This assignment was to follow newsgroups for a few weeks and report about what we learned about how people interact with one another. I followed two news groups: one on driving and the other on the original Star Trek series. The following excerpts are all from the driving newsgroup since they portrayed the human interaction dynamic with more punch. I did not participate in this group because I did not feel comfortable doing so. I did participate in the Star Trek group and my posts and questions were well received. In this report, I plan on showing that because the web provides a more impersonal atmosphere, people can get away with being rude, self-righteous, and sarcastic. This was why I felt uncomfortable with posting my own messages onto the driving board. For the first week, I simply lurked. After that, I began taking notes and copying specific posts for use in this report. The predominant attitude of nastiness certainly made me rethink my opinions about the internet and the people who commonly use it.
Subject: Re: Driver Ed, Now!
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:21:31 -0500
So-called "driver's ed" is USELESS, as all they do is pound a lot of useless
rules into your head. They don't actually teach you how to DRIVE. For example,
in high school driver's ed., did you actually get any instruction behind the
wheel of a vehicle? No? Well gee . . . what they heck were they SUPPOSED to be
teaching you, exactly? All those gory films they showed you did a lot of good,
showing you what will happen if you screw up. But then they don't teach you
how to maintain control of the vehicle, only what will happen if you don't.
End result . . . the slower learners in the class are now AFRAID to drive, and
they haven't even gotten behind the wheel yet! Does more harm than good, IMHO.
And how, exactly, was your phys ed teacher qualified to teach you how to
drive? Was he a former stock car racer? Stunt driver? Ever been a professional
driver? Ever attended any REAL driving courses? What made him better than
average, as far as driving goes? Oh, he was just an average driver you say?
Great, that's just what we need . . . average drivers teaching future drivers
by telling them how to drive and not showing them. -Dave
On hotmail dot com, I am user "ucefilter".
It is not the 21st Century yet.
It is not the 3rd Millennium yet.
Comment:
This post is loaded with sarcasm. The author
jumps to conclusions and feels that he knows everything there is to know
about driver education and why it is useless. From my experiences with
driver education, the student receives instruction in a classroom and behind
a wheel. However, this person obviously has no idea that this is the case.
He has some valid arguments about the effectiveness of driver education, but
since he has expressed his opinion in such a poor manner, it is unlikely
that anyone will take anything he has to say seriously. It sounds very much
like he had some kind of bad experience with driver education and is
allowing that experience to cloud all future judgment. It is certainly true
that people do things like that on a regular basis. It is very similar to
conditioning. A certain experience can leave such a bad taste in your mouth
that all future mention or experience of it will bring you back to that bad
experience, thus clouding your judgment. One thing that struck me about this
post was his use of IMHO, or in my humble opinion. His opinion does not
sound humble at all, which leads me to believe that sarcasm is woven
throughout the entire message.
Subject: Re: Californians can't drive in rain
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:11:39 GMT
It
amazes me how americans manage to get 120 cars into a pileup. The worst
pileups the UK has ever had for years rarely involve more than about 30 or 04
cars, even with rush hour traffic. It seems that some people have a serious
problem adjusting to conditions and/or looking far enough ahead over there.
It amazes me how someone can take an isolated incident, and use it to label an
entire nation of drivers.
P.S. The U.S. has far more cars than any other country in the world.
Comment:
Generalizations allow us to organize the
myriad of stimuli that we encounter every day. If humans were to form
individual conclusions about every single thing, it would be inefficient and
time consuming. Everyone makes generalizations. The reponse to the
generalization about pile ups leads me to believe that the author of this
message is itching for a fight. He seems to take the generalization
personally and then tries to instigate an argument with his sarcastic reply.
His reponse is just as efficient as the original generalization because he
has no idea if the original message was actually an attempt to label the
entire United States. This form of jumping to conclusions seems to be very
typical online, especially since it is often very difficult to glean the
tone of voice from printed matter.
Subject: "Agressive Driving" definition
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:44:19 -0800
I would suggest the following. "Agressive Driving is when one driver operates
their vehicle with intent to do scare another driver or to do harm to another
driver or vehicle."
