Why you drive the way you do: A look at “Traffic”
Posted on August 10th, 2008 – 7:05 AMBy Roadguy
Here’s my column from the Sunday paper. If you’ve already read it elsewhere, please skip on down to the comments below. Thanks.
Roadguy doesn’t write about books very often — he knows that his alert readers don’t care about the latest edition of “Pavement Analysis and Design.” But a new book called “Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)” by journalist Tom Vanderbilt delves into many of the conundrums found on our roads, and it might change the way you drive.
I know this because I started reading the book last weekend, then headed out on my most recent road trip — and quickly realized I was embodying some of the book’s many truths:
•Most drivers think they’re above average.
•Reflective paint makes driving at night feel safer than it really is.
•Drivers talking on cell phones don’t look around enough.
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
“The sad truth is that the way we drive is responsible for a good part of our traffic problems,” writes Vanderbilt, who was in town this past week for media events. (This included Vanderbilt and Roadguy, who knew each other vaguely in college, going for a drive — a very, very careful drive.)
Minnesota pops up several times in the book — our experiments with ramp meters, the large keep-your-distance dots that inspired someone to paint a Pac-Man on Hwy. 55 near Medina Buffalo, and the inevitable reference to Lake Wobegon when discussing the many studies in which a majority of drivers described themselves as superior.
Human failings play a key role in safety and congestion problems, Vanderbilt says. Drivers have to process an incredible amount of information, and convincing them to pay better attention is almost impossible because they, of course, aren’t aware of how much they’re missing (until they crash).
We’re also not very good evaluators of risk. Drivers of cars tend to be wary of large trucks, for example, but for the wrong reason — Vanderbilt says cars are usually to blame when trucks and cars collide. And what do drivers do in fog? Get closer to the taillights in front of them, increasing the danger.
Vanderbilt did an incredible amount of homework — the book has 91 pages of notes, many of which contain readable tidbits of their own. He also jetted off to India to check out the chaos of Delhi’s streets, visited a traffic control center in Los Angeles on Oscar night and enrolled in a class taught by a former race-car driver.
He points out the pointlessness of trying to teach the other driver “a lesson” through honking or other aggressive behavior (the driver won’t change, and even if he or she does, you’ll probably never cross paths again). And he explains the value of not hunting for a close-in parking space at a big-box store (you’ll often save time if you drive less and walk more).
While Vanderbilt’s book is as well-researched as any textbook, he writes in a clear and conversational style, and the chapters are self-contained enough that readers can pick and choose among them. Just don’t choose to read “Traffic” while you’re driving; that’s why there’s an audiobook.
To read Vanderbilt’s blog, click here; to take a New York Times quiz about traffic, click here. (I got 8 out of 10 right.)
21 Responses to "Why you drive the way you do: A look at “Traffic”"
That quiz is really a sorry excuse for a safe driving knowledge test. Must have been put together by a mass transit / brainwashed junkie.
IMHO, bad highway design (like 35W/62, 169/494, and 494/35W interchanges) contribute significantly to accidents. So does constant construction (everywhere in the Twin Cities) and so does miniscule acceleration ramps. As do undersized highways, and frequent stop lights on 55 mph roads.
When I taught my daughter to drive, I realized that there were ‘no more rules to the road’. Our government abolished them: Moving traffic must yield to buses pulling out, buses can go straight from the right most lane (insanity in downtown Mpls), bike lanes (in the middle of Hennepoin) that make drivers fearful to turn, buses speeding by inches on the shoulder of the road.
I guess none of this is important. It’s more important to know which state has the most driving faltalities. Montana - yeah everything there is so far apart, I’d guess the people drive more miles.
People drive poorly beacuse they have bad judgement, lack of awareness, not very good motor control, and have no idea of liability because they are insulated from it by insurance. Insurance that all us safe drivers pay more and more for every year because of their ineptitude.
Vanderbuilt didn’t quite do all of his homework if he thinks the dots on Highway 55 are anywhere near Medina (they’re actually between Rockford and Buffalo).
