First Newsgroup Posting
On a run a few weeks ago, I was nearly hit in this same way, not once, but twice within a few minutes. It finally clicked how stupid it was to zip out in front of a car coming in from the left.It's not a question of right of way, but of natural driving habits. [ C. McDowell]
I think it's good that this driver realized that he was wrong. I think sometimes people get so caught up in who was right and who was wrong that they miss the point, which is that safe driving us what's important. After all, if someone is killed in an accident, does it really matter if he was wrongly crossing the street? He's still dead. Him being wrong is not an excuse for poor driving skills or inattentiveness. I like to believe that most, if not all, accidents are preventable. Fortunately, this writer realized his problem and is doing (or is trying to do) things about it.
Purpose:
My guess is that he's trying to tell readers that it doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong" but rather that the important thing is to be an aware and careful driver. If you are aware and careful, then maybe you won't wind up in a situation where who was "right" or "wrong" is an issue.
Reaction:
totally agree with this writer. Most people are so righteous when it comes to their driving habits that they tend to become agitated and anxious to pin the blame on someone when accidents occur. I think it's great that this guy realizes that he has this attitude and that he's doing something about it and changing himself and urging others to do the same.
What this says about society:
This idea of placing the blame on others rather than oneself can be linked to a person's self concept. This self concept consists of a person's attitudes, thoughts, and feelings towards themself. People aren't going to blame themselves for anything or find fault in themselves or readily admit that they were wrong. They aren't going to admit that they're bad drivers. It's much easier to assign the blame on someone else than it is to find it in yourself.
Second Newsgroup Posting
My mom was a "right of way" driver. if she had the right of way, she was going to have the right of way. I should mention that she has been in several accidents as well.
anyway, run behind cars. and always watch the driver. [ ben]
I like the advice this writer gives. So many people think that they, like this writer's mother, that they have the "right of way" and that it is everyone else's problem to look out for them. This attitude is silly, not to mention dangerous. It's about time that people realized that they are all equally responsible for safety on the roads.
Purpose:
to urge everyone to be cautious drivers and pedestrians no matter who has the "right of way." It urges people to not think that being careful is someone else's job, and that being the "right of way" driver is meaningless if you're still getting into accidents.
Reaction:
My dad is the kind of driver that will insist that he has the "right of way." This is dangerous in near-accident situations. He will insist that he doesn't care what happens to us or the car because, after all, the "right of way" was his. His only concern seems to be that in the event that the blame for the accident had to be assessed, he would be vindicated. My mother and I agree that this "right" is not worth a smashed car and numerous injuries. So, needless to say, I really enjoyed this posting.
I'm not sure if there are any psychological terms for this. If there are, please let me know so I can call my pop that.
Third Newsgroup Posting
The most dangerous direction to be driving in? Straight ahead (48% of accidents). The least dangerous? Reversing (.5%) [ Phlebas]
I really got a good laugh out of this posting. I can't believe that this is true (if it really is, that is). One thing is for sure: if driving safer means driving backwards, then you can bet that once I start learning to drive, I'll be working hardest on mastering the art of reversing.
Purpose:
to entertain, mostly. Who would have thought that driving backwards was the safest? As awkwardly as you have to contort your body in order to drive backwards, I never would have dreamed that statistically, it's the safest way to go. Maybe this is because that your body is in such an odd position, you drive more carefully and defensively.
Reaction:
I enjoy statistics like this. To me, they expose something so ridiculous that you wonder how it could possibly be true, and think that maybe it shouldn't be true because it reflects a poor habit or tendency of some kind of ours. If we're lucky, it might make people think about their driving habits and inspire them to change.
Fourth Newsgroup Posting
Re:
Observing Traffic Laws (was Experiencing Road Rage)
Date 27 Dec 1997 10:12:16 GMT
Yes. The onus is always on the driver to yield to pedestrians at intersections unless otherwise indicated by signage or signals. Unfortunately, impatient drivers can kill, and there are a growing number of them out there. As a general rule, I err on the side of caution, to the point of sometimes getting into yielding/gesturing matches with drivers. My motto is, "Driver, I don't trust you, more than you don't trust me, so move along," and so far it has served me quite well.