If we use that as a common understanding of what "Agressive Driving" means we
might be able to have a more meaningful discussion.
If you want to discuss some other form of behavior I suggest you use some
other term and define it first.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related
Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: "Agressive Driving" definition
Date: 12 Feb 2000 11:04:24 EST
Scott Boham wrote in message <883fbr$m7g$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...I think we
are getting confused by what we are calling agressive.
Agressive driving usually means driving without due consideration of other
users on the road. It is a wide term which encompasses a whole host of
well-defined illegal and/or negligent behaviors, which if involved in a
collision, would result in such driver being charged with an offence.... i.e.
"following too closely", "unsafe lane change", "speed unsafe for conditions",
"impeding flow of traffic", "failure to yield", "illegal acquisition of
right-of-way", "failure to share roadway", etc. [ Harry.]
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: "Agressive Driving" definition
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 23:26:55 GMT
Also impatience. Such as passing a car thats turning right on no passing area
for sake of 3 seconds or so, unnecessarily hoking at car in front should also
be considered agreessive.
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: "Agressive Driving" definition
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 08:04:12 -0800
Agressive driving usually means driving without due consideration of other
users on the road.
According to this definition, the following actions qualify for aggressive
driving: failure to use a turn signal, failure to turn on headlights at the
appropriate times (rain, dark, etc.), talking on the phone while driving,
smoking while driving, fussing with the kids in the front/back seat while your
vehicle is moving, driving much slower than the prevailing traffic speed,
forming a 'rolling roadblock' by driving on a multi-lane road at exactly the
speed of the car next to you (assuming non-congested roadways here), etc... In
other words, any driver action likely to cause an accident or inconvenience
other drivers is "aggressive" by this definition.
Now, personally, I think these actions are just as dangerous as the other
driver behavior typically tagged as "agressive". Unfortunately, many of these
actions don't result in the offending driver being in an accident, but rather
the other drivers around them who have to deal with this inattention or
inconsiderate behavior.- [ D. Adams]
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: "Agressive Driving" definition
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 06:44:33 -0800
Agressive driving usually means driving without due consideration of other
users on the road.
According to this definition, the following actions qualify for aggressive
driving:
Your logic is twisted and your examples are improperly attributed. In my post
I said "usually" not "any". Plus I further qualified this by citing some
examples for purposes of illustration.
How is my logic "twisted:? Are the examples I offered not "driving without due
consideration of other users on the road"?
You, I and everyone else reading your reply knows that your examples would not
fit in to my meaning. Don't hold my news message up to some high standard of
legal writing. I think I can fairly assume most people have an idea what I was
getting at.
Perhaps my examples don't fit your intended meaning, but they fit what you
actually wrote. If that's not what you meant, then just say so. (Hmm... I
guess you just did.)
Look, I wasn't trying to nitpick your definition. I'm sorry if it came off
that way. The whole point of my response was that consideration for other
drivers is a much broader issue than what many consider to be 'aggressive'
behavior. The intent of my examples was to illustrate other instances of
inconsiderate behavior towards other drivers which are equally dangerous, but
which don't get the public and media attention that 'aggressive' driving does.
Do you believe that such behavior is any less dangerous than the actions you
noted?
'Aggressive driving' is the just the currently fashionable scapegoat. Yes,
there are 'aggressive' drivers out there who drive dangerously. Personally,
I'm much more wary of inattentive drivers. I'd much rather be surrounded by
drivers who are alert and attentive to their driving (which many 'aggressive'
drivers actually are) than by drivers whose attention wanders and who are
constantly distracted by other non-driving activities. The attentive drivers
are generally much more predictable; it's inattention or unpredictable
behavior which often causes accidents.- [ D. Adams]
Comment:
This thread is not so hostile, but it does
bring up a very important point about all forms of discussion or study. It
discusses the idea of operational definitions. In order to effectively
communicate about something or study something, it is necessary to have an
understood and agreed upon definition, with clearly defined facets. This
thread shows that the term aggressive driving has many definitions
and that no two people agree on its meaning. Therefore, talking about it in
a forum discussion leads to frustration and confusion. I think that everyone
who contributed to this discussion had a good definition of aggressive
driving. However, most of the time, they refused to accept the definition of
anyone else. This led to some sarcasm and inconsiderate behavior. In the
last post, D. Adams does explain that he was not trying to be rude or
anything like that. This is rare. Most of the time, people just say whatever
they feel like and they do not care if someone is upset or offended by what
they have to say. This kind of behavior is exactly what kept me from posting
anything on this board.
