None of the comments on this page are not by Leon James
Murder statistics (was Re: Ciao)| Date: 1997/08/02 | Message-Id: <5s0gnl$b5u@capefear.cs.unc.edu> Newsgroups: misc.writing
In article vvv Ah, OK. The alarmist press, which may or may not have actually
bothered to read the statistics they are fed over the fax, may
or may not have bothered to read the actual data, and may or may
not be *competent* t read the actual data. The folk who have
given us a history of false crises based on flagrant disregard
of the data. That press.
The "sample" *is* the entire set of fatalities. The study didn't
select a cohort of, say, 1000 accidents and see how many of those
were "road rage." I collected *all* reports on *all* accidents that
it could find. It *is* nine one-hundredths of one percent of the fatalities.
That's not a "first order approximation." It's a wild guess. Common
sense suggests that the unsolved cases have a higher proportion of
stranger killings, but imposing any number on that is simple speculation.
In fact, having a higher number of stranger killings in the unknown
group is suggestive that the rate of killing by strangers is going
*down* not up. Let's say that the proportion of killings in the
unknown group *is* higher than in the solved group as you assume.
Now, let's solve a bunch of them. What will happen? The "killed
by strangers" group will grow precipitously.
But what has happened? The proportion of unknown killings has been dropping
the past few years after years of rising, while the proportion of
known stranger killings has been essential stable. If the rate
of killings by strangers is rising, it would be rising much *faster*
than the proportion of unknowns is falling. It ain't the case. If
you assume that the proportion of stranger killings in the unknown
group is larger than that in the known group, then the data suggests
that the rate of killing by strangers is relatively *falling*.
The sample was explicitly *not* random. The entire set of accidents
was "sampled" to come up with those incidents. Of course, the sampling
was poor, but that's the breaks. The study is not a good measure of
"road rage" killings. It is even worse to make a bizillion assumptions
in order to extrapolate it out.
The most profound assumption made in the above extrapolation,
which is actually truly bizarre, is that *all* accidents are due to
"incidents" of this particular kind of aggressive driving. You are
assuming that the 10,0037 "incidents" were randomly sampled from the
number of accidents and that they *all* just happened to be examples
of this "road rage" and aggressive driving stuff. That's not how
the study was done. What a crock.
Moreover, you are assuming that all of the 218 deaths are due to road
rage, and are, in fact homicides. There is no reason to believe this.
My personal experience in evaluating about 5000 deaths of various causes
suggests that the most common victim of "aggressive driving" is the
aggressive driver who loses control of his car (most are young males),
not a bystander. But, I have no data to support it, so I won't pretend
to any numbers. I will only state that the assumption that even a
majority of the 218 deaths are homicides is unfounded.
Yes you do. You know exactly how they got their data. They did a
search of all the newspapers and police reports they could find and
came up with some numbers. If it was done well, then the sample
is the entire set of accidents. If it was done poorly, then it doesn't
matter.
It matters how many fatalities there were. Of about 240000 fatalities,
they could find 218 which could be attributed to "incidents" of "aggressive
driving." You are right that there is no way to know how many of these
218 are, in fact, homicides. You do know, however, what the sample
set of fatalities these 218 were from -- the 240000.
Nope. The NHTSA numbers say nothing of the sort. For one thing,
you can look to see where most murders occur and what weapons were
used. The number of homicides (and, remember, homicide includes
both murder and manslaughter) performed with a car or on the road
is small. Your extrapolations, excuse me, the extrapolations
made by these journalists, fails the most simple reality test.
The assumptions made about the sampling are faulty. The study
is not random. Any extrapolation to the general population is
BS.
Exactly.
Then we agree. The contention that the number of homicides by
strangers is "rising" and a "growing problem," is pure speculation,
and should be treated as such.
