This Sub-topic is for discussing the article listed above, which can be read here. Please add your thoughts and reactions to the article.

I'm constantly amazed that in the case of driving habits and the placing of terms such as "aggressive" and "dangerous" to drivers who act quickly, but no one ever mentions the fact that for every "aggressive" driver there is most likely a "poor", "bad", or "inattentive" driver that causes the "aggressive behaviors.

Instead of focusing on the symptoms, lets get to the root cause and the fact that the majority of people on the road just don't know how to drive. Not that they don't know how to maneuver their vehicle around, but don't know the basics of roadway safety and courtesy.

Barry Elliott's paper "Road Rage: media hype or serious road safety issue" posted on drivers.com is the most rational treatment I have seen of this issue.

"Road rage" is a pointless construct that makes good newspaper headlines. Publicising incidents only legitimises aggressive behaviour, which is what 'road rage' usually is. I think that incidents of 'road rage' are principally people acting out in or when using their vehicles the aggressive behaviour that is part of their 'normal' behaviour. Maybe they act with a little more freedom because of the anonymity and distance that a motor vehicle provides than they would if the confrontation were face to face. Therefore, incidents ought to be treated as criminal assault or whatever charge they would normally attract if committed other than when the perpetrator is in charge of a motor vehicle.

The offender or perpetrator usually reacts that way to the actions or omissions of another driver as if they represented some personal affront (see Barry Elliott's paper). When you look at most traffic incidents in that light it becomes evident that the proposition is manifest nonsense in all but a tiny minority of cases.

If we find it so easy to lose our cool because of someone else's ineptitude or lack of awareness then our world is in a bad way. No wonder so many of us suffer from hypertension, ulcers and various other emotionally triggered or aggravated ills.

When we talk about driving we need to consider that people drive by means of three domains of the self called affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor. The affective domain of drivers consists of their feelings, emotions, or attitudes. The cognitive domain consists of their thoughts and judgment. The sensorimotor domain consists of perception and motor actions. The driver is thus a threefold self behind the wheel.

Once we make thse distinctions we can differentiate between aggressive driving and road rage. Aggressive driving and road rage as defined in the article are BOTH references to the driver's sensorimotor behavior. This is overt, visible, measurable. This is what law enforcement deals with.

But it should be remembered that the sensorimotor behavior is only the result of the other two parts of the self. The affective self rules, guides, initiates, sets limits. The cognitive self thinks, figures out, interprets, makes decisions. The sensorimotor merely executes. So it's the cognitive self that is responsible for interpreting a gesture or other act as an insult or an idiotic behavior. When we drive with negative emotions and attitudes, our affective self directs the cognitive self to think in an irrational and prejudiced way. The negative attitude and the irrational judgments together result in aggressive sensorimotor acts--either aggressive driving or roadf rage battery and assault.

To fix things we must start from the affective domain that directs the thinking in the wrong direction. It takes repeated effort and self-training to change your traffic emotions that have become a cultural habit. I review various techniques we can use in our book "Road Rage and Aggressive Driving" which you can preview here:
www.aloha.net/~dyc

Leon James
DrDriving

YOUR CONFERENCE CONTRIBUTION IS GOOD .
IT IS REALLY HELPFULL IN UNDERSTANDING THE SUBJECT
MORE BETTER.
IT IS ALSO USEFULL FOR POLICY MAKING AND FURTHER RESEARCH.
WITH BEST COMPLIMENTS,

ALIND SAXENA

I think most incidents on the road stem from the fact that most people think the world revolves around them and their schedule,if they are in a hurry then everyone must clear a path on the other hand if they are inclined to stop and smell the roses or at least drive slow enough to do so then its everyone elses responsability to accomodate them.I drive alot on my job and im constantly amazed at what i see,who has not expeirenced the folks driving in the left lane whos idea of speeding is 57 mph or when youre driving along at 65mph only to have somebody speed up to 80 to pass you then slow down to 50 once they are in front of you,then there's the type who's mission on the road is not to get from a to b but to make a point, a statement of some sort which remains a mystery to everyone but them.The whole point of driving should be the transport of people and goods unfortunately alot of other things have crept in cheif umong them is ego,I,I,I,ME,ME,ME to hell with everybody else.

