You Could Look It Up: Writer’s ‘Rationalization’ for Spectator Slowing Was Indefensible

One definition for “rationalization” given in my American Heritage Dictionary is “to devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one’s behavior.”

Cathy Curtis’ attempt to justify slowing down to rubberneck at highway accidents is precisely that kind of rationalization (“In Defense of Slowing Down at Accident Scenes,” Carmentary, Aug. 26).

What she has failed to acknowledge is the possibility--even the probability--that similar accidents (chain-reaction) will occur in the wake of her irresponsible act of slowing to view an accident scene that should not concern her.

The California Highway Patrol has experimented with a plastic inflatable visibility barrier to prevent Curtis’ kind of highway hazard. The CHP is on the right track; it is just regrettable that the public must pay the cost of such accouterments--in addition to the lost time and danger to which Curtis and her ilk have subjected us.

ROBERT HAAGE

Montclair

*

I cannot believe that Curtis is that insensitive to everyone else on the freeway. She states in her article that she looks because accidents are one of life’s “sad levelers.” Does she also sit riveted to her TV to view gory pictures of earthquake victims? Or does she sit in wide-eyed wonder when she hears about school shootings, just to see blood and guts?

I am a logistics manager for a major transportation company in Southern California, and on any given day, I have 26 or more truck drivers traversing the highways. It’s people like Curtis that not only contribute to congestion but are directly responsible for it.

She had just better hope that when the time comes for her to need assistance on the freeway, some idiot like her isn’t gawking at someone else’s misfortune, causing a delay in her getting help.

I hope she thinks about that the next time she slow downs to indulge whatever sick and twisted fantasy about other people and their misfortunes.

HOWARD GREEN

Canyon Country

*

Even though I was only half-awake and sipping a cold cup of coffee, Curtis’ article caught my attention. “My, God,” I thought in amazement, “someone else besides me defends looky-loos?”

I have often thought that those who disparage looky-loos try to ignore thousands of years of human nature. After all, if I were traveling in a wild jungle and suddenly came across a dead and ravaged animal, would it not be to my advantage to stop and look around? The danger may not be over.

And so we on the freeway who slow down to check out an accident are not merely curious but survivalists who recognize danger when we see it. I don’t like to be late either, but I also don’t want to be caught unaware while danger lurks on the five-lane highway.

CECILIA T. BEST

Riverside