Speeding To Avoid A Tailgater

[wiltsman]

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/18571089.legal-loophole-lets-drivers-speed-avoid-tailgaters/

What are your views on this?

[woofgang]

the actual article says "speed up briefly" and that its an argument that COULD be used...just as you might argue that a wasp sting caused you to briefly accelerate or any of the other "special' arguments. I believe that the suggested action to take when tailgated is actually to slow down and to continue to slow down until the tailgater passes you.

[Old_Geezer]

As long as it's clear that was what occurred and wasn't excessive then I'm not against it as a valid defence. One has presumably tried ignoring it in the hope they'd pass, already.

[SparklyKid]

Slam your brakes on, that usually does the trick.

[Old_Geezer]

At the cost of a lot of hassle. And possibly being held partly responsible from dash cam evidence. Occassionally unseriously tempted to have the brake lights wired to a dashboard switch ;-) but unfortunately it might cause a major pile up of many decent innocent drivers :-(

[Cloverjo]

Speeding up just means the tailgater speeds up behind you. I put my foot on the brake briefly to get them to back off. Or I pull over if it’s safe to do so and let them carry on.

[bhg481]

I usually give the windscreen a good wash. With most cars nowadays a lot of water bounces off the screen and drizzles on the car behind. They usually get the message.

[wiltsman]

I'm with you woofgang on this subject ..... but not so certain about your reply SparklyKid ... lol

Thanks for all your responses.

[wiltsman]

....... oh, also agree with you Coverjo.

[wiltsman]

ooops ... Cloverjo!!

[TonyV]

just slow down and let them pass.

[ToraToraTora]

"Simply put, on occasions the court will agree that there are special reasons for not imposing penalty points or discretionary disqualification based on somebody tailgating the offending driver, and them needing to speed up briefly in order to extricate themselves from a potentially dangerous situation. " - seems like it's not a wholesale defence but a possible explanation that may on occasion, be accepted by their worships. I'd say in order to accept that they'd need some pretty impressive evidence or every man and his dog will claim tailgating as an excuse. Better to close the "loop hole" and start hammering tailgaters. Hopefully the judge will be along soon to add some pearls of wisdom.

[TonyV]

Or put your foot on the brake pedal while you still have foot on accelerator.

[New Judge]

My views on this are that Emma Patterson has taken the opportunity to have a nice, free advert for her company's services placed in the South Wales Argus.

The "Special Reasons" argument to avoid endorsement and points/disqualification is a particularly high hurdle to clear. In general (so please don't start "what about when/if...." arguments) Magistrates will only consider a driver can use an argument to avoid the normal penalties is if he believed (and he convinces the court his belief was reasonable) that at the time there was an immediate threat of death or serious injury occurring to himself and/or others and there was no alternative but to break the speed limit. Quite honestly it would be hard to convince a court that being "tailgated" presented such a threat. The logical extension to that action is that the driver in front speeds up to put distance between himself and the tailgater, so the tailgater speeds up, so the driver in front speeds up.... and so on. The end result is you have two vehicles exceeding the speed limit by a hefty margin, presenting a far greater risk than if the driver in front had simply kept to the limit and forced the driver behind to do likewise.

Ms Patterson gives the impression that it is a done deal if you can simply convince the court you were concerned. It's by no means a done deal and I believe the certainty she implies with her statement is over stated. “We can argue ‘special reasons’ to avoid penalty points or disqualification in similar circumstances..." I'm sure they can. And potential clients should realise that they get paid whether their argument is successful or not.

[vulcan42]

The problem with braking is the person behind might not react in time and hit you. I switch on my rear fog lights if they're too close, they get the message without me slowing down. It's most annoying if they're so close you can't even see their number plate, which seems to happen a lot these days.

[TonyV]

Vulcan you don't brake, simply show the brake lights, whilst still having foot on accelerator.

[vulcan42]

The fog lamp is easier and a lot more annoying.

[THECORBYLOON]

According to the Patterson Law website, they have a 92% success rate, "avoiding guideline disqualification (by defending the allegation / achieving a reduced period of disqualification according to guidelines / arguing exceptional hardship / arguing special reasons)"
It doesn't break it down into each of those grounds, mind.

[ToraToraTora]

In the US the advice is generally to lift off and slow down slowly and they pass but that assumes passing on either side is allowed. In UK tailgating generally happens in the outside lane of of multi lane carriage ways so the best way is just let them pass but then we are up against natural human irrationality when driving.

[New Judge]

//According to the Patterson Law website, they have a 92% success rate, "avoiding guideline disqualification (by defending the allegation / achieving a reduced period of disqualification according to guidelines / arguing exceptional hardship / arguing special reasons)"
It doesn't break it down into each of those grounds, mind.//

No it doesn't.

The first of those (defending the matter) has probably quite a high success rate. Lawyers should not advise their clients to plead Not Guilty to minor motoring matters unless there is a realistic chance of an acquittal. Securing a lower penalty than the guidelines is not too difficult and it also depends what they mean by the "guidelines". They have a "starting point" and a "range" (which is often quite broad, depending on the offence). It is usually not too difficult to argue for a penalty below the starting point. It is more difficult to argue for one below the bottom end of the range as judges and magistrates are obliged by law to follow the guidelines unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. Arguments for "Exceptional Hardship" (which are only available to counter a disqualification under the "totting up" rules) are said anecdotally to be successful in about one third of cases. "Special Reasons" arguments are much more rare and their rate of success is an unknown.

[Hymie]

To those of you recommending braking with a tailgater; at the time I learnt to drive (this was a long time ago), a case had gone all the way to the Lords where a learner driver (at the instruction of their instructor) carried out an emergency stop manoeuvre, which resulted in the following vehicle rear-ending them.

The ruling in the case was that the instructor/learner driver were at fault; the following vehicle having a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in front would not stop violently for no apparent reason (despite the L-plates).

So if you are going to use this manoeuvre, don’t forget to mention the cat which ran in front of your car which the following driver did not see due to being too close behind.