Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 20:39:48 +0100
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
Leon James wrote:
Please understand that we are after the psychological mechanisms of
road
rage. Surely you can see that road rage cannot be just a little thing
by
itself in the driver's mind. Think of it this way:
You are indeed after the psychological mechanisms behind road rage but
you are, IMHO, in danger of broadening the term road rage in such a way
as to encompass many other road behaviours that would not be understood
to be road rage by the demos. Should you persist in this then the
conclusions you draw regarding psychological mechanisms may not be
applicable as they will not be descriptive of road rage per se but of
the greater body of all road behaviours.
Should you wish to analyze the psychological mechanisms behind all road
behaviors you are welcome to do so, but here is the problem in applying
koine terms in precise ways. Your message becomes ambiguous. It is
ignored as "popularist" by academics and as "irrelevent" by everyone
else.
What would have prevented Diana's tragic crash? Of course, several
things
can be picked, the main ones being:
1. driver's alcohol impaired physical state, speeding, and aggressive
driving behavior (he must have threatened other cars who were in his
way)
We do not have the facts. It is possible that he never threatened the
other drivers. It is possible that (despite some reports) the
photographers were following behind, unable to catch up. To arrive at a
conclusion without first having ascertained the facts is a poor way to
proceed in an investigation.
2. driver's mental state such as his alleged taunting of those who
were
pursuing him ("Catch me if you Can").
Yes, if those reports are true then the driver would seem to have been
inclined to excessive risk taking (quite possibly through the effects of
drinking). This is a very dangerous behavior, but not one generally
termed road rage.
To investigate this behavior with a view to modifying it is laudable,
but such investigation would be more credible if it avoided a term that
is not properly applied to it. I agree that many of the psychological
mechanisms behind risk taking are the same as those behind road rage,
but road rage is not a descriptive terms of the mechanisms - rather it
is a description of a driving behavior (an aggressive response to a
driving incident or perceived incident).
3. the photographers on motorcycles who taunted, chased, blocked,
pursued, intimidated, and whatever else bad they did like flashing
photos
in the eyes of the driver, blocking police from getting there, etc.
Again there are many conflicting reports. I wonder if the importance of
Diana has obscured us
From the basic facts (facts we would not think
twice about in other circumstances). Could it be (and this is mere
conjecture) that the car was actually travelling much closer to the
speed limit (50 or 60 mph), the driver simply lost control through the
effects of alcohol, speed and poor judgement, and the car crashed. The
occupants were killed because they were not wearing seat belts?
You see these things happen every day, and no one thinks twice about
them. If it is proven that the vehicle was travelling at 120mph with a
bike in front and photographers all around (riding one handed whilst
taking photographs with their other hands also at 120mph in a 40mph
zone!!!!!), if it then turns out that the driver, despite being drunk,
only killed 3 out of 4 passengers and none of the photographers then I
will be buying shares in Mercedes - that must be some special car.
I expect the truth is (unfortunately) more mundane. These people were
killed by drunk driving in a crash that would have been survivable had
they worn seat belts. The photographers may not have done anything worse
then follow the vehicle in question.
Now all 3 of these causes involve road rage in some sense. Can you
see
this?
No, I cannot. Road rage would require some action on the part of the
photographers to which the driver responded inadvisably. It may be the
case that such actions took place but we dare not reach our conclusions
before we have the facts - that would be quite unscientific.
Just think: the driver knew he had been drinking and how much:
yet he did not inform anyone and did not disqualify himself. This
attitude is a KIND of rage or anger or disdain for others, don't you
think?
Not road rage, no. This is drunk driving. Drunk driving is not road
rage. Drunk driving is drunk driving. These terms describe the
behavior, not the mechanism. Anger is anger. Just because anger may
result
From sadness, does not make it sadness.
As to the photographers, they make me think of a new phrase
(careful--don't knock Dr. Driving too soon....), namely,
PAPARAZZI RAGE
Well Americans do love to coin these terms. I'm rather surprised the
whole affair has not been called "Paparazzigate" or maybe "Dianagate".
