Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Are you under 40 and think that you might not be able to afford a brand new vehicle when you purchase your next car? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/16 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

1471472473474475477»

Comments

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,253
    edited October 16
    Yesterday morning's road rager. /sigh

    Actual event is between 1:55 and 3:10; I included the length I did to provide context.





    Below is the text I wrote up in another thread yesterday after the event....

    I also had a road rager go off on me this morning. That was fun. Driving in the mid-dawn, no lights, tailgating. He decided that me driving in the left lane on a busy street-level artery at five over the limit was not okay. He swings around me on the right, cuts off car behind and me as well, then swings back to the right lane at the light ahead because there were fewer cars there. Somehow stalls his old Tahoe (late 90s vintage), so the light turns green and everyone goes... guy just sits there. Then, he gets it started, flys along the road again cutting off cars as he weaves back up to my tail, then swings around me in the left turn lane as I am slowing at the next red light, slams on his brakes, skids about 50% in to the intersection only partly back in the left lane (just ahead of me), gets out of his car yelling profanities.... I just smiled and shook my head in pity. Guy is literally having a full-on tantrum.

    He finally gets back in his vehicle before the light turns green and peels away. Sadly, he didn't crash and kill himself (or, thankfully, anyone else) that I saw, but he was going insanely fast at that point and was gone in no time. Happily, my daughter was reading in the back and didn't notice any of this going on (Yay for Q7 having excellent sound insulation!).

    I'm having a great day though, so I decided to extend a little grace to this doofus and not call him in. Probably should have, but so it goes. I might have his little rant on dash cam though. LOL.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107
    xwesx said:

    Agreed. Pulling into the intersection to wait for traffic to clear for a left turn is the proper way to do it. Of course, those that dally out there to make the turn well after the light change are certainly inconsiderate, they still have right of way because of their position (e.g., traffic in the intersection has right of way).

    It's not about "beating the red light." Yes, you are legally in the intersection if the light was yellow upon entering the intersection. I'm talking about deliberately "blocking an intersection." Two different laws.

    It's a specific VC in CA, and that makes it illegal. I'm not talking about left turns, because outside of LA in CA, you don't have unprotected left turns for the most part. I'm talking about protected left turns, such as onto a freeway on-ramp. You can see the onramp is backed up, yet they make the turn anyway, blocking 2 or even 3 lanes of straight-through traffic!!!!!

    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107
    edited November 5
    xwesx said:

    Yesterday morning's road rager. /sigh

    Actual event is between 1:55 and 3:10; I included the length I did to provide context.





    Below is the text I wrote up in another thread yesterday after the event....

    I also had a road rager go off on me this morning. That was fun. Driving in the mid-dawn, no lights, tailgating. He decided that me driving in the left lane on a busy street-level artery at five over the limit was not okay. He swings around me on the right, cuts off car behind and me as well, then swings back to the right lane at the light ahead because there were fewer cars there. Somehow stalls his old Tahoe (late 90s vintage), so the light turns green and everyone goes... guy just sits there. Then, he gets it started, flys along the road again cutting off cars as he weaves back up to my tail, then swings around me in the left turn lane as I am slowing at the next red light, slams on his brakes, skids about 50% in to the intersection only partly back in the left lane (just ahead of me), gets out of his car yelling profanities.... I just smiled and shook my head in pity. Guy is literally having a full-on tantrum.

    He finally gets back in his vehicle before the light turns green and peels away. Sadly, he didn't crash and kill himself (or, thankfully, anyone else) that I saw, but he was going insanely fast at that point and was gone in no time. Happily, my daughter was reading in the back and didn't notice any of this going on (Yay for Q7 having excellent sound insulation!).

    I'm having a great day though, so I decided to extend a little grace to this doofus and not call him in. Probably should have, but so it goes. I might have his little rant on dash cam though. LOL.

    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,253
    andres3 said:

    It's not about "beating the red light." Yes, you are legally in the intersection if the light was yellow upon entering the intersection. I'm talking about deliberately "blocking an intersection." Two different laws.

    It's a specific VC in CA, and that makes it illegal. I'm not talking about left turns, because outside of LA in CA, you don't have unprotected left turns for the most part. I'm talking about protected left turns, such as onto a freeway on-ramp. You can see the onramp is backed up, yet they make the turn anyway, blocking 2 or even 3 lanes of straight-through traffic!!!!!

    Oh, yeah, I got you. Yes, they are in the wrong, for sure. And, this is always incredibly inconsiderate regardless of law. :D

    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,253
    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,739
    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107
    edited November 7

    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
    Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

    There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

    Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

    If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    What's possible, but not proven is:

    1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,253
    You have a lot more confidence in general driving competence than is warranted. Today, I drove to work at a probable average speed of 30 mph because of a few inches of snow, with drivers generally just wandering all over the road wherever there seemed like a clearer spot (making any sort of dual lane use nearly impossible in many places). So, thinking that driving slowly equals no need to tap brakes is not likely a thought passing through that van driver's mind.

    At any rate, the manchild chose his own actions that morning. Had he not gone apeshit and tried to turn the morning commute into a slalom event, the mundane-ness of other drivers would have never played into the traffic considerations at all. Whatever triggered him were machinations of his own mind; they had nothing at all to do with reality.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,739
    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
    Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

    There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

    Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

    If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    What's possible, but not proven is:

    1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

    Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107
    edited November 13

    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
    Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

    There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

    Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

    If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    What's possible, but not proven is:

    1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

    Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
    The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

    While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107
    xwesx said:

    You have a lot more confidence in general driving competence than is warranted. Today, I drove to work at a probable average speed of 30 mph because of a few inches of snow, with drivers generally just wandering all over the road wherever there seemed like a clearer spot (making any sort of dual lane use nearly impossible in many places). So, thinking that driving slowly equals no need to tap brakes is not likely a thought passing through that van driver's mind.

