Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j81kkrm wrote

Not on 89 but I was at Best Buy in Williston headed back onto the road. Someone got pissed and break checks the car behind them. Guy didn’t notice and fucking plowed into the car destroying the backend.

I laughed because I assume the break check guy has the mistaken thought being rear ended makes the other person at fault and that is not the case.

The tldr; don’t drive like a dick.

19

TheArchitec7 t1_j81ncrb wrote

Sadly, the one who got braked checked is often found at fault if there is no witnesses/video. To an outside observer, ignoring pleas of innocence, it looks like they were going to fast and rear ended the braker.

After someone passed me IN THE BRAKE DOWN LANE in order to brake check me on 89, I was motivated to get dash cam. They cost like $40 for a low end one and it’s a good insurance policy.

28

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j81qo8p wrote

I’ve considered a dash cam as well.

Give the number of people who stopped when the accident happened I think the brake check guy got what was coming.

12

KITTYONFYRE t1_j82ic5w wrote

No. Absolutely not. It is 100% the fault of the following driver, every time. What if a moose runs in the road, or any of a billion situations you can imagine emergency braking being necessary? If you're that far up someone's ass that then slamming on the brakes ends up with you rear ending them, give some more fucking following distance.

3 seconds absolute minimum.

5

TheArchitec7 t1_j82lqnz wrote

I agree that a lot of people follow way too close. 1 car length per 10MPH is a good rule. So giving at least 100ft on the highway is appropriate. But brake checking is different. The assholes who do it pull in front of you and then slam on their brakes. If they do it too aggressively there is literally no time to adjust to an appropriate distance because they merge into your lane and immediately brake. Causing an accident because of brake checking like this is 100% the brake checkers fault.

7

epadafunk t1_j83sq19 wrote

At 65 mph 100 feet is only slightly more than 1 second travel time. No way is that a truly safe following distance on the highway

3

whaletacochamp OP t1_j820odh wrote

I’ve been saying I need one for years, going on Amazon now to get one. I avoid these people like the plague but sometimes you get sucked into it or at least have it in view.

I was a bit back from this incident but to me it looked pretty clear that one guy brake checked the other. But no way I’m stopping on the side of a busy highway in the dark with my kid in the car to make a statement. Theyre both at fault as far as I’m concerned

3

gangbangstripperelf t1_j827h5j wrote

I was literally run off the road (rt 15 near the fort) a week after I bought my new truck: low curbed median - I was able to get myself out of my lane, let the douche canoe continue to rampage and merge back in. The next day I went to Costco and bought one for each car…

Upside I’ve gotten some great karma points on r/idiotsincars with the footage of all the chucklefucks around here doing stupid shit in front of me.

8

whaletacochamp OP t1_j827z2n wrote

VT does have a lot of chucklefuck drivers for sure. What gets me is when they do something he wildly dangerous and inconvenient to many I order to feel good about letting one person out into traffic

6

hamburgerbear t1_j81ti76 wrote

I mean… if you are close enough to someone that you will hit them if they brake check you… it’s definitely your fault. You should never be anywhere near close enough to someone that you wouldn’t have time slow down enough

5

whaletacochamp OP t1_j820w86 wrote

The only reason I agree with this is because both trucks appeared to be driving like dicks, and therefore BOTH are at fault as far as I’m concerned. The guy following WAS way too close and the guy brake checking shouldn’t have brake checked. Both of their weekends are ruined. Hope they have good insurance.

9

KITTYONFYRE t1_j82i1qq wrote

If someone brake checks you and you smash into them, it's your fault. You need to leave enough space to safely come to a stop regardless of the situation.

What if a deer runs across the road or some other situation requiring emergency braking? You are 100% in the wrong if you read end someone. Three seconds minimum following distance

−5

whaletacochamp OP t1_j82ilte wrote

Legally if it’s proven that you were brake checked the brake checker is at fault.

It’s just hard to prove.

7

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j83qx96 wrote

You are wrong. Maybe In a place like Rutland where people are uncivilized they automatically revert to some antiquated rule akin to burning witches because ducks float or something like that but in the rest of the world, that is not the case. In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

Please, explain how a person charged with reckless driving, accident resulting is not at fault?

https://dmv.vermont.gov/enforcement-and-safety/road-safety/aggressive-driving

0

KITTYONFYRE t1_j84c7kb wrote

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault

1

samantha802 t1_j85gfts wrote

If you cut someone off and then slam on your breaks, they are not at fault. If they have a dashcam you are screwed and your insurance will have to pay for you deciding to drive like an idiot.

1

KITTYONFYRE t1_j86a2b9 wrote

sure, if you swerve into their lane and slam the brakes. that's not the premise of 99.99% of brake checks, in which the person you're following is already in your lane. fair enough on swerving in first though

and finally I'm not trying to le reddit you but *brakes

1

KITTYONFYRE t1_j84ch1z wrote

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault. really weird you looked up where I live, too. reddit is creepy

0

KITTYONFYRE t1_j84cjhx wrote

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault. really weird you looked up where I live, too. reddit is creepy

0

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j84hh07 wrote

I didn't look up where you live. You went off when someone called Rutland shitty and I remembered as I trolled you witch Rutland having the second highest crime rate in the state and you got all in a tizzy. I figured it worked once, may as well try again.

As for you examples, you are describing an accident not reckless driving and your 100% claim is 100% wrong.

Ohhh... And Rutland is shitty.

2

KITTYONFYRE t1_j869whs wrote

lol ok bud next time someone has to slam the brakes because a moose ran in the road and you slam into them because your dumb ass was following too close, let me know what the insurance agent says

0

KITTYONFYRE t1_j84btju wrote

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault

−1

KITTYONFYRE t1_j84cb8y wrote

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault. really weird you looked up where I live, too. reddit is creepy

−1