Subject: Faster can mean Safer (Re: Aggressive
Drivers)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:42:57 -0500
Ed, it's good to see an anti-speeder in here who thinks logically. However,
while your logic is good, I'm afraid you're making some wrong assumptions.
First, and this is a common misconception, so don't take it personally --
The fundamental argument behind most anti-speeding thought is that speed is
inversely related to safety. In other words, the belief that the faster a car
is going, the less safe it is. While this is what they "teach" in drivers' ed,
and it seems to make sense, it simply does not work out that way in real life.
Government studies have shown that the faster a car is going, the more
accident-free miles it will travel. But that's just statistics and it can be
argued that they're deceiving, so let's look at it another way.
Why would a car be less safe if going faster? The answer seems obvious -- less
reaction time and more kinetic energy.
However--and this may seem strange if you've never thought about it--a car
also becomes SAFER the faster it goes, if the driver and car are suited for
the task. You're probably thinking -- how can a car become safer if it goes
faster? Simple.
1) A good driver's awareness increases as speed increases. Similarly, a
speeder feels more comfortable at the higher speed. At a lower speed, the
driver is more likely to "blank out" and go into automatic mode rather than
consciously being aware of the situation. Imagine having to drive down the
highway at 5 mph. Not only does the trip seem to take forever, but you're more
likely to be distracted and less likely to be devoting yourself 100% to the
driving. That's how it feels when a speeder is forced to drive uncomfortably
slow.
2) The car is in the "accident potential zone" for much less of the time. For
example, a car that passes a drunk driver may spend 5-10 seconds at risk,
while a car that drives in a "slow and comfortable" group with the drunk
driver may spend 10 minutes or more at risk. You can replace drunk driver with
dozing off driver, cell phone driver, suicide attempt, etc. Similarly, the
speeder will spend less time on the road overall due to arriving faster --
maybe hundreds of hours per year. Also, by being in the left lane, the car is
less likely to encounter merging traffic, stopped vehicles, cargo vehicles,
motorcycles, etc.
3) This is similar to #1. A speeder is forced into analyzing the road both
ahead and behind. But it's not because of being aware. It's because he's
looking for cops! While I'm against the speeding law, I believe that it serves
a good function in this regard. For example, speeders will usually slow down
before overtaking a hill or other visibility obstacle, in case there's a cop
on the other side. This has an intrinsic side effect not only of slowing down
when there's bad visibility but also being in 100% "threat scan mode" when in
such a situation.
The point here is that the danger on the road is not from speeding. It's from
drivers who aren't fully aware or comfortable and from situations like
merging. Even if Joe Schmoe isn't a good driver, I'd much rather have him
speeding, comfortable, and analyzing the situation rather than going 55,
talking on his cell phone, and feeling tired because he feels like he's
Driving Miss Daisy. Sure, it's possible for a driver to be fully aware and
analyzing while not speeding, but that's extremely rare.
Thanks for reading,
Dan
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Faster can mean Safer (Re: Aggressive Drivers)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:02:22 -0500
Government studies have shown that the faster a car is going, the more
accident-free miles it will travel.
I don't recall this as being completely true; I thought the highest accident
rates belong to the fastest drivers and the slowest drivers. Perhaps someone
else could enlighten me?
1) A good driver's awareness increases as speed increases. This is an
assumption. There are plenty of speeders out there who don't pay attention to
what they're doing.