Incidentally, on your web site you suggest that "defensive driving" is
counter productive which suggests that you have never been on a UK
advanced driving course (over here at least, cooperation is an important
part of the course). May I suggest you consider it.
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 21:59:19 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport, dc.driving, phl.transportation,
soc.culture.malaysia
Leon James wrote:
At this point my hypothesis has become a near certainty. Everyone is
beginning to recognize it in the media. The Honolulu Advertiser's
headline this afternoon: 'Catch me if you can' which is attributed to the
driver responding to the paparazzi when he came near them. So off he goes
(of course he was ALSO allegedly legally drunk! as we we have heard) and a
crazy chase ensues -- the allegedly drunk, crazed driver racing it out
with a bunch of crazed motorcyclists, who when they get there, allegedly
spend their time taking photos instead of rendering assistance.
All of this makes it, in my book, the road rage incident of the century.
And the unraveling is only beginning now.
IMHO, your preposterous attempts to mold this incident into "road
rage" have already been fully unraveled. To anyone who is familiar
with the English language, "rage" means "extreme anger". Cases of
"road rage" involve extreme anger on the part of one or more road
users. In this case, all you "know" is that a drunk driver tried to
outrun a group of determined cyclists, and failed disastrously.
Did the driver's drunkenness mean that he was enraged? No.
Did his "Catch me..." boast mean that he was enraged? No.
Did his excessive speed mean that he was enraged? No.
Did his driving error(s) mean that he was enraged? No.
Did the cyclists' attempts to keep up mean they were enraged? No.
Did their post-crash photo-taking mean that they were enraged? No.
IOW, no sensible person will see extreme anger (or rage) in any part
of this tragedy. Somehow, that hasn't impeded your disgraceful,
self-serving, and singularly unconvincing attempts to cast this
tragedy as "road rage". Have you no shame, Mr James?!?
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:07:32 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport, dc.driving, phl.transportation,
soc.culture.malaysia
The answer is simple. The driver was drunk, very drunk. Road rage had as
much to do with this tragedy as it did with the loss of lives in TWA flight
800. Drunk driver + high speed = disaster regardless of where or not the
driver was fleeing papparazi.
I will agree that drunk driver + high speed = disaster, but would they
have been going as fast if it were not for the papparazi? It is not easy
to let them off the hook.
Date: 4 Sep 1997 23:22:40 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
Get a life Leon. It's painfully obvious you need one.
When presenting your hypothesis, why don't you take into account the
FACT that the driver was intoxicated? Does that just not fit within
your narrow-minded view of things?
In article , Leon James wrote:
Yes, the driver' state of alcohol intoxication was mentioned many times.
There are two views on this: those who see DUI as an aggressive driving
phenomenon, and those who desire to separate the two.
A driver who insists on driving after drinking , and willing to have
passengers in that impaired state, is performing an aggressive, hostile
act! First against the passengers; second, against other drivers (even
when there are no passengers). Drunk driving is a form of hostility and
aggressiveness, hence, road rage.
I'm wondering: can those of you who have an obvious distaste for
including DUI and speeding dangerously (repeat: dangerously and
incompetently) as part of a driver's hostility towards other drivers and
passengers: can you specify exactly what about this view or definition
you object to so vehemently??
Leon James
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 23:02:26 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
When presenting your hypothesis, why don't you take into account the
FACT that the driver was intoxicated? Does that just not fit within
your narrow-minded view of things?
Leon James wrote:
A driver who insists on driving after drinking , and willing to have
passengers in that impaired state, is performing an aggressive, hostile
act! First against the passengers; second, against other drivers (even
when there are no passengers). Drunk driving is a form of hostility and
aggressiveness, hence, road rage.
So, now you're claiming that blood alcohol content is equivalent to
aggression? Keep going. It's not too far to that cliff.
I'm wondering: can those of you who have an obvious distaste for
including DUI and speeding dangerously (repeat: dangerously and
incompetently) as part of a driver's hostility towards other drivers and
passengers: can you specify exactly what about this view or definition
you object to so vehemently??
