Slashdot Mirror


Road Rage Linked To Automobile Bumper Stickers

Ponca City, We Love You sends news of a study by Colorado State University psychologist William Szlemko that recorded whether people had added seat covers, bumper stickers, special paint jobs, stereos, or plastic dashboard toys to their cars. Szlemko found a link between road rage and the number of personalized items on or in people's vehicles. "The number of territory markers predicted road rage better than vehicle value, condition, or any of the things that we normally associate with aggressive driving,' says Szlemko. What's more, only the number of bumper stickers, and not their content, predicted road rage... Szlemko suggests that this territoriality may encourage road rage because drivers are simultaneously in a private space (their car) and a public one (the road). 'We think they are forgetting that the public road is not theirs, and are exhibiting territorial behavior that normally would only be acceptable in personal space,' the researcher says.

1,065 comments

  1. in other news by siddesu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    tasteless people behave in tasteless manner. still no cure for cancer though.

    1. Re:in other news by PakProtector · · Score: 0, Troll

      I thought we did have a cure for cancer? The same one as the cure for Haemophilia.

      You let the people predisposed to both die before reproducing.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    2. Re:in other news by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      That is both scientifically invalid and tasteless. But like the OP said...

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:in other news by PakProtector · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Really? Natural selection is scientifically invalid?

      Perhaps we can have this conversation when you can get over your emotional responses, and realise that morals are not absolutes, and what is right or wrong is not necessarily that which is effective or efficient, or what works.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    4. Re:in other news by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:in other news by RockModeNick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two things. With the cancer at least, the point being made is that it tends to occur late in life, and therefor, yes, natural selection is an ineffective method for for removing the predisposition, since reproductive opportunities have already presented themselves. More to the point, a "cure" is generally understood to mean something that removes an affliction from an individual, and thus natural selection, which acts on genetic trends in a population, can't ever be the cure for anything.

    6. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is if you're in my vicinity ;o)

    7. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really? Natural selection is scientifically invalid?

      My mother died of cancer at 69, having lived long past the age of childbearing. She died of the same kind of cancer that had killed her mother, who had quite a few more children than my mother did, and all but one of those children had children of their own. So yes, your claim that cancer can be cured by natural selection is scientifically invalid, as it does not fit the available data, of which I just mentioned a few data points.

      (Posting anonymously, as I am not asking for anyone's sympathy.)

    8. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To back up MrNaz, may I state clearly and unequivocally that you have very little understanding of the science behind inherited diseases, cancers or natural selection.

      To expand upon MrNaz's comment - it is scientifically invalid because it shows no understanding of disease inheritance versus reproductive age, even if this was relevant in most cancers. Your suggestion is thus flawed (most genetic predispositions toward cancer result in the disease after reproductive age is reached - selection pressure is reduced due to this. This also ignores the fact that cancers are multifactorial in nature, are the result of both genetic, environmental and stochastic factors, have variable penetration, involve epigenetic events, and for those which are the result of genetic influences can be spontaneous rather than inherited).

      In short, please finish high school, take some basic biology, and learn a little more before you spout off next time.

      (This is a very basic summary and ignores such possible effects as antagonistic pleiotropy which may play a role in certain cancers as well).

      Oh yeah, I am a PhD in biochemistry, and I have carried out research on cancer (I've been published in Nature Genetics).

    9. Re:in other news by ubrgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A) Who said we were talking about curing the patient?

      Actually, I thought we were talking about road rage and got off on this tangent.

      And I kind of assumed road rage was caused by assholes and had nothing to do with spinning wheel covers (or whatever they're called), etc. Granted the two seem to go together, but I'm not sure it's cause-and-effect.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    10. Re:in other news by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      Cure is generally used as I explained it's generally used, thats why the joke is a stretch, and thus, easily misinterpreted and less funny, especially since the OP used it as I explained it. Nobody said anything about the good of the individual vs the survival of the species other than you, which is why I think the joke was off-target and got the response it did. I think they did understand it was intended to be humor, and simply found the humor, as they said, tasteless, particularly so since it was such a stretch to apply it and yes, scientifically incorrect to do so using the word cure in the original context. To start a side discussion for fun, it's arguable that cancer killing off older generations at any point after they are no longer effective enough at passing on knowledge to increase the chances of survival for the reproductive age members of the species IS good for the species as a whole. (Note - I am not suggesting we study old people to discover what nutrients they might contain.)

    11. Re:in other news by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Cancer is (at least according to current theory) the result of cellular mutation at the individual cell level, not even at the anatomical level of the organism. It is completely unrelated to natural selection at the species level.

      Read up on topics if you plan on talking down at people about them.

      --
      I hate printers.
    12. Re:in other news by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod everything but parent in this thread: Offtopic.

      I don't have enough points, and will take the karma hit gladly.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    13. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. Ready to play "you bet your kid"? You are now looking into the eyes of your lisping, doe-eyed, sweet-faced toddler (adapted by evolution so that his juvenile face makes adult humans want to protect him). You're saying "Sorry, sweetheart. You have to die because we can't have you polluting the gene pool. Oh, and it's going to hurt. Lots." On the other hand, maybe it's not a worry. You don't sound like the kind of person anybody's going to want to reproduce with.

    14. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      help!i have virii on my lunix boxen!!

    15. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, Jews were not the only people killed by the Nazis. They also targeted the mentally and physically challenged, homosexuals (which is funny, since they don't reproduce almost by definition) and gypsies. So comparing your pro-genetic cleansing ideals to Nazi Germany is technically correct. Not that I disagree with your candour, but I still think we've yet to come up with a fair and reasonable method of defining the "unwantables" (we know there are people out there we'd be better off without, but who are they?). There have been examples of people from almost any group which has been previously targetted for genetic cleansing that have made large positive contributions to society.

    16. Re:in other news by PakProtector · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Too bad people who are able to put aside their emotions and make the hard decisions that need to be made entirely on logic and reason are needed so often, or you could have your perfect little world were we don't exist.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    17. Re:in other news by chooks · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think I saw that phrase on a bumper sticker....

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    18. Re:in other news by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I thought we did have a cure for cancer?

      We do have a cure, cancer cells are easy to kill, unfortunately so is the patient.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    19. Re:in other news by siddesu · · Score: 1

      well, then i hereby authorize you to collect my royalties from the sticker publisher.

    20. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An animal killing its defective offspring is natural selection. So is a human animal aborting a defective fetus before it comes to term.

      It doesn't stop being natural just because we do it. Or because we employ tools other animals don't have. Great. This can be Hans Reiser's defense for the appeals trial:

      "And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this was a clear-cut... um... a clear case of natural selection. Why, to convict my client would be no better than to convict Charles Darwin!"

      Hey, it's California. It's worth a shot!
    21. Re:in other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I think I saw that phrase on a bumper sticker...."

      Horn broken, watch for finger....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:in other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "And I kind of assumed road rage was caused by assholes and had nothing to do with spinning wheel covers (or whatever they're called), etc. Granted the two seem to go together, but I'm not sure it's cause-and-effect."

      I assumed it was cause most often, by idiots going too slow in the left lane...the passing lane.

      I've never understood that mentality really, heck, while I drive pretty fast, if I see someone wanting to pass me...more power to them!! I happily pull to the right (if in the left lane) and let them pass. It only means they will run across the speed trap cops before I do. I love to have someone run 'blocker' for me...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:in other news by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      homosexuals (which is funny, since they don't reproduce almost by definition) I don't know where you get that idea, statisticly gay people have about 0.5 children each.
    24. Re:in other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "An animal kills defective offspring to save resources. That is something we couldn't rationalize in human(e) society. "

      Actually, I'm surprised how many people go ahead and have disfigured and crippled children even after pre-natal testing shows the fetuses aren't normal.

      I don't have any kids (that I know of), but, I've long thought that if I found out an embryo of mine was something like down's syndrome,horribly retarded or missing limbs, etc....I'd opt for aborting the pregnancy, and trying again later.

      I mean, many people have no compunction about terminating a pregnancy due to convenience (too young, not ready for a kid, etc)...it would seem to be even easier to make the decision on terminating a potentially very damaged child, which would drain all the parents' time, and monetary resources.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    25. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, scientifically invalid because you're presupposing that the only types of cancer are genetically linked, which is false. Many cancers (A) are toxin related, (B) occur as the result of spontaneous mutations, and/or (C) are just plain bad luck. There are reasons why the immune system has anti-tumor factors; most people get multiple tumors in their lifetime, which are dealt with (correctly) by the healthy immune system. It's in rare cases when these turn into cancer, although the potential was always there.

      Even if your "natural selection" would work (which I doubt, as many cancers occur after childbearing occurs, so this selection would not occur naturally) it wouldn't be a cure for cancer at all.

    26. Re:in other news by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      I really only want one bumper sticker. It needs to be mostly blank (white, probably), with a short sentence printed in a contrasting color (such as black), in about a nine-point font. It should read, "I brake for tailgaters."

      On second thought, what I really want is circuitry with a proximity detector that monitors my speed and flashes my brake lights and an audible warning if the vehicle behind me is too close.

      Hmmm... Okay, on third thought, what I really want is to stay off the stupid road. It's safer.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    27. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, many people have no compunction about terminating a pregnancy due to convenience (too young, not ready for a kid, etc)...it would seem to be even easier to make the decision on terminating a potentially very damaged child, which would drain all the parents' time, and monetary resources.

      I think you'll find very few of those who are willing to bring a Downs' child into the world would even dream of aborting because of convenience.

    28. Re:in other news by plague3106 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Or you could stop being an asshat and let people pass you.

    29. Re:in other news by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Or you could stop being an asshat and let people pass you.

      The problem, at least in the US, is that there are enough people who will still tailgate you in the right lane if the left lane is empty. And when you slow down, they'll get mad. What are you going to do then, pull over into the emergency lane ?

    30. Re:in other news by Broken+scope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stupid people are attracted to stupid things.

      --
      You mad
    31. Re:in other news by Talderas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's two problems with that. Speeding while passing is still illegal. If the person in the left lane is going the speed limit and passing people, road rage is a useless gesture. The second problem lies when the people that would be speeding try to encourage the person who is passing, yet not speeding, to either speed up or move over by tailgating.

      Here's some anecdotal evidence from my life yesterday. I'm traveling home along the Interstate at 5pm. The speed limit is 65. The traffic is pretty thick, but most of it is doing 60 in the right lane and 65 in the center lane, while I'm cruising at about 70. So I'm passing the 65 traffic in the left lane, when some POS blue car comes up behind me and starts tailgating. Because of the traffic, there's no safe place for me to pull over (the people here generally travel about 1 second behind each other which is not safe to merge into). Anyway, this POS is tailgating me so close that I can't even see his headlights, which is a huge safety issue, since that also means I can't see his turn signal (not that he would probably use it, but it's the principle, and I couldn't know for sure). So I tap my brakes to get him to back off, he doesn't. By the time I reach a gap to my right where I could merge over, the guy whips around me into the middle lane, preventing me from merging over to let him and possibly other traffic pass me.

      I saw him merge in front of a semi before some construction and hoped he had been rear ended by the truck, alas it did not happen.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    32. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually understand a great deal about inheritance, natural selection, sexual selection, et cetera.
      and later
      Cancer in people past the age at which they can reproduce is actually a beneficial adaptation -- they can no longer reproduce, and their genes would be better served by them not taking up those resources so they can be utilised by those who can reproduce -- their children.

      You obviously don't know *that* much about this subject, otherwise you would be aware that those who are past reproductive age themselves can (and do in many societies) help to ensure their *grandchildren's* survival by looking after them while their parents are working, thus increasing the chances of their own genetic legacy being passed on. So in your terms, cancer in the post-reproductive is beneficial only if and when feeding and sheltering the individual concerned is in some sense 'more expensive' to the family than their positive child-care value.

    33. Re:in other news by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You know who else wanted to take Darwinism to its logical extreme?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    34. Re:in other news by vk2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not a bad idea. I was once driving 60 in 65 mph limit and on the right most lane, everyone was happy cruising on the other lanes except for one dude who was hell bent on me driving faster; when he brandished his gun it was enough motivation for me to take the next exit.

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    35. Re:in other news by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      However, cancer that strikes and kills before you can reproduce is, indeed, a bad thing.

      The solution is to let these people die without spreading the gene.

      So, we shouldn't let people who die before they have a chance to reproduce, reproduce? Sounds reasonable. I also think we should revoke the licenses of anybody who dies while drunk driving. Those people are dangerous.

    36. Re:in other news by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      You just keep slowing down.

      --
      Deleted
    37. Re:in other news by corbettw · · Score: 1

      That's funny, 'cause I have a bumper sticker on the front of my car that says "I don't brake for brake lights."

      Seriously, I avoid my brakes like the plague on the highway. And if I'm stuck driving closely behind someone, I watch the road through their windows (obviously not possible behind trucks and some SUVs). So if the person in front of me hits their brakes, and there's no reason I can see for them to do so, I don't touch mine (I will take my foot off the gas, but that's it). I figure, if you brake suddenly, for no good reason, and I hit you, well, that's what insurance is for. And next time maybe you'll just get out of the way.

      (So far I've never hit anybody in this situation, but it's come close a few times. Oh, and if my wife and/or kids are in the car, I don't act this way. I'm willing to risk your life to make a point, but not theirs.)

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    38. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd slowly brake all the way down to 40. He can go fuck himself.

    39. Re:in other news by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I love to have someone run 'blocker' for me... I call them bait, but the idea is the same.

      Speaking of road rage and people driving too slow in the left lane, I've seen people in Houston get around those driving below the speed limit in the left lane, pull in front of them and slam their brakes. While it's dangerous and immature, it does tend to get those people out of the left lane, for a few miles at least.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    40. Re:in other news by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1
    41. Re:in other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "There's two problems with that. Speeding while passing is still illegal. If the person in the left lane is going the speed limit and passing people, road rage is a useless gesture. The second problem lies when the people that would be speeding try to encourage the person who is passing, yet not speeding, to either speed up or move over by tailgating.

      Here's some anecdotal evidence from my life yesterday. "

      Well, for the most part...I say it is generally safer to go the speed of surrounding traffic...and down here...65mph on a highway would get you killed...generally you'll get passed pretty quick if you are going 75 even.

      But, that's another story. Of course there are always special situations, but, the part I was griping about was where a person could either speed up or slow down in order to merge right to let the line of 5-15 cars behind him pass. You can get some road rage when some asshole is driving side by side the person in the right lane holding traffic back. Bottom line, if you're in the left lane,a nd people are wanting to pass you, best thing to do is try as soon as a safe opening happens....merge right and let people by.

      And frankly....speeding up 5-10mph for a few seconds to be able to get over to the rt. lane isnt' going to hurt you. If you weren't wanting to pass the traffic in the right lane, you should have stayed in the right hand lane and not be blocking traffic on the left that is wanting to go faster.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    42. Re:in other news by ztransform · · Score: 1

      So if the person in front of me hits their brakes, and there's no reason I can see for them to do so, I don't touch mine

      I would happily meet you, and then test out your theory, this time you on foot while I drive my car behind you.

      No doubt you will not complain when I drive into the back of you. So let's make a date, I'm keen to treat you like you treat others!!!

    43. Re:in other news by pthor1231 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I figure, if you brake suddenly, for no good reason, and I hit you, well, that's what insurance is for. And next time maybe you'll just get out of the way.

      Heaven forbid they saw something you didn't while you were doing your asinine maneuvers? It's a good thing that both police and insurance would put you at fault. Maybe one day after you go to jail for involuntary manslaughter you will realize you are just being a giant douche.

    44. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm going to get a bumper sticker that says "get the fuck out of my way, asshole!"

      Seriously, though, I have no bumper stickers, seat covers, personalized anything on my car. However, I'm prone to curse at idiots in traffic (they can't hear me, of course) especially when they threaten my life.

      Tami always bitches about my "road rage" even though it has no effect except to let me let off steam. Is this road rage, or do you have to do something like zoom around someone and cut them off, flip them the bird, or otherwise let them know that they have annoyed you for it to be road rage?

      I think Tami doesn't know the difference between rage and annoyance.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    45. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Well, for the most part...I say it is generally safer to go the speed of surrounding traffic...and down here...65mph on a highway would get you killed...generally you'll get passed pretty quick if you are going 75 even.

      Slow down and save gas, repair bills, wear and tear, etc. Then you'll have more $$$, which means less financial strain, which means less stress and rage of all kinds. If youthink $4/gallon is a lot, wait until it hits $6/gallong in a couple of years.

    46. Re:in other news by Kelbear · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Actually, I'm surprised how many people go ahead and have disfigured and crippled children even after pre-natal testing shows the fetuses aren't normal.

      ...I mean, many people have no compunction about terminating a pregnancy due to convenience (too young, not ready for a kid, etc)...it would seem to be even easier to make the decision on terminating a potentially very damaged child, which would drain all the parents' time, and monetary resources. I would conjecture that the difference between choosing to terminate a pregnancy for convenience and choosing not to terminating even when it's a damaged baby are the parents in question. There's a lot of people in each camp, but I imagine very few with feet planted in both.

      It's not hard to understand, the one of the key tenets of the anti-abortion camp is pretty well known, that life can begin inside the womb(starting at different stages of gestation for different people). If the baby in the womb is alive, then it's no longer a defective product, it's now /their baby/. So if their baby can have any joy in its lifespan I can certainly see why they'd want to bring it to term.

      I probably wouldn't though. But then, I also don't have pregnancy hormones flushing through me(guys go hormonal too).
    47. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Otherwise, there would be only one specie in the world and that one would be a superkiller "Alien"-like creature,

      There *IS* one uber-predator. Look in the mirror.

    48. Re:in other news by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Point of clarification: if the person I'm behind is anywhere but the far left lane, I just go around them. And if they're hogging the left lane, I'll go around them if I can. What I'm referring to are the people who sit in the #1 lane with their cruise control set to 64 in a 65 zone. Those are the ones I'll park behind and wait for 'em to move over, like they're supposed to.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    49. Re:in other news by Skater · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't matter whether he's being an asshat or not - you could be doing 70 mph in the right lane in a 55 mph zone with three completely empty lanes to your left, and someone would still be tailgating you. At least that's how it is here in DC.

    50. Re:in other news by somersault · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I would have thought it would be more about ensuring that the child could lead a happy life rather than worrying about it draining resources :p One obvious argument against this is that we wouldn't have people Stephen Hawking if we just aborted everyone who was crippled, etc.. hopefully he is just happy to be alive and thinking but I don't know. Perhaps if he was more mobile then he wouldn't have developed such a keen mind. It's still a bit of a gamble though, I certainaly wouldn't want to feel responsible for someone leading a life as a cripple unless I knew that they were going to lead a happy one.

      Personally, I feel I've got enough mental problems without being physically crippled too. I'd hate to be me inside a crippled body as well. Saying that, if I knew I'd be free of any possible hereditary mental problems then I'd seriously consider choosing being physically crippled rather than having mental issues though - there was one point in my life where I'd just come off anti-depressants (I later found out, from Wikipedia no less, that the type of anti-depressant I was taking was actually found to make people's symptoms worse in some cases, so I assume that some types of depression link in to OCD somehow too), but I'd done it far too abruptly and ended up having a period of pretty intense OCD. I didn't know why I was having all these weird worries about stupid things that I knew weren't true, but then someone told me about OCD and looking back I could see that I'd had it mildly all my life: obsession with certain numbers, always wanting to take the exact same route back as I took to get to a place, having to spin back the opposite way if I'd spun in one direction while doing stuff (like in the kitchen drying dishes for example, if I span round 360 one direction I'd make sure to go back the other direction soon after..), touching things a certain number of times; there was one point in my life where I used to have to bounce on a seat an odd number of times, preferably 3 or 7, before I would sit on it, I stopped after my dad kept yelling at me about it, it must have looked really weird >_> I wish I'd known that it was a recognised problem rather than just me being frickin weird, as it is I was 22 before I even found out what OCD was, and a lot of the things I'd worried about or done in life were classic OCD.

      I guess most geeks probably have some level of autism, OCD or other mild mental problems that are beneficial in some ways (interest in numbers and patterns for example) as well as being debilitating in others.. :/ And it may turn out that you can't have a genetic 'superhuman' that is super-healthy, super-smart, etc without also giving them some serious problems! Maybe the very thing that made Steven Hawking crippled also made him 'smart'..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    51. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Mod the parent up!

      The Saturday before last I traveled to the St Louis area. I'd discovered a year or so ago that doing 50 mph rather than the limit of 65 gave me an extra five miles per gallon, and gasoline was a record prices.

      It was a thoroughly pleasant drive; nobody got in my way. People just went around me on the left as I cruised down the road without using my feet. I was tailgated at times by people waiting for the line of cars to go around me, but that wasn't that bad.

      However, there was one moron who must have been doing ninety who zoomed up to a couple of feet from my bumper and sat there for at least ten miles, even though there was no other traffic!

      I was tempted to brake hard. My car has fouur very large disks and stops in half the distance of any other car I've owned. I could have lied that an animal ran in front of the car and collected a lot of money.

      Why is it that some people think they have the right and the duty to police how you drive, despite the fact that they are not law enforcement personnel and you are breaking no laws? Fifty is legal; the minimum is 45. I've been doing 65 (the upper limit) and had people pass me then slow down to 60 riding next to someone else doing 60.

      Why do people behave like that? Do these people have such horrible lives that they have to ruin everyone else's day?

      Oh yeah, for the "wank wank" anonymous coward who tailgates so many of my slashdot posts: I journaled about the trip. HAND.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    52. Re:in other news by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      It's not cause-and-effect but it is positively correlated.

    53. Re:in other news by Talderas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As you said, safely merge over. The assholes in my city give about a 1 and a half cars length between each other on the road. They travel behind at about 1 to 1.5 seconds. That is NOT safe to merge over, in any stretch of the mind. The other thing is, the flow of traffic is about 70-73mph, because that's just below the point where cops will pull you over.

      Speeding up doesn't help with tailgaters either, because they're always traveling at least 15-20 mph over when the surround traffic as a whole is doing about 5-8 over. They will tailgate you until you're going fast enough for them, so speeding up isn't a smart option. With tailgaters I tap my breaks, I do this three times, and if they don't back off to a comfortable distance I slow down. I don't give in to bullies of any kind, drivers or the in your face kind.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    54. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Natural selection is scientifically valid, but what he refers to isn't natural selection. Most cancers occur after pubery, and if netural selection was a cure for hemophilia then hemophilia would have been gone generations ago.

      Natural selection kills babies, kittens, and puppies. Once you have reproduced you've won the Darwin game.

      That's somnething for those of you who are childless who crow about "Darwin at work" when someone dies doing something stupid.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    55. Re:in other news by HungSoLow · · Score: 1

      There's a BIG difference between mental retardation and missing a limb. As heartless as it sounds, I agree that a fetus with mental retardation offers very little to society, and is predominantly a burden. It's still a personal choice for parents as to how one proceeds in utero, but I wouldn't fault a couple for wanting to abort. As for cripples, missing limbs, etc. I don't agree. If your mental faculties remain complete and you're able to express them in full, such a person can become more productive than you or I despite (or inspite) of the "disadvantage".

    56. Re:in other news by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who said we were talking about curing the patient? Or what was good for the individual? The species' survival is more important than the survival of any single individual.

      Why ?

    57. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Duuuude. cayenne8, don't have kids; for your sake if not for societie's. You are soooo not ready to deal with the problems that come up with even "normal" kids if you actually feel the way you've posted. I don't know about your genes but your moral compass appears to be pointing only inward, and that can't be good for the species.

    58. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are the type of guy responsible for skyrocketing insurance premiums?

      Oh and what would you do if their transmission locked up or something. That could well kill you if you plough into them at a high speed if that happens, with *no* warning of it happening.

      But I guess dying is worth it so that you can make them pull over.

      Cunt.

      FWIW, I am in fact a professional racing driver but do not see the need to drive like a prick on public roads. Drive fast by all means, in fact drive fucking fast, I condone it... I love to cruise at 130mph+, but do it in a safe manner, please.

    59. Re:in other news by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I figure, if you brake suddenly, for no good reason, and I hit you, well, that's what insurance is for.

      If you're so keen to throw your money away (it won't cost the other party a cent, as you will be 100% to blame for any crash), why not throw it away on something useful ?

    60. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Natural selection is scientifically invalid?

      So what gene is it that can prevent DNA corruption? I think we'd all love to know.

      You can reduce certain cancers that particularly gene combinations make us more susceptible to. But you certainly can't cure cancer, not until we come up with a replacement for eukaryotic cells anyway.

    61. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the person in front of me hits their brakes, and there's no reason I can see for them to do so, I don't touch mine (I will take my foot off the gas, but that's it). I figure, if you brake suddenly, for no good reason, and I hit you, well, that's what insurance is for. And next time maybe you'll just get out of the way.

      Well, in every jurisdiction I've lived in, you are judged to be 100% at at fault for the resulting collision.

      You (or your insurance company) are going to pay for the damage to my vehicle, my injuries, my rehabilitation, my loss of earnings, and all the other crap the legal system can come up with. In addition, you might get charged by the police for not following the rules of the road. And your insurance rates will go up since you caused a collision.

      Quite a heavy price just to be an asshole.

    62. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      If you had the time to tab the prekes you could have also been considerate of the guy who wanted to go faster. What do you care if he wants to court a ticket? He will get it not you you should cheer him along and facilitate his desire to troll for the cops.

      It is the "Fast lane" not the "I am going fast enough lane", or the "I'm going the speed limit lane". "Slower Traffic Keep Right" That is an unenforced law in many states, Colorado is trying to begin enforcing it but I know of no others. Note that is does not say Slower than the speed limit" "Nor does it say Slower than you".

      You never know why that other car is trying to go faster. There was a time I had my step son in the car with a broken arm, I got stuck behind a traffic vigilante who was keeping pace with a heavy truck on a two lane divided highway which had no shoulder. Had I had a gun with me I would have shot at him when he started flipping me off and tapping his brakes. He didn't like my flashing the lights and tailgating. Perhaps I should have used the car as a weapon it is actually easier to get out of trouble than using a gun would have been. But then I didn't want to take the risk of compounding my sons pain. In stead there is a jerk who I wish nothing but ill for somewhere in central Oklahoma.

      If the inconsiderate traffic vigilantes were make into an enforcement campaign then road rage would drop.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    63. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I don't have any kids

      Then you're losing the Natural Selection game.

      I have two kids. Linda has thirteen (not counting the dead one). Linda's not very smart, but she's beating me 13 to 2. Clearly, it follows that nature selects for stupidity.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    64. Re:in other news by jason.sweet · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You are not intelligent.

    65. Re:in other news by The+Redster! · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's great that you have the sense to try to get out of the way, BUT...

      So I tap my brakes to get him to back off, he doesn't. Don't ever do this. Every driving/safety article/video I've ever seen has advised against it, and I don't find it very effective in practice either. When you're dealing with someone who's got any combination of commute frustration, ego, poor understanding of physics, and poor understanding of traffic logistics, there's really nothing you can do with your hands or vehicle to communicate danger to them.
    66. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1
      Dang fingers

      If you had the time to tab the prekes
      Make that tap the brakes.

      And I reread it. Obviously not very well.
      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    67. Re:in other news by The+Bender · · Score: 1

      Here's a gift for you.
      Something to help you stop making silly blunders in the future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

    68. Re:in other news by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends on which lane you were in. Were you in the far right lane? Or were you in another lane?

      Slower traffic should keep right. if you are doing 50 on an interstate, you are slower traffic (slowest traffic.) I can understand wanting to go slow, but if there's one thing I hate it's some "hall monitor" who decides that since the speed limit is 60mph, he has the right to do 50 in the far left lane (because, as he reasons, 60 is the *limit* ). I usually run into this guy in the passing lane when I am late for something and need to do 70. Of course, I wouldn't tailgate him, I'd just go around and sneer at him.

      Please tell me you aren't *that* guy.

      I'll make one exception: those semi trucks that do like 80mph. They need the stinking hall monitors to band together and stop them. The police sure aren't.

      --
      blah blah blah
    69. Re:in other news by Wordsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ones who are in the left lane at one mile below the limit are doing nearly the maximum the law allows anywhere on that roadway. You're the asshole who's deciding what rules apply to you and knowingly risking people's lives to try to make some sort of misguided point. Get off the road, please.

    70. Re:in other news by notdotcom.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First, there is an enormous difference between Down Syndrome (Trisomy 21), and "horribly retarded". Down Syndrome is actually considered one of the more benign mutations (three copies of chromosome 21, instead of two) and IS "compatible with life". (The vast majority of severe genetic mutations are not compatible with life, and spontaneously abort) Many (Down Syndrome) patients are able to lead long, healthy, and productive lives.

      I do not know anyone with Down Syndrome, I don't have it, and I don't research it, but unlike the vast majority of genetic defects, Down Syndrome is most certainly one of the more benign, and while the affected person is likely not going to MIT, it is quite possible that he or she can hold a job, live on their own (or with a spouse, or in a group home), and have a productive and happy life.

      I would consider "horribly retarded" to be a person who is unable to feed themselves (ever), incontinent, unable to walk, aphasic, and essentially being unaware of the world around him/her. This type of patient would 'potentially' require 24/7 assistance for the rest of his/her life, never have a chance for a 'normal' social interaction, or even have a vocabulary at all.

      Missing limbs... Ummmm, if fetus missing a limb is enough reason for you to abort a pregnancy, I would encourage you to think about it a little more. A missing limb is about the most benign problem you've written about so far.

      Stephen Hawking can travel the world, do extremely complex calculations, perform countless hours of research and author several books - effectively contributing to and changing the world's viewpoints on things like black holes, hawking radiation, and general relativity. He suffers from ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease for those in the US). He cannot speak, he cannot walk, point, write, or even nod his head. However, he is a genius and has altered the way many people think about our own universe.

      Around the time of his graduate work, he was not expected to live long enough to finish his thesis (2-ish years from that point, I belive he was in his late 20's), however he is currently 66 years old.

      If genetic testing enabled you to abort a fetus because they were highly suspected of developing ALS later in life, would that be reason enough?

      How about someone like Jim Abbott? He played professional baseball in the Major Leagues and was born WITHOUT A RIGHT HAND.

      Can you lump together "Down Syndrome", "Horribly retarded" and "Missing Limbs" into the same category and state that you would be tempted to abort if ANY of the conditions in the set were met?

      I mean, I can understand your idea, but this is why there is currently so much ethical scrutiny in the field of genetics, stem cell research, and abortion. Being able to pick and chose who, what, and (exactly) when to give birth to, although convenient, is not the way that nature usually works.

      It's essentially impossible for me to think of what I would do in a situation where I was faced with a choice like "terminate or go to term" with an unhealthy child, but I'd like to think that I'd make the right decision (whatever that may be).

      Disclaimer: I have ZERO religious belief, I am not against abortion, I might very well choose to abort a fetus who is not capable of living without assistance for his/her entire life. ...and my father is a Ph.D. w/board certification in human genetics, with training from Yale, etc... He has worked both sides of the fence (more affluent and less religious areas often tend to abort, while poorer and more catholic/religious areas tend to keep 'whatever god wants them to have' upon analysis of an fetus's genotype. FYI).

      YMMV.

      --
      Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
    71. Re:in other news by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      The only ultimate solution to tailgaters is a modified diesel car or truck, with the exhaust preferably aimed at roughly the average windshield height of the other cars on the road. Not being in the far right lane, not going faster.

    72. Re:in other news by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I've driven in most of the NE states, and recently in FL. I haven't seen that happen personally.. useually the other person eventually passes as they should. I know whenver I've wanted someone to pass me for some reason, letting off the gas until they do seems to do the trick, pretty quickly. I think I lose 5 MPH before they decide to pass.

      At any rate, for those people, there's nothing you can do. But that's not the story the OP told us, and yes, on a double lane road he should have pulled off to the shoulder. It's not like he was on an interstate.

    73. Re:in other news by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1, Funny

      "when some POS blue car "

      What kind of car was it?

      I have my own "study", that is at least as scientific as the one in TFA. I live in St Louis and have compiled a list of bad drivers. See if you notice this next time some idiot cuts you off. Bad drivers, in descending order:

      1) anyone driving a Pontiac. They drive crazy stupid, cut you off, and are the most belligerent of the bad drivers.
      2) anyone with stuffed animals, beanie babies, etc on the back dashboard. These folks are oblivious to everything around them and are a danger to themselves and others. These are the idiots who pull in front of you doing 5mph when you are doing 40.
      3) anyone with Illinois plates, ESPECIALLY IL temp tags (in St Louis). In IL, people with IL plates drive just fine. It's just when in St Louis. These folks usually have expired tags and are often illegal aliens. Something about loopholes in IL laws make these super easy to get.
      4) anyone driving a Mustang. These are the idiots who always want to race and leave streaks of rubber at every light. Mustangs suck. Stop gunning your engine. Nobody is impressed.
      5) anyone driving a dodge neon (or a comparable car) with *any* aftermarket "bling" parts. It's a piece of crap, and those $20 k-mart plastic "chrome" hubcaps complete with spinners do nothing but draw attention to that fact.

      In your case, I'll bet it was either a Pontiac or a Mustang that cut you off.

      --
      blah blah blah
    74. Re:in other news by PachmanP · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hawking was fine until ~college, so unless we're allowing post 4th trimester abortions he would still be here...

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    75. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You won't save enough to bother with. That is like driving out of your way to sace $0.05 per gallon. If you buy 20 gal that would be a whole dollar! Oops can't even get a Starbucks for that.

      You can save that money if you wish but I choose to get where i am going slightly sooner. I'm going to wear out this car no matter what.

      Or are you of the mind that it is your job to force me to save a couple bucks and go the speed you like? Would you like it if I took my truck and pushed you up to the speed I want you to go?
      My mother in law, a Californian gave me a funny statistic on the savings of driving at 55MPH, which she assured me was accurate because she heard it in the TV. "It saves $0.43 per gallon". Cool. I have heard that in some Central American nation gas is still $0.17 per gallon so driving at 55 will pay $0.26 per gallon there!

      Bottom Line: Get out of the way, Let the speeder go past the life you save could well be your own.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    76. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do knew that most speedometers are off by a few miles per hour, some much more? The law says you must yield the passing lane to faster traffic even if you think the faster traffic is speeding. Anyway, most left lane hogs are also tail gaiters. Once an asshole, always an asshole.

    77. Re:in other news by jonadab · · Score: 1

      If only it were so easy.

      If you are actually passing, you're not tailgating. Tailgating is when you (metaphorically) glue the front end of your vehicle to the tail of the one in front of you and refuse to budge. It's dangerous, and in most states it's illegal, but it's also unaccountably popular.

      I try to get tailgaters to just pass me, I do. I always slow down when there's one on my tail, because it's just plain not safe to go full highway speeds with someone that close to your bumper. However, most tailgaters won't pass unless you slow down at *least* 10mph, often 20, and in some cases you practically have to stop. Apparently there's some really weird psychological thing going on where they feel like they're going fast as long as they're close to the car in front of them, or something. I don't fully understand it, but it's extremely annoying.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    78. Re:in other news by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I "reverse pass" people like that: Move over a lane, slow down and get behind them.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    79. Re:in other news by omgwtfroflbbqwasd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is this a troll? Self-righteous prick? You be the judge.

      If you're not passing someone (and you're not, if you're going 64) then don't drive in the leftmost lane. Period.

    80. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think action is the defining characteristic of road rage. No action, no harm, no foul. FTA, the point is that you recognize that the inside of your car is your space, but that the road is shared space. Road Ragers don't acknowledge that second point.

      I have no bumper stickers. After having been on the receiving end of three road rage attacks/incidents, involving people following me and physically threatening violence, I now carry a .40 S&W. For any of you that think it's OK to confront someone who doesn't drive in a manner convenient for you, consider that.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    81. Re:in other news by ralewi1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'm surprised how many people go ahead and have disfigured and crippled children even after pre-natal testing shows the fetuses aren't normal.

      As the father of a child who wouldn't survive having you as a parent, I would ask that you volunteer to assist Special Olympics and get to know the kids, their personalities, their likes and dislikes... then create a list of who you would kill first, as emperor of your perfect little world.

    82. Re:in other news by Oswald · · Score: 1

      I had forgotten about that one. Maybe these guys missed a correlation between content and consequence after all. Reading that pisses me off more than being flipped off does.

    83. Re:in other news by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't understand natural selection or evolution. We are changing the fitness criteria. There is not objective 'better' or 'worse' genes. Just what works and what doesn't.

      Suddenly, it is not a big deal to have hemophilia or cancer prone genes. Most often, when you see a dangerous gene in fairly large numbers in a population, it also conveys a benefit. For instance, the genes linked to sickle cell anemia also provide resistance to malaria.

      So you can shut up about natural selection. You have unnatural ideas about it, based on wrong headed 'genetic superiority' arguments. You have no idea what good effects those negative genes might also be providing, but you'd gladly do away with them rather than do away with the conditions that make them a liability.

      Do you like playing god because you feel inherently superior?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    84. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Enjoy the increase in your insurance rates. If you're the following driver, it is assumed to be your fault if you rear end someone.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    85. Re:in other news by Talderas · · Score: 1

      My list tends to be similar, with the exception of #1. I'm surprised at the number of Illinois license plates where I live (Ohio-Indiana border). It's like a bunch of people moved out from Chicago and never got their license plates changed. I do know drivers on Lake Shore Drive are freaking nuts. Slim lanes, no shoulder, bendy road and driving 20mph over.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    86. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, since surviving war is facilitated by intelligence then perhaps peace is the predecessor of stupidity. but then the stupid want to start wars (See G.W. Bush) which will assist selection of intell...

      I'm dizzy...

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    87. Re:in other news by AioKits · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, there would be only one specie in the world and that one would be a superkiller "Alien"-like creature,

      There *IS* one uber-predator. Look in the mirror.

      Damn! That thing his hideous! Why the hell haven't we tracked this thing down and killed...it... Never mind.
      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    88. Re:in other news by LordSnooty · · Score: 2, Funny

      Er... bumper stickers?!? SCROLL SCROLL

    89. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      When in the right lane I am fully in agreement the left lane is for passing "get the hell off my ass".

      But. Avoid the brake temptation. getting rear-ended at 50+MPH is not an easy thing to handle if you do not maintain a straight line. Think of car racing a slight tap on the rear can sent the guy in front off of the track. This is true on a highway too.

      Once again the life you save by using a turn out or the emergency lane may well be your own.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    90. Re:in other news by binarybum · · Score: 1

      and how many bumper stickers do you have?

      --
      ôó
    91. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is Tami and what does she have to do with bumper stickers?

    92. Re:in other news by Talderas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Driving an individual with a non life-threatening injury to a hospital doesn't strike me as a reason to be driving recklessly, especially if no first aid had been applied to the broken arm prior to the driving. Vehicles are not stable platforms, and reckless driving only exacerbate the stability issue. The only reason I can think of for an individual to be speeding is a woman in labor. It's not necessarily prudent to call an ambulance to take them, though some people do. If it's a life threatening injury, then you should call an ambulance so that first aid is given and care is given during the trip.

      Further, speed limits still are speed limits. Exceeding them is your choice, but don't pull BS stunts to try to make other people surpass the speed limit. If someone is passing cars and he's doing the speed limit, grit your teeth and suck it up till he has the chance to get over safely. The reckless drivers create idiotic amounts of uncertainty for the safe drivers that are aware of their surroundings.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    93. Re:in other news by dargaud · · Score: 1

      And if I'm stuck driving closely behind someone... ...then you shouldn't. There are legal safety distances for a reason, respect them or you'll end up in a pile of steaming metal. Yup, that's our car during our honeymoon, thanks to the asshole behind us.
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    94. Re:in other news by jahudabudy · · Score: 4, Funny

      then create a list of who you would kill first, as emperor of your perfect little world.

      Special Olympics kids would be way down on my list. First, I'd kill that sorry bitch that cut me off in traffic this morning, then that asshole that flipped me off b/c I merged into his lane right in front of him, then that sorry sack that was going 2 mph under the speed limit in the middle lane...

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    95. Re:in other news by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Well I don't know if it's the legal definition (assuming there is one), but the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines road rage as "anger or violence between drivers, often caused by difficult driving conditions".

      Personally I think the defining characteristic is that an interaction takes place - e.g. the other driver is aware of what you're doing or saying, you get into a fight, etc.

    96. Re:in other news by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      "My list tends to be similar, with the exception of #1."
      Dude, watch the Pontiacs. The life you save could be your own ;)

      I seriously think there are advantages to having IL plates. I think they don't pay sales tax or something, and living in other states that do means they get to avoid the sales tax and buy cheaper gas (cause IL puts additional taxes on the gasoline IIRC.)

      --
      blah blah blah
    97. Re:in other news by AndersOSU · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It doesn't work. I'll admit to tailgating the occasional jerk-off who decides to park in the left hand lane.

      Traffic courtesy goes both ways, if you can't be bothered to change into the empty right hand lane, I might not be bothered to give you the space you think you deserve. So anyways, when I'm tailgating someone, I'm paying attention. Tapping your brakes won't work, because I'm not going to brake unless your car actually slows down. I'm probably covering the brake pedal just in case, and if your too big an ass to change lanes, you won't commit to really brake checking anyway. So flash your brake lights all you want, I'm still going to sit on your bumper until you change lanes - hell I might even take the opportunity to move closer.

      I do this because, (a) it's not your job to enforce the speed limit, (b) I want to pass you, (c) I'm supposed to pass you on the left. See, cars have a larger blind spot on the right, and if you decide to change lanes while I'm passing you on the right you might not see me. From my experience people are more likely to to stupid and dangerous things while being passed on the right than while being passed on the left. So be courteous and move over, and I'll be courteous and not tailgate.

      And yes, I do give the benefit of the doubt, I don't tailgate immediately, and I don't tailgate when there is no space to the right.

    98. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the bad drivers around here drive BMWs, Lexus, and Mercedes. Using the left turn only, or right turn only lane to go straight, 999 times out of 1000 it is one of those three cars. Passing on the shoulder at a light to get ahead of everyone else, again one of those three. Completely ignoring 4-way stop signs and then complaining to you when you lean on the horn, again one of those three. What is said though is the police around here let them get away with it. There was a police officer at the 4-way stop. I got pulled over for using my horn. I asked about the person who went right through the intersection without stopping. I was told that someone who drives a Mercedes knows the traffic laws and would never break them.

    99. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      My car is supposed to get 20mpg cit, 26mpg highway, 20mpg combined. On a fillup-to-fillup basis, I'm consistently getting well over 30 mpg (35.5 mpg combined as of my last fillup yesterday). That's a 45% saving. It's almost like getting every second tank for free.

      Driving under the speed limit, upshifting early, keeping an eye on the traffic up ahead, checking your tire pressure on a regular basis, emptying the trunk of useless junk, it all helps to save money.

    100. Re:in other news by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Actually (and I can't, for the life of me, find the study right now), getting "worked up" and flipping people off, cursing them, yelling, etc is actually worse for your health in the long run for a couple of reasons.

      1. It gets you in the mindset that you're going to be angry every time you get into the car.

      2. When you do "release some steam" you're also increasing your adrenaline, heart rate, and releasing hormones associated with stress.

      3. You also anger people who are in the car with you weather you realize it or not (such as this Tami).

      Just something to think about. I tend to take the "meh...they're idiots, and I'm just going to ignore it" approach. Of course, if I almost get killed, that's a whole different story. But, that rarely happens.

    101. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Actually he was going from 5 to 10 mph under the speed limit. He was not overtaking the vehicle in the slow lane. He was simply impeding the flow of traffic. There were at least 5 -6 other cars in the lane behind me. That is a against the law, yet is rarely enforced.

      Flashing lights and following closely is not reckless.

      He was using his car as a weapon to force me to go a speed he felt was acceptable. Which you seem to find acceptable, as to most americans. But you would probably take exception to someone pushing you should they think you should go faster. Is it only the contact you take exception to?

      Not all of us live in metropolitan areas where an ambulance can get to you rapidly. Calling an ambulance when you live in rural America only delays assistance.

      True it was not life threatening. You tell your kid that you don't want to get him to the hospital any faster when he is hurting. Just don't block the FAST lane while you torture your kid.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    102. Re:in other news by SpiderClan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The way to communicate this principle is not through tailgating or other stupidities. Not stopping because you can't see what the person in front you is stopping for is far dumber and more inconsiderate that using the left-lane improperly.

    103. Re:in other news by hey! · · Score: 1

      Characterizing "road rage" as "tasteless" is rather like characterizing "genocide" as "bad manners". Strictly speaking, it may be accurate, but it misses certain essential aspects of the thing.

      I'd call road rage things like, "self-defeating", "stupid", and "irresponsible". It's self-defeating because it's reacting to danger by endangering yourself even more. That that is stupid is self-evident. It's irresponsible because it's not just a personal failing, it's a breach of a public duty to drive with reasonable caution.

      I think this is very interesting because it is not just a correlation, but a suggestive one. It suggests to me that people who personalize a vehicle are more likely to treat the space around it as territory to be defended, rather than common space as it actually is.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    104. Re:in other news by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

      except for one dude who was hell bent on me driving faster; when he brandished his gun it was enough motivation for me to take the next exit. But not enough motivation for you to call the police?
      WTF?
      Why would you let someone get away with menacing you?

      Call the police
      Tell them the mile marker + color/make/model/license plate number and that he flashed a gun at you.
      He will get pulled over, his car will get searched, and you won't be involved.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    105. Re:in other news by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      So you are the type of guy responsible for skyrocketing insurance premiums? No, premiums are increasing because of uninsured (usually unlicensed) motorists and sue-happy jackasses looking to "win the lottery" on a fender bender. Accident rates have steadily decreased over the last 50 years, it's just the average cost of the individual accidents that's gone through the roof. Also, there's the small problem of insurance companies being thieving asshats.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    106. Re:in other news by breakfastpirate · · Score: 1

      I think the determining factor here is whether the parent believes they can provide for the potential baby. A teenage couple may decide to abort their baby, but then years later when they are more financially (and possibly emotional) stable in their relationship decide to keep their 'damaged' child.

    107. Re:in other news by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Ben Stein?

      No... wait.. the other guy!

    108. Re:in other news by somersault · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, the fact remains that following the OP's line of reasoning, he may have been aborted if his parents could tell that he was going to develop a debilitating disease.. I'm still of the opinion that factors contributing to being susceptible to it could also be factors in making him more intelligent, genes can work together in strange ways.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    109. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      What kind of car? I am impressed that they under rated it that much.
      I manage to maintain about the rated highway mileage in all of my vehicles when on the highway. I am actually one of those who stays in the right lane. I drive about 90mi/day it can help more for me than most. Plus it avoids much of the anger at the jerk who insists in staying in th fast lane and not keeping up with the traffic ahead.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    110. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the world a favor PakProtector and never have kids. Better yet, go right now and be serialized.

      Sorry all but someone had to say it.

    111. Re:in other news by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I agree, people shouldn't be in the left lane if they're traveling under the speed limit and not passing, but that's not the situation that I described. I was actively passing people while traveling 5mph over the speed limit. Your comparison you made is like apples to oranges.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    112. Re:in other news by somersault · · Score: 1

      That's still earlier than those developing cancer late in life, the OP was talking about getting rid of all possible diseases and defects by not having children that were genetically more susceptible to them. I hadn't realised that he developed this after being born, I stand corrected there, but the point is, should his parents have aborted him even if they knew that he was going to be confined to a wheelchair for most of his life?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    113. Re:in other news by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      That's what I do, but it nearly backfired on me once when I slowed down enough to necessitate shifting gears. Unfortunately, instead of going from 4th to 3rd, I accidentally (honest!) went from 4th to 1st.

      The tailgater went from merely unhappy to extremely pissed in about half a second. Come to think of it, my transmission wasn't too happy about it, either.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    114. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So now you are an armed traffic vigilante. Wow, cool.

      Think about this, cars kill WAY more people than guns. If someone uses their car to kill your road-hog inconsiderate ass. They will at worst get a ticket, since you won't be there to say "He was tailgating me and showing me his F word finger" No one will know that it was deliberate.

      You pack your little Smith (Piece of crap if it isn't a revolver) I will simply point my 3000+ lb weapon at ya.

      Quit being a jerk, get out of the way let that person behind you go past. then he can wreck where you are not.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    115. Re:in other news by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Now I *know* you are lying. In the DC area, there is *never* a road with three completely empty lanes

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    116. Re:in other news by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Hey Pak, you do know that the doctors can get things wrong. I was very sick (coma, fever pinning the old glass thermometer in under 10 seconds) as a small child (13 months). My parents were told that due to the brain damage I would have the mental abilities of a 2-3 year old at best. Fast forward 26 years, here I am alive holding my own. I got the best grades among my siblings. People tell me I am smart (I don't think so but what ever) since I can figure out a lot of things quickly. Here I am 32% of my brain useless and no one is the wiser.

      Humans can adapt. The younger one is, the better they adapt. I was never told I was ever sick until I was 22. That did explain why I can't spell and one side of my body is a lot weaker then the other. I went to the doctor and that was when I found out that 32% of my brain doesn't work. The doctors who read the results were looking for a different person. They couldn't believe that I was talking to them and could walk on my own never mind drive a car with that amount of brain damage.

      Give people a chance. If you don't the human race is doomed. Humans need to change and adapt in order to survive.

    117. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let me guess, you're the childless child on /.

    118. Re:in other news by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Agree. We plan on aborting if we find that our unborn would be badly damaged. Aside from our inconvenience WRT money, etc., it's just not fair to bring the kid into the world if he's going to suffer for his whole life.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    119. Re:in other news by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Just about every US state has a law that slower traffic must keep right. In California and Virginia it's this applies *regardless of speed limits*. Blocking the left lane because somebody appointed themselves speed limit enforcer is more dangerous than the act of speeding itself.

      http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

    120. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      True on the comparison but I have been behind the guy who slowly passes cars while there is no traffic ahead of him for miles. This because he is going 10 mph slower than the normal flow of traffic which is well above the limit. He may feel within his rights but he is still an inconsiderate jerk.He is using his car to force people to go a speed he feels is acceptable. Should a speeder do the same thing he would push you up to speed.

      Once again a comparison problem so we are left with the guy who won't allow others to pass is inconsiderate. Not against the law but it does cause road rage. And road rage does cause accidents. Do you want to force the raging driver to be near you when he T.A's?

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    121. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Mazda 626 Cronos. But, every car I've driven, I've managed to get way more than the rated mileage. Heck, I was even able to get 20mpg on an old 3-ton Ford Econoline van w.351v8 on long trips. Driving less than the speed limit, avoiding jackrabbit starts, and lugging the engine (manual shift) will make a huge difference on almost any vehicle.

      People don't want to believe it, but a stick-shift will save LOTS of $$$. I had two identical minivans - one with a 3-speed automatic + electric overdrive (hence, a 6-speed), and one with a 5-speed manual transmission. I couldn't break 30mpg on the slushbox, but with a bit of attention, I'd beat 40mpg on the stick during the summer months. If everyone switched to a manual transmission and drove under the limit, there'd be a fuel glut!

      Also, don't use AC. In the days of the big V8's you could argue that the extra horsepower was minimal. Today, AC sucks an extra 10% off the top - with today's streamlined cars, you're better off driving with the window open - contrary to expectations, you don't increase the air resistance that much any more, especially when rolling under the speed limit.

    122. Re:in other news by evilandi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm going to get a bumper sticker that says "get the fuck out of my way, asshole!" Why? Do you spend a lot of your time driving in reverse gear?

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    123. Re:in other news by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      He was diagnosed with ALS at 21. So you'd have to stretch it to 63rd trimester.

      Which I believe pretty much everyone agrees is called murder at that point. Perhaps assisted suicide.

      --

      Question everything

    124. Re:in other news by fropenn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why stop there?
      What about children that have a high risk of heart disease, or Alzheimer's, or cancer, or obesity, or homosexuality, or baldness...?
      Aren't we all "damaged goods" in some way?

    125. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      I will have to try the AC off. I'm a wussy these Oklahoma temps and high humidity, I have been running the AC. maybe I can stretch that a bit more. My Jeep I was only able to get it to about 18mpg, but then the limits are 65-70 and driving 55 where the slowest is going 70 is just a bit dangerous and I don't want to be where the wreck happens. Much less the cause.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    126. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Oh, yea, sorry about the Ford Van. That 351 Midland is one of the main reasons that I will never have another Ford product. My 78 F-250 4x4 was pure unadulterated JUNK. The best mileage I ever got with it was about 12 mpg. When it ran. But It got about 30mpg when I pushed it, which i think i did for nearly 1/4 of it's miles. :)

      I hear Ford has made it more comfortable to push their vehicles these days...

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    127. Re:in other news by evilandi · · Score: 1

      So if the person in front of me hits their brakes, and there's no reason I can see for them to do so, I don't touch mine You might wish to avoid visiting the UK. Here any vehicle that crashes into the back of another, is automatically assumed to be responsible for the accident unless proved otherwise. It's not a legal thing, but it is standard practice in the insurance industry.

      Furthermore, the highway code requires that all vehicles keep a safe breaking distance from all others, and also the police will pull over anyone with suspected faulty brake lights.

      I'd be very surprised if all of this wasn't also standard practice in your country too.
      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    128. Re:in other news by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      Duuuude. cayenne8, don't have kids; for your sake if not for societie's. You are soooo not ready to deal with the problems that come up with even "normal" kids if you actually feel the way you've posted. I don't know about your genes but your moral compass appears to be pointing only inward, and that can't be good for the species.

      I don't feel it is fair that this post was modded troll and down to -1. Especially the middle sentence is at least worthy of view and or discussion. I think it brings up a reasonable point and to mod the whole comment down seems unfair. The general comment of moral compass likely was enough to offend those who whole-heartedly believe in the mother's choice to abort - modding down so emphatically on just that is unfair.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    129. Re:in other news by belmolis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sorry, but on many roads the leftmost lane is needed for regular traffic, not just for passing. That's why only some roads have those "Keep right except to pass" signs. And no, you don't have any business passing at speeds greatly exceeding the speed limit.

    130. Re:in other news by jholder · · Score: 1

      I hope I'm never on the road with you. Sounds like you have some real issues. 10 over and passing ppl? don't blame them. Blame your own issues.

      --
      -- John
    131. Re:in other news by belmolis · · Score: 1

      It's going to be real funny when somebody brakes because they've seen a cop in their rear view mirror and you, in your attempt to see through their windshield, don't understand why they are slowing down and cause an accident.

    132. Re:in other news by evilandi · · Score: 1

      Slower traffic should keep right Just to clarify; it is legal for slower traffic to drive on both the inside lane and the outside lane in your country? If so, which country are we talking about (USA?).

      I can't quite understand how this system could work. Are you saying that different lanes can go at whatever speed they want? How do you know which side to overtake on? In the UK, we drive on the left, so we always overtake on the right (heck, you don't legally need a mirror on the left side of your vehicle, since theoretically you should never need to use it - although most modern cars do). Presumably you drive on the right, so always overtake on the left, correct? The only exception to this rule is on feeder lanes, such as leading up to a motorway junction (UKUS: "off ramp").

      I'm getting very confused by this thread. Here it is illegal to drive slow in the fast lane (remember, we drive on the left so naming the lanes left/right won't help international comparisons). It's also illegal to drive too close to other vehicles. This is all illegal under "driving without due care and attention".

      Furthermore all UK insurance companies also assume the car behind, in any accident, is responsible for the accident unless proven otherwise.

