LAW L LAW FIRM

Cars are driving towards each other in a winding alley in a residential area. Looking around, it is not a road with a one-way sign, and even the width of traffic is limited due to cars parked haphazardly on the shoulder. It would be nice if the road was flat, but the background against which these difficulties unfold is so steep that the car might soon be pushed around like a domino stick. They look at each other and stop just barely touching the front bumpers, but soon they end up exchanging shouts and pointing. They even turn off the engine and threaten each other not to get out of the way, going through a period of perseverance to protect their pride.

This time, two vehicles are heading in the same direction on the road. The driver of the car in front keeps stopping and looking around to see if the address he was looking for is here or there. The car behind, unable to wait, honks its high beams and claxons at the car in front, and the car in front also blocks the path of the car behind as a sign of protest, questioning each other's faults. In the end, it is not until a police officer shows up and threatens to impose a fine that one side clears the way.

As in the above situation, while driving on a narrow alley, a minor difference of opinion about who should go first or who should give way turns into a battle of pride and emotions, something that every driver has probably witnessed at least once. So what is the cause of this problem and how does our legal system regulate it to solve it?

In fact, a confrontation between drivers on a dead-end road is referred to as a form of ‘chicken game’, borrowing the word ‘chicken’, which means cowardice, and is often depicted in movies. In the 1955 film 'Rebel Without a Cause' starring James Dean, and more recently in 'Top Gun: Maverick' starring Tom Cruise, Rooster and Maverick exceed the minimum altitude limit and climb vertically. It will be easier to understand if you recall that a chicken game situation unfolded while playing rolling scissors.

In a game of chicken, there are only two options: either break the handle or not, and the person who breaks the handle becomes a coward (suffering a serious blow to their self-esteem). If all the cars coming at you do not turn the steering wheel, the worst outcome will be a collision (and death). At first glance, it is a similar situation to the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’, but there is no clear superior strategy and my rational behavior varies depending on the other person’s actions.

In other words, each person's rational choice is 'when driver 1 turns the steering wheel, driver 2 does not turn the steering wheel', or conversely, 'when driver 2 turns the steering wheel, driver 1 does not turn the steering wheel'. It will happen. In game theory, this state is expressed as a Nash Equilibrium, which means a situation in which each player makes the most reasonable choice according to the competitor's response and reaches a state in which neither party feels the need to change their choice further.

So what role can the law play in this case? First, you will have to prioritize which driver should turn the steering wheel while maintaining his pride. Since its enactment in 1961, the Road Traffic Act has provided some solutions to . The priority of cars is set around emergency vehicles, and not only when a car in front of the car is following behind, but also when a car of the same or lower priority is following, the driver continues to drive at a slower speed than the following car. In this case, it was stipulated that one should yield the right-of-way by avoiding the road to the right edge.

Meanwhile, in the revision on May 31, 2005, a solution was also proposed for , where vehicles other than emergency vehicles face each other on narrow roads. It was legislated that empty cars that are not carrying passengers or goods must give way by moving to the right edge of the road. Furthermore, in the revision on December 29, 2009, the priority of mutual passage was determined according to the maximum speed of each vehicle and the obligation to give way to vehicles in the following priority was uniformly imposed on vehicles in the following priority, but now it is possible for vehicles, excluding emergency vehicles, to drive slower than the vehicle behind them depending on the driving situation. The solution to was supplemented by allowing the driver to give up the path even in this case.

In addition, it is the proper role of law in the rule of law to make it clear that unreasonable hard-line measures will never work and to continuously educate citizens about this fact, thereby creating an atmosphere in which the virtue of concession is welcomed throughout society and allowing efficient conflict resolution to occur naturally.

Accordingly, if you fail to yield to an emergency vehicle or a vehicle with the right of way at an intersection without traffic control, you may be subject to criminal or administrative sanctions. In general, if an accident occurs due to failure to yield, you may be subject to a traffic accident penalty. Although the general principle is followed, when calculating civil liability for damages, it is actually rude to add a negligence ratio of about 10%p.

Of course, the best thing is a situation where the conflict subsides due to a feeling of reluctance even without the law. Before the law intervenes, wouldn't it be a true driving expert and wise move to safely get out of the narrow road through the virtue of yielding and consideration rather than shouting a soulful klaxon to a driver encountered at a dead end on the road?