Road Rage - not my fault... I think!

Lum

Wongsky wrote: »

Thing is, though, is that both factions are largely immovable forces.

You're always going to have the feckess, and you're always going to have the aggressive.

Whilst some, may always hate the feckess, that's not a position the rest of the society should engender.

Agree so far

And whilst the feckless may well be irritating, in my experience, they're not hugely dangerous. The most dangerous I see are the aggressive, because they either have an exaggerated sense of their own abilities, or lack of impulse control, or both.

Agree again. However you can't control either group, only your own driving. The aggressive types are unlikely to listen to reason.

All I am trying to say is that for those who you categorise as !!!!less some of them could well improve their driving if they put the effort in, and are more likely to listen to reason.

For those who choose to listen, they'll have less run-ins with the aggressive type and will also avoid winding up the non-aggressive drivers on the road too, making the roads a more pleasant place for everybody.

As for the aggressive types, eventually they'll start bullying some innocent old woman one day and there will be a copper behind them filming the whole thing.. well, maybe not but we can hope, right?

Wongsky

jase1 wrote: »

I think there are a lot of people around for whom tailgating is just done out of ignorance and laziness rather than malice.

I find them similar to the ones who, when you are in the left lane and are approaching a lorry several hundred yards ahead, will somehow manage to plant themselves just behind you on the lane to your right, then proceed to overtake at about an inch an hour.

Really bloody annoying, and I end up resorting to accelerating in the left lane to shake them off. If I didn't do so I'd end up having to brake in order to file in behind them. Why can't people appreciate that 'overtaking' involves actually going at a higher speed than the car you're passing?

I've encountered drivers like this, too.

Something else I've observed over many motorway miles - and this isn't a sexist rant - it's not - it's just that I've experienced a disproportionate number of women drivers that do it. So you're driving along, and it always seems to be middle-laners that do this - you move to lane 3 to pass, and as you're passing they speed up - sometimes by a fair bit. But as soon as you're clearly past, they back off, back to, I assume, their previous speed.

Sometimes after moving back to lane 1, they'll speed up a bit as if to pass you, but mostly, it seems to be they've got themselves in a lane, and they don't really want anything in their "bubble" of space they'e defined as theirs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that male drivers don't sometimes speed up when you try and pass them, some do, but this motorway scenario, and typically drivers in lane 2, who speed up as you approach to pass, seems largely women - is there some reason I'm not getting?

It doesn't seem to be an aggressive / competitive thing, like some men do, but I do see it quite a lot.

Wongsky

Lum wrote: »

Agree so far
Agree again. However you can't control either group, only your own driving. The aggressive types are unlikely to listen to reason.

All I am trying to say is that for those who you categorise as !!!!less some of them could well improve their driving if they put the effort in, and are more likely to listen to reason.

Not sure I buy it - I think they're just as oblivious and set in their ways as the aggressive.

Lum wrote: »

For those who choose to listen, they'll have less run-ins with the aggressive type and will also avoid winding up the non-aggressive drivers on the road too, making the roads a more pleasant place for everybody.

As for the aggressive types, eventually they'll start bullying some innocent old woman one day and there will be a copper behind them filming the whole thing.. well, maybe not but we can hope, right?

Here's the thing, though - the bimbling ditherers just get in the way a bit, true, it's irritating. But plod largely doesn't care. Now and again, there's matrix signs saying: move left when not overtaking - it probably gets ignored just as much as a hypothetical: stop tailgating you idiot! would.

The aggressive as I said, tend to be dangerous in several ways - often ways that at some point will maybe seem them caught out for.

The problem is, though, most of society always seems about educating the victims, rather than dealing with the intolerant and aggressive.

As I've mentioned, you can encounter intolerant and aggressive drivers on poor saps doing nothing wrong. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nobody hates dithering more than me. But the idiotic, over-confident, aggressive drivers are more likely to mow some poor, innocent pedestrian down when overtaking at a crossing, than some bimbling ditherer, who likes peas and gravy with their pork chops of an evening.

