"I slow down when tail-gated!" sticker
Discussion
I followed a Ford Galaxy taxi down an NSL dual carriageway yesterday, I think it was licenced by Portsmouth Council. He was probably on his way back from a drop at Gatwick. It had a massive 3ft long sticker on the rear stating "I slow down for tail-gaters!". Being of an inquisitive mind I wondered a) how close one had to get before he applied the brakes, and b) what speed he would actually decrease to. All purely in the interests of scientific research and factual reporting to this site for comment and discussion you understand, I called his bluff. Well you would, wouldn't you?
The answers were a) about 45-50ft at 70 mph and b) he reduced speed to about 25mph. To be fair it was a gentle slow down, he didn't try a brake test. (Quite what his passengers think of his driving tactics is anyone's guess.)
Having noted these figures, I checked my mirrors, indicated, spooled the turbo up on the Impreza and overtook the fat, balding, four-eyed, pompous fool. Needless to say he glared at me, so I shook my head at him in a very disapproving manner. He then responded by use of the "coffee bean advert" gesture. I declined to react seeing as he'd been provoked by me in the first place whilst I was using him as my laboratory rat.
I would totally agree that I shouldn't have done it and was probably being a bit juvenile; but his ill-conceived "holier than thou" attitude really stuck in my throat. Anyway, it is my contention that his sticker is a provokative invitation to road rage and his actions are not only potentially dangerous but indeed illegal (Due Consideration?).
Discuss...
The answers were a) about 45-50ft at 70 mph and b) he reduced speed to about 25mph. To be fair it was a gentle slow down, he didn't try a brake test. (Quite what his passengers think of his driving tactics is anyone's guess.)
Having noted these figures, I checked my mirrors, indicated, spooled the turbo up on the Impreza and overtook the fat, balding, four-eyed, pompous fool. Needless to say he glared at me, so I shook my head at him in a very disapproving manner. He then responded by use of the "coffee bean advert" gesture. I declined to react seeing as he'd been provoked by me in the first place whilst I was using him as my laboratory rat.
I would totally agree that I shouldn't have done it and was probably being a bit juvenile; but his ill-conceived "holier than thou" attitude really stuck in my throat. Anyway, it is my contention that his sticker is a provokative invitation to road rage and his actions are not only potentially dangerous but indeed illegal (Due Consideration?).
Discuss...
Edited by andy zarse on Tuesday 26th September 17:58
I have done as he did (without the sticker) in the past and it does p1ss people off. It's fine (I can always put a lot of space between me and them) until you come up to the next lot of traffic and are caught. In theory it ought to be the safe way to deal with those who tailgate you when you are in lane 3, passing someone. It's a shame they don't learn their lesson but instead get all pumped up and eager to prove their manhood, as you demonstrate.
cheeky said:
I have done as he did (without the sticker) in the past and it does p1ss people off. It's fine (I can always put a lot of space between me and them) until you come up to the next lot of traffic and are caught. In theory it ought to be the safe way to deal with those who tailgate you when you are in lane 3, passing someone. It's a shame they don't learn their lesson but instead get all pumped up and eager to prove their manhood, as you demonstrate.
But the point is that I never tailgate people, honestly I wasn't being macho. Childish maybe. Indeed the whole thing was actually a bit unnerving, being that close to the car infront at that speed.
Incidentally, this ridiculous tactic of slowing down gradually as suggested by some on here, is it not illegal? I mean, where does it end? When you actually grind to a halt in the outside lane? Surely it's better just to pull into the inside lane as soon as safely possible?
Edited by andy zarse on Tuesday 26th September 18:11
hugoagogo said:
andy zarse said:
I called his bluff. Well you would, wouldn't you?
i wouldn't, no...
...his sticker seems stupid, but i wouldn't say it would provoke me into tailgating
Each to their own, but again I would contend that his sticker is not only stupid but also stating that he is about to commit an illegal driving act.
My own personal bete-noir is folk who sit in the middle lane at 65mph. Should I have a sticker which says "I punch the lights out of people who hog the middle lane!"?
andy zarse said:
cheeky said:
I have done as he did (without the sticker) in the past and it does p1ss people off. It's fine (I can always put a lot of space between me and them) until you come up to the next lot of traffic and are caught. In theory it ought to be the safe way to deal with those who tailgate you when you are in lane 3, passing someone. It's a shame they don't learn their lesson but instead get all pumped up and eager to prove their manhood, as you demonstrate.
But the point is that I never tailgate people, honestly I wasn't being macho. Childish maybe. Indeed the whole thing was actually a bit unnerving, being that close to the car infront at that speed.