The comment about fog was interesting, because one thing that drivers DON’T do enough is to turn on their head (and tail) lights. But I’m not going to get into that discussion further… I’m just tired of people who don’t follow the law requiring lights on when precipitation is falling.
I listened to most of the hour-long segment with Tom on MPR mid-morning last week, very interesting - can’t wait to pick up the book!
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/05/midmorning1/
9 out of 10. Had no clue about the length of the white stripes on the highway!
DGB - it’s been awhile! Nice to see you’re still entirely missing the point.
Oh, and DGB, the question was “Which state has the highest number of fatalities PER 1MM MILES DRIVEN?” I would actually guess that the answer is what it is (thanks for providing that) because there are fewer drivers (and hence fewer miles driven).
I still believe all MN drivers should be required to retake driver’s ed every 5 to 10 years, or when they buy a new vehicle with which they must take driver’s ed in the new vehicle.
Driving laws, and new road design methods happen often enough that I think repeating driver’s ed is important. Plus, I believe an important factor in poor driving is the fact teens take driver’s ed in a tiny car, and then when they are an adult end up buying an über-sized SUV.
I am very aware these two aren’t the only factors that could improve driving behavior, but I believe they are the easiest and cheapest to implement with the biggest payoff for the expense.
Curmudgeon Geographer says: “I believe an important factor in poor driving is the fact teens take driver’s ed in a tiny car, and then when they are an adult end up buying an über-sized SUV.”
I cannot disagree with you more. The size of the car has nothing to do with the poor driving skill.
If you have ever studied an Eastern religion, you know our trip through life is all about ‘awareness’. Here we are a society that is continually plugged into cell phones, Iphones, texting, internet, ipods, instant messaging, autos with sound systems, movies that portray action and violence.
The problem is our social fabric. Pity the poor driving instructors or cops that have to deal with it. Do you think they can reverse all this with some additional hours of instruction?
Missing the point? Not on this one. I am 100 percent with you, DGB.
I really believe that if every driver (truck, SUV, compact car, motorcycle and bicyclist) practiced just a little concern for other drivers, PLUS themselves… That would make a huge difference.
It does seem like a lot of drivers don’t care about anyone, including themselves, or even their own cars.
DGB, taking a “refresher” driver’s ed course every 5-10 years would kind of fall into that ‘awarenss’ category.
The problem is our social fabric? How does taking a wire cutter to a guy’s bike brake cable fit into your social fabric? Or is this an example of the Eastern religion that you have studied?
“How does taking a wire cutter to a guy’s bike brake cable fit into your social fabric?”
I believe it was a valve stem he cut, which in the book of zoASStrianism is more Zen than cutting a brake cable.
I would echo many of the expressed sentiments. Minnesota and/or the U.S. does not have a “traffic” problem - it has an attention-deficit problem, with an underlying compassion-deficit problem. If people simply were more aware of how their actions affected others, more “we” and less “me” oriented - they’d probably realize they actually would come out ahead in most instances instead of constantly in competitive situations where they’re at-odds with others. There’s a time and place to be competitive, but that doesn’t include parking lots, highways, checkout lanes, etc.
oops, how foolish of me. Must have got the vandalism mixed up.
Vandalism… is that anything like Buddhism?
Oooh, I forgot about DGB’s lapse in following his own code of ethics. Gotta be careful when you take revenge, like the book mentioned–especially if you aren’t even sure the other party is guilty. You might wind up on You-Tube. The camera doesn’t lie.
I’m on DGB’s side on this one. Our congestion problem isn’t so much underbuilt roads (although there are several glaring examples of this: Metro freeways should START at 6 lanes), but rather MNDOLT’s penchant for taking the cheap way out of everything, i.e. relying on traffic clogging cloverleafs at major interchanges, “commons”(cramming 4-6 lanes of traffic into 3–brilliant!) and forcing traffic to merge immediately at the bottom of most ramps, forcing the already overburdened freeway to come to a halt to let them in (EB 494 at France is an excellent example of this).
