Back to Topical Index of Issues
|
Date: 1997/09/02 Message-Id: <340c2d97.72c@pennine.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Don't be so bloody silly. You are in denial, a stage in the grieving process. Why are you Americans so quick to adopt conspiracy theories. I suppose Di and Dodi are sharing an island with Marilyn and Elvis. David, you ought to read the message header before making stupid assumptions about a poster's nationality.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british The conspiracy freaks seem to have crawled out from all corners of the globe. There is even a German who has been arrested for stalking Diana posting "theories" here.
Date: 1997/09/02 They [condolence messages] can be posted directly to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ without the help of an ambulance chaser.
Date: 1997/09/02 I have to say that being stalked by the paparazzi must feel like being the fox in a fox hunt. No wonder Diana hated them...she lived it. There are many things that contributed to this accident...fear, alcohol, harrassment and 16 years of being stalked and having the most innocent moments of your life twisted. Famous people can't hg their brothers without the tabloids screaming incest. To say Diana had a hand in her own death is cruel. I daresay she would never have gotten into that car if she knew the driver had been drinking. Who knows that they weren't trying to get the driver to slow down? The fact remains though, that if the paparazzi had left them alone there would have been no chase and more than likely no wreck. This we may never know. What we do know is how the paparazzi acted immediately after the accident, which was in a horrendous way, taking pictures of the dead and dying instead of helping, and screaming at the people who were trying to help that they were 'ruining their shots'.
Date: 1997/09/02 Limbaugh will criticize Princess Di and her entourage for getting into the car that tragic night, attempting to shift the negative focus onto Princess Diana herself. "Why, he was drunk! She knew it! She shouldn't have gotten into the car knowing he was drunk! It was partially her own fault! Why is everybody so "weepy-whiney" over her? What has she ever done? Hmmm? Did she ever make fun of the Mary Jo Kopeckni situation? Did she ever play, over and over, parodies of the same old Clinton jokes? Did she ever fail at doing a TV show, err, uhm, forget that one .... This just goes to show you how far down America has gone, praising that Princess babe instead of *me*!!" Listen for it, expect it, it will happen.
Date: 1997/09/02
You know if the Princess of Wales calls the cops they're gonna get there asap! Ever had to call a French cop? What really sucks is,she died so a picture would'nt get taken.The fault lies with the driver,i've seen people walk out of a 140 series Benz after multiple high speed rolls,you would really have to concentrate to do that much damage to your passengers. So what? Ever ridden drunk? I have...haven't fallen off yet...although I don't do it any more... I am a freelance photographer and motorcyclist and what those guys have been doing and did to this wonderful example of humanity was in no way excusable whatsoever, I'm not talking about just her death, I'm talking about the last 18 years...She had a right to her own life...I know that is someone followed me around with a camera all day and all night I'd jam it where the sun don't shine...
Date: 1997/09/02 DrDriving wrote: Everyone knows about Diana's death by now. Diana's driver is primarily at fault. Being followed by photographers is no excuse for driving at 120 mph. However, the photographers greatly contributed by encouraging the recklessness by following behind at an equally great rate of speed.
From the information I have seen:
Date: 1997/09/02 Thank you for expressing so well my feelings about blaming the press for Diana's death! The princess chose to live a "high" life. She chose to allow the driver to speed in order to evade the paparazzi. She was a caring person, but I think we need to look at her whole life and not put her on too high a pedestal. This rant is absurd. There is no way that pictures of Princess Diana would be worth $200,000, unless she was partially nude. But that would be an unusual case indeed. I've read in a few newsgroups already this strange idea that the paparazzi are somehow responsible for this accident. The only person responsible for that accident was the person driving the car. It was ridiculous to attempt to outrun the photographers, and the Princess and her friend should have just allowed them to take pictures of their moving vehicle and been done with it. Fame is what makes them what they are. Fayed was in some part drawn to the princess because of her fame.
