| | Re: drivers speeding away
In article <1170433528.843825.18580@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
frkrygow@gmail.com writes:
> On Feb 2, 5:11 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <1170261361.851213.149...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>,
>>
>> >> > (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
>> >> > example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
>> >> > clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
>> >> > just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
>>
>> >> I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
>> >> to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
>>
>> > Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
>> > one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
>> > everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
>> > I flow better within it.
>>
>> Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
>> are for -- to make traffic flow better.
>>
>> I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
>> it invokes the social component of interacting
>> with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
>> social component to be at least as significant
>> as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
>> road." Of course it takes more awareness than
>> adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
>> an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
>> their vehicle, itself.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I recall a pair of images from a "Sprocketman" cartoon book for kids.
> The picture on the left was a view of a crowded city street, showing
> cyclists, pedestrians, car drivers, a bus with driver and passengers,
> etc.
>
> The matching picture pointed out that they were _all_ just people
> getting around, or words to that effect. That picture showed all
> those people in the same positions, but on foot instead of in their
> vehicles. The bus picture, with the driver standing in front of rows
> of standing passengers, seemed particularly funny.
>
> But it does make a couple good points. For example, no matter how big
> and classy your car is, you're still just another person who's allowed
> to use the roadway. You don't get extra privileges because you're
> driving an Escalade.
>
>> Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
>> instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
>> Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
>> left may go first?
>
> Perhaps not much. But the four-way stops I go through on the way to
> work are not lonely, they're usually busy. And if the guy to my right
> starts waving me through, the guy to my left might run out of patience
> and zoom across at the same moment I accept the invitation.
>
> Let me give another, more extreme examplel of excessive politeness.
> The nice young teenage guy who lived next door was once approaching
> from the south on a busy two lane road as my wife and I rode south.
> We were getting ready to make a left turn onto a side street, and I
> noticed a gaggle of cars approaching from our rear. I was near the
> center line, figuring to turn as soon as the teen passed us.
>
> But he didn't. He began slowing and slowing, then came to a full stop
> in his lane, enthusiastically waving for us to turn in front of him.
> Cars behind him were blowing their horns, and cars behind us were
> squeezing by to our right. (My mistake - I didn't take the lane,
> because I figured we'd be gone before they arrived.)
>
> There are all sorts of non-standard moves that work out fine in
> deserted road circumstances. But I'm disussing interacting traffic in
> volume, not just one driver on a deserted country road. And I think
> there's no question that things almost always work out best if people
> follow the rules, instead of trying to be overly creative. The rules
> work.
Y'know, for a long time I've been listening to you
and Robert hashing it out, and I've come to to the
conclusion that your both right, but coming at the
ultimate point of the dialogue from divergent directions.
But I recently half-saw a documentary on TV (the
CBC news channel, to be honest) that put everything
into perspective. The documentary was about car drivers,
but it could pertain to any road/street user. It made
a distinct point about separating operational/technical
skill from innate behaviour.
I believe you're approaching the discussion from the
operational skill angle, while Robert approaches it
from the behaviour angle. No wonder you two have
never been able to reach consensus!
Anyways, here's an interesting approach to the
psychology of driving:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/LEONj/leon.../driving1.html
I guess it applies to riding as well.
Skills are good to have.
Behaviours can also be good to have.
Or, they can also be bad, and shoot us
in the foot despite our skills.
It's easy to be objective about skills;
not so easy to be objective about (let
alone govern) our own behaviours.
So I see you as saying: "Thou shalt not",
while i see Robert as saying: "Tread carefully."
With the right combination of skills and
behaviours, we can ride with more assurance
than with a bad combination of skills and
behaviours. But our own behaviours are
definitely in the mix, and they're part of
what ultimately gets us by, or lets us down.
So anyways, we ride according to a combination
of acquired skills *and* innate behaviours (some
of which we might need to re-learn or reconcider
to keep us from getting clobbered.)
An open mind is the universe.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|