Riding my tail with highbeams on is a recipe to make me go slower, not faster...

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
Not an unreasonable position. For what it’s worth, I’m not totally sure on this point either. Note that other folks in this thread seem convinced that the tailgater was able to pass.

Now, that’s a selective quote, there.

I also said that I was not calling the OP a “liar.” You have seemed to be highly motivated to assume that he is, on some level, full of shit.

I see nothing too out of order with his story. I have driven on roads where there are few turn-outs. A lot of us have driven on roads that are similar to what the OP describes. You, obviously, haven’t. This fact, I think, damages your credibility severely. If you haven’t driven on such roads, maybe you can’t really understand or imagine the scenario as desecribed by the OP. The rest of us can, because we’ve driven on the kind of road that you have seemed (until recently) unwilling to believe even existed.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by CanvasShoes *
Of course there are conditions where a tailgater can’t pass, again, as asked and answered above, this has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand, if the tailgater can’t pass, in other words, the conditions are such that the tailgatee can’t pull over, and the tailgater isn’t satisfied with the speed the tailgatee is going, so WHAT?

Relevant because it shows your straw man argument is wrong. See my previous comments.

**

The tailgatee is in the right.**

Unless he slows down for the purpose of punishing and retaliating against the tailgater. Then he’s in the wrong.

**

If the conditions are THAT bad that the tailgater is physically unable to pass at a whopping 15mph, then they are BAD enough that he would be irresponsible to do so at 5 mph.**

obviously false.
**[

I didn’t ask if you had experience with the law side of automobile incidents.**

And I didn’t answer that question. The point is that the OP’s story is suspect.
**

The OP was doing the best he could in the circumstances he was given. **

If you accept everything he says and give him the benefit of every inference, then yes. I don’t. Feel free to disagree.

**

You keep conveniently forgetting that the OP had no place to pull over and that depending upon the circumstances it might have been more unsafe to stop than to continue as best he could.**

It might have been, but then again it might not have been. Only the OP knows for sure.

**

Impeding the tailgater doesn’t equal being a jerk, nor EVEN being at fault. **

If done so for purposes of punishment and retaliation, it does equal being a jerk. Agree?

**

You hit someone from the rear, at least in Alaska, you are 100% at fault. But he “impeded” me isn’t likely to cut it with the cop, the judge or the insurance company.**

Doesn’t change the fact that deliberately impeding another person for purposes of punishment and retaliation = being a jerk.

[an anecdote]

It’s certainly possible that the tailgater did in fact have a reasonable opportunity to pass the OP. As I’ve said ad nauseum, if this were the case, my opinion would be different.

**

That said, HAD he simply stayed at his original 30mph, how would that have changed things? The OP did the correct and recommended things, he tapped his brakes, and slowed. The tailgater refused to get it. And he would have been “impeded” either way. **

The difference is that by slowing down to 15, he was deliberately attempting to punish the tailgater and retaliate against him for his jerkish behaviour.

**

The front car has NO responsibility to ensure that other cars get to barrel on down the road however fast they want to.**

Actually that’s incorrect as noted in my previous comments.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Stratocaster *
**I have already argued the issue, you boob. Why is it so hard for you to get your brain around that fact?

As you have basically already admitted, you ignored the argument in a particular post and instead pretended I had made a different argument. Which is why I referred to it as the argument you ignored.

The fact that you were “just trying to bust [my] balls” doesn’t change what you did.

You might ask yourself why you need to keep arguing against straw men.

And I note that you continue to not respond to the actual argument.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Shayna *
You just supported our position, not your own. Slowing to 15mph does “generally” make it possible for a tailgater to pass, even if the lead vehicle doesn’t leave the road. What the hell makes you think it doesn’t?

As I’ve said again and again and again and again and again, if the OP’s tailgater did in fact have a reasonable opportunity to pass, then my opinion would be different.

And before you go there, the only reason the OPer slowed to 15mph is because the driver of the tailgating vehicle made it unsafe for him to go any faster by approaching at an excessive speed and shining his highbeams into every mirror of the OPer’s car. And in an effort to allow him to pass.

True IF you accept everything the OP has said and give him the benefit of every inference. I’m skeptical of certain aspects of the OP’s story.

**

Finally!**

Gah. Did you read my posts where I explained what I mean by pulling over?

**

You claim to be an attorney and the best you can offer here is your “imagination”? **

Yep, see as an attorney, when I guess at what the law is, even if it’s a reasonable guess, I make that clear. I don’t make unconditional claims without having a cite.

**

Now, shall we discuss all the laws the tailgater that you’re so staunchly supporting here broke?**

Gimme a break. I’ve already said that I think tailgaters are scum.

