 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.08.2010 14:28, schrieb Mike Raiford:
> There is something to that, though. I see many drivers as not
> necessarily being bad drivers (unless they are driving 50mph on a 70mph
> road yapping on their cellphone) but being just plain rude drivers. I'm
> always very irritated when I see people wait until the absolute last
> possible second before moving over when there have been signs indicating
> the lane is under construction and everyone must move over up to a mile
> before the construction starts. Although, a couple of states I have
> driven in have enacted a law stating that they must move over 1/4 - 1/2
> mile before reaching the construction zone. Waiting to the last second
> before moving to a different lane will cause delays because someone will
> have to stop for you.
... which in turn is only a problem if people on the lane you are to
merge into don't bother whether you manage your merging maneuver or not.
Let's put it this way: If there is a gap you could move into, it
wouldn't matter for the following traffic in /that/ lane whether you do
indeed move into the gap ASAP or at the last possible moment, provided
the following driver on that lane would be disciplined enough to leave
that gap open for you. The only thing that would change would be that
the following traffic on /your/ lane wouldn't be tempted to overtake you
after you have merged.
As a matter of fact, in Germany there is a rule that in comparatively
slow and dense traffic you /must not/ merge early, and instead drive on
to the end of the lane, where both lanes are to merge in an alternating
fashion (think of a zipper being closed).
Again, it's not a question of "the" best driving style, but rather how
well your driving style is adapted to the palette of de-facto driving
styles of your fellow drivers (and also your car).
For instance, I guess my current driving style is pretty well-suited for
driving a well-powered car through German autobahn /commuter/ traffic,
while driving the same car through German autobahn /holiday/ traffic is
a totally different story. And driving a (comparatively) underpowered
car on a German autobahn requires yet a different driving style, which
inevitably /will/ irritate a certain subset of fellow drivers (primarily
those who have never driven a low-powered car on an autobahn, I guess).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-8-2010 1:04, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Let's keep this in mind and see what happens if we *force* a linear
>> scale. E.g. assume that there are only a finite number of cars and that
>> the government has decided that only the best drivers get a licence.
>
> Alright, this will be interesting.
>
>> First we have to create a committee that can judge drivers capacity.
>
> Okay
>
>> For this a natural first group is that group that knows about cars e.g.
>> because they own a couple and repair them themselves. This is based on
>> the logical assumption that people who know how cars work also know how
>> to drive them well. Presumably they will come up with a test like how
>> fast drivers can negotiate an obstacle course without damage, to test
>> the ability of the drivers. That would indeed create an objective linear
>> scale.
>
> Only, that's not a logical assumption. The people I know who own a
> couple cars and repair them drive like maniacs and admit it.
There are also many of them that think they are actually better drivers
because they have more experience. Anyway I am just setting thing up for
the last line. Any objection you raise against this part is most
probably going to support the conclusion.
>> So we have as our main ingredients a complex multidimensional concept, a
>> need to make it objective and one dimensional, and a group of
>> knowledgeable men and what comes out is a very reasonable measure that
>> somehow and unplanned is not going to be gender-insensitive. And as long
>> as new members of this committee are recruited from the 'best' drivers,
>> it will stay that way.
>
> There is the undefined jump from 'statistically safe driving habits'
> that, if everyone followed, would reduce total accidents to the 'locally
> safe driving habits' that may cause more accidents, on the whole, but
> are safer in certain circumstances where other drivers are making random
> decisions. 'Best' drivers, those who can put a car through it's paces on
> a closed course, are not by default the 'best' driver on a crowded
> street. Besides, these already is a committee that decides best driving
> practices and tests people on it. Around my part's the the Department of
> Motor Vehicles, and a few other federal agencies.
>
> How does your test by committee become gender biased? Simply because
> there are more male race-car drivers, or what ever other pool you pick
> the judges from? I do not see the connection there.
The gender bias comes for a large part because the drivers will be
tested in isolation. The concept that you should eliminate as much
outside variables as possible is a valid one in experimental science,
but not in this case and not in *judging* science.
>> This is of course an imaginary scenario and the fact that so many women
>> are going to fail the test is a dead give away that something is wrong.
>
> The women fail the test because you imply a gender bias is somehow
> unplanned, but still present in the test. Why would a government
> committee, that picks the best drivers to devise the test, settle for a
> unplanned for bias? And what is the bias, anyways?
>
> Now, if you said the government picked a group consisting of civil
> engineers, a few material science folks, some chauvinistic gear heads
> who race in demolition derbies on the weekend, and a mathematician, then
> I would believe the proposal you set out.
