Quality Driving Circles or QDCs. These are small
groups of drivers meeting regularly in neighborhoods and discussing
their driving, especially, an activity I've tested out that works:
self-witnessing, which is done by turning on a tape recorder as you get
in the car, then speaking your thoughts and feelings out loud, sort of a
play-by-play of your inner driver self. The result: you get to be
aware of what kind of driver-person you really are! That's the
beginning of change. Etc. Can you imagine yourself doing that???
If you're interested in reading my proposals for how to change ourselves
from aggressive drivers to supportive drivers, see my Congressional
Testimony to the U.S. House Transportation Subcommittee, which is
available here.
Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)
Date:
Sat, 12 Jul 1997 02:09:01 -0400
Organization:
Search and Discover
Newsgroups:
dc.driving, rec.autos.driving
On Tue, 08 Jul 1997 20:01:36 -0400,
why chance blinding him? -- you might not be able to avoid
a dead-on head-on --
that's the whole reason behind NOT flashing your brights
and keeping your eyes on the right edge of the road --
you don't get blinded, the jeurk doesn't get blinded --
everybody lives!
Here's why you -should- flash your brights (but only for short
bursts). If in fact the person has them on by mistake, and you do
nothing about it, then the next person behind you -also- has to deal
with their highbeams.
However, if you remind them (with short bursts - not enough to blind
for more than a split second), and they do in fact respond by turning
theirs off, you have prevented -God knows how many- cars behind you
from having to put up with the same situation.
Ignorance of the high beams doesn't solve the problem any more than
holding your highbeams on in response.
ah yes! -- and the honorable friend Edgerton has gotten to
the MEAT of the MATTER:
how many of us can truthfully say that, after flashing the
jeurks several times, we haven't blasted them with full
brights in . . .
R E V E N G E
or at the very least, had a burning desire to --
it is human nature to respond in this manner -- you have
just performed a human kindness -- you have informed a
fellow traveller that s/he is accidently blinding others
with bright lights -- you have performed this great kindness
out of the goodness of your heart, not just for your self
and the sake of your own vision, but for those many behind
you that may also become blinded --
and horror of horrors, this shitass just keeps on goin'
with his or her bright lights glaring away!!!! --
"Well, you goddamsonofabitch! -- TAKE THAT!!!" --
now -- both of you are blinded -- head-on -- adios muchachos --
rather than pick up the pieces, the National Safety Council
in the US has chosen to suggest the alternative to keep your
eyes on the right edge of the lane your in, or the right edge
of the road -- in this manner, you can avoid the glare from
impinging on the center of the retina, where it will do the
most damage in terms of recovery time -- and your peripheral
vision will come into play to keep you in your lane -- do
not flash -- i repeat --
do not flash your bright lights -- even the flashes may blind
the oncoming driver, sending his or her car into yours --
dead-on head-on -- and the urge may be too great to effect the
revenge that leads to two glare-blinded vagabonds in the night --
Date:
Sat, 12 Jul 1997 02:14:54 -0400
Organization:
Search and Discover
Newsgroups:
dc.driving, rec.autos.driving
I could not agree with you more. Your point was very well said.
Why
must some drivers detain their justifiable anger?
Supposedly, "we" put
others at risk, when in
actuality, those who feel their presence on the road is more important
than safety, initiate the risk(s). How many times has someone crossed
three lanes of traffic without signaling or checking for on coming
traffic, just to meet a turn or exit? Would you not be mad? And anger is
the crime? Sheesh!
my goodness! -- anger is not the crime, no indeed, and the
angered driver is not a criminal --
anger is a killer -- and the angered driver who allows his
or her buttons to be pushed by others, and who does not
shrug off the anger instantly, but allows it to build into
"road rage" too often winds up . . .
dead
or worse --
Safely yours,
Date:
17 Jul 1997 02:27:04 GMT
Organization:
AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups:
rec.autos.driving
For Leon James - Dr. Driving:
WHY do we not see you stridently addressing one of the foremost causes of
aggressive driving - the scientifically-invalid speed limit.
