Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#41

Post by Semiapies »

georgecmu wrote: post #27

A lot of their examples involve narrow passages in locations, where it's likely that a large percentage of pedestrians are pressed for time: airports, subways, business districts. There's etiquette that prescribes behavior in those places, and often it's quite official. In Moscow, which has one of the busiest subway systems in the world, you learn as a child to stand on the right and let people pass on the left, rega…

Yes. There's a weird sense of, "Man, people think there are all these rules..." in TFA.

Well, there are.

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#42

Post by Xurinos »

burgerbrain wrote: post #33
Xurinos wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will be using "you" to mean people that rage in general, not specifically you because I do not know how you react. :) First, you bring up a different subject: Are we talking about freeway signs or sidewalks? I was going with the sidewalk examples. Why should the same rules apply? Why would you be angry if a walker on a sidewalk was not following the same rules as a car driver on a freeway? It is insensible anyway:…

"Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your…

> it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road.

It is surely wrong if the person is traveling below the lower speed limit (be it specified explicitly or legally in the absence of the lower speed limit markers). Otherwise, it is just other people being impatient, and their reactions -- such as abruptly swerving around the driver or making a lot of distracting noise -- also cause the unsafe traffic condition.

Note carefully my point, as it ties to my first post: Both actors involved are at fault. Both actors involved are assured they are right. Both actors exhibit negative, antisocial, and unsafe behavior. Neither is an angel; neither is "better".

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#43

Post by sophacles »

Xurinos wrote: post #10
burgerbrain wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone were perfectly courteous, everyone would be standing perfectly still so as to not accidentally infringe on someone else's perceived personal space. In the real world , there really are people who block traffic in entirely unreasonable ways that effect large numbers of other people. Really the only way to properly handle that situation is to shove past, so that you don't add to the situation. There is no n…

"If everyone were perfectly courteous" = "If everyone lived by the same rules I live by" = "If everyone had the same notion of respect as I" It is difficult for people to agree, not only across cultures but within the same culture, with what is considered socially correct. Don't get me wrong: I am a large believer in courtesy. I share your vision that there is a lack of efficiency, that a few people can affect a larg…

It seems like you are just trying to set up a situation where you can do what you want, and any effect it has on others is their fault for being self absorbed.

Have you considered that the anger is not "they do it different" but "their actions are causing measurable negative consequence to me"? If the inefficiency caused by a door stopper causes me to miss a train connection, is it really all about my ego, or is it about that person screwing up my entire travel?

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#44

Post by dnsworks »

e40 wrote: post #12

I have a similar but slightly different issue: raging at bicycles while walking on the sidewalk. I've been hit twice, by completely unrepentant cyclists, and had near misses with scores of others. I will always give a dirty look at a cyclist on a sidewalk, the meanness in direct proportion with their speed. One that gets me: riding in a business district right next to open shop doors--someone could walk out and get s…

There's another side to this.

In San Francisco it's illegal to ride your bicyclist on the sidewalk. I got knocked down pretty hard a week ago by a hipster douchebag on his fixie who decided he could go faster by switching from driving the wrong way down a 1 way street. He screamed at me, calling me a "fat ass", and stormed off while I laid there dazed.

When people are in the wrong they know it, and they get especially angry when others notice it, often responding with passive or active aggression. Slow walkers decide they have entitlement to get in your way, and when they notice you're trying to sneak aroundthem, will actively make it difficult by swinging their bags out a bit further.

As a pedestrian, my theory is if a car gets close enough to me in the crosswalk that I can kick it, I do. After getting knocked down the other day, I've been thinking lately I should adapt this to "if I can clothesline a bicyclist breaking the law, I should". #pedestrianrage

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#46

Post by mark_h »

gaius wrote: post #2

I don't think this is fair on the so-called "ragers". F'rinstance here in London we really do get people who will ride the escalator to the bottom, step off and just stop, seemingly oblivious to the fact that there is a conveyor mechanism directly behind them delivering a stream people to just where they're now standing. Of course they know, they've got all the senses of everyone else. They're just self-absorbed, and…

While I've never actually resorted to shoves, I have occasionally just stopped and waited while 3 people take up the entire footpath, until one of them suddenly realises they're about to make contact when they're a foot away and has to jump. (I don't think I'm being _that_ unreasonable either, given that I'd have to step into the road to avoid them).

On a more general note, my personal theory is that eye contact has a lot to do with it, subconsciously or otherwise. I tend to walk while scanning around a lot, and people will never acknowledge my existence (perhaps they perceive that I've seen them and will be the one to take evasive action). If I steadfastly refuse to acknowledge them though, such as look in the direction of my companion the entire time, they'll usually adjust their direction.

Sometimes I'll alternate strategies, just to see how consistent it is. This probably makes me a "rager" as defined in the article, or maybe just an arsehole.

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#47

Post by burgerbrain »

Xurinos wrote: post #42
burgerbrain wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your…

> it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road. It is surely wrong if the person is traveling below the lower speed limit (be it specified explicitly or legally in the absence of the lower speed limit markers). Otherwise, it is just other people being impatient, and their reactions -- such as abruptly swerving around the driver or making a lot of distracting noise -- also cause the…

Traveling slowly^ in the left lane both causes congestion and creates a situation where passing on the right is likely to occur. Both of these dramatically increase the likelyhood of an accident. The slow left-lane driver is at fault for not following the otherwise accepted conventions of the road.

