So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?

[Steve]

My only point is that they have in their mind "if it doesn't go my way someone is getting hurt" they aren't going to just walk away. The road rage guy (in the car) first, doesn't have that in mind...they are aggressively driving and while the accident (and potential death) is their fault, the fault is one based on recklessness vs actual intent to do harm. There IS a not insignificant percentage of "road rage incidents that fit your idea though, however they have resulted from the use of a firearm after the driver(s) are off the road and out of vehicles.

I was just trying to draw a line behind an "intentional" attack (which may well result in death) and a reckless action (which can also result in death), which while criminal lacks the intent of say a robbery or assault.

I think you should look into road rage a little more, because you are proposing as facts things which just are not true. You have in mind that you are going to argue a position, and reality isn't playing a role.

And this idea that every mugger is prepared to,kill isn't true, either. Statistics on violent crimes just don't bear this out.

 

[Steve]

I did a study (as part of a Law Enforcement group) a little over ten years ago on the leading cause of traffic fatalities. What I found was - it depends on how you do the study and how you use the information available. For instance - improper lane changes, or drifting out of your lane, can be reported differently, depending on how the reports are written, categorized and/or read and evaluated. Some of them might be from "distracted driving" which can be anything, from talking on the phone or to the person riding shotgun, or fiddling with the radio, texting etc. Or they might be from impaired driving. Or from excessive speed. Or from drifting on curves. Or from weather conditions. (many different ones, rain, snow, ice, fog) Or from equipment failure (such as blowouts) Or due to road rage. Or from animals on the road. Or poorly designed curves. While all of those thing are different - they might have been reported as a lane change/drift incident.

But I'm pretty sure we all know what causes a whole lot of accidents and fatalities.

Excessive speed. (definitely number one, in my opinion)
Impaired driving.
Distracted driving.
Nit wit A-holes.
Bad conditions.

I don't think road rage has cracked the top ten yet. But I believe it's going to. What is it that makes people so enraged while driving and another driver does something stupid? Regular people who would never get so upset and prone to violence in any other aspect of their lives, just flip out. It's just seems like it's so out of character for most people. I can't figure this out, and I've been pondering it for a long while - and truth be told, have felt it myself. I try to avoid it like the plague, especially since I frequently carry. And do we as trained Martial Artists need to avoid it even more than others? I kinda' think we do.

Another interesting thing I found was it was drastically different when done in a state to state breakdown. (rural and city being so unalike)

Sorry for the derail.

The AAA Foundation did a study I found, just last year. There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents. I think that the latter is a result of the former. But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves. They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate. In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't. But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other. The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger. It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon. (Interesting note, I saw on an infographic that guys driving blue BMWs are the most likely to engage in aggressive driving and road rage... that seems pretty specific.. not sure if it's true, but it was funny).

They say that aggressive driving is a factor in over half of all traffic fatalities (lower than the NHTSA number of over 65%, but still very high). They also say that over 90% of drivers believe that aggressive driving and road rage are a "somewhat" or "very serious" threat to their personal safety.

In a 2016 AAA Foundation study, many drivers admitted having let their anger and frustration get the best of them at least once in the past year, engaging in behaviors such as yelling, honking, gesturing at, or purposefully tailgating another driver. However, you never know how another driver might respond; the same study found that nearly 8 million drivers had gotten out of their car to confront another driver or even bumped or rammed another car on purpose.

Here's a convenient summary of common, aggressive driving behaviors. Some are less dangerous than others. I was surprised at the number of incidents where people who are intentionally (that's a key word from earlier in the thread) cutting people off and tailgating. Also, I was surprised at how often people got out of their cards to confront someone or, worse, used their car as a weapon by bumping or ramming another car on purpose.

According to estimates by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, drivers engaged in the following angry and aggressive behaviors during the previous year, including:

• Yelling at another driver: 47 percent (95 million drivers)
• Purposefully tailgating: 51 percent (104 million drivers)
• Honking to show annoyance or anger: 45 percent (91 million drivers)
• Making angry gestures: 33 percent (67 million drivers)
• Trying to block another vehicle from changing lanes: 24 percent (49 million drivers)
• Cutting off another vehicle on purpose: 12 percent (24 million drivers)
• Getting out of the vehicle to confront another driver: 4 percent (8 million drivers)
• Bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose: 3 percent (6 million drivers)

6 million drivers bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose. In contrast, in 2015 (according to the FBI) an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes occurred nationwide. "Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force."

