In the wrong but not in the wrong

[fast]

I'm not sure how to classify a particular wrongful behavior to which perhaps only a rare few would instinctively view the wrong-doer as being at least partially responsible for the consequences of the wrong-doers actions--I guess. It can get a little convoluted, as I direct and redirect blame, fault, and responsibility, so let me give an example.

I'm going to give three scenarios and compare and contrast them before I delve into the specifics. I'm doing this to keep the discussion grounded.

Scenario 1) you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead. There are no oncoming cars and within a reasonable distance before the object, you slowly steer towards the other lane. There is a car following you at a safe distance behind. As you progress through your maneuver, the driver behind you begins to realize that you're not just drifting into the other lane but rather avoiding an upcoming object--that could perhaps cause serious damage if hit. The driver follows your route and both vehicles safely go around the object. Let's say the speed is 55 MPH.

Scenario 2) just as in the first scenario, you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead. Also, there are no oncoming cars. A major difference in this scenario is that the driver behind you is obnoxious. He has been driving erratically. Not drunk. Just clearly in a hurry. He gets really close to you. You know the type--look in the rear view mirror and you're like dang, I can't even see their headlights kind. It's daylight. Now, here is a similarity that you should make particular note of: within a reasonable distance before the object, you slowly steer towards the other lane. That's important.

Scenario 3) you're pissed. You are upset with this driver behind you. You are a very skilled driver and decide to do something that you believe might result in making sure he gets what he deserves. Let's look at some similarities and differences. Just as it was in the first two scenarios, you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead ... and there are no oncoming cars. The first scenario had a good safe driver behind you following at a safe distance, but this third scenario shares a commonality with scenario 2: a driver that came up on you at a high rate of speed and began tailgating you very (very) closely.

So far, scenario's 2 and 3 are pretty much the same except that in this scenario, you're pissed and plan on payback for dangerously rushing you down the road. Here's the action on your part (in this hypothetical scenario) that differs from the first two scenarios. In the others examples, there was a reasonable distance before you began to slowly steer towards the other lane. In this example, you maintained your 55MPH speed and approached the object and resisted the temptation to change your trajectory. You waited and waited and as the intensity built up knowing you would soon have to react, you veered very hard at the very last 1/5 of a second. You never slowed down, you never sped up, and you did not hit the object. The car behind you, well, it did.

That's exactly what you hoped would happen.

I don't want the opening post to be too terribly long, so I'll go ahead and post to see what initial reactions I get. Who is to blame? Who is responsible? Who is at fault? Did the front driver cause the collision? Is there a shared responsibility (legal or moral)?

Off the cuff, I'm thinking the back driver is legally responsible for the collision but the front driver is morally responsible. What the front driver did was wrong, and had he not done that, the irresponsible back driver would never had to suffer the consequences of driving too closely.

 

[bilby]

The driver of the car in front is mildly discourteous to not indicate in good time that there is a need to move to the other lane. But courtesy is not mandatory. If you are the driver of the car behind, then it is your job to avoid collisions without relying on the courtesy of others; to demand courtesy of someone to whom you have been discourteous (by tailgating) is moronic, and unlikely to result in a good outcome.

The legal position is clear; I would say that the moral position is equally clear - discourtesy on the part of a tailgater absolves the tailgatee of any duty to be courteous in return.

 

[TSwizzle]

Off the cuff, I'm thinking the back driver is legally responsible for the collision but the front driver is morally responsible. What the front driver did was wrong, and had he not done that, the irresponsible back driver would never had to suffer the consequences of driving too closely.

I pretty much agree with you. I'm not sure if the front driver is legally off the hook though.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Scenario 3) you're pissed. You are upset with this driver behind you. ..., you veered very hard at the very last 1/5 of a second. You never slowed down, you never sped up, and you did not hit the object. The car behind you, well, it did.

it strikes me that this exact result could come about if you were not a dickhead, just didn't notice the obstacle until the very last second. Or perhaps you were willing to drive over it until you realized it was a dead skunk and you veered instinctively.

Either way, the driver is too close to react well to obstacles hidden by your car. If he were not following too close, then he would have more time and space to react properly, whether you were being a dick or just distracted by the radio or just possessed of a mortal fear of trying to pick up girls in a car that smells like skunkjuice.