>
>> You might even argue that no government is going to do something so
>> simplistic for such a complex problem. On the other hand many people
>> apparently fail to see the fact that driving ability is a
>> multidimensional problem to begin with. If you don't, it may seem
>> logical that it is a fair and adequate test. There is an even better
>> argument that this kind of fallacy is common: it works this way in science
>
> Some governments already do have a single dimension score for driving;
> around here you have to pass a test with a certain score. Too low of a
> score, and no license.
We have that for the theoretical part, which you have to pass and on
average about 50% fail. Not me, I passed in one attempt twice*. Skills
needed to pass that test are not necessarily the ones that you need in
driving. They are e.g. multiple choice under pressure, I think that is a
typical environment that males perform better in. I don't know the
statistics for this exam. A quick google search does not give any
answers. OTOH I assume that relatively more women might pass the
practical part. Also no information available.
*) I had to redo because I failed my practical exam for having a driving
style that the examinators did not like. Theory is only valid for one year.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-8-2010 19:16, andrel wrote:
> There are also many of them that think they are actually better drivers
> because they have more experience. Anyway I am just setting thing up for
> the last line. Any objection you raise against this part is most
> probably going to support the conclusion.
Here is my problem. The structure of that text is that it starts with a
hopefully interesting observation. Then follows a part that is
deliberately fuzzy and open for attacks from anywhere. It ends with
something that is meant as a sort of punchline. It should come as a
surprise and make the reader realize that all objections he or she had
while reading the previous paragraph have some counterpart in how
science is judges and granted. That should give the reader a new angle
to look at the participation of women in science and engineering. Only,
that is not going to happen, so this structure obviously does not work. :(
I don't know how to do it right though. Taking the reader by the hand
and pointing out the obvious and less obvious parallels makes the text
even longer while it also spoils the fun for me and that lonely soul
that did get the implicit message.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.08.2010 21:48, schrieb andrel:
> Here is my problem. The structure of that text is that it starts with a
> hopefully interesting observation. Then follows a part that is
> deliberately fuzzy and open for attacks from anywhere. It ends with
> something that is meant as a sort of punchline. It should come as a
> surprise and make the reader realize that all objections he or she had
> while reading the previous paragraph have some counterpart in how
> science is judges and granted. That should give the reader a new angle
> to look at the participation of women in science and engineering. Only,
> that is not going to happen, so this structure obviously does not work. :(
> I don't know how to do it right though. Taking the reader by the hand
> and pointing out the obvious and less obvious parallels makes the text
> even longer while it also spoils the fun for me and that lonely soul
> that did get the implicit message.
Maybe you should first figure out whether you want to inform or entertain?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-8-2010 3:54, clipka wrote:
> Am 13.08.2010 21:48, schrieb andrel:
>
>> Here is my problem. The structure of that text is that it starts with a
>> hopefully interesting observation. Then follows a part that is
>> deliberately fuzzy and open for attacks from anywhere. It ends with
>> something that is meant as a sort of punchline. It should come as a
>> surprise and make the reader realize that all objections he or she had
>> while reading the previous paragraph have some counterpart in how
>> science is judges and granted. That should give the reader a new angle
>> to look at the participation of women in science and engineering. Only,
>> that is not going to happen, so this structure obviously does not
>> work. :(
>> I don't know how to do it right though. Taking the reader by the hand
>> and pointing out the obvious and less obvious parallels makes the text
>> even longer while it also spoils the fun for me and that lonely soul
>> that did get the implicit message.
>
> Maybe you should first figure out whether you want to inform or entertain?
yes that is a rather adequate description of my problem; I keep hoping
that I can do both at the same time. IRL it sometimes works...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> writes:
>> * Riding the bumper of the person in front of you will not make the
>> person in front of you go any faster.
>
> And, while we're at it, if you're driving down the road at 70MPH and
> there isn't room for someone to parallel-park in front of you, you're
> doing it wrong.
If there's room for only one person to parallel-park in front of you,
you're doing it wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> that gap open for you. The only thing that would change would be that the
> following traffic on /your/ lane wouldn't be tempted to overtake you after
> you have merged.
This is exactly the problem why you shouldn't merge too early, yet it seems
it is the ones who merge early that then blame the other drivers for merging
later. In fact it's the ones merging early that are causing the problem.
> As a matter of fact, in Germany there is a rule that in comparatively slow
> and dense traffic you /must not/ merge early, and instead drive on to the
> end of the lane, where both lanes are to merge in an alternating fashion
> (think of a zipper being closed).
