blog #6

Have you ever noticed that any fatal incident on the road- whether someone hit black ice and slid of the road, went through a light and crashed because they were speeding, or were drunk and hit another car- it is always called an "accident". In his book Traffic, Tom Vanderbilt explains how dangerous it is to use that word. According to Vanderbilt, an accident is something that is "unpredictable and unavoidable" (66), but very few crashes actually have these characteristics. People often think that they are generally good drivers and crashes are just a stroke of bad luck. In reality, people are always building habits that make their driving an accident waiting to happen, and it is actually lucky that they don't crash. Car crashes are not unavoidable. In fact, "most crashes involve a violation of traffic laws..." (66). What Vanderbilt wants to say is that people have the power to prevent most accidents simply by breaking their unsafe driving habits. This is much harder to do in reality than in theory because most drivers don't even realize that they are driving poorly. This is true of people in every aspect of life, and that is why so many "accidents" occur in the world.

While reading this book, I haven't really learned anything new. It has had some interesting facts and statistics, but the conclusions these facts have drawn me to seem to be no-brainers. I mean, of course people don't want to assume responsibility for what could become a potential accident. Isn't it obvious that people's stereotypical nature would lead them to make assumptions about their fellow drivers? Also, it's no secret that people are egotistical. No one wants to admit that they're wrong. Finally, doesn't everyone know that taking care of all the little problems will prevent big problems from occurring? I was really disappointed with this book and found it very difficult to read because it felt like it was leading me absolutely nowhere. Still, ending on a positive note, I may yet become a better driver because of it.

Blog #5- the above average effect

More often than not, people have frightfully huge egos. This is a simple fact that is especially seen in driving. In any survey asking drivers to compare themselves to other drivers, they will always rate themselves as "better" (60). If someone is honked at, it immediately becomes a question of "what is that guy's problem?!", not "what am I doing wrong?". All the other drivers are the crazy terrorists of the road, while you are the poor victim who seems to be the only responsible one out there. Apparently this self-enthusiastic attitude has gotten worse according to surveys that show how people are increasingly feeling like their are more rude drivers than courteous ones (61). What does this tell us about people? Somehow or other more and more people are getting it into their heads that they are incapable of doing wrong and that anyone who acts differently than them is "one of the bad guys". It seems to me that if more people would humble themselves and be willing to admit that they are not perfect (they are in fact quite the opposite), everyone would benefit. On the road and in society in general.

Blog #4 1/2 - Traffic Like Ebay?

The online auction site, eBay, consists of millions of complete strangers from all over the world interacting with each other, yet "'overwhelmingly comes off without a hitch'" . You may wonder how this could be. Apparently the answer is feedback, which gives good sellers a reputation that will earn them more revenue (58). In some ways, traffic is similar to eBay as both require the cooperation and ability of millions of strangers to interact with each other. This has raised the question: if there was feedback on people's driving, would they drive safer? Some researchers have considered developing a call-in system where people can either complain about bad driving and compliment good driving. A careful record would then be kept, and each driver would be punished (via higher insurance premiums, suspension of license, etc.) (58). I think this is a ridiculous idea. For one thing, who would ever call in to compliment someone's driving? The whole system would quickly become a giant tattling fiasco, and who knows when someone will just decide to call someone in just because they were in a bad mood. This idea assumes the eBay tagline that "'People are Good''' (57). Though many people try to to good, you can never count on society as a whole to "be good".

Blog #4

I know we all take driving for granted because it is so much a part of daily life, and it's so easy to do. What we don't realize is how many calculations and interpretations we are constantly making when we are driving. According to what Tom Vanderbilt's research has shown him, "every two feet... the driver was exposed to 1,320 'items of information', or roughly 440 words, per minute. This is akin to reading three paragraphs like this one while also looking at lots of pretty pictures, not mention doing all the other things mentioned above- and then repeating the cycle, every minute you drive" (52). This amazing fact shows just how complicated driving really is and how incredibly fast the human brain works. This is also what makes it nearly impossible for robots to drive. Vanderbilt describes the things to consider when teaching a robot to drive, "Teaching a machine to do this [drive] presents elemental problems. Simply analyzing any random traffic scene, as we constantly do , is an enormous undertaking. It requires not only recognizing objects, but understanding how they relate to one another, not just at that moment but in the future" (53). This quote shows how years of research and high tech machines cannot even match the capacity of the human brain. Driving, which is super involuntary and easy for humans, is nearly impossible for machines.

Honestly, I am not enjoying this book so far. It is full of very interesting facts and solid research, but it is so disorganized. There seems to be absolutely no central theme or idea. It is extremely difficult for me to read large amounts at a time because I feel like this book is leading me nowhere. It reads like a bunch of notes and fun facts that have been squashed together and put in a book.

