Road-rager's attorney mentions regenerative braking during case

[Shawn Snider]

I didn't read all the posts in this topic but a lot of you sound really angry, and a lot of you sound like you deal with ****-headed drivers that are impatient and just ream you out as they pass in the oncoming lane with their cellphone in hand doing their hair....

Pretty sure the lights on the back of the vehicle are for a form of communication, those who RAGE when they see tailights blinking should A) Park their Car and GTFO of it, please! and B) Call a Taxi and go get some professional help.

 

[Ulmo]

interesting - Tesla driver pleads guilty in road-rage conflict with Marin cyclist - San Jose Mercury News

i've always NOT been a fan of the regen causing brake lights to come on, as on the NJTurnpike I get the middle finger a lot from people thinking that I am brake checking them when I am not and they get mad and try to cut you off etc etc (typical jersey driving). I'm not really sure what happened in the above incident, but the guy said he didn't apply the brakes but instead regen came on the brake lights activated and the cyclist crashed into the back of him. his fault of course was driving off after the cyclist hit him (hit & run).

I find this fascinating.

1. It is, of course, bad to hurt anybody, including a cyclist.
2. I hate having to deal with them on the road.
3. Therefore, I safely leave roads they're on once I find out about them. For instance, I refuse to go on the mountain roads west of 280 during cycling hours (weekends, etc.). Live and let live.
4. I would be horrified of having an accident with a cyclist.
5. If a cyclist had an accident with me, I would be horrified by being attacked by other cyclists, or the cyclist who had the accident. There are many recent incidents when cyclists attacked motorists. So, I would instantly be afraid for my life as soon as any incident occurred. For my own safety, I would immediately dial 911 (most of those areas have no cell reception), and get out of danger, which means go a little distance and hide. Maybe change clothes, put on a hat, then return immediately to coordinate 911, do paperwork, etc.., close enough that I was considered "parked" but not "running away", and just tell everyone but law enforcement "I saw nothing and don't know who was driving" (tell law enforcement exactly what happened, well, hmm, lawyers say not to say anything which goes against my nature but in that case just exchange info and say nothing else).

So, I would want to know exactly how far "not running away" is to get "out of sight of the cyclists" so they don't attack me, and I'd have to be hidden from view long enough to do a complete change of look so the cyclists don't think I'm a car driver, and I can be a "jogger" or something, one of their kin maybe. Pour some sweat on? Anything to stay alive.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, using your horn to admonish someone who has cut you off is illegal.

I find this an odd and possibly wrong statement. I had three incidents yesterday when a driver caused me to do emergency braking to avoid hitting them because they moved without checking or whatever (trying to cause an accident?). In one of the cases, the driver was clearly so bad at driving at that moment, that they NEEDED TO BE aware of how bad they are, so that they can increase their safety level, so I honked very loudly and long. I wasn't admonishing them; I was informing them of their need to increase safety. How they executed that increase would be up to them: pull over and take a cab and get some sleep, stop talking to their passenger, stop texting, stop drinking alcohol, stop dancing, look over their shoulder, get a license, whatever, I don't care.

My honk was CLEARLY informing them of an immediate danger: their driving.

But how is the execution of my proper use of the horn different than your example of "admonishment"? I had nothing to admonish; I wasn't trying to prove anything. They needed to fix their driving immediately. Their driving was a clear and imminent threat to all around them and themselves.

 

[Nikxice]

I find this an odd and possibly wrong statement. I had three incidents yesterday when a driver caused me to do emergency braking to avoid hitting them because they moved without checking or whatever (trying to cause an accident?). In one of the cases, the driver was clearly so bad at driving at that moment, that they NEEDED TO BE aware of how bad they are, so that they can increase their safety level, so I honked very loudly and long. I wasn't admonishing them; I was informing them of their need to increase safety. How they executed that increase would be up to them: pull over and take a cab and get some sleep, stop talking to their passenger, stop texting, stop drinking alcohol, stop dancing, look over their shoulder, get a license, whatever, I don't care.

