Talk:Tailgating

message: This page needs to be broken up into an article about sports tailgating, tailgating (driving), tailgating (inside information), etc... there shouldn't be multiple articles on the same page.
AStudent 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything but the part about tailgate parties seems more appropriate for Wiktionary than for Wikipedia. The driving practice might be encyclopedic if there were, say, statistics on car accidents involving tailgating, for instance. Otherwise, it’s nothing more than a wordy definition. The finance-related sense of the word might deserve a mention in the front running article, but the sense of sneaking into a restricted area doesn’t belong here at all. --Rob Kennedy 02:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems to make sense to split. Tailgate party and Tailgating (driving) are obviously different topics and don't really have anything in common. The others uses section looks more like Wiktionary material. Being in the UK then the most common use by far of tailgating would be the driving so I guess most UK users would expect the Tailgating article to refer to driving rather than party. For this reason it might be better to make Tailgating itself a disambiguation article - it would then refer to the two main uses and could list the other uses as well. --MarkS (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: Makes sense to me.  And I'm ready to expand the tailgating article to include, perhaps, the following subsections:
College tailgating...
NFL tailgating...
Tailgating resources...
History of tailgating...
Famous tailgate parties...
It seems to me that an advise what not to do like pressing break or hazard lights may cause collision, need to be discussed more and made clear. 
At first I got impression that the victim to whom the advise is directed is shown in bad light, as the one who cause the danger. It should be made clear that tailgater or the one closely behind you is always (I mean always) wrong. Second issue is you the safe driver do right if you want to avoid tailgating and giving signal to driver behind you may or may not be effective. Slowing down very slowly, or even tapping break pedal may or may not be well understood by tailgater. Perhaps if the author of this advise reword the advise that tailgater who is already in wrong, who demonstrate poor understanding of safe and unsafe behavior is likely not understand the message of break lights and may cause crash or tense situation. My idea is that the tailgater is likely to cause the problem not the victim. So when victim is aware and be cautious. I do not want to send the message to innocent driver that it will be his fault, but that tailgater may not react in normal or expected way.
Also as road safety campaigner I've noticed that it would be good to make it clear that it can be improved.
For instance here in Adelaide, the building numbering and street names are very and very poor. It is hard or impossible to find the place at known address. This is very justifiable reason for slow driving. Authorities can but refuse to rectify this problem. But it is not an excuse to tailgate.
Very important is the fact that very old and incapable drivers are legally allowed to drive. On one hand they not suppose to keep license and on the other it is not an excuse to tailgate.
Third and perhaps the most important problem is that in SA, drivers do not have adequate training, so they have no ability to drive safely and smoothly. Often tailgaters and speeding drivers arrive to destination behind the good driver who never speed nor tailgate. This is attributed to undertraining.
In general,  the solution is not in turning against one another in anger and oftent creating danger, but in demanding government to correct the problems. 202.6.136.35 (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do it... 

message: I have problem to accept whole article in current form and shape. But the section "Causes" seems to be in need to change. Existing 3 causes do not appeal to me as causes. They are more like results or form or practice.
- unintentional because not perceived as risk. Q. Do drivers tailgate who know why or because they do it and are not aware just because they are not trained adequately? I do observe driving and analyze for years and know it is due to absolutely very poor (almost no) driver training. I propose to reinstate my proposal poor driver training as a main cause of tailgating.
- violent and deliberate road rage. Q. Is it a sole cause of tailgating or a result of police not prosecuting effectively such dangerous and deliberate behavior? Again, I propose to reinstate my earlier edition stating that poor policing along with extremely poor driver training are two major causes of tailgating. (in my assessment, if the proper driver training and proper policing was introduced, the tailgating would drop by perhaps more than 80%
Here I suggest to look at the very first real life research on tailgating. The real figures (facts) are overwhelming. Tailgating is a norm and in figures it is depending on a road and time of the day, it's prevalence is from about 55% to close to a 100%. I fail to conclude that such dangerous behavior is due to aggressiveness of drivers matching the given percentages. Yes, people are mainly not aware rather than doing it deliberately but it is a result the two ; poor training and no policing.
- I also have problem to accept that sleep-streaming is a cause of tailgating as epidemic or dangerous behavior. Cyclists on major events do it but my experience in this field does not indicate that this is an issue at all. I may be very rare and also relate to poor driver training. I am not sure if this as a cause should remain or be removed. People do not tailgate to save fuel, they tailgate as they want to drive faster or simply do not think a result of poor education.
I really suggest to read the proposed research (someone for no reason turned it down) and see the analysis. Or to produce own research to prove that this original is correct. Mmistrz (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes

