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

The BBQ Pit
221

But is it clear from the followup post? Or do you just not believe the followup post?

There is no evidence that he slowed down out of vindictiveness. The OP seemed to feel guilty about taking pleasure from the effect of slowing down.

Right, and if the OP had stopped the car, taken a baseball bat, and smashed the tailgaters windshield it would have been wrong too. You’re responding to a hypothetical, not what seems to have really happened. The evidence at hand shows that the tailgater stayed close with brights on for 20 minutes. There is little that would make a reasonable person think that speeding up to a safe speed would help, or that stopping would not be dangerous.

And three wrongs don’t make a right either.
The initial tailgating and honking, when the OP was driving at the maximum speed that seemed safe to him, was wrong. Slowing down because of impaired visibility was not wrong, and, since it gave an opportunity to pass, was possibly even right. Not stopping in a travel lane when a possibly irrational person is behind you is definitely not wrong. Not backing off to see if being reasonable helps the situation is wrong.

The tailgater seems to have thought that 50 mph was a safe and appropriate speed on that road - and it might have been for him. It was not for the OP, and for the OP to have sped up to a speed that would have satisfied the tailgater would have been dangerous. Pulling over was impossible, stopping seemed to be dangerous, going 30 didn’t help, and going slowly didn’t help. I think the OP was out of options. The best compromise would have been for him to have gone 30 mph again, and seen if it helped, and then slowed back down to 15 if the tailgater stayed on his tail. Not being there I don’t know if that could have been done safely. I’ve driven during a blizzard where I would have loved to have sped up and lost the SUV on my tail but felt that I could not do so safely.

222

As I’ve said more than once in this thread, I believe that to the extent the OP later suggested that he gave the tailgater a reasonable opportunity to pass, he was lying.

**

Sure there is. There isn’t proof, but there is certainly evidence.

**

I’m responding to my own view of what I think probably happened. As I’ve said again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, only the OP knows for sure what really happened.

**

I’m not sure what your point is here. Can we agree that (1) the OP should have given the tailgater a reasonable opportunity to pass, if possible; and (2) failing that, he should have driven as fast as safely possible?

**

Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. As I’ve said a million times or so, if the OP did in fact give the tailgater a reasonable opportunity to pass, then my opinion would be different. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Why are people so irresistably attracted to begging this question?

223

Then why do you keep coming back to this trainwreck? Surely you’re getting tired of saying the same thing again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

224

That’s a good question. It’s hard for me to let a crappy argument go unanswered even if I’ve answered the argument previously. I suppose I should create a tailgating FAQ.

225

Of course, one could argue that you’re the one with the crappy argument but doing so would be pointless. Then again, everything since the OP came back on page 2 has been pretty much pointless anyway. Lots of wheel spinning in this thread.

226

Ok, I’m taking (probably) one last go-round at this.

Luc, let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that there was NO place that the tailgater could have passed. Let’s pretend, just for the sake of argument, that it was that narrow, just-wide-enough-for-two-cars winding moutain road with hairpin turns, a mountain on one side and a cliff on the other. Just for a minute assume that regardless of the OP’s speed, full-stop to 100 MPH, the tailgater couldn’t have passed.

Assumed, just for a moment?

Great.

Then what happens with your opinion, if you assume that speed aside, the tailgater couldn’t have passed?

Slowing down to 15 in the face of a loon is reasonable. If I’ve got a nutball riding my ass, I’d much rather him hit me at 15 mph then at 30 or 60 mph and if his brights are on, messing with my night vision, I’m certainly going to slow down. What would you do, again, assuming that the road really IS un-passable and he’s unsafely following and obscuring your vision?

Fenris

227

YES, we most certainly CAN agree on those points!

The jury has now listened to 8 days of testimony and heard both opening and closing arguments. I have nominated and elected myself jury foreperson and am ready to read our verdict into the record, as it is clear that we have reached a unanimous decision.

Ahem…

We the jury, find that the defendant, Windwalker, did, in fact, give the plaintiff tailgater every reasonable opportunity to pass by reducing his speed to such an extent as to cause the plaintiff tailgater to have to be in the opposing lane of traffic for the least amount of time necessary, should he have chosen to pass.