If anyone is running in the UK, they might like to keep in mind this is not the rule here. Vehicles turning form a major road into a minor one are supposed to give way to pedestrians already crossing (highway code recommendation, not law) and they oblviously shoul do so if there are marked crossings, but otherwise if you are crossing the road as a pedestrian, motor vehicles have the right of way; i.e. pedestrians are supposed to wait until it is safe to cross.
This explains why i had the alarming incident one time of approaching a junction on my motorbike, when a pedestrian was about to cross. He paused, look straight at me and clearly saw me, then stepped out in front of me. We had a considerable discussion, and the pedestrian informed me in a North American accent that it was his right of way because I was approaching a give way sign. The give way sign reltes to giving way to motor vehicles on the road you are joining, not to pedestrians. I've always wondered what this chap was thinking of, but it becomes clearer now; he was applying non-UK law to the UK. I wouldn't recommend this. [ Rod.]
Disclaimer; the opinions expressed above are not necessarily yours.
I think this posting brings up two very good points. The first and most important is that there is such a thing as being "too careful". I think that most people are reluctant to be aggressive drivers and sometimes in dangerous situations they may prefer to not be the one to move first. This is especially true in situations when who has the right of way is vague. People don't want to be the one who caused an accident, so they move very timidly.
The second point is the importance of remembering what country you're in...and that the rules of the road you're familiar with don't necessarily apply everywhere.
Purpose:
to make readers aware of the dangers of being excessively cautious while driving, and the importance of awareness of different driving rules in different places.
Reaction:
I liked the way Rod described the incident because it was clear, and very easy to imagine.
Fifth Newsgroup Posting
I think this article is important in understanding the phenomena of road rage. Personally I agree with the point of view that road rage is nothing new, that we have seen evidence of it in the past and only now have a name for it. I think if anything is new about it, it's the violent nature of it. Twenty years ago, hardly anyone carried a gun; no need for one was seen. But now, with society as a whole relatively more violent, we have these problems coming up.
Purpose:
to show that road rage is nothing new, just unfamiliar to us.
Reaction:
I'm surprised that only now we're beginning to notice the topic of road rage. Like I said before, the only difference between now and then is that now we've become more violent. Perhaps that is why we're taking note of it only now and not ten or twenty years ago. I don't think this issue will become less of an issue in time; I think in time we'll see more manifestations of violence in society. I'll go out on a limb here, but perhaps the recent school shootings are such a manifestation of the increased nature of violence in our society. Whether it comes from TV or rap music, I'll let someone else debate.
Sixth Newsgroup Posting
Re: Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date
4 Feb 98 11:14:00 +0000
Erm, no; accidents on rural roads are more severe than those on Motorways, and as well as being much more common.
Let's get this right - a rural accident at, say, 60mph is *more severe* than a motorway accident at 70-90mph?
Correct. Based on figures from the DETR web site, roughly 7 times as many injuries on rural roads as Motorway, 12 times as many serious injuries and 11 times as many deaths.
Rural roads are defined as those with a speed limit above 50mph, other than motorways. Motorways carry 15% of traffic, so at most there is 7 times as much traffic on rural roads.
Sumfink rong there methinks!
Nope. The types of accidents are probably quite different. A head on crash between 2 cars each doing 50 mph has about the same kinetic energy as car vehicle hitting the back of a stopped truck at 70. However, the head-on crash is going to involve 2 cars having severe decleration, and is more likely to be an offset collision. In any case I'd expect very few motorway accidents are hitting a stationary object at 70mph.
Separate carriageways, safer bends, easier overtaking, better visibility, hard shoulders, armco, no right turns across traffic etc. all mean that many forms of serious accident are unlikely on motorways.
What is more common? Rural accidents than motorway accidents? I didn't contradict that! As I said, you are less likely to have an accident on a motorway - although if you do, the high speed of your travel is almost certain to make such (rarer) accidents more serious. And you don't get multi-lane pile-ups on single carriageway country roads.
Consider the spate of 'pileups' on the A12 last November (IIRC). Thousands of vehicles held up. Only a small proportion actually involved in a crash - the rest stopped in time. No deaths.
