Back to Topical Index of Issues
| Princess Diana: Road Rage Victim? |
|---|
On September 3, William Safire wrote an editorial that ascribes part of the blame for the crash on road rage. Two of the relevant paragraphs are quoted below: I found the article by searching for "road rage" at the New York Times online site. The editorial URL address was: September 3 NY Times editorial by William Safire
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:13:17 -1000
That's wrong, Leon. You've never heard of 'benign stupidity'?
Of course, since 'road rage' is such a nebulous concept, pedants such
as yourself will rush to define it as they wish in order to support
their personal agenda. That's exactly what we're arguing about here.
I beg to differ with your definition above because it involves NO
concept of aggression or aggressive behavior which I feel the term
'rage' implies. There are thousands of perfectly calm, happy,
ignorant dangerous drivers out there who feel absolutely NO rage as
they drive dangerously, illegally, and negligently.
Driving drunk is a separate problem we need to address differently.
It is purely maliciously stupid, but I don't necessarily agree that
it's a component of 'rage'. But, "not caring and being reckless
behind the wheel"? Benign stupidity, again. Not 'road rage'.
Benign stupidity again, in most cases.
So now:
Why should ALL FORMS of deliberate, careless, dangerous driving be called
road rage?
Because it always involves aggression and hostility and the desire for
revenge or injury. I have studied this phenomenon for years with many
drivers!
And apparently, you've missed the obvious in your relentless search
for aggression. So, by simply redefining 'rage' as having nothing to
do with aggression, you've 'proven' your point.
Gee, it must be nice to be so smug, wrapped in your own little cocoon
of fantasy.
Either that, or simply great fun. Depends on the circumstances.
Usually, maybe, but not always.
No and no. God, you're pathetic. It's quite amazing how far you can
extend your erroneous conclusions simply by starting with a ridiculous
basic definition.
No. The "cultural norm" we have is a refusal to acknowledge that
Americans are, for the most part PISS-POOR DRIVERS! Once we face THAT
fact and actually DO SOMETHING about the abysmal level of driving
'skills' out there, I predict that the 'rage' factor will have
mysteriously disappeared.
Date: 7 Sep 1997 02:14:13 GMT
Isn't that what Dr. Stuart Smalley told Congress?
From leon@hawaii.edu Sun Sep 7 12:32:31 1997 Just another little detail you might consider: more and more thinking
people are coming around to the idea that road rage needs to be mentioned
in this case. I've heard this theme come up with journalists,
photographers, news analysts, accident reconstruction experts. I don't
think their thinking is ridiculous! The latest was this afternoon, New
York Times columnist William Safire used the expression "road rage" and
argued how we need to bring this in if we're going to understand what
really happened.
Leon James
Date: 7 Sep 1997 14:50:53 GMT
And you are in the grips of psychosis! If we go by your distorted examples
any and all speeding offenses involve "road rage" since they obviously (to
you) have no regard for the sacred law. You cause us all great harm when
you misdirect our gullible congress and federal government along those
lines! To turn a catch phrase into a "societal epidemic" is gross
profiteering at the determent of us all in its grossest form! You are the
one being reckless here!
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 16:28:50 +0100
The wheely bin was driven by four fluid filled bags and turned in a
direction thus causing the untimely continuations. you see, no penguins
were involved at any year.
If you didn't follow the above paragraph, never mind. You see I know
what I said, and the terms I used conformed to the broadened meanings I
gave them, thus they were quite correct.
Language is used for communication, and to communicate we must attempt
to use terms as they are commonly understood.
Once again: Road rage is a behaviour, a limiting term for a certain form
of antisocial driving behaviour. Drunk driving is another antisocial
driving behaviour, and both behaviours may be present in an incident.
However, both are limiting terms and one does not imply the other. You
have as much right to say all drunk driving is road rage as I have to
say all road rage is drunk driving.
Now true to form, I feel I have made this point often enough and shall
refrain from making it again. I am quite willing to debate issues but if
we cannot agree on semantics then communication is quite impossible. If
we do not know what we mean by words then the message is lost, however
true it may be. Efallai, Dylai i 'sgrifennu yn Gymraeg.
Political pressure probably.
Which is not what is meant by "road rage". See my earlier post about
scientific versus primitive terminology.
I don't believe you are criticizing me. I do believe that your use of
the word road rage is inappropriate for a supposedly scholarly study.
