In Reply to: Law is totally ridiculous...but I don't doubt it posted by ptdaniel on June 20, 2000 at 14:05:32:
: That law needs to be overturned immediately, in part because it assumes facts which are patently unprovable: i.e., that a crash would not have occurred without the presence of the second vehicle. Obviously, the guy who crashed might very well have decided to go at the same speed at that same location without the presence of the other vehicle (and crashed all the same)! Indeed, someone who likes to race probably likes to just plain drive fast -- and I bet his record would indicate that (9 out of 10 times, anyway).
: But consider this: what if a friend who is not 'fit' decides he wants to run with me some Saturday (when I run 10+ miles per week). If he dies of a heart attack during the run have I committed manslaughter? Of course not, but what is the real difference in the situations?
: Once again, it's the 'someone else *must* be responsible' syndrome; nobody will take responsiblity for their own stupid actions anymore!
Of course, in a civil suit that argument may make some sense as "fault" is more of an issue. But the law discourages street racing which also endangers other cars. There are lots of similar laws on the books (felony murder for one).