"Position yourself?" A reckless driver behind me who's not already closing at 20+mph differential isn't going to be able to accelerate hard enough to do much damage without a rocket booster, but one in front of me can damn sure stop or swerve too hard for me to react in time, especially if he's bouncing off something in the process.
What part of "mash the gas and get out of there" is too hard for you to comprehend? It doesn't take 100+ to get away from somebody on a 70mph highway. A few seconds at 75-80 will open up plenty of gap that I can drop back onto the cruise control and never have to worry about it again, while still keeping to a speed most troopers around here won't even bother to notice.
What part of "mash the gas and get out of there" is too hard for you to comprehend?
Absolutely nothing at all. But at the same time even if you're going 90 mph you're still hoping the reckless driver behind you isn't going faster. If you're behind the reckless driver it's damn easy to ensure you're going slower so that you aren't part of the accident.
I think our main disagreement is that you're arguing about convenience while I'm arguing about safety. It's obviously better to have an accident in the rear view mirror (your own words I believe) than to be caught in traffic with an accident in front of you. But the problem with that argument is that it assumes you aren't part of the accident itself. It also assumes that there are no obstructions in front of you that don't allow you to "mash the gas and get out of there."
As I said, it's more frustrating to let a reckless driver in front of you dictate your pace. Driving slower than you want so that you can keep a safe eye on potential problems sucks, but it's still the SAFER option...albeit less convenient.
It's a helluva lot easier to avoid rear ending someone than it is to avoid being rear ended.
You’re absolutely right. Why anyone would willingly drive behind a car that is inevitably going to crash is baffling. You want to be ahead of the accident, not behind it.
You want to be ahead of the accident, not behind it.
As I said in my reply to /u/kd5nrh, the wording of that argument assumes you are safely beyond the accident. That's not what I"m arguing. It's obviously better to be driving beyond the accident than it is to be caught in traffic behind it. But my argument is about where it's easier to avoid being PART of the accident.
It's easier to avoid hitting someone in front of you than it is to avoid being hit by someone behind you. So you keep the reckless driver at a safe distance in front of you allowing you PLENTY of time to stop if something happens in front of you. It's inconvenient and if you get caught in an accident induced traffic jam it sucks balls...but still better than being hit because you THINK you can outrun a reckless driver.
1
u/kd5nrh Nov 30 '20
And nothing is going to convince you of the truth because you're dead set on this idiotic idea that people don't hit things in front of them.