You beep at some poor sod who is blocking the left lane, legally staying 7 metres behind the car in front, they get flustered from the disproportional show of rage when they didn't even understand what you're on about, and crash into some other poor sod, rather than you waiting the 20 seconds for the light to change. What kind of a world do you really want? I think you want the wild west, as you believe you can thrive based on your superior intellect, aggression, whatever.

Just don't let your guard down. Or get old or sick or distracted. Don't make a mistake will you.

I have already posted this talk elsewhere. It is relevant here as well,

The intolerance of Tolerance by Don Carson,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PVJlnvVeSM

"..You pair have convinced me. I will get that tyre valve removal tool, next time I'm in town."

Excellent, Hasbeen.....apparently your notion of being "too civilised" was some kind of aberration and was merely holding you back - nothing that a spot of retaliatory vandalism won't cure.

It's interesting that those who delight in telling us of their disdain and frustration at the actions of careless people, appear to be slapping themselves on the back that they would do the same type of things "deliberately".

Strange old world.....

I blame tinted windows…

Road rage incidents were virtually unheard of years ago when all drivers could see all other drivers at all times – and vapid little shrugs or a mouthed 'sorry' defused many a potential incident.

Then car windows turned into mobile versions of interrogation cell one-way mirrors and increasing numbers of drivers started figuratively acting like 'perps' in TV dramas throwing tantrums and chairs at them.

Psychologically it's almost understandable when you get in your car to drive in your manner to your destination along your route for your purposes… that everyone else should realise that it is your road.

But for some unknown reason they don't. They think it's theirs.

Hasbeen,

Don't miss the chance to ask where some of these high horses are being parked. LOL

Poirot, he was the one who failed to act in an adult and civilised manner by attempting to run off without admitting to responsibility. All I did was prosecute my own claim to being treated decently. My use of the pejorative is not intended to dehumanise, merely paint a word picture succinctly. On the other hand, have you noticed how US and increasingly Australian police avoiding using the word "people" or person? The preferred usage in the US is "individual", when the simple word "person" would do. that is intended to be dehumanising and separate them from "we, the people" and thus reduce empathic responses from the cops.

Hoellie, you're stretching, mate. I am not tolerant of lackadaisical incompetence, whether it is from some other person on the road, the copper behind the counter, the doctor who can't advise on the proper treatment for a mild ankle fracture (another recent experience - he had to refer to a textbook), the bureaucrat who can't exercise judgement to override minor failures of process, the tradesman who can't do things that are basic to his trade.

The trouble is that we have dumbed down our expectations of people to an enormous extent and yet we pretend that the standards are every bit as high as always. They're simply not, because people are being trained to follow a process rather than engage any of their own thinking in doing a good job and the process is deliberately limited in complexity to ensure nobody can't do it, so it leads to bad outcomes.

For me, the most glaring example is that competency based training is now being accepted as a means of demonstrating educational attainment when seeking entry to Uni. It's not even evidence of attainment of the skill it purports to be imparting, let alone of capacity to learn!

There will always be a spectrum of abilities, but benchmarks should be based on the needs of a task, not on the qualities of the applicants. That's not a matter of tolerance or elitism, but simple practicality.