2) The car is in the "accident potential zone" for much less of the time. You
could just as well argue that the speeder who is driving recklessly will
create more potential for accidents, therefore offsetting the time spent in
your so-called "accident potential zone".
3) This is similar to #1. A speeder is forced into analyzing the road both
ahead and behind. But it's not because of being aware. It's because he's
looking for cops!
Do all speeders really look for cops?
The point here is that the danger on the road is not from speeding. I agree
completely here; it's reckless driving. However, I think you're assuming too
much about the virtues of speed. [ Dennis]
Comment:
These two posts are examples of the opposite
of hostility and sarcasm. The two people discussing in this example are
calm, rational, and respectful. They certainly do not agree with each other
about the many dimensions of speed or speeding, but they are not rude to
each other about why they think the way they think. Unfortunately, on this
particular message board, this was a rare occurance. Most o the time, it
seemed like a contest of who could be the most obnoxious to the other
people. The first author shows logical thinking and the understanding that
statistics can be misleading, depending on how they are presented. The
ability to express himself in this manner generally shows that he is
intelligent and knows how to communicate with others. The second author also
had a good grasp on good communication skills. He took each point made by
the first author and responded in a logical, non-hostile manner.
Subject: Re: Aggressive Drivers
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:40:54 -0500
Ok, there is a question I have always wanted to ask, now there is a thead for
it. It is truly a question that I am interested in the group's answers to, but
admittedly it makes a statement and should provoke thought on exactly what
"aggressive driving" is (a mis-used, propagandist term). It is simply a yes or
no question. Ready?
Is it possible for someone to drive "agressively" if they are the only person
on the road?
Phrased another way, can a person be an "agressive driver" if they are not
driving in or near any other cars?
Afer we get this term ironed out, we'll go on to things like "speeding",
"weaving", "tailgating", etc......;-)
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Aggressive Drivers- define them
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 18:38:58 GMT
Is it possible for someone to drive "aggressively" if they are the only person
on the road?
No. Aggression generally implies another person or people who are the target
of the actions. You can drive dangerously when you are alone, but you can't
drive aggressively.
But as most of these terms go, they are very loosely defined. I'm sure someone
could define "aggressive driving" like they would an "aggressive
portfolio"--driving that is the opposite of conservative.- [ M. Willenholley]
"If I thought it mattered I'd be you"
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Aggressive Drivers
Date: 11 Feb 2000 21:08:14 EST
Actually aggressive driving is defined as a series of driving events that have
the potential of harm for persons or property. This comes from NHTSA. Speed is
a consideration in combination with improper lane changing, tailgating, etc...
a series of bad driving events in once episode.
By the way, Studies have proven that speed alone is a high crash factor. Take
it from someone that has worked more than his share of Fatal crashes.
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Aggressive Drivers
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:22:36 -0600
Ok, there is a question I have always wanted to ask, now there is a thead for
it. It is truly a question that I am interested in the group's answers to, but
admittedly it makes a statement and should provoke thought on exactly what
"aggressive driving" is (a mis-used, propagandist term). It is simply a yes or
no question. Ready?
Is it possible for someone to drive "agressively" if they are the only person
on the road?
Phrased another way, can a person be an "agressive driver" if they are not
driving in or near any other cars?
Afer we get this term ironed out, we'll go on to things like "speeding",
"weaving", "tailgating", etc......;-)
According to the federal gvt, if you are going 56 in a 55, you are speeding,
and therefore an aggressive driver. It doesn't matter if you are around
others. If you are driving too slowly for conditions, you are also listed as
an aggressive driver. Since everyone in Dallas is either over the limit or too
slow for conditions, 100% of Dallas drivers are aggressive.