Trying to draw this back to the thread here, this derail is the result of people trying to nitpick an analogy, and as a result, making ridiculous assumptions based upon staunch defense of an unreasonable position. To suggest that road rage is other than intentional, or to try to downplay how pervasive its affects are on drivers in the USA (and probably elsewhere), is silly.

 

[Juany118]

I think you should look into road rage a little more, because you are proposing as facts things which just are not true. You have in mind that you are going to argue a position, and reality isn't playing a role.

And this idea that every mugger is prepared to,kill isn't true, either. Statistics on violent crimes just don't bear this out.

Ummm I do look at the statistics actually and have even written reports that contribute to said statistics. The issue is this, understanding the context of the "road rage" statistics.

They confabulate the motor vehicle "accidents" that result in death with the "he followed them to a parking lot, got out of his car and shot the other driver" deaths. In the motor vehicle accident incidents, for the purposes of highlighting the danger of road rage. This is why in the LE community we at times also refer to the purely vehicle issues as "aggressive driving" incidents. While the "accident" ones can result in criminal charges those charges are based on things worded like this...

§ 3732. Homicide by vehicle.

(a) Offense.--Any person who recklessly or with gross negligence causes the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic except section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide by vehicle, a felony of the third degree, when the violation is the cause of death.

The underlined section is the important part. Why? Because proving the level of intent necessary for a crime of intent is pretty much impossible without a confession from the driver or a statement from a passenger in the vehicle with the offender. It gets even murkier if you are trying to determine if the "purposeful tailgating" was actually a "road rage" issue or an issue of an asshat in a hurry who was in control emotionally BUT was trying to get someone out of the passing lane when they aren't passing, as an example. Another reason for the term "aggressive driving" and why this is more and more becoming the "watch word" for such incidents.

As for the last bit, again it is a legal thing. There was a reason I put in parentheses "which may well result in death." First a mugger has the knowledge, and thus requisite intent, that he may "have" to commit bodily injury to accomplish his goal of robbery. As there is always a chance that someone will die when some is intentionally inflicting bodily injury you have B and C below...

§ 2502. Murder.

(a) Murder of the first degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree.--All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

 

[Steve]

Ummm I do look at the statistics actually and have even written reports that contribute to said statistics. The issue is this, understanding the context of the "road rage" statistics.

They confabulate the motor vehicle "accidents" that result in death with the "he followed them to a parking lot, got out of his car and shot the other driver" deaths. In the motor vehicle accident incidents, for the purposes of highlighting the danger of road rage. This is why in the LE community we at times also refer to the purely vehicle issues as "aggressive driving" incidents. While the "accident" ones can result in criminal charges those charges are based on things worded like this...



The underlined section is the important part. Why? Because proving the level of intent necessary for a crime of intent is pretty much impossible without a confession from the driver or a statement from a passenger in the vehicle with the offender.

As for the last bit, again it is a legal thing. There was a reason I put in parentheses "which may well result in death." First a mugger has the knowledge, and thus requisite intent, that he may "have" to commit bodily injury to accomplish his goal of robbery. As there is always a chance that someone will die when some is intentionally inflicting bodily injury you have B and C below...

Do you believe that things in real life are limited only to those things that can be legally proven?

The term "straw man" has been used a lot recently. But do you understand that arguing about whether something can be legally proven in a court of law is a straw man when the discussion is about whether or not something represents real danger to people? Those are not the same things. When I say to you that, according to the AAA Foundation study from 2016, over 6 million drivers used their cars to intentionally bump or ram another car, and you say, "proving the level of intent necessary for a crime of intent is pretty much impossible," you are ACTUALLY arguing a straw man.

I appreciate that you are sharing an interesting perspective, but while related, criminal prosecution is not actually relevant. Whether someone can be prosecuted isn't the point, when we can all (if we're being honest) admit that we encounter dangerous drivers every day.

 

[Juany118]

Do you believe that things in real life are limited only to those things that can be legally proven?

When it comes to statistics what can and can not be proven is vital, heck it is the point of statistics to provide proof. That is why it is important to distinguish between a study done by an advocacy organization (AAA) and a regulatory body such as the NHTSA which published... DOT HS 809 707

Said report noting in part...