I object to your drawing direct correlations between intoxication and
aggression or hostile intent. I object to your "knowing" that the
driver was hostile and aggressive. I object to your self-serving
labels of "road rage" pasted all over this forum.
Date: 1997/09/04
Message-Id: <873363121.31782@dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: misc.transport.road
Maybe the media is looking harder at the cause of the wreck
itself, and not so much at what the car hit. Not to beat a dead horse, but
if all those factors that caused that driver to lose control wern't present
( excessive speed, DWI, papparazi negligence etc.)
...and road rage. Excessive speed is an aggressive act against other
drivers. Repeat: excessive. DUI is an aggressive act endangering other
drivers. Paparazzi aggressiveness in hot pursuit is obviously a road rage
act.
From leon@hawaii.edu Fri Sep 5 12:51:48 1997
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:19:51 -1000
From: Leon James
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
I object to your drawing direct correlations between intoxication and
aggression or hostile intent. I object to your "knowing" that the
driver was hostile and aggressive. I object to your self-serving
labels of "road rage" pasted all over this forum.
Your objection is a kind of rage ("flame rage"??).
I think you need to add this idea to your concept:
Any act by a driver involves road rage when (a) it is dangerous and
illegal; (b) the driver doesn't care (is negligent or reckless).
Is DUI road rage? According to this definition, it is when the driver is
legally drunk and drives anyway, not caring about passengers or other
drivers on the road. Not caring and being reckless behind the wheel:
that's road rage.
Is speeding road rage? It is when it's done recklessly without care for
the other road users. Is blocking the left lane by going slow an instance
of road rage? Yes.
So now:
Why should ALL FORMS of deliberate, careless, dangerous driving be called
road rage?
Because it always involves aggression and hostility and the desire for
revenge or injury. I have studied this phenomenon for years with many
drivers!
Two adolescent drivers racing each other: is it road rage? Yes.
Tailgating: is it road rage? Yes.
Dangerous lane hopping, weaving, not signaling, not being alert, blocking
the lane by going slow, yelling at others: are these road rage events?
Yes. Being an incompetent or bad and careless driver, not caring about
others, not caring about improving, not taking driving seriously: are
these road rage? Yes.
Think of the millions of accidents and thousands of deaths every year.
Think of the more millions who are in congested commutes every day. For
their sake, for the sake of the automobile age, for your own sake--give up
road rage by first acknowledging that we all have it as a cultural norm
and habit. Then we can change.
Leon James
visit Dr. Driving.org
Take care, and Drive with Aloha spirit!!
From leon@hawaii.edu Fri Sep 5 12:52:20 1997
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:31:46 -1000
From: Leon James
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport, dc.driving, phl.transportation,
soc.culture.malaysia
IMHO, your preposterous attempts to mold this incident into "road
rage" have already been fully unraveled. To anyone who is familiar
with the English language, "rage" means "extreme anger". Cases of
"road rage" involve extreme anger on the part of one or more road
users. In this case, all you "know" is that a drunk driver tried to
outrun a group of determined cyclists, and failed disastrously.
Not "tried to outrun" but: engaged in reckless and irrational driving and
causing the deaths of his passengers. Scotland Yard officials said a
trained agent in the car would not have permitted the enraged driver to
drive so fast (whether or not he could detect his being drunk).
Did the driver's drunkenness mean that he was enraged? No.
Did his "Catch me..." boast mean that he was enraged? No.
Did his excessive speed mean that he was enraged? No.
Did his driving error(s) mean that he was enraged? No.
Did the cyclists' attempts to keep up mean they were enraged? No.
Did their post-crash photo-taking mean that they were enraged? No.
Switch to Yes. In each case. Inner rage is the only explanation for any
of these hurtful activities. It's simple: if you do your thing, hurting
others and not caring, you're trying to hurt them--it's a fundamentally
aggressive act; it is hostile. It is hate. Lack of caring. The French
law (called "Samaritan Law") obliges drivers to help in an accident.
