Road rage and hostility: How are you contributing?
Leon James
I've been reading a really interesting book called "Steering Clear of
Highway Madness" by John A. Larson (BookPartners, Inc., 1996). Chapter
9 is called "The Vigilante: Teach 'em a Lesson" and the way he
describes this syndrome reminds me of some of the fantasies of
retaliation often indulged in by some members of this newsgroup.
Here are a few bad driving attitudes and beliefs Larson mentions that
I've seen some of you express here shamelessly!
1. "Since it offends me, it must be personal."
This leads to the Highway Vigilante who carries feelings of personal
offense to revenge.
2. "Bad drivers are bad people."
Jumping to the conclusion that drivers with poor judgment are malicious
and in need of punishment.
3. Don't let them get away with it -- it's my duty to hit back."
Larson says: "By punishing, Vigilantes escalate their own anger and
the anger of other drivers, thus raising the level of hostility that
pollutes our nations' highways." (p.106). Along with this is the
obsession that punishment "will teach them a lesson" or that "if you let
them off it will get worse."
4. "Bad drivers spoil my trip."
By overreacting, you spoil the journey for yourself and your
passengers.
In all these areas, ask yourself to what extent you're part of the
problem. If you defend the Vigilante syndrome, are you not being
selfish and anti-community? Sure we feel like it -- I do -- but why
should I give in to my baser nature??
Leon James
**************************
Dr. Driving Says...
http://www.aloha.net/~dyc
**************************
Gumby
d...@aloha.net writes...
>I've been reading a really interesting book called "Steering Clear of
>Highway Madness" by John A. Larson (BookPartners, Inc., 1996). Chapter
>9 is called "The Vigilante: Teach 'em a Lesson" and the way he
>describes this syndrome reminds me of some of the fantasies of
>retaliation often indulged in by some members of this newsgroup.
>
>Here are a few bad driving attitudes and beliefs Larson mentions that
>I've seen some of you express here shamelessly!
>4. "Bad drivers spoil my trip."
>By overreacting, you spoil the journey for yourself and your
>passengers.
How about: "bad drivers slow me down, which makes my trip longer, which
spoils my trip."
What suggestions does he have about what can/should be done about the
drivers that break every law on the books except the one that is the
only one commonly enforced? Should the rest of us just live with the
torment of no-signal-using left-lane-hogging exiting-from-the-left-lane
tailgating morons who wouldn't listen to the new age crap even if they
were strapped down in a room with it blaring?
Marc
P.S. when you tell us what we are doing wrong, we will laugh at you and
call you a fool. When you make some concrete suggestions as to what can
be done to improve the situation on the roads, we just might begin to
take you seriously.
Bechi
My personal opinion is that drivers in my area (NJ), learn from each
other rather than from any type of driver's education.
When I first got my license, I was unable to find anyone with the time
or desire to take me out driving, so was only able to get about an hour
total of practice. Don't think that is sufficient to earn a driver's
license? Think again. My driving test at the DMV amounted to little
more than driving around a parking lot in a circle at 10MPH and a
written test. I honestly learned to drive *after* getting my license.
Since that is the level of proficiency one needs demonstrate in order to
join the masses on the highways, I think that would be a great place to
start in improving the level of skill on the roads. Let begin by merely
asking that people can simply drive and follow the rules of the road
before granting them a license.
How do we feel about a half-day course every four years in order to
renew our licenses? Say a Saturday morning every four years? PITA,
huh? But, so is being stuck in a ball of vehicles on the highway driven
by people without a clue. I could accept this, especially if it meant
insurance rates dropping.
Since 99% of driving instruction occurs on the road, from other idiots
(drivers), I *try* to set a good (in my opinion) example. The bitchiest
I get is to to blow the *sshole who just cut me off and caused me to
lockup my brakes to avoid shoving my two-ton Caprice up their little
Camry's ass, and THEN has the audicity to give *me* the finger, a kiss,
because it just *KILLS* them.
James G. Stovall
Hey-I'm for the plan. Think about how much many people in Europe have to go
through to get a licesne. Then we, in the US, can get one witihin 10 minutes.
No wonder people from Europe say American drivers stink.
Jeff Stovall
jsto...@earthlink.net
"I'm God's gift to humility."
1966 Triumph GT6 mk1
John Weir
James G. Stovall wrote:
> Then we, in the US, can get one witihin 10 minutes.
> No wonder people from Europe say American drivers stink.
