PASS.
You aren't acomplishing anything by holding him back except to increase his
anger and make him even more desperate to get around you.
If he breaks the speed limit, that's for the Police to handle. Just let him by
and stay out of the passing lane unless you're actually passing.
You can be sanctimonious and smug about your good driving skills later, but
only if you survive.
David P. Head
Oscar Voss wrote:
>
> David P. Head wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > >
> > > A motorist was tailgating other motorists, and flashing his lights, to
> > > bulldoze them out of the way. Witnesses saw no sign of any emergency.
> > > Another motorist was in the left lane of a six-lane (3 each way)
> > > expressway, passing a line of cars, going at or just above the speed
> > > limit, according to witnesses. The tailgater lost his patience, and
> > > zoomed around on the right. He decided to express his road rage by
> > > cutting in across the front of the guy he had been tailgating. He cut it
> > > too close, and the rear bumper of his Chevy Lumina clipped the front
> > > bumper of the Chevrolet Caprice. His car spun out of control into the
> > > median, rolled over the guardrail into the oncoming lanes of traffic,
> > > and was broadside when he hit a large pickup truck head-on (or
> > > head-side, whatever). He had two unfortunate passengers with him.
> > >
> > partial responsibility for the resultant carnage. He should have gotten
> > out of the way. There was no positive way for him to know that the
> > insistent passer did _not_ have a life and death emergency, nor did he
> > have any reasonable exception from the law requiring slower traffic to
> > keep right. Sure the tailgater/reckless driver bears most of the blame,
> > but not all of it.
> >
> right lanes. Even people who obey the speed limit have a right to do
> that, without hassles from those of us who like to go faster. FWIW, the
> "left lane bandit" was probably complying with any applicable "slower
> traffic keep right/keep right except to pass" law, too.
You may have a point here. It is somewhat confusing - if the left lane
bandit is passing slower cars, how did the bozo get around on the
right? Still, if one is sitting in the left lane, _slowly_ passing
someone or a line of cars, and there is a person behind who ie either A)
in a desparate hurry to get to a hospital to get attention for someone
who has passed out in the back seat from loss of blood and is still
bleeding OR B) absolutely certifiably insane and about to do something
with an attached risk that is all out of proportion to the gain, then
either way, it would seem at least fairly wise to get the heck over or
otherwise out of the path of the overtaking missle.
> Now maybe the "left lane bandit" could have ducked into the center lane
> to get out of the way of the overtaking car. Of course, he might have
> figured that the guy behind him was going to move into the center lane
> first, taking away that spot, without signalling -- not an unreasonable
> concern, that kind of stupid manuever happens often enough. Or he might
> have figured that there wasn't enough room in the center lane to move
> there and leave a safe distance between the cars ahead and behind in the
> center lane. (Of course, the tailgater did find a way to get into that
> space, and -- almost -- get back out of it. But considering the end
> result of that manuever, that's not really persuasive evidence that the
> guy he was tailgating could've safely moved over.)
Lotsa stuff he could have done. Personally, I buy fast cars, and if
someone that appears to be really burning up the road behind, and I have
no opportunity to move right immediately, that fellow behind me is going
to have to catch me first (before he can run into me). Just another
option... <G>
Dave Head
David P. Head
Randolf Pitchford wrote:
>
> "David P. Head" <rall...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> >and there is a person behind who ie either A)
> >in a desparate hurry to get to a hospital to get attention for someone
> >who has passed out in the back seat from loss of blood and is still
> >bleeding
1) It isn't, and
2) even if it was, there are a thousand other reasons for occasionally
needing to run real quick.
> No one has the right to put the gneral public at risk.
Now _that's_ BS. A little hieghtened risk for several hundred, as
opposed to near-certain-death for 1 is a good trade. Chances are good
that the several hundred will be unharmed _if_ one uses some moderate
driving skill while making some time.
This is _not_ saying the sort of driving that was in the example is
acceptable. It is saying that if someone can be saved by doing 100 MPH
to get to the hospital, and 55 MPH means they almost certainly die, then
its OK to drive 100 MPH where feasible. (straight roads, etc.)
> If the injury
> was that serious, he or she should have left it in the hands of a
> trained and properly equipped professional.
Yeah, and the trained and properly equipped people are _at the
hospital_. If Princess Di had been transported to the hospital
immediately, instead of 1) waiting for an ambulance crew and 2) having
the ambulance crew attempt to stabilize her rather than transport her,
doctors there think she might have lived.
>
> By driving like an idiot, that person not only put his "loved ones"
> life at even MORE risk, but put everyone ELSE on the road at the time
> at risk.
Hell, he executed his loved ones, and there apparently was no life and
death situation that could have been aided by driving fast. This guy
was just a jerk.
>
> There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of action...
Well, not when there's nothing to gain, anyway.
DPH
David P. Head
Randolf Pitchford wrote:
>
> mgan...@usenet.net (Mike Gandolf) wrote:
> >Very tragic, because if the other driver had simply kept to the right, which
> >is the law here in NJ and most other states, the whole incident would have
> >been avoided.
>
> >What bothers me is that when self-righteous idiots pontificate about "road
> >rage", they usually leave out the main cause of the problem in the first
> >place.
>
> >I've been a commuter for ten years now, an hour each way, two hours a day. And
> >I can tell you the "boy racers" are no problem, just pull over and let them
> >pass.
>
> >But there is a kind of driver that just can't let that happen, and they go out
> >of their way to obstruct these guys, block their way, cut them off. They think
> >they're doing the public a favor by "preserving the speed limit" when in
> >reality they're pulling the pin on a hand grenade.
>
> >These are the guys that cause road rage in the first place, and they deserve
> >at least part of the blame for the damage caused.
>
> >So if someone is tailgating, flashing their lights, trying to pass on the
> >right - say whatever you want but for everyone's sake LET HIM PASS.
> >You aren't acomplishing anything by holding him back except to increase his
> >anger and make him even more desperate to get around you.
>
> >If he breaks the speed limit, that's for the Police to handle. Just let him by
> >and stay out of the passing lane unless you're actually passing.
>
> >You can be sanctimonious and smug about your good driving skills later, but
> >only if you survive.
>
> fault. It's ALWAYS the fault of the "other guy or gal".
