Letters from Readers About My Congressional Testimony on
Aggressive Driving and Road Rage -- Part 3

Part 1  |  Part 2  |  Part 3  |  Part 4  |  Part 5 | Text of Congressional Testimony  |  Back to Controversial Issues |  Back to DrDriving Home

About Dr. Leon James

	Enter your search terms
	Web DrDriving.org

 

In article <33f320d6.1426269@news.zippo.com>, wrote:

> 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.
> Brandon

We are in basic agreement, believe it or not. Which is, that training drivers is the greatest need we have right now, and when we do, we'll be able to all relax from this feverish law enforcement activity that many of you complain about. Agreed. Who needs a police state!

We also agree that passive-aggressive drivers who block the way of others for their own righteous reasons, are indeed among the road ragers and they need training for this problem they have, and for the mayhem of emotions they tend to evoke in many drivers, for which they are responsible.

Finally, we may not agree on the last point, which is, that many of you competent drivers also need additional training, or self-training, in allowing for diversity, in adjusting to reality. If you want to change things, you can work with re-training efforts and with legislative efforts, but you can't take the law in your own hands. I'm not saying you, Brandon in particular, is doing this -- taking the law in your own hand. It's not for me to say that.

But I am saying that there are many drivers, some who express themselves in these NGs, who are taking the law in their own hands, who are feeling justified in retaliating and acting in a hostile manner when they feel wronged or imposed upon by other aggressive drivers (such as the passive-aggressive ones). These hostile drivers take it out on others by tailgating dangerously or giving the tailgater a "break job," by pursuing or chasing another driver, by jostling for space at high speeds, by yelling and flipping the bird, or by getting out and getting into a fight-- these actions I know you would also consider unsafe and incompetent, as well as illegal and immoral.

So now you have to declare yourself against *this type* of "aggressive drivers." Are we agreed that these attitudes and actions are out of place, not justified, part of the problem?? Do you see this attitude and orientation as a danger or concern? Should law enforcement and legislation not take action to contain these?

Leon James (AKA "Dr. Driving")

Subject: Re: Speed Cameras and the tickets?!
From: John Burns
Date: 1997/08/08
Message-Id: <33eb4c00.580b@unixnerd.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.transport

> > > It would also have the advantage that persistent transgressors who
> > > tend also to be the most aggressive drivers, would get weeded-out
> > > and (via the points system) ultimately forced off the roads, leading
> > > eventually to safer roads.

> > I can't believe some people actually believe that :-(

> Why not? Don't you believe that drivers respond to enforcement > conditions?

Subject: Re: daily gripe: more non-aggressive driving
From: whorning@pipeline.com (Walt Horning)
Date: 1997/08/12
Message-Id: <33efedcb.58119747@news.pipeline.com>
Newsgroups: dc.driving

>Walt Horning (whorning@pipeline.com) wrote:
>
>: Tonight's non-aggressive driver simply decided that his little
>: sub-compact was an 18-wheeler. He swung his car half way into my lane
>: just to turn right, forcing me to drift over too, but I did so as I
>: had the freedom to do this. So this guy was just being "cautious",
>: right? I mean he was being careful not to damage his car on the curb.
>: Of course he was not showing anger or aggression. He was a "safe"
>: driver????? Ha!!!! Any child in his putt-putt could have easily made
>: the turn without the slight "swinging-wide" maneuver.
>:
>: You anti-aggressive-driver types should get a life!

>What does the above anecdote have to do with merits or dangers of
>aggressive drivers? Inattentive/slow drivers causing problems doesn't
>justify others passing traffic 30 mph faster than it's moving, rapid and
>frequent and unsignaled lane changes, last-minute cutting into exit-lane
>traffic, running stale yellow lights, etc. Slow/inattentive/discourteous
>drivers cause one set of problems and dangers. So do aggressive drivers.
>The problems and dangers are different, but real. It's not either/or.
>You can't defend or explain aggressive driving by complaining about
>what drivers too far on the other end of the driving scale do.

> >What does the above anecdote have to do with merits or dangers of
> >aggressive drivers? Inattentive/slow drivers causing problems doesn't
> >justify others passing traffic 30 mph faster than it's moving, rapid and
> >frequent and unsignaled lane changes, last-minute cutting into exit-lane
> >traffic, running stale yellow lights, etc. Slow/inattentive/discourteous
> >drivers cause one set of problems and dangers. So do aggressive drivers.
> >The problems and dangers are different, but real. It's not either/or.
> >You can't defend or explain aggressive driving by complaining about
> >what drivers too far on the other end of the driving scale do.

Whorning comments on the above:

> drivers is based on "hype". By showing that the reality is that
> "non-aggressive" drivers are just as dangerous, and probably a higher
> percentage that these movements are based on hot air and nothing more.

