Back to Topical Index of Issues
| Princess Diana: Road Rage Victim? |
|---|
|
From leon@hawaii.edu Sun Sep 7 20:04:04 1997 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 12:47:38 -1000 From: Leon James Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport
On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, a reader wrote:
Thank you for this suggestion. I believe we're not as far apart as it may seem from the flaming exchanges...Yes, I am talking about antisocial driving behaviors. I think there is a lot we agree on, the most important being: that most drivers need to become more competent drivers as they are not now, and many of you have been faithful in describing the details of those bad driving behaviors.
I think we also agree that the problem is not going to be solved by
greater government involvement in legislation and enforcement that would
seem to many of us as excessive harrassment. The answer is re-training
drivers--and I've offered some concrete strategies for that. My
Congressional Testimony is different from the other people's proposal in
this:
that I don't think enforcement is the answer but re-training.
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 18:21:03 GMT
Just another little detail you should consider... Whether or not "journalists, photographers, news analysts" or anyone else other than yourself happens to mention "road rage" in any of their articles, it will NOT necessarily lend the idea any more credibility than it already has. A lot of other misinformation has already been reported by these same "thinking people". These were the same people that publicised the nonsense that the Mercedes crashed at 120 mph, based on some ridiculous tip that the speedometer was stuck at that reading following the crash. This has been debunked as total fiction by many other "thinking people" who realise that a stuck speedometer is never a reliable indicator of impact speed. In the absence of any hard facts, the press will quite happily print any nonsense they can get a hold of, including your theories on how road rage influenced this incident.
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:10:30 -1000
On Sun, 7 Sep 1997 12:47:38 -1000, Leon James
Yeah, well, he might not have gotten quoted in USA Weekend if
he hadn't used the fad term ...
Sure. Your concrete strategies hinge mostly on convincing people they
should think and behave so benignly that they can IGNORE all the
stupid driving going on around them. You have NEVER suggested that
driving SKILLS and COMPETENCE be improved, which I contend would have
the same result: Drivers would gain respect for one another out of a
knowledge of mutual competence (We see a lot of that on race tracks,
y'know) instead of each forcing an unwanted ignorance upon himself.
Finally, the only thing we've ever agreed upon. Except we each
advocate totally different re-training.
BTW, what is it about YOUR congressional testimony that merits
capitalization? God-complex?
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 07:52:55 -1000
Leon James wrote:
You have given no logical grounds for this 'switch' outside of your
assertion.
In each case. Inner rage is the only explanation for any
of these hurtful activities.
'Rage' is the only explanation you seem to allow; you have given neither
reasons nor logical constructs as to why the explanations of
intoxication or bravado are insufficient.
It's simple: if you do your thing, hurting
others and not caring, you're trying to hurt them--it's a fundamentally
aggressive act;
An 'aggressive act' is not rage.
it is hostile.
Hostility is not rage.
It is hate.
Hatred is not rage.
Lack of caring.
Lack of caring is not rage.
The French
law (called "Samaritan Law") obliges drivers to help in an accident.
American law punishes those who leave the scene of an accident. People
who race each other on public highways get arrested because it's
anti-social not to care about the welfare of others. It's hateful and
angry.
Hate and anger are not rage.
IOW, no sensible person will see extreme anger (or rage) in any part
of this tragedy. Somehow, that hasn't impeded your disgraceful,
self-serving, and singularly unconvincing attempts to cast this
tragedy as "road rage". Have you no shame, Mr James?!?
You are in the grips of rage.
This is, to my untrained eye, almost a symptom of psychosis. 'There is
a plot out there to paint my ears green!' 'I don't see any evidence of
such a plot.' 'That's because *you* want to paint my ears green!'
Similarly, 'All Bad Things are the result of Road Rage!' 'I don't see
that for these reasons.' '*You* are raging!'
Friend, I do you no harm! I'm engaging in
rational communication for the benefit of understanding a societal
epidemic.
You do us no harm, true, but you do great harm to what I have been
taught to call 'rational communication'.