Laws and legal speed limits have nothing to do with it. (however: in many areas the person traveling at slow 'regular' speed in the left lane would be breaking the law. In many areas the left lane is explicitly for people traveling faster than the speed limit (read: passing)).

^where slowly is defined as relative to the rest of traffic.

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#48

Post by teyc »

alexqgb wrote: post #24
defen wrote: post #16

I guess I would be considered a "sidewalk rager", although rage is a very strong word since I've never risen to the level of physical contact or even verbal confrontation - perhaps exasperation would be a better word. It's not limited to sidewalk-walking; it also applies to city driving. In my experience (having lived in San Francisco and New York) there are two types of people who trigger this: 1) People who are so…

Stated beautifully. The issue cited in the paper doesn't seem to be "rage", which seems fairly uncommon. Instead, it seems to address common exasperation with the congenitally (and deliberately?) witless, with a few extremes thrown in for good effect. It would be different if the author acknowledged that the people triggering exasperation were, in fact, behaving badly. Instead, he seems to dismiss any sense of social…

I don't think this is the author's focus. He is trying to convey that there is a better way rather than being easily exasperated because the negativity wastes the limited life we each have.

The sense of exasperation arises out of a state of mind that is easily disturbed and ruffled. Whatever skills one can gain from being 'at one' with the crowd will translate into the rest of their lives, and improve the relationship with their loved ones.

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#49

Post by Xurinos »

sophacles wrote: post #43
Xurinos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If everyone were perfectly courteous" = "If everyone lived by the same rules I live by" = "If everyone had the same notion of respect as I" It is difficult for people to agree, not only across cultures but within the same culture, with what is considered socially correct. Don't get me wrong: I am a large believer in courtesy. I share your vision that there is a lack of efficiency, that a few people can affect a larg…

It seems like you are just trying to set up a situation where you can do what you want, and any effect it has on others is their fault for being self absorbed. Have you considered that the anger is not "they do it different" but "their actions are causing measurable negative consequence to me"? If the inefficiency caused by a door stopper causes me to miss a train connection, is it really all about my ego, or is it a…

Have you considered that the anger is not "their actions are causing measurable negative consequence to me" but "their actions are outside my control"?

They did something that was not a part of our perfect little plan, and it simply irks us. We are so wrapped up in our own vision of how the world is, how the world will be for us, that we get angry when something happens counter to our vision. Yes, it is narcissism.

And that is okay. It is okay to recognize a problem and adapt to it or to regain control. When it is not okay is when our angry reaction is also negative.

To take your hypothetical situation: "If the inefficiency caused by a door stopper causes me to miss a train connection, is it really all about my ego, or is it about that person screwing up my entire travel?" I am sure all of us know somebody who is habitually late, and they have all kinds of excuses for it. So do people who are only sometimes late. This is just bad time management. The expectation that the world should operate perfectly in accordance with your plan is where I can claim it is about your ego. You are going to blame that one person for screwing up your travel? I like the pseudointellectual rationalization here, the excuse that it was the "inefficiency" of that other person that caused your problem. Maybe you should have gotten out of bed earlier. Maybe your affairs should have been in order before Go time. We like to place the blame on others rather than accept personal responsibility. That is just how important and infallible we are. Narcissism. Granted, that person's stopping behavior did have an impact, as did the speed of your walking, the amount of luggage you were carrying vs how much you worked out weeks before in order to more easily carry it, the stop lights on the way to the station, the time it took to get your ticket checked, and the line of other people boarding.

Again, please do not feel insulted if you fall in the narcissism category; we all do to varying degrees. Very common. My intent was to point it out as a huge contributing factor in order to balance things out a bit. The OP was trying to put the "ragers" in the clear, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to start a fight."

Re: The perils of walking slow: scientists analyze sidewalk rage

#50

Post by Isofarro »

gaius wrote: post #4
burgerbrain wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. "After all, it seems simple enough to just go around the slow individual." Trust me, if I'm able to do that, then I do , no questions asked. Unfortunately the other common behaviours of slow walkers include: sudden erratic motion, walking side by side in lines with others, and stopping dead in choke-points.

Or people who will stand right in the doorway of a train when people are getting on and off, rather than stepping to one side (or even off the train altogether, people will always let them get back on first). These people have made their choice, it's just attention seeking really. However the London commuter is not a shy species... Or people who will stand on the left, despite clearly being able to see that no-one el…

I have this theory that in London at rush hour, the space available on a busy train will exactly hold the total number of London commuters that are waiting at the platform. Apart from myself, I've never seen a London commuter not get on a train, however packed it is.

I'm a pavement rager. I'm baffled by slow people with no consideration dawdling through a train station at rush hour. I tried once to patiently amble along behind them, and found out it impossible.

I've learnt with OAPs that if they look like they are slowing down (!), and you have the choice to go around either side, always chose the smallest gap. Almost always they turn like an oil-tanker into the larger gap. That way you can pass by unnoticed.

Couple of things wind me up. A guy reading a Kindle bumbling up a flight of stairs utterly unaware of the holdup he was causing.

Not sure about handbags, they seem to be blunt instruments to be swung at fellow commuters. And always seem to increase in size and violence when their handler is looking away from you.

Also, the number one tip for being bumped into by other people: wear a laptop backpack. I have a feeling there's some sort of super-magnetic quality backpacks have when on my back...

I would find it useful to demarcate walking and standing areas in train station concourses. Although they have a no-standing area in Shepherd's Bush and that doesn't seem to be working. Not sure whether passengers are generally oblivious of their surroundings or have just have their London commuter face on.

Post reply on HN