🚀 go-pugleaf

In <6or2tp$bl5@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> tomlinsc@ix.netcom.com (Chuck
Tomlinson) writes:

>>I
>>prefer to believe that all these descriptions are biased descriptions,
>>and that the majority of people posting here have CONVINCED their own
>>selves that they were in accidents they could not have prevented.

>I'm not nearly as quick to assume that the accounts posted here were 
>of preventable crashes.  For example, if you can explain to me how ...

So far we have a discussion of opinions.  No harm in that.  Next:

>BTW, I find it amusing that some self-styled "safe drivers" are more 
>concerned about the matter of potential fault than with avoiding a 
>dangerous situation that could lead to a crash (witness the stance 
>of left-lane bandits, for example).  Pretty ridiculous, IMHO.

"Left-lane bandits" is a pretty prejudiced label.  Perhaps the label
does apply to some.  But there are also motorists who simply stay with
the traffic flow and don't make repeated lane changes.  The fact that
you chose to use the phrase "left-lane bandits" suggests that you are
not as objective in your driving as you would like readers to believe.
Isn't it possible that you are similarly subjective in how you describe
accidents?

Furthermore, I don't see how even a confirmed "left-lane bandit" can
actually cause an accident.  These bandits tend to go at a steady speed,
making no lane changes and doing no sudden braking or acceleration.  I
don't see how they would cause an accident.  Were you thinking of
somebody who was tailgating the alleged bandit causing an accident?  And
then were you thinking of blaming the alleged bandit for the accident?
If so, this would be an example of your bias, which would affect how you
describe accidents.
-- 
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."