Its both their fault - 90% rager, 10% left lane bandit (or thereabouts).
DPH
MACK The DADDY
MrKablooeyŠ wrote:
>
> Tony Wang wrote in message <34F8FF7B...@prodigy.net.nospam>...
> >> based on the 2 second rule. 1.5 car lengths is ~25 feet, giving you
> >> about 0.7 seconds to react to an emergency. If the road is wet you
> >> should be even farther behind the car in front of you.
> >
> >Give me a break, guys. This is the real world we drive in, not some
> theoretical
> >"you should be at least 1 car length per 10 mph" world.
>
> however one pleases. If the guy was driving too close, he was too close.
> He should pay the fine. If 1 car length per 10mph is safe, then that's how
> you should drive. Don't make up your own rules along the way.
>
>
HOW i handle tailgaters I put my brakes on(not on on). If they hit you,
there at fault + you get your car remolded free. Wahoo
Applejax
> Where I commute, 90% of drivers drive about 10 foot a part constantly.
>
> >They are usually the same people who
> >weave through traffic.
>
> 90% of drivers do not weave through traffic. "Weavers" are certainly
> no more than 1% and probably more like .1 to .01%.
>
> You have a techical error, therefore, in your statement.
Being objective to both sides, where are you getting your figures?
--
--
[Don't hit reply, blah blah blah...use email link below]
--Applejax
----------------
mailto:appl...@jersey.net
http://www.jersey.net/~applejax
----------------------------------------------------
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
>> -- Ashleigh Brilliant
John Whiteside
n...@juno.com wrote:
>can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
>Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
>front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
>tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him.
That's way too close. Pay the fine.
---
John Whiteside
Arlington, VA
whiteside at mindspring dot com
Randolf Pitchford
What you "rage" apologists always fail to acknowledge is that we're
not talking about folks driving a little faster than most and just
trying to get on down the road.
You blame the good drivers out there for the blood bath. I say it's
the folks who refuse to put the blame where it belongs.
Regards,
Randolf Pitchford
( the artist formerly known as "Cactus Jack" )
Randolf Pitchford
"David P. Head" <rall...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>and there is a person behind who ie either A)
>in a desparate hurry to get to a hospital to get attention for someone
>who has passed out in the back seat from loss of blood and is still
>bleeding
That is a totally bogus argument.
was that serious, he or she should have left it in the hands of a
trained and properly equipped professional.
By driving like an idiot, that person not only put his "loved ones"
life at even MORE risk, but put everyone ELSE on the road at the time
at risk.
There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of action...
Banty
>You may have a point here. It is somewhat confusing - if the left lane
>bandit is passing slower cars, how did the bozo get around on the
>right?
Easy. These guys whiz around to pass you on the right the moment you leave a
decent 1-car gap between youself and the person you're passing before you move
over.
Cheers,
Ba...@aol.com
Randolf Pitchford
>immediately, instead of 1) waiting for an ambulance crew and 2) having
>the ambulance crew attempt to stabilize her rather than transport her,
>doctors there think she might have lived.
I find it extremely interesting that an apologist for Road Ragers
would have so little shame as to use the tragedy of Princes Di as an
excuse to justify excessive speed and dangerous driving.
Did it ever occur to you that if she had NOT been in a vehicle going
like a bat outa hell, she wouldn't have NEEDED the medical attention
in the First place and she would have FOR SURE rather than "might"
have survived the night?
Some folks have no shame at all, I guess.
Tigress
> ...And none of the above relieves the "left lane bandit" from at least
> partial responsibility for the resultant carnage. He should have gotten
> out of the way. There was no positive way for him to know that the
> insistent passer did _not_ have a life and death emergency, nor did he
> have any reasonable exception from the law requiring slower traffic to
> keep right. Sure the tailgater/reckless driver bears most of the blame,
> but not all of it.
ok, the left lane bandit was being an asshole, but he wasn't the one who
decided to do the really dangerous stunt. just cause some people can't
control their temper does not mean the person they got mad at was at
fault. It is the person who chose to m ake the stupid mistake of
tailgating and cutting off's fault. yes, I hate left lane bandits, but I
hate this attitude of blame some one else when it was that person's choice
to do what he did. The left lane bandit did not force the guy to tailgate
or cut him off, that was the tailgater's choice. Therefore, the tailgater
is the idiot in this instance. Yes, the guy shouldn't be going slow in the
left lane, but no, he is not at fault cause some other asshole can't keep
his temper. And I feel no sorrow for the tailgater (but for the
passengers). The tailgater got what he deserved.
John Whiteside
"lcbmandg" <lcbm...@vermontel.com> wrote:
>Shalmaneser, this is not about supporting tailgating, it is about the fact
>that the 2 second rule is not practical today, (try any major beltway or
>parkway in a big city just before or just after the rush hour)
which is not where the ticket was given, so your point is......
John Whiteside
mgan...@usenet.net (Mike Gandolf) wrote:
>So if someone is tailgating, flashing their lights, trying to pass on the
>right - say whatever you want but for everyone's sake LET HIM PASS.
What if they're doing this while you're going faster than the traffic
to your right -- and going the same speed as the car in front of you?
I always wonder where these people think they're going to get when
they try to bulldoze you out of the way while traffic is going 25 mph
on I-66.
Brandon Sommerville
Banty wrote:
How early do you signal your lane change? If someone is coming up
fast behind me, while I'm still beside the vehicle I'm passing I
signal my lane change, when I get a car length ahead of the guy I'm
passing I move over. Since I'm traveling faster than him, space opens
up behind me.
I've seen many times when someone passes another only to continue
cruising in the left lane. I wait, flash my highbeams, wait, then
pass on the right. The guys that pass quickly on the right like that
are just anticipating your continuing on obliviously, like too many
drivers on the road.
If you aren't signaling earlier, try it.
Brandon
All generalizations are false.
David P. Head
Tigress wrote:
>
> In article <34F9AE...@crosslink.net>, rall...@crosslink.net wrote:
>
> > ...And none of the above relieves the "left lane bandit" from at least
> > partial responsibility for the resultant carnage. He should have gotten
> > out of the way. There was no positive way for him to know that the
> > insistent passer did _not_ have a life and death emergency, nor did he
> > have any reasonable exception from the law requiring slower traffic to
> > keep right. Sure the tailgater/reckless driver bears most of the blame,
> > but not all of it.
