newsgroups

Attitudes Driving Newsgroups Drive... By Fred Yuen Table Of Contents

Instructions for this report

Amitahba Roy: Walking in front of cars and managing not to get hit.

Gary Houk: Running behind cars helps me manage not to get hit.

Paul Halford: Trying to make sense out of the highway code.

Simon Read: The more cars on the road, the safer the road

Nick Finnigan: What is safer: The road, the sea or the air?

Simon Read: Bicycles, the next solution.

Ian Thomas : The use of cars, with us forever.

Paul Gardner: Letting out your anger on the internet.

Ian Thomas: What makes credentials better when it comes to "Road Rage".

Simon Read: The Bus: An ideal ride for an ideal world.

Comparisons

Conclusion

Amitahba Roy Observing Traffic Laws (was Experiencing
Road Rage)

From           Amitabha Roy <aroy@cs.uoregon.edu>
Organization   Department of Computer Science, University of Oregon
Date           Sun, 21 Dec 1997 14:31:10 -0800
Newsgroups     rec.running
Message-ID     <349D98AD.4C35E757@cs.uoregon.edu>

--------------EDF80C59E423D42A4913545D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Starting from the "Experiencing Road Rage" thread earlier, I wanted to share an experience that I had . A couple of days ago, I was jogging on a fairly dark road. It was dark enough to not make out whether you were
making eye contact with any drivers. So here was someone who was waiting at a stop light waiting to turn right. I was coming from her right and could see the car but could not see inside. Apparently, she had her attention to her left to see whether there were any oncoming cars. Without waiting to see whether
there were any pedestrians on the right, she made a right turn. I screamed and that probably made her stop.
I was obeying all traffic laws (or was I ?) - at a stop sign. the car has to yield to the pedestrian , right ? In such situations, there is nothing that one can do - it seems. Especially when you cant make out whether
the driver has noticed you or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Amitabha Roy | phone: 541 346 1384 Department of Computer Science | email: aroy@cs.uoregon.edu University of Oregon | URL: http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~aroy Eugene OR 97403-1202 USA | Fax: 541 346 5373 --------------------------------------------------------------------- My Thoughts Here the writer is trying to tell us that she was right in her situation. I agree with her that pedestrians do have the right of way but what happens if there is a mistake that can only be avoided if the pedestrian moves out of the way. What is safer and for whom is it safe? I feel that she would be wrong to cross in front of the unintentive driver and that a bad situation could be avoided with a little patience and understanding.
Prejudice does play a big role in this type of behavior. The pedestrian knows that by law she is correct and will not give in to the wrong, or what she and society feels is wrong. Throughout history people have been going about in this way. The whites treated blacks this way due to the fact that this was the norm and in the past this was the law.
Back To Top

Gary Houk Re: Observing Traffic Laws (was
Experiencing Road Rage)

From           Gary Houk <houk@clark.net>
Organization   Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Date           Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:16:56 -0500
Newsgroups     rec.running
Message-ID     <349E7598.2E47@clark.net>
References     1

Amitabha Roy wrote:
> So here was someone who was waiting
> at a stop light waiting to turn right. [...] Without waiting to see whether
> there were any pedestrians on the right, she made a right turn.

I always just run behind the right turning car, assuming that the driver doesn't see me (even if I see the whites of their eyes). They are naturally looking to the left to see if there's traffic coming, so they are not going to see you. Yes, the law is probably in your favor, but I'd rather spend time running than phoning a lawyer from a hospital bed! The one time I forgot and ran in front of the car a few months back, I nearly got hit. Don't blame it on "crazy drivers": the guy was clearly sorry. To be realistic, drivers just aren't looking for you.
They should but they don't so you have to run defensively. One problem I've thought about with the strategy of running behind a right turning car is that it decreases your visibility
for other cars, which might be turning/going straight into your path from other directions. This is especially
true when you are running behind an SUV or large truck. In that case, I try to look at all the traffic which could even think about running me over. Any thoughts on this? Maybe wear
a ten foot high hat?
Gary Houk, houk@clark.net

