I was rushing to class as the time ticked down before my astronomy exam. I knew that I had to gain some time to arrive when the exam was supposed to start. As I hastily made my way up Stadium Road, I glanced both ways and seeing a car coming quickly towards me, I made a split second decision: cross the street. In a rush, I jaywalked, forcing the car to slow down to accommodate me as I jogged across the two lanes to the other side of the road. This interaction, along with many other similar ones at UVA, presents a prisoner’s dilemma. A prisoner’s dilemma occurs when two parties, unable to communicate, must choose between cooperation and self-interest, where the optimal choice depends on the decisions of others. These situations often present a dominant strategy. A dominant strategy is when there is an optimal choice regardless of others’ decisions. In the presence of an incoming car on the road, we are presented with two options given our time constraints: one, cross the street in front of the car, or two, wait for it to pass, losing those few crucial seconds.
In this dilemma, the dominant strategy is to cross the road in front of the car. This choice will resolve in one of two ways: either the car slows and you cross at your convenience, or the car hits you. Any court is likely to hold the driver accountable, because jaywalking is illegal in most states, while hitting a pedestrian is illegal everywhere. Furthermore, the mitigation of damage doctrine prevents a party from receiving damages that could have been avoided. Unless the pedestrian was grossly-negligent and could have avoided being hit, the court will often side with the 150lb pedestrian over the 3,000lb motor vehicle in a collision. In both situations, the pedestrian wins, making this a prisoner's dilemma.
No comments:
Post a Comment