Unanswered Questions

Posted on November 19, 2014 by Robert Ringer


Some time ago, I received an e-mail from subscriber John P. about a close call he had while driving when he was seventeen years old. Here’s part of what he had to say:

There was no time to think, only to react. And there was no fear at all, until afterwards. It’s like I knew exactly what to do (pull over to the opposite side of the road to avoid the oncoming headlights).

Remembering back, it was as if I were playing a video game, avoiding a head-on crash. But for the next day or two I was shaking in fear, thinking “What if?” I still think “What if?,” and I still have some residual fear.

Thirty years later, I have a safe driving record, even while driving motorcycles for twenty of those years (no longer now). Maybe the one close call at an early age taught me to be careful.

I believe in free will existing on a profound level. I survived that close call because I had strongly chosen to stay alive and healthy. Other times in my life, I have hurt myself (physically or emotionally), not choosing to do so consciously, but maybe choosing to do it on a deeper (spiritual) level in order to gain insight or knowledge that the pain teaches.

The reason John P.’s words caught my attention is because I had an almost identical experience when I was in my early twenties. It was dusk, and I was driving north on a two-lane highway in Kentucky, not far from the Ohio border.

At a distance — perhaps a quarter mile or so — it appeared that a car was coming toward me on my side of the road, but I thought it might just be an optical illusion. Still, I continued to watch the oncoming vehicle with great intensity, just to be sure.

As the distance between us rapidly closed, it became clear to me that the car definitely was on my side of the road — and headed straight at me! I instinctively glanced to the side to see if there was room to swerve off the road. Like something out of a nightmare, all I saw was a narrow strip of shoulder alongside a Kentucky-style drop-off from a cliff.

All of this took no more than a second or two, but when I looked up the speeding vehicle was getting close — so close that I could see that the driver’s right arm was flung across the top of the front seat and his head was lying sideways on top of it. Clearly, he was either drunk, asleep, or dead!

I frantically leaned on the horn until he was perhaps within twenty yards of me. In a millisecond, I had to decide whether to swerve to the other side of the road and chance hitting another car head on, or swerve to the right just enough to get out of the oncoming car’s path — and hope I wouldn’t go over the cliff.

By instinct, I chose the latter. Miraculously, I managed to keep from going over the cliff as the car whizzed by me. I immediately looked through my rearview mirror and witnessed the most horrific sight of my young life. The car that had almost killed me slammed into the car that had been directly behind me.

It was like watching two toy cars collide. To this day, I not only can see the crash in my mind, I can hear the deathly sounds of metal and glass bending, breaking, and flying through the air.

I quickly got out of my car and ran up to the scene of the crash. An elderly man and woman were stone dead in the front seat, covered with blood, heads thrown back over the top of their seats like mannequins.

I was shaking all over as I ran to a nearby farmhouse and yelled to some people on the front porch to call the highway patrol. The rest is kind of a blank, but I do recall that the driver of the other car was alive, and that a patrolman told me he was very drunk. He also said that, ironically, drunk drivers often survive deadly crashes such as this because their bodies are relaxed.

After giving a statement to the officer, I drove the remaining distance home at a snail’s pace. I had developed instant paranoia about another car crossing over to my side of the road.

A year or two later, I was asked to fill out a form for the prosecutor in the county where the accident occurred, explaining in detail what had happened on that fateful night. I assume I helped put the perpetrator of that horrible crime in jail, but I never knew the final outcome of his trial.

Since that time, I have been an advocate of stricter penalties for drunk drivers. To me, it’s ludicrous that being drunk is considered to be a “mitigating circumstance.” If it were up to me, a drunk driver who kills someone would go to prison for life.

In my view, making the decision to drink and drive is as bad as premeditated murder, because it so often ends with the death of others. And life-ending decisions should have life-ending consequences.

Drinking was no excuse for that driver in Kentucky to take the lives of two elderly folks. I thought a lot about how I would have felt had the victims been my mom and dad, and wondered who their children might be — and how devastated they must have been when they got the news.

So, here I am, decades later, alive and well. And since that gruesome evening, I’ve cheated death on a number of other occasions — including a crash in a Learjet that totaled the plane. Part of me believes that each of these situations I was the beneficiary of Divine intervention, but I cannot answer the atheist’s question of why God didn’t save those two innocent people who were cruising along behind me.

