In article <[email hidden]>,
Quoted message said:(Tom Keats) said:In article <[email hidden]>,
Quoted message said:> > (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
> > example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
> > clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
> > just go, and stop confusing everybody."😉
Quoted message said:> I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
> to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
Quoted message said:Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
I flow better within it.
Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
are for -- to make traffic flow better.
I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
it invokes the social component of interacting
with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
social component to be at least as significant
as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
road." Of course it takes more awareness than
adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
their vehicle, itself.
Agreed.
I recall a pair of images from a "Sprocketman" cartoon book for kids.
The picture on the left was a view of a crowded city street, showing
cyclists, pedestrians, car drivers, a bus with driver and passengers,
etc.
The matching picture pointed out that they were _all_ just people
getting around, or words to that effect. That picture showed all
those people in the same positions, but on foot instead of in their
vehicles. The bus picture, with the driver standing in front of rows
of standing passengers, seemed particularly funny.
But it does make a couple good points. For example, no matter how big
and classy your car is, you're still just another person who's allowed
to use the roadway. You don't get extra privileges because you're
driving an Escalade.
Quoted message said:Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
left may go first?
Perhaps not much. But the four-way stops I go through on the way to
work are not lonely, they're usually busy. And if the guy to my right
starts waving me through, the guy to my left might run out of patience
and zoom across at the same moment I accept the invitation.
Let me give another, more extreme examplel of excessive politeness.
The nice young teenage guy who lived next door was once approaching
from the south on a busy two lane road as my wife and I rode south.
We were getting ready to make a left turn onto a side street, and I
noticed a gaggle of cars approaching from our rear. I was near the
center line, figuring to turn as soon as the teen passed us.
But he didn't. He began slowing and slowing, then came to a full stop
in his lane, enthusiastically waving for us to turn in front of him.
Cars behind him were blowing their horns, and cars behind us were
squeezing by to our right. (My mistake - I didn't take the lane,
because I figured we'd be gone before they arrived.)
There are all sorts of non-standard moves that work out fine in
deserted road circumstances. But I'm disussing interacting traffic in
volume, not just one driver on a deserted country road. And I think
there's no question that things almost always work out best if people
follow the rules, instead of trying to be overly creative. The rules
work.
Y'know, for a long time I've been listening to you
and Robert hashing it out, and I've come to to the
conclusion that your both right, but coming at the
ultimate point of the dialogue from divergent directions.
But I recently half-saw a documentary on TV (the
CBC news channel, to be honest) that put everything
into perspective. The documentary was about car drivers,
but it could pertain to any road/street user. It made
a distinct point about separating operational/technical
skill from innate behaviour.
I believe you're approaching the discussion from the
operational skill angle, while Robert approaches it
from the behaviour angle. No wonder you two have
never been able to reach consensus!
Anyways, here's an interesting approach to the
psychology of driving:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/LEONj/leonj/leonpsy/instructor/driving1.html
I guess it applies to riding as well.
Skills are good to have.
Behaviours can also be good to have.
Or, they can also be bad, and shoot us
in the foot despite our skills.
It's easy to be objective about skills;
not so easy to be objective about (let
alone govern) our own behaviours.
So I see you as saying: "Thou shalt not",
while i see Robert as saying: "Tread carefully."
With the right combination of skills and
behaviours, we can ride with more assurance
than with a bad combination of skills and
behaviours. But our own behaviours are
definitely in the mix, and they're part of
what ultimately gets us by, or lets us down.
So anyways, we ride according to a combination
of acquired skills *and* innate behaviours (some
of which we might need to re-learn or reconcider
to keep us from getting clobbered.)
An open mind is the universe.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
