Opportunity to pass? Certainly not (not necessarily, anyway). Opportunity to back off? Yes, but so what?
I’m happy to concede that the tailgater had the opportunity to back off.
**
As has been said many times, this ain’t necessarily the case.
**
Maybe yes, maybe no, but it don’t change the fact that if the OP deliberately impeded the tailgater to punish and retaliate against him, he was being a jerk.
**
Maybe yes, maybe no, but it don’t change the fact that if the OP deliberately impeded the tailgater to punish and retaliate against him, he was being a jerk.
**
Maybe yes, maybe no, but it don’t change the fact that if the OP deliberately impeded the tailgater to punish and retaliate against him, he was being a jerk.
**
Certainly slowing down to punish and retaliate against the tailgater is being a jerk. Simply refusing to let the tailgater pass isn’t as bad – certainly the best practice is to allow the tailgater to pass if reasonably possible.
**
As I recall, a couple other people expressed similar skepticism to mine. But, ok – so what? You have a right to your opinion.
**
And your argument is based on an imaginary scenario in which the OP is telling the truth and you give him the benefit of every inference. So what?
**
I ain’t gonna hold my breath. In any event, I note you haven’t even bothered to back up your claim that I made an argument about the tail-gater being “law-abiding” or some such.
**
Which is why you should be wary about making unconditional statements such as “You’ve stated that stopping dead in the road is a good idea.” It’s easier to argue against such a statement, but I’ll call you on it.
Another question: Is it your position that tapping the brakes and slowing down necessarily gives a tailgater an opportunity to pass?
Well, I suppose that this being the Pit and all, I can’t really object to ad homenim attacks. So go wild. If I find the energy, I’ll try to . . . ummm . . . retaliate
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
First off, I disagree that a tailgater, ANY tailgater, being unable to pass constitutes “jerkish” driving practices on the part of the tailgatee.
I didn’t say you DID make such a claim, I was stating that IF that is what your “challenge” was supposed to represent, then I disagreed.
[quote]
Anyway, here’s what you said before:
quote:
Tapping brakes and slowing IS the opportunity given to the tailgater.
You keep stating that you don’t believe that the OP gave such an opportunity to his tailgater. I’m saying he tapped his brakes and slowed down, that IS a “reasonable” opportunity to do one or the other.
But yes, YES, I know, you don’t believe that the OP did do that. Say we’re talking of another tailgatee and tailgater. Tapping the brakes and slowing down gives ANY tailgater those two opportunities. Period.
quote:
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.
[quoteAs has been said many times, this ain’t necessarily the case.[/quote]
So your belief is that no matter what, the tailgatee must defer to the tailgater, or risk being called a jerk (oh what a fate) by you?
In situations such as the OP describes, that’s just stupid.
quote:
Since the tailgater is the one behaving in an undesireable way, the onus is on HIM to correct the situation.
IF the OP was impeding the tailgater ON purpose, which no one but you believes he was, I STILL don’t think he was “being a jerk”. I think that in a situation like that, it’s quite reasonable to refuse to be intimidated by a bully.
quote:
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.
What’d you do, cut and paste? Asked and answered.
quote:
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.
Asked and answered.
quote:
Why SHOULD the OP have done those things? And again, refusing to be bullied isn’t the same as “being a jerk”.
Oh, so now we’re back to you being able to magically ascertain the motives and emotions of a driver.
quote:
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.
One other person said that they thought the OP MIGHT have been being a bit of a jerk, no one else has implied, or VERY close to outright accusing him of lying as you have.
quote:
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.
So in a neutral scenario, one with the same road conditions and behaviour of the tailgater, your beliefs regarding tailgating and what to do and how to drive are bad advice. Period.
quote:
No, it just wasn’t a tearing hurry for me to look up. I’m on my timetable, not yours.
On page 2 in several of your posts in response to the double yellow line comments of another poster, you implied that the tailgater was not passing due to the yellow line (in other words, he was “obeying” it). Later you commented on his not passing due to condtions (in other words, he is supposedly now being “safe”).
quote:
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.
In your first posts against the OP you argued that slowing down wasn’t the thing to do, and that he should have “slowed to a crawl” and then you said like 5 mph, to which WE all assured you, to no avail that 15mph WAS a “crawl” then, in several followup posts you admnonished the OP for not stopping in the road so that the tailgater could pass.
You have continued to imply that 15mph wasn’t a reasonable effort to allow the tailgater to pass, but that stopping or 5mph was. Until several posters thoroughly debunked your statements that 15mph wasn’t slow.
Then you squirmed around with a lot of hooey about certain conditions before finally giving up on the idea that only 5mph or stopping were the “magic” solutions.
This was made QUITE clear in my previous comments on this, as well as similar comments by nearly every OTHER poster in this thread.
