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.
tasteless people behave in tasteless manner. still no cure for cancer though.
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
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.
Don't drive as if you own the road ... Drive as if you own the car.
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.
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.
This is very helpful information. Now I'll know which vehicles my wife should keep the gun trained on.
Better known as 318230.
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!
Monstar L
...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.
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.
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
Ixthus fish and a Volvo badge: that combination is my number one worry when I'm out on a bike.
threadeds blog
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
That's right. The phrase 'linked to' in the title is a dead giveaway. Otherwise the submitter would have used 'caused by'.
Are you insinuating that strawberries have low IQs? Perhaps they are simply too intelligent to deal with lower life-forms such as ours?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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
(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.
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.
When you're simultaneously in a private space (your home) and a public one (possibly the most public space ever).
My Journal
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.