However, it’s interesting that some of the folks here seem to think I believe the tailgater was in the right.

[SeekingTruth]

Oh, for fuck’s sake. So now the argument is made that defending/retaliating against a crime is, in itself a crime?!? Only a pseudo-lawyer can make that assertion.

You’re full of shit lucwarm. You know it, we all know it, the proof/cite is NOBODY defending your position.

I’m done posting to this thread. I’ve challenged you TWICE to answer whether you’re an ABA lawyer, a law student, an undergrad, ANYTHING!

You have failed (I’m sure not the first time) in giving us your credentials for the “expert” opinions you give.

I declare that you have something very wrong with you, in that you get off by making people mad. I only hope that you someday do the tailgating thing to me.

I plead with all others to ignore any other posts from Captain Dipshit. Give him the friggin thread, and let’s try to debate people that actually can be informed beings.

I was going to insult you here, lucwarm, but life has already done that.

[Voyager]

I just reread the OP and the OPers followup.

The OP slowed to 15 mph due to the glare, not out of vindictiveness. The OP said that even his mother was having a hard time seeing. The OP even mentioned that a reason he did not pull into a driveway was that he couldn’t see them for the glare.

The OP said that he did get pleasure out of slowing down the tailgater, but that this was secondary to driving slowly because of reduced visibility. Why would the OP be lying, when he admitted that he felt vindictive, which was wrong. He was not trying to make himself feel good. The only reason I could see that lucwarm doubts the OP is that he has begun to realize that under the conditions in the OP’s post, he is wrong.

There are two cases here, considering the conditions. One was that the tailgater could pass, and wasn’t because he was being an asshole. The second was that he could not pass. All he’d have to do then would be to turn off the high beams, back off a bit, and see if the OP sped up.

Clearly neither the tailgater nor lucwarm have ever heard of the fable of the Wind and the Sun.

[CanvasShoes]

Nope. If they slow down to punish and retaliate against the tailgater, they are being a jerk.

Ah, I see, so you are the great all-knowing Oz who can discern a motorists deepest and darkest motives.

Whether or not the OP derived pleasure from the tailgater’s discomfort upon being slowed down does NOT = his driving actions were jerkish. Were his personal feelings jerkish? IMO? No, in yours, you obviously are hell-bent on believing that the OP’s sole purpose was to “punish and impede” the tailgater.

Since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake, let’s break it down for you carefully and step by step.

The OP’s driving actions were quite appropriate under the circumstances.

The OP had ALREADY been doing close to the speed limit. Given the tailgaters behaviour (blaring horn, brights, driving inches off of the OP’s bumper, remember that part?), it’s highly doubtful that he’d have behaved any differently than he did had the OP been driving the BREAKneck speed of 35 instead of 30.

As it is, the OP gave VERY clear signals and opportunities to change the situation to the tailgater, upon whom the responsibility for behaviour modicification rested during this incident.

Not only did the OP give a very CLEAR signal to the tailgater, he gave a signal that is appropriate, safe and recommended by law enforcement as per info that has been provided for you in links in this thread by other posters.

The very clear signal was tapping his brakes and slowing down. This says “either pass, or back off”.

At this point, the tailgater has three choices, he can do as the front driver requests, or he can continue his dangerous behaviour. He chose to continue badgering and harrassing the OP.

Did the OP slam on his brakes in the hopes of getting a huge settlement? No. Did he flip off the tailgater and give him “COME ON, let’s go” signals? NO.

He again gave a clear, safe, recommended and EASILY recognized signal, by again tapping his brakes and slowing a little more.

That second signal was “Pass or BACK OFF”. The tailgater again refused his options and continued his bad behaviour.

At which point the OP gave his final signal, he slowed to 15mph, the signal he gave was “This is PLENTY slow for you to pass, OR you can back off and I’ll go back up to the speed limit, but I’ll NOT be intimidated by your actions”.

Apparently you’re the only one who translates “I’m standing my ground against this bully” into “jerkish behaviour”.

It’s obviously not YOUR opinion, you’ve made that quite clear, but IMHO, not even his thinking “haha” in the back of his mind makes him a jerk. Merely human, as most people likely think when confronted by a bully and standing their ground.

And again, whether or not the OP was a jerk “back” to the tailgater or not, his actions were phenomenally stupid and ineffecient. Not only did he get himself even FURTHER wound up by trying and failing to bully someone, he didn’t get that which he was trying to accomplish either, that of getting to go however fast he wanted to.

So all his fussing and raging was for nothing. The thing is, and the thing you keep missing, is that all his fussing and raging would have been for nothing no matter what!