Additionally, we find that given the conditions; a 2-lane road at night, unlit and shoulderless, with highbeam lights from an unsafe distance shining in every mirror and reflecting in his glasses, that 15mph was the safest speed possible for him to proceed without risking being run off said shoulderless road into a ditch, since his visibility was greatly impaired as a direct result of plaintiff tailgater’s behavior.

We found the evidence presented by the plaintiff attorney, lucwarm, to be nothing more than speculative at best and unsupported entirely by direct testimony. We find that there is insufficient evidence to support a claim of perjury on the part of the defendant.

Therefore our final verdict is, Not Guilty.

Case dismissed!

228

I’m sure that those who argue against me feel that I’m the one with the crappy argument. Note however, that many folks who have argued against me have felt the need to (1) misrepresent my position; and (2) dodge simple questions about their own position. You might ask yourself why somebody with a good argument would need to do these things.

**

That I agree with.

229

**Give me a break. Is English your second language? I did not say I was “mistakenly” trying to bust your balls. There is only one spot in my contribution where I used the word. And let me give you a hint: it is inconsistent with the notion that I admitted to deliberately misrepresenting your argument.

I defy you, liar, I defy you to show the point in this thread where I admitted that I was pretending you made another argument. Go ahead, you vacuous piece of shit. It should be easy if you’re not the fucking liar I say you are. You said it, not me. Have the gumption to back up your statement, or admit you’re a spineless liar. It’s that simple.

I’ve read the thread. You have added nothing material to your original argument regarding why those in a line of cars wouldn’t pass a slow-moving car. BTW, let’s not give your “argument” credibility it doesn’t deserve. It was this:

**Since I can’t prove a negative, why don’t you show the substantial additions to this argument you’ve made since I originally addressed it? Go on, liar, give it a try. Don’t just show where you’ve restated it, or where you dressed it up a little. Show where you’ve made any substantially different argument than a variation on “If those people could have passed, they almost certainly would have.” Could it be you’re lying again?

230

I think I’ve addressed this before. If there was absolutely no way to give the tailgater a reasonable chance to pass, then the OP should have continued driving as fast as safely possible.

**

see above.

231

Great, not a lot of people have conceded those points.

Now, did you read my posts about what I mean by “pulling over”?

**

Well, I’m glad to see you (impliticly) agree that the critical issues here depend on the circumstances the OP was in. And yeah, you should feel free to believe him.

232

Umm, here’s what you ACTUALLY said:

(emphasis mine)

The record speaks for itself. (Although I’m sure you’ll try to weasel out of what you said.)

**

Umm, you’re the liar here.

Here’s what I said:

As far as I can see, you didn’t respond to this except to say “whatever” and respond to different points.

233

Why yes, yes we did. As I said, we carefully considered 8 days of testimony as well as all arguments presented.

Jury Foreperson Shayna: ::sends a note to the judge to have the court reporter read back the relevant portions from the record re attorney lucwarm’s own personal definition of “pulling over”::

Court reporter: "Plaintiff attorney lucwarm, “In any event, let me say that by “pulling over,” I mean getting as far to the right as possible and either stopping or moving at a slow enough speed, under the circumstances, to allow traffic behind you to pass about as easily as if you were stopped.”

Again, after due consideration, we the jury are of the opinion that, based on the undisputed testimony by the defendant that there was no shoulder, save for a foot or two alongside the white line, that 15mph was moving at a slow enough speed, under the circumstances, to allow traffic behind him to pass, had they so chosen. To wit…

Jury Foreperson Shayna: ::sends another note to the judge to have the court reporter read back the relevant portions from the record::

Court reporter: "defendant Windwalker, “…there were definitely a few stretches that were safe to pass…”

We, the jury, are of the opinion that it is entirely possible, even quite easy, to pass a vehicle in front of you, even if said vehicle is driving dead center in the middle of the lane. We’ve seen it done a gazillion times between us. Heck, we’ve all even done so ourselves. Therefore, the 6 - 24 inches available to the defendant to have “pulled over” were negligible and would not have made it any easier for the plaintiff tailgater to have passed him.

