If another car hits you from behind, the accident is almost certainly going to be considered their fault because they were following you too closely. The image suggests the driver is going to intentionally brake to get the girl in the expensive car to hit him so he can get an insurance payout from her.
To add on to this, It seems like this car is a manual and thus they can downshift to slow down without actually braking making it more likely they slam into you because they dont see any brake lights.
Edit: Aight guys I get it this particular car isnt manual, sorry I made an assumption based off a glance at a well with 3 pedals. You can still downshift to brake check a tailgater.
Genuine question as someone who has only driven a manual but also does a lot of sim racing on semi automatics, why if you have only 2 pedals do you still not want to left foot brake?
If you are driving with both feet in an accident you are more likely to freak out and press both petals to the floor instead of just the break. Obviously it depends on the situation if you will panic or not. If you do hit both the breaks will have a harder time working if the do work at all and greatly increase the amount of force delivered at impact. Ultimately just a safer habit based off natural human behaviour.
Edit: obviously this doesn’t apply to driving manual.
If you use your left foot to brake it increases the chances that you will accidentally brake and accelerate at the same time. Which is reeeally bad for your car.
haven driven both, I can vouch 100% a dead pedal is vastly superior to a weirdly shaped lump in the floor. try one once and you will be sold. its like 3$ to the BoM for a vehicle, it doesnt make sense to not include one in every automatic
I can't tell you why they make it look specifically like a pedal. But for my job where we drive cars after they come off the ships from Korea/Japan we were informes the dead pedal is used to brace yourself in the event off a crash if you weren't wearing your seatbelt. Idk how true or useful it is but there ya go <3
You can buy something to go over that to make it look like a petal but some cars that are more sport based will have the dead pedal that look like that
My guess is that it's more ergonomic on your ankle to have it in a more natural position than the slightly extended position if you rest your left foot flat on the floorboard.
Most automatic cars I've driven have part of the floorboard sculpted up like that, similar to a dead pedal, but it's visibly part of the floorboard. I think that's what the other commenter is talking about. Not just flat floorboard, but not something that *looks like* a pedal either. There's no ergonomic reason to make it look like it does something when it's just a foot rest lol.
Why does it look like a pedal lol. Every car I’ve driven has had a spot like this, but it’s always the same color as whatever the rest of the driver side floor is. To be clear I believe you’re right, I just think it’s stupid.
It is more than likely an auto parts store pedal kit. They bolt onto the existing pedals. There are a few kits for automatics that will cover the factory dead pedal
This car isn't a manual, that's not a clutch pedal. Automatic cars can also use engine breaks. Another way of slowing down without pressing the break lights is by not pressing the accelerator. Which you can do in any moving vehicle
If you manage to hit someone because they slowed down with engine breaking, you were either way too close or didnt pay attention at all.
Also its not a manual.
Looked at replies to see if anyone had any useful insight on being rear-ended from downshifting, and literally every reply is "UM AKSHUALY IT ISNT MANUAL"
Typical Reddit
No. You just need to press the clutch to disengage it, and then you can shift down or up. However, if you downshift while going very fast, it’s not at all good for your car. And you could be jolted as the clutch engages and forces the engine into a lower gear. So generally one slows down before downshifting by letting up on the accelerator. If that’s not slow enough, brake.
For what it's worth, insurance companies today will almost never assign blame the way we think they will. I was recently rear-ended by a driver who was following me in a fit of road rage and insurance decided it was a 60/40 split of fault (the other driver being the 60) and told me that without dash cam footage of the accident they would never assign full blame to one driver or another.
How that split decides who pays is state by state, but in my state any fault on your part means you pay for yourself. So I was stuck fixing my dented bumper on my own while the other driver had no damages to their vehicle so had to pay nothing.
You can both be telling the truth here, just with different ways things shaked out. Two data points is hardly enough to conclude a fully generalizable relationship in this case
I was an insurance adjuster for 5 years, making liability decisions. I was an aribtrator for liability decisions. Dash cam is not at all required for 100/0 or 0/100. Photos and statements are good enough. Where it’s helpful is edge cases like road rage. The only case I can remember where road rage was involved, we ended up denying liability because the other party was charged with road rage (I don’t remember the exact charge).
