> Somehow, poor drivers need to be made aware that their driving is bad. > So if you see another driver driving dangerously or inconsiderately, > don't get angry; *pretend* to be angry. > Get the idiot's attention and let him think you're really pissed. After > a while, they may begin to see a pattern. > Please... it's our only hope :-)
===============================
This is funny! I said "Don't get angry" so you answer "OK, don't get angry. Pretend to be angry." I like that. It's far better than getting angry. And I bet you can't do it!!!!
Bottom line:
Remember that your hope is in vain. Nul chance. Zero. You can't make other drivers to behave in a way you want them to behave. This is both irrational and ineffective -- and leads you to all sorts of folly!
This is not what you can pin your hope on. Instead, work on yourself. Get rid of the desire to reatliate or punish or force others to change their beahvior. This is not your job. Not the job of other drivers. Learn to live with reality. Support community action groups for the education of drivers so all of them learn to drive with social responsibility. This is out best hope, in my considered judgment after 20 years of research in traffic psychology.
Leon James
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ** Dr. Leon James, Prof. of Psychology, Univ. of Hawaii ** http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/~leonj/leonj/leonpsy/leon.html ** Visit Dr. Driving Says...at http://www.aloha.net/~dyc ** "Thoughts are from affections." E. Swedenborg AE1146 *******************************************************
> Driver's ed will only work on new drivers. After several years on the > road, few drivers feel they have anything left to learn. Sadly, it's the > people who know the most about driving who realize how much they don't > know. Unless all drivers are *forced* to take substantial driver's ed > courses (not likely IMHO), the poor drivers will stay out of school.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, it's not likely now but in the future there will have to be a recognition that driver education starts in Kindergarten, goes on throughout secondary school where people get a driver's license, then starts again as Continuing Driver Education and goes on for life. The content of this driver education (school-based and continuing adult) must along three domains of the driver's personality:
(1) Sensorimotor (accurate vision and motor coordination); (2) Cognitive (correct judgment and reasoning about safety) (3) Affective (learning emorional control and road morality) +++++++++ You can check out my further elaborations of this issue <a href="http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/~leonj/leonj/leonpsy/traffic/tpintro.html#d...">in this article.</a>.
Leon James
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ** Dr. Leon James, Prof. of Psychology, Univ. of Hawaii ** http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/~leonj/leonj/leonpsy/leon.html ** Visit Dr. Driving Says...at http://www.aloha.net/~dyc ** "Thoughts are from affections." E. Swedenborg AE1146 *******************************************************
x...@xxx.xx.xx writes... >Gumby wrote: >> In article RTT writes... >> >Gumby wrote: >> >> In article RTT writes... >> >> >Gumby wrote: >> I got your point, however the problem usually could have been avoided >> completly if the object of anger was abiding by the laws. My point is >> that adressing the instigator of the stress, and not the person that >> is experiences the stress, is both easier and more effective. >Okay, so how do you go about addressing the instigator of the stress? >By chasing them down and screaming at them? By trying to pull them >from thier car and punch them out? This may not be the best approach. >Maybe a long blast on the horn is enough?
Well, the easiest way is to require greater education to drive. Much of the improper driving is because of ignorance. Then, the issue of cops enforcing the laws (not just the only one currently enforced).
Oh, you thought I meant addressing the instigator after the incident? I don't do much of that. An ounce of prevention, and all that...
>....snip... >> I'm equating the assertion that thoughts=actions and that bad thoughts >> should be eliminated as New Age. All emotions can be healthy. All >> emotions car be safely and productively expressed. The feeling of >> anger is not "bad" and your generalization that all feelings of anger >> while driving are "bad" is what I disagreee with. >I think we may have different situations in mind. Anger at someone who >does something dangerous, and almost injurs you is natural. That's not >necessarily bad. Someone who allows the anger to take over and losses >control / chasses after the other driver for revenge / subsequently >tries to run that person off the road to "teach them a lesson" ... is >a problem. Maybe I didn't make myself clear before.
Getting angry at anything that is done is not necessarly bad. The only thing bad about it is certain expressions of the anger, and then it isn't the anger that is bad, but the actions of the angry person. I really don't care if the person next to me is angry or happy, as long as they don't do something stupid/illegal.
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:27:55 -1000, Leon James wrote...