>
> ok, the left lane bandit was being an asshole, but he wasn't the one who
> decided to do the really dangerous stunt. just cause some people can't
> control their temper does not mean the person they got mad at was at
> fault. It is the person who chose to m ake the stupid mistake of
> tailgating and cutting off's fault. yes, I hate left lane bandits, but I
> hate this attitude of blame some one else when it was that person's choice
> to do what he did. The left lane bandit did not force the guy to tailgate
> or cut him off, that was the tailgater's choice. Therefore, the tailgater
> is the idiot in this instance. Yes, the guy shouldn't be going slow in the
> left lane, but no, he is not at fault cause some other asshole can't keep
> his temper. And I feel no sorrow for the tailgater (but for the
> passengers). The tailgater got what he deserved.
>
Yes, you're quite correct. I'm just saying that the left lane bandit
isn't entirely guiltless in the example.
DPH
David P. Head
Randolf Pitchford wrote:
>
> "David P. Head" <rall...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> > If Princess Di had been transported to the hospital
> >immediately, instead of 1) waiting for an ambulance crew and 2) having
> >the ambulance crew attempt to stabilize her rather than transport her,
> >doctors there think she might have lived.
>
> I find it extremely interesting that an apologist for Road Ragers
> would have so little shame as to use the tragedy of Princes Di as an
> excuse to justify excessive speed and dangerous driving.
I am not an apoligist for road ragers, and any similar example chosen to
illustrate the point would have been equally tragic. I'm just saying
that there _is_ sometimes good reason to drive really fast. If there
weren't, then all the police cars would be lead sleds with diesel
engines and not have to worry about "handling packages", etc.
I'm just saying that the left lane bandit is not _totally_ guiltless in
the example. If he'd gotten out of the way, the whole thing might not
have happened.
DPH
Scott M. Kozel
> > I find it extremely interesting that an apologist for Road Ragers
> > would have so little shame as to use the tragedy of Princes Di as an
> > excuse to justify excessive speed and dangerous driving.
>
> I am not an apoligist for road ragers, and any similar example chosen to
> illustrate the point would have been equally tragic. I'm just saying
> that there _is_ sometimes good reason to drive really fast. If there
> weren't, then all the police cars would be lead sleds with diesel
> engines and not have to worry about "handling packages", etc.
>
> I'm just saying that the left lane bandit is not _totally_ guiltless in
> the example. If he'd gotten out of the way, the whole thing might not
> have happened.
Why do you keep calling him a "left lane bandit"?
From the article:
"Witnesses saw no sign of any emergency".
"Motorist [being tailgated] was ... passing a line of cars, going at or
just above the speed limit, according to witnesses".
Sounds like the only idiot here was the tailgater.
His death was social Darwinism at work, the shame was that he took
others with him.
--
Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
PHL area http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
lcbmandg
So the point is the 2 second rule is not practical
JCWCONSULT
Scott M. Kozel said:
From the article:
"Witnesses saw no sign of any emergency".
"Motorist [being tailgated] was ... passing a line of cars, going at or
just above the speed limit, according to witnesses".
Sounds like the only idiot here was the tailgater.
------------------
1. There is no excuse for aggressive tailgating, regardless of the reason, and
it should be a ticketable offense, and a proper causal conclusion on any
related accident report.
2. But, the situation was probably caused and promoted by the arbitrary
posting of a 30th to 50th percentile speed limit.
Whenever political entities arbitrarily post speed limits that define 50% to
70% of the drivers as violators, knowing the chances for compliance are a flat
zero, then the political entity bears the primary responsibility for the
disturbed and more dangerous traffic flow.
Essentially all highway speed limits should be posted at the 85th percentile.
Then the driver at 67 mph in what is now a 65 zone would know they are doing
something incorrect -- because the zone would be properly posted at a
free-flowing 85th percentile of 70, 75, or 80 mph.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Mike Gandolf
In article <6dd28i$g...@camel12.mindspring.com> bishp@mindspring+com (Randolf Pitchford) writes:
>No one has the right to put the gneral public at risk. If the injury
>was that serious, he or she should have left it in the hands of a
>trained and properly equipped professional.
>By driving like an idiot, that person not only put his "loved ones"
>life at even MORE risk, but put everyone ELSE on the road at the time
>at risk.
I agree, but there are two people here who could have taken action to prevent
the action, therefor there are two people who put the public at risk.
If the slower driver had kept to the right and allowed the faster driver to
pass, the accident never would have happened.
And since, at least in NJ, there is a law requiring one to keep to the right
except when passing, we have two law breakers, and two people who share
responsibility.
The main cause of road rage is ignorant and arrogant drivers who don't feel
the need to show common curtesy to other drivers.
It's a simple thing to keep right, keep alert and use your turn signals. If
you don't do that, you're as much a part of the problem as the guy with the
lead foot.
em...@yahoo.com
In article <6d9k1f$sj5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
n...@juno.com wrote:
>
> can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
> Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
> front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
was
> given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
> quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate
any
> advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
> not browse internet too frequently.
>
> regards/nick
I am really sorry for all you morons who gave such cold responces to this poor
person. The question you should all be asking yourselves: what was the speed
that local cop was travelling that day - was it 5 mph or was it 2 mph. If that
was the case, that NL had all the right to be behind 1.5 car lenths or so.
I have seen many cases of police entrapment for local and out-of-state driver
just to increase local budget, while poor drivers would suffer 5 points
increase on the records. All of you "well-wishers" must realize by now that
this moronic attitude- " just pay the ticket, and forget it" leads to the fact
that cops behave like they own the roads and can do whatever the hell they
feel like. It is also obvious to me that NL may also be right about ticket
quota for that day. I would like to see, how many tailgating tickets that cop
wrote that day or any other last day of the month. My suggestion to NL, go to
court and fight this ticket, for I am sure that he has a good chance. Do not
pay this ticket NL, go to court and fight it!!! The best of luck to you!!