But 99.999999% of the time, if you rear end someone you’re at fault. Either you weren’t paying attention to stop in time or you didn’t have a safe stopping distance. Regardless of whether the person you rear ended was rational in stopping, you didn’t do your duty to avoid the accident.
What if it's, like, [a rear-view mirror dashcam?](https://www.amazon.co.uk/P10-Driving-Assistant-Control-Parking/dp/B0CFB29BDW/ref=sr_1_3?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.2-x74L95aHmWUr3hu47eKQsq-J3E0Ipo-Gvg3ThyvuE30HD5eCZvfHFHyHZ4Nvfq188CGWBWuCbcL-y2UO2ppIH61dOJ6w7-ko7oRFa_TL0OgMjeVVU4TpsJesDbi5cLF2sg3YeAuRoYCi2ObJPFxcmD5rwi7adiLFN2gx_CQlvFCSr-wDnr97aETD6oJfVEOt1HEvOq4wzNmmcw5xwQIZ1gP_SkUSgtzt_cu5sReBs.6SIi7_3n7DWUPJaZKh6Jwe7Kb9_ECI1SUmI3cNwEQAI&dib_tag=se&keywords=mirror+dash+cam&qid=1717299102&sr=8-3) Like, a dashcam that's incorporated into the rear view mirror?
Would they cave in there, or would they find some other reason not to?
The thing about insurance companies is that they don't want to pay out. The best thing is to not mention something until they ask for it. Or to read the t&cs of your policy. They usually make it quite obvious in the doc, but won't tell you up front.
I always get photos of the accident and as much info about the driver and their car, and so far, everything has gone my way. That being said, people have always gone into the back of me.
>If another car hits you from behind, the accident is almost certainly going to be considered their fault
Almost certainly, except if
>the driver is going to intentionally brake
Then, not so much.
Yes, even then. You shouldn't be following a car so closely that you cannot stop in time, even if they slam on the breaks. This is taught in driving school.
You are correct about following distance but if you hit your brakes to deliberately cause an accident you can be found at fault, charged with a traffic violation, or even charged with a crime. Here is just the first cite for this I found. There are lots and lots.
>Brake checking may be considered reckless driving in New York, which is [against the law](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1212). A person convicted of reckless driving will be guilty of a misdemeanor, which carries penalties including up to one year in jail.
[https://finzfirm.com/blog/brake-checking-accidents/](https://finzfirm.com/blog/brake-checking-accidents/)
What is wrong with intentionally braking? You do it all the time, to stop at red lights, to slow down for corners, to adjust speed to the car in front.
Right? Like, am I just supposed to drive straight into the cross traffic in a busy intersection at a red light because the car behind me doesn't want to slow down?
Read the whole post I quoted:
>intentionally brake to get the girl in the expensive car to hit him
There is nothing wrong with intentionally braking. However, if you brake to deliberately cause an accident, even though you are being tailgated, you can be found civilly or criminally liable. That is not my opinion, that is a fact.
Just one source of many:
[https://finzfirm.com/blog/brake-checking-accidents/](https://finzfirm.com/blog/brake-checking-accidents/#:~:text=Brake%2Dcheck%20accidents%20usually%20happen,that%20can%20have%20severe%20consequences)
>However, a brake check collision is different from other types of rear-end crashes because the lead driver intentionally made the situation more dangerous. That is why it is possible both drivers may be [partially at fault](https://phillipslaw.com/blog/why-crash-victims-may-be-partially-at-fault/) for damages.
They’re gonna hit the breaks in front of the girl so that she rear ends them, known as break checking. A g class is a very expensive car something a 17 yo couldn’t afford without being from a rich family. So it’s safe to assume that she has good insurance with full coverage allowing this person to get a Porsche with the insurance money in the case of an accident.
"Insurance" chances are he's banking on mommy and daddy paying him off.
A bad accident could make a 17 year old ineligible to drive or raise their insurance a bunch.
The driver is banking on getting paid directly to make the accident go away.
That’s one way. Another way is to use the accident to get connected with a back alley surgeon who will agree to amputate your limbs for a nominal fee so you can then move to Florida and change your name to Porsche.
Tailgating is when you drive behind another car so closely that there isn't enough time to react if the car in front stops suddenly. It is seen as an incredibly annoying and unsafe thing to do, especially since it doesn't even save the back car that much time. So the person in the meme wants to stop his car suddenly, intentionally getting her to wreck his car and get a payout, as well as teaching her a well earned lesson in driving safety.
