[bender]

so i was thinking about this on the drive home tonight:


if you were to brake check some ahole tailgating, and they hit you.. are they at fault for following too close or can you be penalized for something in that situation?

i've always been tempted to try it, since they'd drive under me anyways. :miff:

 

[lockha31]

I am pretty sure they would be at fault, for not driving with safe stopping distance between their vehicle and yours.

 

[jeepguy74]

i think that they might be but you might also be for causing it

 

[Pokerob]

if they are following you and hit you in the rear (haha i know) they would be at fault no matter what, since you could always say you thought you saw something out of the corner of your eye like a deer or something, the person who rearends the car in front of them is almost always at fault.

a few years ago i slid on some ice while trying to make a right turn...i slid past the street and just went straight. The guy behind me did not even slow down and nailed my car. He got the ticket and the cop knew the whole story and only cared that he hit my car from the rear.

 

[Smiley23]

I hate people that brake check. I blew out the brakes on one of my cars paying back a break-checker on my way out to Chicago.

90 - 0 in 5 seconds flat .

PS it was obviously intentional - it went on for quite a few miles. He kept speeding up to the next Semi - not allowing me to pass.

 

[bender]

I hate people that brake check

and i hate people who tailgate.

i thought about the "thought you saw something out of the corner of your eye like a deer or something" deal, and figured it would be on the tailgater. didn't know if there was a special law on that... never know.

 

[PavementPounder]

I wouldn't advise it, as it can too easily cause other drivers to become involved. The follower might swerve instead of braking. If something did happen and any witnesses don't corroborate your story, you might get charged with something else if they determine it was intentional.

If they want to go faster than you, just let them.

 

[_F_]

If it can be proved that you intentionally hit the brakes for no other reason then to "brake check" the following vehicle then you would be at fault. Otherwise it is usually the fault of the following vehicle.

Not that I condone this behavior but if you have a manual transmission a quick downshift can surprise the tailgater behind you, or so I've heard.

 

[bender]

^yep, or dropping out of overdrive.

not that i've tried it... lol.

 

[Smiley23]

and i hate people who tailgate.

Sorry, I guess I should have qualified in my earlier post that I was at least 4 car lengths behind this guy doing 90 for quite a few miles before he decided to be an A!!.

 

[FORD FLARESIDE]

If it can be proved that you intentionally hit the brakes for no other reason then to "brake check" the following vehicle then you would be at fault. Otherwise it is usually the fault of the following vehicle.

Not that I condone this behavior but if you have a manual transmission a quick downshift can surprise the tailgater behind you, or so I've heard.

I did this once, brake checked the guy for driving to close, .............I spent the next 8 hours with the state troopers because the guy behind me happened to be the Captain in the local district, in his unmarked car.

Oh, and I got a careless driving for it as well............I don't advise doing this, just slow down and let him pass.

 

[Mongo]

I just hit the trailer brake controler. The lights come on and they usually get the point. If not, let em pass. Road rage causes problems and anger management classes suck.

 

[Hombre]

The guy that rear-ends you gets a ticket for "Following too closely, unable to stop in the assured clear distance ahead, failed to use due care and caution, basic speed law violation" (That's all one charge not 3 separate). 257.627 MCL.

The guy doing the "brake checking" could be cited for Careless Driving 257.626b a civil infraction. If the person is doing this "brake checking" in heavy traffic or in a "willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others" he/she could be arrested and jailed for "Reckless Driving" 257.626

If I responded to something like this, both parties would get a ticket, no doubt about it.

 

[Immortal]

I wouldn't advise it, as it can too easily cause other drivers to become involved. The follower might swerve instead of braking. If something did happen and any witnesses don't corroborate your story, you might get charged with something else if they determine it was intentional.

If they want to go faster than you, just let them.

Where is the part where they come up next to you and you pull the pin on the grenade and smash it through their window all in one motion?

 

[Never_Evil]

This is just the cheese head side of me, but I thought Michigan was a 50-50 no fault accident state. Meaning, no matter who hit who how many times, everyone is equally responsible. Things may have changed, any info is welcomed.

 

[Hombre]

This is just the cheese head side of me, but I thought Michigan was a 50-50 no fault accident state. Meaning, no matter who hit who how many times, everyone is equally responsible. Things may have changed, any info is welcomed.

Michigan is a "no fault" state where insurance is concerned. This only means that in a collision, each person's insurance covers their own damages (for the most part).

As far as traffic laws goes, the "no fault state" thing has nothing to do with it. The tickets that the cops issue at traffic crashes have nothing to do with "no fault."

Each "hazardous action" in a car crash is issued a "hazardous action number". The numbers correspond in seriousness. Whoever has the lower hazardous action number is the least at fault . However, that's only for the purposes of traffic statistics, not supposed to be for insurance but they caught onto the codes years ago. It's kind of confusing, but the bottom line is, you crash, screw up your vehicle and/or get hurt and the damages are assessed to your insurance. Your insurance company then subrogates to the other guys insurance company if the other guy was more "at fault".