Most Americans in this ng think that American drivers
stink.
John
*******************************************************************
* No need for me to post my cars, as I have some self-confidence.*
*******************************************************************
RTT
Gumby wrote:
>
> d...@aloha.net writes...
> >I've been reading a really interesting book called "Steering Clear of
> >Highway Madness" by John A. Larson (BookPartners, Inc., 1996). Chapter
> >9 is called "The Vigilante: Teach 'em a Lesson" and the way he
> >describes this syndrome reminds me of some of the fantasies of
> >retaliation often indulged in by some members of this newsgroup.
> >
> >Here are a few bad driving attitudes and beliefs Larson mentions that
> >I've seen some of you express here shamelessly!
>
> >4. "Bad drivers spoil my trip."
> >By overreacting, you spoil the journey for yourself and your
> >passengers.
>
> How about: "bad drivers slow me down, which makes my trip longer, which
> spoils my trip."
Which leads me to wonder why the dependancy on time can make or break
your trip? I find that if I leave a little early and plan on a few
stops with the family (for lunch or to enjoy a nice view somewhere)
I enjoy the trip much more.
> What suggestions does he have about what can/should be done about the
> drivers that break every law on the books except the one that is the
> only one commonly enforced? Should the rest of us just live with the
> torment of no-signal-using left-lane-hogging exiting-from-the-left-lane
> tailgating morons who wouldn't listen to the new age crap even if they
> were strapped down in a room with it blaring?
Allowing yourself to be "tormented" by another's driving habits will
only
take it's toll on your health and sanity, and will not help the other
driver become a better driver.
My suggestion would be to give that person a LOT of room. So when they
do
cause a wreck ... I'm not involved.
> Marc
> P.S. when you tell us what we are doing wrong, we will laugh at you and
> call you a fool. When you make some concrete suggestions as to what can
> be done to improve the situation on the roads, we just might begin to
> take you seriously.
If you give the original post a bit more though you might see that much
of "the situation on the roads" is cause by the attitude of the driver.
By changing one's attitude toward driving, and getting somewhere you can
change how the situation on the road effects your state of mind (good
trip
vs. spoiled trip). Plus you change a little part of the situation
itself,
that which you create by allowing yourself to be tormented.
Of course it does take some maturity to understand these things.
Something
which is usually lacking from this ng. ;-)
--
=======================================================================
\_____ \______ \______ |
\__ \__ \__ \__ | Don't be kind to animals
\_____ \__ \__ | EAT THEM!
\__ \__ \__ \__ |
\__ \__ \__ \__ | e-mail withheld due to spammers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions do not represent the position of my employer
=======================================================================
Cheny
In article <329358...@earthlink.net>, jsto...@earthlink.net says...
>
>Bechi wrote:
>> total of practice. Don't think that is sufficient to earn a driver's
>> license? Think again. My driving test at the DMV amounted to little
>> more than driving around a parking lot in a circle at 10MPH and a
>> written test. I honestly learned to drive *after* getting my license.
>>
So did I. After I signaled before three turns, completely stopped at 2
stop signs, I got my license.
>> Since 99% of driving instruction occurs on the road, from other idiots
>> (drivers),
I agree with this. I should say I only learned how to use brake in
license education. Then I learned how to use steering-wheel and throttle
on the road with many other 'crazy' drivers.
>
>Hey-I'm for the plan. Think about how much many people in Europe have to
go
>through to get a licesne. Then we, in the US, can get one witihin 10
minutes.
>No wonder people from Europe say American drivers stink.
>
My friend from Italy said that in Italy law requires people must drive a
car with a manual transmission to pass license test.
Cheny
Chuck Tomlinson
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:57:32 -1000, Leon James wrote...
>
>1. "Since it offends me, it must be personal."
>This leads to the Highway Vigilante who carries feelings of personal
>offense to revenge.
I agree that revenge can easily become dangerous.
>2. "Bad drivers are bad people."
>Jumping to the conclusion that drivers with poor judgment are malicious
>and in need of punishment.
Punishment? Perhaps. Feedback? Certainly! Poor drivers are not just
inconvenient; they're dangerous to any driver nearby. If other drivers
pretend these idiots are doing nothing wrong, the idiot is *guaranteed*
to continue endangering other drivers (and their passengers).
>3. Don't let them get away with it -- it's my duty to hit back."
