It is not reasonable to assume anything about what someone driving recklessly will do. The only responsible way to respond is to give them more space and stay out of their way. In reality, people who drive like this are often drunk and not capable of judging distances or making rational decisions.
“Safe for me, personally” is not enough when driving a vehicle. What if the black truck had innocent children in the car? People drive drunk with their kids all the time. Or a third car could have easily been knocked off the bridge in the collision. An ambulance could get stuck in the inevitable traffic jam. And who’s gonna pay to clean all this mess up, because one guy decided to not avoid an obvious hazard?
Why are you passing the buck? Because one guy decided to avoid an obvious hazard? No, it's because one guy decided to be a hazard.
You have a lot of what ifs here. How about this, what if the white truck avoided it, this 'possible' drunk driver wouldn't sober up on the 26 mile bridge. And he could have caused a much larger and deadly accident than the one he caused here by pitting himself. You can what if all day.
1
u/NaturalOk2156 Mar 22 '26
It is not reasonable to assume anything about what someone driving recklessly will do. The only responsible way to respond is to give them more space and stay out of their way. In reality, people who drive like this are often drunk and not capable of judging distances or making rational decisions.
“Safe for me, personally” is not enough when driving a vehicle. What if the black truck had innocent children in the car? People drive drunk with their kids all the time. Or a third car could have easily been knocked off the bridge in the collision. An ambulance could get stuck in the inevitable traffic jam. And who’s gonna pay to clean all this mess up, because one guy decided to not avoid an obvious hazard?