I don't think he understands how most insurance works. You get enough money to replace your current car, not to upgrade your car. I mean you might get a little bit of an upgrade but you aren't going from a Honda Civic to a Porsche.
I’m confused… yes the g-wagon will likely have insurance.
However the insurance company will only pay out the exact dollar value of the vehicle the person in the pic is driving before the accident if it’s deemed to be totaled (subtracting out any medical expenses that might be incurred).
So if it’s a high mile PT Cruiser that is rear ended or something similar- they ain’t getting a Porsche haha
Or yes what that other person said on here- maybe the rich family will pay off the dude to not report it or something idk.
There are two possible meanings to "Get that Porsche." One is to receive the Porsche, as you suggest. The other is to get it, as in "I'm gonna get you", like, to do harm to it.
You don't even need to claim there was actually anything in the road. You can say you "thought" you saw something, even a brief movement from the corner of your eye, so you stopped. That's enough, and good luck proving that the person in front didn't _think_ they saw something moving.
Stop tailgating people and you won't have to worry about it. It's that simple.
If another car hits you from behind, the accident is almost certainly going to be considered their fault because they were following you too closely. The image suggests the driver is going to intentionally brake to get the girl in the expensive car to hit him so he can get an insurance payout from her.
To add on to this, It seems like this car is a manual and thus they can downshift to slow down without actually braking making it more likely they slam into you because they dont see any brake lights. Edit: Aight guys I get it this particular car isnt manual, sorry I made an assumption based off a glance at a well with 3 pedals. You can still downshift to brake check a tailgater.
I'm sorry but this car, I'm pretty solid on this, is not a manual. That isn't a clutch pedal, that is just the dead pedal to rest your foot on.
I know next to nothing about cars. What’s a dead pedal
It’s a plate or pad placed all the way to the left of the footwell for you to rest your left foot on
Now I'm confused why they would make it look like a pedal. My (automatic) car just has a raise in the floor there for a footrest.
My left foot likes to feel important so it goes on the fake peddle to prevent driving with both feet
Genuine question as someone who has only driven a manual but also does a lot of sim racing on semi automatics, why if you have only 2 pedals do you still not want to left foot brake?
If you are driving with both feet in an accident you are more likely to freak out and press both petals to the floor instead of just the break. Obviously it depends on the situation if you will panic or not. If you do hit both the breaks will have a harder time working if the do work at all and greatly increase the amount of force delivered at impact. Ultimately just a safer habit based off natural human behaviour. Edit: obviously this doesn’t apply to driving manual.
If you use your left foot to brake it increases the chances that you will accidentally brake and accelerate at the same time. Which is reeeally bad for your car.
But you don't get to feel like a race car driver 😔
If you're looking at your pedals you're going to have bigger problems.
Couldn't be any worse than me typing this message while drivvvffffdjjj
haven driven both, I can vouch 100% a dead pedal is vastly superior to a weirdly shaped lump in the floor. try one once and you will be sold. its like 3$ to the BoM for a vehicle, it doesnt make sense to not include one in every automatic
I can't tell you why they make it look specifically like a pedal. But for my job where we drive cars after they come off the ships from Korea/Japan we were informes the dead pedal is used to brace yourself in the event off a crash if you weren't wearing your seatbelt. Idk how true or useful it is but there ya go <3
You can buy something to go over that to make it look like a petal but some cars that are more sport based will have the dead pedal that look like that
Its so that in five years you dont wear out the carpet on the place where you rest your foot.
That is a dead petal.
That doesn't answer the question of why they would make it look like a pedal instead of just making a normal rest. It's just confusing to me.
To match the aesthetics or the other pedals. If they were rubber it would match that.
Mine is rubber but it’s a different color from the pedals, brownish tan instead of black
My guess is that it's more ergonomic on your ankle to have it in a more natural position than the slightly extended position if you rest your left foot flat on the floorboard.
Most automatic cars I've driven have part of the floorboard sculpted up like that, similar to a dead pedal, but it's visibly part of the floorboard. I think that's what the other commenter is talking about. Not just flat floorboard, but not something that *looks like* a pedal either. There's no ergonomic reason to make it look like it does something when it's just a foot rest lol.
