Tailgaters are scum.
I don’t hold with penalizing a line of drivers behind the moron though. Seems you could have driven 30-35 and adjusted your mirrors to avoid being blinded (preferably to reflect the glare back at the idiot behind you).
Don’t be ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that the OP was so blinded that he couldn’t see the road in front of him?
But let me ask you this (and I really would like an answer): If the OP was blinded, how was he able to drive for 20 MINUTES without running off the road?
Let me ask you a question: Generally speaking, if you’ve been blinded, is it safer to drive for 20 minutes or to come to a gradual stop?
Umm, no. It’s the argument that you have ignored – that nobody else who was held up by the OP passed him.
**
Whatever. The fact is that you refuse to state without qualification that it’s always possible to pass another car doing 15 mph.
**
Your admission was vague and I didn’t really understand it.
**
A self-serving statement made after the fact is less credible than an admission made earlier.
Generally speaking, yes. In practice, it’s a judgement call depending on the circumstances. Probably not a good idea to pull over on I-270 in the Columbus area these days.
Frankly, I don’t see how it is possible to drive for 20 minutes while blinded without running off the road. Maybe Stevie Wonder knows.
More likely Jim Edwards of Roanoke.
See, this is why you need to keep a 1 million candlepower (or higher) cig-lighter-powered spotlight handy in your car at all times.
Not that I would advocate pointing it out your rear window while you’re being tailgated. I’m just sayin’, is all.
**Umm, yes, if by ignore you mean, directly respond to your point, as I did here:
**You may disagree with this argument, but pretending that I didn’t make it at all is, well, bad darts and an indicator of the weakness of your position.
**You’re working hard to imply that I’m dodging some point, ain’t ya? Yes, I refuse to make that statement, as I have at every juncture you’ve posed it, because it is so broadly defined that it would be ridiculous to deny it. Would I refuse to state without qualification that it’s always, always possible for an adult to beat a 10-year-old in a fistfight? Yes, I would refuse to make that statement as well. That doesn’t mean that either outcome is just as likely, however. Sort of a key addendum to your statement, which you are conveniently ignoring.
**Hopefully this post has clarified it for you. No, I do not hold, and never did, that it is always, always, always possible, regardless of circumstance, to pass a car going 15 MPH. That does not for a moment mean that it’s not typically an easy endeavor.
Self-serving? The OP is on the record as stating he acted vindictively, an admission he made in the first post. There’s no unringing that bell. Exactly what purpose is served by his subsequent post, other than clarifying the circumstance? Does he think we’ll all forget what he first said? Sheesh! Give it up, would ya?
BTW, on the way home today I went through a school zone where the speed limit was 15 MPH, which I kept under. It is excruciatingly slow. It is the very definition of a crawl. Try it folks, just try it, and then consider lucwarm’s position that the OP needed to slow down a bit if this poor tailgater was to have any real chance of passing. It is to laugh! 
Umm, I pointed out the unlikelihood that numerous drivers would go 15 for 20 minutes rather than pass if it were possible. You responded by pretending that I made a different argument:
Them’s your words, not mine.
No need to imply it - the record speaks for itself.
Sure. There’s still the question of whether his primary purpose in slowing down was one of punishment and retaliation.
**
My making it seem as though the tailgater had a reasonable chance to pass.
So, genius, they have this funky reflective paint that they use to paint stripes onto the edge of the lanes. It’s nifty stuff, though I suppose it may be so new that you have no experience with it. Oddly enough, even when your night vision is whacked by exposure to bright light, you can still make out the lines. However, the lack of nightvision does not allow you to make out the low-contrast poorly lit side of the road. This would be a pretty rudimentary fact about the physiology of vision, I should think; one that most everyone would be familiar with.
Cool, so then it’s possible for one who is “blinded,” by the high-beams of the car behind them to turn their mirrors aside, focus on the rightmost line, and pull over as far to the right as safely possible while gradually slowing to a stop, allowing the car behind to pass.
Well certainly. And that is precisely what the OP did, within the limitations of the road. As the road had no shoulder, no significant rightward movement was possible, and if it is not possible to pass someone driving 15mph, then it is not possible to pass someone at a dead stop, either. And of course, it is not unreasonable that someone should wish to avoid coming to a dead stop for the reasons of personal safety which have been discussed. Which is precisely why I’m so mystified as to why you continue this debate.
Or do you dispute the reasonability of personal safety concerns regarding coming to a complete stop?
Ok, so can I take it you are abandoning your position that it’s difficult to pull over for a tailgater who has his high-beams on you?
**
**
No it ain’t. He didn’t stop.
**
That’s nonsense. But hey, it’s lucky that he didn’t come to a dead stop – traffic would have been stopped for hours :rolleyes:
**
As I said previously, on many many occasions, I have pulled over to allow tailgaters to pass without incident. This is unsurprising, since you are giving them exactly what they want. IMHO, there is a far greater danger of provoking an aggressive response if you escalate the situation by deliberately impeding the tailgater.
But if you feel that a dead stop is inappropriate, slowing down to 2-3 mph would likely achieve the same effect.
Look, lucwarm, perhaps you simply have no experience with automobiles, but the simple truth of the matter that accelerating to, say, 40mph from 15mph is much quicker than accelerating from 40mph to 0mph. Hence, the time spent in the left lane will be roughly the same whether the passee is doing 15 or at a dead stop. If you’re really so obstinate as to deny this, I can work out the math, but frankly at this point you’re just being stupid. Coming to a dead stop would not have facilitated passing to any greater degree than slowing to 15 did.
As for the possibility of pulling over for a tailgater while blinded, of course it’s possible, providing that there’s a shoulder available to be pulled over onto! Jesus Christ, how many times do you have to be told that there wasn’t one?! Pulling over was a simple impossibility (well, perhaps not impossible with good visibility to discern where the ditch as sufficiently shallow, but yes impossible under the stated conditions). So the fact that it would have been possible to pull over had there been a shoulder is completely fucking irrelevant, and your continued harping on this point is pure boneheadedness.
And on many, many occasions you’ve come to a complete stop in the driving lane to allow tailgaters to pass you? I call bullshit. You have previously maintained that there’s no such thing as a road which won’t allow one to actually move over out of the driving lane, and given that this would seem to entail that you’ve never encountered one personally, I sincerely doubt you’ve done this once, let alone many, many times. And anyways, the fact that you’d feel comfortable stopping in the stated situation in no way implies that another person might not reasonably feel it was an unnecessary risk.
**
- I dunno about him, but I’ll tell ya, city-boy (
) that it’s MY position. The light of my headlights gives some illumination to the dirt/gravel road in front of me and that light rapidly diminishes as it gets further to either side of the car. On a pitch-black mountain road I regularly drive, if some shithead has his brights in my eyes, fucking up my night-vision, I can still see the road directly in front of me. But the dark-grey gravel of the unpaved road (with no turn-offs or drive-ways for at least 5 miles) fades into the dark-grey to pitch-black of the huge run-off ditches on either side of the road with startling abruptness and the situation is dramatically worse without my night-vision. I’m not going to take a chance of edging over and ending up in a ditch 4-5 feet deep.
Thus, it’s far safer to keep your eyes on the one lit part of the road (straight in front of you ) than it is to nudge to the side and hope that enough of your headlights’ll illuminate.
#2) I’m armed when I drive. Colorado has concealed carry and I take advantage of it. I’m also a pretty big guy. Despite all that, I still wouldn’t stop for some psycho on some of the deserted roads that I drive on. I don’t want to have to defend myself if I can avoid it. I don’t know what life is like in the dimension you’re from, but I don’t want to stop on a deserted mountain road, about 40 minutes from the nearest police station, a similar amount from the nearest hospital and at least 10 minutes away from the next house to let some psycho potentially box me in and do who-knows-what. As someone upthread said, I’m reluctant to stop for a cop in that area, why the hell would I stop for the “road rage poster boy”?
It’s also dangerous to stop as you’re now an obstruction in the middle of the freaking road. As long as you’re driving, you have some manuverablity. Stop? You’re an obstruction and you can no longer react.