Whenever politicians succeed in posting 30th percentile speed limits, it
makes it legal (but idiotic) for people to drive at the 40th percentile in
the fast lane. This makes 60% of the drivers want to pass in the
over-crowded right lanes.
This kills people.
If ALL speed limits in the USA were set to scientifically-valid 85th
percentile levels, our traffic would be smoother, the accident rate would
go down, the death rate would go down, the aggravation factor would go
down, etc.
The ONLY people that would get hurt would be traffic court and insurance
company treasurers.
Regards,
Date:
Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:18:25 GMT
Organization:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Newsgroups:
rec.autos.driving
"Dr. Driving" <dyc@drdriving.org> said:
My area of contribution has to do with promoting the idea that we need
to accomodate to the diversity of drivers such as is the reality on our
roads. To "accomodate" is the opposite of to want to punish or bar
drivers who ignore simple but essential principles like "use left lane
only for passing" or "others have the right to come into my lane."
But is seems like you are trying to cut one group of drivers
signifigantly more slack that another. This selectivity borders
on hypocracy, and is what I take exception to. I think you
aren't too far off, but it seems to me that your area of focus is
on the people that are re-acting to a perceived injustice, and
instead of trying to fix the injustice, it seems you are telling
the people that feel wronged that they are bad people [for
feeling that the person who was going 45 in a 70 in the left lane
who cut across three lanes of traffic to make their exit did
something wrong, which is something that most, if not all, people
do] (boy that was a long sentence, I'm not sure even I understand
exactly what I said...).
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 1997 02:14:50 GMT
Organization:
FizzBall Racing
Newsgroups:
rec.autos.driving
"Dr. Driving" <dyc@drdriving.org> writes:
My area of contribution has to do with promoting the idea that
we need to accommodate to the diversity of drivers such as is
the reality on our roads.
We don't need to "accommodate" *anybody.* On the contrary, what
we need to do is bring the substandard drivers up to speed (often
literally, viz. my last follow-up to one of your posts), or else
get them off the road. I also happen to believe that special
attention should be focused on immigrant drivers -- not that I
necessarily expect such political courage from any of our mealy-
mouthed, careerist lawmakers or bureaucrats, of course.
I realize that "diversity" is something of a holy concept (not to
mention an annoying buzzword), but you've misidentified the problem.
It's long been a truism that driving is a privilege and not a right,
but lately it seems to me that while society still pays lip service
to that idea, the actual prevailing attitude has shifted more toward
the idea that driving is, in fact, a right.
I think that one of the reasons for this is the fact that we live in
an aggressively and self-consciously egalitarian society. Another is
the quasi-religious regard in which people hold the nebulous concept
of "rights," and that many Americans lack the critical thinking skills
that would allow them to approach the matter of rights in a dispassionate
and rational manner. If "diversity" implies the accepted existence of
large numbers of substandard drivers, then we're being far too accomodating.
Date:
20 Jul 1997 02:44:17 GMT
Organization:
Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Newsgroups:
dc.driving, va.general, rec.autos.driving, rec.autos.misc
I don't think at any point I ever said that I cared what your preferences
are. Your ignorance is so apparent that in my last (unless absolutely
necessary) response to you I will point out the idiocy of your statement in
as clear a way as I can.
Non-aggressive driver at 45 mph (and climbing) merging into 55 mph traffic
is not speeding, therefore is not breaking the law (hope you're with me
here, cuz if you're not, you're screwed)..
Aggressive driver at 75 mph merging into 55 mph traffic is speeding
therefore breaking the law. If traffic is 55 mph and the merging vehicle
is going 70-75 mph, that's a problem, isn't it? A car going 70-75 merging
into a decent amount of traffic at 55 is more of a problem than the vehicle
going 45. It's a difference of 10 mph or 20. .
It's a shame I had to be so elementary with you but it's even more of a
shame that you still won't get it. I've described the theory you seem to
have such a hard time with. Hopefully it wasn't too difficult. So do you
still not understand "NON-aggressive drivers = obeying the law; aggressive
drivers = disobeying the law"?.
Hope so..
