4 ms·
I don’t think anyone is accusing the defender of malice. But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously. Especially at night, n
by sdegutis 7y ago
I don’t think anyone is accusing the defender of malice. But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously. Especially at night, near cross walks. I’ve seen far too many reckless drivers even in suburban streets, almost always young adults or teenagers, on streets that have kids playing at the edge of their yards. They’re testing Murphy’s law. This isn’t a necessary condition of life. This is preventable behavior. Granted, the solution to preventing it starts when they are young, it starts by instilling discipline and humility and self control in youth before they are sent out into the world. Trying to apply these after the fact is like putting on safety goggles after getting an eye injury.
Edit: To make my main point more simply: when my kids come to me because one hurt the other through carelessness, but they’re defense is that they were reasonably cautious, I would answer them, “it wasn’t reasonably cautious because the outcome was that you hurt someone else in a way I don’t believe I would have because I would be more cautious than you were given the same circumstances.” Driving 35 MPH when it’s marked 35 MPH isn’t as cautious as is reasonable when you add in factors of nighttime, hill, and oncoming headlights (effectively high beams).
- RHSeeger 7y ago> But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously It is. But the underlying point being made by several people appears to be that they believe he _was_ driving cautiously. And that it just so happens that, even doing so, the situation was such that it was still reasonable for him to not be able to avoid the collision.