He cannot reasonably blame you for his spacing, or lack thereof. He will, but I think it'd be hard to convince a cop to write you a ticket for failing to drive at the speed he wanted you to.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Off the cuff, I'm thinking the back driver is legally responsible for the collision but the front driver is morally responsible. What the front driver did was wrong, and had he not done that, the irresponsible back driver would never had to suffer the consequences of driving too closely.

I pretty much agree with you. I'm not sure if the front driver is legally off the hook though.

I have worked in personal injury law from car accidents in Ontario. here at least, the front driver is off the hook.

The back driver was following too closely, and regardless of the front driver cutting away at the last moment, or stopping suddenly for any reason, the rear driver did not leave enough space to stop. Front drivers stop suddenly for all sorts of reasons. Could be to avoid hitting a deer or a child on the road or anything else. If you do not leave space to safely stop, you are to blame; Not the driver ahead of you or anyone else.

Here's another fun common scenario for you:

You are in heavy traffic and want to turn left into a plaza. There is no stop sign or traffic light to help you. You are not holding up traffic because you are in one of those middle lanes where people can turn into driveways from either direction. You sit there for quite some time watching traffic go by, until it slows to an absolute crawl and the guy in the first lane you need to cross waves you through. You go through. You didn't see the guy driving very fast in the second lane you need to cross. He was in a big hurry and he was driving erratically and he was flying along at such a speed that he was for sure going to slam into the vehicle ahead of him, but you moved in between them as you tried to cross his lane, so he slams into your car instead. Significant damage is done to both cars and you are both injured. Who is at fault morally and who is at fault legally? I'll letcha comment before I give you the clear legal answer.

 

[TSwizzle]

I pretty much agree with you. I'm not sure if the front driver is legally off the hook though.

I have worked in personal injury law from car accidents. The front driver is off the hook.

The back driver was following too closely, and regardless of the front driver cutting away at the last moment, or stopping suddenly for any reason, the rear driver did not leave enough space to stop. Front drivers stop suddenly for all sorts of reasons. Could be to avoid hitting a deer or a child on the road or anything else. If you do not leave space to safely stop, you are to blame; Not the driver ahead of you or anyone else.

I could be wrong but I thought under certain circumstances, the front driver just hitting the brakes for no reason, made the front driver at fault. I may be thinking of UK driving laws or just imagining it. I'll hunt around. I believe there have been issues where scammers (front driver) just slam on the brakes causing a rear end crash and the front driver is held liable.

 

[fast]

Your honour,

I was upset at the time, and I fully intended to create a situation whereby the driver behind me would crash into the object. I did not, however, mean for the innocent bystander to be struck by the ensuing debri. I am thankful that no one has blamed me since I did not in fact 'cause' the accident. Everyone says that I'm not legally responsible, and I can appreciate that, but what I did was not just a discourteous act. I had bad thoughts, and I acted on them, and it's my position that just because I bare no legal responsibility, I am still in the moral wrong--i.e. What I did was immoral ... as I acted in a manner with anticipation of impending harm.

I didn't just want it to happen but acted to increase a higher probability that it would happen. Let me shine a brighter light on this, but first, another thought-experiment scenario for comparison purposes:

After a discussion with my female neighbor about my extreme hatred for police, I explained that I would never (ever) call the police for any reason, be it to serve or protect either myself or another ... I just would simply never (ever) call the police. Unless it was raining.

So, as I later witnessed an actual burglar entering my neighbors residence, I called the police. The neighbor later thanked me but did say, "I thought you would never call the police?" I said "that's right, but it was raining." What does that have to do with anything, she inquired. I explained that officers driving fast in the rain increases their chances of an accident, so if that burglar had also been a rapist, you should thank your lucky stars that it was raining, for you would have had to rely on just me to help, for although I would have personally acted to help you, it would not have been done by calling the cops.

What I did (the act) and why I did it (the reason) do not jibe. Was calling the police the right thing to do? Yes, there was a burglar, and calling the police is the right thing to do. But, I did not call the police because it was the right thing to do. I called them for a bad reason. I called them in hopes of the cop getting into an accident.

The difference (or um, a difference) between scenario 3 and the burglar thought experiment is that of action with impending consequence. In the moment, I held the wheel and jerked violently at the last possible partial second, so there was contributing action on my part. In the cop incident, all I did was make a phone call. Sure, in both situations, I had immoral thought: 1) for the back driver to hit the upcoming object and 2) for the cop to hit anything at all.