Date: 1997/08/31 Did the Royal Family, tired of the embarrassing questions by and conduct of the Princess have her eliminated? Was it done by secret intelligence officers using the paparazzi as convenient cover? Did a group of rightwing monarchists do it? Will the French special terrorist unit assigned to investigate the death investigate or participate in a cover up? Will questions like these be allowed in the British press or will Britains notorious censorship come into play? = These questions are from a talk show less than 24 hours after the tragic accident.
Date: 1997/08/31 Did the Royal Family, tired of the embarrassing questions by and conduct of the Princess have her eliminated? That those questions are even raised is almost as tragic as the terrible events in Paris. It is a manifestation of the sick conspiratorial minds that pervade some of the media today. Sick, sick, sick! It is part of the problem and goes nowhere towards settling anything. But it is the kind of stuff that goes a long way toward encouraging other sick people to justify in their own warped minds blowing up government buildings, such as we saw Oklahoma City. I suspect Dodi and Diana if they could now reflect, would now find the price they paid far too great just to avoid the voracious "tabs" and their irrisponsible paperazzi, and a few crappy photographs taken by small minded insensitive people through the window of a speeding car at night.
Date: 1997/08/31 Did a group of rightwing monarchists do it? (snip) Oh give me a break!! Everyone is blaming it on the paperazzi. What about the ass hole that was behind the wheel of her car doing 100 mph in downtown Paris. What if their car had side swiped another car and killed a family of five or so. Anyone who drives over _twice_ the speed limit has no sympathy from me. But look at the bright side. She joins the list of beautiful people who died young and will always be remembered forever young: Marilyn, Princess Grace, James Dean, Valentino, JFK etc.
Date: 1997/09/01 For what it's worth ... that merc 650 would have to have accelerated from about about zero to 127 in aabout a quarter of a mile, if his route, as shown by the Times today, can be accepted. This sound about right to you-all who know about such things? It was my impression that an armored Mercedes is not great on acceleration, though once you're on the autobahn ... Dan Rather tonight repeated the figure, but was vague about who found the speedometer "frozen" at that figure, or what "frozen" means, under the collision conditions that demolished the dashboard. He reported the driver had the equivalent of a litre of wine in him, but after about 2:00 pm of any day in the week, virtually every cabbie in Paris has a litre of rouge in, cut with another litre of minerale. About all you can say is, he was going too fast, lost it, folded it. Having been there, I'd say the average speed in those river tunnels is about 50-65 mph, which is the point of the exercise ... to avoid poking along the surface road any more than you have to. The trouble is, the tunnels aren't very long, and when you come up, there's the traffic again, bumper to bumper. A photographer who would use a flash on a speeding car should have his flash bulbs cut off.
Date: 1997/09/01
Kilometers , not MPH and that was only a guesstimate by people
standing on the street, always unreliable.
It was the American reporters who changed kilometers to MPH.
Just heard on our (BBC) news here that the
vehicle may have been travelling at an estimated
197kph, or around 122mph.. (127mph US?).
The vehicle was an 'armoured' Merc, (therefore
heavier and possibly slightly less agile?).
The driver apparently had twice the French
/criminal/ limit of blood alchohol... ie., three
times the French legal limit.
It looks as if the driver, who had been 'off-
duty' and possibly not expecting to drive, was
pulled-in at the last minute while the official
driver used the nominated vehicle to decoy most
of the paparazzi who had descended looking for
their 'scalps'.
Further reported by witnesses that one of the
paparazzi motorbike crews, (driver and camera
operator), had been weaving about in front of
the Merc in an attempt to slow it down for the
others to grab their pics....
We'll have to wait for the French to conclude
their official investigation and report...
Sounds like it might be a combination of
unfortunate and, in hindsight avoidable,
circumstances with a tragic outcome....
perhaps an outcome just waiting to happen...
One wonders if Press Owners/Editors refused to
pay totally overblown amounts for what are usually
trivial and highly ephemeral pics, the shoals of
carniverous paparazzi would possibly disappear overnight...
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 00:56:05 -1000
Outside of the fact that 'the alcohol' does not include any mention of
road rage... pray tell, why not?
This makes it 'road bravado', not 'road rage', I believe.
Please tell us how you came to this conclusion. The facts as I know
them are:
1) Intoxication at BAC .17.
2) A reported statement of bravado ('catch me if you can')
I fail to see the necessity of 'anger' (rage = intense anger, last I
checked) in either of these; please inform us where a display of anger
is indicated without having to impute motive or emotion.
(why do I get the feeling this will go unanswered?)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 06:16:44 GMT I know that the driver's state of mind is extremely important. Once
again, that's where good judgement is essential. For example, I try
to assess my mental state whenever I get into my car.
Some days, I'm "on": my reflexes are crisp, my awareness is good,
and I feel "dialed in" to the car. On those days, I may drive
more vigorously than usual. On other days, I'm not "on": my mental
focus is just not sufficient to support spririted driving. So I
drive much more conservatively, and increase my safety margins (e.g.
following distance).
IMHO, it is the driver's *responsibility* to assess his mental
state, and adjust his driving accordingly. I do not think that
suggested/posted speeds should be set to make it "safe" for drivers
with impaired judgement (in part because an impaired driver is
potentially dangerous at any speed).
Are you sure? Why else would someone read a book or newspaper on
the highway? Why do so many people seem to think it's OK to devote
so much of their attention away from driving as long as they're "not
going too fast"? Why do people try to drive at the posted limit on
ice-covered roads?
No, I think the "speed kills" message works to convince stupid
people that their responsibility as drivers is largely fulfilled if
they don't "speed". Since safety zealots like to define "speeding"
in terms of the posted limit, their idiot followers feel like
they're safe if they're driving below the posted limit.
I'm serious: "Speed Kills" is a stupid message. If drivers learn
good judgement, it will be *obvious* that excessive speed is
dangerous, and more importantly, they'll know how to *determine*
whether their speed is excessively high (or low).
Then it's about time that people receive the message that driving
skill is important, and good judgement is essential. It seems to me
that the Speed Kills choir is ignoring people (incompetent drivers)
who are *certain and constant* safety hazards, to rail against
others (fast drivers) who *sometimes* pose a safety risk.
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 23:40:35 -0500
Another comments: Oh, but doncha know. The speeders posting here all tell us that speed
doesn't kill....
Speed doesn't kill, the idiot that doesn't know what he's doing while
going that fast does. Plus, he was DRUNK.
Date: 3 Sep 1997 10:19:09 GMT First, Di's driver had a BAC of 0.23. I help teach an advanced driving
course (to police officers, troopers, "others"). The school once did a
demonstration for the press. Three of the instructors performed an
exercise at their limit and the limit of the car (i.e. no one could do it
better -- the car was maxed out).
Two of the drivers then proceeded to "get drunk" and during their journey
into la la land, their driving skills were monitored while doing the same
exercise at the same speed. Surprisingly, one of the drivers got
marginally "better" after a couple of drinks, but his and the other
driver's performance went down hill very quickly after that. Not so
surprising was that they "felt" they were doing ok, even after the cars did
some dramatic spin outs. Alcohol effects all of us differently -- some
have a higher threshold than others because of size and physical condition.
But, the bottom line is that no one is immune to its effects. Di's
driver, at 0.23 (U. S. figure - French is 0.175) was probably staggering
drunk and speech impaired, and very possibly seeing double.
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:27:41 +0100 Mercedes Benz themselves, on their web site http://www.mercedes-
benz.com/e/news/0109.htm, confirm it was an S280.
Date: 3 Sep 1997 12:06:55 GMT Where has this myth come from that this was a 120MPH impact ?
OK The speedometer said 120MPH at rest, but throw your kitchen clock at the
wall
at 120MPH at 06:00 and I can guarantee you, it won't say 06:00 for long !
Any Clock or intrument maker will tell you that these are extremely fragile
and intricate devices and how anyone can draw the conclusion that the final
resting place of the needle is the final impact speed is beyond me.
Date: 3 Sep 1997 19:02:36 +0300 What they do in France is measure the quantity of alcohol in your system
at a given time, while we convert that to be a percentage of your blood.
To simplify things: Let's assume that the driver weighed 175lbs.
He had 0.186% of alcohol in his blood which means that he had
drunk a lot, equivalent of over 1½ bottles of wine or over ten
bottles of beer. (...probably more, as he wasn't drinking _while_
driving)
I wouldn't imagine myself even thinking about driving in that
kind of condition - I've tried that once (on a closed track
in a test) and that was downright horrible, I couldn't drive
worth shit or even think clearly, despite that I'm somewhat
used to alcohol (a sixpack and a bottle of single malt is
about right for me in 'wet' parties ;*) and driving is a second
nature to me.
I hope we all learned a lesson about drunk driving.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 18:01:12 GMT Which states:
Stuttgart, September 1st
The Daimler-Benz Group offered to assist Paris police on Sunday by
providing a team of experts to help investigate the accident that
claimed the lives of Princess Diana, Dodi al-Fayed and their driver.
Contrary to previous reports, the vehicle involved in the accident was
not an S 600, but an S 280. However, the safety concept in both
vehicles is identical. At present, Daimler-Benz only has access to
information from the media, which is why a statement pertaining to the
accident is not possible at this time. Irrespective of this, safety
experts classify this type of accident, i.e. a head-on collision with
an immovable obstruction at high speed, as "catastrophic". According
to all currently available information, that appears to be what
happened in this case because the media is reporting that the vehicle
was traveling at extremely high speed. An accident of this type
releases immense forces of inertia which are several times higher than
the design limits for all vehicles or mandatory safety guidelines
around the world.
Comment:
I can see a S280 for a hotel limo, but not for an armor plated car.
Could those reports be wrong?
From leon@hawaii.edu Wed Sep 3 11:05:39 1997 It seems that Dr. Driving's original hypothesis seems even more likely now
than when I first proposed the idea, barely 6 hours after the terrible
tragedy: obviously a case of road rage. Here is P.J.'s response (among
several that were posted in this thread):
response:
At this point my hypothesis has become a near certainty. Everyone is
beginning to recognize it in the media. The Honolulu Advertiser's
headline this afternoon: 'Catch me if you can' which is attributed to the
driver responding to the paparazzi when he came near them. So off he goes
(of course he was ALSO allegedly legally drunk! as we we have heard) and a
crazy chase ensues -- the allegedly drunk, crazed driver racing it out
with a bunch of crazed motorcyclists, who when they get there, allegedly
spend their time taking photos instead of rendering assistance.
All of this makes it, in my book, the road rage incident of the century.
And the unravelling is only beginning now. To me it shows one more piece
of evidence that road rage is a general phenomenon that needs to be
contained by educational and other methods. All drivers have the
potential of acting under the fury of road rage when the right set of
circumstances occur. This is serious.
Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)
From leon@hawaii.edu Wed Sep 3 11:05:55 1997 JUST THE OPPOSITE is the case!!
The driver's motive, you say, was his "ego" similar to the "egotistical
drag race" kids might engage in (such as yourself when you were a kid).
Well, that's precisely what road rage is! Road rage incidents occur
because of a clash between two egos. If you want to see more of this
argument demonstrated, please go see my chapter on the Social Psychology
of Driving at: http://www.aloha.net/~dyc/ch11.html
Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)
From leon@hawaii.edu Wed Sep 3 11:06:13 1997
And BPutchat responds:
By gosh we sure do!
Thank you Stuart Smalley!
It's now clearer than at the beginning that this was indeed an obvious
road rage tragedy, I say it's the road rage tragedy of the century -- and
it should help us re-focus seriously on the fact that road rage is a
potential with every driver. In this case the alcohol is not a sufficient
explanation: the driver was ego-involved if it's true that he taunted the
photographers who were in pusuit. A real, down to earth, awful case of
road rage. Watch out: you can have road rage if you do not change your
aggressive attitudes.
As I said: we need training in emotional intelligence to
overcome the awful possibilities we face on highways every day. Leon James (aka
Dr. Driving)
From dyc@drdriving.org Wed Sep 3 11:06:25 1997 One of the *unbelted* occupants survived for several hours after
the crash. The car rolled several times and then struck an
immovable object at high speed. I have difficulty believing
that any other make of car would have provided the occupants
with better protection.
Don't vote too soon! It turns out my diagnosis of this being a road rage
case looks more and more likely as the hours pass by!
Leon James (visit "Dr. Driving" at http://www.aloha.net/~dyc)
Take care, and Drive with Aloha spirit!!
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 10:20:12 +0100
No, you are misapplying the term road rage. The driver may have suffered
from the condition known as "red mist" (concentration on a goal leading
to excessive risk taking) or he may have been drunk and driving beyond
his competence for the type of car, road and speed. Even if he was
taking excessive risks for "sport", this would not be road rage. Road
rage is a term applied to an aggressive response to a driving incident
or perceived incident.
It would seem that you wish to widen the term "road rage" beyond its
understood scope. I trust that you will fail, because should you succeed
we will lose yet another perfectly good term to the amorphous mass of
generic terms and will thus have to coin some new term to describe what
we currently understand as road rage.
The chances were apparently inexcusable (but when the facts emerge I
suspect they will be mitigated in two ways:
1. I believe his speed will be shown to be closer to 70 or 80mph at the
time of the accident, judging by the crash damage. Indeed that amount of
crash damage could be caused at 50 or 60 mph.
2. The handling characteristics of the car will perhaps be shown to have
contributed to the accident)
No the photographers were merely greedy. They were doing a job for which
they are well payed.
If they are shown to have contributed to the crash then they will be
guilty of manslaughter in French law, but not road rage. They were not
responding to a driving incident or perceived incident.
All the best,
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 10:29:08 +0100
Not at all.
Road rage (as I wrote elsewhere) is the aggressive response to a driving
incident or perceived incident. Blocking a vehicle from passing is road
rage because the response is an aggresive one against a driver who is
speeding (or considered to be speeding). There are many other such
examples, but in every accepted example of road rage the anger is a
response to a perceived driving incident.
*IF* it was shown that the driver was trying to ram a photographer who
got in his way then we would agree that this is a road rage incident,
but there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a view. It is much
more likely that the driver was driving beyond his competency because of
impairment or an incorrect goal.
Incidentally, have you revised your web site yet to remove those
inaccurate road rage figures about UK drivers?
All the best,
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 14:36:05 GMT
The re-creation I saw on network news showed the car hitting the
outside of the tunnel, flipping and then moving towards the center
of the tunnel while rolling several times. Of course, network news
has been known to be wrong before. They didn't claim that the re-
creation was based on eyewitness accounts. But it certainly seemed
possible to me, given the contours of the road and the speed at which
they were traveling.
Yeah, i also saw one "re-creation" where the car hits the center
column, then actually bounces "back" over it's own tire tracks and
hits the wall that it had just passed before hitting the center
column. How can Kent Shockneck, local news anchor and
car buff actually sit there and report this without going " Hey,
who let their kid get on our stations graphics computer?".
I really don't think the car rolled, i saw no scraping on the
corners of the car that would certainly be caused by grinding
along the pavement at speed. I think the newscasters originally
thought it rolled becauset the roof was crumpled.
Date: 3 Sep 1997 15:19:38 GMT
What? If it was road rage, he would have been pickin' off motorcycles
like we would swat a fly. It was alcohol. Stop trying to justify your
existence.