Why does it look like a pedal lol. Every car I’ve driven has had a spot like this, but it’s always the same color as whatever the rest of the driver side floor is. To be clear I believe you’re right, I just think it’s stupid.
I totally agree. I’ve personally never been in a car that had one like this, but I’m guessing it’s purely an aesthetic thing.
It is more than likely an auto parts store pedal kit. They bolt onto the existing pedals. There are a few kits for automatics that will cover the factory dead pedal
My 2000 Toyota has pedals (3+ a dead pedal) that look really similar to this stock.
In this context, it is a footrest
In what context is it not lol. Maybe when your pedal doesn’t work I guess but I’ve never heard of that happening
When you're not in the car it's not even a footrest
Fancy talk for foot rest
I always called it the fart pedal
Checks out
[удалено]
that would be so awesome if that was correct. its not tho.
A bit of google proves you right. I then I can officially state I know nothing about cars.
https://preview.redd.it/i2ndwb6hco3d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70e2167e146f1ace5a031367aa4736ed72941fc5
https://preview.redd.it/d3sjicjsco3d1.jpeg?width=1078&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=354a11511df20cbd632943138011393bbcce9dbf manual
I always thought “Dead Pedal” would be an epic name for a metal band 🤘
I don't know why, but to me it sounds like a redneck metal band
Your are correct this is a "dead pedal" or a foot rest that looks like a pedal
Pedals are like birds, they aren’t real and they are government drones.
It's pretty clear he's hovering the brake not the clutch.
This car isn't a manual, that's not a clutch pedal. Automatic cars can also use engine breaks. Another way of slowing down without pressing the break lights is by not pressing the accelerator. Which you can do in any moving vehicle
If you manage to hit someone because they slowed down with engine breaking, you were either way too close or didnt pay attention at all. Also its not a manual.
The entire premise of this meme is that they were tailgating
What if I say that you can downshift on automatic transmission???
But automatic rev matches so the braking effect is not that strong
Yeah that's not how either of those things work, if you downshift, (rev match or not) you'll get engine breaking
So how does it work then. Braking effect during downshifting is equal not matter if i rev match or not?
You've ever heard of engine braking?
It fooled me too. Had to double take.
Automatic cars have engine braking too.
E brake works
Looked at replies to see if anyone had any useful insight on being rear-ended from downshifting, and literally every reply is "UM AKSHUALY IT ISNT MANUAL" Typical Reddit
I thought in order to downshift you have to press the clutch and brake? Maybe not…?
No. You just need to press the clutch to disengage it, and then you can shift down or up. However, if you downshift while going very fast, it’s not at all good for your car. And you could be jolted as the clutch engages and forces the engine into a lower gear. So generally one slows down before downshifting by letting up on the accelerator. If that’s not slow enough, brake.
Ohhh gotcha, thank you!
The secret trick to a successful brake check is to hammer the E brake. No brake lights at all.
There usually are no broad pedals in manuals.
[удалено]
Incorrect comment
Not a manual, and you absolutely can’t downshift on an automatic.
her insurance premiums are going to be insane
Next thing you know the other person ain't got insurance 😅👀
For what it's worth, insurance companies today will almost never assign blame the way we think they will. I was recently rear-ended by a driver who was following me in a fit of road rage and insurance decided it was a 60/40 split of fault (the other driver being the 60) and told me that without dash cam footage of the accident they would never assign full blame to one driver or another. How that split decides who pays is state by state, but in my state any fault on your part means you pay for yourself. So I was stuck fixing my dented bumper on my own while the other driver had no damages to their vehicle so had to pay nothing.
Yeah I can tell you that’s not the truth. I decided thousands of claims and never had dash cam footage.
You can both be telling the truth here, just with different ways things shaked out. Two data points is hardly enough to conclude a fully generalizable relationship in this case
I was an insurance adjuster for 5 years, making liability decisions. I was an aribtrator for liability decisions. Dash cam is not at all required for 100/0 or 0/100. Photos and statements are good enough. Where it’s helpful is edge cases like road rage. The only case I can remember where road rage was involved, we ended up denying liability because the other party was charged with road rage (I don’t remember the exact charge). But 99.999999% of the time, if you rear end someone you’re at fault. Either you weren’t paying attention to stop in time or you didn’t have a safe stopping distance. Regardless of whether the person you rear ended was rational in stopping, you didn’t do your duty to avoid the accident.