The original message above (I no longer know by whom) seems more correct than Whorning's position. This difference in attitude and philosophy is very apparent and needs to be made more explicit. The "Whorning" side is to uphold aggressive driving as something justified by other (passive-)aggressive drivers who make life on the road dangerous and inconvenient for others. Thus, showing hostility and pushiness towards these inconsiderate drivers is a good thing -- that's how much this position is blinded by irrational arguments.

It all boils down to this: whether the Whorning position enthusiasts are willing to give up their self-appointed right to dictate the definition of what's aggressive and unacceptable. I think rationality and democracy dictate that a COMMON definition be worked out and accepted. It's not what you yourself define as acceptable and appropriate that counts or should count. Instead: it's what our community standards dictate, and here clearly we need to accept diversity and plurality of drivers -- the slow, the inattentive, the poor in judgment, the sick, the sleepy, the jerks, the passive-aggressive, and the aggressive drivers, etc.

It's not what you feel like accepting but what you should be accepting as a free and rational and compassionate human being -- that matters! You can't drive the way you feel, or the way you feel you ought to be allowed. You can't dictate to others that they drive in the way you choose as a standard, according to your convenience, experience, and definition. Can you give this up? Can you alter your fundamental basis of driving rights and options and competencies? Nothing less than that will be needed to contain the spread of road rage on an unprecedented scale! Be a leader and join the new supportive driving philosophy. What would that be, accoding to you -- if you were to switch to being a supportive driver? Try it for just one trip and find out how you feel.

geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller) wrote:

> >Fresh off the commune, "Dr. Driving" writes:

> > OK, so what? It's annoying. OK. It's inconvenient. True.
> > It forces us to adjust our behavior to them. Yes, it does.
> > This is annoying. True. So I repeat: what's the point??
+++++++

Geoff Miller responds with an analysis:

> I suppose it's possible that, unlike you, I don't have a sufficiently
> saccharine, Pollyana-ish, rainbows 'n' unicorns worldview not to be
> bothered by things like that, or by the conduct of my fellow man in
> general. It seems that where we disagree, most fundamentally, is
> that you go to extreme lengths to avoid framing your experiences in
> terms of annoyance and irritation, while I, on the other hand, am
> forthright enough to recognize, acknowledge, and give free rein to
> such feelings.(snip)
> Why do you have such a difficult time grasping why and how people
> become annoyed with the slow, sluggish driving habits of the Anti-
> Destination League?(snip) You just don't seem
> to understand how anyone could possibly get hot under the collar
> while sitting behind the wheel.
(snip)

> People who violate that basic rule (keep right except to pass), for whatever
> reason, deserve to be
> chastised. In extreme cases, I'd even say that they deserve to have
> their driving privileges revoked.(snip)

> At any rate, there's a flaw in your prediction. The sort of people
> who drive like slugs are by definition very unaggressive people.
(snip)

> You're wrong, Leon. The *smartest* choice is to offer these idiots
> some unambiguous, negative feedback in realtime so that they associate
> it with their behavior. Not by doing childish, dangerous things like
> getting in front of them and slamming on the brakes, but by using one's
> horn and vocal cords. Discreetly following these people to their
> destinations and confronting them about their antisocial behavior is
> also a good way to go.(snip)

++++++

Geoff, I really appreciate your long analysis. Obviously you care about this issue. I'm afraid we all sometimes respond to buzzwords. At any rate: yes, I do understand and legitimize that we get irritated against drivers who act incompetent and thus are an incovenience and a danger to us all. Yes, I agree.

Our disagreement seems to be not that these drivers are annoying and dangerous, since we agree on that, but what our solution should be. Your solution is popular in these newsgroups, though by no means unanimous: namely, that we have the right to punish these people, to retaliate, to enforce our own rules. You find it wrong for me to argue against this solution. You don't see that your solution is anti-democratic or authoritarian. It's the rule of the jungle--just because those other drivers don't meet up to your standards!!

You don't see that what motivates you is resistance to accommodation to diversity. Diversity means all sorts of drivers. Accommodating means not to take the law in your own hands. Again, I repeat: I agree they're annoying and dangerous. I agree that it's natural to respond aggressively to their behavior. But I don't agree (1) we should express our anger; and (2) we're being effective by expressing our anger.

Why don't you get behind the real solution: Quality driving circles for all drivers--small groups meeting together to influence one another. Road rage is real, fueled by aggressive driving. You love good driving and you care about it--me too. Let's use the right approach.

Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)

In article <5r2h97$ltq@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,

tomlinsc@ix.netcom.com (Chuck Tomlinson) wrote:

> IMO, negative feedback has a small chance of getting a bad driver to
> recognize and correct bad habits. I doubt that a singe episode of
> negative feedback would have much effect, but the effect may work
> cumulatively (I know people who've corrected bad habits because of
> consistent negative feedback).
++++++

This is a natural assumption...but I believe it's not a correct one. We know in psychology that feedback works ONLY when people are motivated to change or to accept the feedback. Face the facts as discussed in these newsgroups: the expressions of anger against "idiots" and "morons" (etc. etc.) and the delight many of you have to joke about your fantasies of retaliation--all this is EVIDENCE that what you're providing on the road is not feedback but threat and retaliation. You're filling up the road environment with aggressive, hostile, intolerant emotions and attitudes.

Now let's discuss what really is needed and what you really seem to be resisting (Why??). You need to admit (1) that you're not being supportive with your negative feedback approach, and (2) that you have some responsibility to accomodate to everyone, even if many are annoying, etc. This is the attitude of the "smart" driver--supportive, facilitative, democratic, tolerant, objective, rational, good. Therefore: safe and pleasant!

Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)

Subject: Re: Accidents and Trucks
From: "Richard Wyllie"
Date: 1997/08/16
Message-Id: <01bcaa03$9be79300$199eadce@crc3.concentric.net>
Newsgroups: phl.transportation

Harvey Kravetz wrote in article
<33f4de3e.89654197@news.netaxs.com>...
> If the transportation people ever wanted to get serious about the
> accidents that are so common on the roads in and around Philadelphia
> they would stop and realize that the percentage of truck that are
> involved in accidents is disproportionate to their numbers. They
> drive too fast for conditions. They are either not in good running
> order, driven to fast, and or the drivers are over tired or
> combinations or the aforementioned. The cost in time as a result of
> these, far too many, accidents is too great to simply overlook as just
> an accident.
> As for aggressive drivers, awareness and a little more law enforcement
> could change the situation dramatically.

Subject: Re: Accidents and Trucks
From: jcwx@earth.execpc.com (John Weir)
Date: 1997/08/17
Message-Id: <5t7djc$7hm$1@earth.execpc.com>
Newsgroups: phl.transportation,rec.autos.driving,dc.driving,uk.transport

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:05:03 -1000
From: Simon Jones 
To: dyc@drdriving.org
Subject: Road rage

My god! Thanks for reminding me never to visit the good old US of A if they
all drive like that!

Subject:      Re: Speed Cameras and the tickets?!
From:         John Burns 
Date:         1997/08/18
Message-Id:   <33f8cd0d.34de@unixnerd.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups:   uk.transport
[More Headers]

>   John Burns  wrote about Dr. Driving:
> > No, I can't believe you think that all fast drivers are agressive. I'm
> > not an aggressive driver but do drive quickly. I know very few people
> > (actually nobody) who drives within the speed limit all the time. Most
> > have clean licenses and are not aggressive. This is just a stereotype.
> ++++++++

Dr. Driving wrote:

> I've studied this problem for years, analyzing driving behaviors and
> organizing them into categories, etc. -- you can see some of my efforts

  here

> So, speaking from that experience, what's involved in "but I do drive
> quickly" or, as some other drivers put it a few messages ago "I drive
> assertively, not aggressively."
> 
> It means doing one or more of these things:
> 1) greater than average number of lane changes
> 2) following closer than the driver ahead is comfortable being followed
> 3) forcing your car into spaces smaller than the person behind feels safe
> 4) speeding up to stop signs and lights, even with pedestrians in view
> 5) screeching the tires (turns, parking garages, street lights)
> 6) not making full stops as required by law even when others are around
> 7) yelling at your passengers or treating them bad in some way
> 8) swearing at other drivers, even with children present
> 9) contributing to an environment of stress, intolerance, dangerousness
> 10) etc.  you can add your own here....
> 
> The point then is this:
> aggressive driving is a whole spectrum of things, referring to a style and
> attitude.  Can you relate to that??


I have seen many of the points above in other drivers and agree with
many of your views. All I'm saying is that disobeying some arbitrary
speed limit (why 30 not 25 or 35?) does not in itself mark someone as as
bad/aggressive driver.

Relax, enjoy your driving :-)

Subject:      ROAD RAGE
From:         Leo Gorcy 
Date:         1997/08/16
Message-Id:   <33f64a5e.5746@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:   az.general
[More Headers]

Recently, the media has introduced the term "Road Rage" to infer that
motorists should be more considerate and less threatening to others.
I've driven in most all states & nowhere - have I found such stupid,
unaware motorists than in Arizona!  Few drivers in this state know what
the hell the left lane is for!
So, rather than educate those dummy's going 25mph in the left lane - our
exasperation is blamed upon "Road Rage".
Of course, disguised as solution, is photo radar.
The real problem rests with the fact that Arizona is rapidly forced into
motor congestion, due to growth - faster than its citizens adapt.

First, I've seen this statement in many places:  drivers get the impression that
what they see and experience in their own place, or in this or that place, is far
worse, etc.  I think this is a natural impression that comes from being
exasperated.

