I remember getting told off my in my driving test for engine breaking. The examiner criticised / questioned me about going down through the gears when coming to a stop. I told him that I felt it best to match the gears to my speed, should I need to pull away again, and that the engine breaking would assist in bringing me to a stop.
At that point he went off on a rant about how brakes stop all four wheels, while engine breaking only affects two and is therefore 'bad' for the car. He suggested that I should always skip gears when changing down. He then declared that my answer demonstrated a lack of understanding about how cars work, and said he was going to put it down on my form as a 'Major observation fault'. He said there wasn't a specific category for the issue I had demonstrated, but the observation fault was the closest he could come to. So, at the end of the test, I had four minors and one major, which he clearly made up. And because of that, I failed.
That was my first driving test, some 13 years ago. You can see it still traumatises me now! I passed the second time around a couple of months later, but I'll never forget the a-hole that failed me, or the lame-ass reason why.
Back to the plot... If your objective is to get someone to run into the back of you by slowing without showing your brake lights, wouldn't it be far easier to use the handbrake?!