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
DavPLaC
Toe Jam writes:
<<I may be wrong, but it seems to me like this explanation assumes theleading
vehicle is able to come to an absolute stop in 0 feet. In real
life, it would seem that during the 1.6 seconds of perception/reaction
time, the trailing vehicle would not be catching up to the lead vehicle
at 36.6 fps, since the lead vehicle (although slowing down) is still
moving. I believe that needs to be accounted for.>>
It is. Lead vehicle is traveling at 25 mph and jumps on brakes for an
emergency stop. It takes 30 feet to come to a complete stop. If the second
car jumps on the brakes at the exact same place as the lead vehicle and also
takes 30 feet to stop, he will stop at the same place
as the lead vehicle. Except, two cars can not occupy the same space
without a whole lot of problems. That is assuming that the tailgater hits the
brakes exactly at the same spot. If he hits it later (probably more
realistic), he will go beyond where the lead car stopped. That is even worse.
The tailgater and the person in the lead car have not a chance.
I hope this is a satisfactory explanation.
Dave LaCourse
DavPLaC
John F. Carr wrote:
> 1.6 sounds reasonable as an average, but there is variation according to
> situation as well as driver. It takes less time to stop if one is expecting
> to need to brake.>>
John, there is an exercise in the school I teach. The instructor travels down
the road (runway) at 40 MPH. There is a 33foot rope with a
traffic cone attached hanging out of his trunk. The student follows the
instructor *one lane to the right or left* keeping the cone even with his
front bumper. This positions him 2 car lengths behind the instructor and
displaced by one lane. He *knows* the instructor is going to make a panic stop
and is watching for the brake lights to come on, his key to also make a panic
stop. No student has ever beaten the exercise, even the ones "riding" the
brake (which we discourage BTW).
The math: 40 mph = 58.8 feet/sec.
Exceptional reaction time = 0.75 seconds
0.75 secs @ 40 mph = 44 feet.
The student puts his brakes on 10 feet PAST where the instructor did.
Assuming both cars are equal in braking power (they are), the student stops 10
feet beyond the other car. If the reaction time was an astounding .6 seconds,
he would still "collect" the other car.
Tailgater loses every time.
Dave LaCourse
Brandon Sommerville
lcbmandg wrote:
>So the point is the 2 second rule is not practical
That's completely wrong. IF you are in a situation where it isn't
practical, then deal with it as required. However, that doesn't mean
that under normal circumstances you shouldn't try and maximize your
following distances.
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <6demi9$kt5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <em...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <6d9k1f$sj5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> n...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
>> Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
>> front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
>> tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket
>was
>> given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
>> quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate
>any
>> advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
>> not browse internet too frequently.
>>
>> regards/nick
>
>
>I am really sorry for all you morons who gave such cold responces to this poor
>person. The question you should all be asking yourselves: what was the speed
>that local cop was travelling that day - was it 5 mph or was it 2 mph. If that
>was the case, that NL had all the right to be behind 1.5 car lenths or so.
True, we don't know the speed at which the cop was driving. But we do
know that the tailgater was doing 25mph. (Or at least that's what he
very strongly implies.) If he was doing 25mph and the cop 1.5 car lengths in
front of him was doing 2mph or 5mph, then (a)he must have been tailgating for
a VERY SHORT TIME, and (b)he should have been ticketed for reckless
driving and a few other things.
I don't think you should be so cavalier about calling people 'morons'. And,
since you think it's perfectly ok to drive 25mph 1.5 car lengths behind
someone driving 2mph, I don't think you should even be driving.
em...@yahoo.com
In article <34F8B8...@netmail.com>,
ler...@netmail.com wrote:
>
> n...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
> > Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
> > front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
> > tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket
was
> > given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
> > quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate
any
> > advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I
do
> > not browse internet too frequently.
> >
> > regards/nick
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
> wouldn't be following closely behind a police vehicle, especially if you
> lived out of state.
>
> A good percentage of auto accidents are caused by tailgating. I'm glad
> you got a ticket and hope you get more tickets if you continue to
> tailgate. At higher speeds, these types of accidents become fatalities.
> And you are the one to blame!
>
> I have crossposted this to New Jersey General. I want the citizens and
> cops in New Jersey to see how you received a ticket, then posted this on
> DC groups for answers to beat your ticket.
>
> Pay the fine and quit whining......
>
> Gordon LeRoux
>
because of morons like you with an attitude "pay-and-forget", cops lost public
control over them, and this country is becoming a cop controlled nazi state.I
hope ( in fact I pray to God that you do!!) that one day you receive a ticket
like NL- absolutely unjustified because you local law agent need extra money.
My hopes go with NL, not with you!
your
em...@yahoo.com
In article <6datsm$hk9$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
> In article <34f9ef5a...@news.gatech.edu>,
> Osman Ullah <os...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >After reading all the responses ot this post, its kinda scary
> >actually...you know, the thought that some people tailgate and think
> >they aren't...
>
> But isn't it delicious that that moron was tailgating a COP?!? (I guess
> that's what you have to do to get ticketed for tailgating... Sure as
> hell, nobody ever got ticketed for tailgating ME.)
the only moron in this case is you!!! Don't come back to this site next time,
when you get unjustified ticket! In fact, I pray to get many in the next
several month, you cold hearted imbecile!
em...@yahoo.com
In article <34F926...@ix.netcom.com>,
ta...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
> >
> > In article <34f9ef5a...@news.gatech.edu>,
> > Osman Ullah <os...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > >After reading all the responses ot this post, its kinda scary
> > >actually...you know, the thought that some people tailgate and think
> > >they aren't...
> >
> > But isn't it delicious that that moron was tailgating a COP?!? (I guess
> > that's what you have to do to get ticketed for tailgating... Sure as
> > hell, nobody ever got ticketed for tailgating ME.)
>
> and troopers are very strict in that state.
>
> George
>
it is not a question of being strict, but being fair and objective. There goes
a big difference. Think about next time when you drive trough New Jersey.
em...@yahoo.com
In article <34fa0428...@news.mindspring.com>,
John...@aol.com.SPAM.THIS wrote:
>
> n...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
> >Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
> >front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
> >tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him.
>
>
> John Whiteside
> Arlington, VA
Distance is determined by the speed of the first car. If the cop's speed was
25 mph (which is never true), then NL is liable. But if his speed was below 25
mph, then 1.5 is more than enough. The average lenth of a car is 16 feet, thus
NL was a least 25 feet behind him, and if the cop was driving at 10 mph, the
distance was perfect. I strongly suggest to NL to fight this one!!