>Larson says: "By punishing, Vigilantes escalate their own anger and
>the anger of other drivers, thus raising the level of hostility that
>pollutes our nations' highways." (p.106). Along with this is the
>obsession that punishment "will teach them a lesson" or that "if you
>let them off it will get worse."
Anger sucks, although it's hard not to be angry at someone who almost
killed you. But until every car is required to display a "How's My
Driving?" phone number, we have to resort to gestures and signals to
tell these people that they did something wrong.
>4. "Bad drivers spoil my trip."
>By overreacting, you spoil the journey for yourself and your
>passengers.
Bad drivers certainly spoil the part of my trip just after I have to
deal with them. I think it's *perfectly* reasonable to be upset if
someone endangers your well-being because they're too [pick one:
clueless, rude, impaired, stupid] to drive safely.
>In all these areas, ask yourself to what extent you're part of the
>problem. If you defend the Vigilante syndrome, are you not being
>selfish and anti-community? Sure we feel like it -- I do -- but why
>should I give in to my baser nature??
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 :-)
--
__
___| |____ Chuck Tomlinson <toml...@ix.netcom.com>
/___LT-1___/ Mouse Power!
|__| '94 Vette Z07/ZF6, '89 Mustang LX5.0L/T5
Ron Katona
> Which leads me to wonder why the dependancy on time can make or break
> your trip? I find that if I leave a little early and plan on a few
> stops with the family (for lunch or to enjoy a nice view somewhere)
> I enjoy the trip much more.
>
Actually, you're completely right. This is a bit off the subject, but I
once read a story of a fighter pilot confined in the Hanoi Hilton for
several years. He was asked how he kept his sanity despite the horrible
treatment. He stated that he realized that the only thing he could
control in his situation was his emotions. Although his captors could
cause him pain, he learned that he could actually choose not to be angry
about it. It was the only thing they could not force him to do.
So, if the human mind can control those emotions...
There is another side of the story to become angry about though. I don't
get pissed at the left lane bandits and such due to the time lost. I get
angry due to the _safety_ factor. Disrupting the smooth flow of traffic
causes accidents, far more so than speeding. Of this I'm convinced.
Causing accidents on the highway is something to be mad about.
--
Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
Gumby
In article <329376...@xxx.xx.xx>, x...@xxx.xx.xx writes...
>Gumby wrote:
>> What suggestions does he have about what can/should be done about the
>> drivers that break every law on the books except the one that is the
>> only one commonly enforced? Should the rest of us just live with the
>> torment of no-signal-using left-lane-hogging exiting-from-the-left-lane
>> tailgating morons who wouldn't listen to the new age crap even if they
>> were strapped down in a room with it blaring?
>Allowing yourself to be "tormented" by another's driving habits will
>only
>take it's toll on your health and sanity, and will not help the other
>driver become a better driver.
You didn't answer my question. Your whining about others attitudes
is inefectual at addressing the problem of dangerous drivers on the
road.
I'm tormented by other drivers when they run me off the road when they
change lanes into me without looking. If I just think happy thoughts,
will that change the fact that I'm headed towards a ditch because of
them?
>My suggestion would be to give that person a LOT of room. So when they
>do
>cause a wreck ... I'm not involved.
I give them all the room I can, but there are too many of them...
>> Marc
>> P.S. when you tell us what we are doing wrong, we will laugh at you and
>> call you a fool. When you make some concrete suggestions as to what can
>> be done to improve the situation on the roads, we just might begin to
>> take you seriously.
>If you give the original post a bit more though you might see that much
>of "the situation on the roads" is cause by the attitude of the driver.
>By changing one's attitude toward driving, and getting somewhere you can
>change how the situation on the road effects your state of mind (good
>trip
>vs. spoiled trip). Plus you change a little part of the situation
>itself,
>that which you create by allowing yourself to be tormented.
I see the problem as the lack of proper driver training and the refusal
of cops to enforce any laws, save one, except when pulling over someone
who looks suspicious (pulling over a minority in a white neighborhood).
>Of course it does take some maturity to understand these things.
>Something which is usually lacking from this ng. ;-)
I'm not the problem. I obey every law, except for the only one
enforced, and I've never added to anyone elses stress. I think
your New Age crap about smiling when someone runs a stopsign almost
killing you and your family, and getting mad at them makes me the
problem, and not them, is a crock. The problem isn't the attitudes,
but the actions. I control my actions. I don't take out anger on
others on the road, so it doesn't matter if I get mad. Others take
out their stupidity on me, and that is the problem.