American law punishes those who leave the scene of an accident. People
who race each other on public highways get arrested because it's
anti-social not to care about the welfare of others. It's hateful and
angry.
IOW, no sensible person will see extreme anger (or rage) in any part
of this tragedy. Somehow, that hasn't impeded your disgraceful,
self-serving, and singularly unconvincing attempts to cast this
tragedy as "road rage". Have you no shame, Mr James?!?
You are in the grips of rage. Friend, I do you no harm! I'm engaging in
rational communication for the benefit of understanding a societal
epidemic.
Leon James
From leon@hawaii.edu Fri Sep 5 12:52:34 1997
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:48:01 -1000
From: Leon James
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
You are indeed after the psychological mechanisms behind road rage but
you are, IMHO, in danger of broadening the term road rage in such a way
as to encompass many other road behaviors that would not be understood
to be road rage by the demos.
(snip)
I expect the truth is (unfortunately) more mundane. These people were
killed by drunk driving in a crash that would have been survivable had
they worn seat belts. The photographers may not have done anything worse
then follow the vehicle in question.
Both acts involve road rage--let's see why.
Drunk driver taunting pursuers and speeding recklessly: by saying this is
road rage we are identifying a probable cause of this lack of social
responsibility. That's it: lack of social responsibility behind the
wheel: that is road rage because it's hostile, aggressive, vengeful.
Same with the pursuing photographers: why are they being charged with
involuntary manslaughter? To recognize that they act irresponsibly when
they engage in dangerous pursuit for the sake of gain, even if it puts
others in danger, including bystanders. What allows them to take a chance
with our lives? Rage. Inner rage. Hostility. Lack of human caring.
Beastly emotions of selfishness. (Note: none of this is a criticism of
any one here. Why take it that way?)
Incidentally, on your web site you suggest that "defensive driving" is
counter productive which suggests that you have never been on a UK
advanced driving course (over here at least, cooperation is an important
part of the course). May I suggest you consider it.
Thank you. It's good to hear that defensive driving in the UK includes
cooperation. In that case I would call it "supportive driving."
Leon James
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:55:47 +0100
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
Leon James wrote:
Is speeding road rage? It is when it's done recklessly without care
for
the other road users. Is blocking the left lane by going slow an
instance
of road rage? Yes.
No this is what we in the UK call dangerous driving.
Incidentally, the left lane is where slow traffic is supposed to be.
Two adolescent drivers racing each other: is it road rage? Yes.
No, this is racing on the public highway
Tailgating: is it road rage? Yes.
Only if it is done in response to some other driving incident. It could
be carelessness.
Dangerous lane hopping,
Dangerous driving
Weaving,
If you mean weaving to undertake then this is dangerous driving of a
form that can sometimes precipitate road rage incidents.
not signaling,
Carelessness
not being alert,
Carelessness
blocking the lane by going slow,
This may indeed be considered road rage if carried out in the overtaking
lanes as a response to drivers who are tailgating or speeding
excessively.
yelling at others:
This is almost always a road rage behavior.
... Being an incompetent or bad and careless driver, not caring about
others, not caring about improving, not taking driving seriously: are
these road rage? Yes.
No. Road rage is a limiting term. It defines a particular aggressive
response to a particular set of circumstances. Are these antisocial
driving behaviors? yes. You see you are using the term road rage in a
way that it is not understood by your intended audience. You are right
to draw attention to antisocial driving behaviors, but you are wrong to
use the label "Road Rage" in this way.
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 97 06:20:28 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
I object to your drawing direct correlations between intoxication and
agression or hostile intent. I object to your "knowing" that the
driver was hostile and agressive. I object to your self-serving
labels of "road rage" pasted all over this forum.
In article ,
Leon James wrote:
Your objection is a kind of rage ("flame rage"??).
I think you need to add this idea to your concept:
Any act by a driver involves road rage when (a) it is dangerous and
illegal; (b) the driver doesn't care (is negligent or reckless).
Is DUI road rage? According to this definition, it is when the driver is
legally drunk and drives anyway, not caring about passengers or other
drivers on the road. Not caring and being reckless behind the wheel:
that's road rage.
