A different tack on randomness today. I feel like unloading:

First, a non-annoyance: Foreplay is such a great name for a song. That 
is all.

Now, onto the topic. mostly commute-related:

* Contractors: Make sure your pallets, ladders, pipes, etc are tied down 
and properly secured in that 1970's era pickup truck you're driving. 
Your cargo constitutes a deadly projectile. Don't be surprised when I 
fly by you at 80 miles an hour to get in front of you. I'd rather risk a 
speeding ticket than death.

I have seen in the past couple of weeks the aftermath of irresponsible 
cargo handling: 2 ladders, a splintered mass of wood I can only guess 
used to be a pallet, and various other things on the road that don't 
belong on the road.

* Left Lane Blockers (Right lane blockers in those areas that drive on 
the left side of the street) Need I say more?

* I'm quote annoyed when I pass you, and you're driving 50 in a 70mph 
zone and you're busy yacking on the phone. You're probably equally 
oblivious to the fact that you've become a road hazard as you are to 
your surroundings.

* Driving while sending a txt msg? srsly?

* Arrogant cyclists who seem to get some perverse pleasure out of 
wearing clothing that is waay too small and waaay to revealing of things 
I prefer not to see. Ever.

* You know that big red and white triangle that says "Yeild" to ramp? 
Yeah. Cars are coming off the interstate, why are you blocking them from 
exiting?

* Conversely: Learn how to merge, let me give you a hint. Unless you're 
in an 18-wheeler with a heavy load, you're expected to get up to highway 
speed as you enter the highway. Any slower speed and you're likely going 
to make the morning traffic report with the pile-up you just caused, and 
on a technicality, insurance doesn't find you responsible for.

* If you've been doing something naughty on the road and you get pulled 
over, please find a better place to pull over than the freeway on-ramp. 
You're putting the police officer's life in danger as well as your own, 
not to mention you've added an extra layer of difficulty to getting onto 
a crowded freeway.

* If you see an exit ahead, and you're finding that the car driving a 
bit above the speed limit is going way to slow for you, it is still 
extremely rude to cross the solid white line and exit when they have 
signaled that they are about to exit. You've also caused that vehicle to 
miss their exit because you blocked them from exiting and just added 
time to their already long commute.

* Riding the bumper of the person in front of you will not make the 
person in front of you go any faster. Also, throwing up your hands and 
screaming is not going to magically cure the situation either. Yes, 
they're guilty of blocking the left lane. Yes, I understand your 
frustration, no, its not going to help to use tailgating as an outlet.

Whew... If you actually got here, thanks for reading that.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Whew... If you actually got here, thanks for reading that.

Man, it's like when you drive through some village like a nutcase, and 
at the other side it says "Thanks for driving carefully" and you think 
to yourself "oh... yeah, I should totally have done that".

Post a reply to this message

There was once a British show which name I don't remember which was
about the British traffic patrol and incredible examples of reckless
driving that the patrols had caught on camera.

  I liked one thing the commentator said in the show, which was something
about the outright contradictory attitude many drivers have towards their
own car: When the car is parked, it's the most valuable and fragile thing
in the entire world to them. Even a minor scratch is comparable to the end
of the world. However, when they are driving the car, their attitude seems
completely the opposite, as their driving is completely reckless, as if they
couldn't care less how many scratches, bumps or even major damage their car
could get from it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  I liked one thing the commentator said in the show, which was something
> about the outright contradictory attitude many drivers have towards their
> own car: When the car is parked, it's the most valuable and fragile thing
> in the entire world to them. Even a minor scratch is comparable to the end
> of the world. However, when they are driving the car, their attitude seems
> completely the opposite, as their driving is completely reckless, as if 
> they
> couldn't care less how many scratches, bumps or even major damage their 
> car
> could get from it.

That's because they all think they're one of the best drivers on the road, 
and nothing will ever happen to their car whilst they're driving it because 
they have the skill to avoid such accidents.  If they are involved in any 
type of accident, even if it is totally their fault for going double the 
speed limit around a blind corner, they will blame the other person for 
going too slowly or not pulling out fast enough.

I'm sure this guy blamed the other "idiots" for stopping on the highway: 
(skip to 1:30 to see the interesting bit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7H8q3OrGkY

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford a écrit :
> A different tack on randomness today. I feel like unloading:
> 
> First, a non-annoyance: Foreplay is such a great name for a song. That 
> is all.
> 
> Now, onto the topic. mostly commute-related:
> 
> * Arrogant cyclists who seem to get some perverse pleasure out of 
> wearing clothing that is waay too small and waaay to revealing of things 
> I prefer not to see. Ever.

