Contents 1 Unwarranted Attack 2 Neutral Article? 3 Claim that road rage has been rising is dubious 4 Out of Control? 5 Road Rage - action or thought? 6 List 7 Pressing pedestrian pushbutton 8 websites 9 Contradiction

[edit] Unwarranted Attack

"02:24, 28 February 2007 64.94.47.202 (Talk) (→External links - off-topic, shameless self-promotion. this link is all over the driving-related pages)"

Although I won’t address the name calling in the above, I will respond to the false and public accusations. The article the link goes to is not "off topic" because it is about speeding, a form of aggressive driving and a frequent component of road rage. This link is the only means of reading a full, free, and legally reprinted version of the article, originally published in The New York Times as "The Need for Speed." The expanded linked version of the article--titled "The Flicker Fusion Factor"--cites scientific research, has footnotes quoting a U.S. government study on speeding-related fatal crashes, and points readers to other articles they may find interesting. To dispense with the inflammatory "this link is all over the driving-related pages" comment: as a senior link analyst at a major online encyclopedia, I learned it is good practice to add the same link to articles on closely related subjects, in this case a handful. I won’t restore the link to this article, however, because good practice also dictates that inviting debate with someone bent on making a disagreement personal benefits no one. 66.159.146.251 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Article?

Examples:

• "road terrorism" is this expression in common or any use?

• "Road rage is most usually an egocentric reaction of anger to personal frustration with any road condition or other motorist behaviour which thwarts the personal desires of the road rager."

• "It is, however, not possible to judge intent by external observation, so "road ragers" who are stopped by police may be charged only with relatively minor offences such as careless or reckless driving."

• "Thus there are those who believe that road rage is covertly facilitated, if not fostered, by society at large through a lack of serious police, court and general social response to its increasing levels of occurrence and severity of outcome."

What do others think? Signor Eclectic 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I tin we should call them traffic tantrums, as a more accurate reflection of the level of maturity involved. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this article in terms of neutrality. Society definitely tolerates road rage to a certain extent, as anyone behaving in such a manner in any other environment (eg. on the sidewalk, in a restaurant), would be dealt with more harshly by passersby or the police. 70.30.127.100 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article does have NPOV problems - I've had a go at addressing them, see what you think. I've also removed some of the more gratuitous unreferenced and unsupported psycho-babble such as "an underlying problem in the person of not being able to remain in control of themselves and "Most drivers have feelings of road rage because it is a cultural norm".152.91.9.115 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Ossipewsk

User:70.30.127.100, I disagree that it is more tolerated - an assault stemming from road-rage is just as likely to be viewed seriously as any other assault. The problem is that in any other environment (eg. on the sidewalk, in a restaurant), there are usually more witnesses to the precipitating action(s) and it's much easier to do something about it - whether intervening in a conciliatory or assertive manner, reporting it to the authorities or just ridiculing the offender.152.91.9.115 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Ossipewsk

The article looks neutral to me in the respect you are talking about. It does have one serious shortfalling - its very US orientated. It makes no reference to authorities or statistics from anywhere else. I'm not complaining about cultural imperialism here - its just that the way people behave in specific situations (ie: on the bus, in a shop, behind the wheel) differs around the world and this should be addressed in the article.--ChrisJMoor 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at that, too ;-) 152.91.9.115 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Ossipewsk

[edit] Claim that road rage has been rising is dubious

In John Stossel's new book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, he argues on page 18 that the claim that "roage rage" is rising is a myth. He writes:

Robert Lichter [president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University] suggested it all got started this way: "People were yelling at each other in their cars and making obscene gestures and even getting out of the car for years. Journalists just found a term for it. So last year, you went home and said, 'Somebody yelled at me from his car.' This year, you go home and say, 'I was a victim of road rage.'".