It is my position that tapping the brakes and slowing down gives the tailgater a message. That message is “Pass or back off”.
It then is the tailgater’s choice which to do. It is not always going to be possible for him to pass. And that is not the tailgatee’s fault. It is the tailgater’s. At this point he can back off, or continue bullying tactics.
Given human nature, bullying tactics aren’t usually going to work. As far as I’m concerned, this is a good thing.
I note that you didn’t use the word “if” – you simply said you disagreed with something.
**
Nope.
**
As I mentioned previously, I recall that other folks in this thread expressed sentiments not totally unlike mine.
In any event, I’m a little surprised at the admission you made here. I will try to address it in a little more detail in a later post.
**
Perhaps, but I don’t think that’s you claimed before.
**
I have no idea what your point is here. I’ve said more than once that the OP needn’t have slowed down further if the tailgater did in fact have a reasonable opportunity to pass.
**
Why not freaking QUOTE me? (Hint: by “quote” I mean reproduce my actual words.)
Veeeeerrry…interesting, Luc. I notice that somehow you missed a point that your very first cite made:
Can we agree that the OP did exactly the correct thing, and that you’re only annoyed by the fact that the OP felt schadenfreude? I mean, when it comes down to it even your own source agrees that the OP’s actions were right.
Absolutely not. See, the advice you quoted indicates that you should slow down in order to give the tailgater an opportunity to pass:
(emphasis mine).
My position is that the OP did NOT give the tailgater a reasonable chance to pass. Thus he absolutely positively did NOT do what is suggested by the paragraph you quoted.
I realize that you may disagree about whether or not the OP’s tailgater had a reasonable opportunity to pass, but if you try to assume this issue away, I’ll point it out.
Err, that should have been “Upon that premise, he absolutely positively did NOT do what is suggested by the paragraph you quoted.”
And by the way, as far as schadenfreude goes, you might ask yourself which situation is more consistent such feelings: (1) where the tailgater has been impeded and is unable to pass; or (2) where the tailgater is able to pass but doesn’t for his own reasons.
I think if you look at it honestly, you’ll agree that (1) is far more plausible. Just MHO of course.
**Why would I deny this, you colossal moron? It’s the very quote I referred to. And in my last post, the one where I said that I never asserted that I was “mistakenly” trying to bust your balls, what I meant was–let me type slowly for you–THAT I NEVER ASSERTED THAT I WAS “MISTAKENLY” TRYING TO BUST YOUR BALLS. I said, which your reference proves, that I mistakenly committed a non sequitur. If in doing so, I busted your balls, that is A-OK with me, you boob. This is pretty simple English, nitwit. You’re either stupid or a weasel.
Now, you weaseling liar, what you continue to dodge is the simple demand: show me where I admitted that I pretended you had made a different argument. This quote, which you have helpfully provided, directly contradicts the idea that I deliberately misrepresented your argument. (Let me know if you’re still having trouble with the definition of “mistakenly,” nitwit.)
You apparently believe that bringing out a bunch of unrelated thoughts and tossing out comments like “weasel” will obscure your lies. Just so you don’t confuse yourself, here’s your statement:
**It’s that simple: show me where I made the admission you said I did, or admit you’re a liar.
Yet again, you have somehow avoided doing so.
Are you really this stupid? You actually go to the trouble of making my point.
I said, “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?” And the evidence you supply is the subsequent post, “If the OP could have been easily and safely passed, most drivers I’ve seen would have crossed the double yellow to do so rather than drive for 20 mins at 15mph below the speed limit.” This is a riot!
You have restated your argument (as I said you did) with another variation of, “If those people could have passed, they almost certainly would have.” You have added nothing to your original argument, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED, YOU LYING IDIOT.
So, which is it here? Are you trying to dance and weasel with your typical dishonesty, trying to mask the fact that you actually made my point? Or are you so fucking stupid that you think spelling out exactly what I said amounts to you scoring a point?
I made two simple requests. You have avoided both, yet again.
So you weren’t actually trying to bust my balls eh? It was an unintended side consequence eh? How deliciously ironic.
Look, here’s what you said:
Sounds intentional to me.
**
Look, either you misrepresented my argument by accident or on purpose. I realize that you said something about a mistake, but then you went on to indicate you did it on purpose. What were you trying to say? Possibly that you made an error in judgment. In any event, your admission was not unquivocal, but note that I inserted the adverb “basically.”
**
I realize you believe that what I added wasn’t significant, but – doesn’t change the fact that I added it and you pretended (accidentaly?) that I was making a different argument.
**
Nonsense. I responded to both. You may not like the answers (I imagine it’s no fun for you to be called on your weaseling), but there they are.