The crash data suggest that road rage is a relatively small traffic safety problem, despite the volume of news accounts and the general salience of the issue. It is important to consider the issues objectively because programmatic and enforcement efforts designed to reduce the incidence of road rage might detract attention and divert resources from other, objectively more serious traffic safety problems. Although cases of road rage are relatively rare, the incidence of aggressive driving is much more frequent and a measurable contributing factor to traffic crashes.

 

[Steve]

I'll just quote one of my earlier posts:

There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents. I think that the latter is a result of the former. But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves. They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate. In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't. But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other. The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger. It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon.

What a report is written to address is also important. The one you quote above is "presents the results of a study conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess the effects of two programs that were implemented to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving." (emphasis mine). So, taking any of the conclusions from this document out of context would be a little risky. It does have a lot of interesting information about the various reasons people drive aggressively.

From the NHTSA website: "Aggressive driving has become a serious problem on our roadways. What is aggressive driving? Most of us know it when we see it, but NHTSA, after discussions with law enforcement and the judiciary, defines aggressive driving as occurring when "an individual commits a combination of moving traffic offenses so as to endanger other persons or property.""

What's the problem here? You're moving from premise to premise, creating various strawman arguments and trying to score some points over what is an analogy for a completely different subject. What's really on your mind?

 

[Buka]

The AAA Foundation did a study I found, just last year. There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents. I think that the latter is a result of the former. But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves. They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate. In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't. But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other. The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger. It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon. (Interesting note, I saw on an infographic that guys driving blue BMWs are the most likely to engage in aggressive driving and road rage... that seems pretty specific.. not sure if it's true, but it was funny).

They say that aggressive driving is a factor in over half of all traffic fatalities (lower than the NHTSA number of over 65%, but still very high). They also say that over 90% of drivers believe that aggressive driving and road rage are a "somewhat" or "very serious" threat to their personal safety.


Here's a convenient summary of common, aggressive driving behaviors. Some are less dangerous than others. I was surprised at the number of incidents where people who are intentionally (that's a key word from earlier in the thread) cutting people off and tailgating. Also, I was surprised at how often people got out of their cards to confront someone or, worse, used their car as a weapon by bumping or ramming another car on purpose.

6 million drivers bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose. In contrast, in 2015 (according to the FBI) an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes occurred nationwide. "Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force."

Trying to draw this back to the thread here, this derail is the result of people trying to nitpick an analogy, and as a result, making ridiculous assumptions based upon staunch defense of an unreasonable position. To suggest that road rage is other than intentional, or to try to downplay how pervasive its affects are on drivers in the USA (and probably elsewhere), is silly.

Sometimes I merge into traffic so seamlessly I can actually hear other drivers honking their approval.
Now, if I can only get me a blue BMW and a French Poodle with a sweater vest to ride shotgun - I'd be the balls.

 

[Juany118]

I'll just quote one of my earlier posts:

There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents. I think that the latter is a result of the former. But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves. They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate. In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't. But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other. The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger. It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon.

What a report is written to address is also important. The one you quote above is "presents the results of a study conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess the effects of two programs that were implemented to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving." (emphasis mine). So, taking any of the conclusions from this document out of context would be a little risky. It does have a lot of interesting information about the various reasons people drive aggressively.

From the NHTSA website: "Aggressive driving has become a serious problem on our roadways. What is aggressive driving? Most of us know it when we see it, but NHTSA, after discussions with law enforcement and the judiciary, defines aggressive driving as occurring when "an individual commits a combination of moving traffic offenses so as to endanger other persons or property.""

What's the problem here? You're moving from premise to premise, creating various strawman arguments and trying to score some points over what is an analogy for a completely different subject. What's really on your mind?

No I am not. What I said first was respond to the introduction of road rage and the potential accidents and/or deaths and first raised the issue of "intent" vs "recklessness" as even in road rage incidents many of the accidents are reckless vs intentional results where as injury and/or death as a result of an assault starts with an intent to injure out of the gate.