** WIDE GLIDE **
Date:
Sun, 20 Jul 1997 16:53:05 GMT
Organization:
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Newsgroups:
dc.driving, va.general, rec.autos.driving, rec.autos.misc
What about the non-aggressive driver that heads toward the
freeway where traffic is going 70, and they are going 45. They
get near the merging point and slam on the brakes. They greatly
disrupt traffic, possibly contributing to a rear-end accident,
and further disrupting traffic when they finally do pull out to
get on. They broke no law, and as such were non-aggressive, by
your definition.
Now, what about the driver that gets to 75 on an entrance ramp
where traffic is going above 60, and there are limited sight
lines. If they were going slower, they would have less options
(as most cars decelerate signifigantly more quickly than they
accelerate). They can more easily get on the freeway without
disrupting traffic, and are not going to stop at the end of the
entrance ramp, but they broke the law, which makes them
aggressive.
The second person is less aggravating to others around, and less
likely to be in an accident. As such, your definitions of
aggressive have no relevance to whether someone is safe or
courteous. If you want your definitions to carry those
connotations, you should probably modify them.
Date:
21 Jul 1997 12:57:03 -0400
Organization:
Philips Research, Briarcliff, NY 10510
Newsgroups:
dc.driving, va.general, rec.autos.driving, rec.autos.misc
It's not the difference of 10 mph vs. 20 mph; the point is that no
matter what, the merging driver must match the speed of the traffic
with which he is merging. The BEST way to accomplish this is to drive
FASTER than said traffic and choose a sufficient opening; when the
opening is available, then merge, brake and proceed with the flow of
traffic. It is nearly impossible for virtually any car to accellerate
from 45 to 55 in the same distance it takes to brake from 75 to 55;
therefore, a car doing 45 merging with 55 mph traffic will cause many
more problems with respect to the traffic flow.
Date: 1997/07/17
Newsgroups: dc.driving,va.general,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc
drivers, then there would be less aggressive maneuvers by
aggressive drivers. The aggressive moves are generally around
the
less aggressive drivers. So, the number of aggressive maneuvers
(or aggressive drivers, if the definition of an aggressive driver
is based on action, and not mentality), is dependent on the
number of non-aggressive drivers.
Dr. driving wrote:
This argument is not rational--assuming you meant it seriously.
At any rate, it's worth noting that aggressive driving is foremost a
mentality, and so not something you can exclude from the definition.
The
road rage mentality is the same as the aggressive mentality. Its
essence: righteous indignation drivers feel when they define an
interaction as having been wronged in some personal way.
If you are interested in safe highways, you must acknowledge that
a uniform traffic flow is safer than a turbulent one. Turbulence
can be caused by drivers of different styles. If there are
absolutely no timid drivers, then the roads would be safer, even
with an increase in aggressive drivers.
Agreed...Problems occur when cars are traveling at significantly
different speeds, i.e. their relative velocities are high...
Conversely, if there were absolutely no aggressive drivers, a few
more timid ones wouldn't matter. The psychology behind the
thought of the drivers is irrelevant in the face of the actions
of the drivers.
Ummm..., have to disagree on the psychology part...it *is* the mindset of
the person that causes the accidents. I'm not talking about "road rage"
or whatever, I'm simply referring to the attitude of the individual
drivers. There is probably as many different attitudes on the road as
there are drivers so to lump people into agressive or timid is
incorrect. The truly "timid" (scared of driving and only do it because
its the only way to get anywhere) probably make up on the order of 1% of
the drivers. By the same token, the true "road ragers" probably also
make up about 1%. (Both groups tend to be "road hazards" to the other
98% :-).
The "mindset" that causes problems is "to hell with everyone
else". While the extreme 2% would probably continue to maintain this
attitude, if the remaining 98% would try considering the safety of other
travelers traffic accidents would drop. This doesn't mean changing
driving "styles", it means simple consideration of others. If you're
going slower than traffic, move over to the right. If you are
aggressive, don't follow quite so close and try leaving a little more
room when you cut back in after passing. If you get stuck in a traffic
jam, ask yourself if not being late is worth the possibility of killing
yourself or others by pulling illegal (and dangerous) stunts such as
making a U-turn on an interstate or riding on the shoulder of the road.