**Reading comprehension is a real problem for you, isn’t it? I was intentionally trying to bust your balls (see my tone, for example, genius). I have never indicated that I did not. In fact, you flaming moron, I was the one who indicated it was my intention. And what sort of stupidity leads you to create a logical sequence where this comment in my last post…
**…leads to this conclusion…
**You’re just not very bright, are you?
“Busting your balls” does not equate with misrepresenting your argument, particularly when in the same post I specifically indicated that I did something (associated my response with a particular argument) that was mistakenly a non sequitur. And, BTW, just to be clear, the argument I asociated with you was an argument you have made; it just wasn’t in play at that specific moment.
In fact, let’s be real clear. It’s not a terribly different argument in any respect–i.e., “a tailgater would pass a slow-moving driver if he could” versus “multiple drivers would pass a slow-moving car if they could.” My horrible error was to address the former when the latter was in play. You can continue to act as if some egregious misattribution occurred, but that’s just more of your bullshit.
Anyway, if I say to you, “Listen, you cretin, that vacuous argument A of yours is inadequate because of X,” I am both refuting something you said and trying to bust your balls. If I subsequently indicate that I mistakenly read your argument, that does not change the fact that I intended to bust your balls. Idiot. Stop grasping at meaningless semantical straws.
**Again, you outright lie. Show me. Show me the specific phrase where I indicated that I deliberately misrepresented your argument. Let me give you a hint, genius. If it says I did something mistakenly, that won’t do the trick.
Once again, liar, I defy you to show the quote where I made that admission.
**You continue to solidify your idiocy. First off, one can’t pretend “accidentally.” More importantly, though, that’s not the point in play here (nice of you to insert your own little non sequitur; I won’t hold it against you).
The point in play here was your continued assertion that regardless of any other point we may have been arguing, I continued to ignore a particular argument you made–specifically, the one where a long line of cars would certainly pass a slow-moving vehicle if they could. This ringing a bell, genius? It was your assertion. Let me help you out, genius, here’s part of that exchange:
**Now, way back when, I stated the following. As I said before, you can say you find this counter lacking (I don’t), but you cannot state that I didn’t say it:
**
The quote you provided (“If the OP could have been easily and safely passed, most drivers I’ve seen would have crossed the double yellow to do so rather than drive for 20 mins at 15mph below the speed limit.”) added nothing to the post I responded to (“As I said before, it depends upon road conditions. If 15 mph is so slow, it’s interesting that none of the folks stuck behind the tailgater were able to bass both cars in one shot.”).
There was no new nuance or aspect for me to respond to, since I had already responded to this essential argument. You simply restated an argument that I had already addressed. Then, in that vacuum you call a brain, when I pointed out to you–again and again and again–that I had already responded to this, I was ignoring some point.
Your enormous stupidity then led you to respond to my request (to show some real addition to your argument) to trot out a quote that exactly proved my point. In your little world, when you present point B, and I respond with counter Z, if you restate point B, I am ignoring your argument unless, I guess, I restate counter Z. You are an idiot.
Again, two simple requests. Show me where I specifically admitted to deliberately misrepresenting your argument and show me where you presented a substantially new argument that I had not previously addressed (not simply a restatement of the argument). You asserted both. Have the balls to prove it or admit that you lied.
So in a neutral scenario, one with the same road conditions and behaviour of the tailgater, your beliefs regarding tailgating and what to do and how to drive are bad advice. Period.
You are the one who keeps trying to use situations other than the OPs as examples that what YOU recommend (stopping in the road, slowing to 5mph instead of 15mph, pulling over despite it having been made VERY clear to you that there are roads on which iti is IMPOSSIBLE to “oull over” in ANY fashion which would “allow” a tailgater to “reasonably” pass no matter WHAT speed, or stopped dead position you were at).
THAT is the point, and it’s not all that difficult to “get” everyone else has, and has told you the same thing. You just don’t WANT to “get it” because then you wouldn’t have a justification for being mad at the OP for having felt a little vindication.
You keep saying “IF the OP had given him a reasonable means to pass”.
He DID. He states that there were several areas in which the OP might have passed (yeah yeah we know, if that were true why didn’t th others pass, Asked and answered, and thoroughly debunked).
You can’t seem to get it through your thick skull that there ARE roads and situations in which the OP can NOT do anything that will “satisfy” the tailgater.
Such as the conditions under which the OP found himself. You keep demanding that “A tailgatee” must give a reasonable opportunity to pass in order for him to be driving appropriately (paraphrased).
This is NOT true. In the situation described, and in other situations LIKE the one described, often, all the tailgatee CAN do is slow down.
As someone else wisely mentioned. If the idiot is going to pull something, or already IS by being mere inches off of a person’s rear bumper, it’s a lot safer to have it at slow speeds than to try to go out of YOUR safety zone to give this idiot this mythical “reasonable” opportunity to pass.