Next you posted a result of a AAA study and stated that statistics prove road rage is a major problem. I noted that there is a problem in that sometimes people confabulate different data points, accidents vs road rage related shootings or aggressive driving vs road rage. You then said it was wrong for me to quibble about intent in the face of statistics from an advocacy group is wrong. I then responded with a report by a regulatory agency that concluded that road rage accidents/deaths are over exaggerated due to various factors.

As for the purpose of the report you are correct, sorta. They did the research, coming to the conclusion that road rage, while a problem is exaggerated, in order to provide guidance on how to distribute finite Enforcement and Prevention resources. The same study also supported what I said earlier, aggressive driving exists independent of road rage. So I don't see how I have changed my key point which is...

Simply because two things dangerous doesn't make them analogous. In this case you have one danger that requires intent on the part of one participant and the other that more often than not doesn't.

 

[Steve]

double post...

 

[Steve]

Sometimes I merge into traffic so seamlessly I can actually hear other drivers honking their approval.
Now, if I can only get me a blue BMW and a French Poodle with a sweater vest to ride shotgun - I'd be the balls.

My wife has a bias against men in BMWs. Personally, as a guy who has always driven small cars, I think the two worst categories of drivers are men in raised pickup trucks and women in SUVs. Are these biases fair? Probably not, and they aren't scientific, but whenever I'm cut off, tailgated or blocked, it's almost always by either a guy in a jacked up pickup or a woman in an SUV.

Volvo drivers tend to be passively negligent, I believe. My working theory is that it's because they feel safe and so are more inclined to take risks. Same with women in SUVs.

There are no studies to support my blanket statements above, just to be clear. This is based upon my own experience of driving among these idiots for 30 years without ever having an accident or citation.

 

[Steve]

No I am not. What I said first was respond to the introduction of road rage and the potential accidents and/or deaths and first raised the issue of "intent" vs "recklessness" as even in road rage incidents many of the accidents are reckless vs intentional results where as injury and/or death as a result of an assault starts with an intent to injure out of the gate.

Next you posted a result of a AAA study and stated that statistics prove road rage is a major problem. I noted that there is a problem in that sometimes people confabulate different data points, accidents vs road rage related shootings or aggressive driving vs road rage. You then said it was wrong for me to quibble about intent in the face of statistics from an advocacy group is wrong. I then responded with a report by a regulatory agency that concluded that road rage accidents/deaths are over exaggerated due to various factors.

As for the purpose of the report you are correct, sorta. They did the research, coming to the conclusion that road rage, while a problem is exaggerated, in order to provide guidance on how to distribute finite Enforcement and Prevention resources. The same study also supported what I said earlier, aggressive driving exists independent of road rage. So I don't see how I have changed my key point which is...

Simply because two things dangerous doesn't make them analogous. In this case you have one danger that requires intent on the part of one participant and the other that more often than not doesn't.

You don't see road rage as being a form of aggressive driving? That isn't consistent. So, while not synonymous, they are analogous in that all road rage is a form of "aggressive driving" while not all aggressive driving is road rage. All French poodles are dogs, not all dogs are French poodles. I'm trying to be very clear, because this is like the third or fourth time I've made this point.

Also, I don't think I've said you're changing your main point. I have suggested you are arguing actual strawmen, something you've accused many other people of doing in the past. You're moving from one premise to the other and crafting irrelevant arguments which you then refute. Your main point remains the same, but that's not the same thing. Is it? You are now hyperfocusing on "road rage" and missing the forest for the trees. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but if it's on purpose, that is a strawman. The idea of enforcement and whether or not it's prosecutable isn't relevant. It's smoke and mirrors.

I can think of some other analogies, which might help. But frankly, I'm afraid to try and explain to you any more because you might get even more lost in the weeds. My impression is that, as you've done in other threads, you're getting hung up on language. You're not being as precise as you think.

 

[Juany118]

You don't see road rage as being a form of aggressive driving? That isn't consistent. So, while not synonymous, they are analogous in that all road rage is a form of "aggressive driving" while not all aggressive driving is road rage. All French poodles are dogs, not all dogs are French poodles. I'm trying to be very clear, because this is like the third or fourth time I've made this point.

Also, I don't think I've said you're changing your main point. I have suggested you are arguing actual strawmen, something you've accused many other people of doing in the past. You're moving from one premise to the other and crafting irrelevant arguments which you then refute. Your main point remains the same, but that's not the same thing. Is it? You are now hyperfocusing on "road rage" and missing the forest for the trees. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but if it's on purpose, that is a strawman. The idea of enforcement and whether or not it's prosecutable isn't relevant. It's smoke and mirrors.