Reaction:
I don't think it really matters who is right in situations like this. Does it really matter? I don't think so. I think sometimes people are so concerned about whether they are right or not that they don't really stop to think if the point they're arguing is really worth arguing over. Makes you wonder what these guys are like when they drive, huh?
Purpose:
Together, these guys are trying to prove that they are right, but indirectly I think these two point out the dangers of people wanting to be "right". In a driving situation, I can imagine these guys stalled at an intersection, pointing at each other and yelling that each had the right of way.
What this says about society: I think everyone at some level thinks that they are a good driver. Some people extend that a little far, believing that not only are they excellent drivers, but that everything else they do is correct and that if anyone does anything against them in any way, then the other person is automatically wrong. People don't like to admit when they're wrong, especially not when there's someone there with a potential "I told you so" kind of reaction. This type of ego trip has no place on the roads, but experience has shown us time and time again that some people's egos know no boundary or limit.
Seventh Newsgroup Posting
Re: tailgating/aggressive driving [devil's advocate]
Date
20 Dec 1997 22:44:48 GMT
Remy
Triant had the nerve to say:I heard on the local news that is was road rage .
Surveys??? Csaba Csere commented in his editorial that the most common
instigation of 'road rage' was left lane blocking, so it makes sense that
tailgating would be a symptom of 'road rage'.
I've read 'surveys' from 500 years ago that proved that the Earth was flat.
But what makes up road rage depends on who you ask. If you ask Dr. Ricardo Martinez, he'll tell you that it is drivers who "speed,...
Yeah but if you ask me its people who either don't know what they're doing or not paying attention to what they're doing that cause most of the accidents.
Reaction:
I think a lot about this road rage issue has to do with who was "right", and this can extend to when people simply discuss the issue in a forum like newsgroups. People want to be "right" and have the statistics and support to back them up. But I think it's important to remember that not all statistics are correct and not all authorities know what they're talking about. Some things will also come down to a matter of opinion, and those opinions cannot always be backed up by data.
Purpose:
What this posting made me do was question the accuracy of the statements of these postings, especially in those where statistics were given. We shouldn't automatically trust that information will be accurate just because someone else thinks it is or because it seems true.
What this says about society: To me, it says that people like to back themselves up with data when they debate issues like road rage. This is only logical; we wouldn't enter a debate "unarmed", so to speak. But maybe there is no such thing as an accurate statistic. Can anyone ever do a study that is completely faultless, with no margin for error, that is entirely representative of the beliefs and feelings of people? Can any one person, then, in turn find that study that backs up whatever point of view they have? I think the answers for both are no. I'm starting to think that no study that purports to represent the views of society can be totally accurate. Thus, in my view, backing up your point of view with statistics is pretty much a waste of time.
Eighth Newsgroup Posting
Date
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 20:31:37 +0800
USA : 10,037 reported road-rage incidents
WASHINGTON -- Road rage has become so common in the United States that the American Automobile Association (AAA) has resorted to the science of anger management to encourage drivers to behave more calmly.
On Wednesday, it launched its biggest campaign yet to combat "violent aggressive driving", as it terms it, which has killed more than 200 Americans in the past few years. The publicity drive features radio commercials which lampoon aggressive drivers. Mr Remer might not have fought but others have fired shots and used their vehicles as deadly weapons in behaviour that has fast become a normal part of driving in the US.
The AAA said that there were 10,037 reported road-rage incidents in the country between 1990 and 1996, and the number of such incidents is rising at a rate of more than 7 per cent a year.
In addition to the 218 people killed as a result of violent driving encounters, 12,610 were injured.The majority of offenders are males between 18 and 26 years of age.
Mr Willis said the growth in road-rage incidents was deeply troubling. "We are a very stressed-out society. You can find these incidents everywhere," he said.The AAA believes this owes much to the rapid expansion of traffic, deteriorating road conditions and an increase in selfish driving.
Psychologists and sociologists argue that it is also related to social disintegration and the release of animal instincts in an increasingly individualistic society. Mr Willis conceded that the campaign might not reach genuinely out-of-control aggressive drivers but pointed out that many incidents involved at least one normal driver suddenly becoming transformed into a motoring monster by another's behaviour.