Marc
Leon James
msw...@vms1.tamu.edu (Gumby) wrote:
> I'm not the problem. I obey every law, except for the only one
> enforced, and I've never added to anyone elses stress. I think
> your New Age crap about smiling when someone runs a stopsign almost
> killing you and your family, and getting mad at them makes me the
> problem, and not them, is a crock. The problem isn't the attitudes,
> but the actions. I control my actions. I don't take out anger on
> others on the road, so it doesn't matter if I get mad. Others take
> out their stupidity on me, and that is the problem.
>
> Marc
It's great that you're committed to "obeying every law." However, your
underlying attitude of anger is indeed a problem. You say you "don't
take out anger on others on the road" yet you do! You get angry at
them, you feel hostile, and you think bad thoughts about others. It
does matter because your anger comes out as hostility and
unfriendliness.
This is not "psychobabble," just plain common sense and rationality. It
won't hurt your masculinity or manhood to gain control over your
emotions. If we call each other "stupid morons" (in our own mind), we
live a life of disrespect and disregard for other drivers. It's obvious
that this constitutes being out of control emotionally and morally.
The real challenge is to try to feel compassion. This doesn't mean
putting yourself in greater danger!! This is where you need to examine
the rationality and objectivity of your thinking. Thinking and feeling
is part of behaving. Even if you obey every law all the time and never
make a mistake (hardly likely!), you are still not a good driver until
you bring your savage emotions under control to your rationality and
comapssion.
Gumby
d...@aloha.net writes...
>msw...@vms1.tamu.edu (Gumby) wrote:
>> I'm not the problem. I obey every law, except for the only one
>> enforced, and I've never added to anyone elses stress. I think
>> your New Age crap about smiling when someone runs a stopsign almost
>> killing you and your family, and getting mad at them makes me the
>> problem, and not them, is a crock. The problem isn't the attitudes,
>> but the actions. I control my actions. I don't take out anger on
>> others on the road, so it doesn't matter if I get mad. Others take
>> out their stupidity on me, and that is the problem.
>It's great that you're committed to "obeying every law." However, your
>underlying attitude of anger is indeed a problem. You say you "don't
>take out anger on others on the road" yet you do! You get angry at
>them, you feel hostile, and you think bad thoughts about others. It
>does matter because your anger comes out as hostility and
>unfriendliness.
Are you saying that my attitude is more unsafe than the skills of a
driver that runs a stopsign and hits me?
I never said I get mad. You are projecting. Just because you can't
control your actions and emotions and get mad at every little thing
doesn't mean the rest of us do. I'm *very* unfriendly when driving.
I am *very* courteous. Unfriendly is when I refuse to make eye contact
with any driver, or if I know that they can go I don't wave them on.
Why? If I look them in the eye, they may assume something that I'm
not trying to convey. If I wave them on, I'm assuming legal
responsibility if they hit something, like a pedestrian that I didn't
see. I will leave space at intersections for them to get through and
I adjust my speed to allow people to merge on the highway.
The point of driving in heavy traffic is not to be friendly, but get
where you are going and let everyone else get where they are going.
Being courteous facilitates that. Being friendly doesn't.
>This is not "psychobabble," just plain common sense and rationality. It
>won't hurt your masculinity or manhood to gain control over your
>emotions. If we call each other "stupid morons" (in our own mind), we
>live a life of disrespect and disregard for other drivers. It's obvious
>that this constitutes being out of control emotionally and morally.
So, when the smart moron runs a stop sign and and hits me later tells me
that she didn't even look in my direction I should still think highly of
her skills and abilities? You don't seem to be reading my posts, just
looking at them and pulling out buzz words.
>The real challenge is to try to feel compassion. This doesn't mean
>putting yourself in greater danger!! This is where you need to examine
>the rationality and objectivity of your thinking. Thinking and feeling
>is part of behaving. Even if you obey every law all the time and never
>make a mistake (hardly likely!), you are still not a good driver until
>you bring your savage emotions under control to your rationality and
>comapssion.
So a person who never has (or causes) an accident or annoys another driver
but thinks "impure thoughts" is a worse driver than, say, my dad, who is
a blind old man who was an ok driver in the 40s and 50s, but now has more
than one accident a year (but no tickets, since he never much goes above
20, although he goes 55 in the 60-70 mph zones) but never gets mad at
other drivers?