I'd limit the useful definition of aggressive to people that take actions that
interfere with the normal flow of traffic. There may need to be a definition
for actions that are inherently aggressive, like high speed 4-wheel drift on a
public road, but I think those are statistically small enough to be excluded
for this exercise. [ Marc]
Comment:
Here is another good thread on the idea of an
operational definition. These are good examples that people cannot
effectively communicate with one another if they seem to be taling about
different things. And talking about different things is exactly what happens
when people do not have an agreed upon definition of any concept. They also
bring up the fact that aggression without driving can be difficult to
define. Aggression is generally believed to be an act of violent behavior
against someone or something else, but does that include the car, the road,
a sharp turn? Is it possible to be aggressive toward an inanimate object? I
think so, but it is one of those things that needs to be determined before
any intelligent conversation can be had.
Subject: Re: Put speeders in PRISON with other
criminals
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:05:02 GMT
No one ever takes an absolute "safety first" approach to life. If you really
believed that avoiding the risk of injury or death trumps all other
considerations, you'd never cross the street or even leave home except to
visit the doctor. You'd never smoke, drink even moderately, play sports or
even go to ball games.
In reality, people do all these things, because the value of life is not
really infinite; having fun is worth a small degree of risk. The whole point
of being an adult is getting to make these choices for yourself, not having
them forced on you.
Live with it.
[ J. D. Galt]
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Put speeders in PRISON with other criminals
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:03:32 -0600
Exactly how fast is safe when you are cresting a hill? You really never know
what is on the other side. It could be a horse and buggy traveling a 5 mph in
your lane- does that mean 5 mph is a safe speed to drive when on a hill? What
if you are driving a BMW M3 - which has a very short stopping distance - you
should be able to drive 10x as faster than if you are driving a Ford
Expedition. They can make all the speed limits they want but in the end it is
up to the driver to decide what is safe and what isn't. If some old lady can't
go fast enough to get across an intersection safely- perhaps she should think
about taking public transportation. [ Mike]
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Put speeders in PRISON with other criminals
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 13:01:14 -0700
And you wonder why we look at those in authority as if they don't know what
they're talking about.
We can show you the evidence but we can't make you believe. I've done my job
and I'm not the one who has the problem supporting what I've done in various
courts of law. Now you can either get busy and change the laws or get used to
them being enforced. Bitching at the 'authority' that is charged with
enforcing those laws only makes you a crybaby.
So that's it. No willingness to discuss the ramifications of existing laws or
of prior laws, just that's the law.
Thanks once again for demonstrating the mindset of the self-righteous. I hope
you continue to be able to sleep at night when experience becomes irrefutable
proof that keeping speed limits artificially low ended up causing more deaths.
You never did explain to me how higher speed limits are more dangerous when 8
of the states that raised them suffered a decrease in fatalities (never mind
the fatality rate). Don't you just hate posting "evidence" without reading it
properly?
Comment:
Just reading these posts makes me want to
argue with them. Their self-righteous tone of voice and sarcastic comments
are enough to get a rise out of anyone. It is no wonder that people get so
worked up over what they talk about on the internet. It has always been
interesting to me when I have talked to my friends who chat online a lot.
They get really caught up in what is said, even though they have never even
met the person that they were talking to. Because of the distance between
most of the people on message boards and in chat rooms, it is possible for a
person to say whatever they want simply because the anonymity makes them
more comfortable and open to do so. However, this also leads to emotional
responses that they would not normally have because in real life they are
more likely to be restrained. I am not sure which is better, but the true
personality of a person is more likely to come out online simply because
they would not have the punishment and social stigma if they acted that way
in front of actual people.
Subject: Re: Following Distance?
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:38:30 GMT
You can't be prepared to allow for idiots. You certainly can. It's called
cognizance. No it's called pre-cognition.
How do you prepare for being shunted in the back when you've stopped at an
intersection? Mirrors. Adjust them correctly and they will never lie. All they
tell you is that somebody's about to run into the back of you....and that now
would be a good time to use one of your pre-planned escape routes.
With the car stopped at an intersection? Try that at a stop sign with you
waiting for a gap in the traffic.Escape routes are mainly useful if you're
moving already. They are of little use when stopped in traffic with little
room available for movement. You are of course a perfect driver and will never
have a crash.
