said:
>I'm sorry, Justin, but it sounds like a play on words to use "aggressive"
>to describe something that's not offensive and that's competent. We need
>to remain objective -- on the side of science, safety officials,
>legislators, concerned citizens -- and agree that "aggressive driving" is
>not competent, but that "supportive" driving is competent.
You must have a much different definition of aggressive than I do. When
I'm entering a freeway and I'm exactly beside the person on the freeway,
I'll usually accelerate to get infront of them because I'm usually one of
the fastest cars on the road, and if they are in the slow lane, chances are
quite good that I won't be in their way (I make sure that I have room to
accelerate so that I'm not cutting them off). When I come up to a 4-way
stop and the other person waves me on, I go immediately (as long as it is
safe). I never wave them on (for liability, not courtesy). I'd consider
these things as aggressive, but yet not associated with incompetent
driving. There is no "rage" or other emotion associated with it. Jabbing
my brakes on an on-ramp is going to disturb those behind me much more, and
will have me going slower when I get on, possibly making me more of a
hazard than just accelerating. I also speed the flow of traffic by not
messing around at 4-ways trying to be polite. I just get out of everyone's
way as soon as possible.
>In other words, the expression competent driving should be applied to the
>kind of driving where the other drivers' rights, expectations, needs, and
>dignity are to be taken into account at least as much as one's own
>convenience and preference and satisfaction.
I drive the way I think everyone else should drive, and I treat others as I
would like to be treated, with some allowances since I am fully aware that
many people wouldn't like to be treated the way I like to be treated.
>Competent drivers make
>emotionally intelligent decisions, and driving aggressively is not
>emotionally intelligent as it limits and constrains the mind to
>self-serving rationales and explanations. This hurts others and hurts
>you, spiritually and psychologically.
Why would those of us who don't believe in a "spirit" worry about hurting
our spirituality? Since you are a psychologist, perhaps you could outline
the exact psychological effects that are associated with not making
"emotionally intelligent" decisions (as well as outlining what you mean by
emotionally intelligent).
>I'm willing to grant that you're a competent driver, especially since you
>voiced concern for other drivers in not exceeding your assertiveness when
>it's not appropriate -- thus you have limits you're imposing on yourself
>-- that's the hallmark of competent driving. Just give up the perverted
>idea that "aggressive" is good and competent. By giving it up, you're
>choosing community and altruism and pro-social rather than selfishness.
If no one was ever aggressive, then would move much slower and less smooth.
Courtesy and aggressivity aren't mutually exclusive. I'm the most
courteous driver I know, and one of the most aggressive. I always signal,
I come to complete stops, I go out of my way to let people in who signal, I
leave more space than others think necessary in heavy traffic, yet I'm also
quite aggressive at the same time. I think I'm safe, and my driving record
reflects that.
Hey, Marc, as Dr. Driving, I'd like to give you an award for competent and supportive driving!! I mean it -- as long as you described yourself accurately and are philosophically behind it. Yes, I'd give you a nomination for a medal. My students have difficulty achieving your ideals. It takes them a complete driving personality makeover, with months and years of effort.
You are unusual, Marc, recognize it. Most drivers have trouble being courteous, not following too close, obeying all signals,
signaling turns and lane changes, always trying to be safe and competent and not be in anybody's way. That's ideal! So, please stop giving "aggressive drivers" a good name by claiming that you're one of them. Instead you're a supportive, non-aggressive driver.
I was interviewed today by a USA Today reporter who is working on another story on aggressive drivers. I explained my view to her and sent her to my http://www.aloha.net/~dyc/testimony.html Congressional Testimony piece. She asked me if I knew any really aggressive drivers who are proud of it so she can interview one of these individuals. I said just go read this NG (among others) to get plenty of drivers who call themselves aggressive and are proud of it. Well, I'm not sure she knows how to get here, to read us all, but if you're interested, she said she'd like a phone call. Her name is Maria Puente, USA Today, Washington, D.C., 800-872-3410 ext. 6521. Are any one of you it?? A road rager?? Hope not....
Subject: Re: USA Today "Road Rage" article
From: lang*lotz@teleport.com (BKL)
Date: 1997/08/15
Message-Id: <33f483b9.166794748@news.teleport.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:36:57 -0600, "Dr. Driving"
wrote:
>...people are scared on a daily basis (5 million
>yearly crashes, 40,000 deaths; in 10 years that's 50 million crashes --
>almost one-third of all drivers in the US; in 3 decades -- 150 million
>crashes; SO WHO CAN ESCAPE?? Yes, people are scared for a reason.)
Fear borne of ignorance is the foundation for your principles? People
are safer than ever, yet you, the media, the ticket-fund-receiving
bureaucrats all fan the flames of fear with "speed kills" "road rage"
and other false agendas. Why not focus on inattention, and lack of
skill, instead of going after the truly safest drivers?
>In my view what's needed is a social and cultural change in norms, a
>major one, like we did for the Disabilities Act where we came to recognize
>as a society that we must accommodate to those millions in wheelchairs --
>building access, anti-discrim. in employment, etc.).
This is a dangerous analogy, also showing your shaky ground. The ADA
costs a fortune, has led to a multitude of lawsuits, and wheel chair
users are a tiny fraction of the "beneficiaries" (though you wouldn't
know it at the politician's publicity fests.) Was there really an
anti handicapped sentiment earlier? Nonsense. It was a bureaucratic
feel good exercise that makes it more difficult to operate a business
and create jobs. It was supposed to cause more disabled people to get
off the public assistance and into jobs. Guess what? The opposite
happened. More lawsuits from drunks and lazy able bodied people
claiming they were fired for being lousy employyes due to their
"disabilities."