> whiteside at mindspring dot com
>
em...@yahoo.com
In article <19980301032...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
nlwt...@aol.com (NLW TFW NM) wrote:
>
> Rick --
> By any definition, you WERE tailgating. What's your beef?
> By the two-second following rule, you should have been at least 73 feet
back;
> you were back less than half of that amount. That's serious tailgating in
> anyone's book.
>
> RE:"1.5 car lengths would be enough at 25 miles per hour."
> Not in any state or town, and not behind me.
>
> Mike
>
what you said is crap! 40 feet is sufficient. Check your local MVS booklet!
Also, what was the speed of the cop's car? Do you know? If not, do not be so
fast to convict him!
Steve Stevers! Coile
lcbmandg (lcbm...@vermontel.com) wrote:
>Shalmaneser, this is not about supporting tailgating, it is about the
>beltway or parkway in a big city just before or just after the rush
>issue a ticket when HE is being tailgated, but not so when citizens are
>being tailgated. Neither of these things support tailgating or any
>other driving violation, but they do point out that there is a major
>problem with the way cops do their job.
Need I point out that if one is willing to tailgate *A COP*, one is
quite likely to tailgate (or worse) every other driver on the road.
Everybody violates traffic laws. It is impractical and sometimes even
unsafe to obey them *all the time*. But there are times when it is
imperative that we obey them, or demonstrate our ability and
willingness to obey them. Those who fail to obey the law in the most
obvious situations lack entirely too much regard for the law to be on
the road at all.
--
Steve Coile
sco...@gmu.edu
NLW TFW NM
Re:"its kinda scaryactually...you know, the thought that some people tailgate
and think
they aren't."
It's not the reckless ratbags behind me who determine whether they are
tailgating; it is **I** who make that determination. And when I make that
determination, I take steps to stop the problem so I can get back to focussing
on driving out my windshield rather than driving in my rear view mirror.
Re:"the only moron in this case is you!!! Don't come back to this site next
time,
when you get unjustified ticket! In fact, I pray to get many in the next
several month, you cold hearted imbecile!"
Why is getting a ticket for tailgating unjustified, when tailgating has been
blamed in some studies as causing more wrecks than all other driver mistakes
COMBINED?
Re:"Sheesh, if I get two car lengths on the Beltway, I'm happy."
No one drives that close behind me for long. There are far too many ways to
make them WANT to be somewhere else. And John's "I drive on the Beltway and
have never had any major difficulty with staying 2 seconds behind the car in
front of me. If someone cuts in front of me I just gradually back off until I
am at a safe distance
again" is one of them.
Re: " What the officer says is 2 car lengths may be interpreted by the
offending driver as 4 car lengths"
The same digital display on my big camper van's dash that helps me park in
tight quarters also tells me how close tailgaters are, within a foot at a
couple of car lengths or to a tenth of a foot at Andy's distances. It is not
tolerated.
Mike
E. Faubion
Toe Jam <better.watch.out@we're.cops.and.you're.not> wrote:
>> 25 mph = 36.6 feet per second.
>> avg. car length = 15 feet
>> 1.5 car lengths = 22.5 feet.
>I may be wrong, but it seems to me like this explanation assumes theleading
>vehicle is able to come to an absolute stop in 0 feet.
No. It's the 1.6 second average reaction time that's in question
here. The lead driver has already used his 1.6 seconds in making his
decision unbeknownst to the following driver who will also need that
1.6 seconds on average to perceive and make his decision on what to do
and with a following gap of .6 seconds he hasn't the necessary time
under normal conditions... he's robbed himself of that. Now if the
guy in front doesn't slam on his brakes or makes only normal stops the
tailgater will have time to respond, but in an emergency situation he
will not and it's those kinds of situations that create crashes.
>In real
>life, it would seem that during the 1.6 seconds of perception/reaction
>time, the trailing vehicle would not be catching up to the lead vehicle
>at 36.6 fps, since the lead vehicle (although slowing down) is still
>moving. I believe that needs to be accounted for.
I know what you mean, the closure rate won't be at the full 25 mph
however it will still close enough to involve the vehicles making
contact. This scenario involves the two drivers having equal response
times. In real life that won't always be the case so there will be
some variations of course.
ef
* fix the net to email *
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/
Jonny Hodgson
On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 em...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Distance is determined by the speed of the first car. If the cop's speed was
> 25 mph (which is never true), then NL is liable. But if his speed was below 25
> mph, then 1.5 is more than enough. The average lenth of a car is 16 feet, thus
> NL was a least 25 feet behind him, and if the cop was driving at 10 mph, the
> distance was perfect. I strongly suggest to NL to fight this one!!
No, distance is determined by the requirement for the *following* car to
stop and hence the speed of *that* vehicle. And if the cop is driving
"at 10mph" with the tailgater doing "speed 25mph" then the cop's going
to get hit rather hard in 1.5 car lengths' time...
Jonny
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Hodgson | TTech Predator |
| Better to lose by two inches | MEng Auto Eng @ Lufbra |
| than win by two laps | LSU Archery Club and Orchestra |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Lukens
em...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Distance is determined by the speed of the first car. If the cop's speed was
> 25 mph (which is never true), then NL is liable. But if his speed was below 25
> mph, then 1.5 is more than enough.
NL already said in his initial post that the speed they were traveling was 25 mph.
Guilty. Pay the fine.
Vernon Wright
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 04:36:22 GMT John Whiteside wrote on the subject
of allowing a tail-gater to get past --
>...
>
>What if they're doing this while you're going faster than the traffic
>to your right -- and going the same speed as the car in front of you?
>
>I always wonder where these people think they're going to get when
>they try to bulldoze you out of the way while traffic is going 25 mph
>on I-66.
Never mind that: if they thought that far ahead, they would not do
it, would they?
I am quite happy to leave that problem to the fellow ahead. When one
of these bozos (did I spell that correctly?) gets behind me, I move to
an inferior lane as soon as it is safe, let him pass and then rejoin
the lane _quo_ante_ when I can see some road to be gained.
Better to be out of his way; surely?