The difference between somebody approaching the back of your car at reasonable
speed and slowing, and somebody leaving the stop far too late, has to be
determined in less than 5 seconds. That requires you to watch your mirrors
intently.
Do you have something better to do when driving than pay attention to what is
going on around you? If so, maybe you should take the bus.
Maybe you should pay attention to something other than mirrors.
Do you drive by periscope?
There is always a point where you are committed to an action. You don't always
have the room to change lanes, especially where lane discipline is poor. Do
you take out a third party in another lane to minimise the impact of a crash?
(Where do you stand legally by deliberately crashing into another vehicle!?)
If you don't plan ahead and make an effort to anticipate what the traffic
around you is doing, then you will find yourself in panic situations without
any good options. That's why you Scan, Identify, Predict, Decide and Execute
every second of your drive.
That's the theory. I don't even have to think about doing it. I also plan
ahead to change routes to avoid traffic congestion.
You are of course the perfect driver and will never get tangled up in a crash,
having forseen all impossibilities and taken appropriate avoidance.
You can't always mount the median strip or verge because of high kerbs and the
high risk of rollover which is sure to write-off most cars. follow the 'risk
contour' that minimizes your exposure. IOW, assume that they will pull out -
then you can be pleasantly surprised when they don't.
Don't delude yourself into being able to avoid every possible crash scenario.
All of them may not be avoidable, but the unavoidable ones are much, much less
frequent than the rest.
Gosh... that might just mean that with about a million km and 20+ years of
driving with only 2 crashes in the past 20 years, that I'm doing pretty well.
You car guys with your two-ton suits of armor sure can learn a lot from us
defenseless bikers. I don't have a two-ton suit. Mine is under one ton.
Still much too large for you to really understand the value of driving
paranoid. You have a reasonable expectation of being able to walk away from a
40MPH collision with a crossing car. I have no such illusions, thus I *have*
to pay a bunch more attention.
I'd be DEAD in a 40 mph *collision*. The collision speed was about 30 kmh = 20
mph in round numbers.
Comment:
Here is another example of sarcasm. In
addition to the rudeness and holier-than-thou attitude, something else
struck me. He writes about paying attention while he is driving: I don't
even have to think about doing it. This is a frightening thought. This
is the kind of person who thinks that he is a perfect driver and does not
need any kind of improvement whatsoever. These are the people that cause the
accidents because they truly believe that their way is the only way. Add to
that his bad attitude and it is a wonder that anyone will even talk to him!
Subject: Re: Leaving a Gap ( was Re: A New Pet
Peeve - Anybody Notice This One? )
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 22:57:02 -0500
This is not just unnecessary, it's wrong. Once traffic is stopped it's a
waiting line, so you have no right to let in someone from the driveway.
So that person must wait till rush hour ends? How much does it hurt you to let
someone in?
I always let a person *if I control all lanes that he is going to need*. If
the person needs to cross more then the lane I am in, I do not let them in.
Examples:
- One lane in my direction. I will let an oncoming car turn left in front of
me.
- One (or more) lanes in my direction. I will let someone on a side stree/driveway
turn right into my direction.
-Two (or more) lanes in my direction. I will *not* leave a gap to let someone
turn left.
- One (or more) lanes in my direction. I will not leave a gap for someone to
turn left off a side street.
The reasoning: There is a good chance of one of two things happening:
1) The person clears my lane only to be hit by a car in another direction (due
to lack of visibility with all of the cars around). I have seen this happen
more times than I care to. It is the number one cause of accidents that I have
witnessed (second is probably rear-ending due to following too closely).
2) The person pulls into my lane but instead of being able to continue, sees
the the next lane he/she has to cross is blocked, and stops in front of me,
and blocking traffic.
I prevent people from trying more than one lane for their own safety.