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 20:41:50 GMT
Leon, Leon, Leon,
Please, before anyone takes offence at that. [Not you Leon. So far,
you seem to be completely immune to any offence.] Yes I have a
germanic name, but I was born and raised in Canada. And no, I'm not
implying in any way that Germans are a superior race. It's merely
been my observation that traffic moves in a far more co-operative and
competent fashion at higher speeds on most German highways than on any
North American highway.
However, Leon, having read your numerous other posts in
rec.autos.driving and having read your "congressional testimony" at
your website, I'm convinced that you are going in totally the wrong
direction.
No-one can argue that the symptoms of "road rage" do not exist. There
are many documented examples to indicate it is a real and growing
problem that needs to be addressed.
But, in a nutshell [Leon], your testimony implies that "road rage" can
be cured by retraining drivers to help them suppress and resist their
aggressive tendencies. You imply that it is the "aggressive drivers"
that require re-training. And I find that concept very frightening
and narrow-minded.
There are, of course, varying levels of aggression. Aggression should
not be tolerated from members of our society if overt violence is
threatened or delivered upon someone else. But your definition of
aggressive driving seems to spread from one day to the next to
encompass so much more than just that.
On your web page, your
Components of Aggressive Driving
range on a scale from 1 to 20 beginning with the trivial:
1. "Mentally condemning other drivers"
The upper end of the scale ends with:
19. "Shooting at another car."
Obviously the extremes of 19 & 20 would be regarded by most sane
people as overt violence. And if you really insist on given it a
catchy name for the press to latch onto, I suppose we can allow you to
flaunt it as "Road Rage".
But, I suspect people generally think steps 1&2 are a simple and
normal response to anger, and most would feel it unhealthy to
otherwise suppress such a response. If you took a poll I sincerely
doubt anyone would consider either of steps 1&2 as being "Road Rage",
or "Aggressive Driving", not even "Anti-Social driving".
But you apparently do. And you seem to think drivers should receive
"retraining" to cure them of such dangerous behaviour.
My difficulty with your preachings is that you seem to be going after
the wrong people. You are attacking the symptoms, not the disease.
Instead of training people to better cope with their anger, we would
all be better off if we could remove the *source* of the anger.
In my opinion, the anger stems from a growing belief that *my* driving
is just fine, thank you very much, but that *other* guy needs driver
training in a big way! Drivers become agressive because they are
frustrated in dealing with the growing numbers of incompetent drivers
on the road.
Rather than "retraining" people not to become frustrated or angry with
this increasingly alarming mess, why do we not instead begin training
the incompetent drivers? Better yet, why not improve licensing
requirements to include some mandatory driver training? Perhaps, we
could add some realistic test requirements beyond the simple parallel
parking test. Give them a year on the road with a prominent "Just
Learning" sign in the rear window, so impatient people will cut them
some slack. If they survive the first year, haul them back in for
some really useful advanced training such as skid control.
It might be too late to "retrain" the existing driver population, but
it's never too late to begin training new drivers.
If the competence of the general driving population could be raised to
the point where people had a clue how to drive, we wouldn't need speed
limits. People should have a sense [and responsibility!] of their own
as to what they and their vehicles are capable of, rather than relying
blindly on some arbitrary posted speed limit to tell them whether or
not they are being "safe".
Leon said:
You see? Leon, that's exactly where I think you're dead wrong.
The government's approach to date for improving road safety has been
to legislate more and more expensive safety features into automobiles
to protect us from the inevitable crashes. The government's approach
to improving driver safety has been to invoke and vigorously enforce
ridiculously artificial speed limits in the misguided belief that
crashing at slightly lower speeds is somehow safer. Yet one out of
every three Americans *STILL* hasn't been trained to wear seat belts!
I work in the area of vehicle safety, thus I realise and acknowledge
that our governments' approach *has* ultimately been successful as
evidenced by a siginifcant reduction in the rate of road carnage.
But I also think that it really is high time that our governments
begin to effectively address the undeniably poor level of driver
competence on our roads.
There. For what it's worth, that's my "congressional testimony".