My Thoughts Here Gary has found a solution for the previous writer. Gary feels that a better way of running at night, besides in front of the cars, is to run behind the cars. I agree that this is a solution and that Gary seems to be putting the responsibilities on himself. This is a good quality and may prevent Gary from getting into any unanswered problems.
Psychologically Gary puts all the responsibility on himself. He believes in the "Internal Locus of Control." This is where someone believes that they can effect any outcome, and there life is not dependent on others and outside events. Gary also uses cognitive dissonance. He feels that he should run behind the cars while crossing the road for nothing but safety reasons. At the same time he realizes the danger it is for him to run in the back. What causes Gary to choose running in the back? Perhaps he feels it is less safe. Who knows? Perhaps this is a question that only Gary can answer.
Back To Top

Paul Halford

Re: Observing Traffic Laws (was
Experiencing Road Rage)

From           mj1932@aol.com (MJ1932)
Organization   AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Date           28 Dec 1997 20:07:58 GMT
Newsgroups     rec.running
Message-ID     <19971228200701.PAA19485@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References     1

I read the Highway Code, last night and it doesn't seem to be very clear on the matter. Rod quoted it as saying that you must give way to pedestrians who "have already started to cross". What does it mean "already started to cross"? If the road's busy and you're having trouble crossing, you can just put one foot out onto the road and then you have priority. Obviously, common sense and value of life would tell you
not to, but we're talking very technically here, about who has priority. The statement in the Highway Code seems to indicate that it's like a race: Will the pedestrian get ONTO the road before the car STARTS to turn? The issue should be: will the pedestrian cross the road without causing the car to slow
down, stop, or swerve? I realise what the Highway Code is probably trying to say is: "If there are
pedestrians in the way, don't run them over", which is common sense to most people anyway but doesn't change the fact that the pedestrian was in the wrong.
--------------------------------------------
mj1932@aol.com (Paul Halford)

My Thoughts Here Paul shows the readers that there is a glitch in the system. He feels that there is too much slack in this law and it could be misinterpreted by the average person. He explains that this is something that someone, who wants to, can take advantage of. I agree with his statement and i would more than likely be the person who takes advantage of this type of glitch. I also agree that although the law has a glitch in it we, as people, need to use our common sense and play it safe when it comes to our lives.
According to my past readings, there is nothing wrong with this persons statement. He is thinking both logically and emotionally. Although his emotions are high, he well realizes the safety logic and feels that he needs to use his head instead of his emotions.
Back To Top

Simon Read Re: Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)

From           Simon Read <blurgh@bleah.blah.retch>
Organization   FORTH not Eunuchs
Date           3 Feb 98 16:09:19 GMT
Newsgroups     uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.transport,alt.statistics.can.prove.anything
Message-ID     <34d7412f.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>
References     1 2 3 4

nick@yrl.co.uk (Nick Finnigan) wrote:

>See above. Major reductions in death rates (55% over 10 years) with a 33% *increase* in traffic volume.

Very interesting indeed. The implication, Doug, if you're listening, is that there should be MORE cars on the road, to make the roads safer.

My Thoughts Here Simon Read is replying to a message sent by Nick Finnigan. It is obvious that Simon is being sarcastic. It does not seem Simon really cares about what Nick said. Simon is just trying to shut him down. I agree with Simon that this type of misreading of statistics can be misleading. The public has to realize there can be many different interpretations of the same data. although some interpretations can please our way of thinking the interpretations can also contradict each other.
On another note this type of pleasing can be considered a type of defense mechanism. We can not live our lives with happiness and at the same time know about all the different ways we can be killed. Deep inside we sometimes know the truth, yet we still rather believe a facade that is unrealistically presented by a misinterpreted statistic. Back To Top

Nick Finnigan Re: Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)

From           nick@yrl.co.uk (Nick Finnigan)
Organization   Yezerski Roper Ltd
Date           3 Feb 98 15:09:16 +0000
Newsgroups     uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.transport
Message-ID     <fRFf4Xj8afqi@yrl.co.uk>
References     1 2 3

In article <34D71B5C.12E@usa.net>, Phlebas <nalfeshnee@usa.net> writes:
> However, there are some more interesting figures which hit home harder than the FoE stuff (all from my book quoted above): Motor ways are the safest kind of roads (although accidents in them are more severe because of the high speeds).