In case you’re wondering, yes — I have often pondered why mine was the car in front rather than the car behind. I’ve even wondered if there was some way I could have maneuvered my car to nudge the drunk driver’s vehicle off course. I guess no matter how smart or successful we are, life will always be a series of unanswered questions.

How about you? Have you had one or more experiences in your life that could have — or should have — killed you? And, if so, to what do you attribute your survival? Predestination? Luck? Divine intervention? Or, like John P., simply your will to survive?

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

31 responses to “Unanswered Questions”

  1. Muthuswamy N says:

    I have had a very similar incident like the one you had – in Mumbai India. In my case the driver of the other car was not drunk but simply was sleeping as it was around 4 am.
    I believe that each one of us is born for a larger purpose and until we complete that purpose, we do not die- may be because we ourselves will that purpose so strongly, may be God himself wants each one of us to complete that larger purpose.

  2. Mark says:

    Well, you can vilify drunk drivers (agreed, there is no excuse) but studies show distracted drivers (eating, talking on the phone, texting) are just as dangerous. These behaviors are just more socially acceptable.

    Back to your topic, I have had death brush past me several times over the decades. I attribute my survival to luck. It was not my day to die. On the other hand, I do more now to avoid excessively risky situations. Sooner or later the odds catch up with you.

    • larajf says:

      Any kind of impairment (drunk, stoned, tired, on cold medicine, screaming at kids in the backseat, eating, talking/texting) should have similar consequences….lose your license for a year.

      • Ryan says:

        Perhaps you could explain how taking away the state's permission to travel, based on the arbitrary and unchallengeable judgement of a traffic cop, prevents someone from getting in a car and driving recklessly in the future?

        • larajf says:

          I see unlicensed drivers in California getting into accidents and fleeing the scene frequently, so I know what you're saying. However, consequences can be so severe that people think twice. Taking it to the absurd extreme, administer the death penalty to anyone driving impaired who killed someone. Would that get attention?

  3. Ral says:

    Do you realise that by delaying until the last second you never gave the elderly couple a chance to take avoiding action. Someone did the same to me years ago and I escaped by the skin of my teeth. Never blame the other guy – look inside yourself.

    • Dagny says:

      Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Robert who was drunk and hit the couple head on. He didn't put anyone in the situation he was now faced with. We can all talk about what-ifs after the fact but in the 20 seconds you have to make a decision the results is anyone's guess. He could've gone off the cliff, given the elderly couple plenty of time to react, and they still could have been hit, and now everyone is dead. Robert is probably the last person on earth you need to lecture about personal responsibility.

    • cara says:


  4. larajf says:

    Who knows what if, but I wonder what if the couple behind you were paying as close attention. I'm always watching 3-4 cars ahead to be prepared…learned it from driving a motorcycle…you become paranoid and always assume the worst.
    I am so very sorry you had to see and go through that.
    When I was in my early 20s, my now husband and I were driving back to college along 46 in California and we were the first people on the scene of big rig vs. big Pontiac. The driver of the Pontiac was clearly at fault, drunk, not wearing a seatbelt and was laying on the road with the car tipped up on him. He survived as far as I know. His girlfriend or sister was dragged to the scene by "do gooders" and was sobbing hysterically. I was keeping the driver calm with my knees on his shoulders to keep him from getting up. The paramedics arrived and thanked me for doing a good job (hooray for Girl Scout training), and I went over to try to soothe the poor woman.
    The point of the story: We need to think more about how our choices can impact others sometimes. We may still make that choice, but it's good to keep in mind the ripples and accept responsibility for what might happen instead of saying "It's my life, I can do what I want, when I want and to heck with you." Well, yeah, it is but accept full responsibility for the consequences.
    I hope your drunk driver got sober and made a positive impact in society. (after he got out of prison)

  5. Dagny says:

    "In my view, making the decision to drink and drive is as bad as premeditated murder, because it so often ends with the death of others. And life-ending decisions should have life-ending consequences."

    I agree 100%. This is always my view and I always say drunk drivers should be brought up on attempted murder charges.

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      I agree totally. The idea that drunk driving comes under the heading of "mitigating circumstances" is absurd.

      • cara says:


  6. Scott theczech says:

    According to Poodwaddle, the statistical clock (www.poodwaddle.com), "road accidents" are the number one cause of death, by accident, worldwide! Even sober, moving about in a motor vehicle is very dangerous.