> Yes, it's not likely now but in the future there will have > to be a recognition that driver education starts in > Kindergarten, goes on throughout secondary school > where people get a driver's license, then starts again as > Continuing Driver Education and goes on for life.
I agree that there ought to be strong emphasis on effective long-term driver education, but I'm much less confident that it will actually happen anytime soon. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, though.
> The content of this driver education (school-based and > continuing adult) must along three domains of the > driver's personality:
>(1) Sensorimotor (accurate vision and motor coordination); >(2) Cognitive (correct judgment and reasoning about safety) >(3) Affective (learning emorional control and road morality)
Sounds good. Also, it would be nice if drivers had a better understanding of how cars actually work. Then drivers would be less likely to unwittingly depend on their cars to violate the laws of physics (e.g. 4x4 drivers going at the posted speed limit drivers on ice-covered roads). This may be covered under (2) "correct judgement".
Leon James <l...@hawaii.edu> writes... >On 5 Dec 1996, Chuck Tomlinson wrote: >> Driver's ed will only work on new drivers. After several years on the >> road, few drivers feel they have anything left to learn. Sadly, it's the >> people who know the most about driving who realize how much they don't >> know. Unless all drivers are *forced* to take substantial driver's ed >> courses (not likely IMHO), the poor drivers will stay out of school. >++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Yes, it's not likely now but in the future there will have > to be a recognition that driver education starts in > Kindergarten, goes on throughout secondary school > where people get a driver's license,
In the UK we have a none profit making organisation called the 'Institute of Advanced Motorists'. It was established over 40 years ago and enjoys royal patronage. I understand that a small number of groups have been set up elsewhere in the world by ex-pats.
The aim of the IAM is to promote good driving and local groups provide expert tuition which culminates in the volunteer taking an advanced driving test. There is a charge for the test but, if passed, the examinee can become a full member of the institute and take advantage of various exclusive offers including cheaper insurance. (Statistics show that members of the IAM are less likely to be involved in a traffic accident.)
The test examiner is a trained police officer and the test is very rigorous. It can include driving along country lanes, providing a running commentary to identify the various hazards on the journey, complex parking manoeuvres etc. etc.
The test also considers the drivers "passenger & car sympathy" i.e., mind the potholes and corner carefully. Naturally, the speed limit has to be adhered to but it is also stressed that an advanced driver does not dawdle nor do they incense other drivers by hanging around at traffic lights etc.
But ... a message that is given to all advanced drivers is this .. no driver is perfect.
We all make mistakes when driving (yes, even us men) and it is with this in mind that we must be tolerant with other drivers when they are, *in our opinion* driving without the necessary skills. If we are such good drivers then surely we should be looking for ways to protect the inexperienced driver and not to castigate them. In my experience, criticising a driver, whether one is in the same car or not, merely serves to make them even more nervous.
Yes, there are those who are inconsiderate and aggressive and all of the other 'qualities' they would not dream of displaying if they were in a queue at the supermarket or bank ... but it is not our job to correct their behaviour. Do we really believe that the sound of a horn or a carefully formed gesture will make them see the light??.
I am certain that my own driving will regularly fall below the standard to which I aspire. I am equally sure that this will be pointed out to me by other drivers. I would be surprised (and disappointed) if I receive such a rebuttal from a fellow Advanced Driver however and, when you think about it, if you are trying your best and do happen to make a mistake, wouldn't it be nice to receive a friendly wave from the offended party? I suspect we would be more likely to acknowledge our fault if this were to happen.
If anyone wants any more information about the Institute of Advanced Motorists, please Email me. I will try to persuade them to set up a web site if I get enough responses. If you are in the UK and would like to join a local group I will provide a list of local groups; on this message board if there are too many takers.
And finally ..
Today I was browsing a car magazine site and someone suggested a site to discuss bad driving .. why not have a site to discuss good driving instead?
And finally, finally .. a legend from this months Advanced Driver magazine:-
'Never put your vehicle anywhere unless your eyes and brain have been there first'
> We all make mistakes when driving (yes, even us men) and it is with this > in mind that we must be tolerant with other drivers when they are, *in our > opinion* driving without the necessary skills. If we are such good drivers > then surely we should be looking for ways to protect the inexperienced > driver and not to castigate them. In my experience, criticising a driver, > whether one is in the same car or not, merely serves to make them even > more nervous. > Today I was browsing a car magazine site and someone suggested a site to > discuss bad driving .. why not have a site to discuss good driving > instead?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly on both accounts. First, good drivers are tolerant drivers who are motivated to protect the feelings of other drivers. Second, let's focus on good driving behaviors, not bad.