Incidentally, this ridiculous tactic of slowing down gradually as suggested by some on here, is it not illegal? I mean, where does it end? When you actually grind to a halt in the outside lane? Surely it's better just to pull into the inside lane as soon as safely possible?
Edited by andy zarse on Tuesday 26th September 18:11
Yes, pulling over asasp is the best but when that's not possible you need to increase your distance to the car in front. This allows you to brake more gradually in an emergency, so less likely the tailgater will hit you.
It's not ridiculous.
Sorry, I mis-read it as you having been the one giving the coffee bean sign. However, "fat, balding, four-eyed, pompous fool" and "shook my head at him in a very disapproving manner" won't help perceptions of you.
If (and I'm not saying I would do this) I were overtaking, at 99mph, a steady stream of traffic doing 90mph and someone sat closely enough behind me that I could no longer see any road between mine and his in the rear view mirror, that would make him dangerously close and it would make eminent sense for me to slow down gradually, such that his stopping distance would decrease in the event of me encountering a hazard. It's all about reducing the probability of danger, and choosing instead to accelerate to 120 wouldn't achieve that.
Now if it so happened that, having decelerated to a speed where the gap between us was now entirely appropriate, I were to step on it and resume the previous speed in half the time it would take the following vehicle to accelerate the same amount, its driver really ought to learn a lesson. But experience tells me that instead it enrages them, which is why I am less likely to pursue these days the otherwise sensible course of action described. I can only hope that those who were enraged in the past may have taken the lesson on board in any case for application in future situations.
And yes it is quite enjoyable leaving a former tailgater miles behind like that. Just a shame that it seems unwise these days to do so!
If (and I'm not saying I would do this) I were overtaking, at 99mph, a steady stream of traffic doing 90mph and someone sat closely enough behind me that I could no longer see any road between mine and his in the rear view mirror, that would make him dangerously close and it would make eminent sense for me to slow down gradually, such that his stopping distance would decrease in the event of me encountering a hazard. It's all about reducing the probability of danger, and choosing instead to accelerate to 120 wouldn't achieve that.
Now if it so happened that, having decelerated to a speed where the gap between us was now entirely appropriate, I were to step on it and resume the previous speed in half the time it would take the following vehicle to accelerate the same amount, its driver really ought to learn a lesson. But experience tells me that instead it enrages them, which is why I am less likely to pursue these days the otherwise sensible course of action described. I can only hope that those who were enraged in the past may have taken the lesson on board in any case for application in future situations.
And yes it is quite enjoyable leaving a former tailgater miles behind like that. Just a shame that it seems unwise these days to do so!
andy zarse said:
hugoagogo said:
andy zarse said:
I called his bluff. Well you would, wouldn't you?
i wouldn't, no...
...his sticker seems stupid, but i wouldn't say it would provoke me into tailgating
Each to their own, but again I would contend that his sticker is not only stupid but also stating that he is about to commit an illegal driving act.
There's nothing illegal about it. If he'd added "gradually and safely" would that have helped matters?
james_j said:
What kind of an utter r_sole would have a clearly aggressive message on the back of his car.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
It's not aggressive, it just states what he'll do. It doesn't say he'll brake test you.
What other way is there of safely dealing with tailgaters (when you can't pull over)?
cheeky said:
Sorry, I mis-read it as you having been the one giving the coffee bean sign. However, "fat, balding, four-eyed, pompous fool" and "shook my head at him in a very disapproving manner" won't help perceptions of you.
If (and I'm not saying I would do this) I were overtaking, at 99mph, a steady stream of traffic doing 90mph and someone sat closely enough behind me that I could no longer see any road between mine and his in the rear view mirror, that would make him dangerously close and it would make eminent sense for me to slow down gradually, such that his stopping distance would decrease in the event of me encountering a hazard. It's all about reducing the probability of danger, and choosing instead to accelerate to 120 wouldn't achieve that.
Now if it so happened that, having decelerated to a speed where the gap between us was now entirely appropriate, I were to step on it and resume the previous speed in half the time it would take the following vehicle to accelerate the same amount, its driver really ought to learn a lesson. But experience tells me that instead it enrages them, which is why I am less likely to pursue these days the otherwise sensible course of action described. I can only hope that those who were enraged in the past may have taken the lesson on board in any case for application in future situations.
And yes it is quite enjoyable leaving a former tailgater miles behind like that. Just a shame that it seems unwise these days to do so!