Is speeding road rage? It is when it's done recklessly without care for
the other road users. Is blocking the left lane by going slow an instance
of road rage? Yes.
So now:
Why should ALL FORMS of deliberate, careless, dangerous driving be called
road rage?
Because it always involves aggression and hostility and the desire for
revenge or injury. I have studied this phenomenon for years with many
drivers!
Leon, your broadening of the definition of "road rage" to include everything from the chronic anti-social deviant to the person who occasionally forgets to
use their turn signal captures just about everyone who drives, and ultimately
dilutes the entire message.
However, we still have a need to define the difference between the true
anti-social person who meets my/the traditional definition of "road rage", and
the at-best undesirable behaviors of a majority of the population.
For example, I don't agree that the majority of DUI drivers fit into the
definition of road rage. While their actions are at a *minimum*
"inconsiderate" for both the safety of others and the norms of societal
behavior, their behavior is often motivated by an ignorance of the potential
outcomes of their actions, their denial of their problem, and/or their illness
of alcoholism, NOT rage.
Ignorance (def: lack of knowledge) *does not* equal rage (def: intense anger,
fury).
You are essentially lumping together rapists and people who park without
putting money in the meter, and you ultimately do a disservice to reducing the
true road rage crashes.
Instead, I suggest some definitions...
Inconsiderate driving - an action with a low or negligible probability of
creating an crash. For example: failing to signal in a situation where you
inconvenience another person without creating the potential for an accident.
Incompetent driving - actions by drivers who don't know better. For example:
poorly trained drivers. [IMHO, this is the root of much "aggressive driving"
and gets the least attention from both police and government authorities.]
Aggressive driving - regulatory offences. For example: cutting-off drivers,
excessive speeding, failing to yield right of way, etc.
Road rage - criminal offences: extreme anti-social actions which lead to
crashes and are rooted in *extreme* rage. I would suggest that only a vary
small percentage of the population has the capacity to become so enraged.
I'm sure that your attempts to bolster the perceived problem of road rage
assists you in increasing a market for both your books and public appearances.
However, I'm much more concerned of the motives of the insurance and safety
industry who seem determined to create another "mission" for themselves,
having lost their speed kills bandwagon (and the revenue it created).
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 17:34:40 -0700
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport, dc.driving, phl.transportation,
soc.culture.malaysia
IMHO, your preposterous attempts to mold this incident into "road
rage" have already been fully unraveled. To anyone who is familiar
Not road rage I think. More likely:
Dodi: These damn paparazzi, they're a real pain!! Driver, lose them!
Driver: Duh.. yes zir, bozz.
The rest is a tragedy.
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 14:45:47 +0100
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
Leon James wrote:
At this point my hypothesis has become a near certainty.
Well "hypothesis" comes from the Greek verb "to guess". I presume that
you are not using the term in the original Greek form but in the way it
is understood as part of the scientific method.
In that case the hypothesis must begin with *facts* that need
explaining. The hypothesis is formulated to explain the facts and a
theory may be constructed that predicts results. These results can then
be tested by experiment to prove or disprove the theory.
Your hypothesis did not begin with facts. There were no facts to suggest
road rage was a factor in this accident. Indeed you have failed to
define your terms so that what you call road rage is known to the rest
of the world as "antisocial driving behaviors" (not the plural).
Let us suppose for a minute that it was shown that road rage (as
understood by the Demos) was a factor in this accident, would this prove
your hypothesis correct? The answer is no, because your hypothesis had
no scientific basis. You assumed a result (road rage) and adjusted the
facts (or the semantics) to suit your needs. Indeed we must conclude
that you did not use the term "hypothesis" in the commonly understood
form (as part of the scientific method) but in its original form as "a
guess".
As you demonstrably make use of words in their most primitive form, we
should analyze the term road rage. A road is a pathway along which
vehicles are moved and rage is an intense and often irrational anger. We
might consider the rage of pharoah against the Israelites, so intense
that it took all the plagues and the death of his first born son to
change his course. Indeed, the death of his first born son caused him to
mount his chariots and drive after the fleeing Israelites, a pursuit
that tragically caused a major pile up that wiped out his whole army
under the red sea.
