It's not about getting anywhere faster. It's about not being trapped, and about having control of my own situation. Hell, I'll drive 12 hours rather than spend 6-8 dealing with airport bullshit, for precisely that reason. I want to be in control, and I don't want to be trapped.
The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
51–60 of 62 posts
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#52Switching lanes in dense traffic does reduce flow and increase everyone's commute time. Cutting across a couple of lanes, exiting the road and then merging back in a few blocks later is even worse. If more people thought of driving as team-work rather than a race we'd all spend less time in traffic. This fellow argues that behavior that slows traffic down is a good idea because if makes him feel good. I'm sorry buddy…
Here is a suggestion for those of you who are currently walking from place to place: Don't walk, run. Start running and continue to do so for a couple of weeks. Listen to music. Once you unlearn your moron-walker habits, you'll arrive at your destination a lot faster and you'll be healthier overall, and you'll have the peace of mind that you're not one of the morons adding to the problem of slowing down runners by walking in front of them.
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#53> ... the act of changing lanes, and thereby briefly overtaking the car which up until a moment ago was in front of you, makes you significantly happier than just sitting there like a passive schmuck. Which is why we all do it. > In other words, if you want to understand utility functions, don’t talk to an economist. It seems like talking to an economist works pretty well here. If I am executing a poor strategy that…
You don't get it. The whole point is that the average person is willing to switch the time he might gain from not switching lanes with the happiness he gains from the appearance of progression. The "goal" of saving time on the way to work/home/other has value because people choose to give it value, and when they don't - it becomes meaningless.
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#54Switching lanes in dense traffic does reduce flow and increase everyone's commute time. Cutting across a couple of lanes, exiting the road and then merging back in a few blocks later is even worse. If more people thought of driving as team-work rather than a race we'd all spend less time in traffic. This fellow argues that behavior that slows traffic down is a good idea because if makes him feel good. I'm sorry buddy…
This guy did a fantastic mini-study of traffic wave systems, and has worked out techniques that go one step further than what your describing - actively cancelling out traffic jams by allowing cars to freely change lanes for a long distance ahead of you.
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the lower technology version that's available today: public transportation.
The stress of commuting isn't from the physical act of driving, but from having to negotiate a crowded space. Regardless if it's a highway, bus, or a sidewalk, when you're in a crowd, you're forced to play a zero-sum game with the people around you. Even in cultures where people don't drive, the commute is listed as one of the largest stresses people experience. Self-driving cars are great because for the first time,…
>The stress of commuting isn't from the physical act of driving, but from having to negotiate a crowded space. Regardless if it's a highway, bus, or a sidewalk, when you're in a crowd, you're forced to play a zero-sum game with the people around you.
I disagree. The stress from driving doesn't come just from navigating a crowded space. It comes from the potential consequences of making mistakes. If I bump into someone walking on foot, it's no problem. Once I'm on a bus/train/etc. you have your own space. Granted, it might not be a lot of space, and sometimes it might be uncomfortable, but it's hardly stressful.
Bumping into another car when driving is a completely different beast. Now I need to deal with insurance companies, and it might cost me a lot of money. Or I hit something inanimate and I'm still doing a lot of damage to my car. That's where the stress comes from.
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#56Paul Krugman blogged about this subject last year:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/friday-night-mus...
with a followup here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/life-in-the-slow...
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#57> ... the act of changing lanes, and thereby briefly overtaking the car which up until a moment ago was in front of you, makes you significantly happier than just sitting there like a passive schmuck. Which is why we all do it. > In other words, if you want to understand utility functions, don’t talk to an economist. It seems like talking to an economist works pretty well here. If I am executing a poor strategy that…
You don't get it. The whole point is that the average person is willing to switch the time he might gain from not switching lanes with the happiness he gains from the appearance of progression. The "goal" of saving time on the way to work/home/other has value because people choose to give it value, and when they don't - it becomes meaningless.
I do get it. The people are irrationally pleased by the illusion of progress. Upon learning that their strategy is ineffective, executing the broken strategy should bring them no utility.
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha, so true. A while back I settled into the 'average traffic speed plus large gap' mode. Less braking, lower clutch use, and more pleasant driving. As a bonus, I get to feel superior to everyone not employing this strategy.
I'm speculating on this being pure selection bias (and the natural desire for all humans to cherry pick something of which to feel superior about). I'm a middle of the road kind of driver. Almost an equal number of people pass me (sometimes at crazy speeds) as I pass myself. My dad is a slow and steady type (and also feels superior about it), so I get to hear all his "stories" about how so and so passed him and sped…
Very true, my man. So I have no illusions whatsoever that I'm getting there faster. I'm getting there with less stress than if I calculated, though. And since I'm proactive about letting people pass (I guarantee you'll never get stuck behind me because I'm matching the guy in front of me and have space for you to merge in front), I'm fairly confident I'm not holding anyone back.
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do agree that it isn't the best idea, but I find name-calling the worst way to support an argument.
Stupid people make me testy.
Funny you should say that, that's my family motto: "Qui stupidi sunt, ut strenuus me".
That he thinks it is ok to cut through residential neighbourhoods because the freeway is backed up is more than stupid, really. It is dangerous and unfair. I was going to say that, given the apologetics around this strategy, that he's being a little tongue-in-cheek. But when he opened with "the really painful part of being stuck in traffic is not, really, the actual amount of time that it takes to get from Point A to Point B" it was pretty clear that we were going to be looking for wisdom and intelligence from other sources.
Re: The utility of switching lanes when stuck in traffic
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't get it. The whole point is that the average person is willing to switch the time he might gain from not switching lanes with the happiness he gains from the appearance of progression. The "goal" of saving time on the way to work/home/other has value because people choose to give it value, and when they don't - it becomes meaningless.
I do get it. The people are irrationally pleased by the illusion of progress. Upon learning that their strategy is ineffective, executing the broken strategy should bring them no utility.
No, you obviously don't. The notion of "effectiveness" exists only when there is an agreement on the goal. If my goal is to have fun while driving - then I don't care about the type of "effectiveness" you have in mind, nor should I. And there isn't a single thing you can say to convince me that saving 5 minutes during commute is objectively more important than having fun while driving. This is also why we usually walk from place to place instead of running: walking is slower, but running and getting tired is not very fun: and most people choose fun over speed. People are not computer software, and what's important to us is not defined by god.
This is also why utilitarianism in ethics is ridiculous.