And in fact, given that the terrain alongside this narrow roadway with little more than a foot or so of additional pavement was immediately alongside dropoffs and railings (see the direct testimony provided on page 2 of this thread), and given that his vision was impaired by the blinding headlights reflecting in all his mirrors and glasses, rendering judgement as to just how far he could safely “pull over” diminished, it would have been dangerous for the defendant to have “pulled over” at all.

So yes, all of your arguments were reviewed, considered and rejected.

This has got to be one of the most assinine comments I’ve ever come across on this or any other message board – ever. OF FUCKING COURSE the “critical issues” depend on the circumstances the OP was in! What the HELL else have we been talking about for 5 fucking pages? How on EARTH could the “critical issues” have been about anything ELSE? And WHO, in their right mind, would attempt to argue otherwise?

Please, I beg of you, tell me where and for what firm you practice so that I can be certain to never accidentally attempt to retain you as counsel.

And now, having read our verdict and you having had an opportunity to poll the jury, the case is officially closed, your arguments rejected and it’s time to pack up your briefcase and go home, counsellor. And I’d strongly recommend that you abandon any idea you have of appealing, as there simply are no grounds. You didn’t make your case. It’s over.

234

Then kindly explain what you mean when you said “finally” earlier.

(Somehow I expect you to dodge this question.)

**

I’m really not sure what your point is with the dramatization. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, though.

**

The morons who have begged that question. I’m not sure if you’re one of them, but if you believe they are nuts, you may be right.

**

Does that mean you’re leaving the thread? If so, don’t let the door hit your rear on the way out.

235

err, “more kinda jury stuff” shouldda been in brackets.

236

First of all, I have no fucking clue what the relevance is to even asking me to explain what I meant an etire page ago, especially when actually going back and reading it your damn self would make the answer to that perfectly fucking clear to anyone with a single active neuron in their brain.

warmbrainfart: “, I am happy to concede that it’s not always possible to pull off the road.”

Shayna: “Finally! [you concede that point]”

See how fucking easy that was?

Second of all, how FUCKING DARE you accuse me of dodging your questions, you cuckforbrains asswipe. I haven’t dodged a single, solitary, fucking thing you’ve directed at me in this entire trainwreck of a thread. You, counsellor, are the lowest.

You know, it really doesn’t serve your purpose to pretend to be so fucking stupid as to not know what my point was, seeing as how it was very clearly spelled out. Oh wait, you aren’t pretending. Nevermind.

Ohmygosh, you slay me with your originality and wit! But guess what, you’ll actually get one final concession from me. Yes, that means I’m leaving this thread, seeing as how you’ve proven yourself to be the biggest idiot on the entire planet. And that’s no easy feat. Congratulations!

::Picks up my purse, throws my coat over my arm, exits the jury box, walks past the dejected counsel with his head hung low at the plaintiff’s table, swings open the gate to the spectator gallery and leaves the courtroom to the audible sobs of the defeated attorney::

237

So you’re saying that the OP is lying about having tapped his brakes and slowing down twice before finally slowing down to 15 mph.

If you’re NOT saying that he lied about tapping his brakes and slowing, then YOU’RE the one being dense. Tapping brakes and slowing IS the opportunity given to the tailgater. And you keep forgetting or missing that the tailgater ALSO had the message and the opportunity to BACK OFF if he didn’t want to pass.

No, I’ve just not taken the time to hunt down how to link to, or quote TV and Radio spots so that it can be viewed for a cite. Which IS, btw, how public service announcements are usually made.

You’ve stated that stopping dead in the road is a good idea. Everyone in this thread has said that’s a bad idea. Shayna provided several links regarding laws and resonsibilities for motorists. IIRC, one of them was regarding being rear ended and the citation being on the person tailgating. And I know that that is in fact true in our state.

I’m laughing here though, you’re continuing to froth at the mouth more and more from what other posters are proving to you. I, for one, am appreciative of the entertainment you provide.

238

I’m not surprised you don’t see the relevance, idiot. So I’ll spell it out for you: You tried to pretend I was making a big concession from an earlier position. The earlier position, which was essentially a strawman, held that I was claiming it was generally possible to pull completely off the road.