Marc
Matthew W. Dicksion
Seems to me there's two completely different problems here. One is the
risk of being crippled or killed on the highway by a poor driver. The
other is the risk of *becoming* a poor driver by getting pissed off when
the first poor driver nearly kills you.
IMO both problems need solutions. The first can be solved through better
driver education and testing programs. (I'm appalled, btw, at some of the
driver's test descriptions I've seen here. My own license test was quite
a bit more stringent.) The second should be a required subject in the
aforementioned driver's ed classes.
It is foolish to say that wellness and positive thinking will solve all of
today's traffic problems. But at the same time, there are a couple of
people I know of who *really* need to learn to control their tempers
behind the wheel.
...
John Weir
Tony Esporma wrote:
>
> John Weir wrote:
> >
> > James G. Stovall wrote:
> >
> > > Then we, in the US, can get one witihin 10 minutes.
> > > No wonder people from Europe say American drivers stink.
> >
> > stink.
>
> Europeans, OTOH, use lots of cologne to cover up their BO.
> Heck, have you ever followed a teuton on a hot, muggy summer day? :-P
>
> tony
Hey, Tony, do you think that Ryan will marry the first German
woman with hairy armpits he runs across?
John
Henri R Helanto
"James G. Stovall" <jsto...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Hey-I'm for the plan. Think about how much many people in Europe have to go
>through to get a licesne. Then we, in the US, can get one witihin 10 minutes.
Around here it's about thirty or so hours of lectures and at
least fifteen hours of driving (usually more, or even a little
less if you already have a motorcycle license). Despite that,
about 20% fail the driving test and 10% fail the exam. All this
gets you a temporary license which can be upgraded to permanent
license after 6-18 months and another driving test. The first
part includes driving practice on ice as well, which is done
on oiled, steel plated area during the summer.
>No wonder people from Europe say American drivers stink.
And STILL, finnish drivers in general suck big time, IMO.
From what I've seen, the brits and germans are the best
drivers, while the worst I've ever seen have been japanese.
-Henri
--
###### Henri Helanto ### he...@muncca.fi / hhel...@vipunen.hut.fi
##### Architecture Major #### Nissan Skyline GT-R 'Janspeed Special'
#### Net Admin ##### '71 LS-6 454 Corvette Coupe
### Sports Car Enthusiast ###### Subaru Legacy Turbo STW (my wife's car ;-)
Gumby
In article <3295B0...@xxx.xx.xx>, x...@xxx.xx.xx writes...
>Gumby wrote:
>> In article <329376...@xxx.xx.xx>, x...@xxx.xx.xx writes...
>> >Gumby wrote:
>You missed the point. It IS the attitute of some drivers that CAUSES
>problems on the road. When you encounter the old guy in the left lane
>of the highway doing 55 and get pissed off enough about being slowed
>down to blow by him on the shoulder ... you become the problem.
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.
>> I'm tormented by other drivers when they run me off the road when they
>> change lanes into me without looking. If I just think happy thoughts,
>> will that change the fact that I'm headed towards a ditch because of
>> them?
>We are not talking about "thinking happy thoughts". You need to drive
>defensively. You know that as well as I do. But after such a close
>call
>would you chase after that person and try to run them off the road in
>revenge? Some would. They are the problem.
You make it sound like getting angry at someone who runs me off the road
is bad. Before, you've only been addressing feelings, and not the actions.
Revenge is a problem, but is is a small problem that is easily identified
and dealt with when it happens. The people who run lights/signs to hit
people is much more prevelant, and has a much greater need to be addressed.
>> I see the problem as the lack of proper driver training and the refusal
>> of cops to enforce any laws, save one, except when pulling over someone
>> who looks suspicious (pulling over a minority in a white neighborhood).
>True. Actually my gripe would be cops who focus only on revenue
>generating speeding tickets, and ignore the dangerous driving
>(passing on the shoulder, cutting people off ...). I guess they
>don't carry big enough fines to make it profitable for the town.
>But that's another subject.
It's not the cops as much as the policy. There are quotas (yes, I know
quotas are illegal, and there supposedly aren't any) that the cops have
to meet, and they do so the easiest way they know. When 90% of the
population is breaking a worthless law, they will still give tickets for
it becasue it is the easiest to enforce.
