Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive
Don't confuse the catalyst with the cause. I doubt that "well, your honor, the reason I decided to pass in a dangerous no-passing zone and by so doing forced that oncoming driver to take the ditch and then roll down the hill, killing him and his entire family, was because THE IDIOT IN FRONT OF ME WAS DRIVING TOO SLOW" is going to be much of a defense. It was YOUR action that caused the accident. No one has the right to engage in illegal and possibly dangerous or even deadly behavior because he is angry.
That is not to say that driving too slow, especially in a lane designed for faster traffic, is not dangerous. It is. But it is dangerous only because of the volatility of human nature, especially in this day and age. We are far too quick to anger, and thus far more likely to do something rash, dangerous or illegal, than if we kept a cool head. Even slow drivers will eventually exit, or there will be a stretch of road where you can pass safely.
|
Don't confuse what would happen in a court with the
real reason for the accident. I'm not trying to justify the actions of an impatient driver, especially one that causes an accident. I supplied references to insurance company studies that show that slow drivers cause more accidents than speeders. This is in response to all who post the inane "slow down, slow down, what's the hurry, we're retired" mantra over and over again. My point is that it is not all black and white. Let's face it, there is a spectrum of driving skills with Richard Petty at one end and the 95 year old lady who can't see over the steering wheel at the other.
Another study was actually interesting in that it pointed out that speed related accidents are not so much the result of absolute speed or lack thereof, but the difference in speeds that's dangerous