Bongles

Wongsky wrote: »

Not that I don't get what you're saying - but all the same seems like much of the rhetoric, these days, that hand-waves away the innocent as a way of explaining away the intolerant or aggressive.

Explaining it and justifying it are not the same thing. There isn't any justification for acting aggressively towards another driver. In general, if someone does act aggressively towards me, there will most likely be one of two explanations:

1) I was acting perfectly reasonably and correctly. They acted the way they did because deep down they simply haven't accepted that they have to share the road with other people.

2) I did someonething careless or inconsiderate at which they had every right to feel frustrated, albeit no right to respond the way they did.

It would be a mistake to think that the likelihood of 1) being the explanation correlates with the amount of aggression shown towards me.

Wongsky wrote: »

Being good at driving isn't just about technique, it's about attitude as well.

Indeed it is. And part of that is recognising that I get it wrong sometimes. Accepting that and reflecting on what I did to think about whether or not 2) was the explanation for a particular incident is not in any way about justifying the intolerance or aggresson of another driver. It's about identifying my own mistakes so hopefully I don't make them again. It's not always easy to do, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Or I might conclude that 1) is the explanation. If so, there's not really anything I can do about that. I wish there weren't people like that on the road, but there are.

Wongsky

Bongles wrote: »

Explaining it and justifying it are not the same thing. There isn't any justification for acting aggressively towards another driver. In general, if someone does act aggressively towards me, there will most likely be one of two explanations:

1) I was acting perfectly reasonably and correctly. They acted the way they did because deep down they simply haven't accepted that they have to share the road with other people.

2) I did someonething careless or inconsiderate at which they had every right to feel frustrated, albeit no right to respond the way they did.

It would be a mistake to think that the likelihood of 1) being the explanation correlates with the amount of aggression shown towards me.



Indeed it is. And part of that is recognising that I get it wrong sometimes. Accepting that and reflecting on what I did to think about whether or not 2) was the explanation for a particular incident is not in any way about justifying the intolerance or aggresson of another driver. It's about identifying my own mistakes so hopefully I don't make them again. It's not always easy to do, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Or I might conclude that 1) is the explanation. If so, there's not really anything I can do about that. I wish there weren't people like that on the road, but there are.

I get the gist of what you're saying - self-realisation, surely something we could all benefit more from.

And true enough - I agree. Whilst I accept I, on occasion, make mistakes, I try and ensure that they're not ones that result in accidents and / or harm, and that I learn from them.

All the same, it's folly to assume such principles in everybody.

Most of the talk about aggressive drivers, and road-rage, always seems to have a contingent saying "If only the ditherers, could, um, well, dither a bit less, then everything would go away..." but it's just simply not true - and if I'm honest, leaves me thinking most making that argument, sound as if they're somewhat intolerant of those not as capable as they assume they are.

The reality is, both groups appear to have precious little self-realisation, and are probably not going to significantly change in the make-up of the driving population, so let's just bin all this pointless rhetoric that subtly attempts to hand-wave away the intolerant, and see it for what it really is - deflection and misdirection.

Bongles

Wongsky wrote: »

The problem is, though, most of society always seems about educating the victims, rather than dealing with the intolerant and aggressive.

The point here is that the victim (the one on the receiving end of the aggression) may not be blame-free. The fact that someone acts in an unacceptable aggressive manner is not, in itself, evidence that the person at whom the aggression is directed is innocent. Indeed, it's suggestive of the opposite.

If the victim is making a habit, even if unwittingly, of doing something wrong that irritates other drivers, they will be irritating polite, patient people as well as aggressive, intolerant people.

Wongsky

Bongles wrote: »

The point here is that the victim (the one on the receiving end of the aggression) may not be blame-free. The fact that someone acts in an unacceptable aggressive manner is not, in itself, evidence that the person at whom the aggression is directed is innocent. Indeed, it's suggestive of the opposite.

Why would you presume that?

And I hope you're not soon to sit on a jury.

The "victim" may not be driving perfectly - but in my experience are rarely driving dangerously, in a way that serious compromises the rest of society. Not something I can say for aggressive drivers - they do tend to take more risks than are good for the rest of us.

