[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: semantics... Posted by TML [Email] (#2212) [Profile/Gallery] (more from TML) on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:56:57 In Reply to: semantics..., Snowmobile [Profile/Gallery] , Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:32:23 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
There are obviously cases where both drivers are at fault. But to say that there's always something you can do to avoid the collision (very debatable in itself), therefore you are somewhat at fault is totally unreasonable. It shouldn't be a matter of if there was anything you could do to avoid the collision, but is there anything you reasonably should have done? If you're stopped at a traffic light, with another car in front of you, and someone rear ends you, sure, you could have stayed home that day, and avoided the collision. Is that a reasonable expectation? This is EXACTLY the same rationale as assigning blame to a rape victim for looking too attractive. Since the rear ending is the example you cited, I'm curious how you think it could have been avoided by the stationary vehicle, and would you consider that action a reasonable expectation? If I'm walking past you on the street and punch you in the face, do you honestly think you are partly at fault for not noticing that I was preparing to punch you in the face, and for not running away? These may seem like silly anecdotes, but they are are perfectly analogous to situations.
posted by 198.84.247...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.