Limiting acceleration isn't a great solution, but your idea that accelerating cripples avoidance makes even less sense.
you're in the middle lane with cars to your left, right, and rear. the one on the left doesn't see you and starts merging into your lane. if you slam on the brakes, you wouldn't be legally at fault for whatever happens next, but it would probably be best to briskly accelerate.
You are not legally at fault for stopping to avoid an accident.
In your scenario, lets make one small change, instead of the car being behind you it is in front... does accelerating help?
this depends on the assumption that other drivers are aware of their surroundings and following you at a safe distance. unfortunately that's not usually the case on roads in my area. you could try that, or you could avoid the entire altercation by escaping to the open space ahead of you.
> In your scenario, lets make one small change, instead of the car being behind you it is in front... does accelerating help?
is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? let me make my point more clear. your car has brakes, an accelerator, and a steering wheel. use whichever one of those takes you in the opposite direction of the impending collision and doesn't require other drivers to avoid you instead.
I've been driving for ~30 years and cant tell you when "accelerating" was my choice to avoid an accident.
I have had people attempt to change lanes without looking first. I honked and they stopped.
It is great to manufacture a situation where as you put it, people don't keep a safe distance yet the space in front of you is empty? Odd..
The more you post, the less sense you make. Perhaps read the response from the other guy as well?
It's the same thinking that people who carry guns around all day do. They think they're the protagonist in an action movie, that they can hero their way through any problem, and any limit to that is a violation of their rights.