>> I'm not the problem. I obey every law, except for the only one
>> enforced, and I've never added to anyone elses stress. I think
>> your New Age crap about smiling when someone runs a stopsign almost
>> killing you and your family, and getting mad at them makes me the
>> problem, and not them, is a crock. The problem isn't the attitudes,
>> but the actions. I control my actions. I don't take out anger on
>> others on the road, so it doesn't matter if I get mad. Others take
>> out their stupidity on me, and that is the problem.
>I'm not sure I have as pure a record as you. I regularly exceed the
>speed limit to keep with the flow of traffic.
I regularly exceed the speed of the flow of traffic. I don't speed
excessively or in a manner to attract attention to myself. I've
recieved 4 tickets (only two of which were moving violations) and
all of them dismissed. I've never made a claim on any vehicular
insurance, and I've never had a claim made against me.
>When someone does something that almost gets me in a wreck it is
>natural to get pissed. It is also imature and dangerous to chase
>after them to seek revenge. I'm glad you control yourself. A lot
>of people don't.
But when you talk about "emotions" you are attacking *my* feelings.
You weren't addressing the actions brought on by the feelings as
much as the feelings themselves.
>Also, you are confusing mature attitudes toward driving and dealing
>with the actions of others with "New Age crap" and thinking happy
>thoughts no matter what. Maturity and responsibility does not equate
>to New Age.
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.
Maturity does not equate to repressing feelings.
Marc
Tony Esporma
John Weir wrote:
>
> James G. Stovall wrote:
>
>
Leon James
Several people (Marc, Gumby, Leon, Henry, etc.) have their comments
mixed up as we quote one another repeatedly, so it's not always clear
who says what. Anyway, here are some arguments (Marc's I believe)
against the idea that getting angry at drivers who block your way (or
etc.), is OK since the anger doesn't come out in action. I think this
is a common belief, but it is incorrect. Anger kills the body and
pollutes the mind!
=================
> 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 experiencing the stress, is both easier and more effective.
(snip)
> >> I'm not the problem. I obey every law, except for the only one
> >> enforced, and I've never added to anyone elses stress. I think
> >> your New Age crap about smiling when someone runs a stopsign almost
> >> killing you and your family, and getting mad at them makes me the
> >> problem, and not them, is a crock. The problem isn't the attitudes,
> >> but the actions. I control my actions. I don't take out anger on
> >> others on the road, so it doesn't matter if I get mad. Others take
> >> out their stupidity on me, and that is the problem.
(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.
>
> Maturity does not equate to repressing feelings.
=========================
So there we have it -- the false idea that expressing your anger is to
be accepted since it's not immature and since the other driver is in the
wrong. However, feeling anger at another driver is a form of behavior.
Feeling is behaving, even though not the same as thinking (which is also
behaving) or acting (which is also behaving). So feeling anger is
behaving and it is the result of an aggressive, combative, coercive
attitude (motivation, morality, conscience, social responsibility,
etc.). This aggressive attitude towards others always influences your
thoughts and your actions -- one way or another. It's bad for your
mind, it's bad for the atmosphere on the road.
To give it up is mature and healthy and good. But it takes love or
compassion for the other drivers. We all have this love -- let it come
out, let it come out...
--
Gumby
d...@aloha.net writes...
>Several people (Marc, Gumby, Leon, Henry, etc.) have their comments
>mixed up as we quote one another repeatedly, so it's not always clear
>who says what. Anyway, here are some arguments (Marc's I believe)
>against the idea that getting angry at drivers who block your way (or
>etc.), is OK since the anger doesn't come out in action. I think this
>is a common belief, but it is incorrect. Anger kills the body and
>pollutes the mind!
They are all mine (and all snipped).
>So there we have it -- the false idea that expressing your anger is to
>be accepted since it's not immature and since the other driver is in the
>wrong.
It isn't immature to feel anger. It is immature to run someone off the
road because of anger. You obviously didn't understand what I was
talking about when I mentioned the healthy release of anger.
>However, feeling anger at another driver is a form of behavior.
A feeling is a behavior? Please enlighten me as to the basis for this
belief.
>Feeling is behaving, even though not the same as thinking (which is also
>behaving) or acting (which is also behaving). So feeling anger is
>behaving and it is the result of an aggressive, combative, coercive
>attitude (motivation, morality, conscience, social responsibility,
>etc.). This aggressive attitude towards others always influences your
>thoughts and your actions -- one way or another. It's bad for your
>mind, it's bad for the atmosphere on the road.
