Interlink driver - aggressive, tailing, horn honking stain

powerful_Rogue

OlliesDad wrote: »

I see this posted on here quite often, however isn't this true of all posts? Are we to assume all posters are liars unless the other party confirms otherwise?

I don't see any reason why the OP would be lying and the situation doesn't seem unbelievable.

And as I highlighted in my other post, what the OP classes as tailgating, other people wouldnt. If it was proper tailgating, then as soon as the OP slowed down due to the car incorrectly stopped at the wrong light - the van driver would have gone right up her @rse.

I never called the OP a liar, I was highlighting the fact that without the other side of the story, certain actions or words may be exaggerated.

powerful_Rogue

Azari wrote: »

It's a pretty standard technique for certain people* when they are losing the argument.

They know they cannot make their case with the information given so they try and put up a smokescreen to cover their failure by hypothesising that the initial scenario may never have happened as described.

This is, of course, largely irrelevant as we are necessarily giving out opinions on the situation as presented. This is a forum, not a court of law.

* It's worth noting that it's generally the same type of person who jumps into any complaint thread to point out the blindingly obvious that a business can do something that it is legal for it to do. Yes we know perfectly well that any business can (for example) refuse to do business with anyone it chooses (unless the decision is made on the grounds of certain protected attributes of the potential customer), but that does not mean that they have behave well.

1) I thought it was a discussion rather then an argument.
2) There are no winners or losers when having a discussion about a situation like this.
3) As you pointed out, its an opinion. Mine is as equally valid as anyone elses.
4) Maybe the person posting the thread dosent know that its legal?

Azari

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

1) I thought it was a discussion rather then an argument.
2) There are no winners or losers when having a discussion about a situation like this.
3) As you pointed out, its an opinion. Mine is as equally valid as anyone elses.
4) Maybe the person posting the thread dosent know that its legal?

I wasn't specifically talking about this thread.

Actually, in this thread there is some legitimacy to pointing out that it is 'one story against another' because that is what anyone considering action on the driver's behaviour would have to consider.

However, in many threads there is no such legitimacy - a poster starts arguing, realises they are losing, then tries to save face by saying (thank you, Capt. Obvious) that we don't even know if what the OP said is accurate.

powerful_Rogue

pixwix wrote: »

Get a car-cam, mate. They're not all that expensive and - my - how they do sort out the arguments, even low levels ones with pedestrians. Wouldn't be without mine.

Spot on. Ive got a Sony Actioncam which I have mounted to my motorbike. Also have the dash holder so can place it in the car.

Money well spent.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I can see both sides of this.

So the car in front of you stopped incorrectly at a set of lights that were not for your lane of traffic? I would also use the horn like the van driver did.

For the rest of your post, depends what you mean on tailgating? If he was tailgating as you say, as soon as you slowed down in the first instance his van would have gone up your @rse - So i dont think he was traveling as close to you as I think your depicting.

You class yourself as an experienced driver. In my opinion, people that do that are often the worst on the road.

The OP has not used the word tailgating.

People who say " in my opinion" would be advised to get their facts straight before before incorrectly picking someone's thread apart.

hollydays

Many years ago I was driving at dusk in an area I wasn't familiar with when a car behind me, with two males in, kept on pulling up to my bumper, then dropping back , then pulling very close to my bumper and dropping back. They followed me like this for some time , I didn't know where to stop for safety but I can honestly say I was absolutely petrified.
Yet if I posted this no doubt instead of acknowledging the intimidation I was receiving , I'd be told, it must have been my fault, it was my word against theirs?

Azari

hollydays wrote: »

Many years ago I was driving at dusk in an area I wasn't familiar with when a car behind me, with two males in, kept on pulling up to my bumper, then dropping back , then pulling very close to my bumper and dropping back. They followed me like this for some time , I didn't know where to stop for safety but I can honestly say I was absolutely petrified.
Yet if I posted this no doubt instead of acknowledging the intimidation I was receiving , I'd be told, it must have been my fault, it was my word against theirs?

Knowing some of the types that frequent this forum I've no doubt you are correct.

That's not so much because they don't believe you as that they are confused about the purpose of the forum.

You (and I) know that it is (in part) a vent forum and as such people should be able to vent about the behaviour of others.

Some forumites seem to think that the forum is some sort of ersatz court of law and thus feel the need to point out that what anyone says is not legally cast iron evidence. They are basically giving you legal advice that you did not ask for and do not want or need.

Always picture how daft the average person can be and then remember that half the population is even dafter than that.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

The OP has not used the word tailgating.

People who say " in my opinion" would be advised to get their facts straight before before incorrectly picking someone's thread apart.

Well tailing/tailgating - same thing.

I havent picked the thread apart, i gave my opinion. Yours obviously differs - thats the joy of an internet forum.

powerful_Rogue

Azari wrote: »

You (and I) know that it is (in part) a vent forum and as such people should be able to vent about the behaviour of others.

Some forumites seem to think that the forum is some sort of ersatz court of law and thus feel the need to point out that what anyone says is not legally cast iron evidence. They are basically giving you legal advice that you did not ask for and do not want or need.

So what your saying is that as long as you responce on the vent board is in agreement with the OP, then thats ok. Anyone that wishes to disagree shouldn't post?

Azari

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

So what your saying is that as long as you responce on the vent board is in agreement with the OP, then thats ok. Anyone that wishes to disagree shouldn't post?

No, that isn't even close to what I said.

Let me give you an example of what is and is not an appropriate response:

OP: We were driving at 60 mph and this car sat 200' behind us, tailgating us for nearly 20 miles.

Sensible response: (Even if incorrect)

A distance of 200' is not 'tailgating' at that speed.

Stupid response:

How do we know that he was only 200' away. You could be exaggerating.


Do you see the difference?

Do you understand it?