4 ms·

I understand perfectly, 20 years driving, I think people just don't like that the safe answer is to be slow. You will not fix others behaviour, so your options

by ehnto 8mo ago

I understand perfectly, 20 years driving, I think people just don't like that the safe answer is to be slow. You will not fix others behaviour, so your options are be slow and generous, get out of the chaotic lanes (unless that's all of them), or join them and be aggressive, claim space, be stressed and annoyed your whole trip. There is no solution to traffic here sorry, this is more about managing your own frustration and expectations when faced with people at their worst, in the worst form of transport. The total, confirmed, 100% effective solution is to never commute by highway during peak hours, but few get that option.

apparent 8mo ago
It is more dangerous to be slow and have people constantly merging in front of you, rather than be slightly faster and not have all the merging. Accidents happen when vehicles are going different speeds, all things equal.
- kqr 8mo ago
  That seems like a surprising enough statement to be backed up by data. What is your source? Everything I've read points toward larger margins of safety (longer distances, slower speeds) being safer. See e.g. https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/252480/252480.pdf https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/252480...
  - apparent 8mo ago
    Obviously it is safer to have longer follow distances, all things equal. But you don't accomplish that if you leave a long follow distance that is cut off a few seconds later by another car trying to get ahead. You end up with a constant stream of cars cutting your follow distance to less than what it would have been if you had just stayed slightly closer to the car in front of you. We don't live in an ideal world, and having a bunch of cars merging in front of you definitely makes you less safe than having a static situation. I try to make sure I can see through/around the car in front of me, so that I have advance notice of what's happening down the road.
- adw 8mo ago
  American road laws are insane here. The law should be simple; you must be in the outside lane at all times unless you are overtaking, and once you're done overtaking, you should merge back into the outside lane. https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/overtaking.html https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/overtaking.html
  - throwup238 8mo ago
    As far as I know that’s the law in every state I’ve driven in, but enforcement is pretty much nonexistent. Some states like Texas or Louisiana might have signs reminding people to stay out of the inner lanes except for passing but I’ve never heard of anyone getting a ticket over it. What’s enforcement like in the UK? For example, the specific law in California: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21654 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
    - adw 8mo ago
      Vigorous.
  - HPsquared 8mo ago
    Confusingly, the slow lane is called the "inside lane" in the UK, even though it's on the edge of the road and the fast lanes are in the middle.
    - closewith 8mo ago
      That used to be the case in Ireland too, but confusion due to cultural contamination means pretty much everyone moved to numbering lanes (from the "outside"/"slow"/leftmost lane).
      - wiredfool 8mo ago
        I wish. Seems like this is the only place where the verge is in the inside.
      - 8mo ago
- Mawr 8mo ago
  This is dangerous nonsense. It's basically just a justification people find in order to feel good about their unsafe driving.
- maybewhenthesun 8mo ago
  You might be a bad driver and not even know it.
  - apparent 8mo ago
    My decades-long impeccable driving record tends to indicate otherwise. I just don't drive as if I lived in the fantasy land where leaving a long follow distance means I have a lot of room in front of me. It doesn't. It means I get cut off, and the follow distance ends up being shorter than it would have been had I just been following at the same distance as all the other cars on the road.
    - maybewhenthesun 8mo ago
      It is possible of course that the highways you drive are just too busy and the max speed is actually set too high for how busy the road is. That happens more than you'd want because lowering the max of a highway is always an unpopular thing to, even if it's needed. Still, I tend to find that people underestimate the danger of short distances. Often it's just better to accept a 100 cars going in front of you than to shrug off following someone at 1.5 seconds. It can go well for years because crashes are rare, but when you are in a crash you will be royally screwed when you don't have the reaction distance needed.
      - apparent 8mo ago
        This assumes that you can actually maintain a 3 second follow distance. On some roads, you simply cannot, and an attempt to maintain such a distance leads to increased danger from all the cars that cut in. Simply put: follow distance is not a unilateral decision.
        maybewhenthesun 8mo ago
        That's what I mean with 'the road is too busy'. If you can't maintain a 3 second distance the speed needs to go down until you can. But you are right that this is sadly not something you can always do on your own. I'm still convinced people decide way too soon that the 3 second distance is more dangerous. You might be right if people are constantly cutting in the moment you leave a gap, but if someone cuts in every 5 minutes you're still safer off with the gap.
rendall 8mo ago
I am going to validate what you say here. Ehto is correct and this is the way. I'll go further and say that if someone is tailgating you and it's pissing you off, generously let them pass. Literally pull to the side of the road if you must.
taneq 8mo ago
The issue is that when you slow down, you’re (a) creating ‘turbulence’ in the traffic flow with increased speed differential between cars and increased lane changes, which increases accident risk for everybody, and (b) it’s not even solving the problem because you still perpetually have some impatient driver wedging themself in directly in front of you, deleting your buffer zone. It’s safer to drive a little closer, keep up with other traffic and defend what gap you can in front of you. Agree with your conclusion here, though. The best response is to simply not drive in this kind of traffic.
- maybewhenthesun 8mo ago
  Hard disagree. It is not safer to ignore your safety buffer. It is certainly not safer to defend your buffer. If traffic is very busy, the trick is to just accept people will wedge in front of you and keep going slightly smaller each time to increase the buffer again. You might create 'turbulence', which might possibly decrease the safety a bit for all the impatient drivers doing the wedging. But it increases your own safety. And therefore also that of the people following you and your passengers. I'm also not convinced on the 'turbulence' part. Keeping a buffer smoothes out any sudden speed variations of the people in front of you, which makes the traffic behind you flow better. And it might maybe feel a lot slower to let a 100 cars go in front of you on your commute, but just driving 99km/h when the person in front of you does 100 is enough to increase your gap and it makes a whopping 1% of difference. The only thing is: sometimes a road is just too busy and the space for a buffer just isn't there to begin with. At that point the speeds should go down to accommodate the smaller buffers, which is actually what happens here in the netherlands as long as there aren't too many people ignoring the speeds advisory boards above the highway.
- closewith 8mo ago
  > The issue is that when you slow down, you’re (a) creating ‘turbulence’ in the traffic flow with increased speed differential between cars and increased lane changes, which increases accident risk for everybody, and (b) it’s not even solving the problem because you still perpetually have some impatient driver wedging themself in directly in front of you, deleting your buffer zone. That's very obviously not true. Slowing down always reduces energy in the system and always reduces global turbulence. It's one of the reasons that countries that lower speed limits see journey times reduce.
Muromec 8mo ago
Thanks for writing this, it reminded of how unfun driving really is. I realised how blessed I am now with not having to drive anywhere anymore.
thechao 8mo ago
I object to the "late" argument made by etho's parent. The difference in time to destination will inevitably be dominated by lights, in city travel, not by modest speed differences (say 45 vs 55) on a highway. Being safe & out of the way is the trick! It would be nice if we got rid of left & u turns and build our roads for that!
- rogerrogerr 8mo ago
  45 vs. 55 is not modest; that's 5 minutes over only 20 miles. Up around 60 vs. 70 is where it becomes "modest" IMO.
  - Natsu 8mo ago
    So, 3 stoplights worth of time?
    - rogerrogerr 8mo ago
      Or 0.1 of billable hours, which for many people here is at least enough to pay for lunch.
alistairSH 8mo ago
There is no solution to traffic here There is, people just don’t want to hear it, and it isn’t a quick fix… Build more of our towns and cities such that driving everywhere isn’t necessary.
- pastage 8mo ago
  The subsidies for cars is crazy when you look at it from that perspective. What you need to do is invest a lot of money in areas and systems that can make it better over time. In the end you are going to spend less.
- ehnto 8mo ago
  Oh I agree, I mean there was no solution to traffic in my comments. I do think some don't appreciate that it is not an anti-car stance to wish for less car dependant cities. You still get to have a car, and commuting by car should be easier if you need it, since there is less demand on the limited resource that is the road network.

