Brake checking vs tailgating

[El Cockblock]

When people tailgate me I start going back and forth in my lane as if warming up my tires, they usually back off because they don't know what the hell is going on. lol

...you mean side to side correct? Back and forth would be accelerating and then decelerating, turning you into a bigger a**hole than the tailgater lol!

What I do in such situations is to point the tailgater with my left hand to get their attention and then making a "slow down" motion to try to convey the message. If that still doesn't work, I accelerate, move over to let the jerk pass me and I wave goodbye...

 

[Rob MacLennan]

In 25 years and 300,000+ km of riding, I have had a number of times when the most viable way to deal with a tailgater or otherwise aggressive/misbehaving driver has been to accelerate at a rate beyond what a Toyota Corolla is capable of, to a speed beyond what a Chrysler minivan is capable of, thus rendering it impossible for them to mess with me any more.

Slowing down and giving them the opportunity to hit me or shove me off the road is the LAST thing I would ever want to do in those situations.

While that approach has never been legal, and it's even more problematic with HTA 172 in effect, this illustrates the disconnect between what's safe and what's legal.

I agree, which is why I added my "real world" comment. There was a time when you could easily explain the need to accelerate to above legal speed by stating it was required to insure your safety. Now you need to sit through a license suspension, loss of vehicle, and a court date during which you have to prove it was necessary, rather than someone being able to apply common sense. The fruits of "zero tolerance."

 

[xfactor]

Too bad you didn't include the rest of your post which I was reacting to...



That is so unrealistic that it made my head spin....."don't be in a situation" ???!!!!

Your head spins too easily...In any case, whether they guy is on your *** due to inattentiveness or or impatience, it's absolutely in your best interest to make sure that he's not behind you. The "not being in that situation" means, just that. If you are aware that there is a car coming up behind you, either accelerate and get the hell out of the way or move over before it becomes a confrontation. However, if you are content in having some inattentive guy behind you, then go right ahead.

 

[H4x0rz]

Both brake checking, and following too close, is a form of sec 172 aka stunt driving.

2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “race” and “contest” include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.
3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or
iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).
(2) In this section,
“marked departure from the lawful rate of speed” means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (2).
Definition, “stunt”
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.

 

[Macs]

In 25 years and 300,000+ km of riding, I have had a number of times when the most viable way to deal with a tailgater or otherwise aggressive/misbehaving driver has been to accelerate at a rate beyond what a Toyota Corolla is capable of, to a speed beyond what a Chrysler minivan is capable of, thus rendering it impossible for them to mess with me any more.

Slowing down and giving them the opportunity to hit me or shove me off the road is the LAST thing I would ever want to do in those situations.

While that approach has never been legal, and it's even more problematic with HTA 172 in effect, this illustrates the disconnect between what's safe and what's legal.

Well said and consistent with what I know with my lesser experience and mileage.

How do you avoid being tailgated in downtown stop and go traffic, when someone is riding your *** or tire and you have a car in front of you, cars beside you, busses, trucks...?

You filter, or you buy some red and white paint and start drawing a target on your back.

 

[iFly55]

In 25 years and 300,000+ km of riding, I have had a number of times when the most viable way to deal with a tailgater or otherwise aggressive/misbehaving driver has been to accelerate at a rate beyond what a Toyota Corolla is capable of, to a speed beyond what a Chrysler minivan is capable of, thus rendering it impossible for them to mess with me any more.

Slowing down and giving them the opportunity to hit me or shove me off the road is the LAST thing I would ever want to do in those situations.

While that approach has never been legal, and it's even more problematic with HTA 172 in effect, this illustrates the disconnect between what's safe and what's legal.

You'll be surprised by the sympathy you'll get in Ontario Courts for motorcycle safety. If you properly present the evidence that your actions prevented loss of life or serious bodily injury you can get off using the 'Necessity Defence' even for +84km/h over the limit.

I myself successfully used the necessity defence w.r.t. motorcycle safety against a +26 km/h charge. My justice of peace agreed that it was necessary for me to accelerate to avoid getting rear-ended.

