Background
Our client, A, was booked on suspicion of aggravated intimidation, on the allegation that A had become angry when a bus behind sounded its horn during a lane change and had deliberately braked hard again and again to threaten the bus driver — "road rage." The charge was that A had used a motor vehicle as a "dangerous object" to intimidate, an offense that can attract heavy punishment.
What Was at Stake
A said, "I had no intention whatsoever of threatening anyone; I had no choice but to slow down because of what was ahead," while the other party insisted that "the hard braking was deliberate and repeated." Because it all unfolded in an instant on the road, the two accounts diverged, and it was not easy to determine objectively whether there had truly been an intent to threaten.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun closely analyzed the dashcam footage that captured the incident as it happened. It showed, in concrete terms, ▲ that at each point where A slowed there was a reason to do so — another vehicle cutting in from the adjacent lane, or braking ahead; ▲ that the location was a busy intersection with heavy lane-changing traffic where slowing was necessary; and ▲ that both vehicles were moving slowly at the time, which made it difficult to characterize the conduct as a threat. In short, the objective evidence of the footage showed that A's braking reflected ordinary driving conditions, not "retaliation."
The prosecution concluded that A's conduct could not be characterized as a threat and that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charge, and issued a disposition of non-indictment (insufficient evidence). Road rage disputes unfold in seconds, and it is easy to be wrongly identified as the aggressor — but a calm analysis of the objective record of what actually happened can bring out the truth. Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.