I'm far from convinced that somebody having aggression directed at them is suggestive of their blame. I think the aggressive would always find somebody, even somebody doing nothing whatsoever wrong, beyond merely existing, and happening to be at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Bongles wrote: »

If the victim is making a habit, even if unwittingly, of doing something wrong that irritates other drivers, they will be irritating polite, patient people as well as aggressive, intolerant people.

Perhaps no doubt true.

I'm not about to defend the dithering MLOC, nor those that seem to take an age in decision making - but all the same, I can tell the difference between shit and shinola, and the difference, really, is this: the ditherers at worst probably irritate people, the aggressive, at worst, irritate, endanger, and take risks that the rest of us shouldn't have to bear, either.

Both groups are probably just as oblivious as to their flaws and shortcomings.

The real flaw and occluded middle in all of this, is that the aggressors aren't merely a product of the victims - they'd exist whether or not.

Bongles

Wongsky wrote: »

Most of the talk about aggressive drivers, and road-rage, always seems to have a contingent saying "If only the ditherers, could, um, well, dither a bit less, then everything would go away..."

I think that's because, while aggression is never justified, it's often provoked. There are two kinds of people who might show aggression to another driver - those who are simply not prepared to accept that they have to share to roads, and those who, when given legitimate grounds for frustration are prone to respond completely inappropriately. I think it's human nature that the first kind is much less common.

Wongsky wrote: »

but it's just simply not true - and if I'm honest, leaves me thinking most making that argument, sound as if they're somewhat intolerant of those not as capable as they assume they are.

I don't act aggressively towards people. I am intolerant of (by which I mean I wish it didn't happen) people who make errors that inconvenience others and don't acknowledge or apologise and people who are aggresive towards others. In my personal experience, the first is vastly more common than the second.

Wongsky

Bongles wrote: »

I think that's because, while aggression is never justified, it's often provoked.

That's the fallacy.

True enough - some aggression can be provoked. But I fail to see that it's provoked passively, by people just being feckless.

Bongles wrote: »

I don't act aggressively towards people. I am intolerant of (by which I mean I wish it didn't happen) people who make errors that inconvenience others and don't acknowledge or apologise and people who are aggresive towards others. In my personal experience, the first is vastly more common than the second.

Thing is, though that whilst those that are incompetent may irritate, they are passive - those that react with aggression, not so - and show poor / little (any?) impulse control - a much more sizable threat to the peaceful.

In reality, though, both groups are probably bloody oblivious, the feckless just tend to be easier to spot and avoid.

Bongles

Wongsky wrote: »

Why would you presume that?

Because of what I say in a post I wrote after you wrote this :

Bongles wrote: »

I think that's because, while aggression is never justified, it's often provoked. There are two kinds of people who might show aggression to another driver - those who are simply not prepared to accept that they have to share to roads, and those who, when given legitimate grounds for frustration are prone to respond completely inappropriately. I think it's human nature that the first kind is much less common.

Wongsky wrote: »

The "victim" may not be driving perfectly - but in my experience are rarely driving dangerously, in a way that serious compromises the rest of society. Not something I can say for aggressive drivers - they do tend to take more risks than are good for the rest of us.

No dispute there. But bear in mind that when this topic comes up, it's usually the victim not the aggressor that starts these threads, so we never get to see the conversations that would go:

Aggressor: "I can't believe it. I was behind someone so oblivious today that I had to drive right on their tail, flash the lights and blast the horn just to barge them out of the way".

People responding: "What an utterly unacceptable way to behave. You should be ashamed of yourself."

We only get to see the conversations that go:

Victim: "I can't believe it. I had someone all over my tail, flashing the lights and blasting the horn to barge me out of the way today."

People responding: "That's an unacceptable way for anyone to behave, but for future reference do you think you did anything to provoke them?"

Wongsky wrote: »

I think the aggressive would always find somebody, even somebody doing nothing whatsoever wrong, beyond merely existing, and happening to be at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

I think that's much rarer than aggression as an inappropriate response to legitimate grounds for frustration.