fast
Contributor
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.
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.