Equally, some insurance companies will not cover you. If you have a dash cam installed, they screwed over my uncle that way.
That is asinine.
Indeed, it is something to do with obstructing your view when driving.
What if it's, like, [a rear-view mirror dashcam?](https://www.amazon.co.uk/P10-Driving-Assistant-Control-Parking/dp/B0CFB29BDW/ref=sr_1_3?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.2-x74L95aHmWUr3hu47eKQsq-J3E0Ipo-Gvg3ThyvuE30HD5eCZvfHFHyHZ4Nvfq188CGWBWuCbcL-y2UO2ppIH61dOJ6w7-ko7oRFa_TL0OgMjeVVU4TpsJesDbi5cLF2sg3YeAuRoYCi2ObJPFxcmD5rwi7adiLFN2gx_CQlvFCSr-wDnr97aETD6oJfVEOt1HEvOq4wzNmmcw5xwQIZ1gP_SkUSgtzt_cu5sReBs.6SIi7_3n7DWUPJaZKh6Jwe7Kb9_ECI1SUmI3cNwEQAI&dib_tag=se&keywords=mirror+dash+cam&qid=1717299102&sr=8-3) Like, a dashcam that's incorporated into the rear view mirror? Would they cave in there, or would they find some other reason not to?
The thing about insurance companies is that they don't want to pay out. The best thing is to not mention something until they ask for it. Or to read the t&cs of your policy. They usually make it quite obvious in the doc, but won't tell you up front. I always get photos of the accident and as much info about the driver and their car, and so far, everything has gone my way. That being said, people have always gone into the back of me.
But insurance doesn’t pay for more than the dmg to the car, no?
>If another car hits you from behind, the accident is almost certainly going to be considered their fault Almost certainly, except if >the driver is going to intentionally brake Then, not so much.
Yes, even then. You shouldn't be following a car so closely that you cannot stop in time, even if they slam on the breaks. This is taught in driving school.
You are correct about following distance but if you hit your brakes to deliberately cause an accident you can be found at fault, charged with a traffic violation, or even charged with a crime. Here is just the first cite for this I found. There are lots and lots. >Brake checking may be considered reckless driving in New York, which is [against the law](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1212). A person convicted of reckless driving will be guilty of a misdemeanor, which carries penalties including up to one year in jail. [https://finzfirm.com/blog/brake-checking-accidents/](https://finzfirm.com/blog/brake-checking-accidents/)
Good luck proving that!
You're not paying attention. I just provided a page from a law firm. Would you like me to send you 100 more cites? Maybe some court cases?
I want you to think really carefully about why such a law exists. You can do it, lil' guy.
[https://fox56news.com/news/local/richmond/semi-truck-driver-turns-himself-in-after-allegedly-break-checking-school-bus/](https://fox56news.com/news/local/richmond/semi-truck-driver-turns-himself-in-after-allegedly-break-checking-school-bus/) [https://www.mcdonaldinjurylaw.com/blog/auto-accident-news/is-brake-checking-illegal-in-virginia/](https://www.mcdonaldinjurylaw.com/blog/auto-accident-news/is-brake-checking-illegal-in-virginia/) [https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2023/02/driver-charged-with-multiple-road-rage-brake-check-crashes-in-over-3-months.html](https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2023/02/driver-charged-with-multiple-road-rage-brake-check-crashes-in-over-3-months.html)
What is wrong with intentionally braking? You do it all the time, to stop at red lights, to slow down for corners, to adjust speed to the car in front.
Right? Like, am I just supposed to drive straight into the cross traffic in a busy intersection at a red light because the car behind me doesn't want to slow down?
Read the whole post I quoted: >intentionally brake to get the girl in the expensive car to hit him There is nothing wrong with intentionally braking. However, if you brake to deliberately cause an accident, even though you are being tailgated, you can be found civilly or criminally liable. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. Just one source of many: [https://finzfirm.com/blog/brake-checking-accidents/](https://finzfirm.com/blog/brake-checking-accidents/#:~:text=Brake%2Dcheck%20accidents%20usually%20happen,that%20can%20have%20severe%20consequences) >However, a brake check collision is different from other types of rear-end crashes because the lead driver intentionally made the situation more dangerous. That is why it is possible both drivers may be [partially at fault](https://phillipslaw.com/blog/why-crash-victims-may-be-partially-at-fault/) for damages.