While there was a sudden rash of freeway shootings in L.A. in the early 1980s, it has since normalized, and a correlation with increased "road rage" has never been established. --Serge 05:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear on how the Stossel reference is relevant. I.e. why is John Stossel an authority on the matter? I do, however, agree that absent any clear statistics no the matter, no such claim should be included in the article. --68.169.60.30 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Stossel is not the cited authority, Robert Lichter is. --Serge 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I agree: the media is always keen to manufacture a crisis they can then bitch about. It sells papers. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes Rober Lichter an authority on the matter?

Are there statistics or reports concerning increase in occurence or severity of RR from Highway Department, DOT, Police ...? --YellowLeftHand 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The stats might not be very reliable - if the press made the term at some point to describe violent crime in a specific context, then the police might add it to their definitions list, plus victims would report it more often as 'road rage' (as opposed to more general violent/intimidating behavior). Given this, there is some evidence to suggest that only the reporting rate and not the incidence rate has increased. Mind you - it probably has increased over time. Simply because the population of drivers has increased, plus the roads have got a fair bit busier, especially in urban areas, leading to the stressors that induce the behavior.--ChrisJMoor 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is well and good and should keep going; meanwile, the 'dispute' marking on the article itself is sort of confusing, since the article no longer says anything about road rage increasing since the 1970s. So I'm removing it. --Masamage 19:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Schwule Mädchen! Everybody can step up the gas, it's easy you pussies!!! But not everyone can step up like Lance & Co. does. --193.95.205.182 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Control?

This feels like it has NPOV problems or something, if only because of the inflamatory language, all caps sections, vigorous use of italics, etc. Examples:

"It is also important to note that 'road rage', or the inability to control oneself on the road, is merely a symptom of an overlying cause of not being able to control one's self and emotions; it is not the physical automobile itself that brings-out the aggressive nature of the person, it is the person themself whom, regardless of the setting, fails to control their temper." -- Uh, well, (a) who sez, (b) why important, and (c) why italics?

"rude gestures (such as the finger in an OFFENSIVE not DEFENSIVE manner)" -- Eh, what? I've heard of defensive driving, but not defensive flipping off. --Paultopia 16:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road Rage - action or thought?

It's not wholly clear to me; is the term road rage used

• Only for actions against other road users
• Including actions that go unnoticed by others, such as swearing when the windows are up
• For merely the feeling of anger even if no action is taken.

Also, it's not just motor vehicles, cyclists can get road rage too M0ffx 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List

Along with other bizarre claims, there were TWO claims that driving in the grassy median to scare (or, rather, "terrify") everyone is common - not to mention the claims that both 'speeding' and 'driving the speed limit' are road rage, and let's not forget the vicious rolling clothesline. I've cleaned some up, but this is still listcruft —Random832 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. "* coercing other drivers to emerge from their vehicles, then suddenly attacking with a longsword" was added a year ago, along with other bizarreness, but wouldn't be out of place on the list that existed yesterday

Here's some diffs where material was added to the list that actually survived [1] [2] [3] —Random832 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we source to newspaper articles where such events have occurred and perhaps set a requirement of a least "x" number of individual events to consider it notable enough for inclusion? I'm sure there's a case somewhere where someone attacked another with a long sword... but we can't include anything and everything. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Delicious Red Skittles"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.232.17 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[4] - some new stuff, and reintroduction of some old stuff. Honestly, it's almost too bad we don't have BJAODN anymore. —Random832 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should find references for all the existing entries - at least one, even if it seems obvious; that really helped discourage people from adding random people to the notable alumni list for North Central High School (Indianapolis, Indiana) —Random832 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This needs cleaning up, and reviewing, due to all the witty jokes scattered throughout the expressions of road rage. --80.127.26.13 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Those edits have been a frequent problem coming from anons and, more recently, User:Morthanley. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 21:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there something I'm missing here? I thought we were all in general agreement that these additions were ludicrous. I just reverted another edit by someone who appears to be a relatively established editor: User:Luigifan. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the revisions that I reverted to, I admit, I was confused and apologize. I wish someone had discussed it with me first before throwing wild accusations at me... Morthanley (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't even keep things straight anymore as to who's adding them back in and who's taking them out. Can somebody protect this article from anon edits? They've really made a mess out of this. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put all the nonsense entries (seeing them all at once, it's quite an impressive list) at User:Random832/BJAODN_-_Road_Rage. —Random832 15:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I've edited the list some, the "preventing someone from merging" one covers the "convoy" one from the old list that I wasn't all that comfortable about losing, and the new "generally aggressive driving" one covers the one about repetitively braking and accelerating without being overly specific about a dubious exact type. —Random832 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pressing pedestrian pushbutton