      It is, however, perfectly legal to slam on your brakes and kill someone if they drive too close behind you, and then claim on the deceased's insurance. Unsurprisingly, this rarely happens; presumably the effects of natural selection rather than us being particularly law-abiding drivers (we speed, a LOT; 85mph on a motorway [interstate] is considered pretty average).
      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    133. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says in your blog that you don't trust Google. I don't blame you! It linked your username to Wes Corbett, 43, a soldier in Ft. Bragg, NC.

      Give me one good reason not to forward your sociopathic admission to your CO and to your car insurance company (probably Geico since you're military, but all the others in Ft. Bragg just to be sure).

      Go ahead. We're waiting.

    134. Re:in other news by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm, I have been driving for about 25 years and have never been on the receiving end of a road rage incidents. Perhaps you should reevaluate your driving. :)

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    135. Re:in other news by phulegart · · Score: 1

      Seems like true road rage just waiting to escalate...

      Why would I say such a thing? Let me ask you this. Why would you put a bumper sticker on your car that said "get the fuck out of my way, asshole!"? First of all, the people in your way would never be able to read it. It would either be backwards in their rear view mirror (if you placed it on the front bumper) or they would never see it (if you placed it on your rear bumper).

      Seems like you are getting territorial regarding your personal space while in a public place.

      Remember, if you are cursing at idiots on the road, you are just another of those idiots ON the road, since your cursing does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. It doesn't even make you feel any better; rather it serves to remind you of how powerless you are in that situation, adding to your frustration and annoyance. You appear to be approaching that point where "Enough is Enough"... where one day you grab the tire iron you keep in the back seat and smash that fucker's rear window because he cut you off one too many times, and you caught up to him in traffic.

      Maybe Tami realizes that getting upset at all is a waste, and will only lead to worse things. Maybe you should rethink your own obvious "get the fuck out of my way" rage and listen to Tami more.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    136. Re:in other news by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Also, don't use AC. In the days of the big V8's you could argue that the extra horsepower was minimal. Today, AC sucks an extra 10% off the top - with today's streamlined cars, you're better off driving with the window open - contrary to expectations, you don't increase the air resistance that much any more, especially when rolling under the speed limit.

      You must not live in Arizona.

      Whne it is over 100 Degree's, you drive wit the Air on. Having the windows down is like driving with a blow dryer in your face!

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    137. Re:in other news by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Quit being a jerk, get out of the way let that person behind you go past. then he can wreck where you are not.
      If there is a jerk here, it is you. All the laws are very explicit about that the right of way belongs to the one in the front, and that everyone else behind ***MUST*** wait.

      In other words, that slowpoke in front of you has no legal obligation whatsoever to let you ahead of him.

    138. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think you know much about firearms. There are reasons cops and soldiers don't carry revolvers any more. Semi autos have been conclusively shown to be more reliable, and the additional firepower is nice. BTW, it's a Taurus.

      I started carrying after a lunatic in a semi chased me through downtown Seattle. He was following people on the freeway 4 feet behind their rear bumper, leaning on the jake brake (illegal in Seattle) to get them to move. I didn't move, and he chased me for 5 miles, running streetlights through downtown. I was surprised to find that an Explorer can not outrun an unloaded semi. I ultimately had to jump a median to escape. The police were no help, nor was his employer, as I got the name of the company who owned the truck.

      I had another fellow chase me after I elected to not let him join the exiting line of cars in front of me. He followed me for a couple of miles, trying to force me off the road to fight. He elected to cease when he saw my little friend. No shots fired, and the look on his face was priceless.

      I don't expect to have to use it, but I prefer to have it. I am a polite and courteous driver, but I don't feel the need to yield to assholes. You can merge behind me, I was here first. The assholes would do well to think that little old psychos like me exist. If you ram me, I'll sue you, and if you assault me, you'll pay. I'm 60+ years old with grey hair, and the courts generally look kindly towards geezers that have had to defend themselves against thugs.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    139. Re:in other news by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      I am in the US. Here, we drive on the right side of the road (as opposed to the left). On an interstate highway, there are usually three or four or more lanes all going in the same direction. There is typically a divider between the traffic moving in the opposite direction. There are speed limits here. Slower traffic is supposed to stay in the rightmost lanes. The leftmost lane is the passing lane. Slow drivers have no business in the passing lane. Signs on the highway even direct slower traffic to keep right. In the passing lane, people will typically exceed the speed limits, if only temporarily for things like getting around an 18 wheeler that is throwing up rocks and so forth.

      Here too, the person who rear ends another is usually ruled to be at fault. But it's in nobody's best interest to do so, so anyone with sense doesn't slam on their brakes to cause someone to hit them.

      --
      blah blah blah
    140. Re:in other news by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Well, geez. Looks like there are a lot of mustang and pontiac drivers with mod points today. Mod me down, but you still suck.

      --
      blah blah blah
    141. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      I did not say we were going 10 over. I said we were on a road where that was the normal speed. Fact is I did not say what speed the jerk was going you simply assumed it. If the jerk in question was holding up traffic he had to be doing less than the normal flow of traffic.

      I would hate to be on the road with you too. You might dyslexically believe that you were going 65 in a 65 when you were actually going 56 and insistently staying in the fast lane while telling yourself that you were doing a favor to all by making that jerk behind you follow the law.

      Either let the police do their job or go join them but don't use your car as a weapon to play vigilante traffic cop. It is not safe. There is another commenter here who even pointed out that he carries a gun, his car isn't deadly enough i guess. Or perhaps that way he can cover his flanks. Fear him, stay out of the fast lane.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    142. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      I'll plead guilty to refusing to back down or otherwise cater to aggressive drivers. However, it may have something to do with where we respectively drive. Seattle is known for having issues with aggressive driving. There are regular incidents of gunfire coming from the aggressor.

      I try to do my part. I stay out of the left lane when I'm slower, I let people in (if you're not trying to jam your way into a 1/2 mile line), and I know and honor the rules of the road. See my other post for some descriptions of the drivers.

      I've been driving for over 40 years. The aggression incidents have all happened in the last 10, incidently as I have become visibly older. And as traffic has become substantially worse.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    143. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      but then the limits are 65-70 and driving 55 where the slowest is going 70 is just a bit dangerous

      Everyone says the same thing. Someone has to be the first. Try going slower in the right-hand land, and watch how other people, many of whom are just "driving by habit" end up following you at the (slower) speed you're going. Those who want you to go faster, let them pass on the left - otherwise, by speeding up, they're robbing you of both gas money AND vehicle wear and tear.

    144. Re:in other news by phulegart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You really need to rethink this whole topic.

      Action is not the defining characteristic of road rage. Action is the end result regarding road rage. Long before Johnny decides he's had enough and he's gonna take what he deems to be appropriate action for his emotional state on the road, he's been yelling, swerving, swearing, and in general expressing his displeasure at not getting his way on the road. People experience and express road rage long before they ever take any "action".

      Of course, "action" can be defined as many different things. Is waving a gun at you through my driver's side window considered to be an action? I'm not leaving my personal space, I'm not driving erratically, I'm not swearing or cursing you out, and I'm not tailgating you. I'm just pissed that you passed me on the right and swerved in front of me. So I decide to remind you that this kind of activity might get you shot if it continues, by waving my gun at you. Is what I have done road rage? You bet. I can even get arrested for it.

      If you have been on the receiving end of three road rage attacks/incidents... you need to reexamine how you drive. I always drive the speed limit, and although I'm usually the only one on the road doing so, I've never in my 39 years (23 on the road) been on the receiving end of a road rage attack. Sure, people might have gotten angry at me driving 55 or 65 or 35, etc... but nobody honked or yelled or shook a fist. You are apparently driving in a manner that not only pisses people off, but is annoying enough to prompt people into taking action against you. But just be aware. If three people ACTUALLY took action against you, how many more WANTED to take action against you?

      Road "ragers" say it is the fault of the morons on the road who can't drive properly. Victims of road rage blame it on the person expressing the rage. Neither party realizes that they are both at fault and both need fix their attitudes and actions while on the road. The rest of us are tired of the nonsense.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    145. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      That is not correct. Slower traffic keep right is a law too. And there is impeding the flow of traffic.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    146. Re:in other news by jholder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More rage and bluster. If you drive like you type, you are in need of counseling.

      --
      -- John
    147. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      I've been stuck in 100 degree traffic w/o ac - I didn't die, and neither will you.

    148. Re:in other news by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Hah. Not in Oregon. I once experienced a similar situation: I was in the left lane slightly exceeding the speed limit while passing some slower cars in the right lane, and this guy came up behind me out of nowhere and got about 2 feet from my back bumper.

      He immediately started flashing his lights and making gestures that I should get over. Well, I figured I would complete passing the other cars and that he could wait 20-30 more seconds.

      When I got over, he got next to me and brandished a nice shiny pistol.

      So, I got to my destination and called the Oregon State Police. I couldn't get plate number because he had a trip permit (try memorizing that number). I did get the make, model, and description of the vehicle and the driver, which I gave to the dispatcher.

      You know what the dispatcher said? I am dead serious here, it's not a joke, and I am not making it up: "What do yo want us to do about it?"

      I replied: "I dunno, maybe START LOOKING FOR HIM!?"

      I don't remember the exact response to that, but it was pretty much that there was nothing they could do and they weren't going to put any effort into it.

      I have voted against every tax measure that would fund the Oregon State Police ever since.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    149. Re:in other news by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      Not a bad idea. I was once driving 60 in 65 mph limit and on the right most lane, everyone was happy cruising on the other lanes except for one dude who was hell bent on me driving faster; when he brandished his gun it was enough motivation for me to take the next exit. I hope it was also motivation for you to call 911.
    150. Re:in other news by diskis · · Score: 1

      That's why you have a sunroof, and a batch of spoiled eggs under the seat...

    151. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      I only take exception to the brand. Smith & Wesson do not seem able to make a good automatic weapon. They make good revolvers. Sell it and get yourself a Kimber, Colt, Springfield anything but a Smith. Stay away from the Walther, they are made by Smith now. I would say a .45 but that is a personal preference.

      Don't go shooting at people from your car. Even if you are carrying frangible bullets you may miss. The bullet very well may kill someone else. If you must pull over for a confrontation and you feel the need for deadly force use your car. It will be easier to defend because people are used to hearing about traffic deaths due to cars. You can also claim it was an accident. (You were so scared you didn't realize it was in gear)

      Use your gun to shoot targets, it's fun. But take it out of your car. Don't give guns a worse name by using it irresponsibly.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    152. Re:in other news by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      I've kicked in the balls, I didnt die either. Does not mean I want to go through it again.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    153. Re:in other news by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I called in a drunk driver once and was HEAVILY involved for the next 6 hours. If you think calling in a gun-wielding driver is going to end with "Thanks for telling us, have a nice day," you've obviously never tried doing it before.

    154. Re:in other news by Thomas+Henden · · Score: 1

      Not a bad idea. I was once driving 60 in 65 mph limit and on the right most lane, everyone was happy cruising on the other lanes except for one dude who was hell bent on me driving faster; when he brandished his gun it was enough motivation for me to take the next exit. Michael Moore pointed out that one bank gave you a free rifle, if you opened an account there, however a rifle in a car is not so practical to point at the target, out the window, which is why these guys give you a free revolver with your used car!
    155. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, let me ask what you think reasonable behavior is:

      1) You're driving along I-90, in rush hour traffic, and a semi truck is coming behind you. He is using his exhaust brake and air horn to intimidate drivers into moving out of the middle lane to let him pass. After all the intervening drivers move aside, he ends up behind you, is driving 4 feet (or less) behind your bumper, and again leaning on his exhaust brake and air horn.

      2) You're in a exit line which is stop and go, and is about 10 minutes long, right at the exit point, and a pickup tries to force it's way into the front of the line. When you don't move, the driver flips you off and starts screaming at you.

      3) you drive up to the gas station, and pull to the logical pump, which happens to be the desired location of a young man who has circled the lot, out of your view, aiming for the same pump. You arrive leisurely, but first. The young man starts swearing.

      I'm pretty sure that my only failing is refusal to cower. I didn't see that requirement when I read the driver's manual, but it was a long time ago.

      I'm sure you are correct in that I have angered others who assume that they are more important than the other drivers around them. But I go to a lot of effort to assure that it isn't because -I'm- being rude. The assholes can go fuck themselves. I wish others would quit being sheep, so that the assholes would learn that their behavior, not that of polite citizens, that is what is out of line.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    156. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      rage and bluster
      I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    157. Re:in other news by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      "I've been kicked in the balls"

      /Should have hit Preview!

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    158. Re:in other news by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet after the first incident you didn't think wow, maybe if I had moved over then there wouldn't have been a high speed chase through downtown Seattle?
      I am a polite and courteous driver, but I don't feel the need to yield to assholes.
      Newsflash you aren't, if you were you probably wouldn't have been chased down twice. I'm 60+ years old with grey hair,
      Too bad age!= wisdom. HTH.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    159. Re:in other news by aevan · · Score: 1

      Why a woman in labour? It's not like for millenia they gave birth without hospitals or such.

      It also depends on your distance to the hospital: first aid given on the trip sounds great, but that ambulance still has to drive out to (and find) you first. Factor in making the call (getting to a phone and describing the location), can be precious minutes.

      Obligatory anecdote: Before cell phones become common, before the emergency numbering system for rural addresses was put out here, neighbour's 3-year-old kid tripped blowing on a recorder. Rather nicely gashed out his throat and was choking on the blood. Crasy mommy got her kid 15km to the hospital in about 5 minutes, about 3 or so faster than the ambulance that came for another neighbour's heartattack.

      Caveat: crasy mommy also blew every light and were it not the hour of the day, likely been delayed 20 minutes while they extracted her from the wreck. Lights+Siren give an edge to ambulance for safety of the trip.

    160. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Um, 40 S&W is a cartridge. One that has better stopping power, and lower risk of over penetration than a .45 acp.

      In my own experience, and that of most folks, you get most of the value of having a gun simply from being able to display it if needed. If you're pulling the trigger, you're in a bad place. I'm well aware of the responsibilities and risks involved, having had a concealed carry license for a long, long time.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    161. Re:in other news by dorito234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're obviously never had kids. Do you have any idea how often the triple-screen (or now quad-screen) is wrong? I've personally known 3 different families who had learned during the pregnancy that their child supposedly had some deformality or defect, only to learn these predictions were false once the baby was born. Science isn't 100%, as much as some people here would like to believe.

    162. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      It won't really matter in 10 years anyway. Once Lake Mead goes dry, you'll be moving to better climes.

    163. Re:in other news by raehl · · Score: 1

      In the US, in MOST states, you are supposed to stay in the right lane except to pass.

      Except, this is not enforced. If you drive 15 MPH over the limit, you'll get pulled over. But no one ever gets pulled over for driving 10 MPH under the limit in the left lane.

      In addition to that, the driver licensing requirements in the US are far less significant than in Europe. So in Europe, drivers have been taught the concept of passing. Not so much in the US. So you have a bunch of untrained drivers who drive whatever speed they want in whatever lane they want, because they were never taught otherwise, either as part of driver education or by getting ticketed.

      Oftentimes, when there are three or more lanes of traffic, the FASTEST lane to drive in is actually the right one, since nobody actually drives in it.

    164. Re:in other news by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      A trimester is three months, so there are four trimesters in a year, and you also forgot to add the 3 trimesters of pregnancy.

      4*21 + 3 = 87, So we're looking at an abortion after the 87th trimester

      Normally, I would have to ask you to turn in your nerd badge, but I realize it's not fair to expect a slashdotter to know about something that involves a woman's body.

    165. Re:in other news by billcopc · · Score: 1

      I think it's normal to curse at every other car on the freeway... you're actually going easy on the other 50% who are probably idiots too. Let's face it: bad drivers put your health and safety in immediate danger, and their vehicles become weapons.

      Road rage is a reality of life, and I sometimes make a point of drawing attention if I'm really pissed off at someone, either by cutting them off (payback) or by tailgating like a psychopath... but it takes a lot to bring me to such vengeful anger.

      I draw the line at wackos who get out of the vehicle and physically attack others, that's just nuts! As much as I'd love to crush people's skulls over their driving habits, it's just not necessary and won't solve anything. There are billions of idiots in the world, we can't kill them all.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    166. Re:in other news by jake+jackson · · Score: 1

      so you're the guy in every group of friends that's considered, "the pussy" ? you should've slowed down. he wouldn't of fired at you

    167. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1
      And to respond to your driving comments.

      1. I didn't move, and he chased me for 5 miles,
      2. I elected to not let him join the exiting line of cars in front of me.
      Are you equally rude in all that you do? If you are standing in front of a door do you refuse to let others pass because you were there first? If you are walking across a street do you stand there and block cars, because you have the right-of-way? If memory serves from traffic school, when merging the car which is ahead has the right-of-way. Plus bull-headedly forcing him to move forward or back simply adds to the congestion.

      From what you say you are a rude driver, questionably legal, but definitely rude.

      the courts generally look kindly towards geezers that have had to defend themselves against thugs
      And that you will survive to make it to court. The accident may well kill you, geezers die easier than young ones. Also you are assuming that you are the only armed combatant. You may feel lucky that you don't live in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado or any state that has a high number of armed citizens. As Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society." There are more polite drivers here in the middle than on the left coast. Possibly because that other guy may just be armed too.

      In your two scenarios if you had simply allowed the other to pass or merge what would it have cost you? Even a whole minute? I doubt it. As it is you described two very scary situations. Both of which could have been avoided by a little common courtesy. at a cost of less than a minute of your life. You also put others at risk while you and your adversaries drove around the city paying more attention to your fear/anger than to the traffic.

      Maybe your minutes are more important to you than mine are to me, but I would rather avoid the stress and make it home to see my grandkids, even if it is a couple of minutes later. I quit trying to teach others how to drive a long time ago.

      Yes, I drive fast and hate road hogs but fighting while in the deadliest weapon ever invented (Cars) is not on my list of things to do.
      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    168. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Well, we differ in our opinions. I wasn't aware that politeness requires that one submit to aggression. Miss Manners, in general, agrees with me.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    169. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is the right lane the fast (or overtaking) lane where you live? ie were you in the overtaking lane and hell bent on cruising along at the exact same speed as the car alongside you in the other lane, just to make sure that no car behind you has any hope of eventually having a gap that they can use to get around you?

      That is what really sets me off, though like some of the earlier writers and as my gf would attest, I vent my anger through impotent swearing and occasional farting, and I also have no car decorations at all.

      What pisses me off more is when my gf opens her big mouth to defend the fools that I'm swearing about and to criticise me for simply blowing off steam (or other gas).

    170. Re:in other news by debatem1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to have a lot of road rage incidents. My thinking, as a guy with a "This vehicle insured by Smith and Wesson" bumper sticker, is that maybe you're doing it wrong.

      Also, you wouldn't happen to be carrying the Taurus PT-92 in .40, would you?

    171. Re:in other news by Spoke · · Score: 1

      So I tap my brakes to get him to back off, he doesn't. While I hate tailgaters just as much as the next guy, I hate people who tap their brakes or even worse brake check people for no apparent reason, other than to send them a signal. (And that's not to say I haven't been guilty of doing the same in the past!)

      It's much safer to simply ease off the gas a bit to ensure that you have plenty of space in front of you to account for the lack of space behind you. If you have plenty of space in front, continue at your current rate of speed and move to the right at the next safe opportunity.

      The problem with tapping your brakes is that it only further enrages the driver behind you who is very likely already frustrated and already on the verge of road rage if not already. It makes an already unsafe situation worse by further annoying the driver behind you and escalating the situation by encouraging him to look for narrow gaps in traffic to pass.

      Again, this is speaking as someone who has been on both sides of the situation.
    172. Re:in other news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If the person in front is willing to lie to the cops "I saw something and braked" then the person in back can lie as well, "I was traveling down the road and this maniac pulled out, passed me, and slammed on his brakes, causing the crash." If both are liars, then it won't be the "automatic" fault people assert. There is nothing automatic about it, and no place I know of codifies the assumed "the person at the back is at fault" that everyone says. If someone in front brakes to scare or annoy others, then they are at fault, regardless of what lies they tell later to get out of it. Or are you asserting that if the person in front tells the cops "I saw him behind me, slowed a little to bring him in close, then slammed on the brakes so he'd hit me" that they would still find the person in back at fault?

      Oh, and the Texas Transportaion Institute (look them up, the TTI is big and internationally known) did a study and it was published stating that 2 seconds was the worst distance to follow. Less than that increased crashes, but significantly decreased fatalities. Have a thought about that, if someone is following you closely, they are less likely to kill you. But facts always get in the way of a good rant. I don't have many regrets in life, but one of them was finding that in the library and not going out and buying my own copy, as I have no idea how to find it again.

    173. Re:in other news by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Maybe,

      But Arizona does not get water from lake mead. Lake mead is filled form the colorado river, the same river where Arizona does get 34% of it's water, and half of that water goes to places other then Maricopa County (Where Most the Population goes too). But a treaty between the states about the river water keep them from damning arizona's portion of the water. And even if the colorado were to dry up, Arizona would still be fine. Yeah, we might ahve to get rid of our 300 plus gold courses, each with thier own lakes/ponds, but we'd still be able to live here.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    174. Re:in other news by ne0n · · Score: 1

      ... and in the rear-view mirror.
      :)

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    175. Re:in other news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So I tap my brakes to get him to back off, he doesn't.

      Not that you'll stop, but you should never do that. Why would you tap your brakes? You say to get them to back off, but that didn't work. I would submit that it decreases your safety, not increases it. The few times (if any) someone has decided to back way off because of that, are off-set by the greater annoyance by the person behind when you are already blocking them (whether right or wrong, assigning no fault, you are where they want to be, so that is blocking) and you show them that not only do you know you are blocking them, but you are taunting them about it as well. Tapping your brakes decreases your safety, not increases it, and the only "function" it serves is to make you feel like you have some control over the person behind you. You don't. Give it up and don't try, because your tries have the opposite effect of what you would state you want.

    176. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      PT-140. Good little gun, and surprisingly accurate for a concealable.

      I don't think 3 incidents over a 10+ year period is likely to be statistically unusual. I suspect that I'm one standard deviation out, but not two. Seattle is known to have a problem with aggressive drivers, leading to recent special enforcement teams. I just react differently than some other folks.

      Certainly I'm not acting like Gandhi, but I'm not looking for trouble, either. As I have said elsewhere, I don't think it's the responsibility of citizens to knuckle under to thugs, which is what I consider aggressive drivers to be.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    177. Re:in other news by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I hope you can cite these laws you speak of. In Illinois, if you're in the left lane and people are behind you because you won't move over, it's a $150 ticket, speed limit be damned.

    178. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Brandishing is illegal in Oklahoma and i would guess anywhere for the simple reason that is is insanely dangerous.
      If you pull a gun only as a deterrent, not meaning to use it, if your your opponent is armed he is going to shoot you, in self defense. And he will not have the delays in his pulling of the trigger.

      The first thing they teach in the concealed carry class is; "Do not pull your gun unless you intend to kill someone". This is actually one of the scenarios that ALL CC classes discuss. You can tell an angry assailant that you will have to defend yourself if he persists but if he sees the gun, you should be squeezing the trigger to make it the last thing he ever sees. Then you will need an average of $50,000.00 to defend yourself in the legal aftermath.

      Do yourself a favor, put the gun in the house, or sell it. Learn to let the other guys bad driving not affect you so much. Maybe he feels he has an emergency, let him go. Let him catch the cop.

      Your idea of gun use scares the hell out of me, and I am a Lifetime NRA member.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    179. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Well, we differ. I think it is part of a citizen's duty to resist thuggery, which is what I consider these actions to be. Aggressive drivers stay that way because their behavior is rewarded.

      I don't think it is courtesy to yield to aggression. I'm happy to let people in, for example, and freely move over when possible to allow merging. I object to people jamming into the front of a merge lane, when others have waited patiently and safely. This behavior persists because we as a society allow it. I think that is objectionable.

      I agree with Mr. Heinlein. I am the instantiation thereof.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    180. Re:in other news by universalconstant · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. Hopefully he'll get pulled over for dangerous driving before anyone gets hurt. Someone who thinks it's okay to risk other peoples lives over an opinion doesn't deserve to have a driving license.

    181. Re:in other news by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      Another problem is that obstructing traffic is also illegal in many states. Regardless of your speed vs the posted speed limit. Unfortunately, it's rarely enforced.

      My opinion is that your particular anecdotal isn't likely to induce much of a road rage in most drivers. The active blockers tend to be the ones pissing people off. However, not only do I get out of other drivers way as quickly as possible as a courtesy to them (I personally speed up to do so), I also do it as a form of self preservation; particularly in regard to someone that's obviously hell bent on getting somewhere. The sooner someone driving erratically is away from my vehicle, the happier I am.

    182. Re:in other news by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      The researchers said "we think blah blah" not "this proves blah blah." So let's not get huffy about what they conclude. It's just conjecture. So what if your opinion differs from theirs? In my opinion, this is a perfectly useless and ineffective study.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    183. Re:in other news by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I dare say that's the first spoonerism I've seen that was born as a typo. Bravo!

    184. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm most certainly NOT *that guy*. People who drive slow in the left lane piss me off no end. The only thing worse is when you're doing the speed limit, and some asshat passes you at a high rate of speed (85 in a 65), then slows down to ride next to someone going slow in the right lane, blocking traffic.

      And I saw something that warmed my heart, something I seldom see on the highway, especially in Illinois.

      I saw a semi that the State Police had pulled over!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    185. Re:in other news by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      You might want to run your statement by a traffic cop. I'm sure they could clarify the issue for you.

      Or you could just check your local traffic statues online. Perhaps you live in a state that doesn't have that one on the books. There are probably some out there somewhere.

    186. Re:in other news by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      Blocking traffic is also aggressive. Having said that, I understand your sentiment and emotions. I've been working really hard on yielding to people in what I call "the asshole lane". It's that lane on the right hand side that goes away on the other side of the intersection. Favorite place for people to try to race ahead of traffic and force their way in at the last minute. Being only partially successful at tempering my ego, I tend toward using the leftmost lane when possible just to avoid the whole scenario.

    187. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Sadly I have friends that live in your area. They may come to harm due to what sounds like overly aggressive behavior on your part. But maybe I am wrong, maybe you will teach all of those other aggressive drivers how to drive. I'll keep my eye on the Seattle stats.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    188. Re:in other news by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      It is automatic fault, even if it doesn't mean it's always fair. A driver must be able to hit the brakes using reflexes, without having to think about the legality of his move. The alternative are a bunch of dead biking children or some such.

    189. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's two problems with that. Speeding while passing is still illegal.

      At least in the state of California, driving in the passing lane while not passing is illegal.

      So I tap my brakes to get him to back off, he doesn't.

      I prefer to just slow down to the minimum safe speed for the freeway (around 55) since the guy is pissed off already... by slow down I mean coast/engine brake, not using the friction brake.

      Anyway, road rage just means you're pissed off while you're driving? Why shouldn't I be pissed off when someone does something incredibly stupid and thus dangerous? It's how you react to the situation that matters. I do admit to giving people the finger occasionally when they have done something especially, amazingly stupid, but mostly I either just shake my head sadly, or sometimes wave my finger at them ("no no no! bad idiot. no cookie.")

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    190. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While it's dangerous and immature, it does tend to get those people out of the left lane, for a few miles at least.

      It's also known as a "brake job", and it is considered vehicular assault, a form of assault with a deadly weapon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    191. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you are an inconsiderate driver. And that makes you a bad driver. But it doesn't mean anyone deserves to rage against you.

    192. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Now that is funny, and I am out of mod points.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    193. Re:in other news by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      I'd almost bet it's the latter (traffic having become substantially worse). I say this as someone that lived in Seattle 15+ years ago. I adjusted my driving style to compensate for the fact that it was just going to take between 30 minutes to an hour to get *anywhere*. Everyone just seemed to putt along in no particular hurry to get anywhere. Once I adjusted, it was actually fairly relaxing.

      Not sure if it's the remaining fallout from the Californicator invasion or what, but last time I drove in Seattle it was like a completely different place. People actively hanging out their windows yelling at people, driving like assholes. I was really surprised. I'm pretty sure if I moved back there I'd become a mass transit user.

    194. Re:in other news by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      No, when somebody blatantly ignores the line of cars behind him because he doesn't feel comfortable driving faster and is unwilling to move over, then the law may be on his side, but he's still a jerk. That kind of behavior may be less obvious than road raging, but it still represents an obnoxious degree of passive aggression.

    195. Re:in other news by sleigher · · Score: 1

      Just remember if you keep a bat in your car to keep a glove and ball. Plausible deniability.....

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    196. Re:in other news by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      I called in a drunk driver once and was HEAVILY involved for the next 6 hours.
      My wife and I once called in an obviously drunk driver and followed him for a while while staying on the phone with 911. Once the cops were close enough, the 911 operator told us to turn onto a cross street, and they'd take it from there. We never heard anything further about it.

      It probably varies with jurisdiction.

    197. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      All the laws are very explicit about that the right of way belongs to the one in the front, and that everyone else behind ***MUST*** wait.

      Maybe in the land of swine, that is true. In California (you know, the most populous state with the most cars... not that either is a badge of honor really) the slowpoke most certainly does have a legal obligation to let you ahead of him. It's in the California Vehicle Code in the 20,000s someplace. Five people behind you? You are legally obligated to pull the fuck over at the earliest safe opportunity. I HAVE seen someone pulled over for this, dunno if they actually got written.

      Also, it's specifically illegal to drive in the passing lane on the freeway when not passing if there is someone behind you. It doesn't matter if you're going five under the limit, or fifty over; the law does not specify such a thing. You must get the fuck out of the way.

      Also, by any fucking civilized standard, they have an obligation to treat you as they would have you treat them.

      I am pretty much always the fastest thing going around where I live. (Not a record-setter or anything, I like to stay in my lane... But when I've been driving alone (e.g. not with my girlfriend who dislikes "spirited" driving) I've only had to pull over for one person in the last three years or so, and he wasn't staying in the lane. Stupid fucker. I'm all too happy to let those people go because I don't want them driving up my asshole.

      Put simply, if you are holding people up when it is safe to pull over and let them pass, you are the asshole. Even if you were right about the law (which you might be in whatever sheepfucking state you live in) not being considerate enough to let people pass is rude.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    198. Re:in other news by kayditty · · Score: 0

      The species' survival is more important than the survival of any single individual.
      According to whom? Try to wax philosophical and then say a thing like that? Nevertheless, I don't have a horse in the race; I'm just trying to maintain intellectual integrity.
    199. Re:in other news by debatem1 · · Score: 1

      Ah, too bad, I was hoping for a review of the PT-92. I mostly carry my CZ-75, but I'd like a .40 and it's coming down to the PT-92 or the CZ in .40, and the price on the Taurus is pretty compelling.

      Obviously, the traffic we're in is different, and when you add in the fact that everybody and their dog carries around here, I guess the crazies just kind of stay quiet, but it still seems like a lot of road rage problems for one guy. You think a .40 would punch through a car door?

    200. Re:in other news by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Same here. I'm more inclined to let people into the lane ahead of me than not (where I'm going ain't gonna get up and run off) but if someone tries to FORCE his way in where he has no right of way, I don't feel like it's my duty to let him be an aggressive asshole. I didn't agree to be bullied.

      Refusing to play the game is the best response, but sometimes you don't have that option (no way to walk away; nowhere to go but down the road you're already on). But if you give in to bullies, next time they get worse. If you stand up to them, some learn they can't get away with it, but some get mad. And those are the ones that need it demonstrated to 'em that no, they can't get away with just walking over the top of you.

      People have been getting away with being aggressive drivers in overly-busy city traffic (sometimes leading to situations where you can't even GET anywhere if you don't push and shove same as everyone else).

      BTW this makes a nifty parallel to internet bullying -- where people who would never behave that way face to face will be total jerks online. Same thing on the roadways.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    201. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I started carrying after a lunatic in a semi chased me through downtown Seattle. He was following people on the freeway 4 feet behind their rear bumper, leaning on the jake brake (illegal in Seattle) to get them to move. I didn't move, and he chased me for 5 miles

      That sounds pretty smart...

      I had another fellow chase me after I elected to not let him join the exiting line of cars in front of me.

      "Elected"? Did you poll your multiple personalities?

      I am a polite and courteous driver, but I don't feel the need to yield to assholes. You can merge behind me, I was here first.

      One asshole in a picture is enough. Adding another asshole does not make the picture prettier.

      You are not a polite or courteous driver. Those people just let the idiots go on with their idiot selves because they know that adding stupidity to stupidity does not help. With that said, I am not immune. When I come around a blind corner and someone is halfway over the line, once I've dodged over onto the shoulder to save my life, I do give them the finger. They deserve it. If I could, I'd push a fucking button and disperse them into a cloud of vapor so that they can never endanger another life again. So I am not perfect... but at the same time, I'm not anticipating blowing anybody away, either.

      The assholes would do well to think that little old psychos like me exist. If you ram me, I'll sue you, and if you assault me, you'll pay.

      I hope you realize that your slashdot comment here can be used as evidence that you bought the firearm with the intent to use it, not as a deterrent but with the specific intent to harm...

      I'm 60+ years old with grey hair, and the courts generally look kindly towards geezers that have had to defend themselves against thugs.

      ...believing yourself to be shielded from justice by your appearance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    202. Re:in other news by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      That kind of behavior persist because people are jackasses. Do you honestly think some asshole crazy enough to chase you for 5 miles is going to return to the highway thinking, "gee, my aggressive ways have achieved nothing meaningful. I should show more respect on the road"?

      So don't kid yourself that you're trying to teach a lesson, here. You're a cranky bastard who would rather be right and cause an incident than occasionally stand down and let somebody put one over on you.

    203. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Long before Johnny decides he's had enough and he's gonna take what he deems to be appropriate action for his emotional state on the road, he's been yelling, swerving, swearing, and in general expressing his displeasure at not getting his way on the road.

      Yelling (if the other driver can hear you) and swerving are actions. That's road rage. You can be cited for driving in an unsafe manner. If you mark the road or even make any substantial tire noise you can be considered to have lost control of the vehicle in court. No shit.

      Other than that, though... you're spot on

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    204. Re:in other news by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      anyone driving a dodge neon (or a comparable car) with *any* aftermarket "bling" parts.
      Does the duck tape holding the driver's side mirror onto my wife's Neon count?

    205. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      " If both are liars, then it won't be the "automatic" fault people assert. There is nothing automatic about it, and no place I know of codifies the assumed "the person at the back is at fault" that everyone says.

      You are assumed to be at fault if you are doing the crashing pretty much everywhere. This is a good assumption most of the time since aside from people pulling a brake job or just actually being an idiot ("I saw something and braked") it is always the fault of the driver in the back. If you don't maintain a safe distance, that's your fault, not anyone else's.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    206. Re:in other news by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That's somnething for those of you who are childless who crow about "Darwin at work" when someone dies doing something stupid.
      Natural selection is still at work when a stupid person who has already reproduced gets themselves killed. The persons offspring is now less likely to survive to reproductive age. This was much more true 1000 years ago, and is much more true in third world countries. But it is still a factor.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    207. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're the asshole who's deciding what rules apply to you and knowingly risking people's lives to try to make some sort of misguided point.

      It is illegal to sit in the passing lane when someone wants to use it to pass almost everywhere.

      I've heard that if you do that shit on the Autobahn you can lose your license immediately. Don't know if it's true, but it should be that way everywhere.

      If someone wants to pass, don't be an asshole. You are not the fucking cops. There could be an emergency which does not warrant involving the authorities and it is not repeat not your place to regulate the speed of traffic, which is why in most places in which people are allowed to drive automobiles, there are laws saying you have to get the fuck out of the passing lane when you're not passing.

      You're the asshole who's deciding what rules apply to who.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    208. Re:in other news by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Really? Here in Colorado, it's usually an Audi, a Lexus or a Saab that's being a douchebag speeding, whipping in and out of traffic, passing on the right after the lane ends, and generally being a self-centered ass. The immigrants drive slow, and generally stay to the right. It's annoying, but not nearly as dangerous as the yuppie twats trying to get somewhere fast because they think they're more important than everyone else.

    209. Re:in other news by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Horn broken, watch for finger
      Reading this pisses me off. Giving someone the finger means you're pissed at them. Using your horn does not mean you are pissed at them. The horn is for getting someone's attention when they don't see you or don't notice the light changed. It is not to be used to indicate that someone just did something to make you angry, to express lust for a cute girl on the sidewalk, or to try to get your carpool partner out of his house at 4 AM.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    210. Re:in other news by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Depends on what the limit is. If the limit's 45, yeah, I'll agree with you. But if the speed limit is 65+, you'll use a lot more gas with the window open, not to mention it being very noisy.

      BTW, I drive a 2004 Corolla, and I get over the rated mileage, even with A/C on. I just turn it off when needing to accelerate hard and use the brakes as little as possible, so I don't have to use the gas much more than necessary.

    211. Re:in other news by Tanman · · Score: 1

      "Long before Johnny decides he's had enough and he's gonna take what he deems to be appropriate action for his emotional state on the road, he's been yelling, swerving. . ."

      Right there it became invasion of everyone else's space and not sharing the road. Not when Johnny decided to take action. Johnny already took action.

    212. Re:in other news by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      well yes, there's that too. But I live in St Louis city. The yuppies are still too scared to come down into the city often (even though it is getting to be somewhat gentrified in places).

      They're the jerks that when I have to contend with when I have to venture out to homogenized suburbia-land, which is rare cause I don't often get the hankering to shop at the Pottery Barn or eat at the fine restaurants which characterize suburbia like Olive Garden and Chili's. Yuppies are so predictable. When you put on your blinker, it becomes a pissing content to see if they can stop you from getting over. For that, I have a simple solution: just don't use the blinker.

      So I gotta drive with the ghetto pontiac drivers.

      I'm not sure which is worse.

      --
      blah blah blah
    213. Re:in other news by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Depends on the color of the duct tape!

      --
      blah blah blah
    214. Re:in other news by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I've never in my 39 years (23 on the road) been on the receiving end of a road rage attack.
      I've never been the subject of a road rage attack, but I have been the subject of road rage. I've been driving about 22 years, and I always try to be courteous. Sure, I get upset when people drive slow in the fast lane. But so as not to be a hypocrite, no matter how fast I am going, I always pull back in to the right lane unless I am about to pass someone again in the next 10 seconds.
      One day, coming home from work, as I was getting off on my exit, this guy got right up on my bumper and laid on his horn continuously while flipping me the finger. He kept doing this until we got up to the stoplight for the exit ramp and he ended up right behind me. Since he was boxed in by myself and other cars, his true cowardly nature kicked in and he stopped honking and flipping me off. When the light turned green, and I pulled away, he got back on the horn and flipping me off again. I still to this day have no clue what he could possibly have been upset about. I had not so much as changed lanes in the two or three minutes before him showing up behind me honking and flipping me off.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    215. Re:in other news by gnupun · · Score: 0

      Are they really stupid if their genes survive longer? They rely more on their instincts whereas the intellectuals rely more on their logic.

    216. Re:in other news by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      "inconsiderate" is only if you fail to consider other people. He considered other people... he just failed to make allowances for them driving like jackasses. There is a difference between someone signaling they want over and me making room (which I always do), and someone racing to the end of the lane that had 5 signs warning that it's ending, all the other cars get over, and then they try to get over (which I generally don't let them). It's like talking in a movie theater... if you ignore it, everyone starts thinking that they should.

    217. Re:in other news by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Like Mr trolltalk, I also have been able to get significantly better gas mileage by changing my driving habits. My 2004 Hyundai Sonata (V6), is rated at 27 MPG, and by driving "like a grandma" I've been able to consitently get 31.5MPG. After changing to fully synthetic oil, the mileage increased again to 33.1MPG. This has been in 100+ degree weather with the AC on, so I imagine my Winter mileage would be even better.

      I used to drive 65-80MPH, and got about 23-25MPG in the same car.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    218. Re:in other news by dwibby · · Score: 1

      Who said we were talking about curing the patient? Or what was good for the individual? The species' survival is more important than the survival of any single individual.

      Why ?

      Because a single individual is a subset of a species.

    219. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Wow. Just wow. You know, guy, if you routinely have people reacting to you that way you should think about your driving. You are a menace, and not because of your gun.

      running streetlights through downtown

      You and the semi driver are lucky nobody died as a result of your stupid, callous, selfish behavior.

      I was surprised to find that an Explorer can not outrun an unloaded semi

      I'm not. Explorers are heavy pieces of shit that can't corner, brake, or maneuver very well.

      The police were no help

      Lucky for you or you'd be in jail.

      I don't expect to have to use it

      You had better expect to use it! Do you think you're the only insane moron out there? The first time you run up against someone similarly armed and stupid, you had better count on either a) dying or b) going to prison.

      I am a polite and courteous driver

      You are fooling yourself. You are an asshole and a menace and shouldn't even be on the road.

      the courts generally look kindly towards geezers that have had to defend themselves against thugs.

      The courts do NOT look kindly on ANYONE who shoots someone in a road rage incident. You have been very lucky so far. It's amazing someone with your mental problems managed to live so long.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    220. Re:in other news by phulegart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reasonable behavior...

      To respond to the examples....
      #1 - let him lean on his air horn and exhaust brakes all he wants. I won't be traveling slowly in the left lane, so he is free to venture over to the left lane to pass me whenever he can. I'm not going to speed up just to satisfy his dementia, although if he tailgated me for far too tong (say, if he could have freely passed me anytime) I might actually slow down to encourage him into passing me. I've already made sure that if I'm on the road I'm not late or in a hurry. Considering his actions, I might even get on the cell phone and notify the nearest State Trooper barracks of this jerk's actions, so they can be aware of the potential accident rolling down the road on 18 wheels. But no yelling on my part is going to change the situation. No gestures I make out of my window is going to make any kind of a good difference in any way.

      #2 - I've been in many of those kind of lines that you describe... like when three lanes is reduced to one for construction (just to name one instance). In cases like that I always let people in front of me. Sometimes I let two people in front of me. If someone sees me letting in the car in front of them, but I don't let THEM in... oh well. I'm sorry if they get upset, but I did my good deed, and they can see that. There has been the occasion though, where a person DID get upset that I did not let them in in addition to the person I let cut in front of me. One time, I recall the person laid into the horn and because windows were open, I could hear him yell. So, I stopped, put the van in park (there in the lane in traffic), got out of the vehicle, and did an elaborate bow while shouting at the top of my lungs "My Apologies, Your Honor." topping it off with an embellished wave. He passed me fuming, while the car behind him stopped along side me, the lady behind the wheel smiling and clapping... and held up HER lane of traffic so I could get back in the van and continue.

      #3 - I've seen this situation in parking lots as well, where someone who was waiting for a parking space gets shoved out of the way at the last second by an asshole. In the past, when confronted by this type of situation, I have simply sought out another parking space. No swearing or yelling on my part is going to make the guy get back in his car and vacate the spot. In the case of the gas station hypothetical that you brought up, I can only reply from the reality of my past. Twice before at gas stations I arrived at a pump seconds before someone else. Both times, I vacated the pump because the drivers DID seem very upset/annoyed/frustrated. If this moment in time is so important to the that they have to get that upset, then I (a total stranger) am going to perform a random act of kindness to try to help their situation, regardless of my personal issues at the time.

      Your failing is not that you refuse to cower. Your failing is that you see confrontation where there is none. Another failing is that you feel you have to meet force with equal force. Yet another failing is that those who do not play the wolf because circumstance forces it on them, are all seen as sheep in your eyes.

      Driving defensively never means going on the offensive, for any reason. When you do, you become a threat on the roads, regardless of your personal justification. All it takes are two drivers to tell themselves that THIS time "I'm not gonna back down" and you have an accident (usually with innocent bystanders).

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    221. Re:in other news by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Just remember that everyone's license plate is the key to a vast wealth of information about an individual. Your public record associated with your license plate will include:

      1) The full name of the owner
      2) The current address of the owner
      3) The vehicle identification number
      4) Where your purchased your vehicle
      5) How much you paid for it
      6) Who holds the loan (if the vehicle is financed)

      If someone does something in traffic that you find offensive but not to the level of calling the police, sometimes a nice letter reminding them of the public nature of their personal information is sweet revenge. Maybe something along the lines of how their driving affected you and that someone who was a shade less tolerant could do evil things to them.

      Even more fun is to check the public record on their home address and/or correlate marraige records with their names, and send a detailed letter adressed to their significant other asking them to remind their loved one to drive safely.

      I would never recommend physical retailiation. However, the fact that someone can find out your address from your license plate is completely unknown to many people. The fear and self doubt that this newfound knowledge engenders can constitute vengeance in itself. Hopefully this will give the person pause every time they open the door and start their car.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    222. Re:in other news by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of my first speeding ticket. I was passing a truck when a blue Camero flew in from nowhere and got right behind me. I tried to speed up and finish passing the truck so this guy could pass me. But it turned out to be HPD. I was new to Houston and unaware that they had traffic cops riding in blue Cameros. :-( Ever since then I don't speed up to get out of people's way.

    223. Re:in other news by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Cool. AC off 30+mpg here I come.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    224. Re:in other news by operagost · · Score: 1

      In most states, you are to remain in the right lane except to pass (or when there is congestion). There are no specific speeds for specific lanes; there is a (seldom posted) minimum of 40 or 45 MPH on most interstate highways.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    225. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've missed my journals (lucky you). She's a friend who's staying with me while her alien husband is in Basic Training. Beats the hell out of me why any guy would let his wife live with another man, let alone with a cyborg, but those aliens are wierd.

      She has nothing to do with bumper stickers. She accuses me of road rage when I say "fucking asshole" whan someone acts like a fucking asshole.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    226. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      anger:
      1. a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath; ire.
      2. Chiefly British Dialect. pain or smart, as of a sore.
      3. Obsolete. grief; trouble.
      -verb (used with object) 4. to arouse anger or wrath in.
      5. Chiefly British Dialect. to cause to smart; inflame.
      -verb (used without object) 6. to become angry: He angers with little provocation.

      Rage
      noun 1. angry fury; violent anger.
      2. a fit of violent anger.
      3. fury or violence of wind, waves, fire, disease, etc.
      4. violence of feeling, desire, or appetite: the rage of thirst.
      5. a violent desire or passion.
      6. ardor; fervor; enthusiasm: poetic rage.
      7. the object of widespread enthusiasm, as for being popular or fashionable: Raccoon coats were the rage on campus.
      8. Archaic. insanity.
      -verb (used without object) 9. to act or speak with fury; show or feel violent anger; fulminate.
      10. to move, rush, dash, or surge furiously.
      11. to proceed, continue, or prevail with great violence: The battle raged ten days.
      12. (of feelings, opinions, etc.) to hold sway with unabated violence.
      --Idiom13. all the rage, widely popular or in style.

      Rage=anger, but anger !=rage. Horse=4 legged animal, 4 legged animal!=horse.

      I think the operative words in your definition is "between". Otherwise the dictionary is at odds with itself.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    227. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Wow. Sorry for sharing.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    228. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Why would you put a bumper sticker on your car that said "get the fuck out of my way, asshole!"?

      I wouldn't; it was a joke.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    229. Re:in other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You must not live in Arizona.

      Whne it is over 100 Degree's, you drive wit the Air on. Having the windows down is like driving with a blow dryer in your face!"

      Similar problem here in New Orleans...but with the added pleasure of HIGH humidity!! The only reason it rarely gets above 100F here, is because there is so damned much moisture in the air, but, trust me...you sweat and feel like it is well over 100F.

      Hell, I usually turn on the AC in the house about mid March...and it doesnt' go off again till about early to mid November.

      And people on the list here still can understand why we can't all ride bikes to work. You look like a sweat soaked pig after only about 5 min outdoors here in the summer just standing still.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    230. Re:in other news by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Having lived in Michigan, I've been exposed to high humidity. I'll take 100+ with low humidity over 90's and high humidity

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    231. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Are they really stupid if their genes survive longer?

      Yes. Your survival has little to do with your intelligence. And, your intelligence is only partly determined by your genes; environment plays a much larger role. There are a lot of things that can damage a brain, almost all of which are environmental.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    232. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't be. I hope I've given you food for thought.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    233. Re:in other news by corbettw · · Score: 1

      It is. And it's not like I sit five feet from the person in front of me. I'm considerably further back than most NASCAR drivers are in a race. There's plenty of time to react to anything on the road ahead.

      I've been driving this way for decades, and have not once rear ended someone. So to all the detractors who say I'm not driving safely, I stand by my driving record.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    234. Re:in other news by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      with today's streamlined cars, you're better off driving with the window open - contrary to expectations, you don't increase the air resistance that much any more, especially when rolling under the speed limit.

      No, you waste far more power with the windows open - 10% of 100hp is far more power than AC would ever need, so your numbers are way off. Doesn't matter with you, though - you drive 45 everywhere.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    235. Re:in other news by xero314 · · Score: 1

      In most major metropolitan areas there is more traffic than can be safely supported by the available lanes. Restricting one of those lanes for passing only would cause further congestion. And no the left lane is not always for passing only.

      But what the GP was saying here is that the traveling faster than the speed limit is breaking the law and causing unsafe driving conditions. So if you need to exceed the speed limit to pass the person you probably should be worried about passing them.

    236. Re:in other news by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      This isn't brandishing so much as self defense. It happens a fair bit and, more often than not, defuses the situation, since would be road ragers and bandits realize that bullets hurt.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    237. Re:in other news by pthor1231 · · Score: 1

      If the person in front is willing to lie to the cops "I saw something and braked" then the person in back can lie as well, "I was traveling down the road and this maniac pulled out, passed me, and slammed on his brakes, causing the crash." If both are liars, then it won't be the "automatic" fault people assert. There is nothing automatic about it, and no place I know of codifies the assumed "the person at the back is at fault" that everyone says. If someone in front brakes to scare or annoy others, then they are at fault, regardless of what lies they tell later to get out of it. Or are you asserting that if the person in front tells the cops "I saw him behind me, slowed a little to bring him in close, then slammed on the brakes so he'd hit me" that they would still find the person in back at fault?

      I never asserted that the driver in front was lying, just that he could see something that the d-bag that was tailgating him couldn't see. As much as we would like traffic fault to be assigned appropriately, assuming a he-said-she-said scenario regarding a rear-end, the driver behind will be held liable in almost all situations devoid of any actual evidence that the guy in front wasn't driving legally.

      Oh, and the Texas Transportaion Institute (look them up, the TTI is big and internationally known) did a study and it was published stating that 2 seconds was the worst distance to follow. Less than that increased crashes, but significantly decreased fatalities. Have a thought about that, if someone is following you closely, they are less likely to kill you. But facts always get in the way of a good rant. I don't have many regrets in life, but one of them was finding that in the library and not going out and buying my own copy, as I have no idea how to find it again.

      Maybe that study is true, but following at a safe following distance decreases both accidents AND fatalities. I would rather people drive safely.

    238. Re:in other news by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Seattle is known for having issues with aggressive driving.

      Bullshit. Seattle is known for having tards that do 40 in the interstate and drive two abreast blocking traffic because they're just oblivious. You want aggressive drivers? Go to Nothern VA.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    239. Re:in other news by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      You have, but not in the way you think. I'm mostly thinking about the difficulty of communicating one's serious experiences in life effectively and accurately. It's hard.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    240. Re:in other news by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna get one that says run, jessie, run. It goes on the front bumper.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    241. Re:in other news by Reziac · · Score: 1

      In one part of North Dakota (near Jamestown, for those interested) I've seen highway patrol come up behind folks at night close enough that their lights are blinding 'em -- the idea is to get you to speed to get away from 'em, since they refuse to pass you.

      (I'm wondering if this might be a great time to brake hard enough to get rear-ended, and claim a deer ran in front of you...)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    242. Re:in other news by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I recall reading some stats recently to the effect that your chances of survival are better (by something like 30-40%) if a private party drives you to the hospital immediately, rather than waiting for the ambulance. I don't recall what the reasons were, tho delay in emergencies has to be part of it.

      Where I'm at, it's about 20 minutes to the hospital, if you drive sanely. It's about 40 minutes if you wait for the ambulance to arrive from town first.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    243. Re:in other news by elhedran · · Score: 1


      But, that's another story. Of course there are always special situations, but, the part I was griping about was where a person could either speed up or slow down in order to merge right to let the line of 5-15 cars behind him pass. You can get some road rage when some asshole is driving side by side the person in the right lane holding traffic back.

      If only thats what it took.

      I was passing (yes, passing) a bunch of cars while going 5 over the limit. In about half a minute it would be safe for me to move over. In this half a minute the tailgater catches up with me, flashes his headlights etc. I pull to the slow lane after slowing him perhaps only 20 seconds of his life, and he swerves at me as he passes.

      Yes, thats "using a motor vehicle to threaten another person's life (e.g. two more inches and it would have been an accident on a freeway) for slowing them for 20 seconds." And it was just that one car, not 10-15 behind me, just one, just the self righteous asshole who thought he owned the road, the agreed rules of the community he lived in be hanged.

      I shouldn't have to drive more dangerously because someone wants to pass even faster than I am and can't hold it for 20 seconds. Although I agree tapping the breaks is worse. The rule is drive safe, don't drive less safely because of some asshat with their panties in a twist who thinks laws about speeding and tailgaiting don't apply to them.

    244. Re:in other news by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Heh... that's like what I observed in Los Angeles, before downtown got renovated and became a subset of the West L.A. yuppieville:

      In old downtown, if you put on you blinker sooner or later someone would let you into your desired lane, and it would happen no matter how crowded the road was. Downtown had been there for 60 years, it ain't gonna get up and run off, and no one felt that they had to get there before anyone else.

      In much-newer West L.A., putting on your blinker serves as a signal that you're trying to get ahead, and the new generation of yuppies couldn't have that, so sure as shit someone would cut you off, and NO ONE would let you into you lane.

      Here in the SoCal high desert, before the yuppie invasion everyone drove below the speed limit, everyone full-stopped at stop signs, and there was a good deal of "After you, my dear Alphonse". Since we've had our own yuppie invasion, things have changed radically. Polite drivers are now rare, rather than the norm. Everyone is in a mad hurry like they have to be there yesterday. Signal? Whazzat??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    245. Re:in other news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It is automatic fault,

      It is not. My sister was rearended and was found to be at fault. It was a he-said she-said, and the guy convinced the cop that showed up that my sister made a turn without a signal, and that's why she slowed and he hit her. The police report showed that my sister slowed for a turn, was hit from behind, and was at fault because she didn't signal her turn. And no, that's not what happened, but the guy that hit her was persuasive enough to convince the cop. So you are wrong and spreading lies on the Internet. Quit misleading people. There is no place that codifies "if you hit them you are at fault." It doesn't exist. I just made a huge broad statement. I can't prove it's right, because I'd have to quote the traffic laws from everywhere, and there could be something I left out. But you can easily prove me wrong with a single line, if that line exists. And I assert it does not, and that you (or anyone else) can't find it to post it here.

    246. Re:in other news by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I know someone who had an abortion following testing that showed the child would be viable, but would have various gross abnormalities that precluded a normal life. Her reasoning, and I agree with her, is that this child would have NO quality of life, and she could not do that to a child. So she terminated it and tried again, and this time got a healthy, normal, and most of all HAPPY child, who is not saddled lifelong (however long that may be) with being unable to live in a reasonably normal manner.

      But a lot of people seem to take it as personal affront -- how dare you suggest that I have defective genes!! even tho they know, intellectually, that they're condemning their defective child to life of misery merely by bringing it into the world at all.