Comment:
This person obviously has some major control
issues. He needs to be in control of everything around him, including other
cars. He also claims that he is doing this for the safety of those other
people driving, as if he knows what is best for them. It is truly amazing to
me that someone could possibly believe that he or she knows what is better
for someone else. Oftentimes, people do not even know what is best for
themselves. I know I have a hard time with that sometimes. Making the right
decision for yourself is always difficult, so what on earth would made
someone think that they could make a decision for someone that they have
never even met? Reading posts like this make me wonder about whether or not
I ever say self-righteous things like that. I know that I can be rather
pushy about things that I think I know a lot about. So, reading this will
hopefully make me pay more attention to my own conversations online and
otherwise with people around me.
Subject: Re: Aggressive Driving
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:26:50 -0600
A few days ago I posted a message requesting info, clips and first hand
accounts of instances of aggressive driving. I have seen some good comments,
unfortunately there is an immature and frankly moronic element that would
rather chide and berate. Makes me sorry I even brought the subject to the
group. I won't be back to this pathetic group.
Sounds an awful lot like you only want to see *your* side of the argument.
People who espouse other views are, of course, universally seen as "immature
and frankly moronic". You need to look at yourself, M.H.
BTW, if you think that this is a particularly pathetic newsgroup, you haven't
visited many others. Filter out the few trolls that we have here, and this is
a fairly bright group. Why don't you go hang out on one of the "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer" groups. Perhaps they'd be more receptive.
Cheers,
Mike
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Aggressive Driving
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:13:58 -0000
Oh go on, you've given us lots of intersting threads to debate, this is what
this newsgroup is all about.
Comment:
The original message, which I cannot find,
reflects a lot of what I feel about the messages in this newsgroup. However,
while I think that the posters tend to be sarcastic and rude, I would never
sink down to their level by being just as obnoxious as they are. The two
responses that I posted here are some good retorts with good points. It is
certainly true that although a lot of the people tend to be rather rude,
they have had some great discussions debates. This is important to get
people to think about things in different ways, even if they do not seem to
be particularly receptive to them. By looking at things from other
perspectives, it allows us to form new opinions and judgments, both good and
bad.
Subject: Re: Glad I don't commute via a car
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:37:24 GMT
Today the car was scheduled for routine service. So instead of my usual bike
ride to work, I had to drive to the shop and continue on from there via pedal
power. The drive to the shop is entirely over 2 lane, semi rural roads. Speed
limit, 45 mph. So, I'm about a mile out from my neighborhood, travelling along
about 47mph, when a pick-up comes flying up behind me, and stays about 15 feet
off my rear bumper.
If that's the whole story, it sounds like he's an idiot. On the other hand,
you don't say whether there's traffic in front of you, or what it's doing. If
those people are all going 50+ then you're the idiot for not keeping up. [ J.
D. Galt]
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Glad I don't commute via a car
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:38:27 GMT
If that's the whole story, it sounds like he's an idiot. On the other hand,
you don't say whether there's traffic in front of you, or what it's doing. If
those people are all going 50+ then you're the idiot for not keeping up.
What?? It's up to him what speed he drives at, you are calling him an idiot
because he is not keeping up with other cars who are going over the limit?
weird.
No one has the right to waste headway that others are waiting to use. Keep up
or get out of the way, or expect to be passed by any means fair or foul. [ J.
D. Galt]
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Glad I don't commute via a car
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:46:16 -0500
No one has the right to waste headway that others are waiting to use. Keep up
or get out of the way, or expect to be passed by any means fair or foul.
That has to be one of the most arrogant and brain-dead comments from a
supposedly intelligent person I've ever seen on this group.
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Glad I don't commute via a car
Date: 18 Feb 2000 15:10:26 GMT
No one has the right to waste headway that others are waiting to use. Keep up
or get out of the way, or expect to be passed by any means fair or foul. [
John David Galt]
That is absolutely ludicrous! That rule may apply for the 405 south of LAX in
the left lane, but on a two lane road, just outside of Boulder, CO, I'm not
buying it. If the guy wants to pass, pass. Do so in a safe manner and be done
with it. Don't infringe upon my space, flip me obscene gestures, and act like
I'm the asshole. [ Eric]
Mt. Evans or Bust
Support your local microbrewery
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Glad I don't commute via a car
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:10:36 GMT
No one has the right to waste headway that others are waiting to use. Keep up
or get out of the way, or expect to be passed by any means fair or foul. [
John David Galt]
Not when the leading cars are speeding.