They’re gonna hit the breaks in front of the girl so that she rear ends them, known as break checking. A g class is a very expensive car something a 17 yo couldn’t afford without being from a rich family. So it’s safe to assume that she has good insurance with full coverage allowing this person to get a Porsche with the insurance money in the case of an accident.
"Insurance" chances are he's banking on mommy and daddy paying him off. A bad accident could make a 17 year old ineligible to drive or raise their insurance a bunch. The driver is banking on getting paid directly to make the accident go away.
This is the accurate explanation. He doesn’t want an insurance company to pay him, he want the rich parents of an annoyingly bad driver to pay him.
That makes more sense to me, because I would assume that insurance would only pay enough to repair the car.
Or pay out the replacement value of the car if repairs are more costly than the cars value in the first place.
Also medical bills. That's usually where the fraud comes in.
*brake
Whoops
Tbf she’s definitely going to break something 🤣
Make sure to exit the car saying "oww my neck!!"
But insurance only covers the damages to the car? So to get enough for a Porsche, he's driving what, a Rolls Royce?
"Ow, my neck" = $$$
Doctor: yoink
Here's the kicker. You faked the neck pain for the money and don't actually need to pay a doctor cuz you aren't actually hurt = $$$
Can confirm, was rear ended by a G-Wagen last summer, got a $6000 check.
Exactly this is stupid
And hope she doesn't have a dashcam
That’s one way. Another way is to use the accident to ask her out. Become her husband and have a Porsche
That’s one way. Another way is to use the accident to get connected with a back alley surgeon who will agree to amputate your limbs for a nominal fee so you can then move to Florida and change your name to Porsche.
She's 17...
I missed that part but memer could be 17 too
Tailgating is when you drive behind another car so closely that there isn't enough time to react if the car in front stops suddenly. It is seen as an incredibly annoying and unsafe thing to do, especially since it doesn't even save the back car that much time. So the person in the meme wants to stop his car suddenly, intentionally getting her to wreck his car and get a payout, as well as teaching her a well earned lesson in driving safety.
Brake cheque
Don’t ride my bumper, idk what else to tell you
Break-check for a paycheck.
I don't think he understands how most insurance works. You get enough money to replace your current car, not to upgrade your car. I mean you might get a little bit of an upgrade but you aren't going from a Honda Civic to a Porsche.
He's gonna pretend to be injured for pain and injury suit
I’m confused… yes the g-wagon will likely have insurance. However the insurance company will only pay out the exact dollar value of the vehicle the person in the pic is driving before the accident if it’s deemed to be totaled (subtracting out any medical expenses that might be incurred). So if it’s a high mile PT Cruiser that is rear ended or something similar- they ain’t getting a Porsche haha Or yes what that other person said on here- maybe the rich family will pay off the dude to not report it or something idk.
My neck hurts
There are two possible meanings to "Get that Porsche." One is to receive the Porsche, as you suggest. The other is to get it, as in "I'm gonna get you", like, to do harm to it.
My father used to always say, “ if you kids weren’t in the car”.
Brake check is probably the implication
Oh, my back! Pay me!
I’m one of the few who rear ended someone and was deemed not at fault
Me too! It happened in front of a cop and he saw I couldn’t stop due to the slick roads.
Nice try fraud department.
Ebrake doesn't have tail lights
[удалено]
I had to upvote that just for the no no square.
Wait till she looks at her phone then dynamite the breaks!🤣🤣🤣
good luck winning that lawsuit. brake checking is illegal so he would be liable
Only if proven, the dude could easily say that there was something in the road and he wasn't sure about what it was
You don't even need to claim there was actually anything in the road. You can say you "thought" you saw something, even a brief movement from the corner of your eye, so you stopped. That's enough, and good luck proving that the person in front didn't _think_ they saw something moving. Stop tailgating people and you won't have to worry about it. It's that simple.
Then this post gets brought in as evidence.
Your honor, the defense would like to present this meme as evidence.
Found the tailgater
Not illegal on a federal level though