Were you really attempting to improve driver safety by leaning on your horn to give other operators a lesson in driving? Sounds more like retaliation. By doing so, you could be escalating an already unhealthy situation involving a possible aggressive driver. What's to be gained? So, now that driver is looking back in their rear view mirror perceiving yet another aggressive driver following them. Not good. If another driver is operating erratically you can always take down their plate number and report them to the police. That's their job to handle, not ours.

 

[WMAC]

I find this fascinating.

1. It is, of course, bad to hurt anybody, including a cyclist.
2. I hate having to deal with them on the road.
3. Therefore, I safely leave roads they're on once I find out about them. For instance, I refuse to go on the mountain roads west of 280 during cycling hours (weekends, etc.). Live and let live.
4. I would be horrified of having an accident with a cyclist.
5. If a cyclist had an accident with me, I would be horrified by being attacked by other cyclists, or the cyclist who had the accident. There are many recent incidents when cyclists attacked motorists. So, I would instantly be afraid for my life as soon as any incident occurred. For my own safety, I would immediately dial 911 (most of those areas have no cell reception), and get out of danger, which means go a little distance and hide. Maybe change clothes, put on a hat, then return immediately to coordinate 911, do paperwork, etc.., close enough that I was considered "parked" but not "running away", and just tell everyone but law enforcement "I saw nothing and don't know who was driving" (tell law enforcement exactly what happened, well, hmm, lawyers say not to say anything which goes against my nature but in that case just exchange info and say nothing else).

So, I would want to know exactly how far "not running away" is to get "out of sight of the cyclists" so they don't attack me, and I'd have to be hidden from view long enough to do a complete change of look so the cyclists don't think I'm a car driver, and I can be a "jogger" or something, one of their kin maybe. Pour some sweat on? Anything to stay alive.

- - - Updated - - -



I find this an odd and possibly wrong statement. I had three incidents yesterday when a driver caused me to do emergency braking to avoid hitting them because they moved without checking or whatever (trying to cause an accident?). In one of the cases, the driver was clearly so bad at driving at that moment, that they NEEDED TO BE aware of how bad they are, so that they can increase their safety level, so I honked very loudly and long. I wasn't admonishing them; I was informing them of their need to increase safety. How they executed that increase would be up to them: pull over and take a cab and get some sleep, stop talking to their passenger, stop texting, stop drinking alcohol, stop dancing, look over their shoulder, get a license, whatever, I don't care.

My honk was CLEARLY informing them of an immediate danger: their driving.

But how is the execution of my proper use of the horn different than your example of "admonishment"? I had nothing to admonish; I wasn't trying to prove anything. They needed to fix their driving immediately. Their driving was a clear and imminent threat to all around them and themselves.

Having to "Deal with them on the road" is no different than stopping at a stop light to let other traffic pass. Wait, take your turn and drive safely according to the law. It's not difficult at all.

 

[yo mama]

I didn't read all the posts in this topic but a lot of you sound really angry, and a lot of you sound like you deal with ****-headed drivers that are impatient and just ream you out as they pass in the oncoming lane with their cellphone in hand doing their hair....

Pretty sure the lights on the back of the vehicle are for a form of communication, those who RAGE when they see tailights blinking should A) Park their Car and GTFO of it, please! and B) Call a Taxi and go get some professional help.

Easy for you to say - you're Canadian - and thus genetically polite and reasonable. Here in the USA we have a quasi-constitutional right to fly into irrational fits of rage for seemingly minor social infractions, whether real or imagined. If I recall correctly, the American war of independence all started because some English galleon cut off a colonial schooner. Viewed from that perspective, road rage is sort of an indelible quality that's woven into the fabric of our people.

 

[Shawn Snider]

Easy for you to say - you're Canadian - and thus genetically polite and reasonable. Here in the USA we have a quasi-constitutional right to fly into irrational fits of rage for seemingly minor social infractions, whether real or imagined. If I recall correctly, the American war of independence all started because some English galleon cut off a colonial schooner. Viewed from that perspective, road rage is sort of an indelible quality that's woven into the fabric of our people.

Well played good sir!