"It takes two to tango," he said. "If we can convince millions of calm, mature motorists not to get sucked into encounters with angry drivers, many lives can be saved."
The association said drivers could often avoid escalating an encounter by avoiding eye contact or making some gesture of apology. ö [ FT, Reuters.]
á * Ideals without practice are merely dreams.* *
Reactions:
Wow, is the United States getting a bad reputation in these postings, or what? =) Regarding what the psychologists interviewed said, I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think the sudden increase in road rage incidents is the result of the release of "animal instincts." If anything, that's insulting to animals! I think the seed of the road rage tree is impatience. And we've probably had impatient drivers since cars were invented. The only reason the violence has escalated the way it has is because the increase of violence in our society, and because means of mirroring that violence- such as accessibility to guns, and so on- has never been easier.
Besides, does it really matter what causes it? Does it really matter if violence on TV is responsible, or if it's because of poor roads and driving habits? We shouldn't dwell on the causes of these issues, at least not too long. We should study the causes long enough to see if we can prevent the behavior, and if not, then try to find a solution elsewhere.
Purpose:
To highlight some of the possible causes of road rage. Maybe by sharing these with everyone, the author hoped that some people may take greater care in the way they drive from now on.
What this says about society: I think this tells us how we like to approach our social problems. Forgive me in advance if I sound a little sarcastic or cynical. I think we wait for our social problems to become large and out of control and for our mass media to take note of it before we put a lot of effort into understanding the problem. I think we also like to debate what the causes of our social problems are first, before we try to solve it. This isn't necessarily bad; discussing the problem may lead to greater understanding of it, but I think people tend to lose interest in social issues the longer these debates are dragged out. And when we finally seek out solutions, we're not sure where to look or what to do. Eventually, it winds up taking years before people can really think up a solution and agree with it and implement it. By then, the issue is sometimes a moot point. I guess you could say that sometimes, we're the model of inefficiency.
Ninth Newsgroup Posting
Re: tailgating/aggressive driving [devil's advocate]
Date
13 Dec 1997 21:52:01 GMT
First
off I think you're being unnecessarily defensive here Tigress. I don't take
the comments to be aimed at you at all. You have a clue and seem to abide by
the rules of the road. The frustration comes from people who park in the
passing lane alongside someone on the right causing trafffic to back up bumper
to bumper behind them when there is a nice long
Still no excuse to tailgate them. Secondly, tailgating them and getting in an
accident, even if it manages to only involve those two cars will affect
everyone else by slowing traffic down anymore. I regard tailgating as one of
the stupidest things you can do on the road. You don't leave any time for
anything unexpected to happen.
Yeah, yeah. I think we all agree that tailgating is wrong and realize the implications thereof. We should pass laws mandating everyone to live in a happy shiny world etc. The reality is that if you don't like being tailgated it's probably not a good idea to block traffic in the passing as that is where 99% of blatant tailgating occurs.
It's like the guy who abhors physical violence that walks into a rowdy bar. He starts to verbally assault the baddest guy there and proceeds to get his ass kicked. When he attempts to whine and cry to the rest of the patrons that it was wrong for the man to hit him, all they can do is look in bewilderment and ask "they why the hell did you do that?". Same question I ask of people who come here whining about tailgaters after they admit that they don't respect the passing lane. Duh.
righteous types who feel that only they are qualified to judge a safe speed
and aggressively try to prevent traffic from passing. By the way we
Oh, agreed but to tell the truth unless they are incredibly ineffective, I
haven't met many of those type, more the clueless use the left lane type for
whatever driving type.
Nobody said that they were skillful drivers. Or particulary clever human beings for that matter. Their most advanced driving technique is to pace the slowest car in the right lane while flashing their brake lights to anyone who dares get near. They're most easily recognized by the fact that they go ballistic when an opening finally does occur on the right and I blow past them. One guy in a pickup truck was working the headlights so fast I thought I looking at a strobe. It makes my day, humorous as hell really (road bliss?).
But I still stick to my belief that tailgating should never be done.