A few new well-placed flyover ramps and auxiliary lanes would alleviate much of our congestion.
Unfortunately, MNDOLT still does not learn from their mistakes, as the newly rebuilt 494/new 212 interchange is already backing up traffic because of a lack of vision. There needs to be a flyover from NB 494 onto WB 212. But to borrow from MNDOLT’s mantra, “why do it right the first time, when you can pay twice as much to fix it later?”. Maybe they wouldn’t be in such a funding crunch if they didn’t do everything twice. What a concept!
#1. The most useless is laws / rules. Given that most of the folks are stupid, zoned out, out of touch, unaware, lisening to iTunes, on the Cell Phone, it really dosen’t matter what the hell laws anyone passes. They will proceed with what they have circulating in their brain.
#2 Children that have nothing to offer execpt criticism: Namely BarryS and Cowboy. With awareness, I cut the valve stem. It delayed the person, true. However, the rider apperently did not have an awarness of the law: can’t chain your bike to a meter, no license, lack of awareness of my property dammage, no way for me to identify/conact the rider of the cycle.
I challenge BarryS and Cowboy to contribute a positive statement to this discussion.
“#1. The most useless is laws / rules. … They will proceed with what they have circulating in their brain.”
So this explains your childish, gutless act of vandalism?
Without laws/rules or society would be thrown in choas, anarchy would soon come about. You probably enjoy the rules & laws that protect you and your property, or should we just do away with them.
“#2. …. no way for me to identify/conact the rider of the cycle.”
Did you leave your business card, or your name, address, & phone number so that the inconsiderate bicyclist knew who the aggressor was? I doubt it.
It’s people like you with your self serving, me first attitude that fan the flames of controversy. You state I offer noting but criticism. Maybe so, but your diatribes are far from constructive. They resemble the rantings of a child. I think you had better go back to you Eastern religion and take a long hard look at your self. I am pretty sure that most religions do not advocate property damage, unless you are twisting the words and messages to fit you current state of mind.
I challenge BarryS and Cowboy to contribute a positive statement to this discussion.
Could you provide an example from your previous post of a positive example?
DGB’s criminal action of propety damage are merely another form of what happens in “traffic.” When someone cuts you off on the highway, do you back off to give them space and curse them under your breath, or do you speed up to make sure they see you flipping them off? Or, do you speed up, pass, and return the favor? The bicycle illegally chained to the meter came into contact with and damaged DGB’s car (accident). A mature rationale person would report the incident (assuming there’s sufficient damage for an insurance claim). Taking revenge instead by damaging the bicycle and running away is typical and analogous of what slope-browed neanderthals do on the highway.
DGB - Sorry, chief, but you are hardly the exemplar of “positive statements” in ANY discussion we have here. I will not take your troll-bait.
My comment about you missing the point was because the first sentence you wrote was completely wrong and off-topic. It is not a ’safe-driving knowledge test’, it is simple quiz about traffic knowledge. You twisted it, as you twist everything, into a negative diatribe against Mass Transit - which it had NOTHING to do with.
DGB - you’re not the same person quoted in this article are you?
http://juliesandburg.com/blog/?p=39
barryS,
All you have to do is look at the comments in the previous Roadguy thread for evidence that DGB is indeed the dgbwrong:
DGB says:
August 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Skip the intellectual discussion. Do you think the illegal alien Franco gal, who was convicted of killing 4 children, and didn’t have a DL, was aware of any ‘rules of the road’?
DGB must have a bug up his posterior about mass transit, since the New York Times quiz (which I just took) doesn’t even mention it.
On every blog, a right wing troll shall be. He hates you all, you’ll see. He’s such a tough guy, watch out. But if you hit back, he’ll pout.
Eastern religion, my ass. I don’t think eastern religion has anything to do with mass transit. In fact, I would suspect Buddhism would be all for mass transit. Non-attachment to cars, and all. Unity of opposites, opposites like other people.
