arrogant, menacing and bullying–or alcoholic?
Here’s my response to a recent Highway One section article in the LA Times by Jeanne Wright, who doesn’t seem to have a clue to the cause of the misbehaviors about which she writes. You’ll figure out what she wrote by my comments:
To Ms. Wright,
A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study linked DUI to tailgating 50% of the time. You use the word “arrogant” and “impatient” to describe such drivers. Alcoholics are usually “arrogant” and “impatient,” like Freud’s infant who wants what he wants and will do anything to get it–NOW. In a day and age of MADD, there are almost no non-alcoholics who drink to a .08% BAL and get behind the wheel of a car. Your description of tailgating drivers is apt, but misses the crucial ingredient explaining “why:” they are almost all alcoholics, either drinking or between drinking episodes.
The odds of alcoholism and attempts at multi-tasking are highly correlated because addicts are often in a hurry and overachieve in order to wield power over others. Non-addicts using cell phones tend to slow down and become even more cautious in following every law. Addicts have no such tendency. Anyone zooming up from behind, necessitating slowing down by braking, demonstrates either an inability to plan ahead or a desire to make you get out of his way. Either way, he or she is a likely alcohol/other drug addict.
Alcoholics tend to bully and menace (alternating with alcoholic charm) to get what they want when they want it. They also believe that the rules are not for them; hence, a propensity to drive in the carpool lane by themselves. Their sense of invincibility makes them think they will not get caught. Even then, they are rarely arrested for DUI because the cops can’t tell he or she is under the influence any better than you or I can.
The odds that road rage are rooted in alcoholism are near 100%. While there is no direct proof, studies from air transportation can be extrapolated, which show heavy drinking at least half the time and the other half a likelihood of undetected alcohol/other drug use (when used in combination, very little of either is needed to have the desired effect).
If a motorist is dangerously close, I call 911 and tell them I suspect DUI. If we don’t state this suspicion, the apprehending officer (on those few occasions when there is one) do not have “reasonable cause” to test. I think anyone cited for a traffic violation should be given the non-intrusive Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. Driving badly should be reason enough.
As for the three-second rule between cars, sober drivers do this. DUIs and alcoholics between drinking episodes often do not. To put a stop to the behaviors we need to get them sober. A DUI often does the trick.