4 ms·
I find it ironic but unsurprising that something called the Anti-Road Rage Act legislates against lane hoggers. Whilst I find lane hoggers annoying I think the
by altacc 5y ago
I find it ironic but unsurprising that something called the Anti-Road Rage Act legislates against lane hoggers. Whilst I find lane hoggers annoying I think the responsibility for road rage is with the raging party, so I'd prefer an act that focused on those committing the road rage, not triggering it. What they've done here is victim blaming and naming a bill based on PR, not policy (also no surprise).
- leetcrew 5y agothe name is absurd, but it's not really victim blaming when the "victim" is actually doing something wrong to begin with. vaguely similar to the concept of "fighting words".
- altacc 5y agoRoad rage is never acceptable, regardless of what the other vehicle is doing. Making Lane hogging illegal and calling that anti-road rage seems to accept that road rage is a legitimate response to an action by someone else, which it never is.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThe road rage itself is already illegal. Why shouldn't tempting it by hogging the left lane be illegal too?
- altacc 5y agoLane hogging is not road rage, which is why the naming is ironic. Road rage itself is never justifiable, regardless of what the other party is doing.