BLESS YOU, DARREN I agree with you 1,000,000%
You are one of the wise ones who sees the same as I.
The highways have become more than just a place to travel. What a sick bunch of lonesome losers. I'm ashamed to acknowledge it is my generation. I see it everyday on my job also. What a show!!!

Road roage - its all relative. If you could see the roads in Uganda, East Africa.

I am talking absolute ignorance and stupidity - I couldn't even begin to describe the senarios - it would take a book. We have what are called Matatus - public transport doesn't exist. Matutus are private buses that transport people in mini buses - they are overcrowded, the drivers usually don't have a driving permit and don't seem to understand the concept of cause and effect. For example, they overtake on the brow of a hill and think nothing of forcing oncoming traffic off the road - and hopefully there is somewhere to move off to.

We were driving in the UK and saw a road sign stating 50 people had been killed on that road in the last 3 years!!! We thought - that's pretty good because that would be 1 month in Kampala!

My point being I have seen normal, sound and very patient expats and I used to be one) turn into psychopaths. I know of one poor brit to get out of his range rover and chase one of these matatus up the highway welding a hammer - he's never been the same since.

If I remember home (toronto) correctly - its been eight years - things are pretty organised and there isn't actually a lot to get enrage about - People at least know which side of the road to stay on.

Things have changed in Toronto, Tania. In fact I believe they've changed all through North America. There's widespread agreement that the amount of "crazy" driving has increased. The number of vehicles on our roads has increased too, but I think it's much more than this. Perhaps a combination of social stress, powerful cars, me-first mentality, and a more intense fight for space. Auto advertising and a general culture favoring aggression haven't helped either.

I'm fascinated by the "matatus." Is there anything much in the line of training? And what about enforcement of laws?

Dan and Leon:

Beyond domains, buried within our lower brain stem and our limbic system within our heads are instinctual 'body protective processes' built up over millennia to protect the body from harm, including harm to the three domains Leon mentions. Hidden from our conscious mind are two concepts of importance to the discussion and understanding of road rage. The first is that as animals we have a 'territorial imperative' a space imperative as it were. Instinctualy, beyond reason and hidden from our conscious mind when another driver assumes to invade our 'space' or territory there is an immediate reaction depending on maturation and Leons three domains. These are inhibited 'outrage' leading to 'rants' or exhibited 'rage' wherein drivers are known to take violent action. The other internal and instinctual process is not part of our homeostatic make-up. our 'boo response' only turns on by sudden movement, loud noise or novel events on the road. Any surprising, that is sudden movement, a loud air horn or a novel event such as a bad matatus will 'trigger' an instinctive reaction to protect the body from harm. The brain will store the 'schema', that is elements of the scenario in the brain and it will out on pages such as this. It may also trigger a physical explicit reaction of violence, or just an implicit feeling of 'outrage'

When we ourselves understand these very human i.e. animal instinctive reactions, then conscious man can control them. Right Leon?

I'm a follower of Christ, and my job is insurance underwriting. So I see a slightly different perspective, which I thought I'd share.

What is the most common way for people to actually interact among "strangers" in North America (or the West, for that matter)? It is while driving the automobile. Most people are too frightened by the media to speak to strangers any more. Do you walk up to strangers on the street and start conversations? Neither do I.

So we can see that socially, our society has become entirely inept. That is my sad conclusion from watching driving in this country (the USA) since I moved back home from the UK 9 years ago.

Perhaps the causes are very deep, but partly the causes may be television and computer games, both of which replaced social interaction with "lone" activities (if you can call them that). Stop and think of the architecture of homes from 100 years ago. They had front porches for a reason - socialization with neighbors. No such thing any more. Point taken?

Personally, I consider tailgating "menacing with a deadly weapon", unfortunately after having written to the Governor of Michigan (he essentially told me to buzz off, but in more polite words), the State Police, and the Secretary of State of Michigan (DMV), I got nothing but the runaround. Recently Road & Track magazine stated that there was essentially no road law enforcement in the state of Michigan (and as a born Michigander, I find that embarrassing).

Personally, I would welcome a British type driver's license test - in other words, a real test where probably 50% of the applicants fail the first time. (I passed the first time, 18 years ago when I moved to the UK). One thing I don't think we should copy is the fact that my British driving licence is good until I'm 70.