From leon@hawaii.edu Tue Sep 9 20:43:21 1997
Thank you, for your long and thoughtful essay on road rage. I'm
reproducing just a few of the lines to comment on. There's much that I
agree with, and obviously you care a lot about this issue, besides your
being in the safety field.
There are, of course, varying levels of aggression. Aggression should
not be tolerated from members of our society if overt violence is
threatened or delivered upon someone else. But your definition of
aggressive driving seems to spread from one day to the next to
encompass so much more than just that.
I think this is where I have received most of the objections. I'm willing
to budge and be more responsive to the idea you and others here have
passionately defended, namely that we should make distinctions between say
"competent assertiveness" as drivers who are not motivated by anger or
rage on the one hand, and on the other, so-called "aggressive drivers" who
are motivated to hurt or injure or scare off other drivers. I agree that
retraining and enforcement in relation to these two types should not be
approached the same way. Clearly, the so-called "assertive drivers" are
not as frightening and disruptive as the so-called "aggressive drivers" if
we go with this definition.
My difficulty with your preachings is that you seem to be going after
the wrong people. You are attacking the symptoms, not the disease.
Instead of training people to better cope with their anger, we would
all be better off if we could remove the *source* of the anger.
Yes, this sounds reasonable to me. It's not always easy, though. A
lawyer called me today looking for a "road rage expert" to testify in a
case he's handling, where a stray bullet killed an innocent driver and his
family are suing the driver who fired the shots. This cowboy with the gun
was exchanging insults and obscene gestures on the freeway with a second
driver, then took out his gun (thinking the second driver had a gun
pointing at him--he did not), and fired three times, one bullet killing
that third driver who was driving along side.
I did not agree to testify because he wanted me to state that the second
driver who exchanged birds with the cowboy driver, was also to be blamed
for the death of the third driver. Well, this is sort of common sense,
true, but I was not willing to testify to that effect because in my mind,
the cowboy with the gun did have a choice even after the second driver
flipped the bird at him, several times. Still he was free not to react in
this savage manner. (BTW, I think it's stupid to carry a gun for this
purpose...)
I work in the area of vehicle safety, thus I realise and acknowledge
that our governments' approach *has* ultimately been successful as
evidenced by a siginifcant reduction in the rate of road carnage.
But I also think that it really is high time that our governments
begin to effectively address the undeniably poor level of driver
competence on our roads.
There. For what it's worth, that's my "congressional testimony".
Thanks for your expert testimony! In my view it won't be up to the
government alone to solve this problem. Which brings me to another idea
you have not commented on: Quality Driving Circles or QDCs -- grass
roots movement of people meeting together under leadership such you and
others who care and have expressed themselves here...to help one another
become more competent and rational drivers.
Leon James
Date: 9 Sep 1997 15:31:07 GMT
I think this is where I have received most of the objections.
That--along with attitude perhaps---would seem to be a reasonable and
correct assessment... hope this means you are coming back in to the real
world (reflecting my personal opinion that you had departed same).
I'm willing
to budge and be more responsive to the idea you and others here have
passionately defended,
With driving imitating life, it's good to see that you "might" be willing
and able to set a good example and move in the face of "reasonable"
objections. Up until this point (and I think it's still too early to tell
for sure that anything's really changed) it seemed that nothing either in
content or tone could get you to move materially from the "passing"
lane.... you were passionately and "by entitlement" professorially
"correct" and that was that.
My difficulty with your preachings is that you seem to be going after
the wrong people. You are attacking the symptoms, not the disease.
Instead of training people to better cope with their anger, we would
all be better off if we could remove the *source* of the anger.
In the two jurisdictions in which I have lived... both attitude AND
competence/skills have for years been given at least lip service; this is
not some novel idea just discovered in academia. I don't see it as an
"either..or" or a "rather one instead of the other" situation. Both need
to be more vigorously addressed as requirements for training and licensing.
But I think the tasks/guidelines for skills/competency may be more
straightforward, clear and less subjective-dangerous in the realm of
physical science than is"attitude" retraining left to the
political-behavioral-"philosophical" sciences... and I think we need to
especially watch those "experts" who want to set those standards/methods by
which our "minds" and values are re-tooled for whatever the lofty goals.
