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

Bongles

Wongsky wrote: »

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.

Perhaps 'provoked' needs clarifying .

What I mean by 'provoke' is 'do something which you should not have done that causes inconvenience to another driver'. The point being that if I have a habit or behaviour that causes unnecessary inconvenience to people who respond to that 'provocation' inappropriately with aggression, I am also going to be causing the same unnecessary inconvenience to people who respond politely and patiently.

When I read my own explanation there, I can see that perhaps provoke wasn't the right word, but I hope it's clear what I mean .

Wongsky

Bongles wrote: »

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?"

Thing is, though - that's not our only experience.

Who hasn't seen aggression on the road?

I don't necessarily mean metered out to them, but observed it?

I have. Many times - probably most weeks I'll see somebody (most of my driving is on the motorway, so tends to be in that environment).

And don't get me wrong, I see some of it gets directed at ditherers or those that don't have the bloody sense to move to a lane on their left - but all the same, for some, it's just waiting to happen - often to people doing nothing more than reasonably overtaking, and other approaching drivers just expect the metaphoric waves to metaphorically part as they arrive.

Most humourous, though, is when you get two that happen upon each other - that's a rare, but I have to say curiously amusing sight, when a tailgater is held up for a while by somebody and another tailgater zooms up to the party - and then off they go on their merry way, both infuriated with each other in a curiously, but I highly suspect unrealised hypocritical fashion.

Doesn't happen very often, but it's enough to lift my mood for the day, I can tell you...

Bongles wrote: »

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

I guess opinions will always vary - but I don't think there's quite as much difference as you're playing.

Those that seem aggressive, always seem to have some excuse for it - it's rare you get one that just admits they're bloody aggressive for aggressions sake.

Wongsky

Bongles wrote: »

Perhaps 'provoked' needs clarifying .

What I mean by 'provoke' is 'do something which you should not have done that causes inconvenience to another driver'. The point being that if I have a habit or behaviour that causes unnecessary inconvenience to people who respond to that 'provocation' inappropriately with aggression, I am also going to be causing the same unnecessary inconvenience to people who respond politely and patiently.

When I read my own explanation there, I can see that perhaps provoke wasn't the right word, but I hope it's clear what I mean .

I see what you meant, I just disagree with the intent.

I think those that try to use terms like "provoked" or however else you want to word a reaction with violence or aggression, towards somebody not being violent or aggressive doesn't truly count as provocation - not really sure it counts as mitigation, really, either.

Those that can't differentiate between somebody who hasn't the same awareness, focus, intent, or interest as them, but in all other ways blissfully unaware, that aggression is a valid response are highly flawed. It's them not being able to deal with it without having to resort to aggression that's the big flaw. There will always be things to irritate - whether it's ditherers, bloody-minded MLOC, pure weight of traffic, duelling HGVs, or countless other things that hold us up when we're in a hurrry.

The flaw, is that there are some that seem then only able to respond with aggression - and perhaps to a lesser degree, that some see that as provocation.

jase1

The problem is that I think the aggressive morons and the incompetents are both feeding into a general increase in bad driving across the board.

Reasonable, level-headed people will eventually be driven to distraction (pun intended) by both groups in equal measure.

Result: reasonable person hits the loud pedal a bit harder and ends up being a little bit aggressive (and probably considerably less competent) himself.

We need to condemn both groups equally IMO.

Bongles

Wongsky wrote: »

I guess opinions will always vary - but I don't think there's quite as much difference as you're playing.

I suppose I base my view on my own experience as a driver and passenger. Thinking of the classic motorway example, I do plenty of driving on motorways and dual carriageways. I drive faster than some and not as fast as others. I find it is very common that I am held up quite reasonably by slower traffic that is in the process of overtaking. And I find it is very common that faster traffic is waiting behind me while I'm overtaking (at a reasonable speed differential, moving back in promptly and all that good stuff). If there were many drivers out there prone to aggression simply because my reasonable presence is delaying them (as opposed to drviers who might react aggressively if I did something unreasonable that invonvenienced them) then I would expect to be familiar with receving that aggression. I am not. It just doesn't happen.

Of course, another reason views might differ on this is that people might have different opinions of what constitutes aggression. For example, unless it's extremely close (like I can't see the headlights of the car behind), I don't regard a reduced following distance on its own (i.e. not accompanied by things like headlights or angry gestures) as aggressive, because it's easy to deal with and hardly any distraction. Most people follow too close on motorways anyway. I would only regard someone as aggressive if their actions or demeanour diverted a significant proportion of my attention.

Wongsky wrote: »

not really sure it counts as mitigation, really, either.