Even if the OP HAD decided to go back up to 35, so what? The tailgater would not have been able to pass, STILL, certainly less so than at 15mph, and he’d have continued his assault on the OP either way.

[PunditLisa]

Yep, see as an attorney, when I guess at what the law is, even if it’s a reasonable guess, I make that clear. I don’t make unconditional claims without having a cite.

I see BS. Either: a) you’re making up the fact that you have an actual j.d. degree; b) no one has seen fit to hire a lawyer of your demonstrable tenacity and skill; or c) you work for the government and can spend hours and hours surfing the internet when you should be working.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**As you have basically already admitted, you ignored the argument in a particular post and instead pretended I had made a different argument. Which is why I referred to it as the argument you ignored.

**I admitted no such thing. Talk about straw men. What, exactly, does the word “mistakenly” mean in your little world? And let me state this without ambiguity: for you to state that I admitted to “pretending” you made another argument is an outright fucking lie. You have established it beyond doubt now. You are a liar. Oh, well, at least I don’t have to wonder if your apparent dishonesty is a function of how dense you are.

**And I note that you continue to not respond to the actual argument. **

More dishonesty, this time just a little more subtle. You have added nothing substantial to your original argument, the one I have already addressed. Stop implying that you have added something material to your premise or that there is an aspect of this argument that I’ve ignored. If you make an argument, I respond, then you basically repeat the same fucking argument, that would not amount to my having ignored your argument, you nitwit.

You can disagree with my response, but sorry, as long as you keep saying I’ve ignored your point, I’ll continue to call bullshit, liar.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Stratocaster *
**I admitted no such thing. Talk about straw men. What, exactly, does the word “mistakenly” mean in your little world? **

As I recall, you indicated that you were “busting [my] balls” or something like that. Now you’re saying that you were busting my balls by mistake? Gimme a break, Senor Weasel.

**

Oh, well, at least I don’t have to wonder if your apparent dishonesty is a function of how dense you are. More dishonesty, this time just a little more subtle. You have added nothing substantial to your original argument, the one I have already addressed. **

Sure I did – go back and actually read the thread instead of just making stuff up.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by PunditLisa *
**I see BS. Either: a) you’re making up the fact that you have an actual j.d. degree; b) no one has seen fit to hire a lawyer of your demonstrable tenacity and skill; or c) you work for the government and can spend hours and hours surfing the internet when you should be working. **

Whatever. It’s funny that other folks who have argued against me have pointed out I’m a lawyer, apparently seeing some advantage in doing so. But when I admit it and make a minor point using it to my advantage, folks claim I’m not really a lawyer.

Look, I don’t freaking care whether or not you believe I’m a lawyer. If nobody in this thread had mentioned it, I certainly wouldn’t have.

I invite you to read the thread carefully – I suspect you will see that I mention my job only in response to folks who had mentioned it first.

By the way, can I take it you admit that your anecodote about being stuck on an interestate is irrelevant to the discussion?

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by SeekingTruth *
Oh, for fuck’s sake. So now the argument is made that defending/retaliating against a crime is, in itself a crime?!? Only a pseudo-lawyer can make that assertion.

Gosh, you really are an idiot. For what it’s worth, under certain circumstances, retaliating against a criminal is itself a criminal act. Examples of this oughtta be obvious even to a moron like you.

Retaliation is not always a crime and obviously defending against a crime is likely not a crime, depending upon exactly what is done. Nowhere have I said otherwise.

**

I’m done posting to this thread. **

Bye bye sh*t-for-brains. Don’t let the door hit your *ss on the way out.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
** You have seemed to be highly motivated to assume that he is, on some level, full of shit. **

I wouldn’t go that far – but yeah, I’m skeptical of certain aspects of his story. Feel free to disagree.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Voyager *
**I just reread the OP and the OPers followup.

The OP slowed to 15 mph due to the glare, not out of vindictiveness.**

That’s not clear from reading the very first post.

**

The OP said that he did get pleasure out of slowing down the tailgater, but that this was secondary to driving slowly because of reduced visibility. **

Not clear from the OP.

**

Why would the OP be lying, when he admitted that he felt vindictive, which was wrong.**

Feeling vindictive per se is not necessarily wrong. Slowing down for the primary purpose of impeding another driver in or order to punish and retaliate is wrong, and certainly worse than simply feeling vindictive.

**

There are two cases here, considering the conditions. One was that the tailgater could pass, and wasn’t because he was being an asshole. The second was that he could not pass. All he’d have to do then would be to turn off the high beams, back off a bit, and see if the OP sped up. **

True enough, but if the OP was deliberately impeding the tailgater for purposes of punishment and retaliation, the fact that the tailgater did not back off does not make what the OP did right.