    At any rate, the manchild chose his own actions that morning. Had he not gone apeshit and tried to turn the morning commute into a slalom event, the mundane-ness of other drivers would have never played into the traffic considerations at all. Whatever triggered him were machinations of his own mind; they had nothing at all to do with reality.

    No doubt, a lack of thinking is very possible from that van driver.

    Still, one would expect more brake tapping in snow than in the weather conditions actively and currently shown in the video. For me, brake tapping is a sign of ineptitude.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,253
    andres3 said:

    Still, one would expect more brake tapping in snow than in the weather conditions actively and currently shown in the video. For me, brake tapping is a sign of ineptitude.

    Okay, but how does that come anywhere near relating to why the guy triggered on *me*? He was clearly enraged *at me* when he got out of his car. He was literally jumping up and down, swearing the spectrum, and actively attempting to bait me into getting out of my vehicle. It wasn't a long time out of the car, maybe 3-5 seconds, but he must have said 100 words (mostly swearing) in that time, colorful hand gestures, the works. It was truly an amusing and impressive display. Once inside his vehicle, he twisted around to continue his (now silent) tirade for several more seconds before settling in to chirp away from the light.

    I guess I deserved it because I was the one driving the Audi? LOL

    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,739
    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
    Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

    There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

    Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

    If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    What's possible, but not proven is:

    1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

    Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
    The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

    While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.
    Well unless the camera was an X-ray camera and could see through the vehicle in question then we conclusively cannot show what the driver was seeing as their vehicle was blocking part of the cameras view. Especially what was directly in front of and to the drivers right.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
    Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

    There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

    Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

    If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    What's possible, but not proven is:

    1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

    Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
    The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

    While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.
    Well unless the camera was an X-ray camera and could see through the vehicle in question then we conclusively cannot show what the driver was seeing as their vehicle was blocking part of the cameras view. Especially what was directly in front of and to the drivers right.
    You have examples of things that can use "teleport" technology where they don't appear near or adjacent seconds earlier or after, but might have existed in the middle of the time continuum?
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107
    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:

    Still, one would expect more brake tapping in snow than in the weather conditions actively and currently shown in the video. For me, brake tapping is a sign of ineptitude.

    Okay, but how does that come anywhere near relating to why the guy triggered on *me*? He was clearly enraged *at me* when he got out of his car. He was literally jumping up and down, swearing the spectrum, and actively attempting to bait me into getting out of my vehicle. It wasn't a long time out of the car, maybe 3-5 seconds, but he must have said 100 words (mostly swearing) in that time, colorful hand gestures, the works. It was truly an amusing and impressive display. Once inside his vehicle, he twisted around to continue his (now silent) tirade for several more seconds before settling in to chirp away from the light.

    I guess I deserved it because I was the one driving the Audi? LOL

    He might be triggered by Audi's, because they are better vehicles than what he was driving. My guess is he was already triggered by someone (or multiple someones) previously in his commute, and he was looking for someone to blame or push him over the ledge he was already leaning off of.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,739
    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
    Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

    There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

    Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

    If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    What's possible, but not proven is:

    1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

    Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
    The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

    While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.
    Well unless the camera was an X-ray camera and could see through the vehicle in question then we conclusively cannot show what the driver was seeing as their vehicle was blocking part of the cameras view. Especially what was directly in front of and to the drivers right.
    You have examples of things that can use "teleport" technology where they don't appear near or adjacent seconds earlier or after, but might have existed in the middle of the time continuum?
    What does that have to do with the fact that the camera is at a different viewing angle and distance than the driver and that the drivers vehicle blocks a decent portion of the cameras view?

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    andres3 said:


    The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

    I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

    I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
    I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
    Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

    There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

    Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

    If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    What's possible, but not proven is:

    1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

    Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
    The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

    While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.
    Well unless the camera was an X-ray camera and could see through the vehicle in question then we conclusively cannot show what the driver was seeing as their vehicle was blocking part of the cameras view. Especially what was directly in front of and to the drivers right.
    You have examples of things that can use "teleport" technology where they don't appear near or adjacent seconds earlier or after, but might have existed in the middle of the time continuum?
    What does that have to do with the fact that the camera is at a different viewing angle and distance than the driver and that the drivers vehicle blocks a decent portion of the cameras view?
    My position is you can see the obstructed view either before or after (or both) the obstruction. Since it is a moving object, the obstructed view changes and moves.

    Objects don't just appear out of "nowhere."
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 34,244
    my son texted this evening that he came within inches of of T-boning a black minivan with no lights that decided to run a red light in front of him. Light had changed, but the minivan guy did not seem to care.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,253
    stickguy said:

    my son texted this evening that he came within inches of of T-boning a black minivan with no lights that decided to run a red light in front of him. Light had changed, but the minivan guy did not seem to care.

    I've seen a few vehicles in the last couple of days that were driving along in the darkness with no lights at all. In fresh, blowing snow (and nearly invisible to anyone else on the road). Some sort of insanity out there. :D
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,107
    A garbage truck decided to rearend someone and catch fire on the 52East and create a log jam just at rush hour of course, Monday afternoon. Doubled my commute time!

    In other news, there might be an opening for a Garbage truck driver next week.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,739
    andres3 said:

    A garbage truck decided to rearend someone and catch fire on the 52East and create a log jam just at rush hour of course, Monday afternoon. Doubled my commute time!

    In other news, there might be an opening for a Garbage truck driver next week.

    Well then good luck on your job interview.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

Sign In or Register to comment.