Erm, no; accidents on rural roads are more severe than those on Motor ways, and as well as being much more common.

> - Road journeys are 70 times more dangerous than air or sea journeys, and 50 times more dangerous than rail.

For deaths per 100 million passenger km, 1984-1994 average we had

Air Bus/Coach Rail Car
0.1 0.5 0.8 4.0

> - The most dangerous direction to be driving in? Straight ahead (48% of accidents). The least dangerous? Reversing (0.5%).

Of course, I do spend more than 48% of my driving going ahead.

My Thoughts Here the statistics are playing a big role again. People are always trying to find, what they are doing safe and the better way. I agree that allot of accidents happen on the road. I also believe that allot of accidents happen going forward rather than backwards. does this mean that it is safer to drive backwards on the road or does this mean that drivers do not drive backwards as much as forward. On this note, it is safe to say that less accidents in the air means that people are safer in the air. I think not. If the entire population of drivers decided to start flying to their destinations, I think the statistics will not be in favor of flying.
Again this is just another attempt to play with the statistics. Another attempt to make people feel better. Perhaps this person is trying to find fault in cars to make him feel allot more comfortable in the air. This is what people call, Projection. Projecting your feelings about something onto something else.
Back To Top

Simon Read Re: Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)

From           trashyourjunkmail@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug)
Organization   The Noble Order of Untrounced Heretical Iconoclasts Unleashed.
Date           Wed, 04 Feb 1998 06:39:33 +0000
Newsgroups     uk.misc,alt.peeves,soc.culture.british,uk.politics.misc,uk.transport,uk.legal
Message-ID     <B0FDBDA596685136C@noid.demon.co.uk>
References     1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In article <34D65503.6C59@jpmorgan.com>,
Ian Thomas <thomas_ian@jpmorgan.com> wrote:

>;Doug wrote:
>; In article <34cc7a64.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>,
>; Simon Read <blurgh@bleah.blah.retch> wrote:
>;trashyourjunkmail@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:

>;They should have narrower roads with generously wide cycle lanes to discourage excessive car use and encourage greater cycle use. You know it makes sense. Ever seen the roads of Beijing? 10 million bicycles and about 3 cars. A good ratio. made possible by a government who put the workers where the factories
are and make it impossible for them to move anywhere else. 'Stay where you are put' type of thing. I don't know about you Doug but I prefer being killed by car pollution than to be turned into some sort of Goverment sponsored cyborg.

A suitable alternative in the UK would be to make proper provision for people to live near where they work and provide incentives for them not to live elsewhere. Instead of providing free car parks, major employers should provide cheap homes instead. I see employers as sharing responsibility in the severe depredations of our out-of-control car culture.

Doug, London, England, UK, EU? UK Radical Campaigns Jump Page - http://www.noid.demon.co.uk/ Updated 28.01.98. 92 entries and still growing. E-mail - smiley@noid[dot]demon[dot]co[dot My Thoughts This is a conversation, I think, everyone is concerned about. It is a consensus that there is too much pollution from driving. We need to find better ways. I feel riding bicycles can be the best thing that happens to a culture but it is not an alternative for a free country. The U.S. can not make their people do anything, "So we say." This is a free country. I agree that if you give people incentive to less need their vehicles then they will probably not use their vehicles as much. But everyone is different and I do not think we can fulfill everyone's needs of living, so there must be a better solution. Back To Top

Ian Thomas Re: Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)

From           trashyourjunkmail@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug)
Organization   The Noble Order of Untrounced Heretical Iconoclasts Unleashed.
Date           Wed, 04 Feb 1998 06:39:22 +0000
Newsgroups     uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.transport
Message-ID     <B0FDBD9A9668510BD@noid.demon.co.uk>
References     1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

In article <34D650FA.5A8E@jpmorgan.com>,
Ian Thomas <thomas_ian@jpmorgan.com> wrote:
>;Doug wrote:
>; In article <34CD01C4.1BCE@jpmorgan.com>,
>; Ian Thomas <thomas_ian@jpmorgan.com> wrote:

>;As to them being inherantly dangerous, life is inherantly dangerous Doug, if you wish to spend yours wrapped in cotton-wool then that is up to you. I am not talking about danger to oneself but to others. We nominally have a right to life and liberty etc., but here we have the selfish owners of motor vehicles depriving us of that right without proper justification. The justification is we need to travel to work and we need to work to live.