Why are you always in the slow moving lane?

Everyone's been in a traffic jam, and everyone tries to switch into the fastest moving lane, but every time you switch, you notice that the lane you were just in is now going faster. This is one of the most frustrating things about a traffic jam, but according to Tom Vanderbilt in his book Traffic, it's all an illusion. Each lane is going at the same speed. It's only the drivers narrow point of view that tells him otherwise. "Even though the subject in the car...was maintaining the same overall relative pace as the next lane- the car spent more time being passed by cars than it did passing them" (43). We all know that time spent doing something boring or not pleasurable, time goes at an unbelievably slow pace, so when you are in your car getting passed, it seems like more time was spent being passed because unpleasant things always seem to take longer. Not only the irksome habits of time, but also our own habits contribute to the illusion of the other lane moving faster. According to a study, "We spend about 6 percent of our driving time looking in the rearview mirror. In other words, we're much more aware of what is passing us than what we have passed" (43). In other words, we tend to be negative thinkers. We are always looking ahead thinking about where we need to go and getting peeved when other people pass us. I think it would do us a lot of good if we could just stop for a moment and consider the progress we've made so far and not worry about who's passing us- both on the road and in life.

We all know that one of the worst things about work zones are late mergers taking advantage of those who are trying to be upstanding citizens and not cut in front of everyone waiting their turn. However, Vanderbilt argues that late merging actually works out better for everyone. Concerning late merging, an acquaintance of his once said, "Isn't it obvious that the best thing to do is for both lanes to be full right up to the last moment, and then merge in turn? that way, the full capacity of the road is being used, and it's fair on everyone..." (48). What is arguing is that if cars would remain in their lane, each lane would be going twice as fast as if all the cars had merged into one lane. Personally, I am skeptical of this view because it seems that two lanes trying to squash together at one point would be much more difficult to manage. The late merge system apparently causes the overall traffic to move faster according to a study in Pennsylvania (47), but I would think that all the cars trying to come together so suddenly would make traffic more hazardous.

Eye contact and stereotypes on the road

The book I am reading is called Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt, and it's incredible how in depth Vanderbilt gets into the way we behave on the road. He explains the important role eye contact plays in traffic People are cooperative by nature, which is why the human eye is designed to be showing more white than the eyes of animals. This immediately brings your attention to people's eyes. As observed by Vanderbilt, "The eyes, one might argue, help reveal what we would like; eye contact is also a tacit admission that we do not think we will be harmed or exploited if we disclose our intentions" (31). It's amazing how simply looking at someone can clearly let others around you know what you are about to do. That is why eye contact is so necessary at intersections. However, by making eye contact one also takes on responsibility. At least according to Vanderbilt: "Look at another driver and he will know that you have seen him, and thus dart ahead of you. Not looking at a driver shifts the burden of responsibility to him (assuming he has actually seen you), which allows you to proceed first- if, that is, he truly believes you are not aware of him" (32-33). I have noticed many times that people will deliberately not look at me at an intersection and go when it's legally my right of way. If those people had made eye contact with me, they probably wouldn't have gone ahead. I think it's interesting that a person is far less likely to cut someone off if they have made eye contact because they feel accountable to that person even if they know they will probably never see them again.

This sense of accountability also carries over to stereotypes. A study done by Ian Walker, he observed that if a cyclist wore a helmet, passing cars gave them significantly less space than if they didn't wear a helmet (38). This reveals the common stereotype that cyclists wearing their helmets must more rational and safe to drive past. This relieves a driver's sense of accountability for the cyclist's safety. Whereas, if a cyclist is not wearing a helmet, a driver will feel like they would be responsible if they hit the cyclist, and they give them more space. The same thing goes for children. "A driver who sees a small child standing on the roadside may make a stereotypical judgment that 'children have no impulse control' and assume that the child may dash out. The driver slows" (39). Because of the idea that children cannot be trusted with their own safety, the buck is passed to the driver. If an adult is standing at the side of road, the driver is glad not to assume responsibility.

The Transformation from Human Being to Aggressive Driver

What is it about stepping into a car that makes any sane, responsible person into an aggressive, road-raging lunatic? In his book Traffic, Tom Vanderbilt explores the psychology of humans in their cars and explains the causes of behaviors of people behind the wheel. Vanderbilt suggests that road rage is not because of character flaw per se, but because of the loss of humanity once we step into a car. He expands on this by saying, "Think of language, perhaps the defining human characteristic. Being in a car renders us mostly mute" (21). He goes on to say that the lack of proper communication causes many misinterpretations on the road. Experiments and observations have shown that people are quick to jump to an angry, defensive stance when they are honked at. A researcher also argues that it is the inability of drivers to hear each other that makes them angry. He says, "This muteness... makes us mad. We are desperate to say something" (22). When one driver offends another -whether it's intentional or not- the victim finds the need to voice their frustration, but course the offender will make no response. In a certain study, some researchers would honk at another car and record their reactions. "More than three-quarters of the drivers reacted verbally, despite the fact they would not be heard by the honker" (22). As it is human nature to communicate our frustrations and problems, when all sophisticated communication is taken away, we are likely to get angry at other drivers and perhaps drive more aggressively.