by ehnto 8mo ago

apparent 8mo ago

It is more dangerous to be slow and have people constantly merging in front of you, rather than be slightly faster and not have all the merging. Accidents happen when vehicles are going different speeds, all things equal.

kqr 8mo ago
That seems like a surprising enough statement to be backed up by data. What is your source? Everything I've read points toward larger margins of safety (longer distances, slower speeds) being safer. See e.g. https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/252480/252480.pdf https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/252480...
- apparent 8mo ago
  Obviously it is safer to have longer follow distances, all things equal. But you don't accomplish that if you leave a long follow distance that is cut off a few seconds later by another car trying to get ahead. You end up with a constant stream of cars cutting your follow distance to less than what it would have been if you had just stayed slightly closer to the car in front of you. We don't live in an ideal world, and having a bunch of cars merging in front of you definitely makes you less safe than having a static situation. I try to make sure I can see through/around the car in front of me, so that I have advance notice of what's happening down the road.
adw 8mo ago
American road laws are insane here. The law should be simple; you must be in the outside lane at all times unless you are overtaking, and once you're done overtaking, you should merge back into the outside lane. https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/overtaking.html https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/overtaking.html
- throwup238 8mo ago
  As far as I know that’s the law in every state I’ve driven in, but enforcement is pretty much nonexistent. Some states like Texas or Louisiana might have signs reminding people to stay out of the inner lanes except for passing but I’ve never heard of anyone getting a ticket over it. What’s enforcement like in the UK? For example, the specific law in California: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21654 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
  - adw 8mo ago
    Vigorous.
- HPsquared 8mo ago
  Confusingly, the slow lane is called the "inside lane" in the UK, even though it's on the edge of the road and the fast lanes are in the middle.
  - closewith 8mo ago
    That used to be the case in Ireland too, but confusion due to cultural contamination means pretty much everyone moved to numbering lanes (from the "outside"/"slow"/leftmost lane).
    - wiredfool 8mo ago
      I wish. Seems like this is the only place where the verge is in the inside.
    - 8mo ago
Mawr 8mo ago
This is dangerous nonsense. It's basically just a justification people find in order to feel good about their unsafe driving.
maybewhenthesun 8mo ago
You might be a bad driver and not even know it.
- apparent 8mo ago
  My decades-long impeccable driving record tends to indicate otherwise. I just don't drive as if I lived in the fantasy land where leaving a long follow distance means I have a lot of room in front of me. It doesn't. It means I get cut off, and the follow distance ends up being shorter than it would have been had I just been following at the same distance as all the other cars on the road.
  - maybewhenthesun 8mo ago
    It is possible of course that the highways you drive are just too busy and the max speed is actually set too high for how busy the road is. That happens more than you'd want because lowering the max of a highway is always an unpopular thing to, even if it's needed. Still, I tend to find that people underestimate the danger of short distances. Often it's just better to accept a 100 cars going in front of you than to shrug off following someone at 1.5 seconds. It can go well for years because crashes are rare, but when you are in a crash you will be royally screwed when you don't have the reaction distance needed.
    - apparent 8mo ago
      This assumes that you can actually maintain a 3 second follow distance. On some roads, you simply cannot, and an attempt to maintain such a distance leads to increased danger from all the cars that cut in. Simply put: follow distance is not a unilateral decision.
      - maybewhenthesun 8mo ago
        That's what I mean with 'the road is too busy'. If you can't maintain a 3 second distance the speed needs to go down until you can. But you are right that this is sadly not something you can always do on your own. I'm still convinced people decide way too soon that the 3 second distance is more dangerous. You might be right if people are constantly cutting in the moment you leave a gap, but if someone cuts in every 5 minutes you're still safer off with the gap.

