🚀 go-pugleaf

On 17 Jul 1998 00:52:52 GMT, Rahul Dhesi <c.c.eiftj@06.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>In <slrn6qt43n.cqv.joelga@pebble.org> joelga@pebble.org (Joel Garry) writes:
>
>>>Is it really add odds with my .sig?  If somebody is complaining about
>>>how the accident was not his fault, simply point out to him that it
>>>doesn't matter who caused the accident -- what matters is that it was
>>>his own responsibility to prevent it, and he failed to prevent it.
>
>>But most people think it does matter, and will be upset with you for trying
>>to put the blame on them when it wasn't their fault.  And rightly upset.
>
>From a logical perspective you might be right.  But as I said
>in another posting, who was at fault in an accident is always going
>to be a subjective thing.  In many cases the person who was
>clearly at fault will still blame somebody else.

The subjective part can be minimized (and is done, albeit incorrectly
and unfairly, all the time by insurance companies).  The subjectiveness
is really a red herring.

>
>It's not an argument that anybody can win.  All you can do is have a
>certain state of mind, which I can briefly summarize as "It's my
>responsibility to make sure I'm not in an auto accident.  Mine, mine,
>mine.  Even if it's the other guy's fauls."
>
>If you can communicate this state of mind to somebody else, you will
>have improved his odds of preventing the next accident.

And if you just piss everybody off, you will have done the opposite.

>
>>>You mean not changing lanes to please tailgaters?  You have to balance
>>>the risk of repeated lane changing versus the risk of an angry tailgater
>>>behind you AND the lower risk to others ahead of you who don't have to
>>>deal with that tailgater.
>
>>The lower risk of others is orders away from the immediate situtation.  How
>>do you judge that he is not simply mad at you?
>
>I am focussing on the aggregrate safey of all motorists on the road, and
>I believe this safety is enhanced if tailgaters are kept where they are.
>Remember, each time you let one go buy he will go on to annoy the next
>motorist, then the next, then the next, for who knows how many miles.
>How do you evaluate the increased risk of 500 annoyed motorists versus
>one annoyed tailgater?  The tailgater is permanently in an annoyed state
>of mind anyway.

That's the point, most people just deal with it, but the rager can be set
off by any little thing.  By focusing on the rager rather than getting away
from him, you may be comparing an arithmetic response of the 500 versus an
exponential response of the rager.  This may cause a result the opposite of what
you intend - upping a situation where some people are upset at a tailgater
but do nothing about it to a situation where the tailgaiter is extremely
upset at you and who knows how he will take it out on you or the next normal
person?

>
>BTW, recently I was stopped at a red light the guy behind me honked
>repeatedly at me -- he wanted me to ignore the cross-traffic and turn
>right.  Some people are idiots, and you have to accept that and ignore
>them.

Well said.  Some people are idiots and you should get away from them.

>-- 
>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 and not necessarily those of Information Quest or 
Pebble In The Sky http://www.informationquest.com mailto:jgarry@nospameiq.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  "See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!