Is such exasperation road rage?  Yes, in my opinion.  Impatience and frustration 
are just signs of emotional loss of control.  Of course you're not to blame,
especially since there are those passive-aggressive road ragers who drive slow in 
the passing lanes and refuse to move over.  But feeling exasperated is only a 
momentary emotion.  I advise drivers to distance themselves from this type of
 exasperation, that is, not to go along with it.  If you can train yourself not to feel 
exasperated by inconsiderate drivers, you're ahead!!

Leon James (aka Dr. Driving)

Subject:      Re: ROAD RAGE
From:         Coyote 
Date:         1997/08/17
Message-Id:   <33f7407a.556321cf@attworldnet.net>
Newsgroups:   az.general
[More Headers]

Leo Gorcy wrote:
> 
> Janet Reid wrote:
> 
> > > >Recently, the media has introduced the term "Road Rage" to infer that
> > > >motorists should be more considerate and less threatening to others.
> 
> > > >Few drivers in this state know what
> > > >the hell the left lane is for!
> 
> > Well, I say we should just hop in some big ole front loaders and haul
> > butt down that outside lane and scoop up anyone going under 80. Guess
> > since we don't have to worry about big piles of snow in mall parking lot
> > corners we can just dump what we scoop up there!
> >
> > Janet
> 
> Sorry Janet:  Your inference about snowbirds is incorrect.  Actually,
> even the older snowbirds seem to observe "left lane" procedures.
> Mostly, my gripe is within the typical Arizonian's & "housewife" type's
> like you - toodling ignorantly along in the left lane - toting your
> babies to pre-school, or wherever you take 'em..
> Really, I have no quarrel with you personally - just get your ass outta
> the left lane!!

Gee, toting babies around, huh? Well, at age 51 that would sure be
something interesting. Housewife, huh? Kind of a presumptous jerk,
aren't you? Ever seen me drive? I think NOT! I don't care how fast I'm
going, if someone comes up behind me, whatever lane I'm in, I move over.
I always keep an eye on the rearview mirror. In the Phoenix area you
have to be a defensive driver. 

Janet

Subject:      Re: ROAD RAGE
From:         caradoc@neta.com (John Groseclose)
Date:         1997/08/16
Message-Id:   
Newsgroups:   az.general
[More Headers]

In article <33f64a5e.5746@worldnet.att.net>, Leo Gorcy
 wrote:

> Recently, the media has introduced the term "Road Rage" to infer that
> motorists should be more considerate and less threatening to others.
> I've driven in most all states & nowhere - have I found such stupid,
> unaware motorists than in Arizona!  Few drivers in this state know what
> the hell the left lane is for!
> So, rather than educate those dummy's going 25mph in the left lane - our
> exasperation is blamed upon "Road Rage".

Well, I've been one of those "dummies" in the left lane, going 25mph - in
a 25mph zone. And, I get morons passing me doing 45+ on the right. So...
who *is* the dummy in this case? I agree that there are quite a few people
in AZ who're less than aware of the rules in these cases, but it's not
always the ones who're going "slow" that are the problem.

> Of course, disguised as solution, is photo radar.

I live less than two blocks from one of the red-light cameras in
Scottsdale. Since the installation, I've noticed a *dramatic* decrease in
the number of near-misses that I've witnessed in that intersection.

> The real problem rests with the fact that Arizona is rapidly forced into
> motor congestion, due to growth - faster than its citizens adapt.

Want a *real* solution to some of the problems? Put the "lagging left"
turn arrows on every intersection that uses a left-turn arrow. This allows
the vehicles turning left to clear the intersection much better than
allowing the first group to turn left, then leaving two or three cars in
the intersection to wait for the light to change again. Scottsdale uses
the lagging left lights, while Tempe and Phoenix don't. In Tempe and
Phoenix, cars begin turning left, then stop, then the last few make their
turn. In Scottsdale, no cars at those intersections can turn left until
the *end* of the cycle. It just makes more sense to me.

The other solution I'd recommend is to get rid of the 20-year licensing.
There are an awful lot of people in the "Greater Phoenix Area" who really
shouldn't be behind the wheel any more. Their vision has gotten bad, they
don't have the attention span or the reflexes necessary to drive. At one
time, I parked my car and called a cab because I'd lost a contact lens,
and Phoenix allows Alzheimer's patients to continue driving until they
cause an accident.
-- 


Letters from Readers About My Congressional Testimony on 

Aggressive Driving and Road Rage -- Part 3


Part 1  | 

Part 2  | 
Part 3  | 
Part 4  
|  Part 5 
| Text 
of Congressional Testimony  |  
Back to Controversial Issues | 
Back to DrDriving 
Home

About Dr. 
Leon James




  
  









Enter your search terms




 





Web


DrDriving.org