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