  7. Pat says:

    I have been in a situation about three times when I felt like Someone took the wheel, and I avoided an accident that would have killed me. There wasn't time to react. The one I remember most clearly was the time I was driving in a middle lane on the freeway and the car on either side of me decided to move into my lane, at the same time. I believe that God orchestrates the life of each of us, in spite of the fact there are billions of people and we all have free will. When I read about a flash flood, and some people survive and some don't, I think it is due to God's providence. He protects the lives of some people for His own purposes. This is not our final existence. This is just a stepping stone to our eternal future, and what happens here determines how and where we will spend it.

    I think God spared you because He wasn't ready for you to leave this life. It seems to me you have been searching for awhile. I personally believe God is protecting you as you work out your life until you reach the point where you are aware of Him and His desire for you to spend eternity with Him, and you know the way to do that. As for the other couple, that is a terrible thing to watch, and I am really sorry you had to do that. But God may well have taken them because they were ready to go Home, and otherwise, they both would have suffered a long and painful death. You cannot know. And you cannot know the impact it had on survivors in their family. One of the things I look forward to in heaven is learning what happened to all the people I know now and care about. I have spent a lot of time working with a man in a tragic situation caused by an evil woman. I think often about how it will work out, but the answers are not there. Not yet.

    The Christian faith is the basis of liberty. I know you are a lover of liberty. Learn WHY the Christian faith brought liberty to our country. If I am not mistaken, you will be glad you did.

  8. wpn says:

    Same thing happened to me twice, one drunk and one thrill seeker (2 lane country road, 10 am clear and warm, a guy crosses the road from a driveway into my oncoming lane about 150 yards away, he speeds up to about 50 while I slow from 55 to 45, he heads straight for me, I assume this nut WANTS to hit me. I must avoid a head-on so at the last moment I swerve left across oncoming for me and correct near the opposite dirt shoulder. I chose to stay on the road for better control and more lateral movement away from this nut. This guy went straight as if I wasn't even there, then gradually crossed over back into "his" lane like normal. The 3 other cars on the road saw what was happening and slowed and pulled over – thanks…)
    So, in these situations – You slow down as needed, tap brakes rapidly as long as you can, flash high beams if you have some distance and it is dark, then do what you must.
    ****These are some tips I gave to all of my science class students. — Most people have no idea how to react in situations like this, ESPECIALLY new drivers, and they have no idea how their vehicle will react either. 1. The proper way to swerve – grab steering wheel TIGHTLY at the 10-2 positions. Jerk the wheel as quickly as conditions allow while keeping both hands TIGHTLY in place. Then quickly jerk back to correct your position. Countless people 'turn' and fail to correct immediately which takes them off the road and/or into another object or they loose control.
    2. Practice with an experienced driver on a deserted parking lot or a deserted road to see what it's like slamming on the brakes or swerving away from an object and do so in a variety of weather and situations. (I have done this with all my children and my wife.)
    3. (Actually #1) SLOW DOWN!! I f you are not positive of the safety of the road ahead you do not have the right to go the speed limit just because you have the right of way.
    Hope this is helpful.

  9. laleydelexito says:

    I left my department letting my maid cleaning inside, but I LOCKED the door from outside.
    She could not be able to get out even if she wanted.

    I did it to "protect her from thieves". Then I went out while she kept inside cleaning.

    How stupid of me. While I was out, she broke a gas pipe, and she almost died.

    I just arrived on time before she suffocated. Or a spark blew up the whole building.

    I really atribute this to God. He spared me the guilt of a lifetime for having a lady get killed
    by my carelessness.

    I really believe God protects us when we ask him to do so.

    Bleesings Robert!

  10. Serge says:

    What if, is a big question. Some accidents can be labeled as premeditated as in drinking, texting and outright carelessness. Then there are those that are innocent, freak accidents, mechanical failures and being in the wrong time and place. I feel that one shouldn't torture themselves with what if. Some accidents need to be forgiven in order to move on. After all life itself is risky the moment we wake up and take on the day.

  11. Liz says:

    I've avoided death from accidents, illnesses and even willful negligence a few times in my life. Often in looking back, I think that I am lucky to be here, as there are many who incur the same experiences but don't survive them. Why am I still alive? I don't believe in fate. I don't believe in personal will. I might believe in spirit guardians. I definitely believe in cosmic dice. I'm just lucky to be here.

  12. I've had SEVERAL experiences that might've ended in my death. In TWO notable situations a SPIRIT VOICE gave instructions. I am still here in my old age. People who do not believe in Spiritual explanations apparently have just not had such experiences. As I always say… YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE IS SOMETHING IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE TRUE!