message: If this is solely refering to unpowered cycling, that should be split off into it's own article as well. Jon 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cycling Tailgating

message: The tone of the introduction suggests that most tailgating is caused by lead vehicles moving unreasonably slow. It also suggests that it is the legal responsibility of the lead vehicle to pull over when being tailgated. In my experience, most tailgating is caused by mindless, agressive driving, occuring well in excess of the speed limit, and is usually completely unproductive (such as tailgating when stuck behind dozens of vehicles).
The introduction appears to have been written by an agressive driver, with another writer trying to balance his words. It is like reading something written by someone with multiple personality dissorder. I think the indroduction should be re-written with more balance in mind. --70.81.251.32 23:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Such expressions of impatience may be conscious, subconscious, and/or dangerous.
An earlier version of this sentence used unconscious rather than subconscious.  It seems to me that the original choice was better.  According to Webster, subconscious means, "existing in the mind but not immediately available to consciousness."  So the motivation for an expression of impatience could be subconscious, but it's hard to see how the expression itself could be.  Unconscious, in this context, means, "free from self-awareness."  That seems to more closely describe what I think the sentence means.  I think we should switch back to unconscious.
There's also a parallelism problem with the sentence.  Clearly, the "expressions of impatience" can't be "conscious, unconscious, and dangerous," since that implies that they're simultaneously conscious and unconscious.  But we probably also don't mean to say that they are, "conscious, unconscious, or dangerous," since that implies that they're dangerous only when neither conscious nor unconscious.  
So, I propose that the sentence be re-written as:  "Such expressions of impatience may be conscious or unconscious, and also dangerous."
--Tedd (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that 196.209.47.152 has reverted "unconscious" to "subconscious."  I've provided an argument in favour of "unconscious."  Could the person at 196.209.47.152, or someone else, please provide an argument in favour of "subconscious?" --Tedd (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No counter-argument provided for a month, so I have reverted "subconscious" to "unconscious."  I've also implemented my suggested sentence restructuring from above.--Tedd (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconscious Versus Subconscious 

message: The Chicago manual of style recommends that, "...he or she is preferable to he/she, s/he, (s)he, and the like."  I will change the "s/he" to "she or he." --Tedd (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After trying "she or he" I decided that it didn't read as well as "he or she."  Just customary usage, I guess.  So I went with "he or she." --Tedd (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Neutrality 

message: Should some mention be made of people unintentionally tailgating due to a high volume of traffic on a road? --Dandelions (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unintentional due to traffic? 

message: I propose to add simple issue that tailgating always produce more problems than solves. Causing crash while tailgating, can be argued that you have chosen to crash. You have created dangerous situation. It was not an accident because the outcome was predictable therefore it was planned crash.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmistrz (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tailgating consequences 

message: I propose to add simple issue that tailgating always produce more problems than solves. Causing crash while tailgating, can be argued that you have chosen to crash. You have created dangerous situation. It was not an accident because the outcome was predictable therefore it was planned crash.Mmistrz (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tailgating consequences 