Not only is communication lost inside a car, but a person's identity is as well. Once you step into your car, you are identified by the type of car you drive, your license plate, and your bumper stickers. Vanderbilt observes, "Anonymity in traffic acts as a powerful drug, with several curious side effects" (26). People feel free to express themselves in extreme ways when they are alone in their car. Vanderbilt compares being in a car to being in a chatroom. Since you aren't face to face with people, and they have no idea who you are, you are able to say anything you want. This irresponsibility is shown in drivers as well. Vanderbilt also says, "...anonymity increases aggressiveness" (27). He says this because people lose their identity while they are in their car, it is easier for them to get angry at other drivers. On the road, drivers don't see each other as people but as annoyances. Therefore, it is not necessarily inhumane people who are road ragers. Aggressive driving is actually a very human response to the lack of language and identity inside a car

Outside reading post #12

In Moving Violations, the author John Hockenberry reflects on where his wheelchair has taken him and what he has accomplished since his accident. From the moment he first lost control of his legs, Hockenberry has been a fighter, always looking for ways to challenge himself and defy all odds. His father noticed this as well and noted his observations by telling Hockenberry, "'You know, John, your mother and I think you use your wheelchair as a crutch...Your mother and I think that if you weren't in the wheelchair you would never have gotten this far'" (180-181). Because of his wheelchair, Hockenberry has not settled for just scraping by. In fact, he would search for obstacles and in doing so, he would reach extraordinary heights. But Hockenberry's father was not only referring to his son's determination to triumph over impossible challenges. John Hockenberry knew exactly what his father meant and said, "He was talking about pulling my own weight for all the world to see" (181). Hockenberry would never let anyone assist him. He was determined to make it through under his own power in order to prove to the world that his will to succeed was not abated by his disability. Hockenberry always had this strength within him, but his parents believed that if it weren't for the wheelchair, his fortitude may never have had a chance to present itself. Hockenberry's life provides a perfect example of how only the worst of situations can refine us to excellence.

Outside reading post #11

John Hockenberry in Moving Violations is struggling to break through the stereotypes of the rest of the world. He has been fighting to do so ever since his accident but he comes to realize "There was a biblical inevitability to it. The person who confronted a stereotype would end up living it" (160). This statement proved to be very true. As Hockenberry himself admits, "I have become the angry young man, like the black actors compelled to play all the pimps, terroists, and athletes." (160). By being exposed to people's ideas of how he should act for too long, Hockenberry actually starting acting that way. It was these stereotypes that haunted Hockenberry for a long time afterwards. After getting a job for National Public Radio, he is afraid of interviewing people. This shown when he says, "It was more than bashfulness: I was afraid of irritating people, I was afraid of their ignoring me... I was trapped between twin stereotypes, theirs and mine" (165). Over time, the stereotypes of others became his own, and they prevented him from having confidence in himself.

Outside reading post #10

In John Hockenberry's Moving Violations, he is finally starting to realize that trying to fight against all the odds does not pay off in the end. Hockenberry spent all of his time since his accident not submitting to the limitations of his disability. In this section of the reading, he made an incredibly rash decision to buy a car that was not designed for paraplegics just for the sake of it. Afterwards, he reflects on his purchase, "I had just purchased not one, but two cars that, at the very least, were illegal for me to drive, assuming I could ever modify them enough to get either of them out of the driveway" (153). Perhaps Hockenberry saw it as his fight against his disability, but in my opinion, it was sheer selfishness. Because of his massive and foolish purchase, both he and his wife had to move to a lower rent apartment. (He bought the cars only by his wife's reluctant consent.) Also, though Hockenberry may have viewed it as a physical challenge, he was actually endangering people on the roads by driving illegally in a car not designed for people in his condition. I find it discouraging that Hockenberry would not take anyone else into account as he made these decisions. However, he has seen at least one example that has shown him that doesn't have to do outragious things like driving a car or going to a college that isnt' designed for paraplegics. Hockenberry is unable to play most songs on the piano because he cannot reach the pedals, so a music professor suggested that he try the harpischord, which does not require pedals. This would allow him to focus more on the music, rather use his inadequate pedal operator. He unenthusiastically agreed, feeling that he was being cowardly, but after trying it he commented, "It was a harpischord that suggested to me that there was a way through life without all the confrontations" (151). That is when Hockenberry first considers that it is not cowardly to avoid the routes he is physically incapable of taking and that his fights weren't worth the pain he was causing himself and others.