      I recall how some deaf parents threw a fit when it became possible for their deaf children to have near-normal hearing. They refused to do what was needed, because they felt that letting their children become hearing was a condemnation of the parents' own deaf status. (Something similar happened when hormone therapy made it possible for children of dwarf parents to grow to normal status. Some parents refused, on the grounds that making the kid grow up to be normal condemned the PARENTS as abnormal.)

      Boils down to parents seeing the child as an extension of themselves, rather than as an independent person with its own life.

      Now, as to the nominal topic, I think TFA has a good point -- there are people who behave aggressively, or passive-aggressive, because they fail to distinguish where "I" ends and where "shared" begins. No reason they'd be any better about it in their car, and people who piss on your leg to show their dominance are just as likely to mark their territory in other ways too.

      Back to our side discussion, parents who set their kids up to fail (dress them badly so they stand out as outsiders, etc.) are often being territorial in the same way -- MY kid, MY tribe, not allowed to mingle with YOUR tribe, DON'T TOUCH MY STUFF. The kid is an extension of their personal territory.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    247. Re:in other news by mrv20 · · Score: 1

      As the old joke goes:

      Q: Why do Skodas have heated rear windows?
      A: To warm your hands as you push them.

      Not sure what the modern butt of all the unreliable car jokes should be now that Skoda is owned by VW and seems to be building decent cars. Possibly the Renault Megane due to its wonderful electrical system - more than one friend noticed that if their cellphone rang while on the centre console it caused all the dashboard lights to go crazy.

      --
      "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
    248. Re:in other news by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I was driving along the other day and this little car was driving about an inch from the bumper of this giant pickup, going 30. Then the giant pickup slams on the brakes and this giant guy gets out, walks over to the driver side window of the little car and says "get off my ass bitch, it's 30 here" and walks back to his truck. We were in a school zone.

      I was ready to applaud. But I still would have hit him with my car if he tried to open her car door.

      Confronting is sometimes justified. Violence is not.

    249. Re:in other news by siddesu · · Score: 1

      come on now, genocide is something entirely different.

      "road rage" is just bad manners, sorta like the tantrum a spoiled kid throws when pa and ma don't buy 'em candy.

      fixing road rage is easy -- them overgrown brats need to be slapped more often, and they'll learn.

      too bad traffic cops have easier ways of making money than doing that.

    250. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if that is road rage or not, although I'm pretty sure it's aggressive behavior (in general; not road rage specifically) and I'm also pretty sure that brandishing a gun without a reason to do so (i.e. life not in danger) is illegal.

    251. Re:in other news by hey! · · Score: 1

      Road rage may not be genocide, but it's a lot more than bad manners.

      People indulging in road range may be brats taking an tantrum, but they're taking their tantrum with a deadly weapon.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    252. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great solution...until the road ragers start carrying as well.

    253. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      We generally aren't that bad around here although was it by any chance a large blue beat up conversion van from the 80s? That guy did the same thing to me, and when I brake checked him (lightly) he started actively trying to run me off the road. (I'd left my cell phone at home by mistake that day, too). I sped up to 100+ to escape, and HE FOLLOWED ME. I should have darted off on one of those 45mph-TOPS exits I was coming up on, using the sport abilities of the car I was in, and watched him roll over trying to follow.

    254. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      But if the speed limit is 65+, you'll use a lot more gas with the window open, not to mention it being very noisy.

      First, just because the upper limit is 65+ doesn't mean you HAVE to go that fast ...

      Second, if it's that noisy with the window open, your car has lousy aerodynamics to begin with. MOre turbulence == more noise + more drag.

    255. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Try again. Cars have changed a LOT since the 70's ... back then, it was true. Not today, at least on cars that have decent aerodynamics. But if you don't want to open the window, just turn on the fan, and suck air in from outside. Most of the time, you just need to get the car down to the ambient temperature.

    256. Re:in other news by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      (So far I've never hit anybody in this situation, but it's come close a few times. Oh, and if my wife and/or kids are in the car, I don't act this way. I'm willing to risk your life to make a point, but not theirs.)
      And what point would that be? That you're enough of an arrogant prick to think you know the situation of the car ahead of you better than the people driving it do? And the first time you come across a car that brakes for, say, an animal bolting across the road? Yeah, I bet you can see that sort of thing REALLY good, looking through three windows and another car to see the road and all. But yes, clearly your right to be an asshole supersedes such petty concerns as other peoples' safety and unforeseeable circumstances.
    257. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a little trick: Pass them on the right, get in front of them, and then go 40. This puts them in the same situation they put you in and so they should not get upset right? Of course, they always get pissed. The irony is hilarious. Once they have moved right to pass you (which can take some time, and you may have to slow down to 30 on the freeway to move them), then quickly go back to 70 and leave them in the dust.

      I ALWAYS do this now with slow cars squatting in the left lane. It only takes a minute, is very effective, and teaches the squatter a lesson. Granted, the lesson is probably lost on most of these idiot drivers.

    258. Re:in other news by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      I've ridden a motorcycle in Phoenix in the summer. It doesn't mean I'm going to turn off the AC in the car.

      (And I learned pretty quickly that wet denim is WAY better than leathers in the desert. It might not be quite as much protection against road rash, but it's less dangerous than heatstroke.)

      Depending on how long you're stuck in that traffic in the heat, it could be hazardous to your heath, even deadly.

    259. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no place that codifies "if you hit them you are at fault." It doesn't exist. I just made a huge broad statement. I can't prove it's right, because I'd have to quote the traffic laws from everywhere, and there could be something I left out. But you can easily prove me wrong with a single line, if that line exists. And I assert it does not, and that you (or anyone else) can't find it to post it here.

      I don't know where you live, but in Ontario, Canada, I believe your sister would be judged not at fault. Here are the detailed rules.

      http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

    260. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      Who the hell do you think you are to decide who should be where?

      Oh, right, one of those pricks who thinks everyone should bow to your will.

      Maybe you shouldn't be driving.

    261. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? Who's the one who's sitting here saying "you should" do this "you should" do that, calling people assholes when they don't bend down to what someone else wants.

      Did you ever think of the fact that there are multiple lanes in the road so that *GASP* THEY CAN BE USED TO CARRY TRAFFIC?

      Did you ever think about the fact that those speed limit signs don't say "speed limit X in right lane only"? No. They apply to all lanes.

      Stop whining when people don't bend down to yours, or anyone else's, desire to do anything illegal. Stop whining when people don't bend down to you when they don't want to. If I am driving along above or at the minimum (if any) and at or below the maximum, YOU are not the "fucking cops" either. Shut up, sit down, drive, and don't you even think about ramming me or forcing me to ram you. I can and will call the police and give your description, car make, model, and color, and license number to them.

      And you might likely get served with a civil lawsuit, too.

      You do not seem like you are fit to drive. Get the hell off the road before your superiority complex gets someone killed.

    262. Re:in other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "First, just because the upper limit is 65+ doesn't mean you HAVE to go that fast ...

      I guess it depends on where you live. If you are only going 65 on a hwy down here...you WILL get run over.

      I find it safest to at a minimum, go the speed of traffic around you.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    263. Re:in other news by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "But if you don't want to open the window, just turn on the fan, and suck air in from outside. Most of the time, you just need to get the car down to the ambient temperature.

      You must live in a very temperate climate.

      Not possible down here...days now are mid to upper 90's with about the same humidity. Unless you like showing up for work sweatsoaked.....no AC is not gonna cut it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    264. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, real uber predators don't see anything looking back at them in the mirror.

    265. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't teach anyone a lesson and makes you into a retard. Not to mention that one day you'll cause an accident.

    266. Re:in other news by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      If the speed limit is 65, that's usually the SLOWEST that traffic is going. I really don't feel like getting rear-ended because I'm being an unpredictably slow driver, so I keep up with traffic.

      I know it's legal for me to go slower, but damn it it's not stupid as hell to do so. Like my father in law says... "You'd be right. You'd be dead right."

    267. Re:in other news by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      If the person in front is willing to lie to the cops "I saw something and braked" then the person in back can lie as well, "I was traveling down the road and this maniac pulled out, passed me, and slammed on his brakes, causing the crash." If both are liars, then it won't be the "automatic" fault people assert. There is nothing automatic about it, and no place I know of codifies the assumed "the person at the back is at fault" that everyone says.

      I think the parent poster was asserting that the driver in front might see something that the driver behind can't see, and be forced to stop. If the reason for stopping was to avoid a fatality, then someone following too close could be liable for involuntary manslaughter.

      The kind of lie that you describe might potentially get someone out of paying an insurance excess if they can tell the lie well enough, for as long as it's a case where there's no serious investigation and both parties just give their respective stories over the phone. Even so, every insurance company that I've encountered tends to go by fairly methodical rules which says it's your fault regardless if you drove into the back of them. (I'm not in the USA, which might be why you seem to be claiming something different.) Occasionally it's probably not completely fair, but it usually is, and most people accept it since insurance from one side or the other covers most of the bill.

      If the person in front slammed on their brakes because they saw a kid run out in front of them, and someone then come ploughing into the back of them causing a fatality, that kind of lie won't get them anywhere and might very well get them into even more trouble. The resulting accident scene examination will be very likely to prove that the front car couldn't possibly have pulled right in front of them and slammed on the brakes. Never mind the reports of any potential witnesses who might also have seen the person at the back driving like an idiot and being able to verify what happened.

    268. Re:in other news by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      At this point I'm just curious if posting the fact that the article is closed to those who don't pay for a subscription to nature will get this posting deleted like the ones I did as a separate thread.

      I don't mean moderated down, I mean not there when reading at -1.

    269. Re:in other news by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      One last time to test whether all posts pointing out the requirement for paid subscription to read the article are deleted.

    270. Re:in other news by Cardcaptor_RLH85 · · Score: 1

      Spoiled eggs...INSIDE the car!? Back in High School I left ONE spoiled egg after a science project in my locker until the end of the semester about 3.5 months or so. The entire floor smelled like rotten eggs. I'd rather not store any spoiled foods in my car thank you very much ^_^

    271. Re:in other news by Cardcaptor_RLH85 · · Score: 1

      When someone taps their brakes in front of me I try to either go around them or, if possible, back off. From the comments I've been reading here, it looks like I'm in the minority.

    272. Re:in other news by siddesu · · Score: 1

      yep, it is probably somewhere in between.

    273. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait for you to pull this with an plainclothes/off duty office trying to pull you over.

    274. Re:in other news by geolane · · Score: 1

      Action in this case is expressing in a public manner -- waving the gun is a public expression.

      Cutting someone off, preventing merging are actions that can be expressions of road rage.

      Fuming, in a quiet way is not road rage. Yelling with the windows up might be road rage, yelling with the windows down is. The physics of most vehicle is that there is more impact force than most guns; intent is much more difficult in the case of the motor vehicle.

    275. Re:in other news by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Isn't it duty of every responsible driver to do their best to slow down the assholes that would like to drive faster than the limit? Works best if two (or more) righteous drivers drive side by side, controlling all lanes and making sure nobody behind them drives illegally!

      Remember: if you are driving at the speed limit, everybody passing you is a criminal. We must fight this menace! If you aren't doing your duty as a citizen yet, start today!

      </sarcasm>

    276. Re:in other news by Urkki · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Sometimes the driver behind you is just not paying attention and is driving too close without realizing it. Tapping the brakes might be a wakeup-call. Also, even if they think they're not really too close, there *are* polite drivers who will back off just 'cos you asked (by tapping the brakes).

    277. Re:in other news by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      Yet after the first incident you didn't think wow, maybe if I had moved over then there wouldn't have been a high speed chase through downtown Seattle? What, so being threatened with physical violence immediately implies that you were in the wrong? What sort of twisted logic is that?

      Did you even consider the possibility that maybe the other guy might have been a crazy moron? Especially considering the fact that the other guy was tailgating the OP before the high-speed road-rage chase ...

      I think the whole carrying-a-firearm thing is going slightly overboard, personally. But if someone had to get shot, I wouldn't mind too much if it was one of the tailgating arseholes of the world.
    278. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put simply, if you are holding people up when it is safe to pull over and let them pass, you are the asshole. Even if you were right about the law (which you might be in whatever sheepfucking state you live in) not being considerate enough to let people pass is rude. Yee-haw! You sure told *him*, buddy! Hell, if someone was holding *me* up in California, I'd rip off his head with my bare hands and use his skull to piss in. And the fucker would deserve it, 'cause he was holding me up. There ain't no punishment too great for those assholes, no punishment at all.

      'Specially loved the 'sheepfucking' reference, btw, that was real classy. Elegant even.
    279. Re:in other news by somersault · · Score: 1

      Man I hate political correctness. While I wouldn't make fun of a deaf person, I think it's quite valid to suggest that people are 'meant' to be able to hear. As far as dwarfism goes, that is a recognised class of disease but that could be going down the 'slippery slope' route if you try to eradicate all forms of 'defect'. It could be kind of cool to have a nation of dwarves though, living inside a mountain (okay so that's maybe going beyond political incorrectness into over the top stereotyping). The pygmys seemed to do okay for themselves..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    280. Re:in other news by BokanoiD · · Score: 1

      wait, what? what country allows uninsured motorists on the road?

    281. Re:in other news by FishAdmin · · Score: 1

      Slower traffic should keep right. if you are doing 50 on an interstate, you are slower traffic (slowest traffic.) I couldn't agree with you more. If the speed limit is 70, and you're only comfortable doing 50, go 50, by all means, but stay in the farthest right lane. On the other side of that, though, is the person that is doing 70 (the speed limit) in the left lane, while passing the guy doing 50, and some jerk comes and tailgates him. If the speed limit is 70, folks, it applies to both lanes. If the guy in the left lane is doing the speed limit while passing someone, then get off his tail, and wait your turn. Just because he's not going as fast as you want to go doesn't mean he needs to yield. However, the the guy doing 70 is just tooling along in the left lane for the fun of it, when traffic is going 70 in the right lane, then he needs to yield and get back in the right lane. Passing lanes are for passing, not for Sunday joyrides. All right, I'm through ranting!
      --
      Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
    282. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Funny how cops, heavy-equipment drivers, truckers, etc., manage to drive at or under the limit w/o becoming road pizza.

      I've seen people try to justify going 30-40mph in a school zone "because it's impossible to go only 20mph". If you can't drive at or under the limit, irrespective of the road conditions, you lack one of either the confidence necessary, or the skill, to drive.

      "They forced me to drive over the speed limit" won't cut it in traffic court.

    283. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on where you live. If you are only going 65 on a hwy down here...you WILL get run over.

      That excuse won't cut it in traffic court. Besides, you and everyone else who is speeding ARE wasting fuel. Instead of complaining about high gas prices, why not *do* something about it? Why not demand that existing speed limits be enforced? It'll be a "stupidity tax" on people who can't/won't obey speed limits, and it will help reduce dependence on foreign oil.

    284. Re:in other news by MISSBEHAVING · · Score: 1

      ever seen "idiocracy"? I am amazed at how true this movie really is. At first I absolutely hated it because of the stupidity level, hell theres enough dumb asses in the world without pandering to them with a stupid movie. But now I see that movie as a warning to where we can wind up. It seems very true that the number of kids (often...not always so dont bite me head off) correlates directly with parental intelligence or lack there of. Less intelligence=more kids. Go figure. And they call that natural selection? nature sucks sometimes.

    285. Re:in other news by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Funny how cops, heavy-equipment drivers, truckers, etc., manage to drive at or under the limit w/o becoming road pizza.

      The last two _are_ the ones that are going to turn you into road pizza when you drive too far below the speed limit.

    286. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      No, it was a big black Chevy Suburban, the kind the DEA and the FBI jumped out of last summer when they tried to bust me and two friends for drugs we didn't have because we were wearing the wrong color skin (white) in the wrong neighborhood. Journaled last January.

      The fact that it was the same make and model that the US Gestapo (Secret Police) use made it worse.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    287. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      Less intelligence=more kids. Go figure. And they call that natural selection? nature sucks sometimes.

      Nirvana, In Bloom:

      We can have some more
      Nature is a whore

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    288. Re:in other news by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Funny how cops, heavy-equipment drivers, truckers, etc., manage to drive at or under the limit w/o becoming road pizza.
      The last two _are_ the ones that are going to turn you into road pizza when you drive too far below the speed limit.

      Nonsense - I've driven everything from dump trucks to tractors to road graders on the roads, and I've never unintentionally turned anyone into road pizza. YMMV.

    289. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      I don't get what it is about SUVs that turns people into assholes. Maybe with luck Chevy will lose so much money that they will kill the Suburban.

    290. Re:in other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a correlation, but which is cause and which is effect? I think rather than SUVs turning people into asshole, selfish people who don't care about anyone else on the road are more likely to buy SUVs.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    291. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? Who's the one who's sitting here saying "you should" do this "you should" do that, calling people assholes when they don't bend down to what someone else wants.

      Here we go again, another impassioned defense of why it's okay to be an asshole, and why it's not okay to call someone on it.

      We lost the war on politeness simply because people were too polite to tell people who needed it to go fuck themselves. However, I refuse to believe that the situation cannot be corrected. It is simply going to be an uphill and possibly bloody battle.

      Did you ever think about the fact that those speed limit signs don't say "speed limit X in right lane only"? No. They apply to all lanes.

      Perhaps you missed the fact that there is a law stating that you are required to get out of the passing lane when not passing if there is someone behind you? It has nothing to do with the speed limit whatsoever. If you have such a hard-on for one traffic law, then you should be consistent. The law makes it clear that it is not the responsibility of citizens to enforce speed limits, but that it is the responsibility of citizens to follow the traffic code regardless of the actions of others.

      Stop whining when people don't bend down to yours, or anyone else's, desire to do anything illegal.

      First, "stop whining" is an ad hominem attack. It asserts that I am whining and attempts to create a situation in which if I protest, I am whining. Unfortunately for you, simple rules of logic are occasionally applied on this forum, and this is one of those times.

      Second, it is illegal to remain in the passing lane when not passing if it is safe to move to the non-passing lane. It really is just that simple. The speed limit is utterly irrelevant - it doesn't even come into play here.

      Stop whining when people don't bend down to you when they don't want to.

      Do you really believe that being polite is "bending down"? People like you are the reason why no one is fucking polite in America any more. I believe that it stems from fear in basically all cases, however. You are afraid that if you just get the fuck out of the way and let people proceed at speed, that the road will be less safe. In actuality, by clogging the road and creating clumps of traffic and exasperating people behind you, you are actually making it less safe. Nice work.

      If I am driving along above or at the minimum (if any) and at or below the maximum, YOU are not the "fucking cops" either.

      Obviously. However, if you are driving in the passing lane when you could be driving in the non-passing lane, and I am behind you, and you do not pull over, and we are in California (or most other states in the US, or for that matter most countries that have any significant body of traffic law) then you are in violation of the law no matter how fast we are going. I don't really understand why this is complicated for you.

      Shut up, sit down, drive, and don't you even think about ramming me or forcing me to ram you.

      Excuse me? Are you really implying that I would commit vehicular assault just because you're an asshole? I mean, how would that help?

      I can and will call the police and give your description, car make, model, and color, and license number to them.

      Now you're implying that I would commit a hit and run. I am simply not stupid enough to do such a thing, and to suggest that I am is, again, rude. But we've already established that you are that...

      You do not seem like you are fit to drive. Get the hell off the road before your superiority complex gets someone killed.

      Arguing that you should be permitted to break the law in order to prevent someone else from breaking the law, and in a way that makes people angry and demonstrably makes the road a more dangerous place to be has already proven somewhat conclusively (at least to me) that you are an idiot. As such, you do not seem like you are fit to author forum comments. Get the hell off Slashdot before the place gets any dumber.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    292. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      Excuse ME? How is it breaking the law to drive at legally allowed speed limits in a legally allowed travel lane? Are you suggesting that we all drive along in the right lane? If the universe bowed down to your will, it'd take me an hour to drive five miles! Did it not occur to YOU that you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PASS if doing so means BREAKING THE LAW, which speeding is? I guess not, and I don't understand why that is so complicated for people like you who put their "right" to break the law above the rights and safety of other people.

      And yes, it is whining if you're going to sit here and bitch and complain and get upset when people dare to say "no, I will not do what you want, I am behaving legally, you are not".

      Arguing that you should be able to break the law, screw anyone else who might be behaving according to it, and in a way that makes people angry and demonstrably makes the road a more dangerous place to be has already proven somewhat conclusively (at least to me) that you are an idiot. As such, you do not seem like you are fit to author forum comments. Get the hell off Slashdot before the place gets any dumber.

    293. Re:in other news by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Not his will, the law. In all 50 states, slower traffic must keep right, although this may not be vigorously enforced, since speeding tickets are easier revenue, and allow the officer more discretion in who he pulls over.

      Oh, yeah, and then there's the whole "human decency" thing.

      If you (as seems to be the case) like slowing people down just for the hell of it, or perhaps deliberately avoid minor steps to make life much easier for you and several others, you're the one who should be off the road.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    294. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      No, I'm just trying to drive home, and if I need to be in a particular lane I will be in it and I don't give a damn if some idiot is late for his appointment with his mistress, that doesn't give him the right to run me off the road.

      I drive at the legal limit, in a legal travel lane, and according to the law.

      If you want to prattle on about "human decency", go look at the asshole who thinks he's more important than law-abiding citizens and puts their lives in danger for his selfish greedy purposes.

      Again, what do you think extra travel lanes are FOR? In fact, on the road I drive home an additional travel lane is being added. Are we all supposed to then never use that lane? Is it only for lawbreakers?

      I don't think so.

      Human decency isn't a cloak under which to hide selfish, illegal, and dangerous actions.

    295. Re:in other news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Excuse ME? How is it breaking the law to drive at legally allowed speed limits in a legally allowed travel lane?

      I will explain it one more time, and then I will assume that you are too stupid to understand and write you off entirely.

      In most states in the USA, and in most other countries besides, the law explicitly states that you MUST depart the passing lane (please note the name, "passing lane") when you are not passing and someone is behind you. Once again, the law does not say anything about a speed. It doesn't matter if you're going five under the limit, or five over, the law requires you to depart the passing lane. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, but it is still true.

      Mind you, this is not true everywhere. Some places don't feel they have to legislate good manners. In general they are wrong, but don't have good enough manners to care. Like you.

      Did it not occur to YOU that you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PASS if doing so means BREAKING THE LAW, which speeding is?

      I never argued otherwise. My specific argument is that it is not acceptable for you to break the law in order to prevent someone else from breaking the law, and in fact you are a hypocrite for arguing such. I am not calling you names; I am stating fact. Employ a dictionary if you do not understand why this is true.

      I don't understand why that is so complicated for people like you who put their "right" to break the law above the rights and safety of other people.

      By forcing someone to drive at your pace and thus angering them, you are making the road unsafe. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Let me give you another example: It's your prerogative to stand in the middle of ther sidewalk when people want to walk by in many jurisdictions, but it still makes you an asshole. Er, not that you're doing this. You're an asshole for other reasons.

      And yes, it is whining if you're going to sit here and bitch and complain and get upset when people dare to say "no, I will not do what you want, I am behaving legally, you are not".

      The issue is that you are breaking the law. You are not behaving legally. Actually, that's not really the issue, the law is not the arbiter of what is good or not, only what you can or cannot be punished in court for. The issue is that you are breaking the law and claiming that you are doing it to prevent others from breaking the law, and further claiming that you are not breaking the law. Guess what? Most jurisdictions have a law that prevents impeding the flow of traffic, and those laws don't specify a speed, either. If you try this argument out on a cop sometimes, you will likely be getting a ticket regardless of how the other driver fares, because cops don't like it when citizens take it upon themselves to enforce the law. It threatens their job security.

      Finally, copying my final paragraph back at me when you are utterly wrong on every point only proves that you are an idiot - as if any further proof were required. The only reason I'm wasting time replying to you yet again (I'm pretty sure you're not going to understand this comment either - perhaps I should have used shorter words? I could link every word to its dictionary definition next time, if that would help you out) is that I don't want someone else to read your comment and think that you are right or that you even have a point.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    296. Re:in other news by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Looks like we found the one of the idiots here.

      -You rarely "need" to be in the left lane on an unchoked street when you're not passing, and if you are camping the left lane, as you admit, you most certainly are breaking the law.

      -Whatever danger you claim these faster drivers are causing, you are doing the same when you camp the left lane, which causes unnecessary walls, wolfpacks, and jams, which aren't making anyone safer, as they kill maneuverability room whenever people need to respond to hazards. (Which of course is predicated on those drivers being AWARE of and GIVING A DAMN about their environments, which quite clearly does not hold in your case.)

      -If the new lane makes a different lane becomes the leftmost lane, that new left lane should be used just for passing, and the old one no longer has this status. Come on, that shouldn't be hard to figure out, even, yes, for you.

      -Most passers are not dangerous, because they are AWARE of their environment, which is the most important thing when driving. Furthermore, for a driver to quickly and smoothly get out of your general vicinity (which passing you whilst you remain safely on the right, accomplishes) is safer for YOU, so it don't see how it's selfish.

      -If you are responsible, others might not be. Be responsible anyway (with apologies to Mother Theresa).

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    297. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll make one exception...

      So, anyone going slower than you is an asshole, but anyone going faster is a maniac.

      Thanks for the insight.

    298. Re:in other news by msheekhah · · Score: 1

      dad feels like this too, but he will be a total ass if people are driving slow in the left lane, especially when the signs say "passing lane only"... like driving 3" from their bumper, honking excessively. i think that's fucking ugly behavior. i was ashamed and even scared. it's fucking wreckless. your life isn't worth another 10 miles an hour. be pissed. call the cops. but please, act like a fucking adult. and he has no personal items in his car.

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
    299. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      I'm laughing at you because you think you know better what the situation is, what the road is like, and why I might be driving the way I do. I'm also laughing at you because you still can't get over the fact that breaking the law isn't an excuse to be a dipshit toward other people. I'm also laughing at you because you have made multiple assumptions, all because you have blinders on that lead to "this person is an idiot" and can't rip them off long enough to realize that the world does not revolve around you and that you really need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you start screaming at them.

      Yes. I am laughing at you. I have tried repeatedly to correct your erroneous beliefs and now I can see that you are not going to admit that you are wrong, no matter what. You've admitted, even if you didn't intend to, that you and others are driving illegally and that you believe this is justified, and that alone yanks away any and all sympathy I might have had for you.

      Go find someone else to intimidate. As you can tell, I'm not backing down. Leave five minutes earlier next time and calm the hell down or go beat up a stuffed animal if that's what it takes to get rid of your superiority complex against people who haven't done a damn thing wrong.

    300. Re:in other news by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      All I got out of that was:

      -Selectiveness about which laws you have to follow, while criticizing others on the grounds that they broke the law.
      -A bunch of ad hominem.

      Yes, you failed to convince me ... but it's because there's no substance to any of your justifications for your behavior, not because er, whatever of all that stuff you instantly KNOW to be true about me, including "you think you know better what the situation is".

      Yeah, durn those people that make wild, unjustifiable assumptions about others. lol, You're a sweetie. A dangerous sweetie, but a sweetie.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    301. Re:in other news by Buran · · Score: 1

      Bla bla bla.

    302. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Eight bucks to see the article??? Or 199 to subscribe???

      Kiss mine.

    303. Re:in other news by syukton · · Score: 1

      Speeding while passing is still illegal. That's not completely accurate. Speeding while passing on a two-lane road is still legal in most areas. Just throwing that out there.
      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    304. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flashing lights and following closely is not reckless. Following too closely is certainly reckless. A large percentage of highway accidents are rear-end collisions due to tailgating. If you are too close, it is simply impossible to brake in time once you've determined he is not just flashing his brake light. Looking ahead will not always work because the car in front may also brake suddenly for very sudden or non-visible reasons, like severe mechanical breakdowns (a guy I knew had his bonnet spring open up while driving) or medical issues (like a heart attack).

      He was using his car as a weapon to force me to go a speed he felt was acceptable. You were using your car as a weapon to force him to speed up or move over. Don't pretend that you weren't being aggressive.

      You tell your kid that you don't want to get him to the hospital any faster when he is hurting. By driving wildly you are just going to increase his pain. A smooth ride with gentle acceleration and deceleration is much better. I think that you were irritated by the kid moaning/crying and wanting to get the trip over with quickly. Don't pretend that you were speeding because it was necessary/better for him.
    305. Re:in other news by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Did you even consider the possibility that maybe the other guy might have been a crazy moron? Especially considering the fact that the other guy was tailgating the OP before the high-speed road-rage chase ...
      Once, maybe. Twice, seems less likely, The simplier explanation would be that perhaps the whole "I shall not move out of the way of people looking to go faster in the left lane when I can," is the problem. Remember it takes two cars to have a high speed chase through a metropolitan area.
      What, so being threatened with physical violence immediately implies that you were in the wrong?
      Since the incident(as described by the parent poster) involved several levels of escalation neither party was in the right.
      What sort of twisted logic is that?
      The same logic that disallows dueling b/c your honor has been offended. But hey when the parent poster is eating catfood after a wrongful death suit perhaps he'll reflect on this advice, "Slower traffic, keep right."

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    306. Re:in other news by cheezmoon · · Score: 1
      woah. i see your point, but i think you also need to factor in location. big cities vs. smaller towns/rural areas being the most readily apparent distinction but even beyond that, different big cities are going to have different regional customs, same with different small towns.

      ie, i've heard tales of a tiny town in colorado where some dude will come out with a gun if you don't make a full stop at a stop sign. (this smells like myth, but, if i were to visit this town i wouldn't tempt him).

      before you insult alpha830rulz's driving, consider that there might be some real threat, possibly at no fault of alpha's, that you may not have experienced in your circumstances. (do you live in a peaceful town with courteous drivers? are you part of a demographic that people stereotype to be bad drivers?)

      however, regardless of fault, when is it ever ok to chase someone down and make them fear for their *life* - just because of some momentary traffic snag? if some harm actually came to alpha, would you be like, "well, shouldn't'a cut him off." ?

      usually, i'm antsy about gun ownership but having just seen Death Proof, i fully support alpha on this one. ( ;) ).

  2. what about the obvious ? by dickbot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The number of territory markers predicted road rage better than vehicle value, condition, or any of the things that we normally associate with aggressive driving,"

    Measuring the degree of car territorialisation to predict road rage? Seems like a damn roundabout way of doing it, you might as well measure your car velocity by looking at the apparent motion of the stars.

    I suspect analyzing drivers' I.Q would make a simpler, better job at predicting stupid road behaviour.

    1. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got an IQ of 160 and I drive like a complete bastard, you insensitive clod.

    2. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I suspect analyzing drivers' I.Q would make a simpler, better job at predicting stupid road behaviour. ..and skin colour.
    3. Re:what about the obvious ? by RustinHWright · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bubelah, part of the point of the article is that this was a correlation they weren't expecting to find. That's what science is. You collect data based on a rough idea of where you should look and only when you've looked at the data do you start finalizing your conclusions on what you're looking at.

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    4. Re:what about the obvious ? by dintech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's right. The phrase 'linked to' in the title is a dead giveaway. Otherwise the submitter would have used 'caused by'.

    5. Re:what about the obvious ? by capt.Hij · · Score: 1

      Bubelah, part of the point of the article is that this was a correlation they weren't expecting to find. That's what science is. You collect data based on a rough idea of where you should look and only when you've looked at the data do you start finalizing your conclusions on what you're looking at. That is not science. In science you make a prediction based on sound principles, and then you design a set of controlled experiments to test your hypothesis. If you simply collect data based on a rough idea you are going to find correlations simply due to chance alone. If you happen to find an unexpected correlation then you re-evaluate your ideas and then come up with a new set of experiments. To present your work before confirming unexpected findings is irresponsible.

    6. Re:what about the obvious ? by siddesu · · Score: 1

      I am a complete bastard, and I have never had road rage.

    7. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Perhaps they need to define the data better then. does bumpersticker already on the car or placed on it by someone else count or is it just bumper stickers that the person who is driving it placed on the car?

      I also have a severe problem with the definition of road rage too. A while back, I had my 4 year old nephew in the car and some jack ass thought that the speed limit (45, on a 2 lane residential area) was too slow and passed me on the double yellow line going around a curve. At the time I noticed him over taking me another car was coming around the corner and he shot back into my lane forcing me to slam on the brakes and run onto the shoulder in order to avoid an accident. Well, that cause me to fish tail a little but the car remained under control and no accident occurred.

      Up the road, was an intersection with a 4 way stop. I jumped out of the car and proceeded to ask him what the hell was going on and we started arguing when I told him how to drive and where to pull he head from. A cop was sitting at the cross intersection and turn on his lights and all. He was saying I was having a problem with road rage when he was radioing in for backup. About that time, a car came up behind us and the driver walked up to talk to the cop. I was handcuffed and told to stand by my car. The car going to other direction thought I actually had an accident and turned around for fear of being hit with a leaving the scene of an accident. When he saw us talking to the cop, he gave them his side of events and the cop had me write a statement then let me go. I assume they cited the other guy. But I was going to be hit with some road rage charge for telling a person who almost killed me (and my nephew) to watch what the hell they were doing. Had that third car not turned around, I would have been screwed and another meaningless state for this meaningless result in this study.

      I'm confident that the parent was correct in his assessment of the usefulness of this study and results. Not necessarily because they did something wrong, but with the inherent flaws in the data collection itself. To me, road rage is aggressive driving but evidently, it can be a number of things depending on who writes it up and so on. And the question of some kids putting bumper stickers on a car verses the current owner willfully doing it is skewing things a bit too.

    8. Re:what about the obvious ? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, the secret is to learn defensive driving - if someone is overtaking you in a dangerous spot, you lift off and slow down in anticipation of the accident / intemperate manoeuvre from the idiot overtaker.

      It works for me - I never, ever have road rage (though I do swear at cyclists a lot).

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    9. Re:what about the obvious ? by MrHanky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit. You obviously have all your "science" education from high school or some engineering college. Only certain fields in physics and chemistry rely on controlled experiments or even have the possibility to do them.

      These researchers found a correlation, and made a further testable (falsifiable) hypothesis based on it. That's science. Only idiots who tag stories like this with correlationisnotcausation think science is causation studies. It's not.

    10. Re:what about the obvious ? by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh, so it's science like evolution or cosmology.

    11. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it be irresponsible to present your unexpected findings before confirming them?

      If this information is of interest to other researchers, then they are likely to develop their own theories and experiments.

      If Einstein had to wait until he had completely worked out and tested the unified field theory before publishing anything, we might be speaking Japanese. (No offense to those of you who do.)

    12. Re:what about the obvious ? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, the secret is to run the muthafscka off the fsckin road! If you do that, you'll never have a problem with road rage, because you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that that asshole got exactly what the fsck he deserved! Ha!

    13. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, proof that cops are lazy assholes.

      I also reported to an officer who SAW the incident about a reckless driver. He said, "if he did not hit you, I'm not doing anything."

      Cops are there for themselves not to protect and serve.... remember that.

    14. Re:what about the obvious ? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Nice one, Morgan - gotta love your attitude :o)

      All depends on whether I have loved ones in the car or not, LOL.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    15. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, if someone is over taking you, your supposed to maintain your speed and not alter your driving so the person making the affirmative move can gage a course of action. By slowing down, you could be closing their escape route if something is coming and putting yourself at a greater risk of an accident.

      In Ohio, it is actually part of the law that the vehicle being overtaken is to maintain a constant speed (PDF warning, see the page marked as 36 if you had the book, it should be somewhere on page 42 according to the PDF). It is possible for you to be cited if you don't as well as become partially at fault if an accident occurs. Missouri and TX have the same laws. or at least they did when I was there.

      But this is all pointless in this particular situation because the guy was behind me, then I saw his hood out of me left eye, he seemed to be going about 15 mph faster then me, and he came into my lane at that time. If I hadn't reacted, we should have hit somewhere with his front door at my my front tire. I moved over and saw him continuing into my lane and passing then I saw the other car and hit the brakes. By the time he was clear of me enough that I could come back into my lane, the oncoming car had already passed. It all happened faster then it would take you to read this, literally a matter of seconds. I'm serious, it was so close that a half second off for either of us could have resulted in either him hitting me or the oncoming car. It was that close.

    16. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So lets get this clear, you didn't notice a car overtaking you untill it was ahead of you, and it was clearly going faster than you to have overtaken you, yet when it pulled in front of you you braked and pulled off the road? You then left you car with the kid in sat at an intersection and went to argue with another driver.

    17. Re:what about the obvious ? by supercrisp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I understand your situation, and I'd be angry too. But what you did is pretty much the definition of road rage. Better to take the plate number, the car's description, and then call the cops. It's their job, not yours. And keep in mind: you could end up leaving your kids without a father, as plenty of people are happy to kill you for chewing them out.

    18. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see. You got out of your car, abandoning it while on a public road. You go up to another car and start arguing with the driver. Hmmmm. Sounds like you were angry. You were on the road. Does the term "road rage" apply to you? I think so.

      I'm not commenting on the other driver, but in this case, you most definitely were showing road rage. You should have gone to the cop and spoken to him directly, or else just take down the license plate and call it in.

    19. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, 'cause Whitey drives like a jerk.

      Don't belive me?

      Go to South Africa, and compare the safe, sensible black drivers to the Boer arseholes in their bakkies cutting you up across 4 lanes of traffic.

    20. Re:what about the obvious ? by maple_shaft · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In my opinion you were both being reckless.

      Granted what the other driver did was incredibly dangerous and he put the lives of you and your nephew in danger, however you were also being reckless in that you got out of your car to escalate the situation.

      It is not your place to play traffic enforcer and by doing that you put yourself in further danger of getting into a fight with a potentially deranged and dangerous individual. Not to mention the fact that there was a kid in the car whom you were responsible for.

      If there is one thing that I know from personal experience that there are CRAZY people on the roads everyday, some of them wouldn't think twice to shoot you dead where you stand just for yelling at them.

    21. Re:what about the obvious ? by mgblst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (though I do swear at cyclists a lot)

      I am guessing that you do this because you feel that you own the road, and don't agree to sharing it with cyclists. Ill admit that you see cyclists doing stupid things sometimes, but nowhere near as stupid as car drivers, and a cyclist isn't likely to ram into you adn kill you.

    22. Re:what about the obvious ? by jack4747 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure whether to believe your story... wait... how many bumber stickers on your car?

    23. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I know what you are saying. In hind sight, I think I should of handled it differently too. But as official road rage stats go, I went "uncounted" because someone showed that i had a pretty decent reason to be pissed.

      But even in the context of this study where they asked people questions instead of going straight for official reports and so on, if I presented the same situation and simply asked if it would make you mad, if you said yes, it appears that you would be counted as road rage even though your rag was limited to calling the police and reporting the reckless driving. The article says they asked questions like "as "If someone is driving slow in the fast lane, how angry does this make you?". Well, how mad do you have to be for it to be considered road rage? I mean I snapped and told a guy off in colorful terms. You would have snapped and called the police on him. We would probably both be just as mad, just one of us reasoned our response a little better then the other.

    24. Re:what about the obvious ? by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ya, the cop was right. The other guy shouldn't have passed in a no passing zone, no doubt about that. You're angry, no problem there. But there is a problem with jumping out of your car and screaming at someone. In other words, the other driver's actions don't excuse yours.

      I worry much more about someone that jumps out of a car than someone that cuts me off. The one that cuts me off will continue on his way; the one that jumps out may assalt me. He shouldn't have passed, but once he did perhaps you should have responded by slowing down to ensure the situtation didn't cause an accident. Based on your reaction though, I suspect you probably sped up, because of your holier than though attitude about the speed limit.

      The speed limit probably was too low, because almost all roads in the US have limits that are lower than they should be.

    25. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem unaware of the terms "hard science" and "soft science", which were invented to disambiguate the two forms of science.

      "Science" is a word without a single universally-agreed definition so your rant is a priori irrelevant.

      The OP is perfectly valid in rejecting the soft sciences if his understanding of "science" is an attempt to empirically discover true facts about the universe, rather than an attempt to create random falsifiable hypotheses based on zero-sigma results and see which ones stick after 200 years.

    26. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never, ever have road rage (though I do swear at cyclists a lot). heh - you should try being a cyclist.
    27. Re:what about the obvious ? by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      So, do you have a lot of bumper stickers, rims, car seat covers, and other such affects on/in your car?

    28. Re:what about the obvious ? by corbettw · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hate to say it, but in this circumstance the correct thing to do was probably to hit the guy, if you can do it in a controlled manner. It's hard to tell if that would've been possible, from your description of the road, so it might not have been. But if you had hit him, he would've been 100% at fault for driving that way in the first place. And if you were driving any kind of modern car, you and your nephew would've walked away with nothing more than a few bumps and bruises.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    29. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you got done for DUI if you were driving pissed. And with your kid in the car too, disgusting. /language differences

    30. Re:what about the obvious ? by tfried · · Score: 1

      I'm confident that the parent was correct in his assessment of the usefulness of this study and results. Not necessarily because they did something wrong, but with the inherent flaws in the data collection itself. To me, road rage is aggressive driving but evidently, it can be a number of things depending on who writes it up and so on. And the question of some kids putting bumper stickers on a car verses the current owner willfully doing it is skewing things a bit too.

      You don't need perfect data in order to reach perfectly sound scientific conclusions. Sure, you're story is unsettling. And true, this is a severe problem for (legal) road rage policy. For science it's just an everday nuisance that is routinely dealt with. It's an rare exeception that you can measure something absolutely correctly, without any form of error. That's all fine, as long as there is no systematic error (such as police particularily writing up people with bumper stickers for road rage - or kids systematically placing bumper stickers on the cars of reckless drivers). If there's still a correlation, that's not because of (non-systematic) errors, but despite of imperfect measures.

    31. Re:what about the obvious ? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      No - I don't agree with sharing the road with bad cyclists.

      I've been riding bicycles since the early 1970s, and am an extremely safe cyclist.

      I'm also an extremely safe driver, but am constantly amazed by the stupidity of some of the cyclists I see on the roads.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    32. Re:what about the obvious ? by dontPanik · · Score: 1

      "as well as whether they had personalized them in any way."
      It sounds like the questions were phrased to account for people making personalizations themselves and not having the personalizations done previously.

      --
      "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
    33. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure whether to believe your story... wait... how many bumper stickers on your car? None, unless he makes decals with hobo roadkill.
    34. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to South Africa, and compare the safe, sensible black drivers to the Boer arseholes in their bakkies cutting you up across 4 lanes of traffic.

      Ahh, typical "Black Man Is So Good" post. Come to London, mate.. and let's play "Find The Black Driver With A Licence". How do Blacks turn from heros in South Africa to murderous stupid criminals in the UK?

    35. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When being overtaken via on-coming traffic I speed up. Then they'll learn not to drive into on-coming traffic, or die, I don't care which. Shame about the incoming car.

    36. Re:what about the obvious ? by FuckTheModerators · · Score: 1

      You're nick's all too accurate.

      You seriously left your kid in your car to go berate someone who was driving erratically? As you've got a kid already, you won't win a Darwin award, so I don't know what you're trying for.

    37. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. White people can't drive for shit.

    38. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I've ever seen any cyclist obey all the traffic laws. Every one has either run red lights, gone the wrong way down lanes, ridden between cars when illegal, failed to signal, or some other braindead action that indicates they want the rights of the road without any of the obligations.

    39. Re:what about the obvious ? by jcgf · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Someone who tries to go 20 in a 50 zone in a styrofoam helmet while everyone else is doing 55 in several tonnes of steal is stupid; very stupid. Then they put on faggy little tight shorts and ride in the passing lane with their noses in the air because they think they are good for the environment but what they don't see is the 10 car length line behind them that has to go gas-break-gas-break and get shitty fuel consumption.

      Then they wonder what I get out of my pickup truck and donkey punch them at intersections. The cheers and waives of the motorists behind me make my day though ;)

    40. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and skin colour.

      You are so right! Man, the number of times I've witnessed arrogant dangerous driving, then noticed the driver was a particular skin colour..! Driving While Black should be made a crime.

    41. Re:what about the obvious ? by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I swear at cyclists too - not because I don't want to share the road with them, but because they're so God damned stupid. They run stop signs, run red lights, don't even LOOK before doing so. They ride on the wrong side of the street and generally act like utter assholes.

      It's the cyclists who act as if they own the road, not the drivers. Oddly, it's only bicycles that act like this, motorcycle drivers are probably the most polite people out there.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    42. Re:what about the obvious ? by Talonius · · Score: 1

      I've always thought of "road rage" as anger exhibited while driving, where the source of the anger is the environment or other variables outside the control of the driver.

      The behavior of other drivers is not necessarily outside the control of the driver. That's the purpose of getting out of the vehicle and unloading on the other driver - to indicate to him that you find his behavior unacceptable, and that his rush put you and your nephew at personal risk. (And look what he gained - he was at the same light as you.)

      We shouldn't forget that anger has a purpose, and that the driver who ran you off the road will never learn a lesson until he's been hurt or killed, or someone else has been, unless someone goes out of their way to target him with the effects of his actions.

      Unfortunately, human psyche doesn't take well to constructive criticism; fear of reprisal is the most effective method of restricting actions. If you could convince the other driver that his life was on the line he would think twice before driving like an idiot. (At least for a few days.)

      (Excellent Napoleon Bonaparte quote: "Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.")

      If I appear to be sanctioning and condoning this behavior, I am. Too often we sit back and expect society and its designated authorities to deal with people that believe they're more important than anyone else. Those authorities won't; they have a vested interest in pleasing everyone.

      Society makes this mistake all too often. The safety of the few is placed above the capabilities of all. We restrict who can own guns, but those who will use them illegally do not care. We throttle P2P applications, but those who are acting criminally will have no problem working around the throttle. We allow lawyers to game the system, because the system - and the rules allowing it to be gamed - is needed to allow others to defend themselves.

      I've been hit before for condoning violent or "unacceptable" behavior in public, but with 6 billion and counting in the world the only person who will look out for you is YOU. Until society finds value in personal responsibility rather than governmental welfare and until folks realize that they, not their past, control their actions... well, we must stand up for ourselves.

      (Disclaimer: I had a shitty childhood. I'm bipolar, ADHD, and twenty three years diabetic. The only person responsible for me is ME. I blame nothing on my family, friends, childhood, or environment. To do so is to avoid my responsibility for my behavior.)

      --
      My reality check bounced.
    43. Re:what about the obvious ? by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Measuring the degree of car territorialisation to predict road rage? Seems like a damn roundabout way of doing it... That wasn't what they were doing. Are you sure you read the article?

      I suspect analyzing drivers' I.Q would make a simpler, better job at predicting stupid road behaviour. Why should anyone care what you "suspect"? Unlike you, these guys actually did a study and found something that actually predicts road rage (or at least correlates with it).

      In other words: "Nevermind the facts! MY opinion is ..."

      Nuts to that.
    44. Re:what about the obvious ? by kurfu · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. You obviously have all your "science" education from high school or some engineering college. Only idiots who tag stories like this with correlationisnotcausation think science is causation studies. It's not. Ahhh yes... the social scientist mantra... "We can't really prove anything logically, so we'll resort to emotive dismissal and public belittlement of those that disagree with us." Sweet.
    45. Re:what about the obvious ? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, and I don't know if I've ever seen a car driver who obeys all the traffic laws. Most commonly, it's speeding, failing to stop at a stop sign, or changing lanes without checking a blind spot. What's your point?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    46. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about in Canada where they have this 'no fault' insurance business.

      My understanding of it is here, that if you are involved in an accident, your insurance pays out and your insurance goes up irregardless of who's fault it is. Someone rear-ends you from driving too close? Your insurance skyrockets..

    47. Re:what about the obvious ? by Ngarrang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect analyzing drivers' I.Q would make a simpler, better job at predicting stupid road behaviour. I know some very high IQ people who are stupid drivers. I believe it comes down to how much you care about other people. If you value other's lives, you will act in a way that respects other people...like using your turn signal to warn people behind you that you are about to change lanes...or not stealing someone's safety buffer that your car just happens to fit. Simply put, if you wouldn't want someone doing it to you, then why the heck are you doing it to them?
      --
      Bearded Dragon
    48. Re:what about the obvious ? by Sinister+Stairs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Corbett's correct: Sadly, it's better to just hit the other car [in the given situation] than to risk losing control trying to avoid contact. I was in a similar situation, and both the cop and insurance adjuster wistfully informed me that.

    49. Re:what about the obvious ? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Yes, and that's why if you're behind me on a motorcycle I'll look ahead to see if it's safe for you to pass, and if it is I'll indicate and move over to give you room.

      In traffic, I'll make space ahead of me for motorcycles to move into, and I'll wave them past.

      Cyclists, on the other hand, can go swivel - I deliberately block them whenever possible, and make sure they feel the draught from my mirrors when passing them.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    50. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      several tonnes of steal stupid; very stupid.
    51. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience, most cyclists blow through stop signs and red lights, often cycle against traffic, and generally act like road rules don't apply to them

    52. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they wonder what I get out of my pickup truck and donkey punch them at intersections. The cheers and waives of the motorists behind me make my day though ;) So, you're saying that you have fantasies about donkey-punching guys in 'faggy little tight shorts'?
    53. Re:what about the obvious ? by Leuf · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't forget that anger has a purpose, and that the driver who ran you off the road will never learn a lesson until he's been hurt or killed, or someone else has been, unless someone goes out of their way to target him with the effects of his actions.

      Right, because the load he dropped in his underwear when he saw that oncoming traffic and the near accident following didn't teach him any sort of lesson, but being yelled at by someone he doesn't give a damn about changed his entire world view.

      Venting your anger in a situation like that may make you feel better but don't kid yourself into thinking it accomplishes something positive.

    54. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got what you deserved. The smart thing for you to do would have been to jot down his plate, and phone it in to the state police.

      Hopefully you learned your lesson.

    55. Re:what about the obvious ? by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unaware of the terms "hard science" and "soft science"; give me a break. I'm not 12. Also, the lack of a single universally agreed definition doesn't make anything a priori anything: you simply have to follow the ad-hoc definition I use, which in this case was clearly based on empirical fact. If it's unclear, you can always ask me to define my term, but the lack of a single universally agreed definition doesn't concern my statements at all. When throwing about logical terms, you should at least try to use them in a way that doesn't betray the fact that you don't know anything about logic.

      And no, he's not "perfectly valid" in any way, as he's totally unaware of how the actual scientific process works, and delimits "science" as something that wouldn't even include the work of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein (or at least, they would be deemed highly "irresponsible"). His definition of science doesn't encompass half of the so-called "hard" sciences, and very little of importance.

      And "true facts"? Experimental methods and controlled experiments guarantee nothing in and of themselves. In fact, any controlled experiment begs a whole host of questions, beginning with: do you measure what you think you're measuring.

    56. Re:what about the obvious ? by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      And now I expect you to show how strawman attacks are "hard science". I've never claimed nothing can be proven logically; I do, however, take issue with the Slashbots who for some unfathomable reason seem to think a study such as this has any pretence of revealing a causal relationship.

      It's cliche, and it's godawfully stupid.

    57. Re:what about the obvious ? by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      My personal favorite type of moron is the idiot on a bicycle on a major feeder road. Moderate to heavy traffic. Speed limit 50 mph with traffic actually running at 55 to 60. Riding along on the shoulder and occasionally moving into traffic to avoid debris. Right next to a bike trail on the safe side of a guard rail that parallels the road!

      Mind you, I'm not talking about casual bikers or even commuters. I'm talking about the jokers who take biking so seriously that they wouldn't be caught dead in public in nothing less than the height of biking fashion; spandex pants, garishly decorated shirts, and aerodynamically designed styrofoam helmets with those little dental mirrors attached. Whatever happened to just strapping your right pant leg down so it didn't get caught in the chain? lol

      Time and again I've been very tempted to stop and explain just how stupid they're being. I console myself with the knowledge that, like motorcyclists riding without helmets, they simply represent Darwinism in action. Too bad someone's insurance will have to go up to remove these defects from the gene pool. :(

    58. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can there be any more generalizations?!

    59. Re:what about the obvious ? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      I swear at cyclists a lot, because I'm sick of cyclists who think they own the fucking road. I ride bikes, too. "Share the road", means exactly that, it doesn't mean ride down the center of the lane because you choose to use tires that might explode if you hit a piece of gravel in the bike lane. Too many cyclists think "Share the road" means "Let me use the road and wait until I'm done."

      There are great bike tires available that are plenty durable enough to be ridden on the shoulder, which is where bikes belong if the shoulder exists. If you insist on blocking traffic so that you can use different equipment, then the words 'self centered' might be the most charitable description to be mustered.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    60. Re:what about the obvious ? by nasor · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I would be likely to swear at *anyone* who obstructs traffic by blocking a lane while going 10-15 mph under the speed limit. But for some reason cyclists are the only ones who ever seem to do that.

    61. Re:what about the obvious ? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      It's the cyclists who act as if they own the road, not the drivers. Oddly, it's only bicycles that act like this, motorcycle drivers are probably the most polite people out there. I see plenty of stupid motorcycle riders around here. Quite a few will go between cars in adjacent lanes. A couple weeks ago, I got passed by a motorcycle. On the right. On a one-lane street.

      Like any other group, there are some motorcycle riders with a clue, and some without.
    62. Re:what about the obvious ? by justthinkit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean let him hit you. He was the one driving on the wrong side of the road. To get back into the right lane he would have had to hit sumdumass's car. Not fun but probably the safest option for sumdum and his nephew. And afterward there would be dent marks on the driver's side of sumdum's car to show the police and insurance adjusters.

      On a related note, I was once riding at about 30 to 35mph down a VERY steep hill. Single lane each way, with a gravel shoulder and a 4" to 6" drop-off from road to gravel. A car passed me (going about 40mph) and then proceeded to slam on its brakes and turn left right in front of me. It was a T intersection with no road area to the right for me to use. No chance I could get by on the paved road surface so I went onto the gravel at speed. Terrifying. Miraculously I didn't wipe out -- mountain bike + 40 years of bike riding experience + luck = live to ride another day. So, would this entitle one to some, er, rage? Personally I was just incredibly grateful to not be on the way to the hospital.

      The point is that there are times when someone else endangers our life/lives, and it can make us a bit testy, even if they are sporting a "Have a nice day!" bumper sticker.

      --
      I come here for the love
    63. Re:what about the obvious ? by REggert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm inclined to agree, especially since swerving off the road is generally not a good idea. What if there had been a pedestrian on the side of the road? The asshat probably would have driven off without a scratch, and you'd be left to explain to the police why you killed someone (though, in this case, the guy behind you probably would have corroborated your story).

      --

      cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt

    64. Re:what about the obvious ? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I used to run stop signs/ red lights when I was a younger cyclist, I justified it because bicycles don't create traffic, why should I have to stop. Just because people are too fat/lazy/dumb and have to drive around these huge vehicles, using 10x more space than a bike, and need traffic lights to tell them when to stop so they don't end up killing each other. You don't see traffic lights on bike paths.

      Now I just stop because I know it irritates drivers, and I don't want to make their driving any worse.

      I always found it funny that drivers get so pissed of when cyclists run red lights, when it is safe to do so, just because they can't. Bikes don't create traffic problems, cars do.

    65. Re:what about the obvious ? by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's true that it is important to anticipate situations. But it is equally important to leave your ego at home when you drive.

      I once heard Jackie Stewart, the three time world champion Formula One driver, asked what it takes to be a great driver. His answer was, you have to be completely emotionless when you are behind the wheel.