message: Upon reading the article it is basically good, satisfy my in large part though I have not really took much time to digest every sentence.
What is lacking is simple statement that usually tailgating involves speeding as well, not just a mere following too close. (unless is there and I missed).
Second thing worth to include is the prevailance of tailgating. I've done my private research on the subject http://southaustraliaroadsafety.blogspot.com/ and know. In brief it is from 55% to near 100% (still have not managed to publish it). Yes it is important that it become a common knowledge that tailgating is not rare event that an odd driver does it, most of us do.
Third thing worth to mention is simple comparison of tailgating to speeding. Well known slogan "speed kills" is simply not true (it is justification of revenue raising). Speeding is one of many factors of danger. Tailgating is however already multiple factor behaviour including speeding. So tailgating is much more dangerous than plain speeding early morning no cars on the road, perfect visibility etc.
Fourth idea worth to include is trauma caused by tailgating. First, tailgator is on high adrenaline or tense. This behaviour is passed on tailgated and everyone around just by the very fact of tailgating. Tailgating also introduce lots of smaller and bigger local dangerous events. In essence, everyone around and including tailgator are stressed. Tailgator typically is focussed just on stop lights of it's victim and one is unable (fixed focus and stress) to observe general traffic situation. One misses number of opportunities to change lane and move slightly faster than one in front. In effect often tailgator is speeding, creating lots of danger and drama and arrive to the destination later than alternative driver which never tailgate nor speed.
Perhaps it is worth to mention that some of the reasons of slower driving are: poor driver training, old age, very poor street and building numbering and other. None give an excuse to tailgate.
Itis also important to mention that rule is right but authorities should also apply tolerance. My proposition is half the prescribed distance (1s), and even pointed to authorities that they neglect not half but 1/10th of the prescribed distance. Having clear rules and also reasonable tolerance, society should accept it.
It is worth to read my blog as shown above and perhaps include in reference. The point is that government is not necessarily very much interested in improving safety. Because I am the author, it is prudent if someone else use my work and quote. Or I can if asked.
Some of my friends believe that tailgating is necessary otherwise stream of cars in peek would be too long in Metro area. It's not true and there are solutions to it.
Most drivers react natually to slowing down when they come closer to me. No heavy breaking but proportional to distance. They intuitively increase the distance and happily follow me and not change lane if vacant (may realise that my speed is close to limit when they keep distance). They seem to like it. Very few get angry.
Mmistrz (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  road safety campaigner's view 

message: The article explains the two second rule as, basically, keeping the distance between the front of your vehicle, and the rear of the one you're following, to at least the distance that you travel in 2 seconds. This makes perfect sense. However, it then goes on to say that this equates to one vehicle length for each 5mph / 8kmph of speed. This latter statement is complete nonsense. The reason I say this is because the distance travelled in 2 seconds is dependent only on speed and has nothing whatsoever to do with vehicle length. For example, if you are driving at 60mph, then that equates to 88 feet/second, so in 2 seconds you travel 176 feet, and that is true irrespective of whether you are driving a short car or a long lorry. The bit about vehicle lengths should therefore be deleted. Snookerrobot (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Vehicle Lengths as a Guide 

message: "Tailgating ... is done ... very often by people who consider themselves safe drivers and generally obey the other rules of the road" - is there any study which shows that?  And how would you know (and why should we care) what the tailgaters think of themselves? Personally, I have met many drivers who disregard many rules of the road and yet consider themselves safe drivers (because they know better than the law).  And as previously mentioned on this talk page, tailgaters are frequently speeders.
Relevant Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research.
AmirOnWiki (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makes no sense to me 

message: Doesn't the sentence "Tailgating causes most rear-end crashes in South Australia" sort of imply that tailgating also occurs mainly in Australia? I think that this sentence should be edited to make it neutral. Moaz786 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most rear-end crashes in Australia? 

message: If all drivers would slow down to a speed which would make sure they could stop before hitting the front car when that max. decelerates nobody would ever arrive anywhere. At least not in heavily populated areas. If you try to widen the gap it is immedially filled by somebody else. I just write that because there are some comments here which singularily blame the tailgating driver. The ruling makes it easy for law inforcement to define the guilty party, but it's not realistic to expect that everybody can keep as much distance as would be required in theory. I wonder if there's a country where the ruling is different in such a way that it better balances the requirements with reality. JB --92.195.75.144 (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tailgating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061002062935/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/2dots2safety/faq.htm to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/2dots2safety/faq.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tailgating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110041001/http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers-4.html to http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers-4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109232407/http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers-2.html to http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers-2.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120805192158/http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/rss/content/safer_people/road_users/tailgating_campaign.htm to http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/rss/content/safer_people/road_users/tailgating_campaign.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified