Honestly, when you are talking about switch-backs up and down a mountain, I don’t think this is unheard of at all.
I live in N/W AR and this problem arises all the time. It is easier to deal with at night because the glow of oncoming lights can usually can be seen long before you could see an oncoming car in the day time.
Switchbacks in the summer with the leaves out are much harder to deal with but usually if you are a single car, you can get enough room in the hard corners themselves.
Just don’t you cross the double yellow because you are then at fault, let the tailgater do it if he insists.
If you get a jury of your peers as you might in some of the less populous counties in AR, the tailgater will be out of luck. Especially if you have a witness that you slowed, moved over as mu8ch as you could and indicated in a clear manner that they could pass at their risk.
Video cell phones & a passenger make this pretty easy to do and being obviously recorded cools their jets a lot.
If I was on the jury, I would 90% of the time go against the tailgater.
So, IMO, give it a go & see what happens, just don’t ask for silly $$$, just to put them on public probation so the other locals know he has been noted & let him reap what he has sown.
I disagree with your disagreement. 
Assault is putting someone in fear of harmful or offensive contact with the INTENT of doing so. Sounds like the jackleg described in the OP was merely being negligent and certainly didn’t mean to give the impression that he was attempting to strike him with his vehicle. No assault. No harm. No civil cause of action here.
What if the tailgater were flashing his lights and/or honking his horn, so that it was clear that the tailgater was hoping to make the person ahead speed up? That is deliberately creating an unsafe situation so that the first driver will speed up.
Before you even pulled the trigger you’d be guilty of brandishing a weapon.
I dunno. If you have to think about suing someone over it, you’re fuming.
It would certainly be a violation of the motor vehicle code and would be negligent so that the tailgater would be liable for any damages. But with no damages, no payment.
An intentional tort like assault would require proof that the tailgater intended to put the driver in reasonable fear of a harmful touching. Now, you might say, “Well any sane person would KNOW that the driver would be fearful” but that’s not the test. As you pointed out, the tailgater’s intention was to get the driver to speed up, not to crash into him or make him think he would crash into him.
Many times this is why criminal laws are enacted: because there are no damages in civil court (e.g. false advertising laws—if I go to a store hoping for price $X, but they lied and it is really price $X+$50, I don’t have any damages. I was in the same position before I walked into the store (minus pennies for gas and wear and tear–not worth suing. So the state passes a criminal law to deter false advertising).
Ahem, check you Vosberg v. Putney and Garrett v. Dailey. Intentional torts require general intent, i.e., the intent to perform the act which, incidentally, would cause a reasonable person to experience the apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
It does not require special intent, i.e., the particular motivation to cause such apprehension.
The difference: assault is completed if I voluntarily and deliberately point a handgun at you, even if I truly didn’t mean to alarm you. The only thing that needs to be intended is the act that causes the fear, not any particular effect of that act.
There’s always a turnout or a driveway or something.
I invite you to take a drive down some of the country roads around Springfield, Missouri. Turnouts and driveways are very, very few and far between. Like 10 or 15 miles in between.
I suppose you can take your video evidence of several tailgaters along this stretch and ask a local lawyer. This seems unresolved in this thread (and unresolvable?). Your videos would need to capture the front license plate and the driver’s face.
Seems to me that tailgating is one of the more annoying behaviors (while driving! not the in-the-stadium-parking-lot kind :D). When we lived in the Santa Cruz Mountains near San Jose and Santa Cruz, CA, the locals drove very fast and if you drove slowly they sat right on your rear bumper. My wife found it very unnerving. As a motorcycle safety instructor, for safety in such situations we teach riders (and drivers) to slow down to decrease both your and the tailgater’s stopping distances and to provide for better reaction ‘time.’ This has the added benefit of usually backing off the tailgater. Sometimes tailgaters react by following even more closely. Then, slow down even more.
Seems to me at some point you would be driving close enough that a judge or jury or cop would say “thats not just driving a bit too close, thats threatening behavior or at least certainly would be interpreted that way by the person being tailgated”.
Seems to me the courts would have sorted this out long ago. My guess is, as the “tailgatee,” we have control over how fast we drive in such situations, and we can and should slow down. I am doubting the courts would allow us to sue without there being an accident.
ETA: this is just a SWAG on my part.
Oh yeah, the sueing part seems to be a bit of a stretch (though then again people get awarded money for stuff like “emotional” damage now and then).
I guess my bigger point would be that the tailgater could get in more trouble with the legal system than just “well, its your run of the mill traffic violation”.
Or, in other words, at some point IMO it passes from bad driving to the driving equivalent of threatening someone.
I may get hoisted on my own petard here yet again, but I don’t believe those cases state a “general intent.” Yes, assault can be an act that not specifically intended to create fear but with a “substantial certainty” will create that fear is an assault (intent is assumed).
But under your description, an act of negligence could be considered assault and/or battery. To use your example, instead of pointing the handgun at me, you point it at a squirrel standing 5 feet to right of me (in a suburban area) and fire. You put me in fear of imminent harmful touching, and you intended to shoot. But you didn’t intend to shoot ME. I don’t think that would be assault in any jurisdiction.
I am ready to be hoisted.