I neither want my kids to be "retrained" to have to smile tranquilly when
rear-ended or to shoot someone.... or to think they're "nuts" if they
occasionally get a little upset and say "damn" while driving...
Yes, this sounds reasonable to me. It's not always easy, though. A
lawyer called me today looking for a "road rage expert"
If I were in your shoes, I would wait a while before agreeing to "road rage
expert" status... especially in cases involving litigation. I think there
might be some further "thinking" to do about what is scientifically valid
and what you really believe. If it is to be presumed that some of your
prior posts in the face of other expert and very reasonable responses,
still reflect some of your thinking and go uncorrected, then an opposing
attorney might be able to make a case for you not being a credible expert
witness.
to testify in a
case he's handling,
I (not an expert),however, do wonder if it's professionally wise or
ethical to give details on same in such a public forum.
Well, this is sort of common sense,
true, but I was not willing to testify to that effect because in my mind,
I'm happy to see the concept of "common sense." And I was struck by the
parallels (i.e. possible remote and immediate causes) between this death
and the "Diana" accident speculation and how differently you responded to
them. In this instance, it seems, you were more restrained and prudent in
your views. Maybe it helps one's thinking to actually be (or to assume one
to be) faced with a situation where one might be held personally
responsible for what one says. Same might help to cut down on the
"fantasies"/speculation (which might not be so bad if one were aware that
they were such and so labelled them rather than thinking/reporting that one
was putting forth real data and scientific theory).
I hope the "Aloha spirit" of driving doesn't turn out to be some strange
"attitude" or drug-induced mindset... now if you had wished us the
"Haight-Ashbury spirit" to figure out and drive by....
In closing, I hope that "good" and truth come from your future pursuits so
as not to undo some of the good you might have intended and started
with...(and some apologies for my opinions cutting in the wide open spaces
of "your lane" if they were unnecessarily frank or too unkindly done...)
and a little more respectfully,
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:24:58 GMT
Remove the trendy terminology, and you come pretty close to one major
aspect of the NMA.
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:05:57 GMT
Sometimes I get a bit carried away.
Thanks for your expert testimony!
I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call it "expert" testimony. They're
merely opinions based on my observations.
In my view it won't be up to the government alone to solve this problem.
You are correct in saying we cannot simply leave it up to the
government to do the right thing. In a democracy the government is
*supposed* to act on the wishes of its people. Governments typically
don't do anything unless pushed to do so by their constituents.
However, improved driver training is not likely to ever occur in our
lifetimes unless the government first makes it mandatory for
*everyone* to take the training.
Which brings me to another idea you have not commented on:
Quality Driving Circles or QDCs -- grass roots movement of people
meeting together under leadership such as you and others who care
and have expressed themselves here...to help one another become
more competent and rational drivers.
I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been able to afford
expensive sessions at the Jim Russell Racing School early in my
driving career. And I am also fortunate to have the opportunity to
apply and regularly practice what I've learned due to the existence of
our very popular and active Motorsport Club of Ottawa.
Taking part in club events is also very therapeutic in that
"competitive driving" or "aggressive driving" is rarely discouraged.
In fact, under the controlled conditions of an organised event, such
behaviour is actively promoted and even applauded!
Learning how to effectively harness one's natural aggressive and
competitive tendencies, while balancing a vehicle at the very limits
of traction, is a *hugely* satisfying and healthy pursuit.
Furthermore, the skills thus learned and developed, may very well one
day save your life and those of your passengers.
The other bonus in finding a regular outlet for your aggressions is
that you'll be less likely to vent them on public roads.
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:42:18 +0100
Yes indeed. I know that in the UK the IAM have been working to improve
driver training for over 50 years. Driver education is clearly
fundamental to raising driver standards, and that training cannot be
divorced from the need to address driver attitudes. I believe there is a
large body of statistical data covering the relation between driver
attitude and accident risk which has been collected and collated over
many years.