And I'll stick to my belief that I should be rich. And maybe one day everyone on this ng will realize the great injustice that's being done to me and remedy the situation. (BTW I accept credit cards for your convenience) .
Reaction:
I liked the last exchange in this posting. Like I said before, a lot of this road rage issue can be traced back to the desire of people to be right, whether it be in an opinion, or in having the right of way, and expecting others to yield to them. The last sentences by Remy are pretty funny, and they sum up the attitude I think people who have this hang-up about being right should be aware of. They aren't the only people in the world, and their beliefs aren't always right.
Purpose:
This demonstrates the attitude I think all drivers should be aware of- not that their beliefs are wrong, but that not everyone will agree with their ideals when it comes to driving. And while it would be nice if we could sort out these differences, the street isn't the place to do it.
What this says about society: There are so many minds out there, each with different intentions, beliefs, ideas, ideals...it's amazing that there aren't more incidents of road rage. I'm not saying we all need to be hypersensitive to others' driving habits. If nothing else, we can learn that not everyone thinks the same way we do; sometimes we forget this when we're driving, and many times it's the reason we get mad. I think if you remember that not everyone will see things your way, you'll become a little bit of a better driver.
Tenth Newsgroup Posting
Re:
Road Rage (Was: OAPs and Driving)
Date Thu, 05 Feb 1998 05:42:36 +0000
"Each year more than 300,000 people are killed or injured in road traffic
incidents on Britain's roads. There are officially nearly 4,000 deaths a year
(an underestimate, since this figure refers only to deaths which occur within
thirty days of a crash), 50,000 serious injuries and 250,000 injuries".
OK, we've already compared the death rates (4,000 per year v. 650,000 per
year)
Nope, v 20,000 *accidental* deaths per year. so let's compare the injury rates. 300,000 injuries per year on the roads compared with how many injuries per year from other causes?
Well? Where are your figures?
And let's be careful about what exactly an "injury" is while we're at it. When I was 8 or 9 I nearly chopped my left thumb off with a penknife. I have the scar today. I remember a lot of blood. Is that an injury or not? I got the tip of one finger almost chopped off in the hinge of a hastily-shut door once: I still have the scar from that. I also had my leg in plaster for a couple of weeks because the knee went septic: is that an injury? Fascinating
Let's take a wild guess.. Let us not. There has been far too much guessing already in this thread. Either come up with the numbers or stay out of the kitchen.
and say that the average U.K. person gets three injuries in their lifetime. That's three times the death rate (Each person only dies once, duh!) so that makes 2,000,000 injuries per year.
Sure!
I could be wildly wrong, of course, As usual. so let's see some real figures.
Where are they then? Is this strictly a one way affair with you? You demand the facts and expect others to supply them?
Any N.H.S. doctors or nurses out there know how many patients present at A&E wards each year?
Anecdotal evidence?
Reaction:
A little argumentative, eh? Like the other two guys above, I can imagine these two getting in some scuffle by the side of the road over some driving-related dispute. I like that the guy is questioning the other's statistics; in fact I encourage that. But still, when you call someone's bluff you have to be ready to fight back. The guy could only question the other; he couldn't disprove him. And as you can see, this led to him getting shot down by the other guy.
Purpose:
I think the point is that when you think someone else is wrong, you better be able to prove it (or at least do a good job of defending your position), otherwise you'll be pummeled with sarcasm. Seriously, I think this also points out that some arguments are not worth getting into.
What this says about society: As the author showed, no one likes it when someone tries to question you without having anything to offer themselves. I think a lot of this goes back into my earlier idea that road rage has its roots in impatience. Sorry about the plant anatomy puns. I don't think that road rage began on the streets; rather, it started in normal human interactions. When we deal with people, we experience similar frustrations when people think we're wrong or try to prove us wrong. Road rage is just a name for that type of social relating moved into cars out on the freeway.
Conclusions:
Future generations can analyze the incidents of road rage that occur and compare them with the phenomena as we understood it this generation. Can they form a deeper understanding of road rage, or is it still a lot of debate? Is there a better understanding of its causes, or has it manifested itself in new environments, such as the workplace? There is a lot of interesting related topics associated with road rage, and I think future generations will have the benefit of knowing more than this generation (G8) did.