Thus we see that road rage is best understood as an irrational and
intensely angry action in response to some (driving based) stimulus. A
driver who is tailgated demonstrates road rage when he slams on his
brakes in an attempt to make the following driver crash. A driver does
not demonstrate road rage when he races a friend on the public highway.
Such a driver is a fool and his behaviour is just as dangerous and just
as antisocial, but rage is not a factor.
As a psychologist you will speak of various behaviours all being the
result of an inner rage. You have said that drunk driving is a type of
rage, but such distinctions are not valid when carried to the more
primitive meaning of road rage. The rage you speak of may be a
scientific term used by psychologists, but when people speak of road
rage they use the primitive term, not a scientific one.
I think, also, that when you consider anger in driving you must remember
that man is teleological by nature. Anger is a response to a goal that
has been blocked. Anger is merely the behaviour, but modifying the anger
is not enough. It is necessary to modify the goal, and then the anger
will modify itself.
Leon James wrote:
Everyone is
beginning to recognize it in the media. The Honolulu Advertiser's
headline this afternoon:
Is this everyone?
Funnily enough we don't get the Honolulu Advertiser here in Wales.
'Catch me if you can' which is attributed to the
driver responding to the paparazzi when he came near them.
Which is not to say that the driver actually uttered those words. you
need *facts* and they are pretty hard to come by right now.
So off he goes
(of course he was ALSO allegedly legally drunk! as we we have heard)
and a
crazy chase ensues -- the allegedly drunk, crazed driver racing it out
with a bunch of crazed motorcyclists, who when they get there,
allegedly
spend their time taking photos instead of rendering assistance.
Allegedly. Do you have facts? If not then let us not prejudge these
people before they have a chance to defend themselves in court or
elsewhere.
And the unraveling is only beginning now. To me it shows one more
piece of evidence that road rage is a general phenomenon that needs to
be
contained by educational and other methods.
Let me guess - the methods you sell?
I quite agree that there is a problem with antisocial driving
behaviors, and fortunately these are increasingly addressed in advanced
driver training courses. Indeed there was talk in the UK of using some
kind of psychological profiling of drivers in an attempt to change
attitudes. I am not against this side of what you say, but you are quite
wrong to label all antisocial driving behaviours as road rage.
Date: 5 Sep 1997 13:34:27 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
Leon James writes:
[snip]
A driver who insists on driving after drinking , and willing to have
passengers in that impaired state, is performing an aggressive, hostile
act! First against the passengers; second, against other drivers (even
when there are no passengers). Drunk driving is a form of hostility and
aggressiveness, hence, road rage.
I'm wondering: can those of you who have an obvious distaste for
including DUI and speeding dangerously (repeat: dangerously and
incompetently) as part of a driver's hostility towards other drivers and
passengers: can you specify exactly what about this view or definition
you object to so vehemently??
You are full of crap. So here it goes, you deserve it:
STANDARD FLAME POST version 3.432 (c) 1996-1997. Check all that apply.
Dear:
| [ ] Clueless Newbie | [ ] AOL subscriber | [ ] WebTV subscriber
|
| [ ] Lamer | [ ] Me too-er | [ ] Mr. President
|
| [ ] Geek | [ ] Spammer | [ ] Racist
|
| [ ] Freak | [ ] Dummy | [X] "Expert"
|
You Are Being Flamed Because:
[ ] You quoted an entire post in your reply
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[X] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You posted a binary file to a non-binary newsgroup
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ ] You posted a "test" message to a newsgroup other than alt.test
[ ] You said "me too" to something
[ ] You claimed "X rules, Y sucks" but failed to support your lame
statements with evidence
[X] You brag about things that never happened (RE: woad wage)
[ ] Your sig is obnoxiously long
[ ] You posted a cyber-sex/phone-sex ad
[ ] You posted a MMF (Make Money Fast) chain letter
[ ] You claimed that a pyramid scheme is legal
[ ] You crossposted this message to at least a ZILLION newsgroups
[ ] You obviously don't know how to use your software
[ ] YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE CAPS LOCK KEY
[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but you are generally so worthless
that you are being flamed anyway
To Repent, You Must:
[ ] Give up your AOL account
[ ] Give up your WebTV account
[ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[ ] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read and memorize the FAQ
[ ] Ask your husband/wife/life partner to slap you, REAL HARD!