Personally, I think we need a 3 pronged approach;
enforcement (or better enforcement in states which actually have some) of traffic laws; a good traffic education system patterned after the British system which will educate poor drivers and require them to change their habits (or, they won't be driving legally); and red light runner and speeding cameras liberally placed (as in the UK), which would take law changes in many states.

My family and I went back to the UK on vacation about 2 years ago, after some 4 year away, and I was absolutely shocked at the improvement in driving standards (which were already better than the US in competence if not obeying the speed laws). Now, the British DO obey the speed laws. I'd estimate (roughly) 90% of drivers obey the rules, contrary to what you may see on "World's Worst Drivers" on the stupid-box.

This sharply contrasts with 99.9% of Michigan drivers who do not obey speed limits, approximately the 75% of Michigan drivers who regularly follow too closely (tailgate), and some 60-70% of Michigan drivers who run red lights.

Glenn W. Arlt

Glen,

I have to seriously question the validity of your opinions. You quote statistics and make broad generalizations, but completely fail to provide proof of any kind to support their authentity. Care to quote your sources? However, this kind of callous alarmism hardly makes you unique. Those inclined to use terms such as "road rage" and "aggressive driving", do so more out of a need to attach a recognizable mental image to their opinions rather admit their rantings lack substance. This is called sensationalism. The media, safety "watchdogs", and an ever-increasing number of self-proclaimed experts use this sensationalism to attract attention to themselves and promote the questionable findings with which they hope to promote themselves and their position. It kind of reminds of the early nineties, when public access to the internet began to spread. At that time, there seemed to be at least 2 new stories per day on the evils of the internet. To listen to the press tell it, one could hardly be blamed for thinking the world was going "to hell in a handbasket" and the end of all civilization was at hand. This of course was never the case, and for those us who survived those apocalyptic times , those days have become a humourous memory.

The whole problem with road rage, aside from all the unnecessary attention attracted to it, is that there is no definition of what constitutes it's act(the same is true of aggressive driving). Talk to 100 people, and you are likely to receive 100 definitions of what road rage is. Talk to 100 "experts" and that list would likely grow by 1000. So we take a very broad spectrum of unacceptable behavior and attach an attractive alliterative term to it(ah the power of language ;) ) and run around yelling "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". Yet there has never been one credible study done that supports the contention(not surprising when we can't even define what the contention is). What we can state with absolute certainty, based on credible scientific data(such as that compiled by the NHTSA, Tansport Canada, and others) is that on a year-by-year comparison, our roads are becoming safer. Injuries and deaths, related to the operation of motor vehicles, continue to decline, as they have done for the past quarter century. This is so not only because the very vehicles we drive have become safer but also, because the number of collisions(per million miles travelled) continues to decline. While there has been no scientific study of the number injuries or deaths attributable to road rage(not surprising when there is no definition of the term), I would contend there has always been, and always will be, a very small percent of drivers who use a driving-related incident as an excuse to act inappropriately towards others.

What worries me the most about road rage and aggressive driving is not that it may exist, but that it unfairly distracts attention away from more serious driving-safety issues. In the Province of Alberta, alcohol is a factor in more than 50% of motor vehicle acidents(this according to statements made by the RCMP). Yet the effort made to deterring drunk-driving is minimal, at best(sporadic "Check-Stop's", most notably during the holiday season). According to a number of surveys, red light running is becoming a very serious problem(the NHTSA attributes 250 000 collisions a year to this offense). I could go on, but the very small number of injuries and deaths falsely attributed to road rage and aggressive driving are diverting our attention and resources away from far more serious road safety issues. Why do we let the media blindfold us and tell us to take aim at a target that doesn't exist? Surely there are better and more meaningful ways to improve the safety of our roadways.

Andrew:

I agree with your point that road rage is highly exaggerated. The difficulty in coming to a definition of aggressive driving is another great problem. Drivers.com hosted a conference on the issue, with one author reviewing previous definitions of aggressive driving and attempting to develop a better definition. See it at http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/board/messages/25/49.html

mgoselin,

Thank-You for the link, but I can only partially agree with the authors definition:

"A driving behaviour is aggressive if it is deliberate, likely to increase the risk of collision and is motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility and/or an attempt to save time."