      This makes sense. The problem with emotions is that they hang around after they have done their work. When you drive, you have to work with the here and now. If somebody cuts you off, you have a brief surge of emotion that speeds your immediate reactions. Once you have avoided an accident, it's over, but you still have the emotion, which is no longer working for you, but against you.

      I try to take the personal out of driving incidents. If somebody cuts me off, I remind myself that everybody gets distracted and makes mistakes, and that no harm has come. If somebody is driving in an aggressive or dangerous way, it does no good to label that driver an idiot, in fact it is harmful to have any attitude toward the driver at all. When something happens, I try to get to a place where I am in the moment, where the driver is a non-entity, and the car is a factor in the situation that has to be balanced with the other factors. If somebody cuts me off, his car just becomes another car in front of me. If somebody is weaving, his car becomes a car that makes unpredictable lane changes. If somebody is tailgating me, his car becomes one that has less braking time than it needs. If a cyclist is in an inconvenient place for me, he becomes a slow vehicle that needs plenty of lateral clearance.

      Driving is simply a sequence of time critical problems to be solved, nothing more or less.

      Let me illustrate. The other day, I was going 3/4 of the way around a very large rotary. The problem with large rotaries is that the speeds are too high to be safe. As I approached the half way point, I noticed a couple of young men in a muscle car approaching very quickly on an access road feeding the rotary, and reckoned that we'd meet right at the merge. Although I had the right of way, I decided to slow down and let him in ahead of me, because he showed no signs of changing his speed. However, that brought me to his attention, and he also slowed, matching my speed. A quick check in the rear view mirror showed that I didn't have any cars close behind, so I slowed more, and changed from the left (inside) lane, intending to abort the exit and take another circle around the rotary.

      I had the other driver's attention now -- too much of it. He was mesmerized; I time I slowed, he slowed; he was paying no attention at all to his right, where he could easily escape the situation. Finally, he entered the rotary cutting across the left lane and coming to a complete stop directly in front of me, diagonally across most of my lane. He waved me ahead to pass him on his left, using a space that was just barely enough for me to squeeze by. By now cars were approaching from the rear, and I was uncertain they'd react in time. I also had no inclination to get in front of him, and in any case it would have been slow. Since he was at almost a 45 degree angle, I didn't want to go behind, in case he reacted to the oncoming traffic by backing up. So a waved him to go, so I could make a lane shift as he fully entered the left lane.

      He reacted to this by hitting the accelerator hard. Since he was trying to make a sharp turn at the same time, the only thing that happened was that his left rear wheel spun, which made him floor it, which only made things worse. Instead of making headway, his front end didn't move at all, and his rear end began to drift farther into left. Pretty soon he'd be pointed the wrong way, towards me. A quick glance in the rear view mirror showed cars were still approaching from the rear, and although I couldn't judge whether they were reacting to the situation, I figured I had severa

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    66. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never, ever have road rage (though I do swear at cyclists a lot). And how is that not road rage?
    67. Re:what about the obvious ? by hansonc · · Score: 1

      or it could be the cyclists riding 3 abreast on the road at 1/2 the speed of traffic when there's a perfectly good bike path 20 feet away. Or when the cyclist runs a redlight/stop sign. Or just when cyclists generally think they should own the road.

      I have no problem with cyclists who follow the same laws as autos when on the road and keep themselves and others out of harms way by riding safely. Unfortunately, just like with car drivers there are a bunch of asshole cyclists too.

    68. Re:what about the obvious ? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That is not science. In science you make a prediction based on sound principles, and then you design a set of controlled experiments to test your hypothesis. You described only ONE accepted scientific method--quantitative research. Other research methods do not rely on controlled experiments at all (case study, qualitative, ethnography, Action, etc.). This is a huge pet peeve of mine on slashdot...the insistence that quantitative research methodology is the only acceptable form of science.
    69. Re:what about the obvious ? by SageinaRage · · Score: 1

      The reason drivers get pissed is because bikes have to follow the same rules of the road as cars. It's no different than if the people in the car ran the light. It's just as illegal and dangerous in a bike. And the reason there's no lights on bike paths is because bike paths generally don't GO anywhere - they're just scenic, so there's not really a ton of traffic.

    70. Re:what about the obvious ? by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      motorcycle drivers are probably the most polite people out there. Right ... until you get to the whole "engine that's louder than my car's horn, creating an obvious safety hazard, and they're damn proud of it" thing. Oh, it's safe in terms of "letting me know you're there". It's not safe in terms of "drown out the ambulance's siren on an emergency trip, or my horn when I'm trying to warn another driver about a danger (other than the motorcyclist); or all the false alerts it creates".

      (To clarify, obviously not all motorcycles are like this.)
      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    71. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time, take down the license plate and call 911 about a dangerous driver.

    72. Re:what about the obvious ? by niko9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...
      I also have a severe problem with the definition of road rage too. A while back, I had my 4 year old nephew in the car and some jack ass thought that the speed limit (45, on a 2 lane residential area) was too slow and passed me on the double yellow line going around a curve. At the time I noticed him over taking me another car was coming around the corner and he shot back into my lane forcing me to slam on the brakes and run onto the shoulder in order to avoid an accident. Well, that cause me to fish tail a little but the car remained under control and no accident occurred.

      Up the road, was an intersection with a 4 way stop. I jumped out of the car and proceeded to ask him what the hell was going on and we started arguing when I told him how to drive and where to pull he head from. A cop was sitting at the cross intersection and turn on his lights and all. He was saying I was having a problem with road rage when he was radioing in for backup. About that time, a car came up behind us and the driver walked up to talk to the cop. I was handcuffed and told to stand by my car. The car going to other direction thought I actually had an accident and turned around for fear of being hit with a leaving the scene of an accident. When he saw us talking to the cop, he gave them his side of events and the cop had me write a statement then let me go. I assume they cited the other guy. But I was going to be hit with some road rage charge for telling a person who almost killed me (and my nephew) to watch what the hell they were doing. Had that third car not turned around, I would have been screwed and another meaningless state for this meaningless result in this study. ... Not only is the majority of your post off-topic to the study in TFA, you got out of the vehicle --with your 4 year old nephew in the car-- to argue with a total stranger who could have been: a criminal, fugitive, armed and dangerous, or just plain deranged? And arguing with this knucklehead produced what long term solution to his bad driving? Nada...

      Who modded this guy +5 Interesting?
    73. Re:what about the obvious ? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I dunno about where you are, but here in Saskatchewan, we can select if we want no-fault or tort for our insurance.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    74. Re:what about the obvious ? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      You should have pulled a broadie and stuck your foot in the car door.

      Much less painful, though it does upset the car driver :o)

      And yes, I do both drive and ride.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    75. Re:what about the obvious ? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      And what's dangerous about that?

      If the motorcyclist takes care, and thinks that you are aware of his presence, there's nothing wrong with him passing you on either side.

      I think your problem is that you don't use your mirrors as much as you should, so you don't know what's going on around you.

      Use your mirrors, and take care!

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    76. Re:what about the obvious ? by dickbot · · Score: 1

      Why should anyone care what you "suspect"? Unlike you, these guys actually did a study and found something that actually predicts road rage (or at least correlates with it).

      Erm, I was expressing an opinion, which, by definition, you can freely choose to ignore or consider.

      See, for example, I don't need to perform any kind of 'study' before confidently putting you in the "pompous jerk" category...just my opinion of course.

    77. Re:what about the obvious ? by mattkime · · Score: 1

      Yes, some cyclists are stupid, how does that make them different from drivers?

      As for breaking more rules in general, I completely agree. However, there are also a number of places along my daily route where following the rules is MORE dangerous than alternatives.

      Cars get the road, pedestrians get the sidewalk, and cyclists get the gutter.

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    78. Re:what about the obvious ? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      Just because people are too fat/lazy/dumb and ... need traffic lights to tell them when to stop so they don't end up killing each other. You don't see traffic lights on bike paths.

      What a stupid statement. There are no traffic lights on bike paths because the "vehicles" aren't going that fast and can't cause that much damage in an accident to each other (relatively speaking, of course). If bicycles weighed 1500 lbs and went 50 mph, there'd be traffic lights on bike paths.

      As an example, while they don't have lights, the bike paths next to the beach boardwalk in my city have traffic markers painted on them where they intersect with pedestrian crossings. Please note that the pedestrian crossing have no markers (or lights for that matter).

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    79. Re:what about the obvious ? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Post may contain irony:

      I really, really hope so - your description shows that you made the wrong decision at every point.

      You have right of way on the 'rotary' (I assume that's the same as a roundabout), so slowing down in anticipation of someone entering the system is wrong. The correct action is to either maintain your speed (good) or to accelerate (better, as it will put off the driver trying to enter the roundabout), being ready to brake at any time to avoid an accident.

      Driving defensively isn't all about giving way no matter what - it's about making sure that accidents don't happen, and sometimes assertiveness is the correct path.

      I actually am pretty unemotional as a driver - I swear because it's better to get the emotional surge over and done with, rather than bottling it up.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    80. Re:what about the obvious ? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      The reason drivers get pissed is because bikes have to follow the same rules of the road as cars.

      We know that, but don't see why we should have to follow the rules because we don't create traffic/kill people. We can safely run red lights because we can see, we don't have blind spots/visual difficulty, we are right at the front of the lights, and we can stop quickly avoiding danger.

      It's just as illegal and dangerous in a bike.
      Sure, it is just as illegal, but a lot less dangerous. Are you somehow saying a car running a red light is going to cause the same amount of damage/death as a bike? It is only really dangerous to the cyclist, and they decide to put themselves at risk. This is an idiotic statement.

      they're just scenic, so there's not really a ton of traffic.

      You are wrong. You sound like someone who has never ridden a bike, there are plenty of chances of running into someone when you are riding on dedicated bike paths, we are just not stupid enough to do it (also we don't get up to the same speeds, have more manouverability, better visual range/ no blind spots, etc...)

    81. Re:what about the obvious ? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      You obviously have all your "science" education from high school or some engineering college. Only certain fields in physics and chemistry rely on controlled experiments or even have the possibility to do them.


      Um, all science relies on controlled experiments. Statistical controls are controls, too.
    82. Re:what about the obvious ? by jbash · · Score: 1

      I jumped out of the car and proceeded to ask him what the hell was going on and we started arguing when I told him how to drive Did you really think this was going to be effective? Seriously.

      The best thing in life is to walk away from conflict when you're able to. If you get into conflicts you have problems with things like getting into trouble with cops.

      You need some anger management training, seriously. Someday you're going to get yourself into real trouble. I'm saying all of this to try to help you.
    83. Re:what about the obvious ? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      If bicycles weighed 1500 lbs and went 50 mph, there'd be traffic lights on bike paths.

      Brilliant. So if bikes were cars, then bike paths would have traffic lights? And maybe, rather than calling them bike paths, we could call them roads.

      This is the whole point, bikes don't cause dangerous/deadly accidents when they hit each other, why should we have to follow the same rules? This is the way a lot of people think.

      Note: I follow the rules now.

    84. Re:what about the obvious ? by ohmypolarbear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you really are an "extremely safe" and experienced cyclist, as you say in another post, then you should know just how terrifying and unsafe it is to interact with drivers who act the way you say you do. If you were an "extremely safe" driver you would not be acting unpredictably and creating situations where someone could be seriously injured, or worse.

      You say you're not aggressive toward motorcycles, and give examples where they're moving faster than you. I think you'd find that most bicyclists were willing to similarly wave you past - if they weren't so threatened by your driving that they felt the need to take the whole lane as a precaution.

      As for running stop signs in traffic without looking (grandparent): that's very risky behavior, and chances are they'll get injured at some point as a result. But you don't need to help things along.

    85. Re:what about the obvious ? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I really should let a motorcycle rider answer this, but it's safer for the motorcycle rider to have a loud engine because most fools don't see motorcycles. A bike loud enough to drown out a horn or siren is going to be pulled over PDQ, btw.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    86. Re:what about the obvious ? by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      "I hate to say it, but in this circumstance the correct thing to do was probably to hit the guy, if you can do it in a controlled manner."

      Sorry, but that is ridiculous. You never, ever, should intentionally get into an accident. Now, if you're chosing between which objects to hit (e.g. wall or car), then that's a no-win choice and you do your best. But if you can take action to avoid an accident, you should do so.

      Let's see...bodily harm in one hand, or bruised feelings in another. I know which I'll take. Especially with a 4-year old in the car along with me.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    87. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I think maybe he is right to a degree. With kids, they sometimes do things and don't recognize the dangers if they don't get hurt doing it.

      When I was a kid, we would pull the mattress off the bottom bunked and jump off the top attempting to do "stunts" we saw in movies. This later graduated to lining sleeping bags with pillows and pulling each other down a flight of stairs. Nothing happened to us except getting punished when my parents found out and but as an adult, when I saw my own kids doing it, I was horrified. It's like setting up the biggest ramp you can make out of the materials you can find and jumping your bicycle over it. If nothing happens and your relatively ok, then it was due to your skill. If you get hurt and break a bone, you think maybe you went overboard of you shouldn't have been doing it. Similarly, some drivers might just be kids mentally and need someone to be that parent that steps in and says stop doing that. They might listen or they might not. But some people need that extra push.

    88. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experimental methods and controlled experiments guarantee nothing in and of themselves. In fact, any controlled experiment begs a whole host of questions, beginning with: do you measure what you think you're measuring. Awesome. You've managed to imply that experimental science is no better guessing, and not one of these posts is modded troll. Well done, sir.
    89. Re:what about the obvious ? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      This is the whole point, bikes don't cause dangerous/deadly accidents when they hit each other, why should we have to follow the same rules? This is the way a lot of people think.

      True enough. I would add that bicyclists that ignore the road rules put themselves in danger from moving vehicles and others in danger should those vehicles need to avoid the bicycle. Basically they're discounting any unexpected consequences of their unexpected actions.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    90. Re:what about the obvious ? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Why do you swear at cyclists? It is their road, too.
      Or, do you somehow have greater rights since you burn oil?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    91. Re:what about the obvious ? by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      I am guessing that you do this because you feel that you own the road, and don't agree to sharing it with cyclists. Ill admit that you see cyclists doing stupid things sometimes, but nowhere near as stupid as car drivers, and a cyclist isn't likely to ram into you adn kill you. Cyclists are among the worst offenders of traffic laws, in my experience. From running red lights to running stop signs to failing to signal to driving the wrong way on roads to passing cars that are stopped at a red light by driving between the lanes to driving on sidewalks to driving full-speed through crosswalks at busy intersections, I have a hard time thinking of a rule that I do not regularly see cyclists violate with abandon. It's like they think they are beholden neither to car laws nor pedestrian laws but can pick and choose between them from second to second.

      I'm good about it, I really am. I give them space, brake as hard as is necessary to avoid collisions, and never engage in mind-games or aggressive tactics. But I'd be lying if I said I never caught myself entertaining some dark fantasies that involve state-of-the-art ragdoll physics.
    92. Re:what about the obvious ? by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      We know that, but don't see why we should have to follow the rules because we don't create traffic/kill people. We can safely run red lights because we can see, we don't have blind spots/visual difficulty, we are right at the front of the lights, and we can stop quickly avoiding danger.

      Then why is it that I've had to slam on my brakes and/or not been able to go at a green light because some asshole bicyclist apparently didn't notice that I had right-of-way?

      Yes, I have had to do the same because of car drivers, but given the ratio of cars to bicycles on the road, it should happen far less often with bicycles than it does.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    93. Re:what about the obvious ? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Too many cyclists think "Share the road" means "Let me use the road and wait until I'm done."

      That is exactly what it means. The car behind you is letting you use the road and waiting until you're done. He isn't passing you dangerously and making sure you feel the draft of his mirrors. Or, if he is, he's a dick.
      If the cars behind you are letting you use the road and waiting until you're done, you should give the same repect to the cyclist in front of you, UNLESS he is going below a posted, required speed.
      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    94. Re:what about the obvious ? by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      No, that's not an implication of this. I have, in fact, not uttered one word against the value of experimental science, but thanks for playing, you dishonest prick.

    95. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      First, the lower speed limits are more or less because of drivers failure to slow down during hazardous conditions and to set a uniform rule on how fast to drive if a posted limit isn't present. At least in my state it is. If you follow the rules, you won't be speeding anywhere even if a sign isn't present. Second, there wasn't enough time to speed up. I describe the situation in detail at this post here.

      Your incorrect about a holier then though attitude about a speed limit though. The road was one where it was at was plenty fast enough for the conditions. There was actually one of the yellow caution speed limit signs that lowered the speed limit by 10 MPH for the corner. I didn't. Don't confuse someone's willingness to follow the rules and not get a ticket as some divine evangelical push for everyone else to do so. I don't care if you go 20 times the speed limit as long as you don't make me part of your mistakes. That is when I get angered.

      I suspect that you have a right to be fearful of someone assaulting you. You sound like one of those people who think if I can do it, what is the harm which means you probably piss a lot of people off. However, I am big enough that if I was going to assault someone, I would have opened the car door or kicked the window out and done it. There wouldn't be a need to 2 minutes of arguing where the other driver could have speed away at the fist chance they get.

    96. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The car I was driving at the time had only a parking sticker for the apartment complex I lived at and a Pow/MIA sticker in the read window that a previous own placed there. I don't personally do bumper stickers and only do seat covers when the condition of the seats are questionable. And no, that wasn't the case with this car at that time 2 years later it was after I left the door open when visiting a friend and their dog decided to have pups on the cushions.

    97. Re:what about the obvious ? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If it were a two-lane road, sure, I wouldn't be too worried about a motorcycle passing me on the right. On a one-lane road, passing on the right is very dangerous and very illegal.

    98. Re:what about the obvious ? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Your justification for following the rules is severely flawed.

      I justified it because bicycles don't create traffic

      Yes, you do. When I have to slam on the skids at a green light because you're too stupid or suicidal to stop at a red light, that creates traffic. Nobody wants to help a moron commit suicide.

      and need traffic lights to tell them when to stop so they don't end up killing each other

      You're not old enough to drive, are you? If you're too stupid to understand why traffic lights are needed, I'm not nearly smart enough to explain it to you.

      You don't see traffic lights on bike paths.

      Yes you do - when they cross highways. It's a lot harder to slow/stop a two thousand pound vehicle doing 35 mph than it is to stop/slow a 30 pound vehicle doing ten.

      DUH!

      I always found it funny that drivers get so pissed of when cyclists run red lights, when it is safe to do so, just because they can't.

      Cars can run red lights when it's safe. But they don't; most don't, anyway. That's because most auto drivers are responsible adults, while most bicycle riders (in the US anyway) are either too young to drive, or lost their license because they have the same attitude you do.

      You'll be lucky to survive long enough to get your driver's license.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    99. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm in the states which means that we really don't have no fault insurance. We do however have a full coverage which covers your repairs if it was or wasn't your fault which is close to no fault insurance. I think Michigan has something close to no fault insurance.

      My understanding is that no fault insurance seems to lower overall in insurance bills but in our current system, it is pretty much more expensive unless you drive a car they will total out after more then $1000 in damages or you have a stellar driving record with every cost reduction point they can give. My mother pays in the area of $600 a year for full coverage insurance on one 2 year old vehicle where I pay around $500 every six months ($100 a year) for minimum liability coverage on two vehicles 10 years old. I don't even have any citations on my record (within the 5 years they check).

      If what I have been told about no fault insurance is true, it would be a good system to have over here.

    100. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only really dangerous to the cyclist, and they decide to put themselves at risk. Now _THAT_ is an idiotic statement.

      Believe or not, but some people actually do try to avoid hurting others, and obviously panic braking or swerving to avoid hitting some dumbwit running the lights into the front of you will put other lives at risk.

      Guess it's time to hit the other pedal next time, if that's how the fuckers think, and make sure they're right for once.
    101. Re:what about the obvious ? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Yes, some cyclists are stupid, how does that make them different from drivers?

      Their stupidity is far more suicidal.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    102. Re:what about the obvious ? by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      I really should let a motorcycle rider answer this, but it's safer for the motorcycle rider to have a loud engine because most fools don't see motorcycles. Sure, the question is just *how* loud. Of course I need to know if a motorcycle is near me. I don't need to know about every single motorcycle within a half mile that has chosen to accelerate as fast as he feels like.

      A bike loud enough to drown out a horn or siren is going to be pulled over PDQ, btw. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh, god, you're a riot. You have GOT to be at our next party.
      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    103. Re:what about the obvious ? by mrraven · · Score: 1

      Good job not having road rage, now stop swearing at cyclists as well, not only do they have a LEGAL right to the road but they are far more virtuous than you or I in a car with their smaller carbon footprint.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    104. Re:what about the obvious ? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!

      Cycling is a fun and healthy way to get around, and pretty darn safe - were it not for careless drivers, or the occasional psychopath like the grandparent here. Unpredictable or hostile drivers can turn a carefree Sunday bike ride into near terror. Or in my case, actually waking up in an ambulance.

    105. Re:what about the obvious ? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      That was, if I may say so, a piece of really good driving on my part.

      Really? A piece of really good driving? Far be it for me to judge, but from what I can tell, if you had maintained your speed around the rotary there would not have been an incident in the first place. You were just as much, if not more, of a cause of the incident as the other driver.

    106. Re:what about the obvious ? by LackThereof · · Score: 1

      I have to speak up here.

      I am a delivery driver in Seattle, where cyclists have full rights on BOTH the road AND the sidewalk.

      The vast majority of cyclists in this city have no regard for basic traffic laws, lane markings, traffic lights, or even one-way streets (and forget about the helmet law).

      I'm really really tired of slamming on my brakes because some cyclist doesn't feel the need to respect a red light, or signal a lane change.

      And just because it won't hurt me if they run into me, doesn't make me feel any better about having to dodge them.

      Cyclists who obey the rules of the road are no problem. The rest of them give us heart attacks and you a bad name.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    107. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you're trying for.
      I was attempting to inform the asshat about the dangers of their actions so they would think about someone else instead of just themselves when attempting to gain their own darwin award. You can thank me when your not killed by that individual's next act of inconsiderate and dangerous driving doesn't happen and doesn't kill you and your kid.
    108. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not only is the majority of your post off-topic to the study in TFA, you got out of the vehicle --with your 4 year old nephew in the car-- to argue with a total stranger who could have been: a criminal, fugitive, armed and dangerous, or just plain deranged? And arguing with this knucklehead produced what long term solution to his bad driving? Nada...
      That was my point. My actions should have been recorded as a road rage event but they weren't. The entire road rage situation is up for interpretation that isn't universally applied.

      In the replies, someone told me I should have done nothing more then getting a license number and reporting the incident as he would do. He admitted to probably being just as pissed off as I was but would have handled it in an entirely acceptable way. Now if his anger levels would be the same as mine but his course of action any better, is he a problem? Is his anger, equal to mine but with a different purposed course of action, rage where mine clearly was. Interpreted results has no basis in reality with the effects of this study. If someone has the same amounts of anger but the wherewithal to keep a cool and collected non violent or confrontational response, is there really rage?
    109. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't need any training. I have my anger under control. At the time of those events, I would probably agree with you but having an experience like that where I was handcuffed for the police's protection in front of a child I was responsible for at the time gives you a lot to reflect on. In hind site, I should have done a lot of things completely different but I seriously thought we were all going to die and I never had an opportunity to work something like that out before and there was a lot to work out. I literally viewed it at the moment as if the passing car was trying to kill us until I had time to see that we weren't scratched. It is hard for someone who has never been in that close of a situation to understand how they would react when it happens to them.

      There was another time I had a situation and I handled it entirely differently. I was driving through town at about 05:00 (am) and the car in front of me stopped at a red light after passing me (on a four lane road but it merged back to two just before the light). After the light turned green, he failed to move. I honked the horn and nothing. I looked and it appeared that the car was empty so I drove alongside to simply pass them and saw someone slumped over the steering wheel. I called 911 thinking they had a heart attack or something but it turned out that they were drunk and passed out during the red light cycle. Anyways, I was getting angry that someone in such a hurry was pissing around so long at the light but I didn't act aggressive on anything or yell or anything. I know, completely different situations but I'm not really a violent person. I suppose I could be but sometimes it takes an experience to learn how to handle experiences.

    110. Re:what about the obvious ? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      These researchers found a correlation, and made a further testable (falsifiable) hypothesis based on it. That's science. Only idiots who tag stories like this with correlationisnotcausation think science is causation studies. It's not. Moreover, it's an easily identified indicator of whether or not someone is going to be an idiot on the road, and I can stay the hell away from them. If it was as easy to identify drunks on the road, I'd be happy about that, too.
      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    111. Re:what about the obvious ? by painehope · · Score: 1
      This is why you often hear "Unidentified man found dead in his vehicle on the side of Highway X. Police have no suspects or motives, as the victim was not robbed nor...[blah-blah]" on the Houston news. An armed society is a polite society, and I'm Mr.Fucking Manners. And to endanger my family? You might as well just cross your name out of the phone book and take out life insurance. Not that I'll give you the time to do so...


      Regardless of the correlations found in this study, I'm of the opinion that one thing causes road rage : stupidity on the part of one or both parties. And I'm all for pouring a little bleach in the gene pool...

      --
      PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    112. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I jumped out of the car and proceeded to ask him what the hell was going on and we started arguing when I told him how to drive and where to pull he head from. I can understand you being upset by his actions. But the moment you stepped out of your car you crossed a very clear line. And it's perfectly fair to identify your response as road rage. It's the action, not whether you had justification.
    113. Re:what about the obvious ? by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Actually I seem to recall a study in the late 80s that found a correlation between IQ and bad driving in general. (Tickets, accidents, etc.)

      I'll try to find it, but it was in a journal that I think requires a subscription.

      --
      Fnord.
    114. Re:what about the obvious ? by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      I should have made that more clear: a correlation between higher IQ and bad driving.

      --
      Fnord.
    115. Re:what about the obvious ? by psychicninja · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I don't know if I've ever seen a car driver who obeys all the traffic laws. Most commonly, it's speeding, failing to stop at a stop sign, or changing lanes without checking a blind spot. What's your point?
      Sounds like you have a classic case of confirmation bias. There are many drivers who obey laws (almost) all the time, you only notice the ones who do not, so it seems like people always disregard laws.
    116. Re:what about the obvious ? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      First, the lower speed limits are more or less because of drivers failure to slow down during hazardous conditions and to set a uniform rule on how fast to drive if a posted limit isn't present. At least in my state it is. If you follow the rules, you won't be speeding anywhere even if a sign isn't present.

      No, the lower limits are there to give police more power, to increase revenue via fines, and feel good political reasons. Speed limits pretty much don't work, because the limits as is are mostly ignored anyway. It's why they finally abandoned the national 55 limit. I'd really like to know what state you live in though.. perhaps things are more sane there, but my experience is largely limited to the NE.

      Second, there wasn't enough time to speed up. I describe the situation in detail at this post here.

      So you say. I can't be sure if you're telling the truth or not though, and since there's no way to prove if you are either way, I feel we can drop this point.. I have my opinion, you have yours.

      Your incorrect about a holier then though attitude about a speed limit though. The road was one where it was at was plenty fast enough for the conditions.

      That's your opinion. Obviously at least one other disagreed

      There was actually one of the yellow caution speed limit signs that lowered the speed limit by 10 MPH for the corner.

      It's not illegal to ignore the yellow speed limit signs; they are advisory only, and so I never discuss them. I'm talking about the white limit sign for the road you were on.

      Don't confuse someone's willingness to follow the rules and not get a ticket as some divine evangelical push for everyone else to do so. I don't care if you go 20 times the speed limit as long as you don't make me part of your mistakes. That is when I get angered.

      In my experience though, that's exactly how those that "follow the rules" act. They are more concerned about the "rules" than what is really safe.. and artificially low limits ARE unsafe.

      I suspect that you have a right to be fearful of someone assaulting you. You sound like one of those people who think if I can do it, what is the harm which means you probably piss a lot of people off.

      Not at all; I don't follow arbitrary numbers though, I drive what I feel is safe. That may be different than you. I also have plenty of studies to back up my thinking, that says teh safe speed limit is the one that an overwhelming majority follow. Sadly, I have yet to see any roads posted in such a manor. Of course that may be because everyone knows the limits are a joke, and do at least 10 over without thinking. So the rare time the limit is properly set, you now have people that may be going to fast for conditions. Again, that's sadly the result of speed limit policy that we've been following.

      However, I am big enough that if I was going to assault someone, I would have opened the car door or kicked the window out and done it. There wouldn't be a need to 2 minutes of arguing where the other driver could have speed away at the fist chance they get.

      Except that in my case, should I see you approaching the car I would have reached for my gun. Think about that the next time you run up to someone's car to yell at them. If I few off the handle like that everytime someone pissed me off, I don't think my bloodpress and stress levels would be in such good shape.

    117. Re:what about the obvious ? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      All depends on whether I have loved ones in the car or not, LOL, and/or whether or not I'm driving a Hummer H1!


      There, fixed it for ya.
    118. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Control" is a technical term in science, and you're misusing it.

    119. Re:what about the obvious ? by hey! · · Score: 1

      No, because if I maintained my speed around the rotary, we'd have collided.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    120. Re:what about the obvious ? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      That a lot more cyclists blow through stop signs and lane split at red lights than cars do.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    121. Re:what about the obvious ? by hey! · · Score: 1

      You have right of way on the 'rotary' (I assume that's the same as a roundabout), so slowing down in anticipation of someone entering the system is wrong


      Well, I usually do accelerate in situations like this, in this case I didn't because the other car was moving very fast, and I don't exactly drive a sports car. It's hard to describe, but this guy just gave me a "I don't know you're there" vibe, like that feelign you get when somebody is talking on their cell and driving. I wanted him where I could see him, because I had a feeling he'd do something unpredictable when he noticed me, which turned out to be the case.

      Driving defensively isn't all about giving way no matter what - it's about making sure that accidents don't happen, and sometimes assertiveness is the correct path.


      Never said it was. In fact, I'm a pretty assertive driver -- most of us in my neck of the wood are. But I don't think you can make a blanket statement that you should always be assertive, any more than you say you should always give way. In particular, assertiveness doesn't do a damn thing for you if the other guy doesn't know you're there.

      Always reacting the same way in some general situation like merging is bad advice, even if usually acting that way is a good idea. You have to make exceptions.

      I think of defensive driving as having three components: (1) situational awareness, (2) projecting possible consequences and (3) situating yourself so you have manage things in light of the most probable outcomes.

      If your situational awareness tells you that being assertive is the best way to avoid an accident, then it is the best way. If it overrules the normal right of way, you're better off listening to that, provided you have a few years of experience so your gut instincts count for something. As an extreme example, if you are approaching an intersection and a driver on the cross street is obviously going to run the light, you're sometimes better off lettting him go than trying to beat him.

      I once was about to step into a crosswalk, when I found myself stepping back and dragging the person next to me along by the scruff of the neck. An instant later, a stolen car careened through the spot we'd been have been at. That's how legends of things like ESP get started; in fact having grown up in the city, I knew the sound of a driver trying to out run the police. My brain recognized it and took action before informing me of the fact.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    122. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone who tries to go 20 in a 50 zone in a styrofoam helmet while everyone else is doing 55 in several tonnes of steal is stupid; very stupid. Then they put on faggy little tight shorts and ride in the passing lane with their noses in the air because they think they are good for the environment but what they don't see is the 10 car length line behind them that has to go gas-break-gas-break and get shitty fuel consumption.
      People who hate cyclists are always the most mediocre folks. I'm sure you have a shitty, isolated life and you want to blame someone. Guess what, if you start cycling, you'll immediately find that you make friends (urban cyclists make friends with one another almost instantly.) And your physical condition will improve greatly and your ability to concentrate on whatever you want to accomplish will also be strengthened.
    123. Re:what about the obvious ? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you just wave the cop over? What is yelling at the guy going to solve? Do you think he's more or less likely to drive safely because you told him to?

      I had a fun experience where a semi pulling a double trailer decided to pass me. Okay, fine. But he decided to pull back into my lane before the second trailer had passed. And for no reason. Slam on the brakes, survive. Pull up close enough to the semi to get the plate number (there was no license plate), and he was going 130 km/h on a two lane 100 km/h limit highway.

      So what did I do? I called the cops, gave them the location, direction and a description of the truck and let it go.

    124. Re:what about the obvious ? by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Just a nit: I think you mean availability bias (only considering that which you personally remember) or vividness(?) bias (only considering that which made a big impression on you), rather than confirmation bias (deliberately discarding or reinterpreting events to favor your theory).

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    125. Re:what about the obvious ? by psychicninja · · Score: 1

      Good point, I actually meant Availability Heuristic. ...damn.

    126. Re:what about the obvious ? by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      Hello, and welcome to the "Missed the Whole Point" Club. After reading even the summary, one should find that they found territory markers WERE THE BEST PREDICTOR. What that means, for those who don't get it, is they did take other predictors into consideration. And they, in fact, were NOT as good. Allow me to paraphrase the OP and your reply:

      OP: "Territory markers predict road rage better than other things normally associated with bad driving."

      You: "Territory markers? How stupid. Why didn't they consider other things normally associated with bad driving?"

      Well, uh, they did consider those... that was kinda the point...

    127. Re:what about the obvious ? by driptray · · Score: 1

      Some people are so self-centered that they choose to drive vehicles that are so wide they take up almost the entire lane. And then they complain that the people who choose to ride very narrow vehicles are being self-centered! It's the wide vehicles that block traffic, not the narrow ones.

    128. Re:what about the obvious ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, even that is not a sure-thing.

      My carpool mate's sister had a very similar case. The car passing her in the no-passing zone cut back in a little too early and hit her. Of course, the driver of the other car lied (I'm not sure why he didn't hit-and-run...might have spun out and hit something else) about what happened, and there were no other witnesses. The cops listened to the different stories, observed the damage to the front of her car and the rear of the other driver's car and concluded she was at fault.

      And had he lost control due to the impact, he might have ended up taking on a tree/telephone pole/who knows what. Modern cars can only protect you so much.

    129. Re:what about the obvious ? by Buran · · Score: 1

      They do when they illegally ignore traffic control devices. I've had a bicyclist cut me off while I was making a legal left turn at a stoplight. I'd stopped, looked, started to make my turn. I was partway through doing so when a bicyclist coming in the opposite direction down the road I was turning from blew the stop sign and cut me off -- if I hadn't slammed my brakes on, I would have knocked her off her bike and under my car.

      Hopefully also smashing the cell phone she had glued to her ear WHILE RIDING A BIKE IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER.

      See, where I live bikes are subject to all traffic laws just like cars are. That includes traffic lights and stop/yield signs.

      If that ever happens to me again I'm going to be on the phone with the police reporting an unsafe driver.

    130. Re:what about the obvious ? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I meant to say that I was making a legal left at a stop SIGN, not a stoplight. It doesn't matter that much, I know...

    131. Re:what about the obvious ? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Really. Well, guess what, you do have to follow the rules because the law says so. Don't like it? Work to get the law changed.

      Did you ever consider, for example, that you might decide to run a red light, not knowing that a car is about to come through, the driver doesn't know you're there, and has a green?

      You enter intersection, smug in your illegal "the rules don't apply to me" attitude, crossing on a red illegally.

      Driver, who is unaware of you and has a green and has every expectation that he/she will pass through unimpeded and therefore does not slow down, enters intersection.

      Result: Smear on road, bike parts everywhere, a red splotch, and a dent on the grille of the car that will now be paid for by you because the accident was your fault. And a cop giving you a ticket that you now have to pay for in addition to your medical bills.

      Still feeling so smug and untouchable?

      Get off the road before you get yourself killed.

    132. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, the lower limits are there to give police more power, to increase revenue via fines, and feel good political reasons. Speed limits pretty much don't work, because the limits as is are mostly ignored anyway. It's why they finally abandoned the national 55 limit. I'd really like to know what state you live in though.. perhaps things are more sane there, but my experience is largely limited to the NE.

      I'm in ohio. And no, the limits are there for reasons, managing trafic flow, safety, uniform road design and so on. Here is a handbook with the speed limits sumerized on page 37 of the PDF. Look at the page numbers inside the PDF and not on your reader. About the only thing I would like to see different is 70 or 75 on limited access highways and commercial truck moving at the same speeds as the rest of the traffic. And no, the 55mph speed limit was implemented to conserve fuel in the 70's. It was abandoned when the fuel crisis was well over and people forgot why it was there in the first place. In states like montana, there was no official speed limit for non commercial vehicles until a few years ago. Until the change, it was posted as "reasonable and prudent".

      That's your opinion. Obviously at least one other disagreed

      NO, it is a fact. I don't care how fast anyone goes as long as they don't involve me in their messes. Simply following the law does not in any way express some holier then though attitude over the speed limit. If you seriously think it does, then I will laugh at you when your riding the bus or bumming rides because you lost your license.

      It's not illegal to ignore the yellow speed limit signs; they are advisory only, and so I never discuss them. I'm talking about the white limit sign for the road you were on.

      No, but if your involved in an accident you could be cited to driving too fast for road conditions and possibly failure to control. Granted, the signs are advisory, but they do serve a purpose. They represent the maximum speed an average car can take the corner without feeling and sideways force.

      In my experience though, that's exactly how those that "follow the rules" act. They are more concerned about the "rules" than what is really safe.. and artificially low limits ARE unsafe.

      I am more concerned with not having to mess with a police department that I seem to piss off on a regular basis or have my insurance rates increased because of citations. With proper planning, going the speed limit and following the laws gets me to where I'm going safely without having to risk my license or lose fuel from increased wind resistance.

      Not at all; I don't follow arbitrary numbers though, I drive what I feel is safe. That may be different than you. I also have plenty of studies to back up my thinking, that says teh safe speed limit is the one that an overwhelming majority follow. Sadly, I have yet to see any roads posted in such a manor. Of course that may be because everyone knows the limits are a joke, and do at least 10 over without thinking. So the rare time the limit is properly set, you now have people that may be going to fast for conditions. Again, that's sadly the result of speed limit policy that we've been following.

      The rules are there so people who follow them know what to expect which lessens a risk for them. You can drive however you want but eventually, you will be hit with so many tickets that you will be against a point limit on your license or be hurting for insurance payments and decide to back down. It doesn't matter to me as long as you don't cause me to be part of any of your accidents. If your talking about going with the flow of traffic on an interstate or something, I do that too. But when I am on a singly lane road, I do the posted speed limits. We are after all talking about driving through a resi

    133. Re:what about the obvious ? by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      Thank you for blasting the guy who felt it necessary to add the correlationisnotcausation tag. Those kinds of comments demonstrate a sort of preemptive ignorance.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    134. Re:what about the obvious ? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Oddly, it's only bicycles that act like this, motorcycle drivers are probably the most polite people out there.
      I have a theory, a drivers politeness is directly proportional to how fscked up they will get in an accident, Motorcycle riders are polite because in western nations the majority of vehicles on the road are cars and if a motorcycle rider gets into an accident with a car at 60 KPH the rider is going to be in hospital for a while when a car driver may escape unharmed.

      I too have seen cyclists pull out in front of a turning car at the traffic lights turn green, the car had to break to avoid hitting the cyclist. They are for the most part complete and utter arseholes, they're worse than beemer (BMW) drivers (AKA: terrors of the road)
      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    135. Re:what about the obvious ? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      You'd think so, but, in fact, often the confirmation comes the other way around. I look at people (when I'm in the same care with them) to see if they check their blind spot, and I only notice when they do check their blind spot (it's happened with one person I know, and he's no saint - he just knows I watch him when he drives).

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    136. Re:what about the obvious ? by Draek · · Score: 1

      If I had a penny for each time a bike has almost hit me while trying to cross the street because "red lights are for cars, not bikes", I'd be fucking richer than Bill Gates.

      So no, you don't just piss off drivers, and the sentences for shoving my fist up your face are much lower than for a driver to hit you with his car, so I'm that more likely to do it.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    137. Re:what about the obvious ? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Your qualifications, please?

    138. Re:what about the obvious ? by Rural · · Score: 1

      So why is it that when I cycle and obey the laws (really, I do), do I have to put up with people treating me like you just described? I drive a car, too, and also hate cyclists that not only break the laws but also behave dangerously. But believe me, plenty of people in cars do that, too but you just don't notice it in the safety of a car.

    139. Re:what about the obvious ? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are polite bicyclists and asshole motorcyclists; there are always exceptions.

      I'd modify your theory slightly: a drivers politeness is directly proportional to how fscked up they percieve they will get in an accident.

      SUVs are inherently dangerous, yet their drivers perceive them as being safe. SUV drivers disproportionally die on the roadways, probably partly because they perceive themselves to be invulnerable.

      Someone posted a link here last week to a fascinating article about SUVs and their perceived safety vs their actual lack of same. I wish I'd have kept the link.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    140. Re:what about the obvious ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you just wave the cop over? What is yelling at the guy going to solve? Do you think he's more or less likely to drive safely because you told him to?
      Didn't see the cop until after started yelling. I figured yelling at him would both settle me down and wake this guy up before he killed someone, it seemed as if he was only thinking about himself. and as the situation that transpired, yes, he is going to drive more safely now. However, had the cop not been there, I'm not so sure, you can only hope.


      I had a fun experience where a semi pulling a double trailer decided to pass me. Okay, fine. But he decided to pull back into my lane before the second trailer had passed. And for no reason. Slam on the brakes, survive. Pull up close enough to the semi to get the plate number (there was no license plate), and he was going 130 km/h on a two lane 100 km/h limit highway.
      That sucks.. But you don't necessarily need a license number which is usually only on the front of the truck. There should be a DOT number on the side of the cab along with a truck number. The DOT number is valid in north america, I'm not sure about Europe but I imagine it would be true there too. Maybe called something else. With those numbers, they can not only pull the truck over, but stop him for a safety and log book check and all that in the next weight station as well as target this person if a number of complaints have been made. Something to think about.

      So what did I do? I called the cops, gave them the location, direction and a description of the truck and let it go.
      Like I have said in other places, in hind sight, I would have done things differently. I have come to that conclusion well before posting anything about it here. The purpose of posting it here was to show that the same amounts of anger doesn't mean someone will act on rage nor does it accurately get reported and become a statistic. Would you consider your calling the police on the semi and act of road rage? I imagine you were just as angered as I was. see the point now?
    141. Re:what about the obvious ? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I previously lived in MN, where "no-fault" insurance was the norm (perhaps even the law).

      I would say it was perhaps the only scam going that was bigger than auto insurance itself. Basically, any claim you made, no matter what the basis was for it, was automatically made your fault. No matter how obviously it was someone else's fault, your rate would go up.

      Even if you were rear ended, you own rate would go up. And of course if you hit an animal on the road, your rate goes up for that, too. Really, it seemed like the only people who benefit from "no-fault" insurance are the insurance companies (surprise!). And of course, since the "no-fault" policy means that your rate goes up with any claim whatsoever, drivers hesitate to place claims. Which of course benefits the insurance company as well.

      I would almost prefer to have an option for "self-insured" rather than forced to take "no-fault". I could have done a lot with the 5+ years of insurance payments that I made in MN that I never saw any claims from.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    142. Re:what about the obvious ? by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up if you weren't already at 5. I'm a cyclist myself, which probably makes me more observant of the stupid behavior of many cyclists than if I only drove my car. I'm also a (former) motorcyclist, and I agree with your point on motorcyclists too, with one exception: so many of them lane split, even on the freeway. Ignoring whether or not that counts as rude (I say it does, YMMV), it's extremely dangerous to pass between cars using the empty space at the edges of their lanes.

      Considering the astonishingly stupid and dangerous things I see many bicyclists and more than a few motorcyclists do, I'm just amazed that a lot more of us don't get killed on the road.

      This doesn't exonerate car drivers - I seem them do a lot of dangerous and stupid things around two-wheeled vehicles and that's why I'm a former motorcyclist - but many car/bike accidents are the fault of the cyclist doing one or more stupid things. You have to be an extremely defensive and cautious driver on two wheels, yet many of us ride as if our vehicles could get the better of a collision with a tank.

    143. Re:what about the obvious ? by jackchance · · Score: 1
      Actually, no fault isn't really no fault. (At least in Ontario) The way it works is that each persons insurance pays up and then the insurance companies work out if someone was at fault and if so then that insurance company pays the other insurance company.

      It just
      1) takes the burden off of the consumer
      2) if the guilty party doesn't have insurance, your insurance company still has to pay.
      http://www.ibc.ca/en/Car_Insurance/ON/No_Fault.asp

      --
      1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
  3. Not hard by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    This problem's not hard,
    And for societal win,
    To irresponsible retard:
    A safe, simple Schwinn
    Burma Shave

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Funny
      Grrrrr - cyclist retard!

      Seriously, though - cycling is safe if you follow the Highway Code and take sensible precautions, like: not running red lights, looking behind you before passing parked cars, remembering that people in cars aren't that bothered about your safety, etc., etc.

      As a car driver, I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety.

      Oh, and if you kick my car, I'll kick you :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    2. Re:Not hard by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point was that if people are too challenged by the responsibility of getting behind the wheel, then we should keep ratcheting down their transportation options until we find a level where they can safely operate.
      If a bicycle proves too great a burden, then let a man walk.
      And if he can't walk without being a menace, let him sit in the corner.
      I'm speaking in hyperbole, but the whole dependent mentality of no-one being accountable for crappy behavior is one of the more destructive threads in society.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I totally agree - everyone should be responsible for their own actions.

      Personally, I practice 'defensive driving', but that should not be interpreted as 'meek' - in a lot of situations, being assertive actually prevents other road users from entering a potentially dangerous situation.

      I do still wish that cyclists were taught to ride as I was in the '70s - the roads would be much safer for all.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    4. Re:Not hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you from the UK perchance? I have recently completed my CBT as the first stage of learning how to ride a motorcycle. The training may be basic but I learned a hell of a lot about negotating traffic safely on two wheels. I have to agree with you, a CBT for cyclists would be a worthy cause (particularly in Cambridge)

    5. Re:Not hard by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Can you please apologise to all the dead or injured cyclists who followed the highway code and were run over by people in cars

      Yes there are Cyclists who are reckless, just as there are car drivers who are thoughtless, but if a bike hits a car guess who suffers most ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    6. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Yes, and I have cycled in Cambridge - admittedly it was in the 80's, but a CBT is, I think, essential.

      I gather they still do the Cycling Proficiency tests, but see no evidence of their effectiveness when I'm out and about - the attitude of most cyclists seems to be "I'll ride wherever I want - it's your job to avoid me".

      Motorcyclists, on the other hand, get a free ride from me (pulling to the left to allow overtaking in tight spots, early signals, plenty of gap, etc.), as I have been a biker in my youth - now I'm old and prefer 4 wheels :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    7. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 0, Troll
      No - because I have no beef with them.

      If they were following the highway code and got hurt, then it's either the fault of the driver who hit them, or their own fault for getting in somebody's blind spot / passing a lorry on the inside while turning left / doing any manner of stupid things that I regularly see cyclists do that aren't illegal, but are stupid.

      So - no, I won't apologise.

      And 'if a bike hits a car guess who suffers most' sums up exactly why cyclists should be more aware of the world around them, and not expect everyone else to cater for their ignorant behaviour on the road.

      IOW - piss off, you sanctimonious git.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    8. Re:Not hard by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      As a car driver, I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety.

      Actually it *is* your responsibility to allow for that possibility. Shit happens on the road and you should be looking for it and being ready to deal with it, otherwise you're an accident waiting to happen.

    9. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I was being flippant - my issue is that cyclists these days don't even check to see what's coming up behind them before pulling out, which is, IMNSHO, a 'bad thing'.

      When I learnt to ride a bike in the '70s, we were taught to be aware of the traffic around us, and to ride accordingly.

      I've never had an accident in over 25 years of driving / motorcycling(other than two idiots ploughing into the back of me while stationary), and only one in over 30 years of cycling (car pulled out on me without looking - had to broadie it into the driver's door) - I attribute that to having learnt to ride defensively early in life, and carrying those lessons through to my motorbike and car days.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    10. Re:Not hard by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Is your blind spot attached to a sponge? How on earth did a sponge get a driving license?
      I hope there is a low against giving them to thoughtless lumps of meat.

    11. Re:Not hard by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      I was taught to ride in the 70's but to be honest some of what was taught back then was at best useless but often dangerous.

      The idea that many people have that a bike should always be within two feet of the side of the road is dangerous, especially so on a busy street or when passing parked cars.

      I think the problem is the number of people who have no cycle training or ignore it completely.

      In general I try to ride as described in Cyclecraft, which is now the basis of the new (UK) national cycle training scheme, Bikeability

      To be honest, most of the bad driving and most of the bad cycling that I see seems to come down to simple impatience. Cyclists who aren't prepared to wait a few seconds behind a car until there's adequate room to get past and vice versa. Cyclists and drivers who aren't prepared to wait at red signals.

    12. Re:Not hard by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Careful the cyclist Jihad has no sense of humor or the ability to detect sarcasm.
      They also tend to have mod points. I felt their wrath in the race car/hybrid thread last week.

      --
      You mad
    13. Re:Not hard by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      As a car driver, I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety. It's your responsibility to look out for cyclists seeing as your car is much bigger and more lethal than a bike. Not that I'm saying the cyclist doesn't have this responsiblity too - far from it. Everyone who shares the road presents their own hazards to other road users, therefore they have an obligation to look out for each other.

      Oh, and if you kick my car, I'll kick you :P Really? Even if you're in a queue and can't move, and can't abandon your car to follow on foot? ;)

      I seem to be one of the few drivers I know that actually have no problem with cyclists at all. Just give them some space and some consideration, it's all good. Yes, there are a few arrogant ones with chips on their shoulders, but with the shitty attitude that car drivers have towards them, when they in fact automatically have the moral high ground on environmental reasons, I don't blame them.

      What does irritate me is cyclists who have little consideration for pedestrians - riding on the pavement, breezing through pedestrian crossings on red lights, etc.
    14. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      That's OK - I got Zio-modded to death last week :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    15. Re:Not hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but, if i put out my hand to show you that i want to pass a parked car: please slow down, don't speed up!
      even if you're 18mph faster than me.

      p.s.: if you want to turn right, there is no use of passing me first and brake then because you noticed that, i will run into your car.

    16. Re:Not hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a car driver, I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety. I agree - looking over your shoulder before changing lanes should be a no-brainer. I wish I could say I've never seen a car do it either.

      Another trick is to just stay out of the parked car lane altogether and ride with traffic, rather than in-and-out. It's a safer way to use the road, but it requires overcoming some fear and ignoring the extra aggression that will be thrown at you from frustrated drivers who think you should be on the sidewalk.

      Personally, I think it would be great if all city drivers tried spending a week on a bike (and vice-versa. Bikers who have never driven a car...). I think some driving habits/mindsets would change - I know mine certainly did once I started biking.

      PS - if you kick me, you'll learn that the extra U-lock that I carry is not for locking up my bike ;-)
    17. Re:Not hard by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      "I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety."

      Sooo... the fact that you have a 2000 lb advantage/killing machine means nothing? Interesting...

      You make it sound as if the world will end if you have to slow down in situations that could become hazardous, for any reason, dumb cyclists or not.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    18. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      If you indicate, then of course I'll slow down :o)

      And if I want to turn left (in the UK we drive on the wrong side of the road), I'll make sure I leave you plenty of room.

      If you could reciprocate by following the rules of the road and by being aware of the traffic around you, we'll get along fine :o).

      It's just that nowadays there are so many ignorant cyclists that are a danger to themselves and other road users.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    19. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      In city traffic, staying out in the main flow is a good idea - I don't have any trouble with cyclists being assertive, just with them bring ignorant.

      And I don't worry about being assertive when I'm on a bicycle - it's the safest way to ride :P

      PS - if I kicked you, you wouldn't be able to stand to use the U-lock :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    20. Re:Not hard by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Nope - as I said above, I was being flippant, and my main beef is with the ignorance and stupidity of the majority of cyclists these days who seem to think that their actions are without consequence.

      I have been driving since the late 1970s and have never had an accident, save for two idiots ploughing into the back of me while I was stationary at the end of a queue of traffic.

      And I regularly put 40,000 miles on a car in a year, so it's not as though I'm a novice.

      The road is a dangerous place - the last thing everyone needs is for cyclists to make it more dangerous by being thoughtless.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    21. Re:Not hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remembering that people in cars aren't that bothered about your safety, etc. It's the same as everything in which people are involved: assume everyone is a mindless, uncaring imbecile who would sooner see you dead than suffer a minor inconvenience.

      It's good advice.
    22. Re:Not hard by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I am both a motorist (I have an Audi I enjoy driving) and a cyclist (which I commute on). I think life expectancy when cycling is predicated on being predictable to other road users - i.e. following the Highway Code. Some numpty from the CTC a while back was trying to justify running red lights (a thing about female cyclists generally obeying the highway code but having a much higher death rate than male cyclists, who were generally law breakers). It turns out that the reason "cautious" cyclists were getting killed because they were getting left hooked by the HGV they were sitting right next to when the light went green.

      The lesson, unlike the idiot from the CTC was suggesting, was NOT running red lights, but not creeping up on the left hand side (if you drive on the left) of traffic.

      Incidentally, as a car driver, it *is* my responsibility to anticipate the idiocy of other road users. Even if a cyclist pulled out in front of me, I'd be emotionally crushed if I killed them even if it wasn't my fault. It's all about defensive driving - I don't care who's fault it is, I'd rather not have a crash at all. So when I'm driving, if I see a cyclist I assume they will do something stupid and take care while passing them (for example, like the Highway Code says, giving them as much room as I would give a car). Cyclists die, they don't dent. I would rather wait 10 or 15 seconds until the opposite lane is completely clear, than squeeze by between the oncoming traffic and the guy on the bike.

      If a cyclist can kick your car, you are passing much, much too close - and it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt. So please don't pass that close, even if (especially if) you are passing an obvious idiot.

    23. Re:Not hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just thinking about driving sends you into road rage.

    24. Re:Not hard by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's legally your responsibility to give him an entire driving lane to ride in. The fact that he's dodging parked cars is because he's being courteous to YOU.

      So pay him back by not running him down when he pulls out to actually use some of that lane that's legally his.

    25. Re:Not hard by driptray · · Score: 1

      The lesson, unlike the idiot from the CTC was suggesting, was NOT running red lights, but not creeping up on the left hand side (if you drive on the left) of traffic.

      Creeping up (aka filtering) is fine as long as you only do it when the line of cars is stationary, and you merge into the line of cars before the light goes green.

      I do this all the time. Filter to the front of the line, and then position myself directly in front of the first car. It's safe and it's legal, but it does piss off some car drivers, I guess because their assumption of motorist dominance/superiority has just been challenged.

    26. Re:Not hard by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I'd rather filter on the right (unless turning left, and then *extremely* cautiously, and never past an HGV because the HGV driver often just can't see you). The thing is motorists don't expect to be passed between the kerb and their left side, and passengers may do things like throw doors open without looking (not expecting anyone to be there). So I filter where the motorbikes do - on the right, where drivers are expecting overtaking traffic.

      If in doubt, I wait in the traffic (especially if it's frequent stop/start traffic) right in the middle of the lane, if traffic's like that I have no problem keeping up with traffic (generally, it's moving less than 20 mph), and 'taking the lane' discourages the drivers who believe Cyclists Must Be Overtaken Regardless Of Speed (i.e. they'll half-overtake you if they have the chance, but can't make any more progress due to the car in front and will sit dangerously off your right side. 'Taking the lane' when you can keep up with traffic prevents this).

