🚀 go-pugleaf

On 12 Nov 1998 10:10:48 GMT, Rahul Dhesi <c.c.eiftj@22.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>In <slrn74kqe7.fb.joel-garry@home.com> joel-garry@nospam.home.com (Joel
>Garry) writes:
>
>>I'm afraid I don't see the justification that more lane changes cause more
>>accidents to the extent that there should be a law against it.  I don't 
>>think many others do either.  Much better to simply be cognizant of your
>>surroundings and act accordingly.
>
>That more lane changes will cause more accidents is easy to verify.
>Each month make lange changes at a faster rate then you did the previous
>month.  You will notice your accident rate increase noticeably at some
>point.

This does not relate to the real world, where most people do not want to
try to have an accident when they change lanes.

>
>Having a 0.01% blood alcohol level does not mean that a motorist will
>have an accident.  In fact many careful drivers with this much alcohol
>might never have an accident.  Others with less alcohol, or no alcohol
>will have accidents.  It's impossible to measure an individual driver's
>blood alcohol and predict with any certainty whether or not he will have
>an accident.  The correlation between high blood alcohol and accidents
>is only statistical and indirect.  Yet DUI is illegal.  Do you think

.01% is not illegal.

>there should be no law against DUI?

This is not relevant, as the DUI laws are to prevent an easily demonstrable
dimunition in abilities (even if they are written poorly for such an outcome
in borderline situations).

>
>I would venture to guess that lane changes cause at least as many
>accidents as DUI does.

I wouldn't.  Like I said, everyone on the freeway changes lanes.  If everyone
were DUI, we'd have a serious problem.  Worse even than New Years Eve.

>
>If we make illegal only those behaviors that actually, predictably cause
>accidents, then we should make only actual collisions illegal.  "No
>vehicle shall collide with another."  How helpful do you think that
>would be?

I think that is a red herring, already covered by civil procedure.  Speed
limits originally were envisioned as a preventive measure _after_ collisions
had been seen to occur.  Later, they became more arbitrary, as courts ruled
they were infractions and laws were modified to take account of that.  Making
arbitrary laws trying to control behavior is futile if few want to be
controlled in that manner.  Trying to make a certain number of lane changes
illegal is pretty arbitrary.  The government has a hard enough time enforcing 
laws to protect people that may actually do some good.  Making a law that
most people would see as ridiculous is counterproductive.

>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@spams.r.us.com>
>a2i communications, a quality ISP
>    "Any idiot can avoid automobile accidents that are his own fault.  It
>     takes skill to avoid accidents that are the *other* person's fault."

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.