If (and I'm not saying I would do this) I were overtaking, at 99mph, a steady stream of traffic doing 90mph and someone sat closely enough behind me that I could no longer see any road between mine and his in the rear view mirror, that would make him dangerously close and it would make eminent sense for me to slow down gradually, such that his stopping distance would decrease in the event of me encountering a hazard. It's all about reducing the probability of danger, and choosing instead to accelerate to 120 wouldn't achieve that.
Now if it so happened that, having decelerated to a speed where the gap between us was now entirely appropriate, I were to step on it and resume the previous speed in half the time it would take the following vehicle to accelerate the same amount, its driver really ought to learn a lesson. But experience tells me that instead it enrages them, which is why I am less likely to pursue these days the otherwise sensible course of action described. I can only hope that those who were enraged in the past may have taken the lesson on board in any case for application in future situations.
And yes it is quite enjoyable leaving a former tailgater miles behind like that. Just a shame that it seems unwise these days to do so!
What an excellent post! It was for intelligent comments like this I raised the matter.
BTW, the "fat, balding, four-eyed" comment was just my dry sense of humour, sorry; his appearance is entirely incidental to the matter in hand.
ewenm said:
james_j said:
What kind of an utter r_sole would have a clearly aggressive message on the back of his car.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
What other way is there of safely dealing with tailgaters (when you can't pull over)?
Sorry I disagree. Provided you're in the outer lane, you can ALWAYS pull over on a dual carriageway within a reasonable timescale if you want to make it your business to do so. Also, early "indicating left" will advise the tailgater that you are attempting to get out of his way. Who knows, he may even back off a little?
andy zarse said:
ewenm said:
james_j said:
What kind of an utter r_sole would have a clearly aggressive message on the back of his car.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
What other way is there of safely dealing with tailgaters (when you can't pull over)?
Sorry I disagree. Provided you're in the outer lane, you can ALWAYS pull over on a dual carriageway within a reasonable timescale if you want to make it your business to do so. Also, early "indicating left" will advise the tailgater that you are attempting to get out of his way. Who knows, he may even back off a little?
Depends how aggressive you are.
If he has nowhere immeadiately to go & you start tailgating him, easing off the drive, to firstly extend available braking space, would be fine. (Certainly with a view to him looking to pull to an inside lane where safe).
ewenm said:
james_j said:
What kind of an utter r_sole would have a clearly aggressive message on the back of his car.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
It's not aggressive, it just states what he'll do. It doesn't say he'll brake test you.
What other way is there of safely dealing with tailgaters (when you can't pull over)?
The fact that he feels the need to put such a permanent message on the back of his car says more about his driving skills and how he relates to other drivers...it says that he is probably a bloody nuisance on the road and has probably spent his entire driving life irritating other drivers.
james_j said:
ewenm said:
james_j said:
What kind of an utter r_sole would have a clearly aggressive message on the back of his car.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
It's not aggressive, it just states what he'll do. It doesn't say he'll brake test you.
What other way is there of safely dealing with tailgaters (when you can't pull over)?
The fact that he feels the need to put such a permanent message on the back of his car says more about his driving skills and how he relates to other drivers...it says that he is probably a bloody nuisance on the road and has probably spent his entire driving life irritating other drivers.
Perhaps he is fed up with people tailgating him. I thought from reading threads here most here thought tailgating was quite a problem. Giving information of his likely safe response to such action from them I would of thought is more the mark of a good river as opposed to a bad one. Out of tailgating, a driver being tailgated gently easing off to increase braking space & a driver having a sign warning that's what he'd do, I'd say tailgating was the worst action of them.
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
ewenm said:
james_j said:
What kind of an utter r_sole would have a clearly aggressive message on the back of his car.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
I would love to "test" his slow down threshold too...with the added benefit that it would probably wind him up which he surely deserves.
It's not aggressive, it just states what he'll do. It doesn't say he'll brake test you.
What other way is there of safely dealing with tailgaters (when you can't pull over)?
The fact that he feels the need to put such a permanent message on the back of his car says more about his driving skills and how he relates to other drivers...it says that he is probably a bloody nuisance on the road and has probably spent his entire driving life irritating other drivers.
Perhaps he is fed up with people tailgating him. I thought from reading threads here most here thought tailgating was quite a problem. Giving information of his likely safe response to such action from them I would of thought is more the mark of a good river as opposed to a bad one. Out of tailgating, a driver being tailgated gently easing off to increase braking space & a driver having a sign warning that's what he'd do, I'd say tailgating was the worst action of them.
Entirely agreed on that.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff