Back to Topical Index of Issues
|
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 17:27:53 -0400 Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport, dc.driving, phl.transportation, soc.culture.malaysia Dr. Driving wrote:
Sadly, Princess Diana died in a car crash today. She was fleeing I have a theory about why Leon has this fixation about "road rage". He was about three years old, and his older brother stole one of his prize toy cars From him. He threw a terrible tantrum, and this placed a permanent psychological correlation between anger and cars. The trauma was severe, and to this day the deep-seated anger fixation is submerged in his subconcious mind. That is why he is so obsessed with the so-called "road rage" phenomenen. He is projecting his own submerged anger onto the motorists of this country. Perhaps a good therapist could help him work through these childhood traumas. [Doctor, heal thyself]
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 22:07:15 GMT This accident has 'sudden unintended acceleration' written all over it. Sorry, "60 Minutes" fan. That little media creation has long been debunked. All cases have been attributed to driver error in pressing the wrong pedal. Are you sure you want to bet on your story?
PS: there is not a car on the road whose brakes can not stop it readily while at full throttle. Try it for yourself. At any speed (on an empty road) apply full throttle, then slam on the brakes, without lifting your foot off the throttle. Your car will stop quite readily. ...or do drunk drivers just have worse luck with defective vehicles?
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 20:19:31 GMT
A Mercedes car transports the world's most famous Princess. She is escorted by one of the richest playboys in the world, who can easily afford the best autos, security, and chauffeurs in the world. Indeed, their driver is a Mercedes-trained Frenchman who has an intimate knowledge of the streets and alleys of Paris. And riding shotgun is the Royal-trained personal bodyguard of the Princess, whose oath is to protect the Princess at any cost. And yet this Mercedes goes flying into a tunnel which has a speed limit of 37mph, a tunnel well known by the driver, rapidly gaining speed until the vehicle is reported to have reached 121mph, where the driver loses control of the automobile, and three lives are snuffed out. We are supposed to buy this? Not me. This accident has 'sudden unintended acceleration' written all over it. When the Royal's bodyguard regains the ability to speak, and should he have recall into the matter, be prepared for a shock.
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 18:37:18 -0400
According to CNN, French prosecutors "said the speedometer in the Mercedes was stuck at zero, not 196 kph (121 mph) as a police source had previously said." (cnn.com/world/9709/02/diana.driver/index.html#2)
Also, the New York Times, after noting that exposed center support columns are "rare but not unheard of in the United States," reported: "An American highway saftey official who has investigated over 2,000 vehicle crashes in this country asserted today that the Mercedes was traveling at '50 miles an hour, tops,' when it hit the tunnel support column. If it had been moving at over 100 miles an hour, as some reports have suggested, 'it would have split the car open like a watermelon,' he said."
In any case, the car (S280) did not have a very large engine for its size and had a top speed in the 130 range and relatively slow acceleration. (I think the smallest S-Class sold in the US is the S320.) On seat belts, I guess we don't have a definitive word, although my assumption is that those in the back were not wearing them. I have seen posts that assert that the types of belts that were worn could themselves have been fatal in a 120 mph crash, and that the apparently injuries were consistent with seat belt injuries. (One poster, to MSNBC, noted that the impact would have been cushioned for the front passenger by the air bag.) Does anyone know survivability with these belts in head-on impacts at speeds of say 50-80 mph?
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 14:02:45 -0700
Considering that the car was supposedly armoured and looking at a map of the route taken by the car, I think it improbable that the car reached anything near 121 mph. I don't think even a C280 could do it. Sure. Latest word is that the needle was stuck on zero. They really don't know what the speed was. As I've said before, I've looked at many pictures of wrecks at 60 mph and the damage was devastating. Moreover, the likelihood of death for an unbelted passenger at 60 mph is greater than 50 percent. So this ultra-high-speed stuff strikes me as the sensationalism favored in all stories about Diana.
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 04:15:58 GMT Here's a more realistic scenario. A happy, romantic couple finishes a big dinner at the Ritz, with a few bottles of fine Bordeaux, some Brandy, etc. They hop gleefully into a decoy car ("tee hee, we'll show them") driven by an amateur driver, the security boss, who holds a high enough position at the hotel that he, too, has enjoyed a fine couple bottles washed down with a little food. They sneak away, but a few motorcycles happen to spot them. In their darkened, armored tank of a sedan, someone says "lose them," and the Mercedes tears away. Screeching tires, run red lights..."whee" laughs and giggles as the inebriated carload tumbles about in the capacious limo. While pushing 200kph, the road drops away in the midst of a curve. With the extra armor, the S600 is not as controllable as it the engineers planned it, and the algorithms for the skid control circuitry are wrong. The car nearly loses contact with the road as the road drops away, while the inebriated driver tries to steer down the road. The tank lands hard, tossing the passengers whose laughter stops for a final moment. The force causes the driver to lose control, and the car skids into the 13th pillar. Not much different From a typical high school drunk driving crash.
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 01:22:01 -0500 Not much different From a typical high school drunk driving crash. That's what I thought too. They were driving at well over twice the legal limit in downtown (?) Paris, not wearing seatbelts, and the driver was drunk. If it had some high or college age people in the car everyone would have just chalked it up to "stupid, immature kids". But when some rich and famous people do it,everyone tries to place blame elsewhere. (ie, the photographers)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 20:46:02 GMT
Vote time: Who looks dumber? Dr. Driving trying to pin this on his crusade, or our Deutchphile friend demonstrating how superior German cars are, since only three of four occupants were killed in a Mercedes accident -- and the trunk of the car remained recognizeable! Looks like you missed a few words, Doc. Glad I could help...
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:11:02 -1000
Dear Dr. James: I am an editor of syndicated newspaper features at Universal Press Syndicate, and plan on recommending the site to some of our columnists. Particularly interesting to me are your Three Methods for Dealing with Aggressive Drivers. Your background is the study of the human brain and its interaction with society, and your methods propose teaching the brain to respect its fellow drivers and passengers. My background is building sewer lines next to thouroughfares and railroads (my family's business). I was raised to consider a vehicle -- whether a roadgrader or a pickup truck -- not as a means of transportation, but as a variable component of a precise mathematical formula, the purpose of which was to complete a job safely, legally and on time to make money and improve infrastructure. Misoperation of the vehicle could result in lost time, money, lives and limbs, and possible revocation of various licences. By the same token, building sewer systems where there had been none showed me that when people have no alternative, they will use public parks and sidewalks (and even private property) as a rest room -- even though they know it's immoral, illegal, unsafe and inconsiderate. In Mexico, where the Roman-style highways were built for horse-drawn carriages, driving is erratic, accidents are frequent and police, of course, are corrupt. However, the Mexican people have developed their own system of controlling highway safety -- particularly in villages with large highways and small children. Where speeders dare, the townspeople will put a 4-inch diameter steel pipe across the road, from curb to curb, and pour asphalt over it, then finish it with a smooth 45-degree pitch on each side and a 90-degree peak, creating the world's most intimidating speedbump, or "tope" (toh-pay). Some of the main opportunities for the unsafe driving that inspires road rage abound at intersections and merges. Basically, we could remove those opportunities by putting speed bumps where we currently have solid white and yellow lines, including the lane dividers leading up to lighted intersections, and across the lane at stop signs. This would give unsafe drivers no other option than to stop and yield where they are supposed to, and prevent them from jockeying for open "pole positions" at multi-lane stoplights. Most road rage occurs on the property of state and local governments, so it would be tought to implement such a plan nationwide. But perhaps some of our more progressive areas -- in Texas, Hawaii or Wisconsin (probably not Missouri) -- could develop a test zone. Insurance companies, police, emergency teams, contractors and school districts would probably be happy to lobby for such a dependable safety measure.
Dr. Driving responds:
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 01:49:24 GMT
[other good stuff snipped, excellent stuff quoted here:] Chuck, you've earned a Gold Star for this! Yours is by far the most eloquent message I've ever seen on this subject. It makes me sick that people will distort a tragedy like Diana's death in order to promote their own favourite flavour of propaganda. And it makes me even sicker that so many other people will then readily swallow that propaganda and regurgitate it here. The nonsensical banterings of "Banter" have thankfully been toned down, in part due to your efforts to re-educate him. Our provincial government ran a series of TV ads a few years ago featuring the message that "Speed Kills". The ads had hard-hitting images of tearful children being informed in the hospital waiting room that mommy didn't survive the crash... I find that sort of ad campaign particularly offensive because the province's jurisdiction includes not only the enforcement of traffic laws, but also the areas of driver licensing and training. It disgusts me that the existing levels of driver training can be so woefully inadequate, yet those responsible for this lack of training felt justified in running a propaganda campaign like "Speed Kills" in order to foster support for a photo-radar scheme with which to collect more revenue. The message quite clearly was intended to be that "Speeding" kills. And obviously many people are still firmly convinced that this is true. And then we have the "Road Rage" preachings of Leon James. [Even if you've never read any of his posts, you've really got to wonder about someone who publicly admits to calling himself "Dr. Driving".] There probably is such a phenomenon as "Road Rage" and it probably is very closely related to how we manage our emotions while driving. For instance, if someone suddenly squeezes in front of you without signaling a lane change, and then flips you the finger for good measure, do you: a) politely back off and give him room, secure in the knowledge that it really won't in the slightest affect the rest of your day; b) honk your horn, flash your lights, ride his bumper all the way into town, and arrive at the office with steam still whistling out of your ears; or, c) pull the hunting rifle off the rack from where it's prominently displayed in the rear window of your pickup truck and blow his sorry ass to kingdom come? Your honest answer to such a question might reveal something about your emotional stability. Fortunately I own neither a hunting rifle nor a pickup truck, and I'm convinced I would never deliberately try to kill someone. However, depending on the situation, I confess that my reactions under similar circumstances have oscillated between choices a and b. So I'm somewhat familiar with the symptoms that might lead to "Road Rage". However, I think "Dr. Driving" has finally gone off the deep end with his immediate pronouncement that Diana's tragic end is "the road rage incident of the century". The only comment I've read so far that's more ludicrous, [there's bound to be more coming] is the one suggesting that the crash was due to "unintended acceleration". Jesus wept. Then through a frenzy of misinformation, fed to us by the very same press that had hounded Diana for so long, we are led, or misled, to leap to wildly erroneous conclusions of multiple roll-overs, 120mph+ impacts, and intoxicated drivers with either 2 times or 4 times [or will it be 15 times?] the legal limit of blood alcohol measure depending on whether you use the French metric system or the American metric system.
Yet despite all these extravagant claims, pictures of the wrecked
vehicle
The sad truth is that a series of unforgivably stupid acts, chained
together in the right sequence and combination, all too frequently
results in the tragic death of someone dear to us. The only thing
that makes this one incident significantly more tragic than the
hundreds of similar traffic fatalities occurring in the USA on any
given weekend is the fact that Diana was known and loved by so many
people around the world.
Had any particular one of these stupid acts in the chain been
prevented, the outcome might have been very different. Riding in any
car without wearing seat belts is stupid, no matter who you are.
Driving, or being driven by someone, under the influence of any
intoxicating drug is stupid. Driving into a solid obstacle at any
rate of speed greater than 15 mph is stupid. Leaping to conclusions
before knowing exactly why the car veered into the bridge pilings is
stupid. Believing stories about speedometers stuck at 120 mph is
stupid. Taking this complex mess of conflicting reports and reducing
it to a simple case of "Speed Kills", "Road Rage of the Century", or
"Unintended Acceleration" is astronomically stupid.
p.s. It's really not necessary for you to point it out. I'll save
you the effort by admitting that I'm stupid too. I already
have more than enough examples to prove it, thank you very much.
Date: 4 Sep 1997 01:37:04 GMT
The slogan, "speed kills", is indeed a simplistic or simple-minded
statement. If you're going to continue touting such an obtuse, emotion
based, mere cliche as this, as if it were "The Truth", expect to be labeled
as yet just someone spouting yet another tiresome example of simple-minded
group-think.
Everybody likes to think he/she is a reasonable person, but not everybody
really is (or at least, not all the time or on every issue, etc.).
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:47:27 -0700
Just another note about the seatbelts in Mercedes for the last 11+ years
(I say "11+" because I have a 1986 300E with the feature). The cars use
a pre-tensioning seatbelt system. Basically, crash sensors similar to
those used for the airbags fire charges in the winding system of the
seatbelts, which takes any slack out of the system. I believe that the
idea is that your body has longer to be decelerated by the seatbelts
because they start out tight around you. Sadly, you must wear the
seatbelts to benefit from this feature.
Also, the "progressively-deformable" design of the car means that
deceleration forces are relatively constant throughout the 4-foot-long
deceleration distance that the car experied.
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 00:19:00 GMT
Leon James wrote:
JUST THE OPPOSITE is the case, Walt!!
His "ego" came out of alleged drunkenness, a common personality shift
for those who get drunk. (They are quick to settle the score when
drunk, but otherwise would act normal.)
Thus not even ego was the primary cause, nor rage. He was too drunk
(allegedly) to behave "normally", thus whether his behavior was due to
ego or rage is totally and completely irrelevant, since only sober
people can make "accountable" decisions to either behave normally or
act out on the road.
His "fault" was not ego, not rage, but drinking and then driving.
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You and the rest of the crowd are completely off track. You just
cannot say speed, rage, ego, driver error, inexperience, ignorance,
or any other fault is the primary cause of any accident when the
driver that is at fault is highly intoxicated, as this driver
allegedly was. Loss of "judgement" of all kinds is the product of
intoxication.
So if Dr Driving and others are going to stand on a soap box and
scream about "road rage", at least they should use an example that
stands up to scrutiny. A drunk driver is absolutely *not* an example
of a driver with "rage", but a driver with a loss of faculties due
to intoxication.
Date: 4 Sep 1997 01:18:04 GMT Dr. Driving (dyc@drdriving.org) said something like:
Too late. You win, "Doctor," Four votes to two.
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 00:04:19 GMT Leon James wrote:
Here is P.J.'s response (among
several that were posted in this thread): Dr Driving is full of it. At best, the driver might have had an "ego"
problem like a kid dragging a car on the street. But not rage.
And if the driver was drunk, rage and ego are not primary issues any
longer, but loss of mental and physical driving skills due to
intoxication.
Some people get drunk and turn into "vegetables", others into "the
life of the party" and others into "egotists". These personality
shifts occur due to the effects of alcohol. Hence the primary cause is
not "rage", but the effects of alcohol on judgment. Sober, the driver
may have very well been "normal" and not acted the way he is to
alleged to have acted and then alleged to have driven.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 21:27:59 GMT Leon James wrote:
When presenting your hypothesis, why don't you take into account the
FACT that the driver was intoxicated? Does that just not fit within
your narrow-minded view of things?
|
More heated
debating--continued
Back to Topical Index of Issues