🚀 go-pugleaf

In <6ot2ge$acp@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> tomlinsc@ix.netcom.com (Chuck
Tomlinson) writes:

>Yes, of course.  But the pertinent issue is how the blame is 
>distributed for the CRASH.  It is NOT sufficient to say that only 
>the drivers with damaged vehicles are at fault.  

>Obviously, it is possible for a driver to share responsibility for a 
>crash without being involved in a collision.  For example, if a 
>driver overtakes at the wrong time on a two-lane road, he might 
>force oncoming traffic to choose between a head-on collision and 
>going off-road.  

Blame is not a zero-sum game.  You don't begin with 100% and apportion
it out.  (I know that liability lawsuits don't work like this, but then,
liability lawsuites are not about preventing accidents, they are about
figuring out who should pay whom.)

In the following scenario, tell me how you assign blame for the crash.

   Two motorists approach from opposite directions on a very narrow
   road.  Each figures the other will stop or move to the side.  When
   they are about 20 feet apart each figures the other will make a panic
   stop, and both keep going.  They crash head-on.
   other guy oughtt 

I would say that each motorist was 100% responsible and has nobody
to blame but himself.  If you were one of them, what would you do --
blame the other guy for being 50% at fault?

As another example, suppose you see a bus coming at 50 mph, and you
casually step out in front of it, figuring the driver will see you and
make a panic stop.  The driver reacts a bit too slowly and you become
roadkill.  So are we supposed to sympathisze with you, saying you were
only 50% at fault, and the driver gets the other 50% of the blame?
Personally I would stay you were 100% at fault for stepping out into the
path of the bus in the first place.

To reiterate, blame is not a zero-sum game.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@spams.r.us.com>
a2i communications, a quality ISP
   "Life is an obstacle course.  Get used to it."