Road Rage: Sexist Malarkey

My friend Douglas Pressman noticed this recent story about road rage and gender:

Study Reveals Women More Prone To Road Rage Than Men


It is, of course, preposterous in the extreme, and a lesson in how awfully the commercial media often handle basic surveys and statistics.

As anybody with any substantial time on the cars-first roads knows, there is absolutely no way women are more into road rage than men.

So, how did this survey find that up is down and black is white? By asking respondents how often they feel road rage.

Of course, feeling outraged is not road rage. Road rage is aggressive driving triggered by feeling outraged.

This survey might say something about the gendering of emotional awareness and honesty, but it is preposterous as a way of knowing who does road rage. Asking about feelings to measure that is like watching the storks for signs of new babies.

The real measure of road rage would be crime statistics, but, of course, road rage/aggressive driving is only loosely captured as a crime. Cops are extremely hesitant to write reckless/careless driving tickets.

Nonetheless, the real evidence is massively clear: It’s overwhelmingly men who do the rageful driving.

But such is the state of journalism. Something that sounds so titillatingly counter-intuitive might either be genuinely counter-intuitive and newsworthy, or it might be an intentional falsity designed to exploit the obvious titillation to attract page hits to self-interested sponsors.

In this case, it’s clearly the latter phenomenon, as the sponsor of the survey is something sad and awful called careerbuilder.com (yes, “career,” circa 2012: ROFL).

A real journalist would sort this out and act accordingly. Our system, in contrast, is a megaphone for such shameless shenanigans.

More Murder for Money

crash In the not-necessarily-news department, guess what the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says about its members’ move to put such vital activities as Facebook and Twitter on the dashboards of future car models, despite the well-proven fact that 10 percent of all automotive crashes, including the tens of thousands of fatal ones each year, are already caused by distracted driving:

“They’re going to do those things whether it’s through the vehicle or through a handheld electronic that they bring with them in the car,” [AAM PR agent Wade] Newton said.

Yes, and by the same logic, we know for sure that people are going to drink alcohol and then drive cars. So, what’s the harm in having a keg-cooler and drinking hose come stock in each new auto? After all, they’re going to do those things whether it’s through the vehicle or through a handheld bottle that they bring with them in the car.

Never fear, though! Our valiant regulators are busy striking pained poses as the mass murder proceeds.

“If the auto manufacturers focused as much on safety as they do on marketing their products, we would save a lot of lives,” National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman.

Yes, how true. Indeed, you might say we’d have saved 32,885 lives in 2010 alone, if, as in Ms. Hersman’s fantasy, car capitalists weren’t car capitalists.

Then there’s Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who has obviously abandoned any glimmer of principle he once possessed on this issue:

“We don’t have to choose between safety and technology,” LaHood now says, parroting the industry’s defiant Big Brotherism.

Thank the gods we have President Obama… Oh, wait.

Archives of Hidden History: “Safety” Efforts

From the outset, the corporate capitalist automotive-industrial complex has both generated and benefited from one the greatest floods of propaganda in human history.  Buried under countless PR operations and relentless incantations about how “Americans are having a love affair with the car,” the actual history of the making of cars-first transportation in the United States has long since been ignored and forgotten, even by the would-be critics.  Fortunately, fragments of this real history still exist, if you know where to look.

Today’s example is a reminder of the actual history of car capitalists’ efforts in the area of “safety,” or, more accurately, danger management.

By its nature, cars-first transportation is massively, needlessly dangerous.  The death toll from car collisions alone (i.e., not counting those resulting from pollution, bodily deconditioning, and oil wars) has been somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million in the United States alone over the past century.  Many times that number have been injured in crashes.

Q:  Until the popular uprisings of the 1960s, what was the auto-industrial complex’s main response to the fact that their product is a severe public health menace?

A:  To harangue drivers about the importance of “courtesy” on the road.

Click on this image to see what DbC means:

Highway_Highlights-Nov-1947

This is the lead article from the November 1947 edition of Highway Highlights, the magazine of the National Highway Users Conference, a front group designed to cloak the automotive-industrial complex’s lobbying efforts in the mantle of ordinary automobile users, as DbC explained recently here.

At about this same time, the NHUC was forming its “Motor Manners Project,” through which it aimed to ensure that the thesis “driver and pedestrian behavior is a key factor in [automotive] accidents” would be the leading point of concern in safety debates. Part of this Project was retention of none other than Emily Post to write and promote Motor Manners, a booklet devoted to the MMP’s theme that “impolite driving” was the root cause of the nation’s automotive death toll. Motor Manners was, of course, “distributed free to individual motorists.”

As you can see in the linked piece above, such was the NHUC’s chutzpah that it not only made the effort to transfer blame for the inherent danger of their product to drivers, but also to passengers. “The right kind of backseat driver,” it preached, “may be able to cut the nation’s traffic toll….Perhaps in many of these cases [of careless or speeding drivers] the passengers could have saved their lives if they had been willing to speak up and remonstrate with the driver.”

The following month, Highway Highlights published a follow-up piece, in which it endorsed the precedent set by Maryland Circuit Court judge Stephen R. Collins, who had ruled — perhaps after having read something distributed by the NHUC itself — that “the degree of care and vigilance which the guest is required to exercise for his own protection is not different from that required of the driver.”