1. obey the law and crash
2. break the law and not crash
I choose option 2.
For example, if a kid darts into the road, and I can miss him by swerving into the oncoming lane (if it is clear).
What do you think is the ratio of lives saved by people going >> the speed limit (e.g. 20mph over) vs people killed by speeding drivers?
Also according to your logic we should never have concrete road medians because they prevent people from entering the opposing lane. And yet we do. Why do you think that is the case?
I'm not stupid, esoterica. If you want to have a conversation, politeness is better.
Detailed traffic laws can never cover all circumstances (this is why we have judges and juries, not computer programs, to administer justice). I will break traffic laws if necessary to prevent a crash, and I'll accept the ticket if a cop would be so unreasonable as to write the ticket for it.
I bet you will, too.
In the 1960s, there was a public service ad about this - don't be dead right. I suppose I'm the only person who remembers that one.
I've had a couple conversations with bicycle activists. They told me that they'll stick to their road rights even if it results in a crash and they get seriously injured. They smiled that in such a case they'd get a big lawsuit award. I asked them how much is becoming a quadraplegic worth to them.
I don't understand such people.
Yeah, I did. I don't believe for a minute that you'd choose hitting the kid rather than break the law and swerve into an empty oncoming lane. I also expect a judge would find hitting the kid to avoid breaking the law with disfavor. The law is not a programming language.
Things external to the car, like road medians, are there for "everyone". Doesn't matter if you have a Delorian, where the speedometers are universally always "0" regardless of speed or a fancy Ford Malibu from 2024.