Ontario v. Kallish [2011] O.J. No. 707

Trial of the accused Kallish for stunt driving, contrary to s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act. Kallish drove a motorcycle at the speed of 164 kilometers per hour in a posted 80-kilometer per hour zone. He claimed that he did so out of necessity for a van approached him from behind and it encroached on his lane. In order to protect himself from imminent injury he then accelerated rapidly to move ahead and away from the van. It was at this time that he was caught by a police officer who was conducting speed enforcement.

HELD: Kallish found not guilty. Stunt driving was a strict liability offence. The Crown established a case against Kallish. Kallish did not introduce a defence of due diligence. He did, however, establish the defence of necessity. The Court accepted the evidence of an expert witness in the area of motorcycles who concluded that Kallish could either have braked or accelerated but that it made more sense to accelerate to escape the danger. It also accepted that there was a van on the road at the relevant time and it caused Kallish to fear imminent danger from it. The action that he took was proportional to the danger that he faced.​

http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/...ice/2011/01/17/r-v-kallish-2011-oncj-61.shtml

 

[XenoVibe]

I usually get the extra space when on my motorcycle but sometimes there are those idiots that want to follow right behind every time I change a lane like they're trying to draft a ****ing bike.

 

[FitzR6]

This is what happens when you brake check a car on your bike:

[video=youtube_share;NWhTB7uNKJg]http://youtu.be/NWhTB7uNKJg[/video]

So don't do it k.

 

[trebororr]

That's a good plan. The faster you ride the harder you splat! You need all options in your tool chest to deal with ever changing situations.

 

[IXFe]

I wouldn't do it on a bike, it might just piss the person off more. If someone's tailgating me I give myself lots of room in front, which sometimes works for whatever reason, or worst case I just turn off and get away from them. YMMV

^- Do this!

BTW - I see lots of bikes tailgating as well......goose and gander comes to mind.

I see this a lot too and just don't understand the thinking of the rider. I mean, I know a bike can stop faster than an car, but to tail a car just inches behind its bumper? I don't get it.

 

[Ugur Dinch]

I see this a lot too and just don't understand the thinking of the rider. I mean, I know a bike can stop faster than an car, but to tail a car just inches behind its bumper? I don't get it.

A car stops a lot sooner than a bike - proven science.

Also, the consistency and skill required to stop a bike quick (although it is still slower than a car), is much greater than the skill required in the car. An avg driver on an avg road car will stop pretty good every time.

 

[IXFe]

A car stops a lot sooner than a bike - proven science.

Also, the consistency and skill required to stop a bike quick (although it is still slower than a car), is much greater than the skill required in the car. An avg driver on an avg road car will stop pretty good every time.

Hence, tailgating a car whilst riding your motorcycle is not a wise decision.

 

[Ugur Dinch]

Hence, tailgating a car whilst riding your motorcycle is not a wise decision.

Indeed =)

Stopping distance comparison at 3:56, attempted by a former World Supersport Champion:

[video=youtube_share;xckqNulY10o]http://youtu.be/xckqNulY10o?t=3m56s[/video]

 

[trebororr]

Interesting result; I hadn't thought of this situation. In my mind I had always thought of a best case scenario which is comparing an average car to a high performance motorcycle ridden by a skilled rider. Unfortunately how often does that situation happen. Most riders don't practice emergency stops from high speeds which puts them at a disadvantage in all situations.

Lesson at least 2 second moving gap or change lane.

 

[Brian P]

Just think ... Most motorcycles on the road don't have ABS (yet - none of mine do), and most riders haven't practiced emergency stopping.

Most cars out there have ABS nowadays. There are some vehicles with ABS crappy brakes, but a lot of them have *good* brakes and good tires.

My van has disk brakes with Brembo calipers all the way around plus ABS (and it's all original Fiat Ducato equipment) ... it will stop *hard* should the need arise ... and it is hardly a high performance vehicle!

 

[inreb]

and a court date during which you have to prove it was necessary, rather than someone being able to apply common sense. The fruits of "zero tolerance."

Guilty until proven innocent. I hate that.