May I suggest you use the term "antisocial driving behaviors" instead,
as this would be more descriptive of your area of interest.
|
| Road Rage! |
|---|
|
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 16:55:06 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport I thought the incidents of infants in front seats being injured by airbags had been identified as *unbuckled* infants. If they are properly buckled, it should not be a problem. If they aren't, then it's a bit of a suicide mission, airbag or not. Upon deployment, to be of any use to an occupant in an impact, the air bag must very suddenly (thus violently) fill most of the space between the dashboard and an occupant who is sitting upright and properly restrained by a seat belt system. Rear-facing infant seats should *NEVER* be installed in a seating position equipped with an armed air bag, even when properly buckled! A rear-facing infant seat would be positioned much too close to the dashboard, ie. directly in the path of the deploying air bag. Forward-facing child seats for toddlers are required by law in Canada to have a top-mounted tether strap to prevent them from pitching forward in an impact. I believe that tether straps are not yet a requirement in the USA, and I don't know what the situation is in Europe. Depending on the design and size of the forward-facing child seat, it is probably still not a good idea to place one in the path of an air bag deployment. Children that have outgrown their child seats and are restrained by the vehicle's seat belt system should not be in any particular danger from the air bag **IF** they are properly wearing the shoulder belt, have the seat moved fully rearward, and are sitting upright. However, having two children of my own, I know that the typical seat belt is designed for an adult and will not fit a child properly. It is all to common to see children riding in cars with the shoulder belt positioned behind their back. In an impending collision the driver will slam on the brakes, the child restrained only by a lap-belt will jack-knife forward From the waist, and now he's got his head and neck directly in the path of the air bag should it deploy in the collision. Unbuckled occupants, regardless of size, age, or royal status, are unfortunately vulnerable to injuries From numerous sources.
|
| Di -The Mystery Deepens |
|---|
|
Date: 4 Sep 1997 03:48:45 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving 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. It looks like he won't regain the ability to speak anytime soon.. The latest medical reports say that his lips were torn off his face and his tongue, or at least a large part of it was ripped out or bitten off.
Date: 7 Sep 1997 00:27:15 GMT 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. It looks like he won't regain the ability to speak anytime soon.. The latest medical reports say that his lips were torn off his face and his tongue, or at least a large part of it was ripped out or bitten off. ;Yuck! Airbag injury? Well, let's hope those UK schools managed to teach him to write, then... For the record, he was not a royal bodyguard. Di foresook all state protection and services (voluntarily), and the b-guard belonged to Dodi, not Di. Oh god...Dodi and Di...it just looks so silly in print. |
| Paparazzi Rage? |
|---|
|
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 12:26:03 -1000 From: Leon James As to the photographers, they make me think of a new phrase At least one prominent journalist, editorial columnist William Safire of the New York Times, wrote on September 3:
But the fault belongs to the man in command inside the speeding car who paid for his rage with his life. That car may have been chauffeured by a drunk, but it was probably propelled to killing speed by a passenger driven by an obsessive urge to race away from prying eyes." Well, this doesn't prove it's so, but it show you how people are beginning
to analyze the situation.
From leon@hawaii.edu Sun Sep 7 15:10:43 1997 (and one way to be taken a little more seriously might be to change that month-old "Congressional" with a double "s" before publication---as in "Visit My Congressional Testimony on Road Rage and Aggressive Drivers") You guys have been real fun with your candid reactions! About the above:
you got me! I'm shamefaced for misspelling Congressional so many times!!
(I've been copy/pasting from my Note Pad, using the same wrong spelling
all these times...). You guys don't miss anything...
|
| Princess Diana-Put blame where it belongs |
|---|
| Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:56:06 -0600 Newsgroups: alt.true-crime, alt.gossip.royalty, soc.culture.british, bc.politics, rec.autos.driving I`m really disgusted with the way the investigations going into the death of Princess Diana. The powers that are involved busted they`re butts to steer the focus onto the driver. Ok, he had alcohol in him. How much? There seems to be a LOT of controvercy about that. Now they say he also had drugs in him. How much? No ones saying. He was doing approximately 100 mph as he entered the tunnel. Is alcohol the reason for this excessive speed? It`s assumed that it is. But speed is not being discussed as much as the alcohol factor. Why??? Because it`s politically correct and safe to condemn anyone who drinks and drives. But more than that, focusing on the speed would force the question... Would the driver be going that fast if he was sober? The answer would be YES, YES, YES. The driver was speeding just as he had probably done a hundred times...to escape the unwanted assault of photographers and news people. The criminals are the people who stalked Diana every day of her life. The crimanals are the people who broke every law of the highway in order to stay in hot pursuit of Diana every day of her life. The media will not focus on this aspect though because that woud force the public to judge them as well. So what we acually have is a conspiracy by the media to frame the driver for what they`re own people did. Sure, the driver might not have been sober. But, when a road is posted at, not 50mph or 40mph, but at 30mph,is there ANY way to travel it at 100mph without a good chance of tragedy??? Absolutely not. There is NO evidence that the driver was lacking coordination but there IS evidence that the driver was being pursued by people who would stop at NOTHING to destroy Diana's privacy. I condemn the driver for not being sober, but not for the death of Diana. If she was not being stalked, assaulted, harassed there would not have been a high speed pursuit. There would not have been a need for a hasty escape. Let's get the focus back where it belongs. The media is wiping they're brow right now and saying, "That was close. We almost got blamed for the death of a great person. But we got away with it. Now let's go stalk her children". You think the media learned a lesson???? The media is above ALL in our society. Who's up for tragedy next???