One result I remember was that people who flout parking laws are two or
three times as likely to have accidents as those who do not!
|
| Seatbelts -- The Royal Family Learns No Lesson |
|---|
|
Date: 4 Sep 1997 01:02:07 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving Un-be-frigging-lievable. Three days after the most popular member of the royal family (well, former member) since Arthur was run through by Modred dies in a car accident, today's Washington Post runs a photo of Princes William and Harry, along with dear old Dad, riding in the back of what appears to be a Rolls Royce limo. None of the gents need worry about wrinkling their tailor made suits, as none of them are WEARING SEATBELTS. A good thing Charles already has a career ahead of him, 'cause he's too bloody stupid to ever get a job...
Date: 4 Sep 1997 16:02:41 GMT Un-be-frigging-lievable. Seems as if Darwin still hasn't finished his job. Recently shot Africa footage also showed Diana in the back of a Land Cruiser 80-series, unbuckled. The driver was wearing his belts. This was in a convoy of security vehicles, hence nervous driving to keep inbetween distances short. Society is the bane of evolution when stupidity is no longer fatal.
Date: 5 Sep 1997 12:53:37 GMT Several very popular Detroit Red Wings were very seriously hurt in a limo crash - without belts. Anyone who does not wear belts, regardless of the vehicle, or the purpose of the trip, is playing Russian Roulette in an accident. Only, instead of one bullet in the six chambers, there are three or four.
From leon@hawaii.edu Tue Sep 9 20:38:40 1997
Good for you! We need to let them know that we care about stuff like
that. First there was Sex and Violence--we got ratings. Now I'm hearing
pressure building up to do it for cigarette smoking being made glamorous
in movies. BD ("Bad Driving " scenes) is next!!
Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)
|
| Princess Diana-Put blame where it belongs |
|---|
|
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:58:09 -0500 Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving Do people really think that a, reportedly, armoured automobile is going to lose a confrontation with several motorcycles? Were they brandishing firearms with the intent of killing Diana and Dodi? Were these not the same type of folks Diana has walked away from in the past ( also used in the past)? The responsibility of driving the car safely is the driver's, no one elses. The paparazzi cannot be held responsibility for the driver's loss of control. They can be held responsible for harrassment of the passengers. That does not make them responsible for the death of the car passengers. That all rests with the one who was expected to be in control of the car. . . . . the driver of the car. When we get behind the wheel of our cars, we are the ones who are in control. We make the choices as to how fast and how slow the car moves. If we make foolish choices we end up in the ditch because we could not drive in the snow and ice. We end up with a ticket for speeding because we could not keep our foot out of the injectors. We are late because we started too late. We kill someone or injure them because we decided to drive after we have been drinking. The ultimate chioce is ours. . . IF we are behind the wheel of a car. To sluff the responsibility off on to other people is normal for today. No one wants to take responsibility if we don't have to, if we can get away without doing so. Why not? Who wants to be said to be stupid if we can avoid it? As a brilliant philosopher (Forest Gump) once said, "Stupid is as stupid does." The driver of Dodi's limo was stupid as shown by his actions. |
| Could the SSRIs be contributing to Road Rage: |
|---|
|
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:34:33 -1000
Dr. Driving: Here is the message: (I hope you can take action on this) Notice: If you, or someone you know, take these medicines, then do not be alarmed by this message. Never discontinue a medicine on your own. Always consult a physician. Message: The first Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor to be released was Prozac in January of 1988. Since then we have had Zoloft (1992), Paxil (1993) and Serzone (1995). We also have SSRI's which are diet pills. These are Redux (1996) & the "fen" of phen/fen. The time frame for these new drugs is exactly the same as the time frame for the 7% rise each year in "road rage". In his book, "Talking Back to Prozac" Peter Breggin MD on pages 138 & 139 says, "At my request, Bonnie Leitsch, then director of the national Prozac Survivors Support Group, summarized all the reports coming into the organization during 1991 & 1992. The information covered 288 individuals who had adverse reactions to Prozac during those