  13. j-a-y-s-m-i-t-h says:

    The man takes a drink, the drink takes a drink, the drink takes the man… what if the other person has no power over drinking. D you blame God, Satan, Man, Drink, Chance…?

  14. RTR says:

    I'm probably in the minority position here, but I oppose drunk driving laws and think they should be repealed. At the very least, I believe there should be no punishments for driving drunk outside of losing your license (assuming you do not cause a crash). Why? Well for one, I believe in the absolute right of personal liberty (and its corresponding private property rights) and thus I think its unethical to punish someone for taking risky action that's not threatening per se to others. There are plenty of people who drive home impaired without causing any accidents or problems whatsoever. MADD's own stats report that the average drunk driver drives 85 before getting caught. Note that's the getting CAUGHT by the police, not get into an accident. Just because drunk drivers are more likely to cause accidents does not mean a drunk driver is automatically a threat to others. There are other factors involved that differ driver to driver and I do not believe in the notion of "pre-emptive" strike. Drunk driving laws have harmed a lot of innocent people who were never any harm to others.

    Second, I'm convinced that drunk driving laws have done more harm than good, actually backfire in its aim and cause more drunk driving accidents than prevent. It's because of the economic law that people respond to incentives. If the law says than anyone driving drunk faces severe penalties and fines, the person who wants to drive drunk regardless of what the law says will have to look like a person who drives sober, and thus drive at normal traffic speeds that sober drivers do to avoid attention from the cops, but those speeds are riskier for the drunk driver. If there was no drunk driving law, then it's very likely that most drunk drivers would drive at slower to speeds safer for them, because there's no major dis-incentive for them to do so. Yeah they may cause traffic to build up in some cases, but to me that's a small price to pay vs them driving at speeds where they are more likely to kill someone.

    Anyway, there's more economic reasons why I think drunk driving laws backfire, or do not get closer to the root of them, but I figure this comment is way too long already and just wanted to throw my two cents in (probably still overpriced!) I'm completely sympathetic to someone opposing my view as this is an emotional issue and we've been taught from almost everyone to think one way about it. I'll try to address any objections and questions as requested.

    • Pat says:

      I don't really think you have thought this through. There are a number of problems with your view, and it is not the only possible way of dealing with the problem. While I agree that most traffic laws should not be enforced when no damage has been done, that doesn't mean we should repeal the laws. Without a law, a person cannot be prosecuted at all for causing harm while drunk. It has to be against the law before any person can be prosecuted for anything. So what you are saying is that those who are harmed by a drunk driver should be left to the mercy of their fate without recourse.

      Driving while drunk is threatening per se. The mere fact that sometimes people get away with it doesn't mean that there should be no law. Lots of people get away with lots of things and yet there needs to be a law against it. The law provides the authority necessary to take action against someone who does cause harm, and it is also a teacher, put into place to discourage people from doing harm when the only deterrent is the law. The mere fact that the police don't more often stop a person who is driving erratically means only that they are not doing their job, not that they should do nothing at all.

      The absolute right of personal liberty does not include the right to endanger others. It's that simple.

      If you want a good deterrent, I can tell you a better way. Driving impaired needs to remain illegal. So do some other driving acts (speeding, for example, even though speed per se doesn't harm, only an accompanying act going with the speeding causes harm). But in general the police should not stop people for speeding. They SHOULD, however, penalize anyone heavily for causing an accident while speeding. And insurance companies should have the right not to pay for damage to the speeder or his car, and should be free to collect restitution for what they pay to his victim. But this isn't sufficient with drunk driving. You cannot compensate a person who is killed. His life is priceless, and since the right to life is the paramount right, since no other rights can be exercised without life, it is reasonable to take pre-emptive action in any case where it is obvious that a person is driving impaired. Police need to be more careful on that issue. Other issues, like roadblocks (clearly unconstitutional), don't affect what the police ought to be doing about drunk drivers who are obviously impaired.

      And no, I don't think drunk driving laws backfire, and since you made the claim, you must prove that they do. People should not drive while impaired, slowly, at normal speed, or otherwise. Period.

      • RTR says:

        Thanks for responding Pat! I hate to respond so late but I'll address each of your main points as best as I can.

        "Without a law, a person cannot be prosecuted at all for causing harm while drunk. It has to be against the law before any person can be prosecuted for anything. So what you are saying is that those who are harmed by a drunk driver should be left to the mercy of their fate without recourse."