There has been a few times when I have had to take "aggressive" measures to minimize the potential for an accident. One such incident occurred this summer. While coming up behind a slow moving Hyundai, the driver of this vehicle suddenly applied heavy braking and moved halfway into the adjacent lane. She did this to give herself ample room while passing an unoccupied vehicle parked half on the shoulder and half off of it(and in no way a threat to the traffic lane which the Hyundai and I were travelling in). As I was preparing to overtake her at the point when she started her maneuvering, I decided that trying to outbrake her might not be the best course of action, and decided to go past her on the left side. As I passed her, she honked her horn as if to signal that, it was I who had caused a dangerous situation. Oblivious to the facts that there was no need for her try and avoid the parked vehicle, and before acting so, she should have first considered the effect on the vehicle which was rapidly approaching from the rear(if she was even aware that I was approaching). Further, if she had been driving at the speed limit(I'd "guesstimate" she was doing 80 km/h in a 100km/h zone - an offense in Alberta) I would not have been anywhere near her at the time she decided to practice her form of "defensive" driving.

My contention is that deliberately aggressive driving on my part negated the potential for a collision, and that overly-defensive driving on her part had increased the potential for an accident. There has been many times when I have decided to act in an aggressive manner to minimize the risk of collision between myself and someone who is driving in an erratic or undisciplined manner. Does my "aggressive driving" increase my risk of causing a collision? I think not. I have been driving for 23 years without being the cause of an accident(My vehicles have been hit 3 times-once while I was stopped, twice while they were unoccupied!)

The author has one(of many) definitions of bad driving, but I don't think it is an accurate definition of "aggressive driving". Also, he does nothing to try and objectively understand why bad drivers behave as they do. I think this is far more important than defining this vague label.

Andrew,

You ask if your aggressive driving increases your risk of causing an accident, or if, as you want to believe, it makes the roads safer for everyone.

Let me put this directly: Your aggressive driving threatens you and to all who share the road with you!

In the situation you describe above, you failed to anticipate the likely response of a timid driver to a possible hazard (puzzling, as you seem only too ready to believe the worst of other drivers), and by choosing that moment to pass you created a close call where none was necessary. Now you righteously believe that if an accident had resulted, it would have been the other driver's fault.

Nonsense! That timid driver posed no threat to anything except your own ego and impatience! You couldn't wait to get around, and because you were thinking only how incompetent the other driver was, you --I repeat, YOU-- nearly caused an accident.

Make no mistake about it, Andrew: you are part of the problem. The first step in defensive driving is to stop defending the way you drive now. How about it?

Eric Went

An interesting topic!

which of the following is a road negativity, rather than road annoyance

To a large extent, I would agree with Michael Bernstein's second paragraph (posted a full year ago) - quote - "...the majority of people on the road just don't know how to drive. Not that they don't know how to maneuver their vehicle around, but don't know the basics of roadway safety..."

As for Ken Smith's response to Mr Bernstein, then once again I find myself in full agreement with Ken - it is rare that I don't!

Regarding Leon James' and John Van Winkle's comments regarding the underlying psychology, I respect these viewpoints but see their benefits only in academia and therefore - hopefully - in affecting the decisions of the makers of policy and legislation, rather than of the man behind the wheel. It is hard enough to get ordinary people to listen to basic road sense; they are never going to absorb the more cerebral aspects of it.

Glenn Arlt makes some interesting points and, unlike Andrew Stolte, I don't disagree. Andrew asked Glenn to support his comments with scientific data and, frankly, there is an abundance of such to confirm Glenn's comments.

In particular, I am bemused by the following, from Andrew (quote): "...What we can state with absolute certainty, based on credible scientific data(such as that compiled by the NHTSA, Transport Canada, and others) is that on a year-by-year comparison, our roads are becoming safer. Injuries and deaths, related to the operation of motor vehicles, continue to decline, as they have done for the past quarter century..."

In respect of the USA, Andrew, that is simply not true; road deaths in the USA have hovered around the 40,000 - 42,000 mark for at least the last ten years, so although the number of vehicles has obviously increased and the number of deaths is lower as a proportion of that, the said number of deaths has NOT decreased.

I admit to not having Canadian ten-year statistics to hand (though I do have the most recent three years) but in many developed countries the actual number of deaths IS decreasing. In Britain, over the past 15 or so years, the number of people killed has effectively HALVED, and I think this gives massive authority to Glenn Arlt's comments, despite Andrew's rejection of such.