Best regards,
Vernon
(If replying by eMail, substitute the usual
punctuation for the uncial German words; then
delete the spurious tail.)
David P. Head
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> "David P. Head" <rall...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Randolf Pitchford wrote:
> > > I find it extremely interesting that an apologist for Road Ragers
> > > would have so little shame as to use the tragedy of Princes Di as an
> > > excuse to justify excessive speed and dangerous driving.
> >
> > I am not an apoligist for road ragers, and any similar example chosen to
> > illustrate the point would have been equally tragic. I'm just saying
> > that there _is_ sometimes good reason to drive really fast. If there
> > weren't, then all the police cars would be lead sleds with diesel
> > engines and not have to worry about "handling packages", etc.
> >
> > I'm just saying that the left lane bandit is not _totally_ guiltless in
> > the example. If he'd gotten out of the way, the whole thing might not
> > have happened.
>
> Why do you keep calling him a "left lane bandit"?
>
> "Witnesses saw no sign of any emergency".
> "Motorist [being tailgated] was ... passing a line of cars, going at or
> just above the speed limit, according to witnesses".
He's a left lane bandit because he's sitting there, going "at or just
above the speed limit", with total disregard for the other person's
obvious wish to go much faster. He had no way of knowing whether or not
there was some valid emergency that the tailgater was trying to solve.
It's just not polite, wise, or right to totally disregard someone like
that. Sure, the tailgater had a 99.9% chance of being a jerk, but if
one has an valid emergency, they might drive just like that - flashing
lights, honking horn, etc.
>
> Sounds like the only idiot here was the tailgater.
>
Yep, but his responsibility for the entire outcome lies just a bit short
of 100%. The left lane bandit was being a prick, too.
> His death was social Darwinism at work, the shame was that he took
> others with him.
Yep.
DPH
Brian
> >
> > n...@juno.com wrote:
> > >
> > > can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
> > > Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
> > > front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
> was
> > > given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
> > > quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate
> any
> > > advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I
> do
> > > not browse internet too frequently.
> > >
> > > regards/nick
> > >
> > > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> >
> > wouldn't be following closely behind a police vehicle, especially if you
> > lived out of state.
> >
> > A good percentage of auto accidents are caused by tailgating. I'm glad
> > you got a ticket and hope you get more tickets if you continue to
> > tailgate. At higher speeds, these types of accidents become fatalities.
> > And you are the one to blame!
> >
> > I have crossposted this to New Jersey General. I want the citizens and
> > cops in New Jersey to see how you received a ticket, then posted this on
> > DC groups for answers to beat your ticket.
> >
> > Pay the fine and quit whining......
> >
> > Gordon LeRoux
> >
> because of morons like you with an attitude "pay-and-forget", cops lost public
> control over them, and this country is becoming a cop controlled nazi state.I
> hope ( in fact I pray to God that you do!!) that one day you receive a ticket
> like NL- absolutely unjustified because you local law agent need extra money.
> My hopes go with NL, not with you!
>
> your
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
So you really think this guy's ticket was unjustified? You are an idiot.
Cops don't hand out tickets for the fun of it!
Sheesh!
Brian
Brian
> >
> > can anybody suggest the best defense againt bs ticket for tailgating.
> > Situation: NJ residential area. speed 25 mph. local cop's car is going in
> > front of me. All of the sudden, he stops me, and gives me a ticket for
> > tailgating, even though I was a least 1.5 car lenth behind him. The ticket
> was
> > given on Feb28 (last day of the month-I guess he needed to fulfil ticket
> > quota). This is an obvous bs ticket situation. I would greatly appreciate
> any
> > advise as soon as possible.Please reply to my E-mail address only, for I do
> > not browse internet too frequently.
> >
> > regards/nick
> I am really sorry for all you morons who gave such cold responces to this poor
> person. The question you should all be asking yourselves: what was the speed
> that local cop was travelling that day - was it 5 mph or was it 2 mph. If that
> was the case, that NL had all the right to be behind 1.5 car lenths or so.
> I have seen many cases of police entrapment for local and out-of-state driver
> just to increase local budget, while poor drivers would suffer 5 points
> increase on the records. All of you "well-wishers" must realize by now that
> this moronic attitude- " just pay the ticket, and forget it" leads to the fact
> that cops behave like they own the roads and can do whatever the hell they
> feel like. It is also obvious to me that NL may also be right about ticket
> quota for that day. I would like to see, how many tailgating tickets that cop
> wrote that day or any other last day of the month. My suggestion to NL, go to
> court and fight this ticket, for I am sure that he has a good chance. Do not
> pay this ticket NL, go to court and fight it!!! The best of luck to you!!
>
> >
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> >
You are calling "US" morons? He's the idiot who went to New Jersey and
tailgated a police officer! And you think WE are morons?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Jerk!
Brian
David P. Head
John Whiteside wrote:
>
> "David P. Head" <rall...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>
> >He's a left lane bandit because he's sitting there, going "at or just
> >above the speed limit", with total disregard for the other person's
> >obvious wish to go much faster.
>
> despite the robber's obvious desire to rob the bank, a "bank lobby
> bandit?"
<G> I dunno. Lets talk about cars.
>
> I agree that provoking assholes is usually a bad idea, but I have
> trouble with the idea that someone is at fault when they are the ones
> following the law. Is it a good idea to get out of the way when
> someone wants to pass you? Of course. Does that excuse a speeder who
> causes an accident? Not in any way.
Looking real close at everthing I've written so far one cannot come to
the conclusion that I want to excuse the road rager. I just want to put
a tiny little amount of the blame on the boob that plugs up the left
lane when someone else obviously wants to go a lot faster. Said boob
has _no_ way to know whether or not the faster driver is really in
trouble and actually _needs_ to drive fast. Said boob is being an
asshole. Said boob is endangering his own life. Said boob might have
saved several people by being courteous or prudent or wise or in some
places even legal by getting out of the way.
DPH
David P. Head
> >needing to run real quick.
>
> There are actually very few reasons which justify putting other
> drivers in danger.
But the left lane bandit doesn't _know_ that the faster driver isn't
experiencing one of them, and should get over for the welfare of all
concerned (including himself).