No. It isn't. The repression and denial of feelings of anxity and
anger is destructive. There is nothing "bad" about expressing and
dealing with anger.
>To give it up is mature and healthy and good. But it takes love or
>compassion for the other drivers. We all have this love -- let it come
>out, let it come out...
To give up an emotion in unhuman. To feel the emotion, and control
the release of it is the mature way of dealing with it. You can't
just decide never to be angry again (and follow through) you can
decide to never take out your anger on others (and follow through).
Marc
Bentley
Henri R Helanto (hhel...@cc.hut.fi) said something like:
: >Hey-I'm for the plan. Think about how much many people in Europe have to go
: >through to get a licesne. Then we, in the US, can get one witihin 10 minutes.
:
: Around here it's about thirty or so hours of lectures and at
: least fifteen hours of driving (usually more, or even a little
: less if you already have a motorcycle license).
Interesting. In the US one can get a recreational pilots license (with
some rather severe limitations) for a fixed-wing, fixed-gear,
single-engine airplane with about the same amount of training Henri is
describing for a Finnish driver's license.
: license after 6-18 months and another driving test. The first
: part includes driving practice on ice as well, which is done
: on oiled, steel plated area during the summer.
Good heavans. This would solve our traffic congestion problem in the US,
as about 90% of the drivers would be taking the bus...
: >No wonder people from Europe say American drivers stink.
:
: And STILL, finnish drivers in general suck big time, IMO.
: From what I've seen, the brits and germans are the best
Come on -- the Brits don't even know side of the road to use!
> B E N T L E Y <
Aardwolf
Leon James wrote:
> So there we have it -- the false idea that expressing your anger is to
> be accepted since it's not immature and since the other driver is in the
I'd say that, since we all are going to get angry, expressing it in a
controlled manner which doesn't affect one's actions is far less destructive
than trying to bottle it up. Then it will just explode out eventually, and
like as not at a completely unrelated subject/person.
Aardwolf.
brandon_sommerville
In article <3297B4...@aloha.net>, Leon says...
>
>Several people (Marc, Gumby, Leon, Henry, etc.) have their comments
>mixed up as we quote one another repeatedly, so it's not always clear
>who says what. Anyway, here are some arguments (Marc's I believe)
>against the idea that getting angry at drivers who block your way (or
>etc.), is OK since the anger doesn't come out in action. I think this
>is a common belief, but it is incorrect. Anger kills the body and
>pollutes the mind!
Pay attention. Marc is Gumby. Mark however is Bentley.
<snip Gumby's rational post>
>=========================
>
>So there we have it -- the false idea that expressing your anger is to
>be accepted since it's not immature and since the other driver is in the
>wrong. However, feeling anger at another driver is a form of behavior.
>Feeling is behaving, even though not the same as thinking (which is also
>behaving) or acting (which is also behaving). So feeling anger is
>behaving and it is the result of an aggressive, combative, coercive
>attitude (motivation, morality, conscience, social responsibility,
>etc.). This aggressive attitude towards others always influences your
>thoughts and your actions -- one way or another. It's bad for your
>mind, it's bad for the atmosphere on the road.
>
>To give it up is mature and healthy and good. But it takes love or
>compassion for the other drivers. We all have this love -- let it come
>out, let it come out...
Let me see if I understand this. Joe Average cuts me off, almost kills
me, and I'm supposed to say "I love you!"?
Is this a fair interpretation of your post? Please correct me if I am
wrong...
>--
>Leon James
>
Brandon
bra...@caseware.com
'87 16v Scirocco
RTT
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
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?
...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.
Bob
Leroy Curtis
In article <57cf1d$b...@news3.digex.net>, Bentley
<ben...@access5.digex.net> writes
>
>Come on -- the Brits don't even know side of the road to use!
>
Regards
Leroy Curtis Le...@baram.demon.co.uk
Mail sent via Demon Internet
Leon James
On 21 Nov 1996, Chuck Tomlinson wrote:
> 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
*******************************************************
Leon James
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, 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#domains">in
this article.</a>.
Gumby
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.
Marc
Chuck Tomlinson
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".
Gumby
Leon James <le...@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,
It already does. It's called modeling.
Marc
ianl...@aol.com
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'
Safe & enjoyable driving.
Leon James
On 16 Dec 1996 ianl...@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
> 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!!
Keith M Ryan
Leon James <le...@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.
John Weir
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.
John
posaune
> 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
darkstar
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
<watching too many james bond movies>