  4. No stickers in the UK by Psiren · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here in the UK you rarely see bumper stickers, yet road rage is not exactly rare. So I don't really see the correlation. Having said that, whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle. But maybe that's just me.

    1. Re:No stickers in the UK by aproposofwhat · · Score: 5, Funny
      It's not the fish, it's the driving style.

      They pull out in front of you, drive at <speed limit> - 5 mph, and wonder why you're driving up their sanctimonious arse honking and flashing!

      Bastards, the lot of them.

      And they always double park on a Sunday when they get their weekly dose of self-flagellation.

      Did Jesus say 'Pick up thy bed and drive'? I think not :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    2. Re:No stickers in the UK by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Why's that? Got something against loving thy neighbour?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:No stickers in the UK by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      In my region of Europe, there are not many bumpers stickers and at the few occasions I saw one, it was on a large truck and the bumper sticker clearly indicated that the driver was from the US. (There is a US Military base within 300km).

      EU people generally don't seem to put stickers on their car. I damn well don't have any, and won't put any up. I did notice quite a lot Jesus-Fish stickers in the Bavaria region (Germany) last time I was there. Nowhere else I went though.

      Having said that, whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle. But maybe that's just me.

      Nah... ;-)

    4. Re:No stickers in the UK by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      No, it's not just you.

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    5. Re:No stickers in the UK by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 4, Funny

      It doesn't say love thy neighbour to me, it's says I'm better than you, you stinking infidel.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    6. Re:No stickers in the UK by asackett · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've got something against my judgmental neighbors insisting that I love them. They're already forgiven, so whether I love them or not is immaterial.

      So sez this here heathen.

      --

      Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    7. Re:No stickers in the UK by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently 'not exactly rare' is an understatement. According to the beeb almost 90% of UK drivers have reported incidents of road rage (I don't drive and rarely travel by car so have no idea what the mean streets of Britain are really like). I'm not sure what that really covers though, being run off the road? Sworn at? And is that ever? Across the entire span of someone's life? Is road rage in the UK really *that* bad?

      --
      Free Playstation 3, XBox 360 and Nintendo Wii

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    8. Re:No stickers in the UK by Schadrach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depepnding on your particular fish (I have seen them in bumper stickers before) maybe, but they most certainly count as "personalized items on or in people's vehicles" such as "seat covers, bumper stickers, special paint jobs, stereos, or plastic dashboard toys"

    9. Re:No stickers in the UK by VoidCrow · · Score: 0

      I don't think it *is* that bad. The worst frequent offense is tailgating, which I deal with by slowly reducing my speed until people get tired of tailgating a sloth, and overtake. At which point I accelerate, overtake *them*, and put some reasonable distance between our cars. I occasionally have to rinse and repeat, but the majority of people get the hint. The overall standard of driving in the UK is quite high, and I'm always rather impressed by the alacrity with which most people stop and semi-park to allow emergency vehicles past. The average brit really doesn't suck that much :-) (Okay, London's a special case)

    10. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it also says i believe in an invisible friend in the sky that grants me wishes...

    11. Re:No stickers in the UK by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Apparently 'not exactly rare' is an understatement

      He's British, what did you expect?

      Apart from that, when I read "not exactly rare" it means "frequent" to me. 90% qualifies as "frequent". It's a common literary technique, you know.

    12. Re:No stickers in the UK by kanweg · · Score: 1

      I'd love to love her, but her religion doesn't let her.

      Bert

    13. Re:No stickers in the UK by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 5, Informative

      don't think it *is* that bad. The worst frequent offense is tailgating, which I deal with by slowly reducing my speed until people get tired of tailgating a sloth, and overtake. At which point I accelerate, overtake *them*, and put some reasonable distance between our cars. I occasionally have to rinse and repeat, but the majority of people get the hint.

      You do realise that what you're doing is qualified as "road rage", don't you? At least a light form. You're trying to teach them a lesson, by annoying them even more.

    14. Re:No stickers in the UK by nschubach · · Score: 1

      No no... the way I interpreted it and was told... you're invisible friend will do whatever they feel like. This is because they think it's better for you than your wish and it will happen in "mysterious ways" that you cannot predict. (AKA: Something good will eventually happen if you do this, the odds are good my friend.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    15. Re:No stickers in the UK by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      It's like the Baby on board stickers... ... it seems to say nothing except "I am better than you"

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    16. Re:No stickers in the UK by jamesh · · Score: 1

      The only incident of road rage I've ever encountered in my ummm... 15 years of driving was once when I was braking fairly quickly at a red light and someone cut in front of me forcing me to brake even harder. I shook my head in disbelief and the guy obviously got a bit pissed about it. He took off really really slowly, drove that way for about 500 metres looking in the rear view mirror the whole time, then floored it. I guess he was waiting for me to try and overtake but I didn't play. I'm not sure that even counts as road rage.

      I've been beeped at a few times when i've done something stupid (hey... it happens to the best of us :). If you count that sort of stuff then it's not surprising the figure is 90% but as you say, who knows what they are counting...

    17. Re:No stickers in the UK by jamesh · · Score: 3, Informative

      At which point I accelerate, overtake *them*, and put some reasonable distance between our cars. I occasionally have to rinse and repeat, but the majority of people get the hint.

      The hint? do they mod you 'troll' or 'flamebait'?

      Either your cruising speed is faster than theirs in which case you won't have the tailgating problem, or their speed is faster than yours in which case you should just let them past instead of being a prick about it. Maybe you haven't been driving long enough or maybe you're just a slow learner, but tailgaters simply don't 'get it', and you can't teach 'it' to them. The best you can do is make sure that you're not the one they run up the rear of when you have to brake for a hazard. And one day, when you pull over to let them past, you'll pass them again when they are at the side of the road explaining to a police officer why they were in such a hurry, and nothing will get the smile off your face for the rest of the day!
    18. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the UK you rarely see bumper stickers
      We have window stickers though and "child on board" weird-things. The number of maniacs with those child on board window suckers is amazing. Almost as if having one of these things on display gives drivers some sort of mandate to endanger others. It's the same thing as the bumper sticker, a territorial marker.

      Yes I just cut you up. See the sign, this road belongs to me and my unruly spawn; make way!
      And don't think of holding your line in the road or sounding the horn because in their eyes, you're the one endangering their children.

      .

      .

      .

      Record attempt: It's been 2 hours, 15 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    19. Re:No stickers in the UK by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, I always saw those as the equivalent of hazardous material signs ;-)

    20. Re:No stickers in the UK by eharvill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it *is* that bad. The worst frequent offense is tailgating, which I deal with by slowly reducing my speed until people get tired of tailgating a sloth, and overtake. At which point I accelerate, overtake *them*, and put some reasonable distance between our cars. I occasionally have to rinse and repeat, but the majority of people get the hint. The overall standard of driving in the UK is quite high, and I'm always rather impressed by the alacrity with which most people stop and semi-park to allow emergency vehicles past. The average brit really doesn't suck that much :-) (Okay, London's a special case) I'm assuming people are tailgating you not because they want to be an asshole, but they want you to get out of the way (driving too slow in the fast lane perhaps?). I am not sure why you would antagonize them.


      I haven't done any driving in the UK, but a decent amount in mainland Europe (I am from the US) and have found (at least outside of large cities), the drivers are more aware on the highways and get out of the way if someone comes cruising up in the fast lane. Americans are decidedly stupid when it comes to never leaving the fast lane on the interstates. The larger cities (Madrid, Paris) tend to be more hectic, especially with those crazy roundabouts and the mopeds/motorcycles allowed to drive between lanes of traffic.

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    21. Re:No stickers in the UK by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle

      If you can catch one parked up I find it much more satisfying to draw little legs under it with a dry marker and give it a "Darwin is right!" caption. Sometimes you'll see the same car going around for *weeks* before they notice and clean it off. :)
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    22. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You do realise that such behaviour will get you 'brake tested' by drivers who subscribe to my philosophy?

      Hint - do it to me, and prepare to be overtaken followed by me braking very sharply in front of you, usually leaving a cloud of tyre smoke in your face.

    23. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't say love thy neighbour to me, it's says I'm better than you, you stinking infidel. And you!


      Walking around in the same t-shirt for three weeks doesn't say "I'm a nerd" to me, it says "I'm better than you, you stinking Luddite."


      How does your interpretation hold up now?

    24. Re:No stickers in the UK by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's taught as the correct method to deal with them at driving schools, and I believe even tested for now.

      Being tailgated is a dangerous situation - if you're forced to brake for any reason they will cause a nasty accident. The average tailgater is also a speeder, so even putting your foot down isn't going to shake them. Your only other choice is to slow down - not to force them to stop tailgating, but to improve your reaction time and lessen the chance you'll have to break suddenly and kill them.

    25. Re:No stickers in the UK by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which is fair enough. What's the justification for overtaking them after they go past?

    26. Re:No stickers in the UK by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Your only other choice is to slow down - not to force them to stop tailgating, but to improve your reaction time and lessen the chance you'll have to break suddenly and kill them.



      Read GGP again. He accelerates when the tailgater is trying to pass him. Where I live, such behavior (accelerating while another car is trying to pass you) is prohibited.

    27. Re:No stickers in the UK by umghhh · · Score: 1

      It ia more apparent than on the continent. At least that is my impression. I am not sure how this territory marking affects Germans (I happen to live in Germany) - they are absolutely mad about personalizing their cars and yet the incidents of road rage are rare at least I have not seen any that could be identified as such and I live here few years already.

    28. Re:No stickers in the UK by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's taught as the correct method to deal with them at driving schools, and I believe even tested for now.

      Yes, it is: the correct method dealing with them is to encourage them to overtake you. Slowing down, keeping right (okay, left in the UK), etc.... What VoidCrow does after that is roadrage. He overtakes them, and gives them the taste of their behaviour. I doubt that such behaviour is encouraged in driving schools. In mine it wasn't: letting them pass, yes. Giving them a taste oof their own medicine is self-justice and a driving school advocating such things isn't doing you any good.

    29. Re:No stickers in the UK by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      (Disclaimer: IANAC) I don't think that 'love thy neighbor' necessarily means what many think it means. It's more of a statement meaning "don't harm others" or "treat others as you would like to be treated". You know, show a little respect. What comes around, goes around. That sort of thing.

      I think virtually all religions have something like this in their tenets.

    30. Re:No stickers in the UK by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The same as driving a BMW, Mercedes or Porsche does. They drive those to tell others they are better than them, So are we required to hate those people too?
      I seem to miss the group hate email every week. Are we hating everything we interpret as meaning "im better than you?" or is there a specific interpretation?

      I know last month was hate all hybrid drivers and drivers who drove at or a tiny bit over the speed limit, and the month before that was hate stinky cab drivers, but I dont get who we need to hate this month.

      And is hating SUV drivers still on or have we started pity for them?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    31. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Michigan it is illegal to accelerate when someone is passing you as you describe. It causes useless danger to both drivers. Only an incompetent driver would pull such a stunt and risk his own life.

    32. Re:No stickers in the UK by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      You two together and we have an escalating situation of roadrage. Geez!

    33. Re:No stickers in the UK by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      It's like the Baby on board stickers... ... it seems to say nothing except "I am better than you"

      'I bought a 'Baby on Board' sticker. Now people will stop deliberately running into the back of us!'

      -- Marge Simpson, Homer's Barbershop Quartet

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    34. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's just you. I discovered several years ago that the worst drivers tended to either carry college football tokens or religious bumper stickers and/or fish.

      If you're in traffic and the vehicles around you are all painted in school colors, have school vanity plates, decals in the windows and bumper stickers promoting their favorite teams AND religious convictions. With a family of fish. You're doomed.

    35. Re:No stickers in the UK by Inda · · Score: 1

      Slowing down is good but the game of cat and mouse afterwards is not.

      Take it a stage further. Slow down and, using the tips of your forefinger and thumb, signal a distance of 5cm in your rear-view mirror. This lets the driver behind know why you're slowing down.

      As they pass, mouth the words "can you read lips cunt?"... No, don't do that, you'll get stabbed.

      I've had someone drive into the back of me while only doing 10mph. My neck hurt like crazy for a day, it was a week before the tenderness went away. I was paid two weeks worth of wages as compensation. I shudder to think how much 20mph would have hurt or 30mph or...

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    36. Re:No stickers in the UK by meringuoid · · Score: 1, Funny
      It doesn't say love thy neighbour to me, it's says I'm better than you, you stinking infidel.

      It says to me, 'I believe that an omnipotent being is a personal friend of mine and will permit me to survive death'.

      As a result I drive really fucking carefully around those lunatics. Maybe they're going straight to heaven, but I don't want them to take me with them when they go...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    37. Re:No stickers in the UK by stevie.f · · Score: 1

      Most bumper stickers do say something to the effect of 'i'm better than you'. With or without the 'stinking infidel' part.

      Guy on my street has 3 of the damn things (not religious ones). He's 40 something and they are the obnoxious kind that you'd expect of someone in their mid teens. one says 'Yes, I do drive this way just to annoy you'.

      Sometimes the urge to key his car is almost too much to bear (apparently others aren't able to keep that urge in check judging by the sides of his car)

      Maybe seeing so few of them here is why the hatred of them is so strong

    38. Re:No stickers in the UK by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      It's a phylactery, and you can learn more about it in the Bible!

      Matthew 23:5. And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes.
      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    39. Re:No stickers in the UK by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Most bumper stickers do say something to the effect of 'i'm better than you'.

      I especially like those "My kid is a *random title* at *random school*". WTF cares ?

    40. Re:No stickers in the UK by Broken+scope · · Score: 0

      I think suv drivers are still on the Kill on Sight list, regardless of how they use their vehicle.

      --
      You mad
    41. Re:No stickers in the UK by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm gonna have to do that to my sticker. Do you draw the legs coming out of the belly, or out of the base of the tail?

      --
      You mad
    42. Re:No stickers in the UK by mlush · · Score: 1

      It's taught as the correct method to deal with them at driving schools, and I believe even tested for now.

      this is correct up to the time OP does this

      At which point I accelerate, overtake *them*, and put some reasonable distance between our cars. I occasionally have to rinse and repeat, but the majority of people get the hint.
    43. Re:No stickers in the UK by corbettw · · Score: 1

      According to the beeb [bbc.co.uk] almost 90% of UK drivers have reported incidents of road rage (I don't drive and rarely travel by car so have no idea what the mean streets of Britain are really like). I'm not sure what that really covers though Someone else above pointed this out already, but that's exactly the problem with "road rage". It's a nebulous concept, and people use it as a very broad brush indeed, to tar people they piss off with their horrible driving. I had a woman cut me off once in LA traffic, and we ended up pulling into the same strip mall by coincidence. When I pulled next to her and yelled over the sound of my truck's engine that she needed to learn how to drive, she accused me of road rage.

      No, if I had had road rage, I would've slammed the truck (a '72 Chevy heavy pickup) into her little Hyundai. That's "rage". Telling someone they're a horrible driver is a healthy expression of opinion. The fact that she thought it was full of "rage" says more about her perception of the world more than it does my emotional state at the time.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    44. Re:No stickers in the UK by GrandWaz00 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good start for a new Pat Condell video.

    45. Re:No stickers in the UK by max99ted · · Score: 0

      My Jesus fish says 'Darwin' and has feet :)

      --

      Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.

    46. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either your cruising speed is faster than theirs in which case you won't have the tailgating problem, or their speed is faster than yours in which case you should just let them past instead of being a prick about it. That's true...if their cruising speed is set. I personally use cruise control on the highway, and I find that the vast majority of other drivers don't have a set speed. People will tailgate and then slow down after passing. It's very frustrating. I can usually predict it too. "Here we go up a gentle hill, I'd better get over in the fast lane, because everyone's going to be slowing down." "Oh, downhill again, better get out of the fast lane and let the people going 15 over pass me."
    47. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not dangerous. It's an opportunity to get a free bumper, courtesy of his insurance. Granted, I have a 94 F-150 (gas is cheaper then payments). I wouldn't mind a new rear bumper; mine is starting to get beat up. Tailgate me, motherfucker. It'll cost you for a long time.

    48. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It's not the fish, it's the driving style.
      Yep.

      As well the OP states that people treat the road like personal space. If people tried to jump the line in a supermarket, they'd get punched, yet they won't hesitate to jump half a kilometer of traffic then stop in the fast lane until someone lets them in at the head of the line (for a left exit) endangering everyone's lives around them.

      This exaggerated sense of self importance is what leads to road rage. The bumper stickers have _nothing_ to do with it. They are a symptom of self absorbed selfishness. Why else would they put a bumper sticker on? Nobody cares what they think, or what their moronic bumper stickers say; they obviously think people do.

      >And they always double park on a Sunday when they get their weekly dose of self-flagellation.
      PFFT here they'll double park on a Friday morning during rush hour at a corner with a stop sign, right next to a fucking parking spot. This necessitates you going around them into an oncoming traffic lane at a blind corner where anyone could come flying around the corner and hit you head on (where it would be your fault for the accident). They leave you no choice. Far be it from them to maybe double park in the middle of the block where it doesn't create a life threatening situation. Some people need to be put out of their fucking misery...

      I can completely understand why people lose it and cap someone in the head sometimes. They deserve it.

      -Viz

    49. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't think it *is* that bad. The worst frequent offense is tailgating, which I deal with by slowly reducing my speed until people get tired of tailgating a sloth, and overtake. At which point I accelerate, overtake *them*, and put some reasonable distance between our cars. I occasionally have to rinse and repeat, but the majority of people get the hint.


      That may be true, but there's no possible way the "overtaking, rinse and repeat" part is taught anywhere but your mind! That would be a form of road rage!

      I even seriously doubt the DMV teaches anything but "maintain your speed"...

    50. Re:No stickers in the UK by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle

      You know, It's very, very rare that a religious person (Chrustian, Jew, Hindu, whatever) tries to shove his beliefs down my throat. For instance, I don't believe I've ever had a Catholic berate me for using birth control, never had a Jew or Muslim tell me I was going to hell for eating a ham sandwich, never had a Bhuddist curse me for swatting a fly, in fact seldom do I ever hear religious people talk of religion at all.

      What is it about you fanatical athiests, anyway? Kindly STFU, asshole. I'm not interested in your religious beliefs.

      HAND.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    51. Re:No stickers in the UK by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Front and back under the body works best I think, so it looks like it could have just make the first tentative steps up onto a primordial beach and is trying to figure out whether taking in air through its mouth instead of its gills is a smart move. :)

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    52. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highways suck. If we had fast, cheap trains going everywhere this wouldn't be a problem.

    53. Re:No stickers in the UK by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      For some stupid reason I was thinking biped, not quadruped. Good thing I asked.

      --
      You mad
    54. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. The method that is to increase the clear space ahead of you so that if need be you can brake for both vehicles. This usually, but not always requires you to slow down (on the motorway you can just slow for a minute or so to increase the gap ahead), but crucially does *not* include re-overtaking the guy and pissing him off.

    55. Re:No stickers in the UK by Sinister+Stairs · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the bumper stickers, "My kid can beat up your honor student" :D

    56. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having said that, whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle. Ah, I see. Sorry, but doing so won't help lessen the effect of you running from the truth now will it?

      But maybe that's just me. Nah, all atheists have such a sickness. ;-)
    57. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is Satan at work in your soul. Repent, Brother...before it is too late!

    58. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get fuzzy dice though - same idea.

    59. Re:No stickers in the UK by BECoole · · Score: 1

      No, your only choice is to get out of the way!
      Why is this so difficult? Do you really think you are going to change anyone?

    60. Re:No stickers in the UK by mike2R · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK you rarely see bumper stickers, yet road rage is not exactly rare. So I don't really see the correlation. Having said that, whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle. But maybe that's just me.

      We may not have bumper stickers but for a short period every 2 years, in England at least, there is a national scheme to mark poor drivers. Bad drivers are forced to display a red cross on a white background, very bad drivers must display multiple or excessively large symbols. A very useful scheme and I'm not sure why we don't follow it year round.

      Some examples can be seen here.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    61. Re:No stickers in the UK by BECoole · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that someday you will lose that silly game of chicken?
      You could be dead right.

    62. Re:No stickers in the UK by Khelder · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt. False dichotomy. Many Christians do not believe Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

      Hmmm... Maybe I should put both on my car...

    63. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "why you're driving up their sanctimonious arse honking and flashing!"

      Haha, you are a perfect example of the road raging asshole.

    64. Re:No stickers in the UK by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The slowing down bit and getting over is correct, but the gunning it and overtaking them again, keeping them from passing you, that the GP describes is pure road rage.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    65. Re:No stickers in the UK by Waste55 · · Score: 1

      Heres my tailgating trick: When I'm being tailgated I just throw the hazards on and off without really slowing down. This way they *think* you are braking and begin to brake themselves and eventually get annoyed and switch lanes or back off. This reduces the risk of being rear-ended by not actually slamming on your brakes.

    66. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably. Britons are especially a pack of barbarians.

    67. Re:No stickers in the UK by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      When I visited my former primary school after a few years to pick up my little sister I found that someone had added a large sign just inside the main gate. It said, and I kid you not, "BEWARE CHILDREN".

    68. Re:No stickers in the UK by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      You must not live in the rural midwest ;-)

      But yeah, drawing on someone's car is always rude... if occasionally funny :)

    69. Re:No stickers in the UK by VanessaE · · Score: 1
      I'd say that's not it. I'm already going the speed limit, maybe even 5 over (rarely - I'm a little paranoid about speeding tickets). I *still* get the occasional hemorrhoid driver. No, people tailgate because they're too stubborn, stupid, or just in too damn much of a hurry to just back off a couple of car-lengths, wait for a passing zone, and then pass me up. Makes me want to slam on the brakes (claiming I was avoiding something, let's say), let the cops charge them for driving too close, and then sue them for the damage and injuries.


      Note that I have *never* done this, and I'm probably too much of a chickenshit to ever actually do so. But G*d, I want to. The most I have ever done is to slow down suddenly (but not hard braking), just enough for the idiot behind me to get the hint. They usually do, and they back off.

    70. Re:No stickers in the UK by greed · · Score: 1

      Also, a lot of cruise controls have a fair amount of error in the set speed. Vacuum-operated ones are the worst, I've seen slop of 5 mph in the speed. I can get better accuracy than that with my right foot. (Of course, I'm in a manual: I can drive with a steady pitch from the engine and I'm at a steady speed. I'd probably be a real mess with one of those ECVT things.)

      It does amaze me, though, at the number of people who don't seem to know you need more gas going up a hill.

    71. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally hit the breaks to dislodge them from my rectum. The first one is soft and slow, then harder and harder.

      I plan to install a device that shoots spent engine oil in a upward direction from the tail pipe. I think that will solve the problem once and for all.

    72. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I usually just drop it into third, brake check them and then hit wide open throttle, rocketing away from them at 90mph. By the time they scoop the poop out of their pants from my brake lights going on, I'm half a mile ahead of them.

    73. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...have to break suddenly and kill them Still sounds like road rage to me...
    74. Re:No stickers in the UK by thedarb · · Score: 1

      I turn on my windshield spray and keep it on long enough for the tailgater to get their window quite wet. Most times they back off. Sometimes it takes two doses for them to realize it was on purpose, but then they get the hint and either back off or go around. In all my years of doing it, I've only had two reactions. One person passed me and did it back. The other was a motorcycle rider with no face mask or goggles, he flipped me off as he passed. Guess he didn't realize it was the only safe method I had to warn him he was risking his own life. I mean, you don't tailgate when you're riding a motorcycle, that's suicide! I know, I sometimes ride one myself. The only downsides are having to refill that reservoir more often, and it doesn't do anything to help you in the rain.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    75. Re:No stickers in the UK by fnj · · Score: 1

      Either your cruising speed is faster than theirs in which case you won't have the tailgating problem, or their speed is faster than yours in which case you should just let them past instead of being a prick about it. In an ideal world, one in which all drivers were rational and reasonably skilled, you would be right. However, tailgaters are very often so stupid that they will by nature pull up behind somebody, tailgate them, and never pass, NO MATTER WHAT SPEED THE GUY AHEAD OF THEM IS DRIVING! And, if you slow down enough that they finally do pass, and they don't see anyone ahead of them, they will then very often slow down ahead of YOU, either out of spite, or total carefree selfish lack of attention.
    76. Re:No stickers in the UK by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that's what many people believe, but that's not necessarily what will happen.

      The Bible never says, anywhere, that things for us will be good on this earth. In fact, to the contrary, people who are followers of God will constantly be attacked by Satan because Satan can't stand that someone truly believes in God. There is no promise of happiness, good things or anything else positive while we're here on earth.

      Of course, the afterlife is supposed to be pretty awesome. But that is the only promise made with respect to that.

    77. Re:No stickers in the UK by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Which is fair enough. What's the justification for overtaking them after they go past? 'cause then you win!
    78. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stay in the left lane mostly since the ingress and egress points from the Interstate are on the right side. I find this to be much safer for me.

      Unfortunately some people get really upset and get a little case of road rage. In those instances I gradually slow down and let them pass. On the rare occasion some people like to maneuver in front of me, and either slam on their brakes or slow down to a crawl. In those instances, I stay in the lane, and just deal with it. Eventually they get tired of trying to get me upset. Playing their game can result in someone dying.

      This is nice and safe.

    79. Re:No stickers in the UK by sricetx · · Score: 1

      Fish stickers aside, - 5 is perfectly acceptable. You do realize that the speed limit is the absolute maximum legal speed, not the required driving speed. Driving 5 miles an hour (or km/h for those outside the US) would give a nice, but not too big, margin of error to help avoid speeding when going down hills, etc. From the point of view of the law you should never be exceeding the speed limit.

    80. Re:No stickers in the UK by sricetx · · Score: 1

      Slashdot ate my post. It should have read "speed limit -5 is perfectly acceptable", not "-5".

    81. Re:No stickers in the UK by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1
      Perhaps, but that's what gears are for.

      I think the Jesus fish people are more the type that go at 40mph - through a 30mph village, then just stay at 40mph, along the NSL (60mph) they never change their speed. 40 all the time.

      PMe, personally I'll goa t whatever speed is right for the conditions (for emphasis - _the_conditions_) , and slow down if I'm over the limit and there is a police (s)camera about.

    82. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when was the last time a fanatical athiest (sic.) knocked on your door to try to talk you out of your religion? Compared to the time Jehova's Witness did try to talk you into theirs?

      Thought so.

    83. Re:No stickers in the UK by ZeroPly · · Score: 1
      I don't think this qualifies as road rage. I would assume you have to be actually angry as a necessary condition, hence the word "rage".

      About twelve years ago, I was cruising along in the right lane at the speed limit, and there was this asshole tailgating me instead of just going around. I was coming around a corner and see this OTHER asshole who has his car sticking halfway into the lane waiting to pull into traffic, obviously assuming I will go around him.

      In a rare flash of inspiration, I kept my speed until I almost ran into him, and then swung out abruptly into the next lane. The guy tailgating me didn't have a chance, he was close enough behind me that I could hear the wonderfully satisfying crunch.

      Two assholes with one stone. Yes, I'm pretty sure I taught them a lesson and maybe even changed their driving habits. But since I wasn't in the least bit angry, it's hardly "road rage".

      --
      Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
    84. Re:No stickers in the UK by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's taught as the correct method to deal with them at driving schools, and I believe even tested for now.

      No, it is not. Slowing, maybe. Slowing then overtaking, never.

      Being tailgated is a dangerous situation - if you're forced to brake for any reason they will cause a nasty accident.

      I still wish I had it. There was a study I saw in a journal that showed that tailgating decreased fatalities. The crashes were more frequent but much less severe. The 2 second following distance was the worst. The person in the front could come to a complete stop and then the car behind, slow to respond, would ram into them and kill everyone in it.

      The average tailgater is also a speeder, so even putting your foot down isn't going to shake them.

      And why must you "shake them" Why do you have such personal space issues behind you? The studies don't show your safety greatly decreased (your car bumper may be more at risk, but the studies don't show your health at risk). So why does it bug you so much?

      Your only other choice is to slow down - not to force them to stop tailgating, but to improve your reaction time and lessen the chance you'll have to break suddenly and kill them.

      Think about that. Someone is following at 1 inch behind you. You slam on the brakes. What's the impact speed difference? They hit you with a difference of less than 1 mph. That's not going to even leave a mark on the bumper. Sure, they will then essentially be pushing you toward whatever you were braking for, but they aren't going to damage you at all. Now, what happens if they are at the 2 second distance that everyone else is comfortable and they are not paying full attention? You brake and can be stopped or pretty close to stopped in 2 seconds. They slam into the back of you at 65 mph or so. You are dead, but you felt better about their following distance.

      So much of driving is like the TSA. People do what makes them feel better, not what gives them actual safety. The same people complaining about the TSA being useless and serving only those with poor risk assessment are the same ones here complaining about tailgating when it is the cause of very few fatalities, much fewer than being rearended by someone traveling a "safe" distance.

    85. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the UK you rarely see bumper stickers, yet road rage is not exactly rare. So I don't really see the correlation. Having said that, whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle. But maybe that's just me. Thats why you need a Cthulhu Fish! remember Jesus saves but if you have ITS fish on your car Cthulhu Might just save you for last
    86. Re:No stickers in the UK by Noren · · Score: 1
      So "fanatical athiests" is your code for someone who occasionally gets annoyed with people advertising their religion- but who doesn't act on this annoyance, instead jokingly complaining about it on slashdot?

      He expresses annoyance at those who advertise their religion... so you swear at him for advertising his lack of religion, while claiming that what you are doing doesn't happen. Hypocrite much?

      Who modded this flamebait insightful?

    87. Re:No stickers in the UK by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Actually I do. To misquote 2010, "My God! It's full of assholes!"

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    88. Re:No stickers in the UK by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      So when was the last time a fanatical athiest (sic.) knocked on your door to try to talk you out of your religion?

      They don't knock, they just walk on in via the internet at sites like slashdot that have nothing whatever to do with religion.

      And I have lots of fun fucking with the Jehova's Witnesses' heads. It's been quite some time since one came by, they must be getting wise.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    89. Re:No stickers in the UK by bareman · · Score: 1

      Oh, never been to church eh?

    90. Re:No stickers in the UK by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So "fanatical athiests" is your code for someone who occasionally gets annoyed with people advertising their religion- but who doesn't act on this annoyance, instead jokingly complaining about it on slashdot?

      No, if some asshat brings up creationism or the golden rule or abortion here he deserves to be slapped down unless the topic is specifically about that whether he's an athiest, Baptist, or Muslim. There was a thread about some stupid "creationist museum" a while back and anti-religion posts were valid there. But I see athiests coming out of the blue here just bashing religion in general without provocation whatever. Perhaps you made some of those posts yourself.

      If your sig says "there is no god" you are advertising your (lack of) religion, and that's valid and will get no grief from me, just as valid as the fish with legs you see on cars.

      Who modded this flamebait insightful?

      Flamebait? Why are you so defensive, son? I never attacked you. Perhaps it was modded so by someone who, like me, sees athiests attacking people at slashdot for religion on an almost daily basis?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    91. Re:No stickers in the UK by dwibby · · Score: 1

      As a mild agnostic—the group sitting in the middle of the whole discussion, and often wondering what the fuss is about—I find that both sides have their overly outspoken pundits. The really surprising bit is the fact that both sides also have members who keep their mouths shut and are just as annoyed by their own pundits as the rest of us are. Someone wiser than myself once said that extremists exist to show the rest of us where the boundaries are.

    92. Re:No stickers in the UK by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 1

      ...seldom do I ever hear religious people talk of religion at all.
      I hear you. I don't follow politics either.
    93. Re:No stickers in the UK by zapakh · · Score: 1

      And is hating SUV drivers still on or have we started pity for them? Actually, it seems they have the upper hand.
    94. Re:No stickers in the UK by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      You know, It's very, very rare that a religious person (Chrustian, Jew, Hindu, whatever) tries to shove his beliefs down my throat.


      Apparently you haven't heard about people trying to get creationism taught in schools. Or trying to outlaw gay marriage. Or forcing liquor stores to close on Sunday.

      Apparently you haven't heard of the guy in my neighborhood who went around putting threats on the doors of all the unmarried couples.

      Or the science teachers who have been threatened for doing their job and teaching Evolution.

      Or all of the people who have been threatened, bullied, and badgered because they want an abortion.

      For instance, I don't believe I've ever had a Catholic berate me for using birth control


      Do you normally go around and tell people that you're using birth control? How would they even know?

      never had a Jew or Muslim tell me I was going to hell for eating a ham sandwich


      If you live in the US, Jews and Muslims are in the minority. Maybe if you lived in a predominantly Muslim country, you would see that things don't work the same way.

      Kindly STFU, asshole. I'm not interested in your religious beliefs.


      Athiesm isn't a religion. And telling people to "STFU" isn't going to bolster your argument. It's also not going to silence them.
    95. Re:No stickers in the UK by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Slowing down to force them to pass is a reasonable response, but GPP was advocating slowing down, letting them overtake, then overtaking the (former) tailgater again out of spite. That is road ragey behaviour.

      If someone's ignorant enough or asshole enough to tailgate, the best place for them is in front of you where you can see them. Preferably, with lots of room in between, too.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    96. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either your cruising speed is faster than theirs in which case you won't have the tailgating problem, or their speed is faster than yours in which case you should just let them past instead of being a prick about it. Maybe you haven't been driving long enough or maybe you're just a slow learner, but tailgaters simply don't 'get it', and you can't teach 'it' to them. The best you can do is make sure that you're not the one they run up the rear of when you have to brake for a hazard. And one day, when you pull over to let them past,
      People who tailgate are the problem. If you want to go over the speed limit then you should just pass. Don't endanger other people just because you want to get somewhere faster.
    97. Re:No stickers in the UK by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Strange. It says I was mentally damaged as an infant and now I'm so insecure in my belief in sky fairies that I have to cover my car and probably my person with ostentatious symbols of my superstition.

      Oh, I guess that is "I'm better than you, you stinking infidel." Both are compliments.

    98. Re:No stickers in the UK by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      A single person's experience contrary to the norm is not a valid statistical sample. Just count yourself lucky and stop insulting people and trolling. Why do people mod up posts like this calling people assholes and the like? This is not what /. should be about.

    99. Re:No stickers in the UK by Noted+Futurist · · Score: 1

      Ah, groupthink and stereotypes! Why don't you comment on the color of the drivers skin?

      Maybe you only notice the Jesus fish when you're stuck behind one that is a slow driver, so then you notice it?
      You don't notice the ones passing you so much, eh?

      This kind of stereotyping and groupthink belongs relegated to the history books on the old south.

    100. Re:No stickers in the UK by Noted+Futurist · · Score: 1

      Life is what you choose to make it.

      Look how many people on here agree with your take on the fish/Christianity- takes a lot more guts to put one on your car these days than to not.

    101. Re:No stickers in the UK by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      You know, It's very, very rare that a religious person (Chrustian, Jew, Hindu, whatever) tries to shove his beliefs down my throat.

      That's nice for you, clearly not living in the United States. Or did it maybe not occur to you that trying to LEGISLATE a religious opinion definitely qualifies as "trying to shove it down my throat." To be honest, to a lot of people the "Jesus fish" probably says something along the lines of, "Hi, I'm probably one of the people trying to legislatively force my religious opinions down the entire country's throat."

    102. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's a bitch when people holding superstitions get laughed at for them.

    103. Re:No stickers in the UK by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Why are you so defensive, son? I never attacked you.


      Calling him "son" is a derogatory ad-hominem attack.

      But I see athiests coming out of the blue here just bashing religion in general without provocation whatever.


      I argue about freedom of the press all the time, regardless of whether or not those seeking to limit publication are "provoking" me.

      Are you suggesting that I need to be attacked before I have the right to criticize?
    104. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are lashing out just like teens seeking the reassurance of the group.

      If they were sure of themselves, and their beliefs (or lack of) they would not need to lash out for the groups validation.

    105. Re:No stickers in the UK by Buran · · Score: 1

      Did you add "of the" ?

    106. Re:No stickers in the UK by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Of course, I'm in a manual: I can drive with a steady pitch from the engine and I'm at a steady speed


      My little Morris 850 (Mini) was like that. Mine had an 1.1L engine with extractors on it so it was really noisy, but I'd seldom need to check the speedo as the engine noise was a pretty good indicator (The speedo was in MPH anyway, and about 15% wrong). I miss that car :(

      The other thing was that hills didn't seem to faze it. It was a lightweight car with a lightweight driver and a lightly modified motor, so I only had to think about putting the food down further on really steep hills.
    107. Re:No stickers in the UK by mrv20 · · Score: 1

      Think about that. Someone is following at 1 inch behind you. You slam on the brakes. What's the impact speed difference? They hit you with a difference of less than 1 mph. That's not going to even leave a mark on the bumper. Sure, they will then essentially be pushing you toward whatever you were braking for, but they aren't going to damage you at all. ... until you hit the obstacle in front at which point your car gets crushed between the two

      The two second gap gives the driver behind a chance to react to your brake lights (and even the situation you are braking for) and also slow down. Being tailgated guarantees that suddenly having to brake will lead to a collision of some sort, and being shunted from behind will break your traction with the road reducing your control AND ability to slow down which makes it more likely you will hit what you were trying to avoid, only this time with the car behind pushing you.

      Having a greater gap also gives you some time to notice that the car behind is not braking and modify your actions, either reducing your braking rate if there is still space to give them more time to notice or making an emergency lane change to get out of the way. When this happened to me I was very glad to have time to slow down enough to swerve onto the shoulder safely and avoid any contact with either car rather than immediately get hit from behind.
      --
      "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
    108. Re:No stickers in the UK by jamesh · · Score: 1

      However, tailgaters are very often so stupid that they will by nature pull up behind somebody, tailgate them, and never pass, NO MATTER WHAT SPEED THE GUY AHEAD OF THEM IS DRIVING! And, if you slow down enough that they finally do pass, and they don't see anyone ahead of them, they will then very often slow down ahead of YOU, either out of spite, or total carefree selfish lack of attention.

      Thinking about it since my last post, I don't think i've realy had a problem with tailgaters in the last few years. If anyone has really come up close behind me, they've either passed me and that's the last i've seen of them, or i've pulled over and let them past. I've not had the problem of people tailgating, getting past, and then slowing down. The roads where I do most of my driving are mostly duplicated now, and the ones that aren't must just be traveled by more sensible drivers.

      But tailgaters are a hazard on the road, and like any other hazard should be avoided at all costs. If that means pulling over and waiting 5 minutes until they are long gone then so be it. You will never ever 'teach' them anything by playing games with them, as they are too stupid to learn, like kangaroos they're just dumb animals which you have to avoid.

      Sometimes, no matter how frustrating, the only way to 'win' is not to play. (I tell my kids that all the time - "she can't copy everything you say if you don't say anything" :)
    109. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Having said that, whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle. But maybe that's just me.

      Not by a long shot -- I've found that the prick with the fish is most likely to cut you off with inches to spare. They've replaced red Nissan light pickup ruck drivers and BMW "ultimate drivers" as the most inconsiderate shits on the road. When I see one of these bastards slightly in front of me in an adjacent lane, I immediately cover the brake, because they're very likely to swerve over in front of you without looking or signaling. They should also shove their cellphones up their Christian assholes.

      Yes, I am a lifelong Christian, just not their type -- I don't advertise.

    110. Re:No stickers in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you can love his neigbor's wife...

    111. Re:No stickers in the UK by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      ... until you hit the obstacle in front at which point your car gets crushed between the two

      Statistics shows that doesn't happen. And what are you running into? Magical obsticals that appear in front of you at a complete standstill on a freeway?

      The two second gap gives the driver behind a chance to react to your brake lights (and even the situation you are braking for) and also slow down.

      Two seconds is the following distance at which you are most likely to be killed. That it makes you feel better doesn't make it any more safe.

    112. Re:No stickers in the UK by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Why do people mod up posts like this calling people assholes and the like?

      The post I was responding to said "whenever I see the Jesus fish on the back of a car, I do want to run it off the road on general principle."

      Anyone who would tell you that he wants to run someone off the road for his beliefs IS an asshole. If you're going to post flamebait you should expect to get flamed. You might want to look "internet troll" up in wikipedia.

      A single person's experience contrary to the norm is not a valid statistical sample.

      Nobody said it was. Not every experience has to be statistically signifigant. In fact, I'm usually at the head or tail of every bell curve there is; very little of my life's exeperiences have been in any way normal.

      I should buy lottery tickets.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    113. Re:No stickers in the UK by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Calling him "son" is a derogatory ad-hominem attack

      Being called "son" is a friendly reminder that you are speaking to your elder. I'm a geezer; damned near everyone here is young enough to be my offspring. If there's anything derogatory about it I never knew it all those years my elders called me "son".

      I argue about freedom of the press all the time, regardless of whether or not those seeking to limit publication are "provoking" me.

      That's a good thing. But in a forum like this, offtopic comments that would provoke an emotional response are called "trolls". That's almost word for word from the wilipedia article about internet trolls.

      Are you suggesting that I need to be attacked before I have the right to criticize?

      That depends on the venue. I'd say anything is fair game in your journal, which I see you don't use. In a topic about road rage a discussion of Rumsfeld or Muhammed is offtopic and inflammatory - in short, a troll.

      I don't suffer trolls gladly.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    114. Re:No stickers in the UK by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      You might want to look "internet troll" up in wikipedia.
      You might want to learn that they do it *because* they want the attention from the pissed off replies. The best way to deal with trolls is not to become one yourself but to simply ignore them or at least reply in a civil manner.
      If you're going to post flamebait you should expect to get flamed.

      Then the flame response should be moderated as flamebait as well - and not "insightful". My point is that we shouldn't be moderating up people personally insulting other posters - it just results in internet superhighway road rage. ;)

    115. Re:No stickers in the UK by mrv20 · · Score: 1
      The 'magical' obstacles include slow drivers suddenly pulling out close in front of a faster moving vehicle without indicating or apparently checking their mirrors, and collisions or misjudgements ahead that result in the car in front braking hard. Less typically, it has also included a deer stepping out from behind a bridge pillar in the central reservation into the inner two lanes then freezing and a truck shedding its load of tyres - no magic required for an unexpected stationary blockage of the road.

      Two seconds is the following distance at which you are most likely to be killed. That it makes you feel better doesn't make it any more safe. The importance of this statistic depends entirely on the relative probabilities of being killed by being hit from behind and that of being injured / suffering car damage. Trading a small increase in a small probability of being killed for a larger decrease in the much larger probability of being injured seems entirely reasonable.

      I'm sure a 3 second gap would be even safer (reduction in both probabilities), but there are limits to what gap you can maintain without it being taken as an invitation to cut in. 1.5-2 second gaps are a compromise that so far have allowed me to escape several collisions that would have been inevitable if I or the person behind had been tailgating.

      I appreciate the logic behind your argument, but I don't think it takes the whole picture into account. If you have similar statistics to show that on balance all forms of loss are reduced by following closer then by all means prove me wrong, but until then I'll put more stock in my personal experience.

      (Of course, if I'm killed in a car accident I reserve the right to change my mind :)
      --
      "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
    116. Re:No stickers in the UK by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Trading a small increase in a small probability of being killed for a larger decrease in the much larger probability of being injured seems entirely reasonable.

      That implies that you put a $$ value on your life. I know what the federal government uses, but what do you think your life is worth? If I thought it might change your mind (and it won't, as this is one of the things that people "feel" then look for facts to back up their feeling, rather than gathering facts and making a reasoned decision after), I would help you track down the data from places you trust, like FARS (the government database that compiles data from all fatal crashes).

      I'm sure a 3 second gap would be even safer (reduction in both probabilities), but there are limits to what gap you can maintain without it being taken as an invitation to cut in.

      Even if you assume every driver to be polite, longer following distances cause problems. Fewer cars get through lights. More space makes for greater travel times and worse fuel mileage. When you have people that are in traffic for longer, the chance of a crash increases. I don't think the numbers exist but I would suspect that if everyone used a 2s following distance yesterday and a 3s following distance tomorrow, that there would be an increased chance of crashes with 3s following distances, increased fuel consumption, and greatly increased travel times. When you add in the asshole factor (people cutting in), it only gets worse.

    117. Re:No stickers in the UK by Chuffpole · · Score: 1

      How come the the Americans call bumpers fenders and yet call car stickers bumper stickers?

      I think it's an age thing. I was so proud of my first car, a Mk 1 Ford Fiesta. It ended up with wide alloys, stripes and other stickers, a CB and aerial (don't laugh too hard!) on the vinyl roof (!) and PA speaker behind the front grille, booster amplifier for the tape player with graphic equaliser, those big ol' 1980s rear shelf speakers with TSX-20 in big white letters, seatcovers, chunky gear knob, two plastic turtles on the dash in a copulation arrangement, a "spoiler", spotlights for show (not even wired up!), an aftermarket sunroof, a suction cup Garfield on a window, and probably more that I've tried to forget. Oh yes, even a novelty stick-on dummy switch labelled "Ejector Seat"!. Yes, it makes me cringe now, although it all seemed so tasteful at the time... and I remember getting very annoyed sometimes when people put my safety at risk and threatened my pride and joy.

      These days, mellowed with age, I snigger at blue LED lights and neons the kids have, and I drive a car 100% as supplied - standard everything. If a garage puts a sticker on during a service, it comes off right away. It's how the car company designer intended, and looks clean and smart... like it could be newly bought.

      And if anyone does anything dumb these days, I just shrug and count myself lucky I'm still in one piece and that I don't drive like that. The world is full of lousy drivers, like it's full of lousy everything-ers, you get used to it.

    118. Re:No stickers in the UK by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      That's nice for you, clearly not living in the United States.
      Clearly? He's simply talking about his everyday experience and you accuse him of lying earlier in the thread?

      Or did it maybe not occur to you that trying to LEGISLATE a religious opinion definitely qualifies as "trying to shove it down my throat." To be honest, to a lot of people the "Jesus fish" probably says something along the lines of, "Hi, I'm probably one of the people trying to legislatively force my religious opinions down the entire country's throat."
      Memo: He likely doesn't agree with the idiots in power trying to legislate a religious mandate, and many other religious people don't either. For that matter, the Jesus fish nowadays says more along the lines of "Lookit me! I gotz me a useless ornament for my car even though I don't act my faith!" Sure, they might be the same fools who voted in the same idiots in power, but I seriously doubt the majority of them really want you to be forced to discard your lack of beliefs.
      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    119. Re:No stickers in the UK by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      Most tail-gaters are just *oblivious* rather than aggreesive. You can tell the aggressive ones because they're the ones who flash their headlights and mock-charge you at 110mph. Those, you avoid. I was hit at about 10mph once. I was a lot luckier than you because I was driving a hired Pontiac Bonneville in San Fran at the time. Not a lard-bucket by American standards, but big enough to tilt the momentuam equation in our favour. I was hit by some guy in a classic Mercedes who was driving too fast, too close, and without the ABS and the fat tyres that the Pontiac sported. My *passenger* had just had recently had some fairly serious facial surgery and was swated in bandages. The guy from the Merc got out, came over, looked into the cabin, and *freaked*. No-one was hurt, I was civil, *he* was civil (and *so* keen to get out of there it was funny). Scuff mark on the back bumper of the Pontiac, the driver's mirror fell out of its holder, the Mercedes front bumper fell off. Other damage? Premature ageing due to stress and fright, damaged egos... Basically, his wheels locked on braking, and he slid about fifteen feet into the back of our car. No real moral beyond, drive carefully, but I wish I'd been able to photograph the guy's expression when he saw my friend....

  5. Nice by RawGutts · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Wow this is a shocker that a university even did a study like this.

    Very interesting article, thank ya.

    1. Re:Nice by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if we could get them to do a study on slashdot rage...I think that I've noticed that people with sigs tend to fly off the handle more often than those without them.

    2. Re:Nice by Inda · · Score: 3, Funny

      No we don't. How very dare you to even suggest such a thing. We comment because we can, not because we have sigs. If you don't like it, you can fuck off.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:Nice by houghi · · Score: 1

      Fuck off. Asshole.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  6. this is bizzare by born+2+rule · · Score: 1

    so people please dont give your house a private paint job or put any personal decorative item on your window because probably that will lead to another research by ahem trying to link them with house rage

  7. No brains? by getuid() · · Score: 1

    What about linking road rage to the proximity of one's i.q. to that of a strawberry? Now the question would be: where's the link between stupidity and car stickers. Maybe there's no stupidity involved in putting one sticker on your car. But what about putting 10 stickers on your vehicle?... I dunno. Oppinions on this one?

    1. Re:No brains? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you insinuating that strawberries have low IQs? Perhaps they are simply too intelligent to deal with lower life-forms such as ours?

    2. Re:No brains? by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      The link was between territoriality (and presumably and implicitly, aggression). It's a typical slashdot knee-jerk nitwit response to conflate behaviour X and IQ. Actions may be moderated by intelligence, but the motivations that give rise to them are often innate and impossible to change. Some people become violent when they drink red wine or eat cheese. Is that stupidity, or does the stupidity lie in missing the essentially mechanistic nature of mood and motivation? And then mouthing off about it?

    3. Re:No brains? by getuid() · · Score: 1

      he link was between territoriality (and presumably and implicitly, aggression). Agree on that.

      It's a typical slashdot knee-jerk nitwit response to conflate behaviour X and IQ. Actions may be moderated by intelligence, but the motivations that give rise to them are often innate and impossible to change. ... however, don't totally agree on that one.
      Your statement implies that the mere role of intelligence is to moderate natural (animal?) impulses we have. While intelligence certainly has the ability to moderate (or better: modulate) natural impulses, I'd rather think that intelligence is actually more potent than that.
      I think intelligence is actually able to _create_ motivation aswell. Or, in other words, people are able to take action on basis of purely _rational_ thoughts (and then further modulate those thoughts by more or less fortunate amounts intelligence).
      That's what separates us from animals all along: the ability to _will_ our actions, however intelligent or stupid that will would be.
    4. Re:No brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal."
      -- Robert Heinlen, Assignment in Eternity (1953)

    5. Re:No brains? by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that, the strawberries I know are all getting into a jam of one sort or another.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  8. Seen by meta+slash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't drive as if you own the road ... Drive as if you own the car.

    1. Re:Seen by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Seen ... on a bumper sticker? I'm no longer sure I should take it seriously.

    2. Re:Seen by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      My favorite was a twist of that and it was on a Drivers ed car...

      Dont drive as if you own the road....
      Drive as if you had a brain.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Seen by corcoranp · · Score: 1

      Don't reply as if you own /. reply only if you have something useful to say.

      --
      Peter Corcoran
    4. Re:Seen by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I've seen a bumper sticker that says "as a matter of fact, I do own the road".

      I've noticed that the more expensive a vehicle is, the more dangerous, irresponsible, agressive, and discourteous the driver. I wish someone would do a study to see if this were accurate or just my perception.

      Why do assholes in hummers and escalades think they deserve part of my lane and more than one parking spot?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:Seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't drive as if you own the road ... Drive as if you own the car. So don't pull out infront of me at 5mph and make me slam on my brakes and I'll leave you alone.
    6. Re:Seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, drive it like you stole it!

    7. Re:Seen by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that the more expensive a vehicle is, the more dangerous, irresponsible, agressive, and discourteous the driver. I wish someone would do a study to see if this were accurate or just my perception.

      According to TFS, this was actually part of the study:
      "The number of territory markers predicted road rage better than vehicle value, condition, or any of the things that we normally associate with aggressive driving,' says Szlemko.
    8. Re:Seen by AioKits · · Score: 1

      Don't drive as if you own the road ... Drive as if you own the car. And drive it like you stole it!
      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    9. Re:Seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lease my car, you insensitive clod!

    10. Re:Seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars give a false sense of security. Drive as if you own your body.

      Drive as if your family's lives are the most precious dear thing to you, and you'll do anything to keep them safe. .... said as I'm about to drive to into LA for a trip to Disneyland.

    11. Re:Seen by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      The study was of people reacting to assholes, not the assholes themselves. If nobody drove like an asshole there wouldn't be any such thing as road rage.

      My observation isn't that the rich folks are pissed off, it's that they are pissing everyone else off by driving like witless morons.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    12. Re:Seen by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      The study was of people reacting to assholes, not the assholes themselves. If nobody drove like an asshole

      You have a lot of bumper stickers on your car, right?
    13. Re:Seen by Reziac · · Score: 1

      'I've seen a bumper sticker that says "as a matter of fact, I do own the road".'

      And when I drive on the wrong side of the road -- well, I paid for both sides... ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  9. Not Surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since all creatures notoriously marking "their territory" (i.e taggers, dogs, bumper-sticker-appliers) seem to be exeedingly aggressive. And not too, um, witty...

    "If you continue to post this comment, all moderations done to this discussion will be undone! Are you sure you want to post?"

    WHERE IS THE YES BUTTON?

  10. Wow another study that reveals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that anything that differentiates cars (small, personalised, convenient, fast) from public transport (large, impersonal, inconvenient, slow) has an unquantifiable bad effect.

  11. We'll see what later studies show. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1
    I have no idea how much I trust this data but I do know that it will probably get replicated or, at the least, somebody will do a variation on the idea. And once we have multiple studies to judge by, then we'll start knowing what the correlations are. Personally, I would be fascinated to see a correlation between degree of deviation from the speed of surrounding traffic and visible modifications to the car, because that would prevent reporting error.

    One way or another, this should start a very productive round of FINALLY having more useful scientific data about territoriality and driving.

    Of course the obvious other thing to do, which I'm willing to bet would be quite useful if done right, would be to interview highway cops on their experiences about what kinds of cars correlate with what behaviors. We know well that they profile, but I'll betcha dollars to donuts that some of their generalizations are non-obvious and true. Ideally, this would then be supplemented with reviewing footage from squadcar cameras but that might not be so easy to arrange.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:We'll see what later studies show. by nyctopterus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think I'd let a study done with that methodology through peer review. It's way too susceptible to confirmation bias on the part of the police. Traffic cameras would be much better.

  12. Other people's stickers? by snarfies · · Score: 4, Funny

    I walk past a car at my work's parking lot that has Bush stickers all over it. I have fantasies about keying the holy living shit out of that car as I pass it. I don't DO it - I don't really know how to key a car, never having done it before, and I can control my impulses.

    Not everyone can control their impulses.

    1. Re:Other people's stickers? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, see that's the difference between a democrat and a republican: a democrat only thinks of it, a republican actually does it....

      ;-)/p>

    2. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, see that's the difference between a democrat and a republican: a democrat only thinks of it, a republican actually does it....

      Actually, the available evidence says otherwise.

    3. Re:Other people's stickers? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Fair, but I was actually just trying to be funny. There are assholes in both camps.

    4. Re:Other people's stickers? by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      Yep. More often than not, it seems it's the tolerant, freedom loving liberal activists that vandalize and destroy other people's property.

    5. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really know how to key a car, never having done it before Thank you, I had been having a bad day until I read that. FYI, take your key/s, press them on the car with good pressure, scrape along so that the paint scratches. I'm sure it gets easier once you get the experience and all the know-how needed.

    6. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More often than not, it seems it's the tolerant, freedom loving liberal activists that vandalize and destroy other people's property.

