🚀 go-pugleaf

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>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.)

How do you get more than 100% responsibility for an incident?

>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?

Both motorists were equally at fault unless there was a right of way
sign that was disobeyed.  That equates to 50% either side.

>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.

Why would the bus driver bear any of the responsibility?  At least
you've limited yourself to 100% in this case and somehow came up with
the correct response.

>To reiterate, blame is not a zero-sum game.

Umm, okay.
-- 
Brandon

"Spooooooooooonnnnn!"