 It's
been a long day, it's dark out, and you're in a hurry to get home.
You're driving along, paying attention to the road but also thinking
about what you're going to do later. Suddenly, out of nowhere, someone
darts out from beyond your peripheral vision right into your path. A
dull thud. You don't even have time to swerve. You stop the car and
back up. Then what? You get out of the car, of course. You assess the
situation, and if there is any injury you call 911 immediately. You
stay at the scene offering whatever help you can. Even if there are no
witnesses. Especially if
there are no witnesses. You do this even if no one is hurt, or no one
seems to be hurt. If you know emergency techniques you apply them. If
the victim is an animal or a bird, you know exactly what to do.
Anyone who would flee the scene of an accident they were party to must
have been either drunk or driving without a license, right?
Well, maybe not.
In Toronto we have recently had a rash of hit and run accidents
involving injured people. Police have no idea why the hit-and-run rate
seems to have spiked. What is even more surprising to police is the
number of witnesses who flee
the scene and don't offer testimony later. After all, these people
didn't do anything wrong, so the excuse that they could be facing long
prison terms, life disruption and the fury of the family and friends of
the injured doesn't apply to witnesses.
In LA, they're experts
at this. With 9000 hit-and-runs a year, they have a lot of experience,
and what they tell us is troubling: The rate of hit-and-runs is rising,
despite crackdowns on unlicensed and repeat inebriated drivers. Those
who flee the scene almost never come forward later. And the few who do all say the same thing: "They
say they were scared and they didn't know what to do, and they panicked
and they fled." Witnesses flee even faster, presumably rationalizing
that someone else will have seen the accident or happen upon the scene
soon and stay to deal with it. They don't respond to rewards offered
later -- presumably because they don't want to admit they didn't stay
in the first place.
To what do we ascribe this behaviour? The
obvious answer is "Because we think the chances of getting away with it
outweigh the responsibility and penalties for staying." We are
risk-averse and motivated by the perceived
relative penalties and rewards for different behaviours. We make a snap
judgement. "If I stay, my life will be ruined, for sure, even though it
was an accident and probably wasn't my fault. If I run, there's an x%
chance that I won't get caught, in which case the only downside is a
lifelong guilty conscience, and a y% chance that I will get caught, in
which case the consequences won't be significantly worse than if I stay
and face those consequences for certain." As long as x% is greater than
zero, this is a no-brainer. Even if you factor in the possibility that
staying might mitigate the extent of injuries, that is unlikely to
change your mind -- it might make you 'anonymously' report the
accident, but would be unlikely to motivate you to stay. After all, it wasn't your fault.
I'm just speculating here, since I've only witnessed one accident* and that was my own (perhaps I'm not very observant -- most people I know seem to have witnessed many -- or perhaps the witness' dilemma is why
I'm not very observant?), but doesn't this instant risk/reward
calculation make more sense for an explanation than the assumption that
hit-and-run drivers are cruel, irresponsible, evil cowards? What additional penalties for 'leaving the scene of an accident' could change this snap judgement?
Complexity
theory says that if you want to change behaviour, you need to change
the attractors (incentives) and barriers (disincentives) for different
behaviours. What
if we changed the law to say that if you stay at the scene of an
accident you will get automatic immunity to all criminal charges you
might otherwise have faced for the accident? You will still have
to face the mental anguish, of course, but then you probably will face
that anyway, knowing in your own mind what you might have done and
perhaps even embellishing it to worst-case scenario in the absence of
information. Such a law change would probably infuriate the victims and
their loved ones, but ultimately the law is (or should be) less about
legislating morality and justice than in achieving desired outcomes. What is less clear is whether lawmakers would ever have the courage to enact such a law. I wouldn't hold my breath.
If they did, this would change the mathematics of the snap judgement we make at that horrific instant, which would then become: "If
I stay, I will have to face a lot of anguish and perhaps anger, but no
chance of legal consequences, even if I should be judged partly at
fault.
If I run, there's an x% chance that I won't get caught, in which case
I'll probably feel at least as bad as if I stay, and a y% chance that
I will get caught, in which case the consequences will be
significantly worse than if I stay." This time it's a no-brainer in favour of staying.
That will work for accidents with potential criminal
consequences. It might also work, more modestly, to encourage witnesses
to stay at the scene. It won't work for accidents that have only moral
consequences. In countries like Canada that have pathetic, non-existent
animal protection laws, for example, the snap judgement after hitting
an animal will remain: "If I
stay, I'll probably face anguish, anger from the owner, and perhaps
desperate helplessness at what to do, even though it was an accident
and probably wasn't my fault.
If I run, there's an x% chance that I won't get caught, in which case
the only downside is a fleeting guilty conscience, and a y% chance that
I will get caught, in which case the consequences won't be
significantly worse than if I stay and face those consequences for
certain." In this case it's still a no-brainer for fleeing, unless
you're a person of exceptional courage, honesty, and/or preparedness (I
hope never to find out whether I am such a person).
The
answer to this, of course, is for lawmakers to have the courage to
enact meaningful animal protection laws. I'm not holding my breath for
that, either.
* I was once in a car with people who witnessed
an accident. In the 1970s in the UK I was in a car (this was during my
hitchhiking days) driven by a couple who witnessed a single-car
accident on an expressway against a guard rail (I was watching the
scenery in the opposite direction). My hosts stopped and pulled over to
the left shoulder of the expressway, as the victim staggered out of his
car, face covered with blood, and begged the driver not to report the
accident (it would have been a repeat DUI accident that would cost him
his licence and his job). We drove him to the hospital and my host left
his business card with the admitting nurse.
Photo from Mariposa County (Calif.) fire department online archives. |
1:23:49 PM 
|
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