There *is* good evidence that the number of killings by persons
known by the victim is much higher than that of strangers. In the
1995 data, for instance, with 45 of the cases known to be by
family/acquaintance, 15% known to be strangers, then for the
percentage of stranger killings to be higher than
acquaintance/family killings, then a minimum of 90% of the "unknown"
group would have to be strangers. That's a hell
of an assumption. Looking at the historical changes in the relationship
between changes in "unknown" and "stranger" groups, the change is
not nearly that dramatic.
But whatever the percentage is, there is *absolutely* no good evidence
it is a "rising" or "growing" problem for the nation as a whole.
|
|---|
Road Rage|
Date: 1997/08/04 | Message-Id: <5s5if3$svn@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: alt.revenge In <33e60eb3.2064654@n.ix.netcom.com> a@ix.netcom.com a reader
writes: your passive driving is getting someone angry, it's probably because you think that since you don't have to be somewhere in a hurry that everyone else on the road should fall inline behind you. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a little bit of road rage. Just think of the satisfaction you feel by taking out your .357 and blowing a hole in the head of that moron who just cut you off in traffic... OR, you can run up behind someone doing the speed limit in the right lane and flash your lights or give them the finger... utterly relaxing. The best thing you can do, however, is wait until all the traffic in front of you is stopped for a mile back from the nearest red light, then put the old Sherman into dual low and DRIVE RIGHT OVER 'EM... the cries of terror, screams of pain and utter panic and confusion is sure to bring a tear of happiness to the most hardened heart of any 'Road Rager'.
er... just what time DO you leave for work and what route do you take?
Date: 1997/08/04 Message-Id: <01bca094$799d7ee0$368493cf@default> Newsgroups: alt.revenge What's a good way to deal with anger at the wheel? How about when someone cuts you off or starts to rage on you? Please send some advice that does not involve killing others.
Date: 1997/08/04 Message-Id: <33e65f97.2ddf@citizen.infi.net> Newsgroups: alt.revenge Rather than do something yourself, endangering good folks including your passengers, just call the police and report that wildly drunk driver! I used to pull off the road to do this, and now just use a cell phone! What could be easier?
Date: 1997/08/04 your passive driving is getting someone angry, it's probably because you think that since you dont' have to be somewhere in a hurry that everyone else on the road should fall inline behind you. It's rare that I get angry with someone thats not sitting in the left lane daydreaming and doing the speed limit. If I were you I would be more concerned with someone taking revenge on YOU! Keep your monastic way of driving confined to the rightmost lane and you may not attract so much negative attention in the first place.
It's funny no one ever rages at me on the road.
Date: 1997/08/04 Bill Baggs is Uncle Buckle The Safety Buffalo: your passive driving is getting someone angry, it's probably because you think that since you dont' have to be somewhere in a hurry that everyone else on the road should fall inline behind you. Is passive another word for safe? Is this your way of saying that if I see a moron in the mirror (that looks just like you) doing 90 mphs in a school zone, that "I am passive" because I'm doing only 35? or even the SPEED LIMIT? Juz wondering. It's rare that I get angry with someone thats not sitting in the left lane daydreaming and doing the speed limit. If I were you I would be more concerned with someone taking revenge on YOU! Keep your monastic way of driving confined to the rightmost lane and you may not attract so much negative attention in the first place. You're a liar. First you assumed that it was "lack of speed" that the original poster was talking about.Why do I say this? Because that is all YOU talk about when the OEM poster didn't say anything to the effect.S/he asked a totally differant question. I really think you DO get quite cranky when someone is going slower than you want,and when you get the option, you drive like a petunia and therefore DANGEROUSLY. Please switch to decaffinated. It's funny no one ever rages at me on the road. That's because the *smart* driver lets you go, so s/he can live another day,and could give a rats ass if you die. PLEASE do NOT become a teacher of any kind...let alone a driving instructor.