        That's not what I'm saying. A drunk driver who harms someone is 100% liable. If it's against the law to cause physical harm to someone else on the road for any reason, that automatically includes harming someone physically while drunk. You don't need a specific law for drunk drivers. They are just as liable. In fact, when the person who caused an accident is prosecuted in court, that person's drunkeness can be a form of evidence against that driver that he actually caused the accident.

        "Driving while drunk is threatening per se…. The mere fact that the police don't more often stop a person who is driving erratically means only that they are not doing their job, not that they should do nothing at all."

        Please provide proof that all drunk drivers drive erratically. If a drunk driver drives at normal speeds, does not sway in or out of lanes, obeys all traffic laws, does no harm to any other driver or pedestrian, and cannot be distinguished from a normal non-drunk driver, how is that particular drunk driver a threat to others?

        "But in general the police should not stop people for speeding. They SHOULD, however, penalize anyone heavily for causing an accident while speeding."

        I agree completely. Speeding in itself should not be a crime, but if you cause an accident while speeding, then you should 100% liable for causing the accident and paying for damages.

        " But this isn't sufficient with drunk driving. You cannot compensate a person who is killed."

        You also cannot compensate a person who was killed by a speeding driver who was not drunk. Some people are reckless and loose control when they speed, but not all. Some people are reckless and loose control when they drive drunk, but not all. The recklessness and loss of control that ends up harming someone else should be prosecuted, but the possible factors why that happened.

        "And no, I don't think drunk driving laws backfire, and since you made the claim, you must prove that they do."

        I did provide logical proof, derived from the economic law that people respond to incentives. You did not provide proof of your contention that drunk driving laws backfire, nor did you refute my argument or its logical proofs. Please provide a logical refutation or at least some empirical evidence to the contrary.

        My argument for repealing drunk driving laws can summed up as follows: There are millions of possible reasons why a person might cause an accident or drive recklessly on the road. but these reasons do not de facto bring an outcome of an accident or reckless driving. Some people can drive drunk perfectly fine without causing any problems, but some cannot. It depends each person, circumstance, and millions of other factors. People under the influence are more likely to cause an accident, but if there was a statistic that said that drivers under the age of 21 are more likely to cause an accident, should we automatically outlaw all people under 21 from driving? Instead of trying to stamp out these factors that may or may increase an individual probability of causing an accident, why not just outlaw causing an accident or driving reckless, regardless of the reason?

        • Pat says:

          *Huge sigh!*

          If something is not illegal, a person cannot be prosecuted (or even detained) for committing the act. A law against driving while impaired lets a police officer stop a person who is driving erratically and get them off the road before they hurt someone. Driving while impaired should be an aggravating circumstance; if a person who is drunk kills someone, then it should be murder one. He chose to drive while drunk. But unless there is a law, there will be no prosecution.

          It is not sufficient to say that a person who is drunk poses no hazard if he isn't driving erratically. His reaction time, at the very least, has been impaired. I do not agree with checkpoints, and if he is not driving erratically, he won't be stopped by police. I support a law that lets them take a drunk driver off the street if he is driving erratically. He should be charged with something as a deterrent. The mere fact that not all people engage in a certain behavior doesn't mean the behavior should be legal. Not everyone rapes people. Let's make rape legal.

          You only made an ASSERTION that drunk driving laws backfire. You proved nothing. You asserted it. The burden of proof is on you.

          As for your comparing drunk driving to drivers under the age of 21, don't even go there. Nothing makes me feel more outraged than a false analogy. Driving drunk is a decision. Being under the age of 21 is just a natural circumstance. People under the age of 21 are only more likely to cause an accident under certain conditions. That's why people enacted laws that prohibited teenagers who are making poor grades from having an active driver's license.

          Outlawing causing an accident is necessary. But driving while impaired adds an extra danger, and should have a law that can be enforced when the person needs to be taken off the road, and there are no other legal grounds for doing so.

          Finally, if something is not illegal, there is a distinct possibility an injured person would not be able to sue for damages. We don't operate under common law anymore, to some people's regret. Absent common law (court cases) or a specific law, an injured person might not have a cause of action. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

          I kinda get the feeling you don't have a background in law. Is that the case? The way you are writing, it sounds like your argument would be greatly enhanced if you had some background. I find lack of background in law to be a common problem among libertarians, which is why so many of them come up with such harebrained schemes for the way things ought to be. Clearly, causing an accident while drunk violates the non-aggression principle. A principle with no teeth is useless.

