Attitudes Driving Newsgroups
Drive...
By Fred Yuen
|
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. |
Observing
Traffic Laws (was Experiencing Road Rage)
Date
Sun, 21 Dec 1997 14:31:10 -0800
Ê
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Re:
Observing Traffic Laws (was Experiencing
Road Rage)
Date
Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:16:56 -0500
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?
Ê
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.
Re: Observing
Traffic Laws (was Experiencing
Road Rage)
Date
28 Dec 1997 20:07:58 GMT
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.
--------------------------------------------
Ê
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.
Re:
Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date
3 Feb 98 16:09:19 GMT
Ê
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.
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.
Re:
Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date
3 Feb 98 15:09:16 +0000
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
ÊThe 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
Êgoing ahead.
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.
Re:
Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 06:39:33 +0000
Ê
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.
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.
Re:
Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 06:39:22 +0000
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'.
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.
Re: Road Rage
(Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 07:51:05 +0000
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.
Re:
Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 06:39:24 +0000
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?
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.
Re:
Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date
4 Feb 98 14:37:30 GMT
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."
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.
Comparison to Other G8 Reports
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.