Outside Reading Post- armrests

In his book, Moving Violations, John Hockenberry describes his search for a role model. He wanted this role model to be independent and strong, but what he discovered was that his view of strength verses weakness was incorrect. For a long time, Hockenberry was convinced that armrests on a wheelchair were a sign of weakness. He proudly stated, "People often ask why I don't use armrests. I have only one answer... armrests are for the Tiny Tim, cup-in-hand, poster boy, "Jerry Lewis Telethon" crips" (136). To Hockenberry, the absence of armrests were is declaration of independence from helplessness and weakness. Without his armrests, he felt more capable and would down on those he thought were his role models because they had armrests. "'Hey, Hawking! When you gonna lose those pansy-assed armrests?"' (139). "Because he has armrests, he's a wimp" (140). He says this of two successful people who have been confined to wheelchairs. He doesn't realize that one can still be substantial while submiting somewhat to their disabilities. He spends a lot of time thinking that he is somewhat above all other "crips" until he goes to a Vietnam War memorial and talks with some of the veterans. The ones he talked to were all in wheelchairs and he had a great respect for them and felt below them. While he was with them, he observed, "What I noticed when I looked at his chair was the armrests. They all had armrests except me" (144). Hockenberry finally realized that whether or not you had armrests had nothing to do with your strength of will or character. When he saw those veterans' wheelchairs, Hockenberry came to see that his incessant fight against dependency was only hurting him.

Outside Reading Post- Outcast

In Moving Violations, John Hockenberry recounts his struggles to be treated as a normal human being. He became paralyzed at age nineteen in a car accident and has been confined to a wheelchair ever since. Even though years have passed, he is unable to get over his obvious differences from most people in society, not because he himself can't, but the rest of the world can't. Everywhere he goes, people are staring at him and treating him as an entirely different class of human. When he and his wife would go out in public, people would ask her questions like, "How long were you married before his got in an accident?", and they were always shocked to find out that they married after Hockenberry was already paralyzed. Hockenberry felt that "it was as though she had joined a leper colony as a way of meeting new people" (132). Even though Hockenberry is a fully capable person, able to take care of himself, people immediately classify him as a helpless deadweight when they see his wheelchair. Hockenberry is painfully aware of how the rest of the world sees him. Being an employee at a care center, he had taken two mentally handicapped clients in wheelchairs down to the beach one day. Although the clients were blissfully unaware, Hockenberry knew how the three of them must have looked to outsiders. "They were oblivious of the skeptical world outside the care center... It seemed that I was trained to look for anticipate, even provoke the very people who would get the wrong idea of what we were doing. I was defending Jeanie and Jeff from a world they were'nt even afraid of. They were mentally retarded... and they seemed more free than I" (130). It appears as though Hockenberry can never be free from the staring and the stereotypes and the prying questions. His appearance automatically sets him apart from the rest of the world. It is so easy to treat someone differently simply because of their outward impression.

Outside reading post- independence

In John Hockenberry's Moving Violations, he describes the importance of independence and the shame of accepting help from others. Hockenberry is in a wheelchair because of a car accident when he was nineteen. Ever since then, he's been fighting to keep his independence and escape from the pity and helpfulness of people around him. When he is choosing a college, he immediately rules out wheelchair-friendly colleges. "In my view, any school that would go out of its way to attract crips must have something wrong with it..." (115). He ended up going to the University of Oregon because "no one had suggested it to me" (115). He knows that he won't be able to stand a place that treats him special because of his disability. He wants to get through life by his own accomplishments; not with special priviledges. Before he had a job, Hockenberry was offered to have welfare and food stamps. Since he felt like he didn't need welfare he decided to only accept the food stamps, but even that humiliated him. "...pulling out food stamps in a check-out line was like offering to trade one of your kidneys for a bag of groceries... I felt guilty if I was purchasing anything besides ten-pound bags of grain and powdered milk" (118). Being dependent on food stamps makes Hockenberry feel as if he is a burden on society and he is unable to take care of himself. Finally, when Hockenberry starts to look for a job, he describes the three categories of jobs in the "crip world": jock jobs, crip jobs, and real jobs. Not wanting a job designed for disabled people Hockenberry decides to get a real job saying, "Real jobs are ones that are not crip-designated, that take on humanity at large" (120). He wants to get a job with his own skills and be able to have an impact on society. John Hockenberry feels that nothing is as important to him as independence and the satisfaction of earning his way through the world.