Yes, it's a good rule as this also means people don't get annoyed if you
wait until the end to merge. In the UK when the sensible and efficient
thing to do is merge at the end of the lane, you see all sorts of stuff with
people getting annoyed (blocking other cars, staying 1cm from the car ahead,
etc.) Because of this a lot of people then merge way early (like several
miles if there is a stationary queue) leaving a huge stretch of unused road,
then obviously if someone uses this they are seen as "jumping the queue" and
again people get annoyed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.08.2010 08:34, schrieb scott:
>> that gap open for you. The only thing that would change would be that
>> the following traffic on /your/ lane wouldn't be tempted to overtake
>> you after you have merged.
>
> This is exactly the problem why you shouldn't merge too early, yet it
> seems it is the ones who merge early that then blame the other drivers
> for merging later. In fact it's the ones merging early that are causing
> the problem.
>
>> As a matter of fact, in Germany there is a rule that in comparatively
>> slow and dense traffic you /must not/ merge early, and instead drive
>> on to the end of the lane, where both lanes are to merge in an
>> alternating fashion (think of a zipper being closed).
>
> Yes, it's a good rule as this also means people don't get annoyed if you
> wait until the end to merge. In the UK when the sensible and efficient
> thing to do is merge at the end of the lane, you see all sorts of stuff
> with people getting annoyed (blocking other cars, staying 1cm from the
> car ahead, etc.) Because of this a lot of people then merge way early
> (like several miles if there is a stationary queue) leaving a huge
> stretch of unused road, then obviously if someone uses this they are
> seen as "jumping the queue" and again people get annoyed.
Used to be exactly the same here in Germany, until they clarified the
rule. Originally, it just stated that you have to merge "zipper style",
but didn't explicitly say /where/. I used to be an "early merge" driver
myself, so when they clarified the rules (some 10 years ago I guess) I
wasn't too happy about it, but it has proven to be the right decision,
making low-speed lane merging a pretty relaxed thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/13/2010 11:08 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 13.08.2010 14:28, schrieb Mike Raiford:
>
>> There is something to that, though. I see many drivers as not
>> necessarily being bad drivers (unless they are driving 50mph on a 70mph
>> road yapping on their cellphone) but being just plain rude drivers. I'm
>> always very irritated when I see people wait until the absolute last
>> possible second before moving over when there have been signs indicating
>> the lane is under construction and everyone must move over up to a mile
>> before the construction starts. Although, a couple of states I have
>> driven in have enacted a law stating that they must move over 1/4 - 1/2
>> mile before reaching the construction zone. Waiting to the last second
>> before moving to a different lane will cause delays because someone will
>> have to stop for you.
>
> ... which in turn is only a problem if people on the lane you are to
> merge into don't bother whether you manage your merging maneuver or not.
>
> Let's put it this way: If there is a gap you could move into, it
> wouldn't matter for the following traffic in /that/ lane whether you do
> indeed move into the gap ASAP or at the last possible moment, provided
> the following driver on that lane would be disciplined enough to leave
> that gap open for you. The only thing that would change would be that
> the following traffic on /your/ lane wouldn't be tempted to overtake you
> after you have merged.
Therein lies the problem... No one will leave a gap.
>
> As a matter of fact, in Germany there is a rule that in comparatively
> slow and dense traffic you /must not/ merge early, and instead drive on
> to the end of the lane, where both lanes are to merge in an alternating
> fashion (think of a zipper being closed).
>
I could see that working if people did indeed alternate here. What
usually happens is people generally try to shove their way in.
> a totally different story. And driving a (comparatively) underpowered
> car on a German autobahn requires yet a different driving style, which
> inevitably /will/ irritate a certain subset of fellow drivers (primarily
> those who have never driven a low-powered car on an autobahn, I guess).
Just reading that sounds frustrating. I knew someone who was stationed
in Germany for a while and went to get his license so he could drive off
of the base. He said the driving test in Germany is a bit difficult. It
took him a few attempts to pass. Much higher standards than here in the
United States.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/16/2010 1:34 AM, scott wrote:
> Yes, it's a good rule as this also means people don't get annoyed if you
> wait until the end to merge. In the UK when the sensible and efficient
> thing to do is merge at the end of the lane, you see all sorts of stuff
> with people getting annoyed (blocking other cars, staying 1cm from the
> car ahead, etc.) Because of this a lot of people then merge way early
> (like several miles if there is a stationary queue) leaving a huge
> stretch of unused road, then obviously if someone uses this they are
> seen as "jumping the queue" and again people get annoyed.
>
This is exactly what happens here...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