[ ] Ask your mommy to up your medication
[ ] Be the guest of honor in alt.flame for a month
[X] Stop smoking whatever you were smoking
In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
| [X] Get a clue | [ ] Get a life
|
| [ ] Grow up | [ ] Never crosspost again
|
| [ ] I pity your dog | [ ] Take your stuff somewhere else
|
| [ ] Learn how to post or get off | [ ] This is your LAST warning!
|
| [ ] All of the above
|
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 19:22:10 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
I object to your drawing direct correlations between intoxication and
aggression or hostile intent. I object to your "knowing" that the
driver was hostile and aggressive. I object to your self-serving
labels of "road rage" pasted all over this forum.
Your objection is a kind of rage ("flame rage"??).
You're really stretching things, Leon.
If I make an objection to you, I'm enraged?
Heavens, what would you call me if I were to hurl insults at you?
I think you need to add this idea to your concept:
Any act by a driver involves road rage when (a) it is dangerous and
illegal; (b) the driver doesn't care (is negligent or reckless).
I broke the speed limit on my way to work this morning. That was
illegal. Therefore, I must have been experiencing road rage.
Absolutely false. Your suppositions are quite poor.
Is DUI road rage? According to this definition, it is when the driver is
legally drunk and drives anyway, not caring about passengers or other
drivers on the road. Not caring and being reckless behind the wheel:
that's road rage.
Have you ever looked in a dictionary, and read the definition of the
word "rage"?
Is speeding road rage? It is when it's done recklessly without care for
the other road users. Is blocking the left lane by going slow an instance
of road rage? Yes.
Erroneous.
So now:
Why should ALL FORMS of deliberate, careless, dangerous driving be called
road rage?
Because it always involves aggression and hostility and the desire for
revenge or injury. I have studied this phenomenon for years with many
drivers!
How can you possibly equate one act, such as my breaking a speed
limit, with desire for injury to others? That's absolutely ludicrous.
I hope you're aware of the fact that when you make such baseless
suppositions, you weaken your own argument.
Two adolescent drivers racing each other: is it road rage? Yes.
Why, are they both very angry?
Tailgating: is it road rage? Yes.
Is the tailgater angry?
Dangerous lane hopping, weaving, not signaling, not being alert, blocking
the lane by going slow, yelling at others: are these road rage events?
They are by definition, very poor driving. If the driver performing
these stunts happens to be angry and wishing harm to others, then it
might be construed as road rage. But to attribute your label to all
drivers who don't perform exactly as you see fit is painting with too
broad a brush.
Yes. Being an incompetent or bad and careless driver, not caring about
others, not caring about improving, not taking driving seriously: are
these road rage? Yes.
I'll ask you again. Have you ever determined the definition of the
word "rage"?
Think of the millions of accidents and thousands of deaths every year.
Think of the more millions who are in congested commutes every day. For
their sake, for the sake of the automobile age, for your own sake--give up
road rage by first acknowledging that we all have it as a cultural norm
and habit. Then we can change.
I'll acknowledge that most drivers break traffic laws at one time or
another. Some of it is intentional, some of it is ignorance, and even
a bit can be, yes, reckless. But I cannot agree with your assessment
that it's all "road rage".
Leon, I don't think I can change your mind. And I find your arguments
less than convincing; ridiculous even, so don't bother continuing to
change my opinion. I feel that your seemingly unswerving ability to
label any traffic situation as "road rage" has made you very
narrow-minded on this subject. Perhaps you would be better off
psychologically if you took the bus to work.
|