I can think of some other analogies, which might help. But frankly, I'm afraid to try and explain to you any more because you might get even more lost in the weeds. My impression is that, as you've done in other threads, you're getting hung up on language. You're not being as precise as you think.

Road rage is aggressive driving BUT most aggressive driving is not road rage. That is why I say you must look at aggressive driving independent of road rage, so your dog analogy is right on.

As for a strawman, and maybe I misunderstood, I believed that you were trying to say that road rage incidents that result in death or injury is analogous to a consensual fight or an assault of some kind. My main point (and I will admit to derailing getting trapped in a "what is and how serious is the road rage problem) was simply that they aren't analogous because road rage and/or aggressive driving doesn't necessarily have the intent to cause bodily injury (which can result in death) where as a consensual fight, or a person engaged in an assault, has the intent to cause bodily injury.

 

[Steve]

If I...
"

• Trying to block another vehicle from changing lanes

• Cutting off another vehicle on purpose

• Getting out of the vehicle to confront another driver

• Bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose"

Then I am doing things on purpose. The words above are not mine. they're from the AAA Foundation website based upon a study they conducted. I haven't fully vetted their methodology, but they're making a specific point which is that people, for many reasons, are aggressive behind the wheel and do things that put other people in danger... and that they do these things on purpose. I didn't make that up. And while you make a fine point that they are an advocacy group, the above is not incongruous with the NHTSA study you shared, which also highlights the dangers of aggressive driving.

AND, all of the above are in response to a strawman you propped up by going down the rabbit hole of legal intent and a singular focus on road rage. My original statement to Ironbear was, "In fact, I think that statistically speaking, you are MUCH more likely to be a victim of road rage and aggressive driving than of being mugged or assaulted outside of a car." That's exactly what I wrote. And it seems to be true, given the number of incidents of road rage and the violent crime stats from the FBI. I also acknowledged at the time that I had just done a quick google search, so I mean, I don't think I was trying to mislead anyone, but I have enjoyed reading both the report you posted and several others since then.

I then suggested that the analogy was more like a stunt driver than a race car driver, which I think was good stuff, but maybe not so much as it was completely ignored.

Full disclosure, I also said earlier that statistically speaking, even if someone is trying to rob you, rape you or assault you, they are very rarely trying to kill you. They may have intent to do bodily harm, but that's not the same as trying to end your life. Is it?

And also, I said something about how self defense is fighting only when it's convenient to say so. "Self defense" is whatever we want it to be.

Edit: What's frustrating about this is that I feel like the points are lost in the back and forth about whether or not road rage and aggressive driving are the same thing, and how one is a subset of the other.

 

[Juany118]

If I...
"

• Trying to block another vehicle from changing lanes

• Cutting off another vehicle on purpose

• Getting out of the vehicle to confront another driver

• Bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose"

Then I am doing things on purpose. The words above are not mine. they're from the AAA Foundation website based upon a study they conducted. I haven't fully vetted their methodology, but they're making a specific point which is that people, for many reasons, are aggressive behind the wheel and do things that put other people in danger... and that they do these things on purpose. I didn't make that up. And while you make a fine point that they are an advocacy group, the above is not incongruous with the NHTSA study you shared, which also highlights the dangers of aggressive driving.

AND, all of the above are in response to a strawman you propped up by going down the rabbit hole of legal intent and a singular focus on road rage. My original statement to Ironbear was, "In fact, I think that statistically speaking, you are MUCH more likely to be a victim of road rage and aggressive driving than of being mugged or assaulted outside of a car." That's exactly what I wrote. And it seems to be true, given the number of incidents of road rage and the violent crime stats from the FBI. I also acknowledged at the time that I had just done a quick google search, so I mean, I don't think I was trying to mislead anyone, but I have enjoyed reading both the report you posted and several others since then.

I then suggested that the analogy was more like a stunt driver than a race car driver, which I think was good stuff, but maybe not so much as it was completely ignored.

Full disclosure, I also said earlier that statistically speaking, even if someone is trying to rob you, rape you or assault you, they are very rarely trying to kill you. They may have intent to do bodily harm, but that's not the same as trying to end your life. Is it?

