"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:web.4b3cc9ba141aa2f634d207310@news.povray.org...

> a very severe penalty, specifically  for swerving left.  I guess the
rationale
> was it was better to get hit in your own lane than to create new hazards
for
> folks in the other lane.  I always thought it was a dubious law, or a
dubious
> telling of it.

Sounds like a dubious telling. If the driver of the other car recovers
(which you can help by honking), he'll be swerwing to his right, so swerving
left is not a smart idea in general. If there's no hope of recovery for the
other driver (icy surface / locked wheels, in which case he should be the
one honking), I say head wherever it's safer (*).

All the same, it *is* often better to get hit by the faulty party (in a
controlled manner) than to end up being *the* guilty party while trying to
improvise in a hurry.

> Has anyone ever heard of such a proscription about swerving? Does it make
sense
> to instill a general habit in the populace?


(*) If you are conditioned to not swerve left, you are more likely to find a
safer spot on the right or a safer course of action (speed up/slow down)
quicker, since you have eliminated one (often complicated) maneuver to
consider without wasting any time with it. It also means the other drivers
can count on your actions not interfering their attempts at recovery which
tremendously reduces uncertainity. Thus, it makes a lot of sense to me to
instill the habit.

Post a reply to this message