Medical emergencies come to mind, whether saving oneself or someone
else. Getting chased by armed and dangerous criminals would be
another. Yeah, I'd really have problems finding a thousand, so I guess
it might have been an exaggeration, or it might be that I just can't
think of all of 'em.
> About the only one I can think of is getting to a
> hospital in a medical emergency, and frankly, I doubt that's what the
> folks I see careening from lane to lane on the Beltway talking on
> their cell phones are doing.
Roger that! <G>
DPH
Gumby
> If the slower driver had kept to the right and allowed the faster driver
to
> pass, the accident never would have happened.
In all likelihood it just would have happened a few miles down the road.
> And since, at least in NJ, there is a law requiring one to keep to the
right
> except when passing, we have two law breakers, and two people who share
> responsibility.
Although I believe one shares more responsibility than the other.
Accountability should not be spread out evenly among the participants in
this situation.
> The main cause of road rage is ignorant and arrogant drivers who don't
feel
> the need to show common curtesy to other drivers.
>
> It's a simple thing to keep right, keep alert and use your turn signals.
If
> you don't do that, you're as much a part of the problem as the guy with
the
> lead foot.
That is the same as prosecuting those who commit petty theft and
ax-murderers under the same sentence. If you were found guilty of dozing
in the left lane, would you want the chair??
The reckless driver is responsible for two counts of vehicular
manslaughter. The lane-hog is responsible for obstruction of traffic, and
pissing off other motorists at worst. The reckless motorist should be held
fully accountable for his actions (even if posthumously).
Anthony M. Godfrey
gt1...@prism.gatech.edu
John Whiteside
"lcbmandg" <lcbm...@vermontel.com> wrote:
>So the point is the 2 second rule is not practical
Your argument goes like this:
Because the 2-second rule is not practical on a crowded freeway, it's
unreasonable to follow it on a quiet residential street.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
---
John Whiteside
Arlington, VA
John Whiteside
em...@yahoo.com wrote:
>I am really sorry for all you morons who gave such cold responces to this poor
>person. The question you should all be asking yourselves: what was the speed
>that local cop was travelling that day - was it 5 mph or was it 2 mph.
The tailgater already told us it was 25 mph. Do try to pay attention.
John Whiteside
"David P. Head" <rall...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>2) even if it was, there are a thousand other reasons for occasionally
>needing to run real quick.
There are actually very few reasons which justify putting other
drivers in danger. About the only one I can think of is getting to a
hospital in a medical emergency, and frankly, I doubt that's what the
folks I see careening from lane to lane on the Beltway talking on
their cell phones are doing.
There are a thousand reasons people do break the law; but they aren't
particularly good ones. You're late to work? You're going to miss your
movie? You have to pee? Sorry, I don't think that's a good reason for
someone to endanger me.
John Whiteside
"David P. Head" <rall...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>He's a left lane bandit because he's sitting there, going "at or just
>above the speed limit", with total disregard for the other person's
>obvious wish to go much faster.
So is someone who calls the cops because a bank is being robbed,
despite the robber's obvious desire to rob the bank, a "bank lobby
bandit?"
I agree that provoking assholes is usually a bad idea, but I have
trouble with the idea that someone is at fault when they are the ones
following the law. Is it a good idea to get out of the way when
someone wants to pass you? Of course. Does that excuse a speeder who
causes an accident? Not in any way.
Banty
>Banty wrote:
>
>>>You may have a point here. It is somewhat confusing - if the left lane
>>>bandit is passing slower cars, how did the bozo get around on the
>>>right?
>>
>>Easy. These guys whiz around to pass you on the right the moment you leave
>a
>>decent 1-car gap between youself and the person you're passing before you
>move
>>over.
>>
>How early do you signal your lane change? If someone is coming up
>fast behind me, while I'm still beside the vehicle I'm passing I
>signal my lane change, when I get a car length ahead of the guy I'm
>passing I move over. Since I'm traveling faster than him, space opens
>up behind me.
>
>
What, and he think I have a loose connection in my taillight? :-)
That's about all they seem to think sometimes.
I have tried it. Granted, fewer pull this stunt if I do signal before I even
completed passing, but at the cost of making the guy I'm passing nervous. And,
when I have tried it, sometimes I just get the guy tailgating me coming up even
closer to my bumper as I move over, anticipating faster progress I guess (or
further pressing his aggression).
>I've seen many times when someone passes another only to continue
>cruising in the left lane. I wait, flash my highbeams, wait, then
>pass on the right. The guys that pass quickly on the right like that
>are just anticipating your continuing on obliviously, like too many
>drivers on the road.
>
>
Then wait until you have decent room and can pass on the right safely.
Now, have *you* tried hanging back about three car-lengths so that you can ask
"politely" and in that way make the left lane hog feel less pushed?
I really think that most tailgaters are on the high-strung side (otherwise they
wouldn't take the risk). They tend to be unpredictable. I haven't seen any
consistent way to deal with these other than stay my course until they wrap
around me.
And, to tell you the truth, it galls me that I should have to signal the road
bullies that I plan to do their bidding. 15 or so years ago, tailgaters would
often hang onto another car whatever happened elsewhere in the traffic flow
just to make a point. Now, I see that seldom. And I wonder if it's because
they've begun to encounter widespread resistance. I consider that they're at
least moving off car's tails, letting folks go on their way, and taking the
lane-changing risks themselves to be an improvement. Not ideal, but I don't
think there's any perfectly safe way to deal with these folks.
Cheers,
Ba...@aol.com
Bentley
DaShadoes (dash...@aol.com) said something like:
: I can tell you that I no longer give breaks. Everyone I stop gets a ticket. I
: use to give breaks if I felt they deserved it. However, because of whiners,
: like yourself, I issue on every stop. Feel better?
Everyone you stop? Including off-duty officers?
I rather doubt it.
--
> B E N T L E Y < ben...@access.digex.net@cyberpromo.com
A long frisbee throw from the pungent and lovely Potomac River
[remove @cyberpromo.com for correspondence]
Brandon Sommerville
Banty wrote:
>
>What, and he think I have a loose connection in my taillight? :-)
:)
>That's about all they seem to think sometimes.