|
| Dr.Driving-UH myth??was/Re: Princess Diana: Road Rage Victim? |
|---|
|
From leon@hawaii.edu Sat Sep 6 16:39:56 1997 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 15:52:24 -1000 From: Leon James Newsgroups: alt.culture.hawaii, phl.transportation, rec.autos.driving, soc.culture.malaysia, uk.transport So, could volcanic ashes be drifting in to the university or is this an imposter using a UH account without permission? No impostor is this. My credentials and 35 years of professional publications prove it! Go see my two sites. The point about my road rage postings is well explained in my Congressional Testimony and elsewhere on Dr. Driving's site. I think it's extremely important to take these Newsgroups seriously. I read hundreds of messages every day and analyze them because they reveal how people feel and think about issues of great importance. I value your input, whether you care or not. The whole point of psychology is to study and try to understand people's ideas and behaviors. In relation to road rage: you'll find few psychologists, especially the research and academic type, that have started to deal with this issue. Some psychotherapists have done so, and some anger management MDs. I am one of the few who have chosen this topic at this point.
I feel that Dr. Driving is promoting the public welfare by bringing public
attention and discussion to this topic. Sure, the media have been using
it a lot--but this only reflects the fact that millions of people are
worried about the aggressiveness and lack of caring they experience every
day on highways. I have brought forth cogent arguments and comprehensive
plans for changing the culture of aggressive driving. I invite you to
support these ideas.
Date: 7 Sep 1997 12:49:40 GMT
No impostor is this.
Well, then, maybe those posting in rec.autos.driving just can't keep up with the various personas, names and personalities. If I were analyzing, I would wonder why/what you did to the "real Leon" as in: "List of Publications by Leon James NOTE: Leon James was formerly Leon A. Jakobovits." Sorry to see him go after so many years, hope he was nice. And I won't jump to the same kinds of quick conclusions you seem to like to come to about others. But if Leon James or Dr. Driving don't work out, can we expect "Leon Churchill"? My credentials and 35 years of professional publications prove it! Go see my two sites.
You can't be faulted for a lack of quantity in writing... and certainly
there are some decent ideas in there, but some of your recent posts....??
The point about my road rage postings is well explained in my
Congressional Testimony and elsewhere on Dr. Driving's site.
I wish it were so in your "new" theories posted since then. I think it's extremely important to take these Newsgroups seriously. I do too. And if you're open to suggestions but won't accept opinions different from yours if presented by presumed experts, perhaps it would be good to post instead to your peers. I read hundreds of messages every day and analyze them because they reveal how people feel and think about issues of great importance. Well, if you're jumping to the same quick conclusions that you did in the "Diana road rage crash" it might be best not to publish your thoughts on same... I value your input, whether you care or not.
I value it too... but not sure that I care to be "labeled" for
publication, especially if the labeling is bizarre....
The whole point of
psychology is to study and try to understand people's ideas and
behaviors.
I think some of us understand the point... just would be nice and more
scientifically prudent to have the process done with a purpose that seems
less self-serving to your publications (?) and with more objectivity than
what seems to filter through your lenses...
In relation to road rage: you'll find few psychologists, especially the
research and academic type, that have started to deal with this issue.
Some psychotherapists have done so, and some anger management MDs. I am
one of the few who have chosen this topic at this point.
Well, if true, I hope more get in to it... if for no other reason than to bring more objectivity to the debate. But rage, anger and aggression, etc. etc. aren't exactly new words in the dictionary or new concepts in human behavior....so to speak as though the "innocents" are hearing/dealing with this for the first time and should permit you absolute liberty to do as you wish is rather silly (I would have said demeaning...but as you know many in rec.autos.driving newsgroup are finding some humor in the matter as words get changed in meaning and new ones are made up and wish not data dictates theory). I feel that Dr. Driving is promoting the public welfare by bringing public attention and discussion to this topic. Sure, the media have been using it a lot--but this only reflects the fact that millions of people are worried about the aggressiveness and lack of caring they experience every day on highways. I have brought forth cogent arguments and comprehensive plans for changing the culture of aggressive driving. I invite you to support these ideas. I would like to support those things which are sound and reasonable... and caring, but some of your suggestions/ideas as recently posted (some of which made it to your website) go beyond the pale...and I just hope they stay at/are returned to the level of speculation unless you have some data to support them. |
| Idiot Driver Alert In Mourning |
|---|
|
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 12:36:44 -0500
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving I looked at this pic, and I don't see how it conclusively proves that the car didn't roll. Yes, there was apparent damage to the roof From the rescuers cutting into it, but that doesn't imply or prove that there wasn't additional damage to the roof from being rolled. Look at the small picture in the center where the rescue personel are leaning in throught the door. The roof and rear windscreen are intact and smooth. The car did not roll. |