You don't need to work to live in a welfare state.

>;Public Transport will never supply all the transport needs of our country

Not all perhaps, but most.

>;so the car will be with us for some time yet.

Unfortunately but is this any reason to defend it?

>;Its motive power may change but there are no viable alternatives for all the jobs a car can do.

And there are no viable alternatives to those who have been killed, injured
and poisoned so that others may prosper and enjoy their 'personal
freedoms'.

My Thoughts Both sides of this conversation is correct. there is no viable alternatives for cars. Cars supply us with comfort, easy access, speed, and more. We, as people, are habitually influenced by cars. I feel, public transportation is the best solution to danger but it depends on what type of public transportation. Planes, buses, trains, mass transits, ect., are all good alternatives, but which one do you trust. The fact is that the bad of these alternatives are not being looked at. The unsafe subways, the plane crashes, the slowness of the busses and trains, and the not enough stops of the mass transit. We as people need security. we need to know that what we are doing has no better alternative. So, until we find a better solution, lets all get in our cars and live.

Back To Top

Paul Gardner

Re: Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)

From           trashyourjunkmail@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug)
Organization   The Noble Order of Untrounced Heretical Iconoclasts Unleashed.
Date           Wed, 04 Feb 1998 07:51:05 +0000
Newsgroups     uk.misc,alt.peeves,soc.culture.british,uk.politics.misc,uk.transport,comp.ai.simulation.failures.doug
Message-ID     <B0FDCE699668903C6@noid.demon.co.uk>
References     1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

In article <YcSNbMAuu010EwCJ@ratpack.demon.co.uk>,
Paul Gardner <spam.egg.sausage.and.spam@i.hate.spam.com> wrote:
>;In article <34d73cc3.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>, Simon Read
>;<blurgh@bleah.blah.retch> wrote
>;>trashyourjunkmail@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:

>;>>There are hardly any actual workers left in rural areas. I dispute that, in a global economy, the bunch of corporate welfare scroungers called farmers, who are only 2% of the population and yet who monopolise 75% of our rural heritage, are of any particular significance. Like car users, their importance has been grossly exaggerated in recent years.

>;>Really? So the people who produce the food you eat are of no particular significance? Maybe you don't eat. Maybe you are an AI experiment after all.

>;Damn! I've been rumbled! All right, I confess, Doug is a modified version of an artificial unintelligence program I created to replace a loony right-winger who used to cross-post from Canada. I was hoping that
if I altered the AU program to spout econazi nonsense instead, people wouldn't spot that it was still using the same logic routines. Virtual Doug (or VD for short) was built because the real life Doug expired when he disappeared up his own arsehole. I would pull the plug on VD but I no longer have the key to the house in Catford where the AU engine is kept. Like Frankenstein's monster, I'm afraid Duhg is out of control now. This means that Duhg will continue to spout utter bollocks and it's all my fault. :( Sorry, folks.)

Do you normally rave at length in this fashion?

Here we have two people who like to let out their anger on the web and one person that is thinking straight. Although farmers do take up allot of the world they are needed not only for food but to be the butt end of a conversation between two angry people who do not listen to anyone. I do not think that this conversation went far and there is no need to go on about the farmers. What I am more interested in is the way these two hate people, go on about nothing logical. One would propose that they are letting out their feelings for something else on to the computer. This is a process called displacement. They probably do not have any other place of importance to unleash what they call the truth.