For a great many years, Norway, Sweden and the U.K. have repeatedly vied for the top position in the ranking of the world's safest countries in terms of road deaths and casualties.

In 1999, for example, the UK came top for lowest fatality rates, with 6.0 deaths per 100,000 population, whereas the USA came a lowly 24th (out of 28) with 15.3 deaths per 100,000. Canada was 12th, with 9.7 deaths. These figures are from the 28 member-countries of the 'Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development' (OECD) and they are substantiated by separate statistics concerning the world's 'Highly Motorised Countries' (HMC's).

Taken one step further, it is a known and obvious fact that not only are Britain's roads amongst the most densely crowded in much of the world but - of the three countries named above - they are also the fastest, in terms of maximum speed limits. Logically, therefore, Andrew, the Brit's must be doing something very different to the Americans in order to achieve such dramatically safer roads, despite the two-fold likelihood being the exact opposite of that fact. Glenn Arlt is indisputably correct in his assertions about strict enforcement paying dividends.

In supporting his dismissal of Glenn's comments, Andrew wrote: "...This is called sensationalism... safety "watchdogs", and an ever-increasing number of self-proclaimed experts use this sensationalism to attract attention to themselves and promote the questionable findings with which they hope to promote themselves and their position..."

Well, given that Glenn was correct - based on the credible statistics that Andrew requested - doubt is shed on the validity of Andrew's view of sensationalism. And in his subsequent message - 4 days later, on October 12 - he destroys his credibility altogether when he describes his actions in the vicinity of another driver - the lady who pulled out wide to pass a seemingly broken-down vehicle.

Andrew, if you had been driving properly/well/safely, you would firstly have been looking far enough ahead to spot the broken down vehicle and would therefore have realised that the car ahead might take a wide position (and if you couldn't/didn't see the static vehicle in time you were either following too closely for the circumstances or simply not paying attention); you would have known that for the driver ahead to give the stopped vehicle a wide berth was the correct thing to do (in case a person/child stepped out from behind it into - or nearer to - her path); you would have allowed for the fact that ANY other driver on the road can effectively be *expected* to do unusual or unpredictable things - good driving... good ANTICIPATION makes allowances for this - and you would most certainly not have forced your way past her in a 'bottleneck' situation. I'm sorry, but irrespective of whether she, herself, dealt poorly with the potential hazard posed by the static car, I'm not surprised that she beeped her horn at you. From the way you have described this incident, your actions were the main cause of danger. I am in full agreement with 'ericwent'.

Lastly, whilst not wishing to be a pain in the nether regions, I am concerned that Andrew might dismiss my comments as being from one of those "...self-proclaimed experts [who] use this sensationalism to attract attention to themselves and promote the questionable findings with which they hope to promote themselves and their position..." so I'll let my bio support my comments (hopefully! LOL):

http://www.familycar.com/Bios/EddieWren.htm

Regards to all and, given the date, Happy Xmas & a healthy and happy 2003.

Eddie

The thing I find interesting about so much of the debate on this and like topics is how much we want to justify our actions (and in so doing put the responsibility on someone else) rather than accept that we might have done something silly.

The fascinating thing is that there is so much ego and me-first in the way we see our use of the roads. The debate in another discussion on drivers.com about lane use on multi-lane roads is a case in point.

For what it’s worth, one of my pet highway hates is people who hog the right (in the US and Canada, left) or outside lane, either by deliberately driving in it as a matter of practice (cannot understand the mentality) or by not getting back out of it after overtaking (brain out of gear). And if I am being honest with myself I have to admit that the reason I don’t like it is that I don’t want my progress to be held up by other people. And I do on occasions get hot under the collar about it – but that’s my problem, not anyone else’s. On the other hand, I will do all I reasonably can to not get in the way of someone overtaking – and it matters not if their speed is legal or illegal: what matters is that they are travelling faster than me - because my being held up by someone in the outside lane annoys me so much. In passing, I will do a lot to avoid passing someone on the left or inside because I think it unsafe and simply bad practice.