Based on the gist of your posts, YOUR definition of “reasonable opportunity to pass” is that the tailgatee must do everything in his power including stopping, and attempting to pull over (even if there’s no place to pull over), regardless of how unsafe, inconvenient, or impossible it would be for the tailgatee.
Based on your posts, YOUR definition of “reasonable opportunity to pass” means that the tailgater wil alway succeed at passing, NOT that the tailgatee made an effort, and it simply, due to conditions wasn’t possible.
As to your cites, yes, I read those two. I like the way you only cut and pasted those little bits. Nowhere in them does it say what constitues “retaliation”. In MY experience that would be playing cat and mouse, weaving, slowing and speeding up, etc.
Apparently in your book, slowing due to conditions and a madman on your bumper is “retaliation”.
I don’t consider “refusal to give in to a bully” retaliation.
If the situation were on a 4 lane, with a passing lane, then DUH, of course you wouldn’t “wolfpack” the guy in, and make him stay there.
But again, we’re at least the rest of the posters, except for you and the one other person who thought the OP was a “little jerkish,” speaking of situations such AS the one in the OP, where road conditions dictate much of what the tailgater does insofar as responding to the tailgater.
Ok, so you misrepresented my argument on purpose. So quit pretending it was unintentional.
**
You misrepresented my argument. I called you on it. You indicated that you were busting my balls. i.e. you basically admitted you did it on purpose. It’s that simple.
Later you imply your purpose wasn’t to bust my balls - that was an unintended side effect. But you’ve already made your admission and your weaseling won’t change it.
Give it a rest, Senor Weasel.
**
Yawn.
Look, let me ask you this: Do you see any inconsistency at all between the following two statements:
I don’t believe he did. Anyway, if you try to assume the issue away by simply asserting he did, I’ll call you on it.
**
That’s the best practice, assuming it’s practiable. At a minimum, the tailgatee should not slow down in order to punish and retaliate against the tailgater.
**
Dude, you need a lesson in reading comprehension. The articles I cited clearly indicate the following:
“Do not try to slow him down.”
“Don’t slow down on purpose to retaliate”
What could be clearer?
And in case you’ve forgotten, here’s what you said earlier:
And I note that you STILL haven’t cited any articles or announcements that contradict what I’ve said.
And you STILL haven’t actually quoted any of posts to back up your claim that I somehow claimed the tailgater was law-abiding or whatever.
First it was "the OP is a jerk, he was trying make “two wrongs a right”.
Then, when it was pointed out that the OP didn’t actually SAY that he’d retaliated by purposely impeding the tailgater.
Then it was “well, I don’t believe him” paraphrased.
Then, when it was pointed out that regardless of the OP’s intentions, he really, driving wise had NO choice as to what he did.
It was all about the twisting and squirming and trying to prove that a tailgatee can always “allow” a tailgater to pass, no matter the conditions if he’s giving a “reasonable opportunity”
Which, based on your posts, you defined as meaning that the tailgater wouldn’t be held up for ANY reason, whether technical or operator, otherwise if he wasn’t able to pass, it was strictly due to the tailgatee “not allowing him a reasonable opportunity” and that that equalled 'retaliation".
And now, you’re trying to claim that it’s all about what’s 'safe".
Your own cites, articles and announcements, contradict what you’ve said regardng what to do when tailgated. Throughout the thread you’ve advocated “stopping in the road” and slowing to 5mph. I certainly have not seen that advocated in the cites that I’ve found, one of which was the same as what you’ve cited, and some of which were quoted by shayna.
In the sense that I’ve been responding to lame arguments from all over the map, yeah.
But my position has been all along that the OP slowed down to punish and retaliate against the tailgater. This is what I inferred from the OP. When the OP added another post later, I was skeptical. So what?
Anyway, I have a few questions for you, which I expect you will dodge:
(1) True or false: the articles I quoted contradict your view of what is reasonable?
(2) Can you quote the exact language I used which you claim indicates I claimed that the tailgater didn’t pass because he was “law-abiding.”?
(3) Can you cite actual language from any articles or public service announcements that contradict stuff that I’ve actually said (not stuff you made up)?
gah. Kindly show me an article which says you shouldn’t slow down as much as necessary (consistent with safe driving) to allow the tailgater to pass, even if it means slowing down to 5 mph or stopping?
And while you’re at it, you might take a crack at the other questions:
(1) True or false: the articles I quoted contradict your view of what is reasonable?
(2) Can you quote the exact language I used which you claim indicates I claimed that the tailgater didn’t pass because he was “law-abiding.”?
(3) Can you cite actual language from any articles or public service announcements that contradict stuff that I’ve actually said (not stuff you made up)?