Back To Top

Ian Thomas Re: Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)

From           trashyourjunkmail@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug)
Organization   The Noble Order of Untrounced Heretical Iconoclasts Unleashed.
Date           Wed, 04 Feb 1998 06:39:24 +0000
Newsgroups     uk.misc,alt.peeves,soc.culture.british,uk.politics.misc,uk.transport,uk.legal
Message-ID     <B0FDBD9C966851151@noid.demon.co.uk>
References     1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

In article <34D64FBD.4B7E@jpmorgan.com>,
Ian Thomas <thomas_ian@jpmorgan.com> wrote:

>;Doug wrote:
>;> In article <34CD0075.39F1@jpmorgan.com>,
>;> Ian Thomas <thomas_ian@jpmorgan.com> wrote:

>;> As I said elsewhere, the careless opening of heavy car doors is a far greater hazard than the odd shopping bag. It is not without significance here that we have a cyclist at odds with a pedestrian instead of with the
much greater menace of car drivers. We have been conditioned to think that car drivers have a god given right to be on the roads but that pedestrians are second class citizens who are just a bloody nuisance to everyone else

>;I have never considered car drivers to have a god given right and I don't consider my self second class when I am a pedestrian. There are dangers everywhere, you stand a good chance of getting mugged on a
train, run over by a bus or taxi or tripping over a broken pavement every time you travel.

It is one thing to die from a natural accident and quite another to die from the deliberate, knowing actions of others.

>;Being a biker and a car driver I consider myself to be better trained, I had to pass three tests after all.

So do some road ragers and drunk drivers. Does that make them any better?

Doug, London, England, UK, EU? UK Radical Campaigns Jump Page - http://www.noid.demon.co.uk/ Updated 28.01.98. 92 entries and still growing. E-mail - smiley@noid[dot]demon[dot]co[dot]uk My Thoughts Like the last remark states, "Does that make them any better." I feel that it is not the vehicle nor the education behind that vehicle but it is nothing more than the intention of the person sitting behind the wheel. If a person is considered the best and safest driver in the world is having a bad day, they could be the cause of an accident. on the other hand the pedestrians on the street have 0 control when it comes to the road. Does this mean that they are insignificant? No. Pedestrians, in my opinion, have an equal right on the road so long it is safe. We need to keep this world safe.
This is a case of prejudice again. If one wants they can make a war on the road (between pedestrians and drivers) or they can equally share the road with everyone else. If one sees it as a war than they will not have a good time sharing the road with others.
Back To Top

Simon Read Re: Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)

From           Simon Read <blurgh@bleah.blah.retch>
Organization   FORTH not Eunuchs
Date           4 Feb 98 14:37:30 GMT
Newsgroups     uk.misc,soc.culture.british,uk.transport
Message-ID     <34d87d2a.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>
References     1 2 3 4 5 6 7

trashyourjunkmail@thistotallyuniquedomain.lemon.co.mars (Doug) wrote:
>In article <34D65FA6.45E8@jpmorgan.com>,
>Ian Thomas <thomas_ian@jpmorgan.com> wrote:

>>;The bus is a pretty crappy machine when compared with a car. Its engine is far dirtier and it causes more damage to the streets that it uses. Buses are rarely full except in the rush hour and they are rarely erviced as this would cost too much.

>All of this is due to excessive car use distorting social forces and making the bus no longer viable.

Ah! So you agree! Translation from Dougspeak into English: "In an ideal society such as I envisage, busses would not be more polluting than cars. However, I acknowlege that unpleasant realities
of the current distorted order make busses more polluting."

My Thoughts This is an intriguing point. I also feel that the bus, used to its fullest potential, can be the better alternative to driving when it comes to our environment. If the norm was to catch the bus then appointments would not be so close together. I think our lives would be lived allot more peacefully, and the pressure to make deadlines will become less. This is, theoretically, the best solution but we need to change the norms of our society. This is a good example on how environment plays a huge role in the way we live. Society partly controls us and we can only develop personally with in this control.
Back To Top

Comparison to Other G8 Reports You decide!!! Back To Top

Conclusion In conclusion using newsgroups can get me to think but I would only use it to open my mind. I was surprised that my mind could expand while thinking of these subjects. Some of these people didn't even have to make sense and I still had something to say. Newsgroups are fun to be involved with but you can not take others words personally. I found allot of racism and stereotypes while searching through the newsgroup. so stay strong and keep on writing.
Other students can use my report as a comparison to their own. If they want to know what a newsgroup looks like they can come to this sight. Here they can see how people communicate using a newsgroup and how much information it can and might provide. Back To Top