Some of the contributors to this group have expressed pride in themselves about what good drivers they are while at the same time showing a negative or hostile attitude towards drivers who do this or that they don't approve of. Fine -- you don't have to approve of mistakes and wrong attitudes, but you need to be more tolerant. No condemnation or name calling or ridiculing other drivers! If you do these things, you can't call yourself a good driver -- in my opinion.
Let's be proud of compassion and tolerance and forgiving on our roads this Christmas Season!!
Leon James
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ** Dr. Leon James, Prof. of Psychology, Univ. of Hawaii ** http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/~leonj/leonj/leonpsy/leon.html ** Visit Dr. Driving Says...at http://www.aloha.net/~dyc ** "Thoughts are from affections." E. Swedenborg AE1146 *******************************************************
Leon James <l...@hawaii.edu> wrote: >Yes, I agree wholeheartedly on both accounts. First, good drivers are >tolerant drivers who are motivated to protect the feelings of other >drivers. Second, let's focus on good driving behaviors, not bad.
You are not using "good" as in skillful and expert drivers, you are using "good" as in good natured..
Frankly, until the public at large treat vehicles as lethal weapons ( which they are ), the roads are going to remain a living hell to drive on.
Leon James wrote: > Yes, I agree wholeheartedly on both accounts. First, good drivers are > tolerant drivers who are motivated to protect the feelings of other > drivers. Second, let's focus on good driving behaviors, not bad.
> Some of the contributors to this group have expressed pride in themselves > about what good drivers they are while at the same time showing a negative > or hostile attitude towards drivers who do this or that they don't approve > of. Fine -- you don't have to approve of mistakes and wrong attitudes, > but you need to be more tolerant. No condemnation or name calling or > ridiculing other drivers! If you do these things, you can't call yourself > a good driver -- in my opinion.
This does seem to be a nice theory, in a perfect world.
But as is very obvious, this is far from a perfect world. The rules that govern our roads are fairly clear, whether they be written law, or just common courtesy. There are repercussions for the violation of these laws. In the case of written statues, the local and state enforcement officers are responsible for the enforcement. In the case of courtesy, I think that if someone is clogging the left lane of the highway by going the speed limit only, (sure, it is legal to do so, but not very courteous.) or performs a unreasonable maneuver that puts me in a inconvenient situation I am going to let my displeasure be known. This is as much a form of checks and balances as the law enforcement officers are, IMO. People should be accountable for their actions, and as such, should endure the wrath of someone that they have violated in a way that they will think twice about doing it again. If someone is clogging the left lane, and everyone is forced to pass on the right, how will this person know that they are doing something wrong unless the others indicate this with some sort of a action? If I do something wrong, I expect someone that I have inconvenienced to show some anger. If they smile and wave, I probably would consider doing it again.
I guess that I am not a good driver....but rather a realistic one.
> > Yes, I agree wholeheartedly on both accounts. First, good drivers are > > tolerant drivers who are motivated to protect the feelings of other > > drivers.
No. Good drivers are motivated to get the bad drivers off the road in any way possible. (missile launchers on the front of cars would be a nice start for those fast lane idiots)
posaune <l...@erinet.com> wrote: >> Leon James wrote:
>> > Yes, I agree wholeheartedly on both accounts. First, good drivers are >> > tolerant drivers who are motivated to protect the feelings of other >> > drivers.
>No. Good drivers are motivated to get the bad drivers off the road in >any way possible. (missile launchers on the front of cars would be a >nice start for those fast lane idiots)
>-erik
a good idea, but i dont think itd be really practical for my little rabbit gti..maybe a better idea would to be a small dual machine gun setup, nothing really big..it could fit under the headlights or maybe in the front air dam, and have little flaps in the grill that pop open, and then the guns would slide out a little bit..there could be 3 small switches, like on the center console..one switch would pop open the flaps and slide out the guns..the next would bring up the heads up display on the winsheild with all the vital info, ammo and gun temp..the third switch <on a saftey toggle, cant have it goin off by accident ya know> would arm the fire triggers, the lower 2 horn buttons on the 4 button steering wheel..yeah
|