      Indeed. Nothing says "peace" and "harmony" and "can't we all just get along" like smashing the windows of a local retail shop during your anti-war rally, and burning giant puppet effigies to show what you'd really do to people you hate if you could get away with it. Yes, hate is tolerated and even encouraged, as long as it's in the name of warm, fuzzy, friendly political correctness anchored in leftist, populist platitudes. Why these idiots - so often theoretically college educated - can't see the fantastic irony of hating in the name of tolerance, and being randomly violent in the name of peace, I'll never know. Unless it's because, most of the time, they're just muddle-headed poseurs with no critical thinking skills and they're actually attending protests to get dates, shock their parents, and come up with something new for MySpace because people are getting tired of just looking at pictures of them being drunk at parties.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Other people's stickers? by Sabz5150 · · Score: 1

      Yep. More often than not, it seems it's the tolerant, freedom loving liberal activists that vandalize and destroy other people's property. Funny... Someone ripped the bumper sticker off of my car one time. It was a Kerry/Edwards sticker and I was in a particularly red area. Check your politics at the door.
      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    8. Re:Other people's stickers? by msormune · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a lot of people raving in their cars would not do anything OUTSIDE the car, either. It's pretty easy to yell at people when you are driving with the windows closed.

    9. Re:Other people's stickers? by Sabz5150 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. Nothing says "peace" and "harmony" and "can't we all just get along" like smashing the windows of a local retail shop during your anti-war rally, and burning giant puppet effigies to show what you'd really do to people you hate if you could get away with it. Yes, hate is tolerated and even encouraged, as long as it's in the name of warm, fuzzy, friendly political correctness anchored in leftist, populist platitudes. Why these idiots - so often theoretically college educated - can't see the fantastic irony of hating in the name of tolerance, and being randomly violent in the name of peace, I'll never know. Unless it's because, most of the time, they're just muddle-headed poseurs with no critical thinking skills and they're actually attending protests to get dates, shock their parents, and come up with something new for MySpace because people are getting tired of just looking at pictures of them being drunk at parties. Tell me about it... those damn revolutionary traitors dumping all that tea just to make a point.
      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    10. Re:Other people's stickers? by n3tcat · · Score: 4, Funny

      You key a car the same way you unlock it...

      except you miss.

    11. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, hate is tolerated and even encouraged, as long as it's in the name of warm, fuzzy, friendly political correctness anchored in leftist, populist platitudes.
      And then there's this woman.
    12. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the toothed edge of your key and scrape length wise, pulling the key and pressing your thumb against the back.

      If you're still uncertain, just lob a brick through the windscreen and run.

      Hope that helps.

    13. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I walk past a car at my work's parking lot that has Bush stickers all over it. I have fantasies about keying the holy living shit out of that car as I pass it.

      Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it? Your actual desire, when someone else expresses their opinion, is to be violent. My desire, when I see a car loaded up with "random acts of beauty," "peace happens," and "war is not the answer" stickers is to actually talk to the platitude-dealing pollyanna involved and get a sense of how they think, for exmaple, that their random acts of beauty and kindness might change a local Taliban franchise's boss into someone who no longer likes to kill women showing up to work as a teacher and showing young girls how to read. How was "war not the answer" when Germany was rolling over Europe? How exactly was peace going to "happen" in the Balkans as Muslims were being ethnically "cleansed" from their villages with Serbian machine guns?

      Unlike you, whose first instinct - however well reigned in for fear of being caught - is to vandalize the property of someone you hate, I'm more inclined to either roll my eyes, or actually communicate. I do appreciate your so nicely illustrating the shrill, tantrum-like thought process that drives so much of the politics on the left. It's entirely about rudderless emotions, drama, and cheap, sophomoric, fair-weather outrage that's anything but constructive... and shows that the pretense of disliking partisanship is completely disengenuous. It's true of you, and it's true of the current presidential candidate from the left. Hot air. It's not about getting anything done, it's entirely about how much you don't like someone else. "Change We Can Believe In" is the most empty bit of meaningless rhetoric I've ever heard, since it avoids, at all costs, any actual specificity lest the people that utter it get caught showing the real foundation of their idealogy. No need to of course, since the portrait you painted of how your brain works when exposed to nothing more than the name of a political opponent handily demonstrates the actual nature of most political thinking on the left: it's about actual hate, or about craven pandering to that hate as a way to power.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one time i saw a van that was absolutely plastered with bush bumper stickers. there were probably 10 of them on the back side.

      they were accompanied by one other bumper sticker that said "i love someone with autism".

    15. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      those damn revolutionary traitors dumping all that tea just to make a point

      I see, because the local coffee shop is an agent of foreign colonial tyrrany, being run in a country in which you have no representative democracy or constitional checks and balances. Yes, nothing has changed since the founding of our nation! We must still destroy the property and livelihoods of our neighbors in order to show how we must sever ties with the overseas monarchy that sets taxes on which we have no voice, stations troops in our homes, and prevents us from manufacturing goods on our own shores. Yes, I see now that you have a keen grasp on it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first prerequisite of government expansion is to get the people at odds with each other, ideally dividing them into 2 seemingly distinct "camps" which loathe and resent each other for "putting the wrong man in power". This way, they will forever blame each other for the endless expansion of government and destruction of their own human rights -- never the power elite who sit above all of that, making their fortunes in the business of government.

      It's never, ever the very concept of power -- that special "right" to employ coercion as a means which defines government -- which is to blame for thier woes. Nor is it the architects of that power, the people who fuel the fire and create the theater of politics. Rather, it's the fabricated competition which deserves the blame.

      Next time you walk past that car, think about why you are so angry. Think about the owner of that car and how angry he would be to hear your beliefs. Then, think long and hard about how you both arrived at this situation.

    17. Re:Other people's stickers? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      The right wingers just go for beatting up the people.

    18. Re:Other people's stickers? by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike you, whose first instinct - however well reigned in for fear of being caught - is to vandalize the property of someone you hate, I'm more inclined to either roll my eyes, or actually communicate. Really? Let's see...

      ...platitude-dealing pollyanna... change a local Taliban franchise's boss... Germany was rolling over Europe? ... ethnically "cleansed"... roll my eyes... shrill, tantrum-like thought process... rudderless emotions, drama, and cheap, sophomoric, fair-weather outrage that's anything but constructive... disengenuous... Hot air... empty bit of meaningless rhetoric... get caught... how your brain works... actual hate... craven pandering So, it appears that your "actual communication" is nothing more than ad hominems and strawmen. You didn't say a single word of substance in that entire paragraph.
    19. Re:Other people's stickers? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      ...for exmaple...


      I doubt the "platitude-dealing pollyanna" in question was a Maple tree in a previous life. A Denebian Slime Devil, perhaps, but not a Maple tree. That's an insult to the whole Acer genus.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    20. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-War != Pacifism.

      In fact, it usually means Anti-Some Specific War.

      Old war protest saying: "If we're going to shed some blood, let's pick some better targets."

    21. Re:Other people's stickers? by corcoranp · · Score: 1

      Over and over and over again...

      --
      Peter Corcoran
    22. Re:Other people's stickers? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it? Your actual desire, when someone else expresses their opinion, is to be violent. . . . Unlike you, whose first instinct - however well reigned in for fear of being caught - is to vandalize the property of someone you hate, I'm more inclined to either roll my eyes . . .

      I don't want to sound like I'm calling you a liar here, but I really can't believe your implication that you have never had a violent thought toward something or someone you dislike. My sarcasm meter must be miscalibrated this morning.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    23. Re:Other people's stickers? by Paranatural · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More often than not, it seems it's the tolerant, freedom loving liberal activists that vandalize and destroy other people's property. More often than not? What a load of crap. When I worked at the state, the guy who dared to put pro-evolution bumper stickers on his car had his vehicle vandalized several times while at work. So I guess that means that most of the time conservatives are only law-loving bible-thumping zealots of morality when it comes to their own and never when it comes to their own property? I mean I have one example right?

      Idiot.

    24. Re:Other people's stickers? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      For nearly 40 years this native of rural Iowa has been engaged in a Torquemada-style quest to eradicate racism, real or imagined, from every nook and cranny of American life. She casts a mighty long shadow. Everytime a corporation forces new employees at least Caucasian ones to endure intensive and prolonged anti-bias training, it is ratifying the legacy of Jane Elliott. Every time a college requires incoming white freshman to be cured of racial, ethnic and religious prejudices presumably lurking within, it is fulfilling Elliotts vision. Using racism to fight racism? I love how the Left thinks!

      Take a nice, long, hard look at Africa. Then, glance at Europe. Or Japan. Or Russia. Or... well, any country with light skinned folks.

      Tell me which country is superior. :)

      Mod me flamebait, I don't give a shit. It's the damn truth and you know it.
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    25. Re:Other people's stickers? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      The right wingers just go for beatting up the people. The cowardly Communist cuckolds don't have the balls to get in a man's face, so they fuck with this shit when he's not around. It's safer that way.
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    26. Re:Other people's stickers? by corbettw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Calling someone a "platitude-dealing pollyanna" is not an ad hominem when it's true.

      Asking a person how their espoused philosophy would deal with thugs and tyrants in the real world is not a strawman.

      And so forth and so on.

      Oh, and you should look up ad logicam sometime.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    27. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be completely fair, I'm a right-leaning individual, and I often have the impulse to key a car (and yet, like the GP, never do). Though, it's usually for very poor parking or blocking my car in (which happens very frequently in the ample-spaced parking lot of my apartment complex), and not for political statements that I disagree with plastered to my neighbor's car.

      Honestly, I think bumper stickers just make a car look trashy. So I just roll my eyes and move on.

    28. Re:Other people's stickers? by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Calling someone a "platitude-dealing pollyanna" is not an ad hominem when it's true. Was the great-grandparent poster actually spouting platitudes?
      No. Only the grandparent, who was putting words in the other's mouth and then denigrating him for them.
      Was the great-grandparent poster a Pollyanna? Either a small teenage girl, or the colloquial form as a blind optimist?
      No.

      So, what about it was "true", as you so nicely put it?

      And so forth and so on. Pot to kettle: stfu.
    29. Re:Other people's stickers? by mshmgi · · Score: 1

      I have a bumper sticker that says this verbatim!

    30. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How, exactly, is this insightful?

      How, in fact, is it EVEN RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND?

      irony: CAPTCHA = "religion"

    31. Re:Other people's stickers? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      HA! I've never seen a rightwinger face up to line of heavily armed riot police with nothing but a cardboard sign.

    32. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couple of things:
      Window smashing is the providence of thugs, period. I'd like you to actually back up your assertion that the same people who are for peace and harmony are the ones who are smashing windows, and not anarchists and thugs who want to smash windows while surrounded by a mass of anonymous people.

      Furthermore, there is no irony in being warm, fuzzy and friendly, yet want to kick the snot out of assholes. It's called critical thinking.

      Somehow, I get the impression that you're so smug in your anti-establishment attitude that you completely fail to see the lack of internal consistency in your logic, or the complete lack of data to support your assertion.

    33. Re:Other people's stickers? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Look, dude, even though Bush may well be the worst President this country has ever seen and is clearly the worst President in my lifetime (and I ain't young), wanting to key someone's car because of their political beliefs is pathological.

      Get help if you can before you get yourelf in trouble.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    34. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see anyone being labeled a democrat or a republican in that story. Care to back up your assumptions?

    35. Re:Other people's stickers? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do appreciate your so nicely illustrating the shrill, tantrum-like thought process that drives so much of the politics on the left

      And I appreciate your so nicely illustrating the propensity of both your sides to equate everyone with beliefs different than yours as being the same as all others in their camp. The fact is that a lot of people on both sides want to kill anyone with differring opinions, and other people on both sides would rather have reasonable discourse.

      Don't judge all liberals (or all conservatives) by the actions of one emotional misfit.

      Me, I haven't decided whether to vote Green or Libertarian. I'm not voting for the Corporate stooge McCain, and I'm not voting for the corporate stooge Obama (and since the Libertarian is really a Republican I'll probably vote Green).

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    36. Re:Other people's stickers? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it takes real balls to stand up to a cop in the land of the free.

      What's the worst that would happen to you, hm? Being asked to move along?

      Get real.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    37. Re:Other people's stickers? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      the corporate stooge Obama

      I've seen this sentiment around a bit, but I've never seen justification for it. I'm sorry to pick apart your reply and focus just on this one bit, but I really am curious. To me, he seems like a genuinely populist candidate, and an idealist to boot. Now, whether a populist or idealist would actually make a good president is a valid question, but I've seen nothing to indicate that he's in the pocket of corporations - after all, he was one of the first candidates to refuse lobbyist donations.

      Is there something in his voting or donation records to refute this?

    38. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Window smashing is the providence of thugs, period. I'd like you to actually back up your assertion that the same people who are for peace and harmony are the ones who are smashing windows

      Doesn't matter. The people who do that crap, and those that chain themselves across public roads to deny their use to as many people as possible and busy up as many police and rescue people as possible are all of a stripe... because if there were indeed massive numbers of non-thug, thug-disliking throngs at such protests, then they'd go to enormous lengths to not have their events become hosts to such BS. But through the "enemy of my enemy is my friend, or least someone we should tolerate" line of thinking, the groups that organize specifically to disrupt streets and cause some mayhem - who announce themselves in advance, and crow about it on a thousand blogs after the fact! - show up like clockwork and do exactly what's expected. It's not exactly mysterious.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    39. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, what about it was "true", as you so nicely put it?

      Are you really that obtuse?

      I responded to someone who said that when he sees a politician's name on a car bumber sticker, it makes him want to vandalize the car. My take on it: when I see witless platitudes such as those I mentioned plastered all over a car, I either shrug it off as silliness, or (given the chance) actually try to talk to the person who - through their printed political messages in public view - is already talking to everyone else. The poster didn't say, "When I see a bumper sticker that says 'Peace Through Strength,' all I can think is what a short-sighted sound-bite that is, and it makes me want to point out to the guy in the car that China will be strong too, and that doesn't make them right or their sort of peace worth having." No, he said that when he sees a person's name, he wants to cost them money by damaging their property, but that he's above that, and "doesn't know how anyway" etc (what a scream!).

      So, when I DO see the messages that someone very deliberately goes to the trouble of making sure everyone can see, and I size up their message as being an assemblage of polyanna-ish platitudes or populist nonsense, I call it that. Where's the straw man? Where's the ad hominem? I'm pointing out that my reaction is not (unlike the person to whom I responded) an instant urge to wreck the guy's paint job. Of course, you already knew all of that, and you're just playing dumb so you can feign annoyance and attempt to distract from the actual context.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    40. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Anti-War != Pacifism.

      In fact, it usually means Anti-Some Specific War.


      Except the problem is that most people who show up at such protests - certainly the noisiest ones with the most fancy drums, biggest puppets, most on-fire effigies, most well-polished-chain-each-other-across-the-street-routine, etc - are usually spouting the "war is not the answer" or "peace!" lines without any connection between that thinking and the reality of a world that houses entities like North Korea. Or the reality Islamist militants in the Sudan systematically raping their way through entire villages. People who are so married to their sound bites that they refuse to even stipulate that there are hostile people and entities in the world that will never be "loved" out of violently enlarging their territory or putting cultures under the thumb of retrograde bits of mysoginistic misery like Sharia law.

      Don't like war? Then stop them, with force if necessary, and deprive those that cause them to happen of the tools and power to conduct them. When you sign a surrender that says you'll agree to no-fly zones over the parts of your country where you've been busy slaughtering people not in your tribe... be prepared for the consequences when you spend the next several years shooting at the coalition planes patroling those no-fly zones. When you use trainloads of Soviet-era weapons to try to rearrange the Balkans in a river of blood? Don't be shocked when your toys get bombed and your leaders get taken out, and your stash of tanks and missles destroyed. Indeed, war is not the answer to any need for constructive activity. But war IS the answer of last resort to aggression on a large scale. Because it's the only thing that reduces aggression back down to the scale that be dealt with pre-emptively, locally, and without displacing or killing lots of people.

      Next time you go to war protest, look around. How many people don't make a distinction (based on their cheesy posters) between the war against Iran's proxy fighters in Iraq, the war against the Taliban asshats on the border of Afghanistan, and the Sudanese war against villagers? If they don't like the Taliban's war against women being able to read and write, what exactly is their chosen method of stopping one of those militants from shooting teachers like dogs in the town square? Sending them copies of their anti-war pamphlets, or the URL to their blog? Those issues are too complex to fit in a sound bite, so the protesters just dumb it down... and look the dumber for it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    41. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how the Left thinks! Hey, at least the Left thinks.
    42. Re:Other people's stickers? by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      I'd meant never when it comes to other people's property. d'oh.

    43. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it takes real balls to stand up to a cop in the land of the free. Land of the free? Where's that? I've been thinking of moving...
    44. Re:Other people's stickers? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Where's the straw man? Where's the ad hominem? Here, let me help:

      platitude-dealing pollyanna, roll my eyes, shrill, tantrum-like thought process, rudderless emotions, drama, cheap, sophomoric, fair-weather outrage, completely disengenuous, Hot air, empty, meaningless rhetoric, craven pandering, witless platitudes, polyanna-ish platitudes, populist nonsense Your words. Which of them were substantive discourse?

      None. Hence my point.

    45. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The substance is right in front of you. I'm giving you an exhaustive understanding of what I can take away from reading the large, thematic collection of stickers plastered over the back of a car, and telling you how I size up the person who makes the statements seen there (especially in the context of them all, taken as a whole). And despite seeing irrationality on parade, I'm pointing out (again - are you actually reading this?) that my reaction is NOT to want to vandalize the car. Unlike the person to whom I responded, who said that was their instinct upon seeing a politician's name on someone else's car. Do you not see the substantial difference between those two world views? And thus the substance in pointing that out?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    46. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Land of the free? Where's that? I've been thinking of moving...

      Please. Do.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    47. Re:Other people's stickers? by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1

      except they weren't really foreign at the time

    48. Re:Other people's stickers? by Alex+Deez · · Score: 1

      I don't see where the person you replied to gave any evidence of leftist political leanings. You assumed all that. I'd like to key that car too, and I'm far from a leftist. It's about hating stupidity. That's the problem with so many people on the right who I've come across. They're just stupid. They take a few sentences and attribute an entire ideology, that could in no way be derived from what the person actually said, and then go on a rant against that ideology when the ideology in fact exists only in their own heads. No one actually thinks the way you claim in your post. That personality profile is purely an invention of conservative talk radio.

    49. Re:Other people's stickers? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      You are a racist piece of shit. I've been a "racist" since the day I was born, since I am a White Man. No matter what I say, think or do... I'm guilty because I'm White.

      Might as well live up to your opinion of me. ;)
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    50. Re:Other people's stickers? by wasteofspace77 · · Score: 1

      You key a car the same way you unlock it... except you miss.
      Let me get this straight: to miss, do you point your key fob AWAY from the car?
    51. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Troll

      They take a few sentences and attribute an entire ideology, that could in no way be derived from what the person actually said, and then go on a rant against that ideology when the ideology in fact exists only in their own heads.

      Really! And you don't find that to be true of loons on the left, as well? People (on the left) will encounter one aspect of my life (say, my habit of taking dogs and a shotgun out in the field and putting game birds in my freezer for nice dinners) and immediately launch into a first-rate Obama-esque dissertation about my clinging to guns and Jebus, etc.

      Now, given the general demographic here, and the poster's rabid hatred for Bush (you'll note that unlike you, there was no context given about stupidity, etc., just blanket hatred), and his disengenuous attempt to sound meek (gosh, he just wouldn't know how to key a car - hysterical!), do you really think it's unreasonable to make a calculated assumption about the idealogical/political bent of the poster? Anyone who's comfortable talking about their urge to vandalize on seeing Bush's name, but who does not feel obligated to provide any context beyond that, is himself making some assumptions about how his position/idealogy will be understood. Since most people on the left who hate him so much are very comfortable just assuming that everyone does (this is my experience, hearing the way such people start such conversations), I think it's safe to say this isn't a disgruntled fiscal conservative talking, or someone who thinks he hasn't been harsh enough the stem cell issue, etc.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    52. Re:Other people's stickers? by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      Change We Can Believe In It's the slogan of the mainstream candidate that voted against the war. You know - the one where invaded another country for no good reason, the one where the only thing worse than staying is leaving.

      is to vandalize the property of someone you hate, I'm more inclined to either roll my eyes You know what? I'm very much feeling like rolling my eyes right now.
    53. Re:Other people's stickers? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Wow. Way to judge an entire political party on one guy's callous remark.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    54. Re:Other people's stickers? by ODiV · · Score: 1

      because if there were indeed massive numbers of non-thug, thug-disliking throngs at such protests, then they'd go to enormous lengths to not have their events become hosts to such BS.

      Do you want to tell the half-cut, masked, local breaking shit with a baseball bat to cut it out? Or maybe if you ask his similarly inclined friends, they might stop him? Good luck with that.

    55. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Change We Can Believe In

      It's the slogan of the mainstream candidate that voted against the war


      Ah, so that's what he's going to change. Well, wait... I guess that still doesn't tell me anything, does it? What IS he going to change? Is he going to change how the intelligence analysts work, or is he going to change whether or not he listens to them? Or is he simply not going to be around to do things like police the no-fly zones dictated by the UN in the wake of Saddam being pushed back out of his invasion of Kuwait, so that when guys like Saddam then spend every subsequent year shooting at the patroling aircraft, he won't have to sweat whether or not he'll be called upon to take things like that into account? I guess that's one way of changing. But see? It doesn't really matter what I think, or what you think, because he's not saying what his changes will involve, is he? But as long as we can believe in it, I guess it's a good thing! I mean, he wouldn't say it if it weren't true. And we know he's not one to ever decide later, once people actually start looking at what he does, that perhaps his stated goals and opinions are just plain wrong.

      No, he's an immovable rock of principle. He's not going to just dance out of the way of long-held associations and beliefs because the scrutiny is starting to make him look silly. No sirree. Especially when it comes to the religious matters that he says are at the heart of his world view. I mean, what could be more immovable, solid, and re-assuring than that? Why, just ask his pastor!

      Yeah, that's the sort of character judgement that couldn't possibly - despite his extensive career experience in military, foreign affairs, and intelligence matters - result in misreading or misunderstanding or over/under-estimating the value of difficult-to-evaluate but critical intelligence. Nah. I mean, a guy like that? Who's been to the middle east as many times as he has, and his hip to all of the issues involved? Well, I guess "once" is close enough to "a lot," anyway. And it's not like anything has changed there in 18 months, anyway.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    56. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      This is what you conclude based on that one incident? Science!

    57. Re:Other people's stickers? by mrraven · · Score: 1

      But of course boming people to steal thier oil and causing a million innocent Iraqis to die horrible painful deaths is calm, rational, and virtuous, and doesn't "destroy property," because it all happens over there out of your sight, neat and tidy here, right?

      Now I happen to agree with you that smashing windows is a counterproductive way to protest this, OTH compared to the scale of damage done to the world by neo-cons and their wars of aggression it's infinitesimal in its impact.

      In this case I think the quote those who live in glass house is quite literally applicable...

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    58. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Wow. Way to judge an entire political party on one guy's callous remark

      Well, that would be inconsiderate. But in this case, I find that sort of breathless Bush Derangement Syndrome to be found at almost every turn, coming from the left. Have you ever actually listened, if you can stand it for more that five minutes and can find someone still broadcasting them, to Air America? Ever actually read anything from the Daily Kos or MoveOn.org? You know, MoveOn.org, that says they own the Democratic party and its agenda. That organization simply oozes blind hatred of this type... get your shower running so you can jump right in afterwards, and then spend a little time wandering the related blogs. These are the launching points for much of the party's fundraising and get-out-the-vote hustling. The guy who wants to key the car with a Bush bumper sticker sounds like a paragon of reason and temperment comparatively. That's the stuff that condemns a whole party. Whole churches (like the one that Obama just ran out of like he was - after 20 years - suddenly on fire) actually get together every Sunday and preach these sorts of sentiments. It's really rather astounding. There are loons on the right, too. But this tone (the personal, visceral, seemingly nutso Bush hatred) is a very self-reinforcing bit of team spirit that seems to have sloshed over much of the Democrat party.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    59. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      steal thier oil

      Right, just like we did in Kuwait. I see. Just out of curiosity, how does the new revenue sharing (between the provinces in Iraq) that's going through the parliment there actually provide for the US to steal the country's oil, exactly? I mean, that little bit of misdirection might actually make some sense if it had any actual basis in fact, which of course it doesn't.

      causing a million innocent Iraqis to die horrible painful deaths

      I mean, really, what's the point of actually lying, here? Who do you think you're actually persuading, and in what way? People that - despite being connected to the internet and inclined to read slashdot - aren't able to actually use Google?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    60. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find amazing is that you actually believe that one whole half of the population is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the other half on this point. I guess *your* politicians have done their job. Why you think right-wing politics is somehow immune from exactly the kind of thing you accuse "the left" of here is a mystery.

    61. Re:Other people's stickers? by hackerjoe · · Score: 1

      What on earth makes you think a pacifist is the kind of personality that would go toe-to-toe with a crazy asshole breaking shop windows? The psychology of protesters and protests is not nearly that simple.

      I'm actually a bit surprised you haven't heard of protests where violent protests get ejected or shunned by otherwise peaceful protesters, because yes it happens... every once in a while the thugs trying to start a riot even turn out to be undercover police, too, although it's not like there's a shortage of moronic "burn the government" crazies either.

      But any issue you haven't spent time actually researching looks pretty trivial, so there you go.

    62. Re:Other people's stickers? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Umm, the worst that could happen is being shot dead.

      Tho being beaten with battons, kicked, dragged through the streets by your legs, trampled by horses, tasers, tear gassed, shot in the face with rubber bullets and thrown into a paddywagon all present themselves as opportunities.

      What great bravery do we see from right wingers? A bunch of rednecks beating up immigrants and gay kids?

    63. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and you should look up ad logicam sometime. Weakest. Argument. Ever. "When you can't prove it's true, just SAY it's true!"

      In any case, this is about politics. There is no absolute truth, outside of the rhetoric.
    64. Re:Other people's stickers? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      To me, he seems like a genuinely populist candidate, and an idealist to boot

      My emphasis. There's an old joke that wouldn't be so funny if it weren't true.
      Q- how do you tell when a politician is lying?
      A- his lips move.

      The fact that he's from my state, with perhaps the most corrupt politics in the nation (the last Democrat Governor to lose an election to a Republican went to prison, and the last Republican Governor is still IN prison. Another newer joke - in Illinois we're so patriotic even being dead doesn't keep us from voting) tells me that he's a crook. The fact that he's in one of the two major parties tells me he's going to bow to the corporates.

      If he were in a "third party" AND from another state I'd probably support him. But age and disillusionment has made me a cynic. Every law that goes against citizens' rights, citizens' welfare, or common sense that neverless does good to a corporation gets passed by a 100% margin in both houses or nearly so (Bono act, DMCA, Iraq war, PATRIOT Act, etc).

      I've only voted FOR one President - that was Clinton, when he ran for reelection. He'd surprised me and actually done a good job. Every other election since Nixon I voted for the "lesser of two evils".

      If Obama wins and does a good job, actually NOT cowtowing to the corporations, then he will be the second President I vote for. But the only way he's going to be able to do that is win this time and do a good job of being President.

      But you got me looking shit up.

      Barack Obama has missed 252 votes (42.6%) during the current Congress. Not good. If I missed work 42% of the time they'd fire me. From the same link, "Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.5% of the time during the current Congress". Also not good. That alone should tell you that he's voting for the corporations or he'd be more independant. According to the page (I simply googled), most of the votes he actually cast were "cloture motions". The only actual bill I see that looks like something that would matter to Americans is the Food and Energy Security Act, which was passed on a partisan vote (R against, D for) and vetoed by Bush.

      Sorry, but this tiny bit of research has made me less likely to vote Obama.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    65. Re:Other people's stickers? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      I don't go as far as wanting to key cars with Bush bumper stickers ... though I remember a lieutenant colonel who wrote "fuck Bush" on cars parked at Denver International Airport a couple of years ago. But I understand the sentiment.

      The American people have a lot of good reasons not to like George W. Bush. His eight years in office have not just been a miserable failure -- they've been an unmitigated disaster. The bottom has dropped out of the dollar because we've been spending money we don't have. The goodwill we saw from the rest of the world after Sept. 11, 2001, had evaporated just 13 months later because his administration was so dead-set on invading Iraq. Oil prices are at record levels -- in part because of the weak dollar and in part because "more oil" is the only energy policy the United States has at the moment.

      The Federal Emergency Management Agency's response to Hurricane Katrina was a bureaucratic boondoggle. Now, granted, the response at every level was a bureaucratic boondoggle, but the Bush administration must accept at least some responsibility -- "the buck stops here" is the number one rule of leadership. Likewise, the Transportation Security Administration is a joke: bureaucries can only react, and true security is proactive.

      And then we have Guantanamo and the CIA facilities overseas. We have a president who doesn't understand the separation of powers that is the foundation of our Constitution. We have a president who has taken us out of nuclear arms-control treaties and who has spat upon the Geneva Conventions -- actions that threaten the lives of our servicemembers and potentially our very national security.

      Now, I don't listen to MoveOn.org. I don't agree with their message -- while I consider myself a liberal, their message is way too far out in left field. Anyone who actually believes them when they say they're controlling the Democratic Party's agenda is drinking the Kool-Aid, and frankly, I feel bad for them. Same goes for magazines like Mother Jones -- too partisan. I believe that we have to find a balance again; and I believe that in order to talk to people with opposing viewpoints and beliefs, the first thing we have to do is listen.

      I've done a lot of listening. I've done a lot of watching. I will never condone blind hatred, and I think any president who's willing to chest bump an Air Force Academy graduate has to be a good guy. But if you really want to know why the Bush administration has engendered so much contempt from the American public, all you need to do is look at where this country was on Sept. 12, 2001, and look at where we stand today.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    66. Re:Other people's stickers? by mrraven · · Score: 1

      What other explanation makes sense for going to war against Iraq? Hint there were no WMDs even Bush will admit that now and critics like former weapons inspector Scott Ritter were telling us that in 2002. Further 17 of the 19 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and none were from Iraq. Further as a secular dictatorship Saddam had no use for Al Queda, it's only AFTER the U.S. invasion that Al Queda appeared in Iraq.

      Thus any idea that the war on Iraq is tied to U.S. interests or the war on (some) terror is sheer fantasy. If we really wanted to go after terrorism and it supporters we would have invaded Saudi Arabia and it's nest of wahabi Al Queda supporters, but we couldn't do that because they have the biggest oil reserves in the world and are friendly to U.S. corporate interests, right?

      The two possibilities left for the Iraq war then are to steal the oil (or keep it being traded in Euros or some other oil variant) or defending Israel.

      I seriously hope it's the former for I tremble for the fate of the poor long suffering Jewish people if it comes out we invaded Iraq on behalf of the Likud/AIPAC minority faction of Israel which is certainly NOT in our national interest.

      So I stand by what I said, as bad and totally unacceptable as a few smashed windows are, they pale in comparison to 500 billion wasted dollars, 4000+ wasted American soldiers lives, and a million dead Iraqis all for a lie.

      Impeach, convict and hang Bush for war crimes IMO. Bush in bombing domestic populations and for example being commander and chief when FORTY percent of the civilian buildings were destroyed in Fallujah is guilty of blatant crimes against humanity under the Geneva conventions which forbids bombing civilian populations:

      http://images.google.com/images?q=fallujah&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title

      (Warning disturbing graphic images of U.S. war crimes)

      http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/fallujah-tent-city-awaits-compensation.html

      War of aggression is what the Nazis were hung for at Nuremberg, justice demands equal application to all war criminals foreign or domestic.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    67. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this country doesn't have a representative democracy, it's more a "winner takes all", and it doesn't seem to have functioning constitutional checks and balances either. My taxes ARE set by a government over which I have no voice -- so many feel voting other than republicrat is "throwing away their vote" that people like me are not represented AT ALL.

                Obviously that doesn't excuse smashing shit up though.

    68. Re:Other people's stickers? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I'm younger - pretty cynical in general, but Obama's got me hoping.

      I'm still not convinced by your reasoning though (not that "if he's a politician, there's a 90% chance he's voting against our interests" doesn't ring true). His missed votes can be seen as a sad reality of a presidential run (McCain missed 60%, Clinton 33%). Another interesting fact is that while he did vote with the Dems a significant portion of the time, the votes that went against Dems often went against Reps as well. I think it's very hard to get a good idea of corporate sponsorship from this type of information though - particularly at this very partisan time, when relatively few bipartisan bills on significant issues have been coming through the pipe.

      That said, I think I'd be pleased as punch to see Bob Barr as president.

      Hmmm...and as a completely off-the-wall hypothetical - what would you think of Barr as Obama's running mate?

    69. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Given that the events in question are exercises of the right to assembly, how exactly do you propose organizers (of which their is often no single entity) prevent some people from attending? Shall the police lock sketchy-looking before a rally? Perhaps require party membership to participate, revoked upon anti-social behaviour?

      I'm serious. Please explain what an average, head-in-the-clouds liberal can do to discourage such criminal elements.

    70. Re:Other people's stickers? by Ripit · · Score: 1

      You win the "Most Bitter Poster" award.

      You need help, man, seriously.

    71. Re:Other people's stickers? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a lot of contradiction and illogic.

      First, you take his initial desire to key a car that displays bumper stickers they disagree with and contrast it to your desire to talk to the owner in the same situation. Except that the way you phrase it makes it sound like it would be a very confrontational discussion in your own mind, perhaps even a haranguing in which you preach to them the error of their ways. But let's let that be for the moment, perhaps i am misreading your post and you would indeed sit down with the "platitude-dealing pollyanna" and have a polite and reasonable discourse with them.

      However you then take this initial feeling of anger by a particular liberal and use it to tar "much of the politics on the left" saying it's "Hot air. It's not about getting anything done, it's entirely about how much you don't like someone else." You're taking a single example of a "bad" person and using it to attack the entire group they belong to. Also please note that you're criticizing one liberal for having feelings of anger and wanting to be confrontational with the other side while simultaneously criticizing other liberals for not having feelings of anger and not wanting to be confrontational with the other side.

      However just to pick out two prominent examples, how then do you justify Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter? They're firmly on the right side of politics, and yet they not only have the impulse to abuse the other side, albeit verbally, but they give in to it with abandon. And if you read through the comments just in response to this article you will find other examples where (presumably) conservatives have in fact vandalized cars with liberal propaganda on them. Do those examples nicely illustrate the shrill, tantrum-like thought process that drives so much of the politics on the right? How about the people who bomb abortion clinics and snipe (literally) at doctors who perform abortions? How about people who torture and kill homosexuals and transvestites? I could go on quite some time listing the "fools" who follow the cause you feel is just. If you want to show the cause of the left is misguided then show it through reason, not by cherry picking examples of people who you feel exemplify your preconceptions.

      Which brings us to one of the more fundamental flaws in your argument. The people i listed not only experience an impulse towards angry and violent behavior, either verbal or physical, but they act out on it. The grandparent poster felt those violent urges as well but resists them. You however claim that because you do not feel those urges you are better than he/she is. Certainly you could make a claim to being more pure and innocent, but there are many who believe that those who feel temptation but choose to resist it are more noble than those who never feel any temptation at all, just as they similarly believe that those who feel fear but go on in the face of it are braver than those who never feel any fear at all.

      There is no perfect way for humans to control their emotions (not yet, anyways) but one of the hallmarks of being civilized is to overcome our emotions and do what we know is right even if it's not what we'd really like to do if we gave in to our feelings. Attempting to attack the grandparent poster for confessing to having emotions but being civilized despite them undermines your entire argument of being superior. Especially since you who claim to have purer emotions and a desire to discuss the issues have apparently chosen not to follow through on those feelings and instead chosen to slander the entire other camp. Have you ever followed through on your professed desire to talk to the people displaying the bumper stickers your dislike? If we were to call a person who feels the temptation for the base but chooses instead to do the good "noble," what would we call someone who felt the temptation to do good but instead chooses to be base?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    72. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hint there were no WMDs even Bush will admit that now

      There were WMDs. The problem is that no one knows where it all went. The UN inspectors catalogued all sorts of stockpiles, including heaps of VX. It's gone, and Saddam's people wouldn't provide any indication of where it went or whether/if/how it was destroyed. His constant movememnt of trucks and personnel immediately before UN inspectors (until he threw them out entirely) were able to look at the facilities they suspected were part of the reason such weapons were expected to still be sitting right where they had previously been. That, and things like the long-range missles that Saddam was continuing to build - despite his agreement with the coalition forces as he withdrew from his invasion of Kuwait that he would not do so - right up until the invasion that got rid of him. He refused to adhere to any of the agreed-to sanctions, spent years shooting at the coalition aircraft patroling the no-fly zones where he had been slaughtering his own people... and of course, he was starving his own people while bilking the UN's oil for food program out of huge amounts of cash.

      Now, will John Kerry, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, or any of the rest of people who now complain about Bush also admit there were no WMDs sitting there to be found, despite their loud protestations, previously, about how dangerous Saddam was and the risk of his weapons getting into the hands of terrorists? Fine. But will they concede that the intelligence provided by agencies in the US (consisting of career analysts, not political appointees), and those of similar agencies in France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Jordan, Israel, and many others were the basis for that position?

      How about the payments that Saddam was publicly (on television) having presented to the families of suicide bombers? It was part of his hearts-and-minds PR campaign to get the non-secular Arab population to not hate him so much. But there he was, sponsoring terrorism with cashable checks, and making nice speeches about martyrdom, blah blah. Completely insincere, of course, but just pouring more gas (and cash) on the fire.

      Saddam had no use for Al Queda

      No use for them, directly, but also no problem with having their people in his country getting medical care. And no problem using parked airliners for hijacking training, with his own military holding the classes. Not directly related, in that case, to the 9/11 crowd, but indicative of his regime's interest in having people with those "skills" on hand or beholden to him. Of course, none of that matters compared to the flagrant - hostile, actually - actions on his part in regards to the UN sanctions, including those that provided for the use of force against his regime if he continued to subvert the weapons inspections and attack coalition forces - which he did every week. With actual guns, you know? Surface to air missles, anti-aircraft guns - the works.

      Thus any idea that the war on Iraq is tied to U.S. interests or the war on (some) terror is sheer fantasy

      And the notion that you have try to say that in order to distract from the fact that there were a myriad other reasons to see his malicious, mass-murdering, weapons-dealing, neighbor-invading regime finally out of the business of screwing with the UN, pumping skimmed cash to North Korea for smuggled missiles, etc - THAT's what's amazing. That little straw man (that he didn't have a role in 9/11, and therefore his regime wasn't also a problem) is completely disengenuous, and you know it. Even though you're busy fabricating casualty figures related to coalition action in Iraq (and can't seem to get your head around the vastly larger number of deaths directly caused by the insurgency and by the attempts from Iran to spark civil war there), you seem strangely comfortable with the millions and millions of deaths that Sadddam directly caused, and was continuing to cause.

      His regime was headed for trouble either way, and with the f

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    73. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm serious. Please explain what an average, head-in-the-clouds liberal can do to discourage such criminal elements.

      Quit encouraging them. Quit giving them the cover of not complaining about them and not pointing out what asses they are. Saying, as you organize an event, that "we do not encourage any sort of road blocking or property destruction" is NOT the same as putting all of the same effort you do into (for example) elaborately complaining about whatever it is you're protesting (a global economy? use of force to prevent the Taliban from once again being the Afghanistan Department Of Education?) into shaming these clowns.

      Quit calling the cops that are there to deal with idiots like that "fascists" and worse. Walk over to the police on the scene and explain who you just saw walk up to the back of the crowd with a duffle bag full of pvc pipe, chains, and gas masks. When these people spend the three weeks following their disruption of such an event having a big ol' YouTube orgy and blogfest showing how cool they were, trashing something, take the time you'd spend on every other post here on slashdot hitting, instead, their own blogs. Explain to them that they're a bunch of spoiled kids who have no idea how lucky they are, and that they're not impressing anybody. Peer pressure. It works.

      Tacitly approving of what they do by letting them celebrate having done so without any condemnation from groups that sponsor the events they're making ugly... it's bad for everyone involved. Except for the thugs in question, who LIKE the fact that they're driving the cities where things take place into having to trot out more and more police to deal with it. And the non-thugs secretly like that too, because the result is an image that then contributes to their narrative about Teh Evil Corporatist Fascocracy, etc. Don't fall for it. Shout them down on their blogs while they're organizing what they do, and shame them afterwards for being the cowards that they are.

      Liberals like to aim all of their creative writing skills and ability to generate media coverage at conservatives and others they don't like, but they seem mysteriously uninterested in quieting these useful idiots. Maybe it's not actually mysterious after all.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    74. Re:Other people's stickers? by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Not that I agree with the parent, but it would only be ad hominem if he said that someone was wrong because they are a "platitude-dealing pollyanna," but not if said that they are wrong and they are a "platitude-dealing pollyanna." The latter, at worst, is poisoning the well.

      --
      Fnord.
    75. Re:Other people's stickers? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I don't know; the Vice Presidency's most important function (seeing as how there are few times he has to break a tie in the Senate) is to be breathing when the President stops doing so.

      I don't think Barr would actually make a good President, and the Greens afaik haven't selected a nominee (last I saw there were several running). Barr's really not a Libertarian even though he's running as one; he's a Republican. But if the Greens aren't on the ballot I'll vote for Barr.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    76. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      perhaps i am misreading your post and you would indeed sit down with the "platitude-dealing pollyanna" and have a polite and reasonable discourse with them

      Indeed I would. Though that rather depends on that person not being the emotionally hyper-reactive sort that you describe.

      You're taking a single example of a "bad" person and using it to attack the entire group they belong to

      No, I'm saying that I see the same attitude in much of that group. Which is why I used the word "much."

      please note that you're criticizing one liberal for having feelings of anger and wanting to be confrontational with the other side while simultaneously criticizing other liberals for not having feelings of anger and not wanting to be confrontational with the other side

      I'm not entirely clear on what you mean, there, sorry. Anger, though (which is an emotional response - it's shorthand for a more elaborate description of how something you're presented with can be understood to be a threat or a betrayal) isn't unnatural. It's the instinct to want to lash out against someone's property to dampen that anger that suggests an immature mind. That sort of arrested development shows up across the entire spectrum of idealogies, but it particularly manifests itself, I find, in people for whom a sense of decorum is somehow unfashionable. The people who feel like their giving into The Man by ... having some manners ... also seem to land on a particular end of that spectrum. And you know exactly who I'm talking about.

      how then do you justify Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?

      Justify them? They're entertainers. Just like Colbert, Stewart, and Franken. Sarcasm combined with a sharp wit doesn't tend to wreck people's property. And you don't get the sustained ability to have a national audience for your thoughts unless you can ... sustain them. That's why Barbara Streisand doesn't do talk radio... she can't keep it coherent, or entertain in the process. Coulter, Limbaugh, Franken, Stewart... they're all masters of their form. Admit it: if Ann Coulter used her same skills in the service of your own idealogy, you'd think she was hysterical. It's because she is. Really good satire is a rare talent. And there's no need to scrape paint off of a car to use it.

      Clinic bombers and doctor snipers? Aberations and crazies, obviously. Conservatives that foam at the mouth when asked about Hillary Clinton? Probably just about as numerous as liberals who do the same, these days. But I haven't met one yet who sees an Obama sticker and talks vandalism. I'm sure they're out there. What I AM talking about is the prevailing tone on the left - as manifested in everything from hip-hop music to late night comedy to the red-carpet ramblings of celebrities and liberal politicians alike - that feels comfortable with a level of flaming vitriol against Bush that they would condemn anyone else for using against their own pet politicians.

      you could make a claim to being more pure and innocent

      Come now. How about... "level headed." It's a useful frame of mind, and tends to result in fewer vandalism arrests.

      There is no perfect way for humans to control their emotions (not yet, anyways) but one of the hallmarks of being civilized is to overcome our emotions and do what we know is right even if it's not what we'd really like to do if we gave in to our feelings.

      Nonsense. Emotions (not counting those experienced by people who are actually damaged) are simple expression of a lifetime's building of values. People who don't value animals at all will feel less or no emotion at seeing one killed. People who value the trappings of "service" and dependency will get a nice warm glow when they see high school students made to do community service in order to graduate. You don't control emotions... you control the ethical foundation on which your values are built. Then, in the flash that

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    77. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Well, this country doesn't have a representative democracy

      Well, sure. It's a republic, after all. The electoral college may have its place still, or may not. But that would be a big one to change.

      it's more a "winner takes all"

      Well, not really. But by boiling it down into fewer political camps, you avoid the sort of paralysis that recently impacted Germany, and also avoid having a parliment of sorts where the strongest party has... 10% of the seats. That pretty much precludes any notion of a mandate for anything that will make anyone happy. Sometimes that's good (there's nothing better than an idle congress, most of the time), but it can be a real show-stopper, even on simple stuff that needs to get done. Too many chefs in the kitchen.

      My taxes ARE set by a government over which I have no voice

      So, start locally. City, county, and state taxes (including sales taxes, fees, etc) are a big part of everyone's budget. They're also set by the very groups that are the most sensitive to even small groups of voters having an opinion and expressing it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    78. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, someone went to sleep in the US and woke up in the Phillipines.

    79. Re:Other people's stickers? by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      For all your insistence that Obama's slogan is vapid, you seem to derive a lot of information from it. If you are actually interested in his positions, take a look at the issues section of Obama's site.

    80. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starbucks?

    81. Re:Other people's stickers? by mrv20 · · Score: 1

      OTH compared to the scale of damage done to the world by neo-cons and their wars of aggression it's infinitesimal in its impact. Kicking your dog in the nuts would also be infinitesimal in impact compared to the damage inflicted by any war, but it is just as unjustified as trashing local businesses because you disagree with the behaviour of your government.
      --
      "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
    82. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, the closest you have ever been to a riot is watching one on a TV. All you are doing is displaying your own political bias and claiming that anyone who is not on your side of the political fence is an evil degenerate sub-human. Your rating of '5 Insightful' shows that there are a lot of other clueless fools who agree with you.

      I live in Los Angeles and I was here during the 1965 Watts Riots and the 1992 Rodney King Riot. I was also in Berkeley during a riot in 1969. I was not out on the streets during these events, but I saw what was going on and I talked to people who were out on the street.

      During the 1992 riot I spent most of my time in my house watching the 24 hour TV coverage and listing to the radio. I was there because of the curfew and to keep trouble away from my property. I remember hearing about a specific building on fire and looking out from a balcony and seeing the column of smoke rising from that location. Property was being destroyed a mile or so from my house.

      Almost everyone who was rioting was either a thrill seeker and/or a looter. There was no political agenda at work. Yes, there may have been some trouble makers who wanted to cause more mayhem, but I doubt that they had much impact. I was not old enough to know this in 1965, but I saw it clearly in 1969 and 1992. In Berkeley in 1969 I didn't see many students making trouble, but I did see a lot of street people, what we would now call homeless, who were completely out of control.

      In 1992 it was about stealing TV sets and liquor, and the thrill of setting fires. Every camera shot showed people grabbing as much as they could carry. One shot that sticks in my mind is a young woman walking out of a grocery store with as many boxes of diapers as a person could carry.

      These people were not motivated by politics, but by economics. They couldn't have cared less about Rodney King. There were poor people of all racial and ethnic types getting what they could steal.

      Things were so out of control that the police were not able to do very much. Before the National Guard arrived there were many images of police standing by and watching, because they were so outnumbered that they couldn't arrest anyone or stop any violence.

      Ultimately it is about economics and repression, not the kind of politics that you describe. There was a phrase going around in the 60's and 70's: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". That describes you and your shallow uninformed self-righteous politics.

      Sadly, with the sagging American economy, I think we are in for another round of riots. If I was feeling more hostile, I would wish it in your city. Having had the experience on more then one occasion, I can't do that. I do wish that you would start thinking and grow up, but I doubt very much that will happen. You are too stupid and self centered to have any idea about why people behave badly.

    83. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note I said I DIDN'T advocate property damage I was merely pointing out the utter hypocrisy of getting oh do self righteous about it when advocating destrying an entire country, killing hundreds of thousands of it's citizens and making 1 in 6 of them refugees:

      "More than 4.2 million Iraqis have fled their homes, around 2 million to neighboring states, mostly Syria and Jordan, and another 2.2 million displaced inside Iraq."

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/07/iraq.jolie/index.html

      Out of a total population of 27 million equals

      1 in 6.

      If you can really equate breaking a few store windows with killing hundreds of thousands of people and making million refugees then your lack of proportion of the value of human life is even more indecent than the average Americans.

    84. Re:Other people's stickers? by mrraven · · Score: 1

      p.s. mrraven200 in the past response didn't notice I wasn't logged in...

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    85. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couple of months ago, I've seen a documentary with a segment of vandalism. One of the basic arguments was:

      Violence is directed towards people. This is bad.
      Violence towards things does not exist. This is called property destruction - which is non-violent. Things are not people - and therefore can't be violated.

      The argument of course falls flat once you accept that people are indirectly harmed when their shop is burned to the ground.

    86. Re:Other people's stickers? by Sinterklaas · · Score: 1

      Many protests do actually have their own police force to eject violence protesters. This is especially important since a favorite police tactic is to have a mole start trouble to give the police an excuse to break up the protest. However, there is little the protestors can do to prevent thugs from being violent a few blocks away from the protest.

      However, in general I don't believe in vigilantism. The police is trained to deal with these kind of situations. What you are asking is for demonstrators to prove that they are non-violent by using violence against others, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    87. Re:Other people's stickers? by Sinterklaas · · Score: 1

      Peer pressure. It works. ... And the non-thugs secretly like that too, because the result is an image that then contributes to their narrative about Teh Evil Corporatist Fascocracy, etc. Your problem is that you see all liberals as one united family who care about each others opinion and respect one another. In practice, the groups who use violence hate the non-violent protestors and vice versa. The peers of the violent protestors are other violent protestors.

      Quit calling the cops that are there to deal with idiots like that "fascists" and worse. Walk over to the police on the scene and explain who you just saw walk up to the back of the crowd with a duffle bag full of pvc pipe, chains, and gas masks. Sometimes that works. Sometimes the police will ignore you because they've been ordered to stop the protest and are waiting for an excuse. There have been several cases where violent protestors were taped or photographed and later identified as police infiltrators.

      When these people spend the three weeks following their disruption of such an event having a big ol' YouTube orgy and blogfest showing how cool they were, trashing something, take the time you'd spend on every other post here on slashdot hitting, instead, their own blogs. Explain to them that they're a bunch of spoiled kids who have no idea how lucky they are, and that they're not impressing anybody. ... Liberals like to aim all of their creative writing skills and ability to generate media coverage at conservatives and others they don't like, but they seem mysteriously uninterested in quieting these useful idiots. Maybe it's not actually mysterious after all. As a conservative, do you go to anti-abortion sites to explain that violence against abortion doctors is stupid? Or do you secretly like the violence/murders because it discourages abortion doctors from practicing?

      You see, I too can play that game.
    88. Re:Other people's stickers? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      As a conservative, do you go to anti-abortion sites to explain that violence against abortion doctors is stupid? Or do you secretly like the violence/murders because it discourages abortion doctors from practicing?

      The difference is that I don't see marching in the streets and chanting to be anything other than self indulgence and preaching to the choir... and frequently only more galvanizing to your opposition (the "look at those idiots!" effect). As such, I've never found a single topic that I thought would be well served by protesting in the way that the protest culture likes to do it. I believe that most of them do it for social reasons within their own group, like a hobby, more than for any intellectually honest conviction that someone who disagrees with them will actually change their mind about something because they saw a bunch of people shouting and carrying signs and puppets. Because I don't find street theater and public screaming to improve anyone else's perception of my own take on things, I don't take time away from life to go do it. Thus, my ability to communicate has never been hampered by soccer hooligans, anarchists, or anyone else who likes to break things (well, slashdot trolls excepted, of course!).

      And yes, I do periodically swing through festering swamps of philosophical nonsense and comment in what I consider to be rational, constructive ways... and expressly seek, most of all, to disarm the religious loons of their twisted take on life. Religion is absurd from the get go, of course, so that's a real uphill battle. On the other hand, many far-left folks act of out equally zealous, equally irrational world views, and it's pretty much the same thing when it comes to getting them to think clearly.

      So, the problem here is that some people think that chanting in the street is going to get people who disagree with them to suddenly agree with them. That particular position - and a choice to act on it - opens them up to the distraction of having their chosen venue (by virtue of it being polluted by hooligans and weekend warrior anarchists with designer shoes and iPhones) become part of the problem. They can't separate the idiots from their chanting crowd, and thus they can't separate those idiots from their message either. The chanting protesters choose the venue for their pep rallies, and thus they choose to do so with the understanding that the crazies are going to be a factor. Doesn't have to be that way, but it's their choice. If they really do think that they're doing anything but proving their idealogical opponents right about what they think of them, and that it's worth the embarassment of the anarchist types in order to chant despite them, then they just need to clean up afterwards through good PR work. Of course, if they were good at PR in the first place, they'd probably find better ways to make their point than to block streets and whatnot. Though I maintain that's not what it's all about anyway... mostly, participation in such events is just a way to prove to your fellow believers that you're really one of them.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    89. Re:Other people's stickers? by Sinterklaas · · Score: 1
      I'm not much of a protester, but it's hard to deny that politicians and companies sometimes do respond to protests and change their ways. Large protests also get reported on in the media, where the main point generally gets across (X people care about Y enough to protest). It's a pretty clear message that there is a large voter/consumer block that's not happy.

      Protesting is often one of the few ways for outsiders to get their message out. It's wrong to argue that good PR is better. News media are at best heavily hype oriented, at worst, they censor and deny access. For example, the media continuously portray(ed) the Americans who want to impeach Bush as fringe idiots, until there were some big protests. Then polls were done to show that more than half of the US population wants impeachment. It took the protests to break through the preconceived notions in the media. In countries like Zimbabwe, Burma or China, an opposition standpoint will never be published in a national newspaper and protests that get international attention can be hugely important. As an example, Serbia got rid of Milosevic after mass protests.

      participation in such events is just a way to prove to your fellow believers that you're really one of them. Your arguments basically boils down to: I have never been convinced of anything by a protest, so protesters must do it for social reasons. This argument is flawed because:

      - Your experience does not mean that other people aren't convinced or at least energized to find out more.
      - The goal may not be to directly convince people, but to put pressure on politicians or CEO's (they do not need to be convinced); or the goal may be access to the media.
      - Being ineffective at attaining a goal doesn't mean that it wasn't there. You can't know what people think without actually finding out. Arguing that people can't possibly believe something because it is stupid to think so is silly. Many people have incredibly stupid beliefs.
    90. Re:Other people's stickers? by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      This is one of the most fascinating aspects of the conservative right. When the left were in power, the right had no problem stepping down to this emotional level. Now that they have power, suddenly this behavior is beneath them.

      How is this justified? Granted, behaving this way is immature and I don't believe that it is the best way to move forward. That being said, it sure looks like the classic example of a hypocrite.

      Oh, and war isn't the answer to all problems, which is the often repeated sentiment when I also broach that question to the same people you would like to ask. They say that they express this opinion in the context that recent events are always being structured around war as the answer.

      Later!

      --
      Huh?
    91. Re:Other people's stickers? by Descalzo · · Score: 1

      and it doesn't seem to have functioning constitutional checks and balances either.
      I refer you to the recent Supreme Court decision. However, I agree that the checks and balances aren't working as well as I wish they would. Bush needs to learn to veto!
      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    92. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      smashing the windows of a local retail shop during your anti-war rally

      Yeah, we should just shoot the fuckers like the right-wing bastards who bomb abortion clinics. It's much tidier than just a few repairable windows.