|
|---|
| The Cause Of Road Rage |
|---|
|
Date: 1997/08/03 Message-Id: <01bc9fe5$7cfe50a0$c911bcca@acer.nasionet> Newsgroups: soc.culture.malaysia My afternoon was spoilt by the driver (Indian decent - not sure whether Tamil or Bengali) of Proton Wira (WEW 7057 - Purplish Color) who has no road courtesy and terribly rude ! I was waiting for 10 mins by the road side for a parking spot and finaly the car on my side was ready to move and I moved my car forward to allow him to dirve out. As I reversed my car to go into the vacated parking lot, come WEW 7057 and just drive his car into the vacated spot (with my car already reversing into it!). I was naturally angry but kept my cool and asked him 'what's this ?'. He got out of his car with his family and raised his arm at me and said 'Go look somewhere else !'. I felt a sudden rage enveloping me and went for my steering lock ... suddenly my children in the car pleaded me to cool off ! For a moment, I nearly became a road bully and I was thankful that I didn't whack the bastard up ! Now, I won't be too fast in pointing my fingers if I read another case of a road rage incident. It is bastards like the driver of WEW 7057 that provokes the other drivers. I would like to hear from other road users ... what should be the appropriate response then ???????
Stressed Up Driver
Date: 1997/08/03 You should have just whacked the bastard.
If you expect the police to do anything, forget it.
Basically, this is the attitude of all Malaysians....................caring
Malaysians, my foot.
Date: 1997/08/06 I don't think anyone can do anything about these inconsiderate drivers. I've had also a similiar experience when I was at 1 Utama shopping centre. Having waited for over 15 minutes for a carpark, an inconsiderate 50+ year old man and his wife just "stole" my car spot and mind you, he was driving a Merc too! (biege colour) You would atleast think that he was well brought up. Anyway, I was really pissed off, came out of my car and said "I was waiting for 15 minutes, how can you just drive in like that?!!??" and you know what he said to me?? "Why so angry?" and when I replied that it was not right for him to just take my parking spot after I have waiting so long for it, he basically ignored me and also had the cheek to scribble down my car number then walked off. Had I been a guy, I would really think about smashing his car up. It is people like these that deserve to be beaten up or have their car wrecked! I agree an earlier post that it has nothing to do with race. It's just plain old Malaysian rudeness, inconsiderate reckless drivers. There's nothing you can do...
|
Re: USA Today "Road Rage" article|
Date: 1997/08/06 | Message-Id: <5sam69$a2a@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving In article <33e8d7d8.6d91@sprintmail.com>,
a reader wrote: "Aggressive driving" is a subjective assessment of one's driving style. When I lived in South Florida, there were many people on the road who would consider "ordinary" driving aggressive. To me it means the degree to which you pushing your car. A little quicker, a little harder in the turns, a little faster accelerating and braking and maybe some "quick" lane changes. [snip] But there are some whose aggressive driving habits show little or no respect for others, like cutting into a small gap only to have to slam on the brakes and panic those behind. This is called rude or inconsiderate driving in my book. I agree that there is a language difficulty in talking about these problems since there are two distinct uses of the word "aggressive". I can take an aggressive line through a curve or I can have an aggressive attitute towards other drivers. I think the first is just fine while the second is unacceptable and is the sort of thing that leads to accidents (or collisions or whatever we're supposed to call them now) "Road rage" is, for lack of a better definition, the inability to cope with life. I usually associate "road rage" with the second usage of "aggressive". |
|---|
| You know, this is enough to make a liberal conservative! |
|---|
|
Date: 1997/07/25 Message-Id: <19970725020101.waa05644@ladder02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican If you've ever driven in New York, Boston, or other city, you know that bike riders constantly violate the motor vehicle laws, passing on the right, swerving in and out of traffic, running red lights, not signalling turns, etc..... Lets put disintergration rays on our cars and blast them into sub atomic particle, them and those slow f@#&$ on the highway that do 50 in the left lane. Today in the Chicago Tribune, I saw a newspaper article about a planned bicycle ride in downtown San Francisco organised by "Critical Mass", a group of bicyclists who deliberately snarl traffic. What these people do is they ride bicycles en masse during rush hour and the goal is "create frustration for motorists and give them a taste of what cyclists say they expierence every day". |
Back to Topical Index of Issues