The IP 74.131.80.146 has twice added information which states that pressing a pedestrian pushbutton in order to activate a signal is an act of road rage. Firstly, I'm not quite sure how this qualifies as road rage. Consider the following:

• On a roadway & angry at another driver on same roadway, traveling through signal. By the time you stop & press the button, your target vehicle will be well-gone.
• On a roadway & angry at another driver on same roadway, stopped at signal. If you press the button for the cross street, the best it may do is give both vehicles a green sooner -- and even that is unlikely. You benefit your target: that's not rage. If you press the button for your street, this will have no effect as the cross-street green is already active and a pedestrian pushbutton must be activated before the phase it will operate concurrently with.
• On a roadway & angry at a driver on another roadway. How are you angry at the other motorist if you haven't been driving with them? While not wholly impossible, this dabbles in the realm of the items from the previous discussion: it's just too isolated an incident to be worth mentioning.

Now to put on my traffic engineering hat...

• Interconnected coordinated signals (common in urban and suburban areas) - Activating the push button with a coordinated signal will only place a call for the next phase, which will wait until the current phase has completed its cycle. There is a possibility that pressing the button could have an immediate effect, but this would require both the current phase achieving its minimum split and the cycle falling in (to the precise half-second) with the coordinated cycles of the system. This would be a particularly rare occasion.
• Coordinated pretimed signals (common in suburban areas and rural town centers) - Pretimed signals coordinated by time of day plans have the same issue as the aforementioned type: an immediate effect requires both the minimum split to have been met & the coordination to be spot-on at the moment you press that button; a generally unlikely occurrence.
• Uncoordinated pretimed signals (typically found only at rural crossroads) - In the situation, pressing the button can have an immediate effect; but it is also very unlikely that such signals have pedestrian pushbuttons in the first place. Not to say there aren't any, but it's certainly the exception rather than the rule.
• Uncoordinated actuated signals (typically found in suburban and rural areas) - Lastly, this is the more likely situation whereby this could work. The signals would generally be programmed to respond to a pedestrian call in the same manner it would respond to a vehicular call. That is, the signal would still wait for the current phase's minimum split to have been met. Provided that has happened, then pressing the button could have an immediate effect.
• Pedestrian signals (typically found in urban areas) - These abide by all the same traits as the aforementioned, and they are often coordinated with a larger signal system.

Any other thoughts on whether or not this should be included? Technical feasibility aside (to which I'll concede that it is technically feasible, albeit generally unlikely), I'd say the bigger issue is the sheer feasibility of such an act occurring as a part of road rage. Is there a scenario that I am not thinking of? Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] websites

As i see it, this section is used as a platform to promote websites with forums on road rage. These sites should not be in the main boy of the article and should be in the links section.

Giving them undue prominence basically amounts to advertising.

Or, to keep the websites in the body of the article, might I suggest that a sentence explaining their relevance is included, such as 'due to concern about road rage and poplar media coverage, many websites have been created to act as a forum for the victims of aggressive driving and road rage.' or something like that. In this case, I also feel that a full listing of the sites features should not be included in the body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.125.228 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

"The cities with the most courteous drivers (least road rage) are Minneapolis, Nashville, St. Louis, Seattle, and Atlanta. In 2009, New York, Dallas/Fort Worth, Detroit, Atlanta and Minneapolis/St. Paul were rated the top five "Road Rage Capitals" of the United States." Either these two sentences contradict one another, or Minneapolis and St. Paul are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Joking aside, it's a contradiction: Even without the Twin Cities, there's no way Atlanta can make both lists. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)