A person once said, I don't care why you do what you do just so long as what you do is right. Calling the police when I saw that burglar was the right thing to do (regardless of my underlying ugly thoughts), but intentionally swerving as late as I possibly could, well, it seems to me that it was clearly "wrong"--even if I was not "in the wrong."

We are so quick to blame the back driver, and for good reason, he was "in the wrong", but when the back driver learns of the confession, I think his anger is justified.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The front driver acted immorally.

In fact, by deliberately refraining from avoiding the object in a reasonable fashion (which, on its own, may be illegal), he concealed the threat from the other driver. Had the front driver acted reasonably (veering much earlier), the other driver would have been more likely to avoid the collision.

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm doubtful that that would be legal. It seems more likely to be criminal behavior to me. He could have killed the other driver by using his car to hide the object. The fact that the other driver was driving recklessly is no moral justification, and again I'm not sure why lawmakers would let this sort of behavior go - maybe because it's hard (almost impossible) to establish intent in this case in practice? Still, I'm not at all convinced.

If some of the legal arguments given above were correct, it seems that no matter his intentions, the front driver would not be to blame, even if the object was, say, a broken big motorcycle, and the front driver intended for the other driver to die in the crash - it seems clear to me that that would be murder, or attempted murder, even if the other driver was driving recklessly.

Then again, I don't know about the law.

 

[Bronzeage]

Whether a person believes in karma, or not, it is easy to understand the concept. A person who drives in a reckless and aggressive manner will eventually find themselves in a situation where there is not enough time to avoid a hazard.

In the same way, a person who believes it is their right to punish reckless drivers for their behavior, by enticing them into a hazard, will eventually put themselves in one, as well.

There is not much difference in the mindset of either driver and both are a hazard on the road.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm doubtful that that would be legal. It seems more likely to be criminal behavior to me. He could have killed the other driver by using his car to hide the object. The fact that the other driver was driving recklessly is no moral justification, and again I'm not sure why lawmakers would let this sort of behavior go - maybe because it's hard (almost impossible) to establish intent in this case in practice? Still, I'm not at all convinced.

If some of the legal arguments given above were correct, it seems that no matter his intentions, the front driver would not be to blame, even if the object was, say, a broken big motorcycle, and the front driver intended for the other driver to die in the crash - it seems clear to me that that would be murder, or attempted murder, even if the other driver was driving recklessly.

Then again, I don't know about the law.

It isn't murder. It isn't criminal. It isn't the front driver's responsibility to look after the back driver and there is no onus on the front driver to rescue the back driver from the back driver's own recklessness. You also have no legal obligation to save another person if they are in danger, such as throwing a life preserver to somebody drowning. It may be morally wrong not to, but it isn't legally wrong.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm doubtful that that would be legal. It seems more likely to be criminal behavior to me. He could have killed the other driver by using his car to hide the object. The fact that the other driver was driving recklessly is no moral justification, and again I'm not sure why lawmakers would let this sort of behavior go - maybe because it's hard (almost impossible) to establish intent in this case in practice? Still, I'm not at all convinced.

If some of the legal arguments given above were correct, it seems that no matter his intentions, the front driver would not be to blame, even if the object was, say, a broken big motorcycle, and the front driver intended for the other driver to die in the crash - it seems clear to me that that would be murder, or attempted murder, even if the other driver was driving recklessly.

Then again, I don't know about the law.

It isn't murder. It isn't criminal. It isn't the front driver's responsibility to look after the back driver and there is no onus on the front driver to rescue the back driver from the back driver's own recklessness. You also have no legal obligation to save another person if they are in danger, such as throwing a life preserver to somebody drowning. It may be morally wrong not to, but it isn't legally wrong.

Do you have evidence of your legal claims?
The front driver is knowingly concealing the threat from the back driver. If his aim is for the back driver to have a fatal accident and die, surely that is attempted murder, even if almost impossible to establish before a court. If that's not the case, I would be surprised - and yes, it is the front driver's moral responsibility not to try to kill the other driver by concealing the threat.

Also, the life preserver case is not murder, but still seems criminal if you have the life preserver at hand and there is no risk to you. Do you have evidence of your claim that it is not? (ETA: it seems to depend on the jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue#Criminal_law It's criminal over here, but not in most places).

 

[Bronzeage]

It isn't murder. It isn't criminal. It isn't the front driver's responsibility to look after the back driver and there is no onus on the front driver to rescue the back driver from the back driver's own recklessness. You also have no legal obligation to save another person if they are in danger, such as throwing a life preserver to somebody drowning. It may be morally wrong not to, but it isn't legally wrong.