      Look in the mirror, son of a bitch.

    93. Re:Other people's stickers? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      It's entirely about rudderless emotions, drama, and cheap, sophomoric, fair-weather outrage that's anything but constructive...
      As opposed to inciting rudderless emotions, drama, and cheap, sophomoric, fair-weather outrage in order to get the populace to agree to a needless conflict and get the current fellas in the White House re-elected?

      How about the fact that you're just as dead-set against that particular Democrat based on a single catch-phrase? I'm sure you wanted to keep your comment brief, just as he wants to keep his speeches engaging?
      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    94. Re:Other people's stickers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't click on the link, it's a auto-forwarding URL from the Blog section of the site (anyone with an account can post there) that goes to meatspin. Slashdot needs to fix it to catch java-script hackery like that.

  13. IQ and bumper stickers by Shivetya · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Well I think they have a point, you have to have a pretty low IQ to festoon your car with bumper stickers. The things are not easy to get off, look like crap as they wear, and genuinely don't do the paint or finish any good. Putting them in the windows is just as bad as many will block line of sight.

    Too many times bumper stickers are just pretentious slaps at people around the driver who has some deluded belief that they are the only righteous person on the planet. I am not speaking of religious righteousness, I am talking about that self important I am saving the world while your just killing it tripe. Still my favorites are those who put political candidate tags on their cars. Better are those who leave them on well after the fact.

    Its like having a neighborhood of Prius owners who all drive their cars to work solo.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:IQ and bumper stickers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Too many times bumper stickers are just pretentious slaps at people around the driver who has some deluded belief that they are the only righteous person on the planet. I am not speaking of religious righteousness, I am talking about that self important I am saving the world while your just killing it tripe. Do you believe the people with these bumper stickers are less genuine in their desire to see change affected than, for example, television advertisers? Why are certain pieces of rhetoric (eg. political speech) not acceptable as bumper stickers? Frankly it seems like a perfect place to put a sign intended to subconsciously program viewers to your POV.
    2. Re:IQ and bumper stickers by aarggh · · Score: 0, Troll

      And so far as i'm concerned, ANY of the "**** On Board" stickers automatically make you a target of derision.

    3. Re:IQ and bumper stickers by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Still my favorites are those who put political candidate tags on their cars. Better are those who leave them on well after the fact. My favorite are the "Save the rain forrest", "Save the planet", "Save some other bullshit" bumper stickers that people put on their old shitty smogblasting cars.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:IQ and bumper stickers by Sinister+Stairs · · Score: 1

      No kidding: Around here, most the cars sporting enviro stickers are old Honda compacts with a broken muffler and blue smoke (i.e. oil) pouring out the tailpipe.

    5. Re:IQ and bumper stickers by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. All of those deluded people who believe in a fairy-tale supreme being and want to either spread their delusion like a mental disease, or call attention to the delusion like it's some type of badge of honor.

      What a sad bunch of people, suffer your delusions in private like the rest of us.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    6. Re:IQ and bumper stickers by phlinn · · Score: 1

      Perhaps by blasting more smog into the air, they are attempting to use CO2 fertilization to boost the life cycle of the trees in the rainforest... :)

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    7. Re:IQ and bumper stickers by omris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a relatively intelligent person.

      I work in neurosurgical research, and live about 10 miles from my job, too far to use anything but a car, especially taking into consideration the route I'd need to take for a bike.

      The most road rage I have ever experienced is flipping the bird at reckless drivers who almost caused an accident. And I think that happened twice in the ten years I have had a driver's license.

      I am a very safe driver, overall. I do speed, but not at a level that *I* would consider excessive. I always use my turn signal. ALWAYS.

      I have bumper stickers. Lots of them. I get bored sitting at red lights or in traffic, and I enjoy watching people be amused or horrified. I was once pulled over by a cop because he wanted to tell me he liked my stickers. I was once followed around the city until I found a parking spot because the driver behind me wanted to say he liked my stickers. I have also been spoken to in disappointed terms by more conservative types.

      I have stickers saying things such as "I 3 MASTURBATING", and "THINK: it's not illegal yet" as well as "Auntie, Hate you. Hate Kansas. Taking the dog. Dorothy" and "I have animal magnetism. When i go outside, squirrels stick to my clothes." I think of them more as a gauge to see how uptight the people around me are.

      My car is far too old to worry about the paint when I live in a state that pours salt and beach sand on the road three months a year. Let me tell you, the stickers are nothing in comparison to that.

      Cars for me are utilitarian objects. I use them because I need to. And the stickers don't really interfere with that. Not even a little bit.

      As a whole, I can see that many people might use stickers as a territorial thing. For me it's more to make people uncomfortable. Comfort encourages stagnation.

      I, with all my bumper stickers, in all my pacifistic glory, would challenge you, who assumes there is a correlation between my sense of humor and my IQ, to a battle of wits any day.

      I also have vanity plates. but they are relatively classy, compared to the rest of me.

  14. Bad Driver Advertising by vodevil · · Score: 0, Troll

    I, for one, love the fact that a lot of the really bad drivers identify themselves with one particular bumper sticker - Bush/Cheney. To me, that's advertising "stay away from me, i'm a crappy driver."

  15. Why is this "a shocker"? by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    What about that surprises you? I, for one, am delighted.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  16. I believe it by slimjim8094 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    but I think they have it backwards. I think dumbasses are likely to drive stupidly and be stupid enough to spend money to load up their car with that crap.

    Correlation != Causation - but you already knew that. I know you did, did you, 'researchers'?

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:I believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm sure they were absolutely convinced that the stickers were actually causing road rage. Must be the glue or something.

      Good thing you were here to catch their mistake and alert us all to their flawed reasoning.

    2. Re:I believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I even have two corolaries to the correlation is not always causation.

      Corolary 1: When there is a correlation between X and Y and I like the idea of there being a causation(usually because I don't like people that do X and Y is bad behavior), then it is clear that there is causation

      Corolary 2: When there is correlation between X and Y and I don't like the idea of there being a causation (usually because Y is bad behavior and I like X), then there is no correlation.

      I'll add a third corollary
      Corolary 3: Once you exclude all studies that go against your opinion, the only ones that remain are the one that confirm what you always knew.

    3. Re:I believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since the causation part of it was offered in a tentative tone.

    4. Re:I believe it by rotor · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're saying that people are more likely to rage BECAUSE of the bumper stickers. They're only claiming that there is a correlation between them. So yeah - I think they did already know that.

      --
      Addlepated - punk & metal
    5. Re:I believe it by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      You must be a statistician. If not, you should be.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  17. Very helpful by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is very helpful information. Now I'll know which vehicles my wife should keep the gun trained on.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Very helpful by kdp007 · · Score: 1

      Good one for the morning! Makes me think: maybe that's why I see some people close up behind me for 15-30 seconds, then back off - my one bumper sticker reads "Gun Control: Breathe out, squeeze trigger."

      --
      Gun control: all the rounds in the X-ring.
    2. Re:Very helpful by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw.

      It said "I got a gun for my wife. It was the best trade I ever made!"

  18. Makes me wish I had a bumper by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    as a cyclist I lack opportunities for such displays of wit(I guess I could use my backpack), but if I did, it would have to read:

    "The size of ones genitals is inversely proportional to the size of ones vehicle"

    The best part is that SUV drivers would run out of fuel before they could even catch up!

    1. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you do when a maniac truck driver sees your sticker?

    2. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Filmcell-Keyrings · · Score: 1

      If that is true, then it must be quite uncomfortable to ride a bike.

      --
      Never rub another man's rhubarb
    3. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if that is true, i prefer my women to drive big cars, thank you.

    4. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      I think you might be confused, Inversely means opposite not direct.

      You see, you talk like you got balls but your failure to act tells us all what is up.

    5. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1
      I saw a T-shirt that said: "How am I cycling? 1-800-FCK-OFF" or similar.

      I always have a backpack though, so wouldn't be visible on me.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    6. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by zarkill · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could become a fan of the band This Bike is a Pipe Bomb, wrap one of their stickers around your bike, and have it destroyed by the authorities.

    7. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Pebble · · Score: 1

      As A MINI cooper owner, I can in fact confirm that your hypothesis is correct, at least in my case.

    8. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you will lose them at "inversely proportional". :P

    9. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because cyclists don't attract enough ire as it is.. :P

      Besides, wouldn't that give pedestrian infinitely-sized genitals? (Divide by zero error..)

    10. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      I hope that's a real Mini Cooper, and not one of the 'squashed Minis' (my son's term) that are BMWs in disguise - otherwise you're driving a ladies car.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    11. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2, Funny

      >> I lack opportunities for such displays of wit...

      Try hanging a pair of those "truck nuts" under the front of your bike seat.

    12. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The size of ones genitals is inversely proportional to the size of ones vehicle" How about:

      "If you can read this, BACK OFF!"

    13. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by dwpro · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a trucker that sweeps you off the road with his wind draft hauling a load of bicycles will get a kick out of it too.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    14. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because we all know bike seats are sooooo comfortable on large genetalia.

      With any luck the cyclists will become sterile and thus eliminate themselves from the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.

      In other news, did you know cycling is less energy efficient (EROEI) than driving an SUV? It's also more expensive (medical bills) and produces more greenhouse gasses (elevated rate of respiration). Can't remember where I saw the periodical to link it in proper /. manner, but I'm sure you all can rip each other to shreds anyhow.

    15. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Your bumper sticker would only work on men with small genitals. And it would be counterproductive in regards to women, who don't WANT their genitals to be large and in fact take pride in having a tight one.

      And it's been my observation that the most agressive drivers on the road are women in SUVs. Men in SUVs are the second most agressive.

      The most obnoxious, despite vehicle size, are those driving the most expensive vehicles. Do you have a thousand dollar bike? If so, you are in the Hummer/Escalade camp when it comes to driving like an asshole.

      BTW and OT (regarding your sig), without cowshit the cow would starve; grass needs fertilizer and there's none better than cowshit. You're going to have to come up with a better argument.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    16. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      "The size of ones genitals is inversely proportional to the size of ones vehicle"

        Is that because they swell up from being crushed by your bike seat?

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    17. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding - sitting on a bicycle seat and riding over the potholes is bound to make your genitals swell from bruising. Have fun icing your large genitals.

    18. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by QuadEddie · · Score: 1

      And how about mine: Frequently riding bikes causes ED.

    19. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by legirons · · Score: 1

      I reckon just "$4.58/gal" would make a good t-shirt for a cyclist ;)

    20. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1
      MINI (all caps) almost always means the BMW one, at least in usenet groups and web forums. Real minis are 'Mini' or even 'mini'.

      As the only people still driving real minis are enthusiasts who would know this, I think you can safely assume he's driving a ladies car.

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    21. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      If that is true, then it must be quite uncomfortable to ride a bike.

      Nah, it's fine. I just pedal with two legs and steer with my third. It works out, because that leaves one arm free for flipping off drivers, and the other one for holding a) my morning danish or b) your cute sister -- whichever.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    22. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by Buran · · Score: 1

      What if the poster really is female?

      Seriously, why are people so damn fixated on "chick car" or "boy-racer car"? What does it matter? How exactly is a car declared to be one or the other?

      I'm female, and I drive a 2007 VW GTI. Stereotype THAT.

    23. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I guess when I ride my bike I'm well endowed then. On days I decide to walk I'm surprised I ever make it, seeing as my nether regions harbor infinitely sized reproductive organs.

    24. Re:Makes me wish I had a bumper by AlphaVersion · · Score: 1

      Would SUV drivers even get that joke? You'd think they'd just sit there snickering "hehehehe... It says genitals on his backpack! Genitals are funny!"

  19. George Bush Stickers..... by lena_10326 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...are the cause. People see "Vote George Bush 2004" and see red.

    Now, that's why I don't put political bumper stickers on my car. Obama, Hillary, or McCain, I don't care. I don't need some nut-job running me down because he doesn't like my choice of candidate.

    (Plus, it'll spoil the purdy paint.)

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
    1. Re:George Bush Stickers..... by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      I've only been to America once, but I'm more worried about the kind of person who had the sticker I saw in Denver, Colorado: "Liberalism is a mental illness". Yes, the people who don't like your choice can be bad, but I'm sure that person must have been worse!

      As a few other people have said, though, congratulations to the researchers for confusing correlation with causation (or at least not describing it well in the quote).

    2. Re:George Bush Stickers..... by CloudyPrison · · Score: 1

      This right here. A bumper sticker only personalizes my property. Why give people an invitation to disagree with me and take it out on my stuff.

    3. Re:George Bush Stickers..... by yoder · · Score: 1

      I think there should be a study done to find out what the percentage of conservative road ragers to liberals is.

      I don't think it's 50/50 or even close.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    4. Re:George Bush Stickers..... by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's 50/50 or even close.
      Going by the venerable branch of statistical mathematics called DISS (Debatable Internet Statistical Stereotypes).

      Angry conservative voters tend to be senior citizens. Angry liberal voters tend to be young citizens. I'll bet there are more politically motivated bumper sticker forms of road rage triggerd by young liberals than old conservative ones. :D

      Now, this doesn't account for boundary cases of young NASCAR angry conservatives and senior 60's generation angry liberals. Further study is recommended.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    5. Re:George Bush Stickers..... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I've got a friend who has both of those (for liberalism and conservatism) on his car.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  20. Correlation != Causation by Revenger75 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Road Rage is linked to Bumper Stickers Sounds shockingly similar to how the consumption of ice cream is linked to a positive derivative in crime rate.

    Kudos for the "correlationisnotcausation" tag.
    1. Re:Correlation != Causation by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno about that, but I do know that nearly 100% of hardened drug-crazed criminals started out by drinking milk at a young age.

    2. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said it was causation?

      TFS said that the number of stickers 'predicted' road rage, not caused it. Predicted implies a correlation.

      If you have a many bumper stickers, you are more likely to be road ragey. But if I slap a couple stickers on someone else's car, they are unlikely to be more road ragey (Except maybe at me for stickering up their car).

    3. Re:Correlation != Causation by Revenger75 · · Score: 1

      Okay, maybe as interesting as all those tiny words at the bottom of a contract. And I guess, just as important as those, too. Just because you know or are aware of a concept, does not mean that you will automatically draw parallels and apply said concept.

      Now drink some coffee or go back to sleep, because you are obviously not a morning person.

    4. Re:Correlation != Causation by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Milk - the gateway drug of choice!

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    5. Re:Correlation != Causation by kidgenius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK....you know, I see this "correlation != causation" any time something comes up. These researchers did not say it was caused by it. They said it was linked. They said there was a correlation, not causation. What's the cause of road rage? Idiots who think they own the road. Guess what, these are the same people that tend to festoon their car with this crap, thus a correlation between crap on cars and road rage incidents. Insightful my ass....

    6. Re:Correlation != Causation by rotor · · Score: 1

      As I mentioned in another reply, they seem to be claiming correlation - not implying that the stickers cause road rage. The word "linked" should kind of tip you off since it basically screams correlation.

      --
      Addlepated - punk & metal
    7. Re:Correlation != Causation by Revenger75 · · Score: 1

      This is true, but unfortunately too many people nowadays, especially the higher up you go on the administrative ladder, will not know or correctly distinguish/remember the difference. The parent was simply to serve as a reminder.

      Too many times have I had the misfortune to come into contact with someone who thinks that they are infallible and can walk on water simply because they have a degree.

    8. Re:Correlation != Causation by kthejoker · · Score: 1

      "Linked" = "Correlated."

      Road Rage "Correlated" To Automobile Bumper Stickers.

      Bumper stick for you, no charge:
      Reading Comprehension. Get Some.

    9. Re:Correlation != Causation by karnal · · Score: 1

      I'm lactose intolerant you insensitive clod!!!

      --
      Karnal
    10. Re:Correlation != Causation by tooyoung · · Score: 1

      This is true, but unfortunately too many people nowadays, especially the higher up you go on the administrative ladder, will not know or correctly distinguish/remember the difference. The parent was simply to serve as a reminder. Too many times have I had the misfortune to come into contact with someone who thinks that they are infallible and can walk on water simply because they have a degree.
      But aren't you guilty of this as well? Someone publishes a paper implying a correlation between two things, and you immediately refute the findings by whipping out a phrase which most people learn in high school statistics. Then, several posters point out that no where in the article does it imply causation, and you continue to argue the point. Is everyone with a degree always wrong in your point of view?
    11. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that is causation, not correlation. Milk has been proven to make you more aggressive the more you consume.

      Damn mad cow disease and bovine growth hormone...

    12. Re:Correlation != Causation by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      As do nearly 100% of non-hardened-drug-crazed-criminals, making this a near perfect example of a non-example of correllation.

    13. Re:Correlation != Causation by Revenger75 · · Score: 1

      I do not have a subscription to the 'Journal of Applied Social Psychology,' so I can only read the summary and not the actual article (not the /. linked summary). I do not refute the findings, but upon not being able to read the full article, must inject some caution. I also tend to believe that if something "encourages" road rage, then it is a lot closer to causing it then merely correlating with it.

    14. Re:Correlation != Causation by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Too many times have I had the misfortune to come into contact with someone who thinks that they are infallible and can walk on water simply because they have a degree.
      ...when, in reality, while there is a correlation between infallibility and water walking, on the one hand, and having a degree, on the other, the latter doesn't cause the former, they just vary together because they share a common cause?

      (Otherwise, what does this have to do with the correlation vs. causation issue?)
    15. Re:Correlation != Causation by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      Ok, you must've failed reading comprehension. No where does it say that bumper stickers encourage road rage. It says the territoriality encourages road rage. This territoriality, which in the animal world is seen in such ways as peeing on a tree to mark your spot, is exhibited through such behaviors as putting bumper stickers on your car (marking your territory) and exhibiting road rage. Therefore, there is a correlation between bumper stickers on a car, and road rage incidents because the person driving that vehicle has a sense of territoriality, which is exhibited through putting stickers on their car and partaking in road rage. In other words, if you see someone driving around with stickers on their car, watch out, because it tells you a lot about the driver of that vehicle and what they are about.

    16. Re:Correlation != Causation by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      Thanks for confirming that a sticker on your bumper does not reach psychic tentacles around the car, through your window, and into your amygdala to trigger bouts of psychosis. Because of your insight, we now understand that the study says something about the personality of people who affix the stickers, and not the insidious, mind-altering affects of the stickers themselves.

    17. Re:Correlation != Causation by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      And for a second I thought it might've been the glue ;-)

    18. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I hypothesize that both road rage and idiots who festoon their car with crap are correlated to people who put correlation != causation tags on everything, trying to make themselves look smart.

  21. Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how they did the statistics?

    If they were naively looking for 95% confidence despite testing several variables, they are more likely to have a fluke result.

  22. i always wonder about people by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    who have a psychotic need to display their politics so aggressively

    i'm talking about the people with 4-5 bumper stickers, all stridently ideological

    of course you are entitled to be proud of your beliefs, but if you are radioactively evangelical about them, then i am 100% certain that your mind is completely closed and your brain dead hack partisanship is total

    on the other hand, you can be assured no one will want to borrow or steal your car... although these bumper sticker hordes are usually stuck on a 15 year old rust eaten subcompact

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i always wonder about people by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1
      And seem to be the same ones that are oblivious to the situation on the highway they're on; Usually they manage to slow down everyone else's ride by getting in the left lane and doing 50mph.

      For an added bonus, the state legislature members get their own plates, and I've never seen one drive well either.

    2. Re:i always wonder about people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      display their politics so aggressively What is so aggressive about a bumper sticker? Would you prefer that they chat you up on the sidewalk or come to your door? I think you have issues if you find passive statements of ideology aggressive.
    3. Re:i always wonder about people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i am 100% certain that your mind is completely closed"

      Well well well... look whose mind is completely closed.

    4. Re:i always wonder about people by yoder · · Score: 1

      I think this relies heavily upon the message. Let's say I see a car with 5 stickers that say something related to "peace" "coexist" "pacifist" or "live and let live", then I see a car with 5 stickers that say "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" "If you don't like my driving dial 1 800 piss off" and "euthanize liberals". Which vehicle am I going to expect aggressive or violent behavior from?

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    5. Re:i always wonder about people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although these bumper sticker hordes are usually stuck on a 15 year old rust eaten subcompact

      At least where I live, the stereotypical bumper sticker covered rust eaten subcompact is rare - so rare that such vehicles would be unlikely to affect the aggregate road rage statistics. I do see a lot of SUVs with a Christian fish on the back panel and an NRA sticker in the window. I guess it comes down to how you define bumper stickers.

    6. Re:i always wonder about people by /dev/zero · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...although these bumper sticker hordes are usually stuck on a 15 year old rust eaten subcompact

      Dude, what do you think is holding the car together?

      G.
      --

      He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
      -- J.R.R. Tolkien
    7. Re:i always wonder about people by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Which vehicle am I going to expect aggressive or violent behavior from? Honestly? I'm not really sure.

      See, people have this tendency to believe they really are special and different from everybody else. So, the guy who is in touch with his anger side (guns, 1 800 piss off, etc) knows that he gets angry and may just be enjoying a joke at his own expense.

      On the flip side, the "peace" and "coexist" person thinks they are perfect and nothing will piss them off and they are special. Yet, that one time something gets to them...watch out.

      Really, we're all just the same with a few minor differences here and there. People are people. They want to be special, they want to be different, they think about "me me me."
    8. Re:i always wonder about people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did'nt know my credit was whack, now I'm drivin down the road in a used
      sub compact.

    9. Re:i always wonder about people by mrraven · · Score: 1

      Hypocrite much? "15 year old rust eaten subcompact" is ALSO an aggressive idealogical statement against the poor who can't afford a different sort of car and need to get to work, and those who want to conserve resources by

      a) driving a car that gets good gas mileage

      b) Increasing the turn over time of making cars, as making a new car takes as much energy as the car uses in lifetime.

      Before you haughtily condemn other perhaps you ought to look in the mirror.

      Disclaimer driver of a 15 year old non rusty Honda Civic that is very tight and gets 32 mpg city which is pretty smart in an age of global warming and 4/gallon gas IMO.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    10. Re:i always wonder about people by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Are you saying you don't support the troops?

      Shame on you!

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    11. Re:i always wonder about people by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      although these bumper sticker hordes are usually stuck on a 15 year old rust eaten subcompact

      Those are there to hold the car together.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    12. Re:i always wonder about people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on the other hand, you can be assured no one will want to borrow or steal your car... although these bumper sticker hordes are usually stuck on a 15 year old rust eaten subcompact

      Of course -- what do you think is holding it together? Bumper stickers are cheaper than Bondo.

  23. Ixthus + Volvo badge by threaded · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ixthus fish and a Volvo badge: that combination is my number one worry when I'm out on a bike.

    1. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by Otter · · Score: 4, Interesting
      As a bicycle commuter, my experience has been exactly what's reported here: lousy driving is a function of the quantity and vehemence of bumper stickers, not of the precise content.

      The Hummer covered in American flags and ribbon magnets for every armed service (because, y'know, the driver was in the Army, Marines and Air Force simultaneously) and the Forester with the "SMASH FAITH-BASED FASCISM" and "HOW MANY IRAQIS PER GALLON" stickers (because, y'know, Subarus burn rage, not gasoline like those awful SUVs) are equally likely to make a right turn through the bike lane without looking.

    2. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      That makes perfect sense, actually, since the two (Christianity and a safe for the owner, unsafe for others, expensive vehicle) are mutually exclusive. A hypocrite would logically be the most dangerous driver.

      It pisses me off when I see somebody with a fish driving like an asshole. If they can't drive like a Christian they shouldn't have the damned fish on their car.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Around where I live, it's the "Respect Life" special license plate, because it's usually on a minivan with five kids in the back and the woman who is driving it is turned around facing backwards in her seat, screaming and hitting one of them kids, while wobbling down the street.
      I kid you not: I've seen that exact scenario half a dozen times, both when on my bike and when driving. My reaction is always to get off the road as soon as possible until they've gone by or gone into a ditch.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by xant · · Score: 1

      Heh, it says "Jesus will save me. Failing that, Volvo will. COMIN' THROUGH!"

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    5. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by xant · · Score: 1

      How much does it piss you off? Does it enrage you?

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    6. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ixthus fish The Greek word is spelled: Iota, Chi, Theta, Upsilon, Sigma.

      "Ichthys" is the most prevalent spelling using the Latin alphabet. There are several spellings to choose from, actually, but none of them use "x" for the letter Chi (even though it looks like an x).
    7. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      It just annoys me. If I see a fish on a car, I'm usually pretty sure that the person with the fish is only trolling.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Rarely have I seen an unsafe or uncourteous Volvo driver. Disclaimer: I am a Volvo driver myself. Expensive? When I bought my used V70 it cost the same amount as my coworker's brand new Toyota Corolla, our cars are only two years apart. I have every option and creature comfort except for navigation. He has...a Corolla. As an engineer, I chose my Volvo because it is well-designed and straightforward from an engineer's standpoint. He got...a Corolla.

    9. Re:Ixthus + Volvo badge by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You are the exception. I would actually expect an engineer to not only buy a Volvo but to drive it in a safe manner. Most people buy Volvos for the same reason as SUVs- percieved safety (although the perception is unwarranted with an SUV).

      My idea of a moron is someone with a PhD in physics who tailgates. He should understand the forces involved, after all.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  24. yeah, but did they study ... by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Did they study the effects of going 45 in a 55?

    Did they study the effects of drifting along and not passing while in the passing lane on a limited access highway (a 2 point ticket, called disrupting the flow of traffic, in most states)?

    I mean, really, if you did these things on foot you'd get, "Um, excuse me" and "right behindja," and "sorry there, ah, commin through."

    The real source of road rage is not being able to say, "excuse me." It frustrates humans because we need to be able to express ourselves. We're pack animals and the cars isolate us.

    My hunch is that inconsiderate behavior is a better predictor than bumper stickers. I haven't done a study though. Could be wrong. (Ignore my sig it's a joke.)

    --
    Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    1. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by mh1997 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The real source of road rage is not being able to say, "excuse me." It frustrates humans because we need to be able to express ourselves.
      Several years ago, I read of a study that looked into this and there conclusion was the same as yours.

      You can sort of test this yourself while walking. While walking down the street, step in front of another pedestrian (cut them off) and then keep walking, you'll hear negative comments. Do the same thing, but then apologize and the person you cut off will act like it was their fault.

    2. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by value_added · · Score: 1

      Did they study the effects of going 45 in a 55?

      From my experience, not driving 75 in a 65 zone elicits plenty of rage.

      There was an incident recently in or near LA where one driver got so upset he repeatedly rammed the car that he believed was causing him grief. Both cars were banged up so badly that you'd think it was from a scene in movie. IIRC, he was an educated professional (the other driver was woman), but that didn't prevent him from being charged with multiple felonies.

      My own preference, and possibly the most sensible approach for dealing with excitable drivers, is simply to get out of their way. The exception, at least for me, is when I'm driving down my own street or somewhere similar where the speed limit is 25 and there's lots of kids and pedestrians. Ironically, it's only the soccer moms and teenagers that seem to have a problem with that.

    3. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Kyokushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real source of road rage is not being able to say, "excuse me."
      What about your car horn?
    4. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      Well.....other drivers and their actions elicit the rage in others. You don't have road rage if you are the one doing 45 in a 55, but this action can cause others to rage. Frankly, that's not the problem of the person doing the dumb thing, it's the problem of the person who is letting their anger get the best of them. You saying "inconsiderate behavior" is a better predictor is not "Insightful". Of course, if someone acted inconsiderately, the other person is going to get angry. People aren't going to get angry for no reason. Bumper stickers are just a way that you can say on the road, "wow, those 18 bumper stickers about not eating meat might mean I should maybe give this person some room on the road."

    5. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      What about getting shot with an AK-47 for blowing off your horn?

    6. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by analog_line · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and bumper stickers are an obvious sign of someone that has a greater than normal desire to express themselves.

    7. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by spikedvodka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with the car horn is a honk can mean so much from:
      - Move over you spineless git!
      - hey dickwad, you almost hit me
      - Hi there
      - careful, you're about to hit something
      - I just passed out and slumped into my steering wheel

      You try talking for a while with just a mono-tone "Hey" you'll find it's very difficult to be understood

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    8. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by XedLightParticle · · Score: 1

      The real source of road rage is not being able to say, "excuse me." It frustrates humans because we need to be able to express ourselves. We're pack animals and the cars isolate us.
      I believe there's much truth to this, perhaps even more because honking is mostly seen as an act of agression.

      If you've been to Mumbai or any other indian city, you will know that all trucks have a "bumper sticker" saying "Horn OK Please" which basically means that they'd prefer you to honk before you pass, so that they can give you the necessary space on the road. Everybody honks at everybody, and noone feels offended.

      When you first arrive there you'll think they're in one massive road rage all of them, but after a few trips around town in rush hour, you realize that their traffic wouln't work without it. You simply can't squeeze 5 lanes of cars onto a 3 lane road otherwise, and honking is in no way rude, it's simply the only way to communicate, and it just works, despite the extreme density of traffic there.
      --
      If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
    9. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Rurik · · Score: 1

      You don't have road rage if you are the one doing 45 in a 55

      Actually, I think most of them do. I see a large number of people in the left lane doing under the speed limit that KNOW you're behind them. They see you in their mirror, close behind, and they just refuse to move over and allow traffic to pass. Some of the feeling that THEY'RE doing the limit, and they don't need to move or make any considerations for other people because they're within their legal right. That's a bad attitude, and that IS road rage.

    10. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      The worst part of this is that - at least in the US - it's considered very impolite and bordering on rude to flash your headlights at someone doing this. Other countries consider it what it is, an "excuse me" or "coming through."

    11. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think some sort of roof or rear window mounted LED sign system may be the solution here. Simply pre-program it with a range of (in)appropriate messages/expletives to be activated by pressing various different buttons. It could help bring a little bit of human expression back to driving.
      For the more vocal, a roof mounted megaphone would also come in handy.

      It's probably more effective and satisfying way of conveying a message to a tailgater than a raised middle finger.

    12. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real source of road rage is not being able to say, "excuse me."

      I think cars should come with a purple light(since it's not used for anything else) for exactly that purpose.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      Saying nothing gives the impression that you don't consider what you did impolite. A simple 'excuse me' acknowledges the fact that it was, and implies that you actually had a reason for doing so other than just being inconsiderate, thus mitigating the offense. No way to say anything to the guy in the other car, so the default assumption of rudeness stands.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    14. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by quintessentialk · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! Actually, it's the same thing with saying 'excuse me' to fellow pedestrians:
      - out of my way, you jerk
      - hey, you almost made me drop this
      - watch out, I'm going to squeeze by you
      - I appologize in advance for violating your personal space
      - I appologize after the fact for whatever I just did

      One of my first noteworthy experiences after moving to NJ was using 'excuse me' for one of the latter meanings -- "I'm about to squeese closer to you than I normally would" and having it interpreted as the first, earning me an angry, sarcasm-ladden reply.
      Often when driving (I'm not a perfect driver) I wish I had a " d'oh! " horn, or a 'sorry' horn, so that I could communicate the times I've accidentally cut people off or pulled in front of people that it wasn't my intent.

    15. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I would classify it as rage, so much as I would classify it as "entitlement" where those individuals feel they are entitled to drive the speed limit in whichever lane they so choose....bastards ;-)

    16. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work, and often has the opposite effect. Just yesterday there was some woman who zoomed past me racing to the red light, which was green by the time I stopped behind her. The car next to her was through the intersection and down the road before I honked.

      She took off incredibly slowly and crept along about ten mph. When traffic in the left lane cleared I went to pass and the bitch floored it.

      Your theory is faulty. Assholes are assholes no matter what. The only thing that keeps them from being assholes on foot is the fear of getting their faces smashed.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    17. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      Another data point to back this up is general aviation. With rare exceptions, pilots are extremely polite to each other when determining who gets to use the runway first (and no, it's not always a given who has "right of way" when two aircraft approach the airfield from slightly different directions intending to do a straight in approach).

      Now, some of that is perhaps due to a higher threshold of training and skill required before you're allowed to pilot a plane, and some is undoubtedly due to a pilot's awareness that planes touching in the air generally means death for everyone in both aircraft, but a large part is also down to the ability to communicate, and say "excuse me" or "go ahead Romeo Juliet, I'll be number two to land". The same option doesn't exist for car drivers (which is perhaps an argument for bringing CB radios back from the dead).

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    18. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if passenger cars did have CB radios so you could say "sorry" or "coming through."

      Then we brought a CB with us on a road trip and all I could think was "Trucker IRC." Same inane comments, same treatment toward any female member, same idiot with the green flashing text (or in CB case, idiot sounds effects). And I realized that I didn't really want my morning commute to be the equivalent of Barrens Chat.

      Still.. something point to point would be awesome.

    19. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by mrraven · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I am far more concerned about the people doing 50 in a 25 school zone. I often notice that these people are in giant SUVs with "support the troops" bumper stickers. This indicates two things to me:

      1. There big SUV means they are insecure and overcompensating by driving like dicks in a big top heavy vehicle that doesn't brake well:

      http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

      2. As Bush supporters they probably support 4th amendment destroying domestic spying by using a "save the children" rational. News flash if you want to save actual living children don't drive 50 in a school zone like a douchebag.

      If we all slowed down a bit not only would we save money both in increased MPG leading to less cash outlay directly, and reduced fuel demand lowering fuel prices, it would help the environment, lead to less road rage, and save lives to boot due to fewer accidents. If you do the math driving 20 mph above the speed limit in a city situation where you are at most going 15 miles at most saves 5 minutes. Here's a clue leave 5 minutes earlier and save us all a lot of grief. Thanks!

      This is a pet peeve of mine. set rant=off whew!

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    20. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Spoke · · Score: 1

      The real source of road rage is not being able to say, "excuse me." There are two, your high beams and the horn.

      Unfortunately, neither really say "excuse me", but instead interpreted as "get the fuck out of my way". At which point the other person generally says "fuck off" and either makes it a point to stay in your way or ignore you.

      Never mind that flashing your high beams is the accepted method of indicating to someone else that you would like to pass. I have encountered multiple people who would brake check you or slow down further rather than move over or pull into a pullout to let a faster vehicle pass, no matter how slow they were already going.
    21. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by jake+jackson · · Score: 1

      that is one of the most ass backwards comment i've ever read.

    22. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by mrraven · · Score: 1

      How is something I have seen with my own eyes over and over again flambait? I can even give you the exact location the Ypsilanti high school on Packard ave between Ellsworth and Huron in Ypsilanti Michigan.

      I have seen more ASSHOLES in big SUVs driving 50 in the 25 mph SCHOOL ZONE there than I could even count on both hands. Because I drive strictly the speed limit in the school zones because I do actually care about kids I am tailgated just about EVERY time I go through that area and I'd say more than 70% of time it's some asshole in an SUV.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    23. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I should honk "Shave and a Haircut" on the freeway and really confuse people?

    24. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're pack animals and the cars isolate us.
      Right. Road rage has more to do with social isolation than anything else. And people who have more bumperstickers on their cars are people who spend all of their time in their car, which is an isolated and sometimes frustrating place to be.
    25. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The real source of road rage is not being able to say, "excuse me."


      Isn't that what the horn is for?
    26. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then do the same, but wearing one bumper sticker, then two, then more... and correlate with the number of bumper stickers being worn by the target pedestrian.

    27. Re:yeah, but did they study ... by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      HEY! Heeeeey...hey....

      Rats....you're right.
      Now "Dude" can be used as can "F#ck" in context all by itself.

      --
      Huh?
  25. As expected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who dare to provoke using bumper stickers mostly also have a good self-confidence. So I think this result in a study is obvious.

    1. Re:As expected... by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Good self confidence or a lack of taste. If their judgement is impaired about how they adorn their car, perhaps it is impaired in other ways.

  26. Not on my watch by ATestR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    exhibiting territorial behavior ... acceptable in personal space

    I'm sorry. Where did I miss this? I was raised to believe that rage is unacceptable anywhere... even in private.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    1. Re:Not on my watch by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      If it's only you there (i.e. it's in private) what's wrong with a little rage? Better than bottling it up, I'd say.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    2. Re:Not on my watch by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Territorial behaviour isn't rage. It might lead to rage when someone doesn't respect your territory.

      If I ask that you not touch something in my house and then you drop and break it I might ask you to leave. If you don't, I'd feel quite justified in throwing you out.

      I'm not justified in asking that you drive the speed I decide is the right one. If you don't, I'm not justified in asking that you please not drive. If you refuse that request I'm not justified in running you off the road.

  27. Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    In the late 1980's, during the Administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, I lived in the U.S. State of Indiana, also known as "the Hoosier State." The Vice President of Bush the Elder was J. Danforth "Dan" Quayle, a Hoosier scion of a family with social position and great wealth: the Pulliams, owners of the newspaper The Indianapolis Star. Hoosiers, like the people of the other U.S. States, love their "favorite sons" -- locals who run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, and especially those who win. In the highly public role of candidate for the office of Vice President and then as occupant of that office, Quayle was controversial, as he would make public statements that were marvels of error, unclear thinking and internal contradiction. The Wikipedia article on Quayle includes some of the better ones.

    In those days, I was already fed up with the habit of Quayle and the rest of the Reagan Republican camp of vilifying people whose beliefs ran counter to their own by using the word "Liberal" as an epithet. I felt that Quayle was not qualified for to hold the second-highest or highest offices in in the land. I bought a bumper sticker and pasted it on the back of my car, as close to eye level as the car allowed:

    H.E.A.D.: Hoosiers Embarrassed about Dan
    I came out of a few hours shopping at a regional mall to find the bumper sticker peeled off my car, folded, accordion-style, and lying a few feet from the car. I was astonished at the attack on my free speech, and wondered at the fury behind it. I calmed down once I concluded that the vandal's action showed that my message had struck home. I replaced the bumper sticker, which stayed on, this time without vandalism.

    1. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're my fucking hero.

    2. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did the H.E.A.D. guy claim to be a hero? No. The only claim I see is one of being fed up with ostracism.

    3. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Nimey · · Score: 1

      My old car had a bumper sticker that said "Doing my part to PISS OFF the Religious Right". I'm in Southwest Missouri, which has a bit more than its fair share of said group.

      The sticker got damaged once or twice, at least one was obvious vandalism: someone had tried to peel it off but failed, getting only a bit on the edge. Other damage could have plausibly been wear from being misapplied (it was on a curved surface).

      I was pleasantly surprised that this was the only time; I'd thought it would get removed fairly quickly. Sometimes I'd see people in my rearview mirror reading it and the other stickers and laughing.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had your free speech and guess what, someone didn't like what you had to say. Boo hoo hoo.

      If you want to hit a hornets nest with a newspaper don't come crying to us when you get stung. You were asking for trouble, and are lucky the rednecks in Indiana didn't beat you down.

    5. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      My roommate in Rochester, NY. was a Red Sox fan, and had a small logo on his bumper.

      One night he had to chase away drunken Yankees fans who were trying to pull off the entire bumper.

      I'm not saying Sox fans would never do this or anything, but just noting the ridiculous reasons people will violate other's private property.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    6. Re:Anecdotal evidence by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      My brother had one of the first Darwin Fish on his car, because I found it in a catalog when they were brand-new. (Yeah, this was a while ago.) I had to buy him new ones by the bucketload because people kept chipping them off his car -- not to have, just to remove, because they'd leave them in stomped-on flinders behind the car. Luckily his rustbucket didn't mind getting stuff scraped off it repeatedly. He went through about two dozen before he got a better car and stopped putting stickers on it.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    7. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro.

    8. Re:Anecdotal evidence by tooslickvan · · Score: 2

      In the late 1980's, during the Administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, I lived in the U.S. State of Indiana, also known as "the Hoosier State." The Vice President of Bush the Elder was J. Danforth "Dan" Quayle, a Hoosier scion of a family with social position and great wealth: the Pulliams, owners of the newspaper The Indianapolis Star. Hoosiers, like the people of the other U.S. States, love their "favorite sons" -- locals who run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, and especially those who win. In the highly public role of candidate for the office of Vice President and then as occupant of that office, Quayle was controversial, as he would make public statements that were marvels of error, unclear thinking and internal contradiction. The Wikipedia article on Quayle includes some of the better ones.

      In those days, I was already fed up with the habit of Quayle and the rest of the Reagan Republican camp of vilifying people whose beliefs ran counter to their own by using the word "Liberal" as an epithet. I felt that Quayle was not qualified for to hold the second-highest or highest offices in in the land. I bought a bumper sticker and pasted it on the back of my car, as close to eye level as the car allowed:

      H.E.A.D.: Hoosiers Embarrassed about Dan
      I came out of a few hours shopping at a regional mall to find the bumper sticker peeled off my car, folded, accordion-style, and lying a few feet from the car. I was astonished at the attack on my free speech, and wondered at the fury behind it. I calmed down once I concluded that the vandal's action showed that my message had struck home. I replaced the bumper sticker, which stayed on, this time without vandalism.

      What the fuck is this shit! You've wasted minutes of my fucking life with your crap. I'm going to find you and take your crappy sticker and stick it on my car cause I need more fucking bumper stickers!
    9. Re:Anecdotal evidence by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Cool story bro.
      Could have used a vampire though.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  28. Makes sense by MtlDty · · Score: 1

    I didnt read the fine article, but I can see how people that spend the time and money to personalise their car tend to protect it more than people (like me) who dont. I think therefore the correlation they drew makes sense, though their reasoning (territorial behaviour) I would disagree with.

  29. Failure to carpool outside company towns by tepples · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I am talking about that self important I am saving the world while your just killing it tripe.

    Its like having a neighborhood of Prius owners who all drive their cars to work solo. I'd see your point in a company town. But in most practical cities, different people work at different places and different times. Carpooling is efficient when one person doesn't have to go too far out of his way to pick up someone else. If one is taking some measures to reduce his energy consumption, then how does not living in the same part of town as somebody else who works in the same building make him a hypocrite?
  30. Jesus fish by tepples · · Score: 1

    Is the Jesus fish a bumper sticker? It's an automotive decoration. The article makes little or no distinction between bumper stickers and other auto decorations.
  31. They don't have to be ideal to be useful. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1
    I wouldn't trust it for much on its own, but part of how one responsibly studies *any* phenomenon is that if there are witnesses, especially witnesses who each personally have from dozens to hundreds of relevant experiences, one does interview them. I'm not claiming that their statements would be flawless; note that I said that getting camera footage would be better. But something is better than nothing.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:They don't have to be ideal to be useful. by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal reports like this might be fine for pointing the direction of new research, but they shouldn't be part of the research methodology itself. Scientific studies should (and generally do) uphold a minimum standard of methodology. Something is not better than nothing, otherwise all sort of crazy anecdotal stuff would get into the scientific literature (alien abductions, Jesus on tortillas, etc.), which would be disastrous.

  32. My bumper sticker by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    If you don't like my driving...
    Stay off the sidewalk

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  33. lol by anarkavre · · Score: 1

    Funny I see this article as the just after driving to work and seeing a car with Anti-Bush stickers. I never get pissed seeing such stickers, since I hate Bush as it is. I usually just laugh when I see Jesus Fish or the equivalent. The only stickers I have on my car are a Cthulhu one, one of my university, and a sticker of the band Tool. I can not see anyone getting pissed at these. At least I hope not. I am waiting to see The Flying Spaghetti Monster car emblem. That would give me a good laugh.

    --
    "Without curiosity and knowledge, the mind is a vast void. Without the mind, curiosity and knowledge are nonexistent."
    1. Re:lol by anarkavre · · Score: 1

      Correction: Funny I see this article just after driving to work and seeing a car with Anti-Bush stickers. Damn you Slashdot!

      --
      "Without curiosity and knowledge, the mind is a vast void. Without the mind, curiosity and knowledge are nonexistent."
  34. Stating the obvious by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    People who go out of their way to stand out from the crowd and try to look different are obviously going to get lambasted when they do things wrong.

  35. /. sigs by nadaou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    has anyone noticed the connection between /. sigs and a likelihood of the poster to respond to trolls?

    --
    ~.~
    I'm a peripheral visionary.
    1. Re:/. sigs by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      IHBT

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  36. No no no no by gelfling · · Score: 4, Funny

    Road rage is caused by me being unable to shoot you in the head for being such an asshole. Attention shitheads here are the things you should avoid:

    Driving a white Buick 25mph under the speed limit.
    Slowing down when I'm behind you and speeding up when I try to pass.
    Being shorter than the dashboard.
    Zoning out at a green light.
    Goosing the throttle on your Harley you fat fuck.
    A ricer wing bigger than Mexico.
    Passing me on a one lane highway ramp.
    Stopping, yes stopping at the end of a merge ramp on to the highway you redneck motherfucker.
    Waiting for a half mile of no traffic in both directions to make a left turn.
    Green light, asshole, it's not getting any greener.

    1. Re:No no no no by garnkelflax · · Score: 1

      Not to detract from the humor of the post. Almost all bikers test the throttle on a bike, particularly if stopped at a light before a turn. It is not an invitation to race or anything. It is to make sure the bike is not having issues before you take off (#1 being you forgot to turn on the gas valve, idiot). If a bike looses power on a turn you can dump it and the person behind you can smack you. It is just more noticable/irritating on a Harley. Bike engines aren't car engines. You have to actively evaluate them. Particularly if the bike in question has an older style engine. Yeah Yeah... I know. Loud pipes save lives.

    2. Re:No no no no by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Slowing down when I'm behind you and speeding up when I try to pass.

      Interesting. Another poster was advocating this as a good way to deal with tailgaters.

      Zoning out at a green light.

      How long a wait are you thinking is too long? I just ask cause I turn the car off at long lights to save gas and every now and then I'll get caught and it might take me 1 - 2 seconds to turn the car on and put it in drive. I try and pay attention, etc. but like I said, every now and then...

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    3. Re:No no no no by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Stopping, yes stopping at the end of a merge ramp on to the highway you redneck motherfucker.

      Funny thing is, I've seen highway on ramps with stoplights at the end of them in Phoenix. Stupidest thing I've ever seen.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:No no no no by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      There are also some in the Philadelphia area, at the end of merge lanes going on to very busy highways. Most of the time they are disabled, but they are intended to be used to regulate the flow of merging traffic during rush hour. (I don't travel these routes during rush hour, so take this at face value.)

      There are some merge lanes which are two lanes, and there will be a green light alternating between those two lanes, to allow the traffic to merge smoothly. I believe they also will be used to time the traffic merging so as to give the smoothest possible traffic flow.

    5. Re:No no no no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zoning out at a green light.

      How long a wait are you thinking is too long? I just ask cause I turn the car off at long lights to save gas and every now and then I'll get caught and it might take me 1 - 2 seconds to turn the car on and put it in drive. I try and pay attention, etc. but like I said, every now and then...

      -l

      That's fucking retarded. Unless you're at a standstill for several minutes, you'll actually be consuming more energy than you save.
    6. Re:No no no no by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      That's fucking retarded. Unless you're at a standstill for several minutes, you'll actually be consuming more energy than you save.

      You're probably a troll, but I'll address this common misconception.

      1. Modern fuel injection burns hardly any gas at start-up. The cost in gas is at most, for the biggest fuel hog, around 10 seconds of idling. Source: I heard the guys on CarTalk discuss this topic a few years ago.
      2. Even on old carburetors, the cost of startup is less than "several minutes". However, if you're still driving one of these, maybe you're just afraid that when you turn it off it's not gonna turn ON again. :)
      3. Idling is 100% inefficient. It is also the most polluting state your car's engine is ever in. If you don't need the A/C on, there is no need for the car to be on while you wait 2 - 5 minutes at long lights.
      4. Wearing out the starter motor: Again, this is b.s. These things are rated for so many restarts it's ridiculous. If the starter is going to break, it's usually unrelated to the number of starts. The culprit is typically poor lubrication. Source: CarTalk again in the same discussion.

      Save yourself some bucks. Help out the elderly and children by reducing ground level ozone. Turn off the car when you are sitting there and won't be moving for awhile.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    7. Re:No no no no by Sinister+Stairs · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you "Interesting" if I could, I've always wondered why bikers seem so rev-happy.

    8. Re:No no no no by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      Passing me on a one lane highway ramp.

      Do you by any chance drive a white Buick?
    9. Re:No no no no by greed · · Score: 1

      I've seen highway ramps with stoplights at the beginning of them, so they can meter the flow of cars onto the highway. If people would actually allow space behind the car in front, those wouldn't be necessary, but basically they're so that people can merge. And they at least leave you with room to get up to speed so you really can merge. (Those are near the Ford plant in Oakville.)

      What's really scary is traveling in Pennsylvania for the first time and finding yourself on a highway that doesn't have a merge lane. You get to the top of the ramp and there's a YIELD sign. You either get your timing bang spot on while you're on the ramp, or you're screwed. Heck, there were even some old-fashioned cloverleafs with the scary weaving lanes and everything!

    10. Re:No no no no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we all know it's vitally important for you to make it to work 30 seconds earlier, so you can hit the men's room to clean the froth from your face and chin before you check your voice mail.

    11. Re:No no no no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving a white Buick 25mph under the speed limit. I think this applies to any make/model.

      Slowing down when I'm behind you and speeding up when I try to pass.
      Being shorter than the dashboard.
      Zoning out at a green light. I agree.

      Goosing the throttle on your Harley you fat fuck. Depending on the motorcycle (age, maintenance, etc) this may be because the bike will die if the operator doesn't blip the throttle when stopped.

      A ricer wing bigger than Mexico. While I mostly agree, there are several vehicles on the road that come from the factory with a large wing. This is to ensure stability at high speeds. Vehicles from Subaru and Mitsubishi come to mind. Also some vehicles are heavily modified and require extra down-force on the rear end. That said, I can't stand to see an unmodified front wheel drive car with a massive wing that only causes more drag and reduces overall performance in the name of "style".

      Passing me on a one lane highway ramp. Unforgivable.

      Stopping, yes stopping at the end of a merge ramp on to the highway you redneck motherfucker.
      Waiting for a half mile of no traffic in both directions to make a left turn. Some people own nice vehicles, and lets face it, there are a lot of really bad drivers on the road. I personally do this sometimes because you just never know when some idiot exceeding the speed limit is going to blow by the person you're looking at and getting ready to merge or pull in front of. I have almost been hit on several occasions because of this. I always check, double check, and triple check intersections and highways when merging.

      Green light, asshole, it's not getting any greener. Again, unforgivable. PAY ATTENTION!
    12. Re:No no no no by D+Ninja · · Score: 1
      While I agreed with some of your list (HAHAHA...shorter than the dashboard), this one...

      Stopping, yes stopping at the end of a merge ramp on to the highway Typically, I agree with you. Merging should be just that. You go with the flow of traffic and just sync right up and merge in. I wish more people did that.

      However, where I live, there's a ramp that is notorious for accidents. It merges in from the left (stupid) and it is a blind merge - you can't see anything until you're right at the bottom of the ramp.

      There is no way I'm doing anything but stopping when I get to the bottom of that ramp. There have been times before when I would have become road grit by a tractor trailer doing 60 around that curve. No thank you.
    13. Re:No no no no by RedShoeRider · · Score: 1

      How many bumper stickers to you have on your car?

      --

      Chris Knight is my hero.

    14. Re:No no no no by mrraven · · Score: 1

      "Waiting for a half mile of no traffic in both directions to make a left turn."

      How about fuck you, I'm NOT going to make a turn dangerously close to other cars you can get to your oh so important appointment 30 seconds faster. Doing a cost benefit analysis I conclude risking peoples lives is not worth a 30 second time savings and you are just going to have to deal. Take a chill pill and leave for your appointments on time douchebag.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    15. Re:No no no no by gelfling · · Score: 1

      So you're the asshole at the head of the line of 26 cars at the entrance of my development. What's it like to be that fuckhead?

    16. Re:No no no no by mrraven · · Score: 1

      And your the asshole whose head got smashed through a car windshield to "save" ten sends time. I'd rather be a slow driver than be an assclown guilty of vehicular manslaughter or dead to save a minutes time.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    17. Re:No no no no by Buran · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. Unless you are riding some total piece of junk the engine is just as reliable as a car engine. Do you see drivers of cars revving (aside from idiot racers) at stoplights?

      Not exactly.

    18. Re:No no no no by Buran · · Score: 1

      You're always supposed to yield when entering a highway. The signs aren't always there because you're supposed to know this from driver training.

    19. Re:No no no no by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      Green light, asshole, it's not getting any greener.

      I try to honk as lightly as possible after 2-3 seconds. Sometimes the light turns green when I'm staring at a hottie on the side of the road!

      Stopping, yes stopping at the end of a merge ramp on to the highway you redneck motherfucker.

      I hold my hand on the horn as far as away as possible and hope that the other driver gets the message that stopping on merge ramps is f*cking stupid.

    20. Re:No no no no by Nynaeve · · Score: 1

      I'd rather be a slow driver than be an assclown guilty of vehicular manslaughter or dead to save a minutes time ... The "freedom" to be a self-centered jerk does not impress me.

      oh, the irony.

    21. Re:No no no no by garnkelflax · · Score: 1

      Note that the poster indicated a Harley. Many of them on the road are older bikes and need to be montitored manually. Even newer bikes regardless of make don't have the elaborate electronics, monitoring, and adjustment systems that a car engine does so you will experience broad variations in engine performance and reliability based on temperature, altitude, and other factors. Think DPFE, MAF, oxygen sensors, engine control modules, and a ton of other features that just won't fit on such a small form factor for the price.

      For instance, I doubt you've ever had a conversation with a 4 wheeled motorist about how they were going to change their carb jets out based on their expected riding altitude or outside temperature because of rich or lean running during a road-trip. You probably don't know many 4 wheeled motorists that let their vehicles warm up for a minute or two after cold starting before taking off either.

      But even besides that, many cruisers regardless of make/model do not have gas gauges. Your 'gas gauge' is the noticible loss of power and sputtering either while riding, or audibly when stopped at a light indicating that you need to switch your tank valve from 'Full' to 'Reserve' as your carb float bowls are being emptied. I tend to rev my engine at lights when I get a gut feeling that I'm getting to the end of my pre-reserve fuel. Even though my bike is a 6 cylinder/6 carb monster it is very quiet so people probably don't notice it.

      Oh, and if you ever see a bike doing the rev thing at a red light and they are all alone in their lane, it is because they haven't been able to trip the green light sensor. If rolling the throttle doesn't work, you should shut off the bike and restart it so the field created by the starter can trip the sensor.

      All that being said, some people on bikes are idiot racers too.

    22. Re:No no no no by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      You see this in Los Angeles. It keeps gaps in between cars entering the freeway making it easier to merge left and right and keep traffic moving.

    23. Re:No no no no by mrraven · · Score: 1

      It's you that's the self centered jerk if you hurry people and risk lives to shave mere seconds off your commute thus no "irony" at all. The amazing backwardness of calling someone "selfish" for counseling people to drive calmly and cautiously is astonishing to me. It's exactly people like you that give Americans their well deserved reputation of being flaming assholes throughout the world, wow, just wow. :(

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    24. Re:No no no no by mrraven · · Score: 1

      P.S. The real irony is your sig About Linux people being "very friendly" when calling me selfish for driving calmly, slowly, and carefully. Hypocrite much?

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  37. Curious... by kitgerrits · · Score: 1


    So the people that spend the most on pimping their ride are most likely to smash it into someone else's car?

