HoodaThunk?

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) held a public experiment of sorts recently when several of their members and other citizens visited several restaurants in Fairfax County and ordered dinner while carrying their sidearms openly. The reporter (an AP guy who must have choked on his words) wrote that Bruce Jackson of VCDL stood up in Champps in Reston and announced to everyone there that he and several others were armed and got as a reaction… pretty much nothing.

The armed customers stood up in unison, showing off their holstered pistols and revolvers. Jackson said a word or two about the rights of gun owners to carry firearms in Virginia, then thanked everyone for their attention and sat down.

The diners returned to their burgers and Budweisers.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League organized the gathering at Champps to prove a point: that the presence of armed customers in northern Virginia restaurants would elicit little more than shrugs.

And, based on this report, their point was proven. Don’t worry, Mr. AP found the requisite “what do they need guns in a restaurant for” people to quote. By and large, however, the point about carrying guns was well proven. It’s not a danger to society and innocent children and pets don’t die 3 seconds after a weapon in carried into their presence. As we’ve said all along: it’s the crook, not the gun.

More on this later…

In an announcement that surprises no one from the DC region, it appears that DC comes in #5 on the “AutoVantage Road Rage Survey.”

The District is the No. 1 place for drivers to slam on their brakes at the last possible second. Forty percent of drivers see this every day.

Here are some of the other key findings of the survey:

• Younger drivers with the longest commutes are most likely to react to an aggressive or rude driver. Those with the longest drives are the most likely to make an obscene gesture.
• Men and women react the same ways when it comes to road rage.

So far so good. I’ve got a minor issue with emphasis put on “slam[ming] on their brakes at the last possible second” comment, however. In the more congested parts of my commute I and most of my fellow commuters have discovered that if you leave a reasonable interval between you and the car in front of you, it’s like putting up a neon sign that says, “please cut me off.” People dive into that safe zone, often without even a signal. When that happens to you a dozen or so times, you start leaving less space between the cars and that leads to instances where you’re going to have to hit your brakes harder and faster than you otherwise might. I don’t know that I would call that “rage”, per say, but I can see why you would.

The inclusion of talking on a cell phone in the “rage” category, however, I cannot approve. Talking, whether on a cell phone or not, is not “rage.” It’s a potential distraction, yes. The cell phone merely increases that potential. It is no more “rage” than is picking up that latte you ordered at the Starbuck’s drive-thru and taking a swig. In fact, in the very next bullet point after the cell phone reference, eating and drinking were called “road rage trigger[s]” and that’s a more fitting title. I’d put cell phone use in there as a trigger but you’re not going to convince me that using one is, of itself, a demonstration of road rage.

Very often we see terms get abused like this, where strong advocates for this or that will over-emphasize something in order to get the behavior shift they want to see. That’s what we’re seeing here. Some folks think cell phone use is a slippery slope to road rage or accidents; that using one means one will crash or one will exhibit rage. They figure that by cutting out the actual rage event, they can get people to stop using them because… well, they think people will do anything to avoid being one of the road rage brigade. I think that’s a flawed idea from 2 directions. Call things what they are and demonstrate how 1 action leads to the tendency toward another. Be honest and people will listen.