6 ms·

Until you realize being cut off doesn’t actually impact you much so you play a much safer game of giving everyone a wide enough berth to act like an idiot and n

Until you realize being cut off doesn’t actually impact you much so you play a much safer game of giving everyone a wide enough berth to act like an idiot and not ruin your day. Driving habits are extremely psychologically interesting, from road rage at a stranger who did something you didn’t like to people feeling compelled, and indeed proud, of unsafe driving habits that put multiple lives at risk to save a couple minutes on a trip. An argument could be made that curing these tendencies would stand to save more lives then almost any other mass behavioral correction (saving maybe dietary choices).

Semaphor 5y ago
> Until you realize being cut off doesn’t actually impact you much I keep a long distance, and I drive fast. Germany, so fast means actually fast. My large safety margin means I have to keep braking because slower cars move past me and into my safety margin. Then, once the original blockage in front of me is cleared, I have to pass all those slower idiots who just overtook me again. If driving wasn’t such a rare occurrence (usually 3-4 times a year) for me, I’d probably stop keeping a large safety distance like every other asshole. Granted, race car drivers who think distance is measured in centimeters are even worse.
Firaxus 5y ago
Absolutely. In the context of high way driving especially with its high speeds, the slight slowing down to maintain follow distance even if people were constantly moving in is negligible to the overall trip time, and it’s highway driving where that follow distance is the most critical to saving lives. If people sat down with the numbers and realized how little that slight slowing down in the moment someone moves in front of them impacts their trip time, how little it matters to the original trip time that someone passed them, the roads would be a lot safer, less stressful, and faster overall.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  If everyone slowed down, there would be far more congestion backing up due to reducing the throughput of the road. I would argue that the people driving at distances closer to the car in front of them are reducing congestion by increasing the throughput of the road. Obviously this is mitigated by decreased throughput due to increased probability of collisions. But if EVERYONE drove such that they could fully stop if the car in front do them fully stopped, you would have a public uproar over how much backed up traffic there was. There road is basically constantly in flux and politicians could enforce minimum driving distances very easily with cameras and drive down collisions, but it would be massively unpopular and they would get voted out immediately. I presume that is why we already do not have speed cameras in the US. It would be trivial to fine everyone breaking the speed limits. Or even driving too close to each other. For a tolled road, you can get go back however many years you want and retroactively fine people for going past the speed limit based on toll time stamps. But I figure the lack of this happening means the public wants to make this risk vs convenience trade off.
  - Firaxus 5y ago
    As soon as someone crashes, that congestion is going to go way up. In very specific conditions where a road is congested already, slowing down does cause a cascading effect, BUT, if everyone is already maintaining a proper follow distance, it takes longer for the road to reach max congestion in the first place. Consider it like a bunch of springs all lined up spring wise; if you have the same number of springs, and you’re trying to insert a new spring (someone is merging), the springs which were less compressed will more easily accept a new spring, while the ones where are already compressed will experience more strain. And imo, I’d rather be going slow because “we’re going the follow distance” than going slow because “someone went too fast in an unsafe condition and crashed (or worse)”. In the face of sheer car volume, we’re all going slow(er, though note that we’re usually still getting there faster than a horse would have) pretty much no matter what, might as well be safe while doing it.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      > BUT, if everyone is already maintaining a proper follow distance, it takes longer for the road to reach max congestion in the first place. I do not think this is a realistic model of the way roads work due to rush hours and sudden increases in demand. The ideal rules are great for when demand ebbs and flows gradually, but things change when everyone wants to be on the road between 8AM and 8:30AM. Then, you can have all the protocols you want, but the system has reached max capacity and there is no avoiding that other than dealing with the consequences (congestion -> stop and go traffic -> gridlock) and of course a collision or two. I am not saying this justifies driving like a maniac and cutting people off. I simply expect people to act a certain way over the boundary conditions of a situation are approached, and I will not expect it to be the same as how they act when we are not pushing the limits.
  - projektfu 5y ago
    There are several major traffic accidents in Atlanta every morning during rush hour on the most important arteries. Most of these are probably caused by tailgating or aggressive behavior during merging. They turn a 30 minute commute into a 90 minute commute if any lanes remain open. I can’t imagine that the downstream effects of maintaining a safe following distance and permitting people to merge would cause anywhere near the inconvenience of these daily, destructive events.
tasha0663 5y ago
This is another reason why I think of commuting as a religion. Where else would you see such zeal and self-righteous behavior?