Do you have evidence of your legal claims?
The front driver is knowingly concealing the threat from the back driver. If his aim is for the back driver to have a fatal accident and die, surely that is attempted murder, even if almost impossible to establish before a court. If that's not the case, I would be surprised - and yes, it is the front driver's moral responsibility not to try to kill the other driver by concealing the threat.

Also, the life preserver case is not murder, but still seems criminal if you have the life preserver at hand and there is no risk to you. Do you have evidence of your claim that it is not?

There cannot be physical evidence of a person's state of mind.

The first driver may not see the obstacle until the last moment and avoids it. The second driver is inattentive and strikes the obstacle. It is the exact same scenario, but with no real cause and effect.

As for the life preserver, there is a violation known as "failure to render aid" in some places. The general idea is that every citizen is obligated to do the minimum if they see an emergency situation. This usually means reporting the problem as quickly as possible. The life preserver scenario is a good example of when the "failure to render aid." There no hazard to person who throws the life preserver. They aren't expected to jump into the water. Such laws usually exempt a person from liability, if things don't work out for the best. That is the real purpose of failure to render aid laws.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Do you have evidence of your legal claims?
The front driver is knowingly concealing the threat from the back driver. If his aim is for the back driver to have a fatal accident and die, surely that is attempted murder, even if almost impossible to establish before a court. If that's not the case, I would be surprised - and yes, it is the front driver's moral responsibility not to try to kill the other driver by concealing the threat.

Also, the life preserver case is not murder, but still seems criminal if you have the life preserver at hand and there is no risk to you. Do you have evidence of your claim that it is not?

There cannot be physical evidence of a person's state of mind.

The first driver may not see the obstacle until the last moment and avoids it. The second driver is inattentive and strikes the obstacle. It is the exact same scenario, but with no real cause and effect.

As for the life preserver, there is a violation known as "failure to render aid" in some places. The general idea is that every citizen is obligated to do the minimum if they see an emergency situation. This usually means reporting the problem as quickly as possible. The life preserver scenario is a good example of when the "failure to render aid." There no hazard to person who throws the life preserver. They aren't expected to jump into the water. Such laws usually exempt a person from liability, if things don't work out for the best. That is the real purpose of failure to render aid laws.

1. Actually, intent does play a significant role in criminal law, and it's assessed based on behavior, including but not limited to confessions.
2. The question is whether the behavior is legal, not whether it's in practice something one is likely to establish beyond a reasonable doubt before a court.

I already addressed the case of the life preserver in the post you replied to (I edited it a couple of minutes after posting).

 

[Bronzeage]

There cannot be physical evidence of a person's state of mind.

The first driver may not see the obstacle until the last moment and avoids it. The second driver is inattentive and strikes the obstacle. It is the exact same scenario, but with no real cause and effect.

As for the life preserver, there is a violation known as "failure to render aid" in some places. The general idea is that every citizen is obligated to do the minimum if they see an emergency situation. This usually means reporting the problem as quickly as possible. The life preserver scenario is a good example of when the "failure to render aid." There no hazard to person who throws the life preserver. They aren't expected to jump into the water. Such laws usually exempt a person from liability, if things don't work out for the best. That is the real purpose of failure to render aid laws.

1. Actually, intent does play a significant role in criminal law, and it's assessed based on behavior, including but not limited to confessions.
2. The question is whether the behavior is legal, not whether it's in practice something one is likely to establish beyond a reasonable doubt before a court.

I already addressed the case of the life preserver in the post you replied to (I edited it a couple of minutes after posting).

What evidence do we have of intent? The first driver says, "I didn't see the thing until I almost hit it." A person seldom reveals intent, unless it is to mitigate the offense. The petty meanness of ordinary life is seldom punished in court.

 

[fast]

1. Actually, intent does play a significant role in criminal law, and it's assessed based on behavior, including but not limited to confessions.
2. The question is whether the behavior is legal, not whether it's in practice something one is likely to establish beyond a reasonable doubt before a court.

I already addressed the case of the life preserver in the post you replied to (I edited it a couple of minutes after posting).

What evidence do we have of intent? The first driver says, "I didn't see the thing until I almost hit it." A person seldom reveals intent, unless it is to mitigate the offense. The petty meanness of ordinary life is seldom punished in court.