>I have tried it. Granted, fewer pull this stunt if I do signal before I even
>completed passing, but at the cost of making the guy I'm passing nervous. And,
>when I have tried it, sometimes I just get the guy tailgating me coming up even
>closer to my bumper as I move over, anticipating faster progress I guess (or
>further pressing his aggression).
Unless you speed up it's a no win situation. My method of dealing
with it is when I see someone coming up hot behind me I accelerate to
get out of their way.
>Then wait until you have decent room and can pass on the right safely.
>Now, have *you* tried hanging back about three car-lengths so that you can ask
>"politely" and in that way make the left lane hog feel less pushed?
Always. I refuse to tailgate. If the driver has been holding me up
for an extended period, meaning they have more than 5 seconds of road
space in front of them, then I will pull closer to make a pass,
sometimes honking as I pass. Keep in mind that I've been waiting
behind for a couple of minutes, periodically flashing my high beams
(which I only do if they have room to safely move over, I flashed a
car once and had them start moving over immediately, great response
time but there was already a car there, so I don't do that anymore),
also I'll turn on my left blinker which works sometimes. But, in the
end sometimes you just have to pass them on the right.
>I really think that most tailgaters are on the high-strung side (otherwise they
>wouldn't take the risk). They tend to be unpredictable. I haven't seen any
>consistent way to deal with these other than stay my course until they wrap
>around me.
The worst ones for me are the ones that lock onto your bumper in
traffic, but as soon as it opens up again they are left behind happily
plodding along at the limit. Often I'll come up on a chain of them,
all happily tailgating one another.
>And, to tell you the truth, it galls me that I should have to signal the road
>bullies that I plan to do their bidding. 15 or so years ago, tailgaters would
>often hang onto another car whatever happened elsewhere in the traffic flow
>just to make a point. Now, I see that seldom. And I wonder if it's because
>they've begun to encounter widespread resistance. I consider that they're at
>least moving off car's tails, letting folks go on their way, and taking the
>lane-changing risks themselves to be an improvement. Not ideal, but I don't
>think there's any perfectly safe way to deal with these folks.
>
I don't think of them as road bullies, I just think of them as people
traveling faster than me. When I feel like driving fast, it's
gratifying to see people move over, so I try and do it for others. I
think of it as a random act of kindness. :) And for the record, I
have no idea what the roads were like 15 years ago, I was only 12. ;)
Banty
>>That's about all they seem to think sometimes.
>>I have tried it. Granted, fewer pull this stunt if I do signal before I
>even
>>completed passing, but at the cost of making the guy I'm passing nervous.
>And,
>>when I have tried it, sometimes I just get the guy tailgating me coming up
>even
>>closer to my bumper as I move over, anticipating faster progress I guess (or
>>further pressing his aggression).
>
>Unless you speed up it's a no win situation. My method of dealing
>with it is when I see someone coming up hot behind me I accelerate to
>get out of their way.
If I'm going 75 passing folks doing 70, I really don't want to go 80 to please
some other guy. Sorry.
>>Then wait until you have decent room and can pass on the right safely.
>>Now, have *you* tried hanging back about three car-lengths so that you can
>ask
>>"politely" and in that way make the left lane hog feel less pushed?
>
>Always. I refuse to tailgate. If the driver has been holding me up
>for an extended period, meaning they have more than 5 seconds of road
>space in front of them, then I will pull closer to make a pass,
>sometimes honking as I pass. Keep in mind that I've been waiting
>behind for a couple of minutes, periodically flashing my high beams
>(which I only do if they have room to safely move over, I flashed a
>car once and had them start moving over immediately, great response
>time but there was already a car there, so I don't do that anymore),
>also I'll turn on my left blinker which works sometimes. But, in the
>end sometimes you just have to pass them on the right.
My brother is a faster driver than me. It works for him to "hang back a little
bit". In the road world of competing egos, it lets the left lane guy save
face. And he says he won't pull over for guys tailgating him, but will make an
effort for someone who clearly wants to pass but isn't being a jerk about it.
BTW, the left blinker is sort of like speaking German on the roads. This is a
different country - some are cosmopolitan to understand that - most aren't. So
it really doesn't make sense IMO. At least people understand flashing
headlamps.
>>I really think that most tailgaters are on the high-strung side (otherwise
>they
>>wouldn't take the risk). They tend to be unpredictable. I haven't seen any
>>consistent way to deal with these other than stay my course until they wrap
>>around me.
>
>The worst ones for me are the ones that lock onto your bumper in
>traffic, but as soon as it opens up again they are left behind happily
>plodding along at the limit. Often I'll come up on a chain of them,
>all happily tailgating one another.
LOL I wish they'd all happily tailgate each other and leave the rest of us
alone! (My favorite way to deal with jerks in general is to try to get them
together in the same pot somehow driving each other nuts, but that's a bigger
topic :-)
>
>>And, to tell you the truth, it galls me that I should have to signal the
>road
>>bullies that I plan to do their bidding. 15 or so years ago, tailgaters
>would
>>often hang onto another car whatever happened elsewhere in the traffic flow
>>just to make a point. Now, I see that seldom. And I wonder if it's because
>>they've begun to encounter widespread resistance. I consider that they're
>at
>>least moving off car's tails, letting folks go on their way, and taking the
>>lane-changing risks themselves to be an improvement. Not ideal, but I don't
>>think there's any perfectly safe way to deal with these folks.
>>
>I don't think of them as road bullies, I just think of them as people
>traveling faster than me.
If they're tailgating me, they're endangering me, and only bullies do that.
Sorry, that's IMO. Actions talk.
> And for the record, I
>have no idea what the roads were like 15 years ago, I was only 12. ;)
>
>Brandon
Why you young whippersnapper. When *I* was your age...........
(now when was that.....)
:-)
Cheers,
Ba...@aol.com
Brandon Sommerville
Bentley wrote:
>DaShadoes (dash...@aol.com) said something like:
>: I can tell you that I no longer give breaks. Everyone I stop gets a ticket. I
>: use to give breaks if I felt they deserved it. However, because of whiners,
>: like yourself, I issue on every stop. Feel better?
>
>Everyone you stop? Including off-duty officers?
>
>I rather doubt it.
Come on now Bentley. Cops don't whine if they get ticketed. They
just don't help other cops when their lives are in danger. You know,
why rush?
After all, he got "fucked over" by getting the ticket.