I'm not sure why you bring up mitigation? Going back to earlier in the conversation, don't confuse the suggestion that the first person do have done wrong might have been the 'victim' as an attempt in any way to argue down the severity of the error of the aggressor. It is not.

Wongsky wrote: »

Those that can't differentiate between somebody who hasn't the same awareness, focus, intent, or interest as them, but in all other ways blissfully unaware, that aggression is a valid response are highly flawed.

You won't find anything in what I've written to suggest that I regard aggression as a valid response. Or if you do, I haven't been clear.

Wongsky wrote: »

It's them not being able to deal with it without having to resort to aggression that's the big flaw.

Agreed. But the fact that some people react aggressively is really beside the point when the 'victim' reflects on the situation. The purpose of encouraging that reflection is not to persuade the victim that the aggressor isn't so bad after all. It's to ensure that the victim doesn't have an inconsiderate driving habit that inconveniences polite, patient people.

Wongsky

Bongles wrote: »

But the fact that some people react aggressively is really beside the point when the 'victim' reflects on the situation. The purpose of encouraging that reflection is not to persuade the victim that the aggressor isn't so bad after all. It's to ensure that the victim doesn't have an inconsiderate driving habit that inconveniences polite, patient people.

Thing is, though, most victims - like most aggressors, are blind to their own flaws.

There's always going to be inconveniences, whether it's things that hold us up, that really couldn't be avoided, people who really should be driving in a lane to their left, people who don't complete an overtake as quickly as we'd like, people who aren't driving as quick as we'd like, people who look like Boris Johnson, people who've got fake eyelashes stuck to the front of their car.

It's how we deal with that.

Now the reason why I have no truck with provocation or mitigation for aggression in these scenarios - not necesarily accusing you of defending it - but just putting it in the background all the same, is that there is no provocation or mitigation unless it's as a response to aggression - and in the examples this thread is talking about, that is most definitely not the case. The drivers we're likely focussing on as being feckless and inconveniencing the intolerant, probably would say boo to a goose, bless 'em, poor little lambs...

cyclonebri1

Lum wrote: »

FTFY

Neither is farting in a lift, but people are still going to hate you for it.

I agree with the gist of your post though. The actions of these people are not excusable, but if you want to reduce how often it happens, the only thing you can change is your own driving. If you are driving a bit slow and never check your mirrors then fix this. If you like to sit in the middle lane, stop doing this.

These sorts of thing aren't (always) illegal but they are inconsiderate, and you will wind up fewer people, and thus get tailgated less often, if you fix them. I'd still happily see the tailgaters stopped and prosecuted for dangerous driving, but since that's unlikely to ever happen I'm happy to just not see so many of them on my back end because I'm making an effort not to p people off.

Also, if everyone drove with the thought of improving traffic flow and trying not to impede others. The overall speed and safety of the road network would improve for everyone, without the need to add so many extra lanes, which will probably be rendered unusable by the middle lane owners club all migrating to lane 3.

Lum, I apologise if I had you for a chap chapess.

But I think we are in sinc, ps, you need to change your username or be more femine in your replies.

God that's a !!!! reply, go get 'em girl, sod what I think :T:T;)

LincolnshireYokel

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It's sad if you feel the need to go to that trouble, you must attract trouble I can only assume.


The one thing that escapes you is what good is a beautifully focused image of you getting a knife in the guts going to do you?


I'm sorry, prevention if the answer, what good is a covert camera for that.??

Either cyclonebr1 and fergie42 are being deliberately stupiud, or diliberately obtuse.

The function of these cameras is it can prove you didnt cause an incident . In Birmingham, for example, the yhave a favorite trick of racing past you, stopping and reversing into you, and then claiming you ran into the back of them, and then making a personal injury claim for whiplash off you. Its called a 'swoop and squat' scam.. And unless you have it on video, you have virtually no defence to such an accusation. You comments are banal and pathetic.

Providing yourself with the means to prove your innocence is hardly a strange thing to want to do. On the other hand driving round waiting to get shunted, scammed or road raged like a lamb to the slaughter really is naive and wide eyed. This is a compensation culture.

Check Youtube, theres thousands of videos on there take from these types of cameras. Im hardly unique having them.

here, heres a few examples:

http://youtu.be/YWvG4KAYJfY

http://youtu.be/Lmpx_2zwPlg

http://youtu.be/3dmo8SiRDq0

Loganfire

women for you:rotfl:

LincolnshireYokel

Heres a walking one., Again, without a dashcam you havent a leg to stand on, and your insurance is ripe to be milked

http://youtu.be/BcGAKqANOzE

I suggest cyclonebr1 and fergie42 get wise to the nastier more unpleasant aspects of driving a car and protect themselves before they become victims of these types of scams. Not to mention the proof it gives you if you are attacked by a road rager.