Seldom, true. But this is an open and honest confession. The idea here isn't to establish or even presume truth but rather to assume truth, for the issue isn't proving wrong-doing but determining if it's wrong-doing given the truthful conveyance of facts.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1. Actually, intent does play a significant role in criminal law, and it's assessed based on behavior, including but not limited to confessions.
2. The question is whether the behavior is legal, not whether it's in practice something one is likely to establish beyond a reasonable doubt before a court.

I already addressed the case of the life preserver in the post you replied to (I edited it a couple of minutes after posting).

What evidence do we have of intent? The first driver says, "I didn't see the thing until I almost hit it." A person seldom reveals intent, unless it is to mitigate the offense. The petty meanness of ordinary life is seldom punished in court.

Evidence (for example):
1. The driver brags about what he did on Twitter, Facebook, etc.
2. The driver is overwhelmed with guilt and confesses.
3. The driver tells two friends whom he trusts. The friends are appalled and tells the police.

But granted, in most cases there will be no sufficient evidence for a conviction. However, that is not relevant to the question of whether the behavior is legal.

 

[fromderinside]

Gees, Gees, Gees. bilby nailed it. Responsibility for the leading driver, Angra Mainu's protestations aside, is nil because the following driver, whatever the reason, is responsible for his own safety. If the second driver claims fault is with the leading driver his case is flushed if he cannot explain she got herself into the hitting position. Saying the first driver didn't signal me there was a problem is so much wasted breath. Even their priest would testify to the same.

Heck, had the first driver had failed to signal other than by breaking that he was about to turn left or right, the second driver is responsible for her own situation awareness of potential hazards like the driver in front turning onto a road coming up.

IMHO the OP poses a false dilemma. Individual responsibility swamps that of others. Its one reason for the personal caution: "let the buyer beware".

 

[Bronzeage]

What evidence do we have of intent? The first driver says, "I didn't see the thing until I almost hit it." A person seldom reveals intent, unless it is to mitigate the offense. The petty meanness of ordinary life is seldom punished in court.

Seldom, true. But this is an open and honest confession. The idea here isn't to establish or even presume truth but rather to assume truth, for the issue isn't proving wrong-doing but determining if it's wrong-doing given the truthful conveyance of facts.

That's pretty much a settled question. If it is wrong to cause harm to others, desiring to and deliberately creating conditions which lead another person to harm which would not have occurred otherwise, is wrong in every moral code with which I am familiar.

 

[fromderinside]

Seldom, true. But this is an open and honest confession. The idea here isn't to establish or even presume truth but rather to assume truth, for the issue isn't proving wrong-doing but determining if it's wrong-doing given the truthful conveyance of facts.

That's pretty much a settled question. If it is wrong to cause harm to others, desiring to and deliberately creating conditions which lead another person to harm which would not have occurred otherwise, is wrong in every moral code with which I am familiar.

Almost impossible to cause harm to others without causing harm to oneself at freeway speeds leads me to the conclusion that the idea of causing harm by restricting view of obstacles is foolhardy more than morally anything. Is it morally wrong to take chances? If so, what are the parameters one needs satisfy for the chance taking to be morally wrong to another?

Our ability to react is much slower than the capacity of our cars to respond. It seems to me that both the 'causing' driver and the 'targeted' driver share similar risks in such 'choices'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Gees, Gees, Gees. bilby nailed it. Responsibility for the leading driver, Angra Mainu's protestations aside, is nil because the following driver, whatever the reason, is responsible for his own safety. If the second driver claims fault is with the leading driver his case is flushed if he cannot explain she got herself into the hitting position. Saying the first driver didn't signal me there was a problem is so much wasted breath. Even their priest would testify to the same.

Heck, had the first driver had failed to signal other than by breaking that he was about to turn left or right, the second driver is responsible for her own situation awareness of potential hazards like the driver in front turning onto a road coming up.

IMHO the OP poses a false dilemma. Individual responsibility swamps that of others. Its one reason for the personal caution: "let the buyer beware".

No, I'm not saying the first driver didn't signal. I'm saying the first driver concealed the object in order to cause a collision. If the first driver intended that the second one die, that would be attempted murder or murder in my view. Maybe I got this wrong from a legal perspective, but you provide no good reason to suspect so. Your argument seems to be a moral one, and as such, it does not work. But if you meant for it to be a legal one, I don't see why it would work, either. Do you have any legal evidence?