You say we should talk about this and come to some conclusions when you
have already REACHED a conclusion. Doesn't leave much room for talk.
Date: 3 Sep 1997 15:24:09 GMT
Leon, if you were to get into a car after slapping yourself on the back so
hard and your sore are caused you to crash the car and kill your
passengers, you would probably blame that on road rage too. Stop trying to
justify your existence. Continue your trip to Tahiti.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 18:10:54 GMT *IF* a motorcycle was weaving in front of the limo to slow it down, we
should also give him a medal, not an indictment for trying to reduce
the speed and risk that a blinded drunk driver would kill innocent
motorists and pedestrians.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 18:13:22 GMT This is a silly theory. Look at the photos and see that what harmed
the front seat occupants was the force from the front, and that the
impact was offset frontal, on the drivers side.
This "back seat passenger mass" theory is cute, but that don't make it
founded in reality. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not
zebras.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 18:19:00 GMT
You can tell, as a rule, that when someone makes an argument supported
by worlds like "clearly" and "obvious" that he's tap dancing on thin
ice.
A giggling teenage speed contest between two vehicles is "road rage"
to you, huh? That's about what this was in Paris. Bravado, no
physical threat, and drinks all around. Expand your definition too
far, and will have no meaning.
Just like "speed related."
From leon@hawaii.edu Wed Sep 3 12:00:20 1997
responds:
No, you are misapplying the term road rage. The driver may have suffered
from the condition known as "red mist" (concentration on a goal leading
to excessive risk taking) or he may have been drunk and driving beyond
his competence for the type of car, road and speed. Even if he was
taking excessive risks for "sport", this would not be road rage. Road
rage is a term applied to an aggressive response to a driving incident
or perceived incident.
I respect your wish to keep semantics apart here. I myself am a
professional semanticist (or "applied psycholinguist" as we say in
academic circles...go see some of my articles here
So we agree that semantic distinctions around road rage-type behaviors
ought to be maintained. In my forthcoming book called
Road Rage:
Emotional Intelligence for Drivers -- go see here
I analyze two dozen different terms for road rage.
So, about your problem with:
Please understand that we are after the psychological mechanisms of road
rage. Surely you can see that road rage cannot be just a little thing by
itself in the driver's mind. Think of it this way:
What would have prevented Diana's tragic crash? Of course, several things
can be picked, the main ones being:
1. driver's alcohol impaired physical state, speeding, and aggressive
driving behavior (he must have threatened other cars who were in his way)
2. driver's mental state such as his alleged taunting of those who were
pursuing him ("Catch me if you Can").
3. the photographers on motorcycles who taunted, chased, blocked,
pursued, intimidated, and whatever else bad they did like flashing photos
in the eyes of the driver, blocking police from getting there, etc.
Now all 3 of these causes involve road rage in some sense. Can you see
this? Just think: the driver knew he had been drinking and how much:
yet he did not inform anyone and did not disqualify himself. This
attitude is a KIND of rage or anger or disdain for others, don't you
think? And further, as you quote me:
You answer:
BTW: nothing in the above implies excusing the phogoraphers
who were aggressive, had road rage (chasing a car and causing it to
crash!,
No the photographers were merely greedy. They were doing a job for which
they are well payed.
If they are shown to have contributed to the crash then they will be
guilty of manslaughter in French law, but not road rage. They were not
responding to a driving incident or perceived incident.
As to the photographers, they make me think of a new phrase
(careful--don't knock Dr. Driving too soon....), namely,
PAPARAZZI RAGE
which has two definitions (talking about semantics: this is called
"comparative semantics"):
1. The rage that tabloid photographers feel and show when pursuing and
chasing down people whose intimate photographs are bought and viewed by 30
million people in the US alone.
2. The rage that these photographed and hunted people feel and show when
harassed by the photographers who pursue them, including all sorts of
dangerous and aggressive behaviors they're pushed into
Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)
|
More heated debating--continued
Back to Topical Index of Issues