          • RTR says:

            "A law against driving while impaired lets a police officer stop a person who is driving erratically and get them off the road before they hurt someone."

            Actually, if there was no law against drunk driving, a cop can still pull someone over for driving erratically. The highway patrol has always had the power to do this, even before DUI laws. They could take away the license immediately for dangerous driving for any reason. Why does there need to be a DUI law for any of this?

            "You only made an ASSERTION that drunk driving laws backfire. You proved nothing. You asserted it. The burden of proof is on you."

            My proof is the entire second paragraph of my first comment

            "Nothing makes me feel more outraged than a false analogy. Driving drunk is a decision. Being under the age of 21 is just a natural circumstance."

            I think the analogy is quite apt. Here's another one: if a couple driving together starts arguing and yelling at each other, and one of them is driving, that can definitely impair the driver and may make him drive erratically and dangerously. Just like drunk drivers, some have more competence and self-control to still drive well on the road, but others cannot. Should we outlaw couples driving together, especially if they have a history of getting into arguments? Since arguing and drunk driving are both choices, how is outlawing drunk driving any less absurd? Or how about driving while sleepy? Should we outlaw drowsy driving too? After all, he chose not to drink enough coffee…

            "there is a distinct possibility an injured person would not be able to sue for damages."

            If someone else caused an accident, in what possible situation could an injured person not sue?

            " I kinda get the feeling you don't have a background in law. Is that the case?"

            It's not the case (I have a B.A. in economics and law), but even if it is, why does that matter? Sound logic and science does not rest on authority or certification alone. It is available freely to all, just like you don't need a math degree to prove that 7×7=49.

            "causing an accident while drunk violates the non-aggression principle."

            The driver causes the accident, not the alcohol content inside the driver. Why not just prosecute the driver when he causes the accident for any reason and leave the alcohol content out of it?

          • Pat says:

            More false analogies. Do you really think you will persuade me by punching my buttons? For the record, if I were driving and my husband started to argue with me, I would pull over to the side of the road and wait until he calmed down. Surprising how quickly he learned not to do it in the first place!

            The reason a DUI law is a good idea is that it gives police an OBJECTIVE MEASURE that the person is driving impaired. That can be useful as legal proof that the officer's judgment was sound. The blood alcohol level is EVIDENCE.

            People who are alert may well be able to compensate for certain adverse happenings. Drunks can't. As for driving while sleepy, here's a thought for you. Stop ignoring people's circadian rhythm, which is an INDIVIDUAL matter. Let people sleep when they need to sleep. Don't force people to work 24 hours straight, or on a shift that doesn't suit their natural sleeping pattern. You'd cure an awful lot of driving while sleepy if you did that.

            There are times when due to the lack of a law, it is not easy to sue someone for damages. In some cases, such a plaintiff would simply lose. A conviction of an offense is a huge help in getting an award of damages. And by the way, a BA in economics and law doesn't REALLY mean you understand the law. I agree people can get expertise without studying. But the way you are talking makes me think you don't understand why a law against DUI is helpful in a civil suit.

            No, your second paragraph is nothing more than an assertion. You offered no facts in support of your claims. And what makes you think a drunk driver would have the SENSE to drive more slowly? He didn't have the sense to refrain from driving in the first place. And what makes you think driving more slowly would prevent accidents? People who drive at a greatly different speed are a hazard.

  15. Don says:

    I had a similar experience as well, that has stuck with me. I was on my way to work, rounding a curve, and I saw a white PT Cruiser crossing the center line and heading right at me. The woman was looking down, apparently texting or dialing. I had a split second choice — drive off the right side of the road to avoid her, and probably roll my van in the ditch, or hit her head on. I laid on the horn as I opted for the ditch, and she looked up at the last second and veered back toward her lane. We narrowly missed a collision. I was so angry I nearly turned around and chased her down, but I was afraid of what would happen if I caught up with her. Sadly, a few weeks later I encountered her a little farther along on my trip to work. She again was looking down, and her vehicle was straddling the line between her lane and the turn lane. Again, I nearly chased her down but didn’t trust myself to remain calm if I caught her. These experiences have made me a more focused driver. but unfortunately I fear again encountering her — in my lane, of course.

    • cara says:


  16. Pat says:

    Look inside yourself and blame yourself if someone does something irrational that almost kills you? That doesn't make any sense!