two years." It continues, " The vast majority were related to violence against self or others. " The book continues, " there were 133 cases of crime and violence, including 14 murders ( 6 BY CAR), 39 violent actions (8 IN CARS), 54 violent preoccupations (5 IN CARS ), " etc. It continues, "There were 14 cases of Alcohol abuse DEVELOPING OR WORSENING ON PROZAC. " The book continues, "Bonnie was impressed, as I (Dr. Breggin) have been by the number of references to experiences associated with automobiles. Perhaps agitation and hyperactivity are especially susceptible to aggravation within the confines of a car and under the stresses of driving. In reviewing the media and survivor group reports on violence, keep in mind that violence and murder are quite rare among depressed patients." End of story from "Talking Back to Prozac." There are now in the United States, approximately 34 million people who have taken an SSRI. - 28 million as an antidepressant and 6 million as a diet drug. That is one out of 6 adult Americans. Considering that AGITATION is listed as a FREQUENT side effect of Prozac in the Physicians Desk Reference and that HOSTILITY, EMOTIONAL LABILITY, AKATHASIA, DELUSIONS, MANIC REACTION AND PARANOIA are listed as infrequent (but not rare) side effects, it does not surprise me a bit that we in this country have developed all the symptoms conducive to road rage. According to the "Fresno Bee" newspaper on Saturday, Oct. 26, 1991 as reported by Stevan Rosenlind: In 1991 at the Gail Ann Ransom trial in San Jose California, Dr. Martin Teicher testified on her behalf. (She had strangled her mother). He said that Gail Ransom become more AGGRESSIVE while taking the drug for six months before the slaying. "I would have considered it a warning sign" he said. Ransom underwent a 'very striking" personality change after taking the drug during therapy. Ransom's increased aggressiveness and her obsession with killing her mother were consistent with patterns he saw in other Prozac patient who became suicidal or VIOLENT, Dr. Teicher of Harvard University testified. Usually these patients were not aware of their behavior, he said. In 1990, Teicher published a study of six patients who became obsessive about suicide while taking Prozac. The study led to hundreds of additional reports of violent thoughts or behavior, he said. Although many depressed patients consider suicide, Dr. Teicher said, Prozac patients think of excessively VIOLENT way to kill themselves or OTHERS. End of story from the "Fresno Bee" Story continues by Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D. in her book, "Prozac: Panacea or Pandora". " A court appointed psychiatrist to this case, Dr. James Missett, soon discovered that Prozac had more to do with Gail's actions than he had felt possible before learning what he had from this case. As the curiosity set in, Dr. Missett called in the 30 to 40 patients he had on Prozac. Armed with his newly acquired insight into the behaviors induced by the drug, he began interviewing his own patients with more pointed and deeply probing questions. He reportedly quickly discontinued the use of Prozac in two patients who admitted feelings of wanting to hurt or take the life of someone close to them. Then he discovered an additional aspect the patients were sharing with him - he had FIVE patients wanting to RAM CARS ON THE FREEWAY and all had been given tickets for IRRATIONAL DRIVING and SPEEDING. As soon as Dr. Missett was able to meet with Gail's fiancee, he questioned him about Gail's driving. Yes, her experience had been the same. In fact, on her way to murder her mother, Gail was stopped and given a ticket for SPEEDING. ( Dr. James Missett of Santa Clara, California testified to this under oath at Gail Ann Ransom's trial. She was given a lighter sentence of three years in prison.) The book continues," The reports from patients and their spouses about weaving in and out of traffic at top speeds in front of semi trucks and blowing out engines traveling at speeds of up to 110 mph should be quite a warning to anyone that there is a problem with these drugs. As one ex-patient reported, "You are not advised to fly a plane while taking Prozac, but most patients do fly their cars!" End of story. For further insights into how this drug (and all the copycat drugs, Zoloft, Paxil, Serzone, Phen/fen & redux) effects life in the U. S., read the book "The Power to Harm" by John Cornwell, a science professor and writer from Cambridge University In England who was asked to cover the Wesbecker Prozac trial by the London Times.
|
This ends the debate here regarding road rage and Princess Diana's tragic crash.
Princess Di, Mercedes-Benz, and Thoughts On Safety by Ride&Drive online magazine
Back to Topical Index of Issues