My wife got into a car accident yesterday. It seems an inexperienced driver driving an overly large vehicle in an unfamiliar city changed lanes in such a way as to cut her off. Naturally, she swerved to miss them, and hit a fire hydrant and a pole.

Luckily, the driver of the other car came back to check on her. I guess this doesn't happen much. When talking to the insurance company afterwards, they told us that we would have been better off if my wife had not swerved, instead letting them hit her, because then it would have established clear fault.

Now, obviously, I have a problem with this kind of thinking. In the end, one car was damaged, not two. Nobody was injured, save for some scrapes and bruises. If this had been played out the way the insurance company would have preferred, there would have been two cars damaged, possibly three to six people injured (including an infant!) and it would have been a far more expensive and life-impacting mess.

But, you know, the paperwork would have been simpler.