Semaphor 5y ago

> Until you realize being cut off doesn’t actually impact you much I keep a long distance, and I drive fast. Germany, so fast means actually fast. My large safety margin means I have to keep braking because slower cars move past me and into my safety margin. Then, once the original blockage in front of me is cleared, I have to pass all those slower idiots who just overtook me again. If driving wasn’t such a rare occurrence (usually 3-4 times a year) for me, I’d probably stop keeping a large safety distance like every other asshole. Granted, race car drivers who think distance is measured in centimeters are even worse.

Firaxus 5y ago

Absolutely. In the context of high way driving especially with its high speeds, the slight slowing down to maintain follow distance even if people were constantly moving in is negligible to the overall trip time, and it’s highway driving where that follow distance is the most critical to saving lives. If people sat down with the numbers and realized how little that slight slowing down in the moment someone moves in front of them impacts their trip time, how little it matters to the original trip time that someone passed them, the roads would be a lot safer, less stressful, and faster overall.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
If everyone slowed down, there would be far more congestion backing up due to reducing the throughput of the road. I would argue that the people driving at distances closer to the car in front of them are reducing congestion by increasing the throughput of the road. Obviously this is mitigated by decreased throughput due to increased probability of collisions. But if EVERYONE drove such that they could fully stop if the car in front do them fully stopped, you would have a public uproar over how much backed up traffic there was. There road is basically constantly in flux and politicians could enforce minimum driving distances very easily with cameras and drive down collisions, but it would be massively unpopular and they would get voted out immediately. I presume that is why we already do not have speed cameras in the US. It would be trivial to fine everyone breaking the speed limits. Or even driving too close to each other. For a tolled road, you can get go back however many years you want and retroactively fine people for going past the speed limit based on toll time stamps. But I figure the lack of this happening means the public wants to make this risk vs convenience trade off.
- Firaxus 5y ago
  As soon as someone crashes, that congestion is going to go way up. In very specific conditions where a road is congested already, slowing down does cause a cascading effect, BUT, if everyone is already maintaining a proper follow distance, it takes longer for the road to reach max congestion in the first place. Consider it like a bunch of springs all lined up spring wise; if you have the same number of springs, and you’re trying to insert a new spring (someone is merging), the springs which were less compressed will more easily accept a new spring, while the ones where are already compressed will experience more strain. And imo, I’d rather be going slow because “we’re going the follow distance” than going slow because “someone went too fast in an unsafe condition and crashed (or worse)”. In the face of sheer car volume, we’re all going slow(er, though note that we’re usually still getting there faster than a horse would have) pretty much no matter what, might as well be safe while doing it.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > BUT, if everyone is already maintaining a proper follow distance, it takes longer for the road to reach max congestion in the first place. I do not think this is a realistic model of the way roads work due to rush hours and sudden increases in demand. The ideal rules are great for when demand ebbs and flows gradually, but things change when everyone wants to be on the road between 8AM and 8:30AM. Then, you can have all the protocols you want, but the system has reached max capacity and there is no avoiding that other than dealing with the consequences (congestion -> stop and go traffic -> gridlock) and of course a collision or two. I am not saying this justifies driving like a maniac and cutting people off. I simply expect people to act a certain way over the boundary conditions of a situation are approached, and I will not expect it to be the same as how they act when we are not pushing the limits.
- projektfu 5y ago
  There are several major traffic accidents in Atlanta every morning during rush hour on the most important arteries. Most of these are probably caused by tailgating or aggressive behavior during merging. They turn a 30 minute commute into a 90 minute commute if any lanes remain open. I can’t imagine that the downstream effects of maintaining a safe following distance and permitting people to merge would cause anywhere near the inconvenience of these daily, destructive events.

tasha0663 5y ago

This is another reason why I think of commuting as a religion. Where else would you see such zeal and self-righteous behavior?