Hmm, can I think of another area where everyone is harmed a little by
inefficiencies generated by bureaucrats trying to please a few
misguided squawkers? Traffic enforcement!
>Right now -- admit it! -- you tend to favor the
>aggressive position by calling it assertive and safe, and by rejecting
>non-aggressive driving as "passive" -- something you despise (I
>suppose...).
Sorry, you won't change the world by psychoanalyzing people to get
them to behave altruistically toward strangers. That's naive. You
improve society by setting policies to make what rational, self
interested people naturally do the same as what is good for society.
>For instance, in
>the Smooth Operator coalition of 14 law enforcement agencies in the
>Washington, D.C. area, from April 28 to May 4 this year, they stopped
>12,000 vehicles for
(snip)
>Speeding (43%)
Leading to more road rage than anything else, as poky drivers and left
lane violators feel justified, while speeders. the safest drivers are
persecuted needlessly.
With no positive effect on motorist safety, either.
>Competent driving,
>Yes. Aggressive driving, No. Can you get behind that one??
As long as "aggressive driving" excludes anything related to simple
faster driving (although racing or accellerating while being passed
should be included,) and includes all behaviors that needlessly delay
other motorists.
Ben Lang1otz
National Motorists Association, Oregon Chapter Coordinator
www.motorists.com
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error;
it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
U.S. Supreme Ct. Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1950
Subject: Re: USA Today "Road Rage" article
From: grimrod@NOSPAMmindless.com (BS)
Date: 1997/08/14
Message-Id: <33f320d6.1426269@news.zippo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
"Dr. Driving" claimed:
>I'm sure you mean it sincerely, that you're interested in driving the
>safest manner possible. So we agree on purpose -- that's essential. Now
>there is this issue that's on everybody's mind: it's called aggressive
>drivers or driving, and mostly people mean to say that it's unsafe
>driving because it creates an environment of hostile drivers. Such an
>environment is unsafe, people are scared on a daily basis (5 million
>yearly crashes, 40,000 deaths; in 10 years that's 50 million crashes --
>almost one-third of all drivers in the US; in 3 decades -- 150 million
>crashes; SO WHO CAN ESCAPE?? Yes, people are scared for a reason.)
People are scared because they haven't been properly trained. If you
are thrown into a situation that you have never had to handle before,
it is very easy to be intimidated by it. Those that don't get scared
and haven't been trained are simply overconfident and will either
skate through it by the seat of their pants or screw up really badly.
Training is the key. Not speed enforcement. Not singing kumbayah and
having seances.
Add to lack of training the self righteous, who cruise the left lanes
at 55 mph and actively try and block those attempting to pass. To
this we add the lunatic fringe (who are lumped in with those of us who
exceed the speed limit safely thanks to reports from individuals like
yourself).
Train new drivers. Train existing drivers. Change enforcement from
revenue based to safety based.
>In my view what's needed is a social and cultural change in norms, a
>major one, like we did for the Disabilities Act where we came to recognize
>as a society that we must accommodate to those millions in wheelchairs --
>building access, anti-discrim. in employment, etc.). That's it. We
>need a turnabout with aggressive driving. So your task: MISSION
>IMPOSSIBLE? that you endorse a driving philosophy that is pro-social and
>supportive in emphasis. Right now -- admit it! -- you tend to favor the
>aggressive position by calling it assertive and safe, and by rejecting
>non-aggressive driving as "passive" -- something you despise (I
>suppose...).
This is rich. You offer Marc an award for being a truly caring
driver, yet my driving style is similar to perhaps being identical to
his (driving as quickly as is safely possible given traffic, road and
weather conditions and being as considerate to others as is reasonably
possible) yet my task is MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. Heh.
>So: are you going to work just as hard to try to come up with
>non-aggressive driving modes that we can all emulate?
Travel at the prevailing speed of traffic (or a little faster if
safe), show consideration to other traffic, observe lane discipline.
>For instance, in
>the Smooth Operator coalition of 14 law enforcement agencies in the
>Washington, D.C. area, from April 28 to May 4 this year, they stopped
>12,000 vehicles for:
>
>Speeding (43%)
>Failing to Obey Signal or Sign (16%)
>Failing to Use Seat Belt (5%)
>Improper Passing (3%)
>Failing to Yield (2%)
>Following Too Close (2%)
>Other (28%)
>
>A similar distribution was obtained in the "Second Wave" (June 16-22;
>16,000 vehicles stopped).
Means absolutely nothing. What is the 85th percentile speed through
the area? How many of those speeders were actually driving in a
perfectly safe manner, but exceeded an arbitrarily set limit that is
too low to be safe?
>I take these figures from a report on Aggressive Drivers from the
>National Conference of State Legislators. We're going to witness more
>and more government attempts in terms of legislation against aggressive
>drivers, including insurance rates being affected. My point: let's have
>a say in all this instead of nullifying our voices. Competent driving,
>Yes. Aggressive driving, No. Can you get behind that one??
It all comes down to definitions. Call it what you want.
Brandon
You're not going crazy, Arthur!
You're going sane in a crazy world!
- The Tick
Letters from Readers About My Congressional Testimony on
Aggressive Driving and Road Rage -- Part 2
About Dr.
Leon James