rendall 8mo ago

I am going to validate what you say here. Ehto is correct and this is the way. I'll go further and say that if someone is tailgating you and it's pissing you off, generously let them pass. Literally pull to the side of the road if you must.

taneq 8mo ago

The issue is that when you slow down, you’re (a) creating ‘turbulence’ in the traffic flow with increased speed differential between cars and increased lane changes, which increases accident risk for everybody, and (b) it’s not even solving the problem because you still perpetually have some impatient driver wedging themself in directly in front of you, deleting your buffer zone. It’s safer to drive a little closer, keep up with other traffic and defend what gap you can in front of you. Agree with your conclusion here, though. The best response is to simply not drive in this kind of traffic.

maybewhenthesun 8mo ago
Hard disagree. It is not safer to ignore your safety buffer. It is certainly not safer to defend your buffer. If traffic is very busy, the trick is to just accept people will wedge in front of you and keep going slightly smaller each time to increase the buffer again. You might create 'turbulence', which might possibly decrease the safety a bit for all the impatient drivers doing the wedging. But it increases your own safety. And therefore also that of the people following you and your passengers. I'm also not convinced on the 'turbulence' part. Keeping a buffer smoothes out any sudden speed variations of the people in front of you, which makes the traffic behind you flow better. And it might maybe feel a lot slower to let a 100 cars go in front of you on your commute, but just driving 99km/h when the person in front of you does 100 is enough to increase your gap and it makes a whopping 1% of difference. The only thing is: sometimes a road is just too busy and the space for a buffer just isn't there to begin with. At that point the speeds should go down to accommodate the smaller buffers, which is actually what happens here in the netherlands as long as there aren't too many people ignoring the speeds advisory boards above the highway.
closewith 8mo ago
> The issue is that when you slow down, you’re (a) creating ‘turbulence’ in the traffic flow with increased speed differential between cars and increased lane changes, which increases accident risk for everybody, and (b) it’s not even solving the problem because you still perpetually have some impatient driver wedging themself in directly in front of you, deleting your buffer zone. That's very obviously not true. Slowing down always reduces energy in the system and always reduces global turbulence. It's one of the reasons that countries that lower speed limits see journey times reduce.

Muromec 8mo ago

Thanks for writing this, it reminded of how unfun driving really is. I realised how blessed I am now with not having to drive anywhere anymore.

thechao 8mo ago

I object to the "late" argument made by etho's parent. The difference in time to destination will inevitably be dominated by lights, in city travel, not by modest speed differences (say 45 vs 55) on a highway. Being safe & out of the way is the trick! It would be nice if we got rid of left & u turns and build our roads for that!

rogerrogerr 8mo ago
45 vs. 55 is not modest; that's 5 minutes over only 20 miles. Up around 60 vs. 70 is where it becomes "modest" IMO.
- Natsu 8mo ago
  So, 3 stoplights worth of time?
  - rogerrogerr 8mo ago
    Or 0.1 of billable hours, which for many people here is at least enough to pay for lunch.

alistairSH 8mo ago

There is no solution to traffic here There is, people just don’t want to hear it, and it isn’t a quick fix… Build more of our towns and cities such that driving everywhere isn’t necessary.

pastage 8mo ago
The subsidies for cars is crazy when you look at it from that perspective. What you need to do is invest a lot of money in areas and systems that can make it better over time. In the end you are going to spend less.
ehnto 8mo ago
Oh I agree, I mean there was no solution to traffic in my comments. I do think some don't appreciate that it is not an anti-car stance to wish for less car dependant cities. You still get to have a car, and commuting by car should be easier if you need it, since there is less demand on the limited resource that is the road network.