When you (not you specifically Marc :-) put your time and the
possibility of being late ahead of the lives of others, then its time to
do some serious rethinking of priorities...
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:07:07 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
"Dr. Driving" said:
I'm providing for both in my plans for effecting a change. First, the
drivers who drive in incompetent or dangerous manner, thus upsetting
other drivers. Second, drivers who react to other drivers' mistakes
(etc.), by wanting to punish them.
According to my plan, both these groups need help in training themselves
to change. First, the drivers who make others mad have to a agree to be
re-trained. Second, the drivers who get mad at others have to be
retrained to be more accommodating of the diversity of drivers.
Surely this meets with your approval? Or are you saying I should only
concentrate on the first group??
Sounds good, but I've seen little here, or on your websites, that
is referring to the first group. It appears that you are more
vocal about the second group, and since they are only reacting to
the first group, I think it might be more effective to more actively address the first group.
You also seem to be making value judgements on the motives behind
an action when you aren't even sure what the thoughts of the
person that made the action are. Pinning the term "rage" on a
set of actions can't be accurate in all situations, and I'll
assert that it isn't even correct in half of the situations. If
you were to use the term "agressive" or some other equivalent
term, you might be more accurate.
Have you done any studies in "road rage?" I say your list of
publications on your home page, but there were none related to
this. Do you know of any that you could point me to? I'm
interested in the subject, but I think the non-scientific based,
buzzword infested, preaching on driving practices is not
productive and only alienates some of the groups (and members of
the groups) that could be courted with some of the ideas that you
profess you profess.
It just seems to me that with your focus on the second group that
you are telling the rape victim that she shouldn't have been
wearing a short skirt and it's too late to do anything about it
so she should just go on like it never happened. Now, if you
were to emphasize the fact that the rapist is evil and all that,
and then give ways to prevent rape (like travleing in groups,
locking all doors, etc.), then you would be closer to presenting
the image that you claim you are trying to present.
And ignoring the idea that there are justifiable times to be
angry is another reason that you don't put forth the image that
you claim you are trying to present. If someone were to run a
stop sign or red light to cut me off, and then proceeds at a
speed much less than the limit, let alone the average speed, do
you think that it is justifiable to be annoyed? If you are
driving safely at the speed limit and you have a passenger that
is constantly yelling "look out" or "slow down" do you think that
you should ask that person to stop distracting you? According to
your web page, asking them to be quiet is a sign of road rage.
Even if you don't answer these here, I implore you to address
them in your thoughts, as this is truely the way you are coming
across to some (like me), and if it isn't the way you wish to
appear, you might want to look at what you can do to change it.
Newsgrps: rec.autos.driving
A reader wrote: "Sounds good, but I've seen little here, or on your
websites, that is referring to the first group [=bad drivers]. It appears
that you are more vocal about the second group [aggressive drivers], and
since they are only reacting to the first group, I think it might be more
effective to more actively address the first group." (snip) "And ignoring
the idea that there are justifiable times to be angry is another reason
that you don't put forth the image that you claim you are trying to
present."
I believe that my
Quality Driving Circles (QDCs)
idea
would work for both
groups. In reality, there is only one group: sometimes we're aggressive
and sometimes we're bad drivers making others mad.
Getting angry is automatic and natural--can't be helped most of the time.
This is not the problem. It's venting your anger with righteous
indignation after you've gotten angry--this is the problem. You have a
choice. It's a mtter of philosophy or morality or civics or honesty...
About research on road rage: the data I've been collecting has to do with
hundreds of drivers turning on their tape recorder in the car and speaking
their thoughts out loud. This is evidence. From this evidence I make
various interpretations and conclusions. You can find many of these
empirical reports on my Web site.
Experts, officials, teachers, journalists, legislators--these are the
people who have been pointing to the aggressive drivers problem. The
problem is not the "bad driver" who makes you mad and aggressive. It's
the aggressive driver who fails to contain hostile emotions in the face of
provocation by the "bad drivers." Let's get rid of bad driving; let's get
rid of aggressive driving which includes not only hostile acts against
specific others, but also a general style of compulsive rushing and
competition.
Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)