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

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.

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.