No abstract

Stroke patients were compared with "normal" drivers. On public roads stroke patients exhibited special difficulty in entering and leaving motorways and handling traffic at roundabouts. On private roads stroke patients were relatively unaware of other vehicles, exhibited difficulty in reversing, had difficulty in doing two things at once in an emergency and had difficulty in placing their car accurately on the left. Analysis revealed variables that might be used to rate stroke patients on their driving skills.

The first half of 1915 was a special time of hate in Britain: for in this phase of the Great War atrocity-mongering reached its peak.Tales of outrages committed by Germans replenished the queues at the recruiting offices and triggered off indiscriminate violence in Britain against residents of German origin or (supposed) pro-German sympathies. But more importantly, they reinforced the conviction thatalthough the end of the struggle might be much farthei off than had initially been expectedno resolution of the conflict was acceptable short of total victory. The principal atrocity, of course, was war itself. The grievous casualties (if small by later standards) suffered by British forces at Second Ypres and Neuve Chapelle and Cape Helles imposed on a growing number of British families a heavy deprivation, and one only acceptable because it could be seen as a stepping-stone to their nation's ultimate triumph. But in addition to the established round of death by gunfire, a series of events rendered Germany peculiarly repugnant at this time. These were the use of poison gas against British combatants; the first Zeppelin raids upon British cities; the sinking of the passenger-liner Lusitania; and the publication of the Bryce Report, which proclaimed German forces guilty of widespread sadistic outrages during the invasion of Belgium. It was a particular stimulant to hate that, in all but one of these excep-

No abstract

Why are we so obsessed by the Great War of 1914-18? Contrary to a popular view, it was not history's longest or bloodiest conflict. It was shorter than the second world war, and consumed only one-fifth as many lives. It caused much hunger, but no famines. It saw no vast destruction of cities, or butchery of women and children, or (outside the Ottoman Empire) frightful episodes of genocide. Such bombing from the air as took place was, despite the travails of the Kaiser's fleet of Zeppelins, insignificant. Indeed one aspect of the first world war which is so deplored, namely the phenomenon of trench warfare and military stalemate, ensured that armies would lack the opportunity (even if they had possessed the wish) to rampage over enemy territory, burning cities and raping women.So why does the first world war continue to haunt, fascinate and puzzle us? Why is this war, more than any other, the struggle we commemorate? (Armistice day dates from the first world war as, for Australia and New Zealand, does Anzac Day.) And why are we convinced that that conflict, in particular, was history's prime example of war as horror and futility?One reason is its timing. In the century before 1914, wars between European states had been few and brief. Also during that century, European living standards (certainly in the industrializing west) had begun markedly to rise. With the seemingly irresistible development of an international industrial economy, of liberal systems of government, and of socialist ideals, the day seemed to be approaching when both endemic poverty and conflict between nations would become a thing of the past.The war of 1914-18 challenged this hopeful vision of a world more prosperous and more peaceful. It unveiled the dark side of industrial advancement: the prodigious capacity of modern industry to produce weapons of destruction in almost limitless quantities. It killed and maimed millions of healthy young males (disproportionately from the better nourished and educated and skilled sections of society). It witnessed prolonged engagements