And also, I said something about how self defense is fighting only when it's convenient to say so. "Self defense" is whatever we want it to be.

Edit: What's frustrating about this is that I feel like the points are lost in the back and forth about whether or not road rage and aggressive driving are the same thing, and how one is a subset of the other.

You can do something on purpose and lack criminal intent. A more blatant example, that even lacks recklessness is the hunter (legally hunting) who aims at a deer, misses but on the other side of the deer is brush inadvertently concealing another person who is struck by the bullet.

Now if a person intentionally "tapped" the bumper of another vehicle at speed, causing a vehicle to lose control you can demonstrate the intent. Getting out of a vehicle to engage in a confrontation also demonstrates intent.

Lane changes, tail gating, "brake checking", high beam flashing etc do not demonstrate the requisite intent however and these methods of "aggressive driving" are by far the most common.

A chart on this page shows the number of incidents that resulted in death in one year Aggressive Driving however the vast majority of the categories (and % of events) fails to demonstrate the intent to do injury to another.

As for your point regarding aggressive driving vs assaults I would agree with you regarding those that end in death (there were just under 16,000 homicides last year vs the 44k + deaths noted on the chart) but in terms of assaults, robberies etc I am not so sure.

In 2010 there were 5.4 million accidents. How many of those were a result of aggressive driving is unclear. On the other side of the argument the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics manages an annual survey of violent victimization due to the fact the FBI statistics don't cover "simple assaults" and the fact the UCR submissions by police are not only voluntary but also only covers crimes reported to police. In 2010 there were 4.9 million violent victimization and in 2012 the survey showed approximately 5.8 million. So, frighteningly, the number of violent acts against our fellow citizens is not to far off and all of those victimizations have the requisite intent.

 

[Steve]

Okay. Cam you tell me specifically what from my post prompted you to write this?

 

[Juany118]

Its like talking to a rock.

How so? first I acknowledge that there are more fatal accidents in the US than homicides. I don't even raise the argument that we don't know how many of those fatalities are a result of aggressive driving, I just basically give you that one.

Next as you said you were more likely to be a victim of road rage and aggressive driving, I noted the total number of car accidents (ergo road rage and aggressive driving accidents will be less) and then showed how a Federal Agency determined that the rate of violent victimization in the US is comparable to the total number of accidents in the US. That seems rather on point.

Next I am drawing a distinction from an aggressive driving accident and a violent victimization because an aggressive driving accident (not road rage) doesn't have the requisite intent to commit bodily injury (regardless of whether a death is involved, where as a violent victimization has said intent. I find this rather on point as well because an analogy needs an apples to apples comparison in my mind and intent is a key element.

 

[Steve]

How so? first I acknowledge that there are more fatal accidents in the US than homicides. I don't even raise the argument that we don't know how many of those fatalities are a result of aggressive driving, I just basically give you that one.

Next as you said you were more likely to be a victim of road rage and aggressive driving, I noted the total number of car accidents (ergo road rage and aggressive driving accidents will be less) and then showed how a Federal Agency determined that the rate of violent victimization in the US is comparable to the total number of accidents in the US. That seems rather on point.

Next I am drawing a distinction from an aggressive driving accident and a violent victimization because an aggressive driving accident (not road rage) doesn't have the requisite intent to commit bodily injury (regardless of whether a death is involved, where as a violent victimization has said intent. I find this rather on point as well because an analogy needs an apples to apples comparison in my mind and intent is a key element.

i think you're like a rock because after all of this, you're still talking about criminal intent. baffling.

 

[drop bear]

Muggers don't go around putting people in triangle chokes. You are talking about young males getting into street/bar figths which is not the samething as people defending themselves from criminals. Either you haven't listened to the podcast, or have and didn't undertand it. Either makes attempts at continued discussion futile, so I won't waste my time or yours trying.

So you dishonestly take one example out of three. And think the overall concept does not apply.

 

[KenpoBoxer]

Fact is mma is nothing like a street fight. I've had to fight in the streets before and it's nothing like any sparring match or cage fight. There's no circling or feints or flicking out light leg kicks or jabs.

There's no martial art that completely prepares you to fight in the street anyone no matter how good they are will get hit in a fight any boxer any mma fighter any karate you'll all get hit.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I was beginning to forget what this thread was actually about.