End of story.
It's always the righteous ones who are inconsiderate and arrogant.
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Glad I don't commute via a car
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:38:22 GMT
The only purpose of the entire post, was to share an incident with the
readership, and, to express my amazement at how drivers put up with such crap
on a daily basis, be it you are the driver in front, or the driver behind.
It's been nearly 9 years since I commuted via a car on a daily basis so the
memory of those days is somewhat faded. But, I can't recall that many negative
incidents back in the days that I did drive to work.
They are increasing, and the fact isn't accidental. The greens deliberately
prevent road improvements from keeping up with population growth; they want to
force us out of our cars. The bogus ideas of "smart growth" and "traffic
calming" are part of this strategy too. So the next time you're in a stressful
traffic situation, remember that it was done to you on purpose.
[ J. D. Galt]
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Glad I don't commute via a car
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:34:27 -0500
No one has the right to waste headway that others
are waiting to use. Keep up or get out of the way, or expect to be passed by
any means fair or foul.
That has to be one of the most arrogant and
brain-dead comments from a supposedly intelligent person I've ever seen on
this group.
If you disagree you are stating that: You have the right to block others, or
Someone that is blocking someone shouldn't make an effort to let faster
traffic past, or slower traffic shouldn't be prepared to be passed.
I can't see anyone disagreeing with any of his statements. Though it appears
you are disagreeing more with the manner in which it was stated, rather than
the the meaning. [ Bingo.]
This so-called "headway" he refers to is nobody's "right". If you're going
below the speed limit, that's one thing, but the context of the original
message was in regards to someone traveling just over the posted limit. And no
one has the right to expect someone else to break the law just to please them,
regardless of how right or wrong that law may be. If you think the posted
limit is too low, work the system to get it changed; don't berate those who
feel that not getting ticketed/fined/pointed is more important than driving a
little faster.
Get really stoned: drink wet concrete.
* * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: Glad I don't commute via a car
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:19:08 GMT
To boil down what I said: I avoid hurry, because hurry causes me stress.
Furthermore, I don't understand why so many people are always in a hurry.
If you truly enjoy driving faster (and I myself enjoy driving fast, when
conditions permit and it's not just because I'm in a hurry), I have no problem
with that. But don't get mad at me for not driving as fast as you want to.
Fair enough, if you get over so I can pass.
[ J. D. Galt]
Comment:
I saved this thread for last because this was
the thread I enjoyed the most. Whenever Galt had anything to say, I always
paid very close attention because he is probably one of the most sarcastic,
rude people in this group. He does not elaborate much and therefore keeps his
messages short and salty. I actually wonder if his rudeness is real or if he
is just saying things like that because he can. He also sounds rather
paranoid, saying that certain driving incidents are inflicted on him, as
though they are something which cannot under any circumstance be avoided. The
reponses to his posts do not help, either. By insulting his insults, other
posters simply give him more ammunition to work with, thus perpetuating the
argument into a battle of insults and semantics. His last post was the most
amusing to me: Fair enough, if you get over so I can pass. It was as
though he wanted to get the last word in on an argument. Much like children
who go back and forth between _NOT!_ and _UH_HUH!_, he has to say, fine,
just let me pass you. He is probably very pleased with himself for getting
the last word in. Most children are. Again, I think that the newsgroup medium
allows him to express whatever he wants without having to worry about people
getting upset with him. After all, if the readers do not know who he is, what
does he care if they are upset with him? It simply does not affect him, so he
can say whatever he wants.
My biggest suggestion is to make sure you keep up with your assignments. Since I have been relatively responsible about completing everything in a timely manner, I have not felt overwhelmed or rushed to complete anything. This is a great load off my shoulders. If I had saved all this work until the last minute, I would probably be pulling my hair out while yelling at the computer. So, it is important to make sure you get started on this report early!
|
|