Thus my question (to which you didn’t give a satisfactory answer) – do you understand the difference between pulling off and pulling over as I’ve been using those phrases.

So let me ask you: When you said “finally,” were you trying to imply that I had refused to concede that point earlier? If so, kindly quote me where I refused to concede. If not, please explain what you meant.

**

You dodged the question a few posts back. Let’s see if you dodge again:

When you said “finally,” were you trying to imply that I had refused to concede that point earlier? If so, kindly quote me where I refused to concede. If not, please explain what you meant.

Look, I could create a little dialogue where I pronounce myself to be judge, juror, or whatever, and “reject” your arguments. Anyone could do it. It’s certainly creative, and it helps to distract from the weaknesses in one’s position, but ultimately your arguments must stand or fall on their own merits.

**

Good riddance, moron.

239

No I’m not.

**

Ok, let me ask you this: If I can describe a situation where a tailgaitee taps his breaks and slows down, and the tailgater still does not have a reasonable opportunity to pass, will you concede defeat?

**

Well, you’ve made the claim. To borrow a phrase that is popular around here, put up or shut up (although somehow I expect you will do neither).

**

If I can describe a situation where stopping dead is the best thing to do, will you concede defeat?

240

First off, I disagree that a tailgater, ANY tailgater, being unable to pass constitutes “jerkish” driving practices on the part of the tailgatee.

Secondly, concede defeat insofar as what? That the OP behaved like a jerk? Or simply that there are situations in which tailgaters can’t pass? To the first, no, I happen to believe him. His OP was quite clear. Everyone but you got it. And whatever small points weren’t covered in the OP, he came back and answered. And having been in that same situation, I still believed him regarding his second post.

To the second? In a situation other than the OP’s, where a given tailgater is unable to pass? Again, his inability or unwillingness to pass is based on a number of factors, NOT limited to “jerkish driving behaviour” of the tailgatee. You seem to think that “reasonable opportunity to pass” means that the tailgatee has to issue an engraved invitation and sign over his first born.

Even in situations where the tailgater is NOT being dangerous and aggressive, the tailgatee is under no obligation to put himself out in order to provide easy passage for the tailgater. Particularly if the conditions don’t allow HIM to. Since the tailgater is the one behaving in an undesireable way, the onus is on HIM to correct the situation.

If he can’t, by either going around or backing off, he has no right to expect to be able to just barrel down the road and have everyone " bow" to his greatness and “part the waters” for his royal passage.

Just because the tailgater was unable, or unwilling to either back off (remember? He also had THAT choice), or go around doesn’t not render the OP’s DRIVING ACTIONS (despite whatever momentary enjoyment he might have gotten), as jerkish.

Your comments and opinion were that if he’d have just stopped, or gone 5mph, instead of 15mph, or sped up, then the tailgater could have gotten around him and he (the OP) wouldn’t have then been behaving like a jerk. Why SHOULD the OP have done those things? And again, refusing to be bullied isn’t the same as “being a jerk”.

Your opinion is that the OP was lying and that he slowed to 15mph in order to “punish and impede” the tailgater. The rest of us disagree and believe the OP.

Your whole argument is based on an imaginary scenario in which the OP (because you’ve heard so many “stories” like his:rolleyes:) is lying. And all your “If I say this, will you concede that” type arguments are based on that imaginary scenario.

No, it just wasn’t a tearing hurry for me to look up. I’m on my timetable, not yours.

Insofar as what? In that in some FARFETCHED occasional situation it’s okay to simply stop dead in the middle of an unlit, shoulderless road late at night?

I’m sure that everyone here can come up with outlandish examples where NOT doing the recommended thing turned out to be the “right” thing to do in THAT circumstance. That you could provide examples of stopping dead in the road having turned out (as opposed to the recommended thing) to do proves nothing other than that there are exceptions to every rule.

And that’s a situation that’s NOT in question here, it’s a big ole’ DUH. Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

It doesn’t change the facts. Nor does it mean that even IF said “exception” had been available to the OP that he should have taken it.