#3)
Then so would 10-15. Really, dude, what’s your problem? The fact that the guy said (in essence) that an unexpected but pleasant side-benefit of doing the only possible thing he could was also enjoyable because he caused the asshole some grief? You say you’re a lawyer. Let’s pretend, for a moment, that you’re faced with what is a clear-cut case of self-defense. NO jury in the world would find anything other than self-defense. Somewhere along the way, the guy admits that while he did what he had to, he also’s glad the person he defended himself against was dead. Does it suddenly stop being self-defense at that point? If all the facts remain exactly the same and the only change is the admission that the defendant is happy at the result? In my area, slowing down to 10-15 miles an hour means “Pass me”. The only thing the OP didn’t do is to wave the guy around him. If he had, but still felt a bit of schadenfreude that he pissed off an asshole would you still be on his case?
Fenris
For the curious:
Assume a vehicle capable of 0-60 in ~9s. (no great shakes - a Chevy Cavalier can pull this Cite)
This will translate to a 0-50 time of about 6.5s, which would, if it were constant acceleration (it isn’t, but I’m not in the mood to complicate the math further), be 11.28f/s[sup]2[/sup].
Let us suppose that the passer needs to advance 100’ relative to the passee. Normal people might like more, but the tailgater needs only the sum of the vehicle lengths, the 10’ he was trailing by, and a few feet of buffer space. 100’ is plenty. Accelerating at 11.28f/s[sup]2[/sup] (from either 0mph or 15mph) will result in gaining 100’ on the passee in 4.2 seconds, with a velocity gain of 32mph. If the starting speed were 15mph, this would cover 192’ and the final velocity would be 47mph, or approximately the OP’s estimate of the tailgater’s initial velocity.
I will concede that the 47mph final velocity will likely result in very similar times (I expected it to be a little bit lower) - the highest rate of acceleration for most production cars is likely to lie between 15-30mph, with the rates at 0-15 and 30-45 likely to be very similar, so the rolling start advantage of starting at 15mph will be washed out by the decreasing accleration as the speed picks up over 30mph.
4.2 seconds and 192 feet aren’t discernably more difficult to come by than 4.2 seconds and 100 feet.
**Dude, it’s a bitch debating in a written medium for you, I’m sure. You can weasel all you want and it won’t change the fact that you said I ignored an “argument” when in fact I responded directly to it. Again, you can dismiss my response, but it’s dishonest to state I ignored your argument.
**Then you’ll have no trouble showing where I dodged this difficult question. Not where I conceded your meaningless point–where I dodged it. Go ahead. On second thought, don’t bother. I am giving this insubstantial point more credibility than it deserves.
Feel free to consider your meaningless point–“It’s at least possible that a given circumstance could prevent someone from passing another going 15 MPH”–a brilliant and unassailable piece of logic. Continue to ignore the fact that “possible” and “probable” have different meanings and implications. You may also maintain the little hallucination that I was stung by this zinger and dodged it as if it were a hand grenade, despite the fact that I answered you directly and conceded the silly little point.
**His intention has no bearing on the physics of the matter. It was either possible to pass the OP, or it wasn’t. Whether or not the OP got a cheap thrill out of it doesn’t change a thing.
Because clearly you have some inside information that would counter this.
I’ve got lots of experience with automobiles. Enough to know that 15 mph is not “precisely” the same thing as 0 mph.
**
I honestly don’t see what your point is here. I have no idea if it’s quicker to accellerate from 15 to 40 or to decelerate from 15 to 0. Please feel free to do the math. Maybe you’ll be able to prove that 15 is “precisely” the same as 0.
**
By “pulling over,” I don’t mean getting off the road. I suspect you know that perfectly well and are simply looking for a few nits to pick so you can pretend to be making a valid point. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
**
Suit yourself. I’ve done it many times; I can’t prove it. There it is.
**
Possibly, but common sense dictates that you are less likely to provoke an aggressive response by giving the tailgater what he wants than by denying him what he wants. I suspect you know this perfectly well too but won’t concede it because you don’t want to lose face – ironically the same reason the OP didn’t pull over.