    The automotive industry should be keeping these people medals:
    A/ They total 2 cars, causing 2 more cars to be sold.
    B/ They spend a silly amount of money on 'extras' for their car.

    The only question is if their insurance premium will pay for the damages they cause...

    Back when I lived in Atlanta, they just legalized possession of a firearm in a glove compartment without a special permit/license.
    Now THAT's disturbing...

    It gives a whole new meaning to those dixie-flag bumper stickers...

    --
    "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
  38. Friend of mine has one... by Xelios · · Score: 1

    It says "Fuck your flag and fuck you". The various people angrily giving him the finger as they drive by don't exactly make me feel safe in his car... he just thinks its funny.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    1. Re:Friend of mine has one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being whipped the finger doesn't count as road rage in most areas. wait until your friend gets a few bullet holes in his car and come back and tell us about road rage.

    2. Re:Friend of mine has one... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      The various people angrily giving him the finger as they drive by don't exactly make me feel safe in his car... he just thinks its funny.

      I'd say you're both right.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:Friend of mine has one... by wattrlz · · Score: 1

      I say people like that are half of what's wrong with this country. "Oh look, someone who is easily angered... let's poke him! Hehehe, I'm so superior."

    4. Re:Friend of mine has one... by jake+jackson · · Score: 1

      i'd much rather live in a country full of people who don't let stickers get them angry, who don't throw up the finger like it matters.. (oh man, that sticker is SOOO messed up.. you know what will remove it instantly and forever? my middle finger in the general vicinity someone's face! no wait.. i'll just wave it behind a couple panes of glass a lane over.. that'll change things.), than live in a country full of people who get pissed off over stickers. babies.

    5. Re:Friend of mine has one... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      But who's flag ? That could be taken several different ways and should just cause the viewer to think. ( much as my sig is meant to do.... )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Friend of mine has one... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      The bird can earn you a ticket in my state. So can flashing your lights.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:Friend of mine has one... by wattrlz · · Score: 1

      So you're saying you'd rather live in a country where people express emotions you don't understand with actions rather than gestures?

    8. Re:Friend of mine has one... by base3 · · Score: 1

      Obviously that's never been challenged on First Amendment grounds. What state, if I may ask?

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  39. Read again by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The GGGP do not do that. He let them OVERTAKE him, and then only he overtake them and leave a good distance between them and him. Although I disagree with the GGGP method, don't paint them worst than they really are.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  40. My car is my weapon ... by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 2, Funny

    I shall not want.

  41. Also seen by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

    As a matter of fact, I do own the whole road!

  42. Known For Years by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

    It's been mentioned in a number of books and other sources (How to avoid or lessen your chances of getting pulled over) that cops / police are much more likely to "Pick" cars that have bumper stickers / stuffed animals / hats prominently displayed to give tickets to.

    1. Re:Known For Years by ph0rk · · Score: 1

      I guess I should take my "Dare to keep cops off donuts", "PIG", and "In Goddess We Trust" bumper stickers off my car, then.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    2. Re:Known For Years by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      You must live in Santa Cruz. I think I've seen your car.

      --Toll_Free

  43. And they never claimed causation, did they? by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, that's ok then, because they never claimed causation. If you read even the summary, they don't say that bumper stickers cause accidents. In fact, the hypothesis is that a third factor ("territoriality") causes both.

    Basically that:

    1. being territorial makes you mark your car. Sorta like dogs piss on trees and hydrants. Except smell markings don't work well with humans, so we use visible cues instead.

    2. being territorial makes you act like the road is yours, or that everyone within X metres is in your personal space and should play by your rules. And when they don't, you might take it upon you to teach them a lesson or flex your muscles otherwise.

    So they don't even seem to contradict your assessment much.

    Look, I'll be the first to join in the "correlation != causation" chorus when it's warranted. But some people seen to have a knee jerk reaction to post it, even when nobody claimed causation in the first place.

    Or was balking at "researchers" the whole purpose of that exercise? ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  44. Especially true by archont · · Score: 1

    Especially true for those yellow stickers with a wheelchair on them, yup.

  45. Bumper stickers by stevie.f · · Score: 1

    I may be a bit of an ass, but my girlfriend wanted to stick one saying 'kick her in the cooter' (which a friend had given her) on the back of her car because 'it amuses me'. I'm prone to childish bursts of temper and find it highly inappropriate and not at all funny so one blazing row later and it's not going on her car. Okay, there is the context.

    Maybe they have it a little wrong, those who see stickers get pissed off and start to drive more aggressively, so the drivers with personalized cars are on the receiving end of some road rage, which could then cause them to respond in kind.

    I know I get pissed off and drive like an ass when I see that kind of thing but if I was asked about it without having bumper stickers in my mind I would think I was one of the most conscientious drivers out there

  46. Key the car, never by phorm · · Score: 1

    Why not just *add your own stickers amongst them. Bonus points if you put in one that mingles well, so that it sticks around for awhile but is still in a place that gets noticed by other people. Does BushOrChimp have bumper stickers?

    *The above is intended as humor and not serious advice...

    1. Re:Key the car, never by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Does BushOrChimp have bumper stickers? I sincerely hope you're one of those people that thinks the Obama / Curious George t-shirt is funny, because you've just lost your moral authority to criticize it. :)
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    2. Re:Key the car, never by phorm · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've never seen that shirt before. I suppose it depends on whether the joke is against Obama himself or if that's one of those stupid anti-black things (every now and then around here we get some idiots who put up posters comparing black people to monkeys).

    3. Re:Key the car, never by superyooser · · Score: 1

      we get some idiots who put up posters comparing black people to monkeys We have "science" textbooks that compare all people to monkeys.
    4. Re:Key the car, never by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Is black a dominant gene? Because people who have one parent black and the other white seem to get labeled black rather than white or neither.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Key the car, never by phorm · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen of those with dual-ethnicity parents, black is a dominant gene, or perhaps it's just that some light genes are less dominant, because most "light" genes (skin, hair-color) tend to be overruled by darker ones.

  47. That might work with a bunch of midwesterners... by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    Here in Miami where 80% of the drivers are immigrants, there's only one thing which is linked road rage.

    You can predict it like clock work regardless of what sort of junk he has on his car or not.

    There are a lot of idiot drivers in Miami. They do stupid things. They cut you off. They pull in front of you and stop short on purpose.

    They run red lights. They wait till the last 20 feet to get over.

    This is what links road rage here.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  48. Slashdot story submitters who mislead by Cinnaman · · Score: 1

    kdawson has framed things in an ambiguous manner, it's the road rage of the person INSIDE the car with stickers, not of the person behind them.

  49. its psychologically aggressive by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ever hear of the statement "wear your beliefs on your sleeve" or "wear your feelings on your sleeve"? example: you go to a party, and meet a stranger and ask how are they, and instead of a polite reply they tell you that their husband likes asian shemale pornography or their wife can't achieve orgasm except with her own hand

    that doesn't really bother me, nor do the bumper stickers. the point isn't about my aversion to someone else's personal info, the point is someone who aggressively puts their personal issues and beliefs out there for all too see. people can handle this sort of thing, this isn't about strangers being exposed to personal beliefs being somehow damaged or discomforted

    the issue are those who have the need to aggressively get their deeply personal beliefs and feelings out there in front of strangers. it belies large psychological blind spots. its healthy to not want random strangers to know deeply personal things about yourself. to invert that simple protection mechanism isn't about a surfeit of confidence, it is about a surfeit of lack of self-awareness

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:its psychologically aggressive by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      It also provides a forum to pontificate without any reasonable expectation of retort. Preachers can't abide a skeptic.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    2. Re:its psychologically aggressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aggressive You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

      Lack of reserve is not automatically aggressiveness. I mean, look at yourself, you seem to have no problem expressing your beliefs here. Are you an aggressive person?

      Politics, religion and homosexuality for example are not personal subjects, as long as there is a public debate about these topics.
    3. Re:its psychologically aggressive by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That was the way I read the article too. People with lots of bumper stickers are not more often the VICTIMS of road rage, they are more often the PERPETRATORS of road rage. The hypothesis is that road rage and wearing your prejudi... er, beliefs, all over your vehicle are both related to your ability to recognize the road as a public space, as opposed to your own territory.

  50. Same is true of internet rage by samael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you're simultaneously in a private space (your home) and a public one (possibly the most public space ever).

    1. Re:Same is true of internet rage by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

      That's actually quite interesting. I'd mod insightful if I had teh mod point0rs.

  51. Me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have any stickers on my car - except the medical aid emergency number sticker. However, I DO feel road rage on a daily basis.

    Maybe I should install a bazooka on the roof and get rid of the rage in a constructive way....

  52. What you say?! by handmedowns · · Score: 1

    You mean to tell me that:

    Vanity = Selfishness = Low Tolerance = Aggression?

    Never!

    --
    The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
  53. It's all the rage... by GlobalMind · · Score: 1

    The problem really is that we seem to have to find a way to classify something as "rage" and you also no longer have the right to be annoyed at anyone for any reason.

    Seriously, when the moron woman in the Escalade on her cell phone blows through the 4-way stop as I am in the middle of the intersection after making an appropriate stop DOES piss me off!

    The definition of what is "road rage" is pretty much anything other than driving the speed limit, not overtaking, and generally being a wart on the road. Speeding, overtaking or what they'd call excessive or aggressive...all equals road rage, so you're pretty well screwed.

    And remember it doesn't matter what the other dude did if the cop only sees you.

    1. Re:It's all the rage... by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
      Well there is nothing wrong with getting pissed off.. Where it crosses the line is how long you remain pissed off, and if you do something to retaliate. Granted it is not cool when someone does a bone head driving move that might have even gotten you killed.. but using your vehicle as a weapon, or threatening gestures, or getting out of the car to talk to them is not going to undo the wrong done to you, and it's certainly not going to teach a bad driver anything.. all it does it create more danger and ill will.

      Most people know when they screwed up trying to pass or drifting in your lane or cutting you off.. and even the best of drivers will eventually make one of these bonehead moves.. it's the people who can't let another's mistake go unpunished that are the true road ragers.. and sad thing is they are as dangerous or sometimes more dangerous in their behavior as the driver they are raging against.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  54. Age of the vehicle by phorm · · Score: 1

    In most places I've been, the number of bumper stickers is also often proportional to the age/price of the vehicle. You don't see many bumper stickers on a new porsche, and most new+expensive vehicle drivers usually aren't the types to jump out and risk their health in a road-rage incident (though to be fair they're more than likely to drive like assholes and cut people off while flipping the bird, inspiring RR in others).

  55. Correlation is not Causation...? by Synonymous+Bosch · · Score: 1

    drifting a little off topic, but on the stories tags.. When did this lame meme become a slashdot mantra? It's more casually thrown about than whatcouldpossiblygowrong.

    Anything anyone disagrees with and suddenly it's correlationisnotcausation time

  56. April fools by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

    This would have made a great April fools day article

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  57. Best Indicator of Bad Driver by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Forget Road Rage indicators...there are plenty of bad driver indicators. My family has a "three strikes" rule (yes, we're a bunch of judgmental pricks). First, giant SUVs make you a choice suspect. Secondly, ANY multiple use of jingoistic slogans/logos/etc. get you closer to the trifecta. Single, subtle "support our troops" type stickers are fine, but plastering four or 5 of the stupid things on your giant SUV just make you suspect. The final touch is multiple stickers avowing any religious belief. More than one jesus fish is too many, for example. So if you have all of these, you ARE a bad driver, and give ME road rage. (Bonus touch...a special handicapped sticker on your GIANT SUV. If you are so damned handicapped that you need close up parking, then why in the hell are you driving a giant vehicle?)

    1. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by EQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FBonus touch...a special handicapped sticker on your GIANT SUV. If you are so damned handicapped that you need close up parking, then why in the hell are you driving a giant vehicle? Maybe because that "GIANT SUV" has the capability to hold a wheelchair, a walker and other devices more easily, and (more likely) it is a hell of a lot easier to get in and out of for someone whose legs and back no longer work so well, than your standard econobox.

      Try engaging your brain instead of your pinheaded hatred and bias.
      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    2. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      I've yet to see an escalade or a hummer with a wheelchair lift, but I've seen plenty with handicapped stickers. Usually the person that gets out seems ably bodied, which makes me suspect that the sticker is purchased. The wheelchair folks, of whom I know a few personally, prefer two wheel drive cars or vans, because they are lower to the ground.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    3. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      It's more likely older people. I know several who find it much easier to get in and out of a van or SUV than a car. Not that they need one of the giant ones for that :P

    4. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by Temkin · · Score: 1


      Ok... So... Someone is supposed to take a $10k trade in hit on their paid-for 18 mpg SUV (which they purchased back when gas was $2/gal) so they can have a 30 mpg car with half the capacity, have a car payment again (which if they're disabled they probably can't afford), and maybe save $1k in fuel costs per year... just to make you happy.

      My father-in-law had a permanent handicap plate. He looked slim and healthy, but couldn't walk 50 feet without getting out of breath. A dozen heart attacks will do that to you. He kept driving the car he had when he got medically retired. When people like you gave him trouble for using the handicap parking, he'd lift his shirt and show off his chest scar.

    5. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'm not biased, nor do I harbor hatred for handicapped people. I do hate people with handicapped stickers that DON'T NEED THEM as evident by their ability to easily handle unwieldy, large, unsafe, Sport Utility Vehicles. Especially when they have big, blue hair, lots of bling, and speak with bodacious Texas accents when telling us all about their old-money rich rancher husbands.

    6. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The driver need not be the handicapped person. If there is someone in their immediate household who is handicapped, the vehicle is eligible for a handicapped sticker.

      THat said, in my observation the current most common reason for people having handicapped stickers appears to be complications of obesity, including bad knees. I leave whether that should be an eligible reason as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by Buran · · Score: 1

      Generally, vehicles used for wheelchair hauling (and/or being driven by wheelchair users directly) are vans, not SUVs. SUVs aren't cut out for that kind of thing, while a van can be fitted with a ramp and the driver's seat removed so that the wheelchair can be loaded and locked into the driver's position without assistance.

      Can't do that in an SUV.

      I work across the street from a major local hospital, so I see a lot of wheelchair-fitted vehicles. Haven't seen a single one that's an SUV. Mostly vans and minivans. (Once I even saw a VW Vanagon in that role. I gave the guy a thumbs-up as I'm a VW owner/fan).

    8. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      90% certain you guys are breaking the rules, but I'll give you a chance to explain.

      -If your FIL couldn't walk 50 feet without getting out of breath, he should have been in a powered wheelchair/scooter, and appear visibly exhausted all the time.
      -If those were present, people probably wouldn't be giving him trouble.
      -So if they were giving him trouble, those things probably weren't present.
      -Which implies that he shouldn't have been walking into stores in the first place -- a handicap spot will save you 100 feet on a 300 ft trip inside -- more than FIL can supposedly handle, even WITH the savings in distance.
      -Which implies FIL just stays in the car.
      -Which means you shouldn't be using the handicap spot, which is ONLY for when the handicapped person with that tag is going from the vehicle, into the business. You should NOT be parking there just because FIL is with you, and no, the "gosh, but we gotta haul stuff to the car" excuse won't work, because so does everyone else, and you better not be camping the entrance either.

      Again, I don't want to unjustifiably throw accusations at you, but you have to understand the inconsistency in your story I see, and I'd appreciate if you'd clarify.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    9. Re:Best Indicator of Bad Driver by Temkin · · Score: 1

      90% certain you guys are breaking the rules, but I'll give you a chance to explain.

      (snip)

      Again, I don't want to unjustifiably throw accusations at you, but you have to understand the inconsistency in your story I see, and I'd appreciate if you'd clarify. Wow... There's a lot of assumptions in there. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think he ever took advantage beyond what he was entitled to. He's been dead for 13 years, so it's kind of moot. He didn't even make it to 50.

      There's a lot of deaths and permanent disfigurements tied up in the OSHA reg. book. Take care of your health. If you don't have it, you have nothing. I just wanted to point out that you can appear healthy, and still be quite sick, and point out to the GP that the crcumstances that lead to the disabled placard/plate also usually constrain the driver's finances such that a vehicle switch may not be prudent or even possible. His judging on outward appearances is a form of prejudice.

  58. I guess women should drive trucks, then by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    "The size of ones genitals is inversely proportional to the size of ones vehicle"


    You, sir, are an inspiration to us men everywhere. I guess we now just need to buy our wives 18-wheeler trucks, to enjoy some incredible sex.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  59. Re: Georgia HB89 by icebrain · · Score: 1

    Back when I lived in Atlanta, they just legalized possession of a firearm in a glove compartment without a special permit/license. Actually, even before the bill, if you were eligible* for a Firearms License (essentially Georgia's equivlalent of a carry permit), you could have a loaded handgun in your car if it was "in an open manner and fully exposed to view or in the glove compartment, console, or similar compartment of the vehicle". Someone who had a GFL was not subject to that restriction. The new law (which goes into effect July 1) allows any of said eligible people to carry the gun anywhere in the car.

    A lot of people made a big deal out of how much of a threat it would be to police officers and such, but in reality, anyone who was a threat and who would be willing to shoot an officer during a traffic stop would not be obeying the law to begin with.

    *To be eligible for a GFL, you must:
    -be able to own a firearm (ie, not a felon, no domestic violence convictions, no dishonorable military discharge or involuntary mental hospitalization)
    -have no drug convictions
    -not be conviced of any crime with a sentence > 1 year
    -at least 5 years past the end of any sentence for a "forcible misdemeanor"
    -at least 21 years old
    -a legal permanent resident of Georgia

    there are some other small conditions as well.
    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  60. Road Rage Linked To Automobile Bumper Stickers by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Especially this bumper sticker.

    I'm thinkin' that territoriality theory might explain a lot after all.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  61. I need to get me some bumper stickers. by wattrlz · · Score: 1

    So covering one's bumper with stickers is the way to get people to think twice before cutting one off?

  62. Causality vs Correlation by Cur8or · · Score: 0

    I dont think the stickers make them Rage, I think the rage and stickers are a symptom of a larger problem. Honk if you're agro.

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
    1. Re:Causality vs Correlation by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      And nowhere was it implied that the stickers "caused" the person driving the car with said stickers to rage uncontrollably. As another commenter noted: "Thanks for confirming that a sticker on your bumper does not reach psychic tentacles around the car, through your window, and into your amygdala to trigger bouts of psychosis. Because of your insight, we now understand that the study says something about the personality of people who affix the stickers, and not the insidious, mind-altering affects of the stickers themselves."

  63. Best Bumper Sticker I ever saw... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A WOMAN BY BIRTH-- A LESBIAN BY GRACE. (And if y'all see Grace, tell her I said hi.)"

  64. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a reason that I don't put bumper stickers on my car; most of the witty sayings can be very difficult to read, thus encouraging others to drive closer to my vehicle so they can see what it says. The closer they hug my bumper, the more I want to just slam on my brakes.

    My contention is that it's not so much that the drivers feel territorial because they have bumper stickers (which most of us forget about after a couple weeks of them being on the car). Rather, the curiosity of other drivers to *see* what they say induces them to drive closer, thus aggravating the driver who forgot he put the stickers on in the first place.

    Of course, all that being said, most people still drive like idiots.

  65. Just like the internet? by street+struttin' · · Score: 1

    'We think they are forgetting that the public road is not theirs, and are exhibiting territorial behavior that normally would only be acceptable in personal space,' the researcher says. Sounds like the same problem the Internet has.

    Hold on while I zip up. Jerks.
  66. Sorry, but that IS road rage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justifiable, but that's not the point.

    Once that clown gets in front of you and slams on the brakes, the whole thing could become YOUR FAULT if you rear-end him. How he got there becomes irrelevant once he establishes position back in the lane.

    Nothing short of an at-fault accident is likely to change the idiot's mind. Confronting him was both dangerous and ineffective, as you have discovered. The statistical reality is that a disproportionate percentage of maniac drivers also have criminal records. What if the moron had a gun in the car? The guy could be a fugitive for all you know.

    If you really want to take action, get the license plate and call the cops on your cell phone (hands free, I hope). This makes more sense when the driver is exhibiting signs of drunk driving, because the cops will take special interest in making an interception if you can identify the car , the direction, and the road.

    I am picky about the brakes in my car. My BMW can stop on a dime. And I'm always on the lookout for morons.

    Many years ago, I had a VW 5-speed. I could downshift to 2nd gear while braking and it was like catching the arrester hook on an aircraft carrier. Used it (defensively) on several occasions.

  67. Yup! by rodney+dill · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was tempted to brake hard. My car has fouur very large disks and stops in half the distance of any other car I've owned.
    Someone just did that here in Michigan a couple of months ago. The moron in the car intentionally braking hard caused an accident with a pickup and a school bus, killing three of the four teenagers in the pickup. The pickup was being driven irresponsibly as well. I believe the car driver has been charged with man-slaughter.
    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
    1. Re:Yup! by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      The moron in the car intentionally braking hard caused an accident with a pickup and a school bus, killing three of the four teenagers in the pickup. The pickup was being driven irresponsibly as well. I believe the car driver has been charged with man-slaughter.

      I don't think so, the "moron" didn't cause the accident by just hitting his brakes under any driving laws in the US (or a bunch of other countries that I know of). If (s)he was intoxicated, or speeding etc. they may decide to charge then. And it's possible if (s)he got out of the car shouting "ha take that you tailgating scum" they might be able to charge for something but "I think I saw something and braked" is a completely valid reason to brake.

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    2. Re:Yup! by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called reckless driving, and it's against the law. Basically, if you ever think, "you know if I do this it'll cause an accident and it won't be my fault," you're wrong.

      Will they be able to prove it? Maybe not, but that doesn't make it legal.

    3. Re:Yup! by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      1. I did not say the person saw something and applied the brakes, causing the accident.
      2. Seeing something and applying the brakes is a valid reason to brake.
      3. Saying you saw something and braking only to teach the person behind you a lesson, is road rage, and is not a valid reason to brake.
      4. By witness accounts the car intentionally applied the brakes to disrupt weaving in and out of traffic that the pickup was doing (I did say the pickup was driving irresponsibly).
      5. Alcohol as not a factor.
      6. The driver of the car has been charged (I believe a man in this case)

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    4. Re:Yup! by jcgf · · Score: 1

      killing three of the four teenagers in the pickup. The pickup was being driven irresponsibly as well.

      If the one that survived was the driver of the pickup, he should be charged with manslaughter.

    5. Re:Yup! by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      The driver did survive and I believe is being charged as well.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    6. Re:Yup! by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Oh come on! If he hadn't been tailgating then the bullet I fired would not have hit him.
      You are saying that that is a valid defense?

      Deliberately slamming your brakes to cause someone to hit you is no different. Other than you are using the most dangerous weapon in the world as opposed to a gun.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    7. Re:Yup! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Deliberately slamming your brakes to cause someone to hit you is no different.

      Hmmmm. Following someone recklessly close despite multiple opportunities to pass. Slowing down does nothing... no shoulder or exits to pull over...

      If you the goal is to 'get hit' that may be illegal. If the goal is to shake an asshole then it is less clear (and, yes, it does 'shake' them, their vehicle, and if they weren't pissed off before, they are after that!). Some clowns at work think it is funny to walk up behind some coworker (out of sight) and stand an inch directly behind them. The same behavior by a stranger doing such repeatedly (and, now, with your knowledge) is suspect.

      Having grown - a little - if someone tails too close when I am already exceeding the limit (3+ mph is SOP) AND this is pissing me off, then I just take my foot off the gas. They gently come MUCH closer. Then I QUICKLY accelerate back to my normal speed (3+ mph). They come up close again, I take it off the gas again. Some people actually learn after 2 or 3 cycles that they won't be going any faster and stay off at that point. Others that don't learn just have to follow behind at 10 under the limit (as their brains do not have the passing capacity). Yes, I do look for innocent 'victims' behind the asshole (and cops) and just do the limit (and hope they get a ticket for following too close).

    8. Re:Yup! by Pendersempai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's called reckless driving, and it's against the law. Worse, if you do something with the intent of causing an accident, it could be criminal assault with a deadly weapon. If someone dies, it could be vehicular homicide, negligent homicide, or voluntary manslaughter, depending on the state and what the prosecutors can prove.

      The circumstances are few where you can intentionally do something that you know could cause serious injury or death to someone else without being guilty of a serious crime. Even when you plead something like self defense, you're no longer innocent until proven guilty -- you have the burden to prove (by a preponderance of the evidence, typically) that you actually and reasonably believed you were in danger and that your response was proportionate to the threat.

      Anyone who sets out to cause injury on the basis of some sort of smartass legal theory is seriously taking his life into his hands.

      (Obviously, I'm not your lawyer and this is not legal advice so much as a general observation about states' criminal law.)
    9. Re:Yup! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you brake in order to "scare" the person behind you and cause a crash, you committed assault. If you brake in order to cause the other guy to hit you to teach him a lesson, you committed assault and battery. If you then lie about it and say "I saw something and braked" then you are also committing perjury.

      The real problem with the roads is the people that will violate many laws in order to cause actual harm because they feel threatened by someone that did no actual harm to them. And then they think they are right to violate all those laws because someone else violated some other law first. It's called hypocricy. And anyone that brakes for the sole purpose of decreasing the safety of the person behind them should have their license pulled. And no, no argument about "so should the tailgater" has anything to do about the person in front being a complete and total ass and violating multiple laws (and causing deaths, in the case presented above) and needing to be permanently removed from the road.

    10. Re:Yup! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      He should have been charged, but the tailgater should have been charged as well (I'm guessing the guy who braked hard had been drinking).

      Was the pickup or the school bus tailgating? Or both? Seems to me everyone involved should have been charged.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    11. Re:Yup! by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      apparently the car was braking and trying to impede the pickup that was going too fast. The pickup swerved, clipping the car anyway, and ran into an oncoming school bus (with no students on board.) Alcohol was found not to be a factor.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    12. Re:Yup! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No, if you slam on your brakes for no reason, you can certainly be found to have acted recklessly. That someone is tailgatting you doesn't matter.

      "I think i saw something" doesn't usually fly either. If it's a small animal, you're expected to hit it to avoid causing an accident. Anything bigger and they might try looking for animal tracks.

      At the very least, are you going to feel good about yourself knowing that an action you took helped kill someone, possibly a third party that wasn't involved in your ego trip? Seriously, there's nothing you can do if someone is tailgatting you but pulling off the road to let them pass. If there goign to hit you, they're going to hit you. You feel they are acting unsafe and taking a big risk... and your solution is to increase the risk?

    13. Re:Yup! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in PA you can always say you braked for a deer. If it's just your word vs the other guy's word, they can't do shit.

    14. Re:Yup! by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      At the very least, are you going to feel good about yourself knowing that an action you took helped kill someone, possibly a third party that wasn't involved in your ego trip?

      So a bunch of you seem to have the idea that I was advocating slamming on brakes, so let me clear this up ... no, don't do that ... you can hurt people, esp. yourself (whiplash etc. is more likely to hurt the front car than anyone behind, AIUI).

      No, if you slam on your brakes for no reason, you can certainly be found to have acted recklessly. That someone is tailgatting you doesn't matter.

      "I think i saw something" doesn't usually fly either.

      Again, maybe if you admit to intent ... or intent can somehow be proven. But I've seen accidents where two cars were going around a "roundabout" and the one in front slammed on the brakes for no reason, the driver got out of the car and said (roughly) "I'm sorry I did that, I thought I saw something, this is completely my fault." ... and the end result was insurance of the driver traveling behind paid for all damages.

      This is because, generally, you don't have to prove why you needed to stop ... the people behind you are still not allowed to drive into you. And, personally, I have roughly 0% sympathy for tailgaters they are a danger to themselves and to the people unlucky enough to be in front of them.

      Seriously, there's nothing you can do if someone is tailgatting you but pulling off the road to let them pass.

      Apart from anything else, doing that is positive re-enforcement. Your best option is to slow down because if you then need to stop they'll have more time to react and they'll be traveling slower when they hit you (ergo. cause you less harm).

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    15. Re:Yup! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "If you brake in order to "scare" the person behind you and cause a crash, you committed assault."

      So what do you call it when the person behind you is trying to scare you by tailgating 3 feet from your rear bumper??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    16. Re:Yup! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I call it "tailgating." They didn't intend to strike you. They didn't take an action that put them on a collision course with someone else. Braking to put yourself on a direct collision course with someone else is like running in front of someone walking and sticking out your foot. "I didn't move, he kicked my foot, it's his fault he fell after." Whether you think someone else is wrong doesn't mean it isn't assault to brake with the intention of scaring the person behind you. One person's bad actions will never justify your bad actions, so stop trying.

    17. Re:Yup! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      So a bunch of you seem to have the idea that I was advocating slamming on brakes, so let me clear this up ... no, don't do that ... you can hurt people, esp. yourself (whiplash etc. is more likely to hurt the front car than anyone behind, AIUI).

      Certainly sounds like you're advocating it.

      Again, maybe if you admit to intent ... or intent can somehow be proven. But I've seen accidents where two cars were going around a "roundabout" and the one in front slammed on the brakes for no reason, the driver got out of the car and said (roughly) "I'm sorry I did that, I thought I saw something, this is completely my fault." ... and the end result was insurance of the driver traveling behind paid for all damages.

      What the driver says at the scene and what they say to their insurance company are usually two different things. It's also this line of thinking that has given rise to insurance fraud... where someone cuts you off and slams on the brakes. So I doubt this is true anymore, and just because insurance companies may have flawed reasoning doesn't mean you can't get criminal charges. It's also illegal to stop in a roadway for no reason, at the very least.

      This is because, generally, you don't have to prove why you needed to stop ... the people behind you are still not allowed to drive into you. And, personally, I have roughly 0% sympathy for tailgaters they are a danger to themselves and to the people unlucky enough to be in front of them.

      If someone wants you to rear-end them, there is very little you can do. Hence more insurance fraud due to this way of thinking.

      Apart from anything else, doing that is positive re-enforcement. Your best option is to slow down because if you then need to stop they'll have more time to react and they'll be traveling slower when they hit you (ergo. cause you less harm).

      I'm going to throw out that if you're being tailgatted, you're probably going too slow to begin with. There are also laws to impeding the "normal flow of traffic." Slowing down may serve to just make the situation worse. I really don't see your line of thinking; letting someone who is tailgatting you is best for everyone; you're no longer stressed someone might hit you, and the tailgatter can go on his way.

      The problem is you can't really define tailgatting. Certainly one inch is too close.. but some feel half a car lenght is fine, other's don't. I've had people get pissy at me for "tailgatting" even though I was a car lenght and a half away doing 50. So while you think someone may be tailgatting you, they may be fine because 1) they are paying attention 2) they may have good reflexes 3) their car may have more stopping power than yours 4) they have more experience than you.

      So there's a lot of factors here that your oversimplification don't take into account. Again, I sense another "holier than thou" driver posting..

  68. So how can we find out ... by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

    ... what causes all the rage on /.?

    --
    Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  69. Especially the "Faggot on Board" stickers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  70. you got me, poorly said on my part ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  71. Stealth road rage by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    TFA doesn't examine another type of aggressive driver, the guy who worships his car. He won't put any bumper stickers on it because that would damage the finish, and he washes it weekly. He is far more territorial about his car than the guy with bumper stickers, but there is nothing about the car to warn you that he has this personality type.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Stealth road rage by rampant+poodle · · Score: 1

      Oh shit! That could be me!

  72. Bullshit by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    Extremists on both sides are equally culpable at being violent retards, or are you not aware of the homosexuals who are murdered every year in the name of Jesus.

    Personally one reason I don't post my opinions on my car is so I don't have to deal with Trucker McGee harassing me.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  73. My experience by GogglesPisano · · Score: 1

    I have one bumper sticker (actually, a bumper magnet) on my car: "Worst President Ever".

    Last week, I walked out of the supermarket (accompanied by my six-year-old son), I found this note on my windshield.

    I suppose this must be an example of tolerant conservative thinking?

  74. Best Bumper Sticker Ever by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    "Hell Yes I'm Drunk. I'm No Stuntdriver"

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Best Bumper Sticker Ever by Da_Fridge · · Score: 1

      Best Bumper still I have ever seen is "There is no place like 127.0.0.1" Just about made me cry

      --
      If I wanted water, I'd ask for DiHydrogen Oxide!
  75. Raving Lunatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My father always told me to drive as if everyone else on the road is a raving lunatic. That way you're prepared for almost anything drivers may do and are pleasantly surprised when you meet drivers who aren't lunatics.

    What's interesting, is that I can think of several instances where this kind of defensive driving has allowed me to avoid or prevent accidents from happening.

  76. You have misunderstood the victory conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you're losing the Natural Selection game.

    It's not really losing. If your genetic combination is selected against, for whatever reason, then failing to reproduce is the correct way to play. Reproducing anyway just further dilutes the gene pool, weakens your species, and ultimately inhibits useful evolution.

  77. are you the dictionary police? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    because i'm already on double mandatory probation from the grammar nazis. the spelling masters want me under house arrest and the punctuation protectors and the capitalization czars are intent on having me executed

    so stand in line, i'm not interested. my usage of the word is perfectly reasonable. feel free to petition the UN, or perhaps, swallow a shotgun

    xoxoxoxox

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  78. Re:Fighting road rage effectively by Technician · · Score: 1

    Tami always bitches about my "road rage" even though it has no effect except to let me let off steam. Is this road rage, or do you have to do something like zoom around someone and cut them off, flip them the bird, or otherwise let them know that they have annoyed you for it to be road rage?

    The question becomes how to fight and win without raising the danger level and letting the obnoxious one know he is out of place.

    I have two effective methods.

    For severe tailgaters, I turn on the 4 way and slow down. It's a dangerous situation and reducing speed to compensate for the hazard on the road is proper. A slow speed crash is better than a high speed crash. Witnesses notice the flashers and pay attention to the danger, often resulting in a change in driving for the better.

    Sometimes the tailgater doesn't get it and tries to press the issue by driving in a threatining manner. The response is deploying the video camera and leave it on to record any dammage caused by the dangerous driving. Get the face, plate and license plate. Getting these shots is easy as they are often way too close to be safe. Keep it as evidence if things get worse. They seldom do. If they do, post it on youtube like this;

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4696538634559226736&q=redneck+road+rage+revenge&ei=JNRXSJyhD5Hk4ALRg_ysDw&hl=en

    Disclaimer, it's not how I got my video camera. It's also not my video.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  79. This is Tami by themadplasterer · · Score: 1

    This is Tami. She goes wherever he goes.

  80. My kid... variations by swb · · Score: 1

    There are some great variations on the "My Kid is a..."

    "My kid sells drugs to your honor student."

    "My kid knocked up your honor student."

    I've seen the former on a car, the latter only in a catalog...

  81. symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither of these is a cause of the other. Rather, they are both caused by a more general problem: being a fucking idiot.

  82. Bumper stickers beat the alternative by J.R.+Random · · Score: 1

    At least people don't mark their territory by peeing on their cars.

    1. Re:Bumper stickers beat the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself! BTW I've also claimed your car...

  83. Re:if u c4n r34d th15 by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    I have mod points and could have modded parent up. However, I feel it more productive to point out that parent is right on topic, being a bumper-sticker style quote and all. I'll let the rest of the fine mods take care of the rest.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  84. I'm willing to bet... by JKFLBOB · · Score: 1

    Most flame wars over the net are probably linked to those with stickers all over their computers, monitors, keyboards, etc.

    1. Re:I'm willing to bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those with stickers all over their computers, monitors, keyboards, etc Do people really do that?
  85. This is news how? by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

    This just in: Road rage linked to white trash tweekers. Film at 11.

    --Toll_Free

  86. Abortions? by antdude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Abortion is wrong. Just let it go nature way. If the fetus/baby dies, oh well. If it is in dangerous of the mother, then remove it and try to make it live.

    See, I was born with many programs (Nager's Syndrome) and I am over 30. Sure, I have many problems but I am alive today! Who knows how long I will live.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  87. George Carlin's Laws by jamrock · · Score: 1

    1) Anybody going slower than you is an idiot; 2) Anybody going faster than you is a maniac; 3) Never, ever drive behind an old man wearing a plaid hat.

  88. In Japan by Pheidias · · Score: 1

    Any movement or decision in traffic that could be construed as dangerous, rude or presumptuous must be followed by the driver blinking the hazard lights for a few flashes. Otherwise the affected drivers nearby will honk angrily at the "refusal to apologize" implied by not blinking the hazards.

    --
    811.29.3.2
    1. Re:In Japan by mrv20 · · Score: 1

      I have often encountered the use of hazard lights as a thank you in England as well, and it is a nice alternative to waving as it's easier to see at night and safer to do while turning/manoeuvring.

      I've not seen it used in the US so far, but I guess the lack of colour differentiation between blinker/hazard lights and brake lights on the back of many American cars makes it more ambiguous.

      --
      "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
  89. Re:Fighting road rage effectively by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it just be simpler to move into the right lane and let the speeder go past?

    Sure you might have to slow down a bit to match the traffic in the slow lane but at least the "dangerous" driver gets further from you. But after he goes by you can move back into the fast lane and continue. If there are many cars trying to get past you then perhaps you were the problem not the other way around.

    Be courteous, get over, lower your stress and the speeder's, both of you will live longer, now you have done a good deed.

    --
    Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
  90. Re: Georgia HB89 by kitgerrits · · Score: 1


    What you say is true, but what I refer to is the law that passed between '96 and '99.
    From what I recall, you did not need a GFL to carry a firearm in your glove box.
    Legal issues about shooting policemen aside, I'm simply not very comfortable with people carrying weapons in their glove box.

    Then again, I'm not an American, but one of those peace-loving loonies from Amsterdam ;-)

    --
    "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
  91. Bush 2008! by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    So I should get rid of that Bush 2008 sticker?

    I know W can't run again, but his dad still has one term left, and there's always Jeb who could potentially be president for eight years. So we could get at least another twelve years of Bushes, and then hopefully find a few more Bush family presidents after that.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  92. You're lucky. by raehl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is not going to work out well for you when some other driver calls in that you are driving around pointing guns at people. Then you look like a grey-haired lunatic, and the courts don't look kindly on them.

    1. Re:You're lucky. by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Yup, it's certainly not a strategy to be used casually. Which is why I don't.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  93. Re:Fighting road rage effectively by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    That's a bad Youtube example as the "preppie" character admitted it was all a setup and a bit of an amateur film project.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  94. Money for Nothin... by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Colorado State University psychologist William Szlemko has certainly figured out how to incite "tax payer rage" with yet another study based on OBVIOUS anthropological common sense that could also explain racism,check out line fights and job discrimination along with a host of other titles that could be cut and pasted over the words "road rage" in his study.
              Tell ya what Bill,you keep your studying to yourself and we can put our tax dollars to something more important than making sure your tenured butt is in a nice Beemer.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  95. City rage by AlpineR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was going to mod you up but felt it was better to chime in.

    I never experience road rage until I moved to a big city (Washington, DC). Since then I have had at least two incidents where someone got pissed at me then followed, honked, and yelled at me for miles.

    One was when I stopped in a yield lane making a right turn from one busy road to another. Traffic wasn't clear for me to merge, so I slowed and stopped until I could get in safely. The asshole in a huge, shiny SUV behind me didn't like me wasting his time. After I merged, he pulled up along side and yelled. I just looked over, decided he was an idiot, then looked back at the road and continued driving. He kept following me, tailgating and changing lanes to stay behind me, until I pulled into the entrance gate at work. Thank god for armed guards. The asshole fled.

    The other time I don't know what I supposedly did wrong. My best guess is that he thought I ran a red light against him. But he had a flashing red and my road was only a flashing yellow. Anyway, he pulled up next to me, honking and yelling for a mile. I just acted casual and slowed down, refusing to pull alongside. Eventually I made a left turn when he was boxed in and couldn't follow me.

    I can definitely see the desire to carry a gun. Just two problems: it's illegal in DC, and I might use it. It doesn't matter how safe and courteous you are. If you spend much time in a crowded city you'll encounter some some hyperactive self-important assholes on the road.

    1. Re:City rage by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I don't carry a gun to make me feel better. I carry it because I think a circumstance might arise where it will keep me safe. And it has done so. I have the self control to avoid using it casually, which is a key thing.

      Washington is more rational than DC as far as the laws are concerned, though I understand that that may soon change in DC.

      It's kind of an interesting side note to the anti gunners. I'm living proof that having a gun in your possession in a confrontation doesn't automatically lead to violence. I prefer to leave the situation.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    2. Re:City rage by brucemcdon · · Score: 1

      I can definitely see the desire to carry a gun. I got a ticket once in LA, for using a .45 in a .38 zone.
  96. This man is a genius by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Here's some more random correlative evidence: I love me some bumper stickers, and I'm a self-declared asshole, particularly to other assholes.

    Road rage is contagious... it takes one irresponsible prick to start it, then all the other testosterone hounds jump in. It's not in most people's nature to be aggressive on the road, but in response to a fast-moving threat I find it perfectly justified to fight back.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  97. Actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. Actually, as someone who had a lot of interest in physics, I don't see it as at odds with physics either. The history of physics and even chemistry is littered with observed phenomena or correlations, for which we had no good explanation after a while, or conversely for which we couldn't yet do a controlled experiment.

    As an example of the former, black body radiation had been a problem since 1859. It's been almost half a century of failed attempts at explaining it, until Planck in despair gave up on the last hope of explaining it via the accepted physics (according to his own confession) and came up with the quantum theory. At first even he didn't think of it as more than a mathematical construct. As an example of the latter, well, it would be even more time afterwards until we could actually observe a single photon.

    As an even better example of the latter, anything which involves astronomical distances or masses is still well beyond our possibilities to do a controlled experiment. We can't create a type I supernova in any lab, for example. We must rely on whatever happens to happen when we look up there, and some stuff took an awfully long time. Some still hasn't conclusively happened, so it's all based, you guessed, on correlations.

    It happens in chemistry or medicine too. For example there was this observed correlation that low doses of quinine treat malaria, while high doses cause the same symptoms as malaria. (/That observation alone was what got homeopathy started. Later we learned what really happened there, but nevertheless it wouldn't have happened without that original observation that if you take quinine you get rid of malaria. We also got stuck with a bunch of pseudo-science quacks in the process, but I guess that's life.

    So basically the idiots who tagged this "correlationisnotcausation", well, are just idiots and hadn't read even the whole summary before jumping in to polish their logo. It already spelled out that it's not the stickers that directly cause accidents. They don't really represent one side of science against another side.

    2. That said, if I'm allowed to nitpick, I do think that the whole idea of science is to try to study causation and make falsifiable predictions. It's not just engineering college, it's the very idea of it all. And it applies equally to psychology, sociology, economics, whatever else. We don't just list some funny observed correlations for the sake of going "wow, that's amazing" and move on. We want to know why it happens, and how it can be predicted or influenced. That's the whole point of doing it.

    Yes, we don't always immediately know what causes it. Sometimes we just have an observation and correlation, and smart people scratch their head, come up with hypotheses and test them. That's ok. Happens in physics too, as I was saying. But, nevertheless, the ultimate goal is to understand exactly what happens there, and why.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  98. yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a cyclist (don't own a car) and I am cycling to work every day. I always try to conform to the rules. Let me tell you, that there are quite a lot of stupid car drivers around. Of course they cannot tolerate having to stay behind me on a narrow road, even though at the next red light, we will almost certainly meet again. Instead they try to overtake and often enough endanger my very life with that maneuver. That's the part I hate about cycling: If I have an accident with a car, I will most likely be injured severely while the idiot who caused it will only get a few scratches in the paint.

  99. Attack is the best defense! by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

    I practice defensive driving too, and since attack is the best defense, I'm following the precepts of Sun-Tzu:

    -I always keep the other drivers guessing what my next crazy move is going to be.
    -I harass the other drivers and pretend I'm about to hit them to scare them out of my way.
    -I always drive as fast as humanly possibly and try to sneak my way to the front of traffic.

    It is thanks to people like me that defensive drivers can practice their skill to the limit.

    You're all welcome!

    VROOM VROOM!

  100. So in a nutshell... by damburger · · Score: 1

    Its Mad Max with pithy political slogans. What the hell is it about the United States that makes it citizens want to run each other off the road for having opposing political views?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  101. Territorialism and Vehicles isn't completely new by Phaid · · Score: 1

    This reminded me of an article I read in the early 90s about territorialism and parking spots. Fortunately, I found a version of it on Google. Basically, people will pull out of parking spots more slowly when they know someone is waiting to take the spot after they leave. Ever since I first read that article, I've thought about territorialism when observing bad driving habits -- and working in the electronic tolling industry, I see a lot of it. Fun to see it's being confirmed in new and interesting ways.

  102. law = optional by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    I just wanted to take this opportunity to apologize for being "that guy" going the speed limit + ~2.5mph (road conditions permitting, of course).

    What's amazing is that though much of the time I am the slowest car on the road, I would say just as often I am the fastest, whipping by other cars.

    My conclusion is this: no one really cares about any laws. People just do whatever they want. It just so happens that most people are good. But laws don't influence anyone's behavior; no one cares what the speed limit is. People just drive at whatever speed they are comfortable driving, slowing down up hills and speeding down them.

    When's the last time you thought, "I want to murder someone, but I won't because it would be unlawful"...? Murder still happens even though it's illegal. No one cares what the law says. People go by their own moral compass.

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  103. Driving While Stupid by flajann · · Score: 1
    As someone who does a daily commute on the order of 100 km, I do note all kinds of drivers on the roadways. Some of them scare me because they engage in lane shifts in a very dangerous manner just to gain a few car length's advantage.

    I rarely see bumper stickers on the cars of these crazy drivers, though.

    On the other hand, I've got tons of bumper stickers on my car, and yet I consider myself a very safe driver, as is evidence by the fact I have not had a serious accident in 30 years. I always try to maintain a buffer zone -- which has nothing to do with territory, but giving myself sufficient reaction time.

    Where I do get pissed is when someone takes advantage of my buffer zone needlessly. The temptation is to tailgate to prevent that, but then that would increase my chances of an accident. And so frustration ensues.

    But I do consider that I am an adult and will not fall prey of the puerile antics I observe in other drivers every day.

    Having said that, I have work out driving to a fine science over the years. I usually see an accident about to happen and am able to either circumvent it or avoid it. And thus my clean accident record.

    All this from a guy who has over 10 bumper stickers on his car! A Lexus, no less!!!! :-)

  104. Is driving like an asshole territorial? by mbius · · Score: 1

    'We think they are forgetting that the public road is not theirs, and are exhibiting territorial behavior that normally would only be acceptable in personal space,'

    Is driving like an asshole territorial behavior inappropriately expressed in a public space? Or does it only count when you self-report that a guy causing a car wreck makes you feel angry?

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
  105. MY ROAD RAGE TRIGGER by soldeed · · Score: 2

    Driving around town, I'm pretty relaxed, not in a hurry. But on an interstate road trip, I always encounter this BOZO. I set my cruise control for 65-70 mph crank up the stereo and soon enough I catch up to someone going about 5 mph slower and I pass them. For reasons I can only assume are "F#@%ing with me" The sphincter then speeds up and passes me back then parks his ass right in front of me again and slows down forcing me to brake! This may happen several times unless I speed past him at 80+ until he is out of sight. I am sure some of you may also have encountered these jerks. Makes you wish you had a rocket launcher in your grille.

    1. Re:MY ROAD RAGE TRIGGER by leabre · · Score: 1

      Around here, we call that the "California Piss-Off". Even more annoying is when you blink and the person next to you speeds up and does whatever they can to prevent you from merging or getting in front of them. They might have been going 15 MPH slower, but you blink, now they'll pace you at any speed (faster or slower) until you give up or take it by force.

      Thanks,
      Leabre

  106. Re:Fighting road rage effectively by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    The question becomes how to fight and win without raising the danger level and letting the obnoxious one know he is out of place

    I would rather not fight at all. It just isn't worth it. He probably already knows he's out of place but doesn't care.

    Tailgaters don't bother me; people running red lights and stop signs bother me. People who think they're entitled to part of my lane bother me. People whose actions cause danger to my person and property bother me.

    Some people live to annoy other people. On the internet we call them "trolls".

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  107. Humans. We're the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest problem with driving is it is entirely up to the humans how they control their car. Drivers simply cannot be predicted. If you look through the comments on this story, you'll see probably 1,000+ people calling each other "asshole", "fuckhead" etc. simply because they have their own driving style and get enraged when someone else infringes upon it. This only seems to occur with driving, or at least it is far more visible with driving. I can't wait for automated cars to get here, that would take the 50,000 people who die on the roads every year and save them all (although, the kind of people they are, they might not be worth saving. I don't know.)

  108. So a sticker that says by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "you suck" might incite road rage? Hmm go figure.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  109. Terrible Experimental Design by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you read the actual procedure, what they did was drive up to a red light in the turning lane and then when the light turned green just sat there and timed how long it took the person behind them to honk. They then just attributed any difference in time to the driver being more aggresive and hence more prone to road rage. I find it hard to categorize honking at someone while stopped at a light as 'agressive driving', particularly when compared to someone who thinks they're entitled to deliberately block traffic for an experiment. Perhaps someone should study the 'territorialty mindset' of the scientists in the study.

  110. Don't make me come over there by tm2b · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like to see a study covering the correlation of cell phone use while driving and road rage in other drivers.

    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    1. Re:Don't make me come over there by FishAdmin · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a study covering the correlation of cell phone use while driving and road rage in other drivers. Personally, I'd like to see a study on the number of cell-phone users that were driving reckless because they weren't paying attention to the road. When someone drifts into my lane (and almost into my car) because they *HAD* to tell Tiffany "OMG, Tiffy, the new boy in class is SO CUTE!", it tends to make me a little irate, as well.
      --
      Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
  111. territorial instincts are indeed strong by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 2

    I think the majority of fights and arguments I witnessed - or took part in, heh - in school were about someone taking someone else's seat or desk. Once someone has decided a certain piece of property is "theirs" they will go to absurd lengths to defend or claim it from others.

    Even as adults I often notice our territorial instincts in action in less obvious ways such as everyone taking the same seat in the conference room for a meeting as they all took the first time or using the same stall or sink in the public bathroom. :)

  112. Programs - Problems by antdude · · Score: 1

    I meant problems. I was in a grumpy mood and hurry this morning. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  113. stupid tag by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    "correlationisnotcausation" talk about an overused and misunderstood phrase. I mean come on! No one would seriously suggest that having bumper stickers on a car seriously enrage people to the point where they must run people down. Of course it is correlation not causation. That doesn't mean its not a valid and interesting statistic.

  114. Personalised number plates - idiot tax by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In Australia if you pay a LOT more than the usual road registration you get to put just about whatever you like on the plate. I find it bizzare that people with their names clearly marked on the back of the car do stupid things that will cost them a lot in fines if they get caught, but I suppose it's part of the territorial thing. It's a good rule of thumb here to give people in european cars with personalised plates a bit of extra space so their stupidity doesn't get you as well.

  115. What's missing is context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If true, I will admit that this relationship between bumper stickers and road rage is intriguing to say the least. Although, I have to disagree with the idea that most all road-rage is caused by some primal, almost irresistible, instinct to protect one's territory over bumper stickers. What's missing from this study is context. I would like to see a study on the motives of those that perpetrate road-rage, especially from the aggressor's perspective. Why are we looking to inanimate objects like bumper stickers for answers to this? The people involved in road-rage would seem to be much more fruitful, and obvious, study subjects.

    Now, imagine you are driving in your car with your family or even just by yourself, and a fellow motorist does something that endangers your life or the life of your whole family. That alone, and more than anything (like bumper stickers), will trigger real primal instincts in a person that could result in so-called "territorial behavior" and/or road-rage. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure not all road-rage cases have such innocent origins, but I'm betting most do.

  116. what... let's all subscribe to "Nature"? by n9hmg · · Score: 2, Informative

    To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
    I am already a personal subscriber

    Personal subscribes to Nature News can view this article. To do this, you need to associate your subscription with your registration via the My Account page.

    If you already have an active online subscription, login below to access your account. Enter your e-mail address and password to login to your nature.com account


    whatever.

    1. Re:what... let's all subscribe to "Nature"? by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      incidentally: I found my way to the allegedly "free" registration. After permitting them to run their needless scripts in my browser and filling in endless details constrained to non-factual answers by their dropdowns, it finally demands your customer number, and if you don't have one, you have to subscribe. I'm truly amazed that I'm the first to complain about this. Am I the only person on /. who doesn't subscribe?

  117. Exhaust noise is the biggest.... by bgd73 · · Score: 1

    I had an episode of road rage, related to a very loud , what I learned later via the internet, called "ricer". We all know "ricer". Extremely out of balance low HP engines letting the stuff legends are made out of fly...It still aint a low rpm sube or a chevy, and I snapped. I could have hurt somebody....Bumper stickers do not phase me. In fact I want one that says "POLICE", but thats a lie....like a ricer with loud exhaust...in my FACE.

  118. Bumper Sticker Ideas for people in this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Scientific fact: You are getting angrier"
    "My science is harder than yours"
    "I dont cause accidents, this is a correlation wagon"
    "My other car is a priori"
    "My other car has a bicycle plow"

  119. wtf? by gwniobombux · · Score: 1

    Calling someone a "platitude-dealing pollyanna" is not an ad hominem when it's true. What? The truth of an assertion (which in this case is subjective and derogatory, I guess [my English is lacking]) has no relevance whatsoever for a proposition being ad hominem or not. Referring to a proposition as ad hominem simply means, that it doesn't contribute to the substance of the argument at hand, but rather that it attacks, tries to discredit, whatever, the person espousing the argument. Please look it up. Thanks.
  120. dont honk im reloading.... by andreatte · · Score: 1

    i have a couple pretty hilarous geeky bumper stickers and hot dang do i get some slack for it... i swear it makes me a moving target but oh well, crash my wheels just means i get a new car! thank god for gap insurance

  121. Don't forget John Kerry stickers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're equally guilty. In fact, both the George Bush and John Kerry people need to wake up and realize this is 2008, not 2004! I do not give a crap who the person in the car in front of me voted for. The John Kerry people need to get over their loss and the George Bush people need to live in the present.

  122. Safety first by quokkapox · · Score: 1

    then that sorry sack that was going 2 mph under the speed limit in the middle lane...

    That was me, you little jerk. I always slow down and stay out of the left lane while shaving and/or eating lunch.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  123. misty4th by misty4th · · Score: 1

    personally, I have found inner peace by giving an offensive driver a "friendly" wave which I privately consider a five finger flip off.

  124. Re:Fighting road rage effectively by Technician · · Score: 1

    Tailgaters don't bother me; people running red lights and stop signs bother me.

    Well spoken by someone who hasn't yet been rear ended by the tailgater when the bicycle pulled in front of you.

    I now slow to allow for the longer stopping distance when I have tailgaters.

    I find it easier to miss the kid on the bike when I am not pushed further by the tailgater pushing my tailights into my trunk.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  125. I call Bullsh-------- by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

    This article is a waste. I have modified my vehicle in the following way: Tinted windows, nice sound system, tons of stickers from ThinkGeek to show I am that computer nerd(even the license plate border that reads, "will work for bandwidth") a dash cover, European headlights(for those not in the know, it is illegal in Europe to have Amber colored lights on the headlamps so mine lack those), a steering wheel cover and a CD sleeve that both have the FORD logo on them. It doesn't even really look like a 2002 Ford Ranger anymore. I have no road rage and if someone wants to dick around and follow me the will be staring down the business end of a .45....as someone said earlier in the posts (concider that before you flip out on someone)

    --
    "That's right...I said it."