**

Clearly neither the tailgater nor lucwarm have ever heard of the fable of the Wind and the Sun. **

Incorrect, and it seems you haven’t heard the saying that two wrongs don’t make a right.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by CanvasShoes *
**
As it is, the OP gave VERY clear signals and opportunities to change the situation to the tailgater, upon whom the responsibility for behaviour modicification rested during this incident.

Not only did the OP give a very CLEAR signal to the tailgater, he gave a signal that is appropriate, safe and recommended by law enforcement as per info that has been provided for you in links in this thread by other posters.

The very clear signal was tapping his brakes and slowing down. This says “either pass, or back off”.**

Gosh, you really are dense. As I’ve said again and again and again and again and again and again, if the OP did in fact give the tailgater a reasonable opportunity to pass, my opinion would be different.

Simply asserting that he gave such an opportunity don’t make it so.

And by the way, can I take it you’re not claiming (anymore?) that what I’ve said in this thread contradicts what is recommended by the authorities?

[Skywatcher]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
Simply asserting that he gave such an opportunity don’t make it so.

Continuing to assert that he didn’t doesn’t make that so either. Really, what is the big fuckin’ deal here?

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Jeff Olsen *
**Continuing to assert that he didn’t doesn’t make that so either. **

Gah. I’ve made it clear that it’s my opinion, and I’ve explained why I think so. I’ve also conceded that only the OP knows the truth for sure. I’ve also stated again and again that if in fact the OP did give the tailgater a reasonable chance to pass, then my opinion would be different.

That’s different from what I was responding to which flatly asserts and assumes that the OP gave the tailgater a reasonable chance to pass, thus begging the question.

**

Really, what is the big fuckin’ deal here? **

Good question. I think that some of the posters here have confused my criticism of the OP with an endorsement of tailgating.

[Bricker]

Speaking as possibly the resident psycho-beast when it comes it phony lawyers on this board…

I have never had the slightest reason to doubt lucwarm’s claims. Mostly for subtle reasons - use of phrases like, “True IF you accept everything the OP has said and give him the benefit of every inference…” This is language that echoes about a kajillion apellate opinions; when a reviewing court summarizes the evidence, they do so by giving the benefit of every inference to the prevailing party below.

PunditLisa said:

I see BS. Either: a) you’re making up the fact that you have an actual j.d. degree; b) no one has seen fit to hire a lawyer of your demonstrable tenacity and skill; or c) you work for the government and can spend hours and hours surfing the internet when you should be working.

lucwarm registered in September 2000 and has roughly 2,500 posts. I registered in December 1999 and have roughly 5600 posts - do you question my credentials as well?

• Rick

[PunditLisa]

lucwarm registered in September 2000 and has roughly 2,500 posts. I registered in December 1999 and have roughly 5600 posts - do you question my credentials as well?

Bricker, if you constantly post long-winded, argumentative posts during regular business hours, I would either question your credentials or your work ethic.

Besides, it doesn’t matter to me whether either of you has a j.d. degree or not. I was just trying to pull a lucwarm and call bullshit on something that everyone else takes at face value. You say you’re a lawyer, I believe you. You say you’ve driven on roads that have no shoulder, I believe you. Lucwarm is so skeptical about even the most mundane thing, that I’m beginning to suspect that the gentlemen doth protest too much. If someone sees B.S. everywhere he goes, it’s undoubtably because he’s been spewing it out his own ass.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by PunditLisa *
**Bricker, if you constantly post long-winded, argumentative posts during regular business hours, I would either question your credentials or your work ethic. **

I admit that my posts in this thread are argumentative – like most of the other posts. Long-winded? Would you care to point to a particular post?

**

I was just trying to pull a lucwarm and call bullshit on something that everyone else takes at face value. You say you’re a lawyer, I believe you. You say you’ve driven on roads that have no shoulder, I believe you. Lucwarm is so skeptical about even the most mundane thing, that I’m beginning to suspect that the gentlemen doth protest too much. If someone sees B.S. everywhere he goes, it’s undoubtably because he’s been spewing it out his own ass. **

Let’s see if I have this straight: You actually believed the whole while that I’m a lawyer, but you pretended that you DIDN’T believe I’m a lawyer to make a point that one should believe what one reads here?

I suppose your claim is one of the “mundane” things that I’m so unreasonably skeptical about. :rolleyes:

And by the way, you still haven’t answered my question: Do you agree that your anecdote of being stuck on the interstate is basically irrelevant? (Or maybe the incident was actually on a two-lane road but you were pretending it took place on an interstate to make some subtle point? )