🚀 go-pugleaf

c.c.eiftj@06.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
>
>Motorists who create obstructions get not part of the blame, but ALL of
>the blame, for CREATING THE OBSTRUCTION.  But if you then go and do
>something rash, like getting mad and crashing into somebody, you get ALL
>the blame for GETTING MAD.

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.  

Typically, the sensible choice is to avoid the head-on and suffer 
damage (and/or injury) by going off-road.  IOW, the sensible choice 
will leave the person who was FULLY RESPONSIBLE for the crash 
without so much as a scratch.
 
>You have no more justification for being mad at the other motorist
>than for being mad at the orange cone or at roadkill.  All of these
>are simply obstructions that you must safely get around.

As I said before, they are NOT the same.  Do you not understand the 
difference between an obstruction caused by an inanimate object and 
one caused by a bad driver?  IMHO, anger is FULLY justified towards 
bad drivers when the direct result of their bad driving is a 
reduction in other people's safety.  

I will NOT treat bad drivers simply as inanimate obstructions to be 
avoided.  Bad drivers place me at unnecessary and unwelcome risk, 
whether because they are too irresponsible to pay attention to what 
they're doing, or because they're too rude to give a damn about the 
people with whom they share the road.  

IOW, the human has CHOSEN to reduce my safety; the cone has not.  
The human deserves my anger; the cone does not.
-- 
Chuck Tomlinson