More than 13,600 views of the report about the accident on the road to Łaziska and 271 comments from Internet users, who divided into two fiercely opposed factions. This accident could be called the most important event of the past week.
One person died—the driver of the car, who lost control of the vehicle. Two other people were injured. The report provided no further details about the injured people or the victim. Several photographs of the wrecked cars were published.
The discussion beneath the report began routinely, with a condolence post, followed by the statement that the road to Łaziska was dangerous. Someone called for increased prevention measures, such as placing speed cameras on the road or installing traffic-calming lights. However, after several posts, forum users increasingly began writing about excessive speed. This was not yet directed at the victim; people wrote in general terms: “Drive faster and there will surely be fewer accidents.” or “[…] it is clear that there still aren’t enough speed cameras to get drivers to slow down […]”.
However, this general tone was quickly broken, because the next post came from a witness (admittedly only an alleged one; like all anonymous posts on the Internet, it cannot be regarded as certain). One female Internet user wrote: “I saw how fast he was driving through the village; no wonder he ended up in a tree. It’s only a pity that by driving like that he put the driver of another car at risk. What a shame.” The next post, allegedly from an acquaintance, quickly identified the victim and the injured person as brothers racing each other on the road to Łaziska. And then the war broke out.
On one side of the barricade were Internet users presenting themselves as family members, relatives or people who knew the victim; on the other were people for whom, as they declared, the deceased young man was simply a complete stranger and a speeding offender.
Some wrote about the tragedy that had occurred in one of the homes. They wrote about the mother’s suffering upon learning of her son’s death and her fear for the health of the other one; about the fiancée left behind by the victim, probably pregnant; and about the pain of friends who remembered the victim as a wonderful young man who had made one mistake in his life and paid for it with his life.
None of these arguments convinced the opponents. In their view, the young man deserved to die. To them, he was a speeding offender who, through his own choice, stupidity, carelessness and thoughtlessness, had caused not only his own death but also the maiming of innocent people—the passenger for whom he was responsible as the driver, and the other driver, an innocent victim of his recklessness. What is more, he had caused pain to those closest to him. One of the most characteristic posts from this group stated: “Somehow I don’t feel like expressing sympathy...”.
It is thought-provoking that individual suffering, and even death, are not perceived in this case as retribution for possible offenses or sins?! Many people believe that a driver traveling too fast deserved to die.
One post by the forum user most harshly criticized by the victim’s relatives explains this very simply: “[…] I don’t care that he was someone’s friend, son or future father; to me, he was a potential murderer who, fortunately, was eliminated by natural selection”.
I do not believe there is even one person who, while driving within the speed limit and being exposed to the danger of losing their health or life because of a speeding offender, wishes that offender a safe journey home, so that he can embrace his pregnant wife and spend a pleasant evening with his family. Nevertheless, once our emotions subside and the fear for ourselves and our loved ones passes, we undoubtedly forget the whole incident—until the next accident.
Those protesting against speeding offenders were not really slandering this one man who died tragically. They were reacting to a phenomenon and to situations they had repeatedly experienced as drivers. Despite taking every possible precaution, they can never be certain that someone who commits some “small” act of recklessness in life will not appear on their road. Then their rationality, caution and observance of the rules are of no use, because someone who follows no rules appears on the road. His death is a consequence of his choices or conduct. Yet their death or disability would always be an undeserved, irrational blind accident—something they had not deserved.
Every person’s first thought when their life is threatened is to defend themselves and to call for the elimination from the group of the individual posing the threat. Is that wrong? According to many religions, it is probably reprehensible. But as a human species, we survived thanks to this way of thinking. Such behavior is part of who we are.
That is why, in many cases, we believe that there are individuals who should be killed for the common good. Most of our society supports the death penalty for murderers, rapists and pedophiles. This is our first instinctive impulse: elimination. Then a code of conduct imposed by culture and religion has its say—compassion, forgiveness and empathy for families who lose a loved one who will always be innocent in their eyes.
No one truly wanted the young man to die on the road to Łaziska. Least of all did the people who so harshly criticized speeding offenders. They were protesting against putting their own lives and their families’ health at risk. They were defending their loved ones just as the victim’s friends nobly stood up for his good name.
Poll – speeding offenders
Jak często czujesz się zagrożony przez pirata drogowego?
Grażyna Hanaf