Surely the first essential in learning and getting better at anything is to acknowledge that we don't know it all, that we sometimes get it wrong, or however you like to characterise it. We have to in other areas of our lives, so what's different about driving? That’s the only way we learn. It’s tough to say so, Andrew, but Eddie Wren is right: you didn’t see enough of what was in the road picture in front of you and put yourself in the position of having to make an ‘aggressive’ driving manoeuvre (on which more later). And the least productive thing to do in cases like this is to blame the other driver for stupidity or cupidity. The other driver may have not needed to move as far out as she did (you can’t possibly know about her driving capability or, for that matter, her previous driving experiences); yes, she should have checked her mirrors for approaching vehicles, and maybe she was travelling slowly enough that your approach speed created a difficult situation. But you were doing the approaching, and it seems to me that the onus is on the person coming up to other traffic to observe what is happening and make allowances accordingly.

Enough of all that. The other interesting angle is what is characterised as aggressive driving. Going back to the definition quoted: "A driving behaviour is aggressive if it is deliberate, likely to increase the risk of collision and is motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility and/or an attempt to save time". I think in general I agree with that. I would not necessarily agree that the action Andrew described was an ‘aggressive’ driving manoeuvre. In ‘aggressive’ driving there is an element of menace or intimidation, of deliberate impinging on a bit of road space. The sort of manoeuvre Andrew was describing was not aggressive in that sense: rapid-action, avoidance manoeuvres (or even a flash of the headlights to alert someone that you are coming up from behind) are not aggressive in that sense, and should not be seen as such.

I go back to what I said in a post on another subject: we often act as though other people deliberately set out to be aggressive or to get in our way. When we think about that for even a second it becomes obvious that it is manifest nonsense in all but a tiny majority of cases. Thoughtless, dimwitted, shortsighted maybe, and for all of those we have to make allowances. Come to think of it, in those case where someone else does something that we have good reason to think is deliberately and intentionally aggressive, perhaps the last thing we ought to do is to behave as if they did!

If you have been the victim of aggressive driving, which most of us have, and road rage, it is not difficult to discern the difference between the two. My son recently swerved to avoid hitting three men in a truck who pulled in front of him. They started throwing beer bottles at him. At the light he had to stop due to oncoming traffic, they jumped out of their truck, pulled him from his vehicle and proceeded to beat him. He suffered a broken arm, bites to his chest and numerous cuts and bruises. I am astounded to hear so many people refer to "road rage" as being caused by aggressive driving of the victim. It reminds me how thirty years ago women rape victims were blamed for the crime - "what did she do to cause it?" Road Rage is real - it's criminal and it is the responsibility of the violent perpetrator. The penalties for terrorizing innocent victims on the highways are slow, costly to the victim and patently unfair. How many people have to be maimed and/or killed before we understand that this is violent criminal behavior and put some real clout into protecting innocent victims on our highways?

Sharon
That story is shocking! What was the follow up. Were they caught /arrested?

Road Rage in my definition and others is when someones rage goes to the point of retaliation! that is why people are being killed.Innocent lives are being suddenly ended or majorly impacted because people dont have anger management when operating a vehicle thats made to transport that's it. A young attorney here in Az. that I know of Justin Blair was engaged and a lawyer and he just happened to be going somewhere that's it and his life was gone instantly, it makes me wonder every time I am in the car am I going to make my destination safely. You see not only does waving a gun around just risk the lives of whoever the bullet hits but also others because if a driver is hit then they can hit someone else. I also know that when people who are driving get upset because their selfish about something or an issue their dealing with impacts their driving. In my life growing up was like that and I was scared to be in the car with someone who got angry at another driver. I say drive right and mind your own business and watch around you (use your peripheral vision to see if anything is strange/unusual and stay away or get off that road, freeway or whatever your on and save lives. People need to stop taking things so serious and personal from drivers that you don't know, and acting like the road is apersonal war field or something to compete on. I sell Mary Kay and if someone says "NO" to the products than I don't go after them and wave a gun around they are not saying no to me. Guns are for protection not for murder. The Shannon Law was for people hit by random gunfire and there needs to be some serious consequences for those who do this. I would like to see what I can do to make a difference regarding those killed innocently by "road rage!"
If people are caught for killing someone or injuring someone due to their irresponsibility or disregard for another's life than they are a criminal. People should be required to take classes on driving to keep their driving skills fresh not just when you get a ticket. I believe that everyone has their own opinion and that's fine, I think that when you hear "don't bring your problems to work that should go for driving also!!! Remember the next time you are driving that you are not invinsible and that safety is important and set you cell to voice commands and have emergency #'s programmed so you can be hands free and get help fast if you need to.