3 ms·

I will be using "you" to mean people that rage in general, not specifically you because I do not know how you react. :) First, you bring up a different subject

by Xurinos 16y ago

I will be using "you" to mean people that rage in general, not specifically you because I do not know how you react. :) First, you bring up a different subject: Are we talking about freeway signs or sidewalks? I was going with the sidewalk examples. Why should the same rules apply? Why would you be angry if a walker on a sidewalk was not following the same rules as a car driver on a freeway? It is insensible anyway: humans are not equipped with turn signals, although sometimes I wish they were. ;) Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your opinion, etc)? No, the signs are not products of self-absorbed narcissists, not for these situations; those individuals may very well fit that profile in spite of the signs, but we do not have direct evidence of that in any scenario described so far. The anger reaction from the perceived slight in these circumstances is. Ironically, when we talk about narcissism, we probably need to self-analyze, too. All of us have a certain amount of it, or we would not be gracing the rest of the Internet public with the bounties of our posts, believing that people might actually care about our opinions. :)

burgerbrain 16y ago
"Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your opinion, etc)?" Are you joking? If somebody is driving slowly in the left lane, they are creating an unsafe traffic condition. It isn't wrong simply because there are signs saying not to do it, it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road. Furthermore, honking your horn is not "punishment", it's a form of communication.
- Xurinos 16y ago
  > it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road. It is surely wrong if the person is traveling below the lower speed limit (be it specified explicitly or legally in the absence of the lower speed limit markers). Otherwise, it is just other people being impatient, and their reactions -- such as abruptly swerving around the driver or making a lot of distracting noise -- also cause the unsafe traffic condition. Note carefully my point, as it ties to my first post: Both actors involved are at fault. Both actors involved are assured they are right. Both actors exhibit negative, antisocial, and unsafe behavior. Neither is an angel; neither is "better".
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Traveling slowly^ in the left lane both causes congestion and creates a situation where passing on the right is likely to occur. Both of these dramatically increase the likelyhood of an accident. The slow left-lane driver is at fault for not following the otherwise accepted conventions of the road. Laws and legal speed limits have nothing to do with it. (however: in many areas the person traveling at slow 'regular' speed in the left lane would be breaking the law. In many areas the left lane is explicitly for people traveling faster than the speed limit (read: passing)). ^where slowly is defined as relative to the rest of traffic.
  - alexqgb 16y ago
    Not so at all. The person traveling slowly enough to break the otherwise smooth flow of traffic is creating a danger exponentially greater than the one created by a honking horn. If they're drunk or severely fatigued (as opposed to merely distracted) then the problem is even worse, and the need for corrective cues from surrounding drivers is even greater. Contrary to what you say, the signal provided by the honking horn - while certainly negative - is actually pro-social and pro-safety, in that it's prompting an anti-social and dangerous actor to change his behavior. Obviously, if this corrective behavior extends to aggressive tail-gating, screaming and yelling, brandishing firearms, or any other objectively dangerous act that makes the honker a part of the problem, then yes, they're both in the wrong. Once the honker's response escalates to actual rage, then he is - almost by definition - more dangerous than the trigger. However, if the necessary negative feedback is provided with a reasonable measure of restraint (i.e. one that's likely to reduce, and not exacerbate the larger problem) then it's a good thing for everyone. Indeed, the willingness to assert yourself for the sake of safety in situations where others are distracted to the point of becoming general impediments is something that distinguished good drivers from bad. And yes, promoting good flow is synonymous with promoting safety. There is an inverse relationship between the quality of flow and the likelihood of a collision.

by Xurinos 16y ago

burgerbrain 16y ago

"Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your opinion, etc)?" Are you joking? If somebody is driving slowly in the left lane, they are creating an unsafe traffic condition. It isn't wrong simply because there are signs saying not to do it, it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road. Furthermore, honking your horn is not "punishment", it's a form of communication.

Xurinos 16y ago
> it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road. It is surely wrong if the person is traveling below the lower speed limit (be it specified explicitly or legally in the absence of the lower speed limit markers). Otherwise, it is just other people being impatient, and their reactions -- such as abruptly swerving around the driver or making a lot of distracting noise -- also cause the unsafe traffic condition. Note carefully my point, as it ties to my first post: Both actors involved are at fault. Both actors involved are assured they are right. Both actors exhibit negative, antisocial, and unsafe behavior. Neither is an angel; neither is "better".
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Traveling slowly^ in the left lane both causes congestion and creates a situation where passing on the right is likely to occur. Both of these dramatically increase the likelyhood of an accident. The slow left-lane driver is at fault for not following the otherwise accepted conventions of the road. Laws and legal speed limits have nothing to do with it. (however: in many areas the person traveling at slow 'regular' speed in the left lane would be breaking the law. In many areas the left lane is explicitly for people traveling faster than the speed limit (read: passing)). ^where slowly is defined as relative to the rest of traffic.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  Not so at all. The person traveling slowly enough to break the otherwise smooth flow of traffic is creating a danger exponentially greater than the one created by a honking horn. If they're drunk or severely fatigued (as opposed to merely distracted) then the problem is even worse, and the need for corrective cues from surrounding drivers is even greater. Contrary to what you say, the signal provided by the honking horn - while certainly negative - is actually pro-social and pro-safety, in that it's prompting an anti-social and dangerous actor to change his behavior. Obviously, if this corrective behavior extends to aggressive tail-gating, screaming and yelling, brandishing firearms, or any other objectively dangerous act that makes the honker a part of the problem, then yes, they're both in the wrong. Once the honker's response escalates to actual rage, then he is - almost by definition - more dangerous than the trigger. However, if the necessary negative feedback is provided with a reasonable measure of restraint (i.e. one that's likely to reduce, and not exacerbate the larger problem) then it's a good thing for everyone. Indeed, the willingness to assert yourself for the sake of safety in situations where others are distracted to the point of becoming general impediments is something that distinguished good drivers from bad. And yes, promoting good flow is synonymous with promoting safety. There is an inverse relationship between the quality of flow and the likelihood of a collision.