Are they arrogant _and_ wear form-fitting clothes, or are they arrogant 
_for_ wearing form-fitting clothes?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> * Contractors: Make sure your pallets, ladders, pipes, etc are tied down 

I think I've seen three or four times where I go past a car half off the 
road with something wedged underneath where I think "That looked like a 
ladder tangled in his wheels", and then three miles later theres someone in 
a pickup truck full of ladders at the side of the road and the driver 
standing there scratching his head like "I thought I had one more than that."

> * Driving while sending a txt msg? srsly?

I see at least several times a year someone driving down the road with a 
newspaper over the steering wheel, reading it.

> * Arrogant cyclists who seem to get some perverse pleasure out of 
> wearing clothing that is waay too small and waaay to revealing of things 
> I prefer not to see. Ever.

Dogbert:
    "Problem: Bicycle seats are hard and uncomfortable."
    "Solution: Wear funny pants."

> * Conversely: Learn how to merge, let me give you a hint. 

Yes. And please get your ass into the lane where you want to exit, instead 
of waiting until someone is *about* to merge, then shifting from the center 
lane to the right lane.  And please don't speed up when you see someone 
trying to merge in front of you - they really have nowhere else to go.

> * 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.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2010 8:20 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:

>
> Are they arrogant _and_ wear form-fitting clothes, or are they arrogant
> _for_ wearing form-fitting clothes?
>

Arrogant /and/

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2010 7:59 AM, Warp wrote:

>    I liked one thing the commentator said in the show, which was something
> about the outright contradictory attitude many drivers have towards their
> own car: When the car is parked, it's the most valuable and fragile thing
> in the entire world to them. Even a minor scratch is comparable to the end
> of the world. However, when they are driving the car, their attitude seems
> completely the opposite, as their driving is completely reckless, as if they
> couldn't care less how many scratches, bumps or even major damage their car
> could get from it.
>

Wow... I can totally see that attitude in some people. I get annoyed by 
the constant nicks the front-end of my car gets from gravel coming off 
the road, which reminds me of another annoyance:

Gravel haulers. This is a tractor-trailer hauling a huge load of gravel. 
They've passed a law recently requiring them to place a tarp over the 
load. It helps, but I see so many that are in such a sad state of repair 
that have huge holes in the tarp. Flinging rocks toward windshields as 
they make their way down the road, usually driving way too fast.



-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 12-8-2010 15:11, scott wrote:

 > That's because they all think they're one of the best drivers on the 
road,

Warning thread hijacking attempt:
Something that I would have posted on my blog if I had one ;)
I know it is too long, yet there is also much more to elaborate on after 
the last line...
Anyway, inspired by two books: one is 'bad science' by Ben Goldacre, 
apart from using this example wrongly, an interesting read. The other 
book's subject you can guess.
Comments, suggestions and hatemail to the usual address.

----------

Apparently there was some survey that indicates that 80 or 90% of all 
people think they are a better than average driver. This is often quoted 
as an example of how easy it is for people to fool themselves or some 
similar paternalistic point. I think that says more about the people
that interpret this result, than of the people that participated in this
survey.

There are probably as many driver styles as there are drivers. There is 
for instance the aggressive style, though they would probably describe 
it as 'sporty'. These drivers have good reflexes and know their car so 
well that they are able to put their cars in small gaps that open up in 
a densely packed road. They are often at least 15 seconds earlier home 
than those with a less aggressive style, or so they think. The other end 
of the spectrum are those that have a cooperative style. These drivers 
look around and anticipate what others are going to do, for instance by 
creating a space if they think somebody else is wanting to change lanes. 
It is clear that these two styles will lead to different assessment of 
how good somebody is as a driver. Sporty drivers will consider 
cooperative drivers as slow, stupid and annoying because they don't 
create space fast enough for the sporty ones to let them race on 
uninterrupted. Cooperative drivers will regard the sporty ones as 
homicidal maniacs. Of course the style of driving is not a linear scale 
and other style are possible, for instance one that tries to  inimize 
the amount of gas needed for a trip.
In conclusion, people will try to drive in a way that they think is a 
good driving style and judge other by the same standards. We should have 
been worried if 50% of people would think they are less than average 
drivers on their own scale of what is good driving. The error people 
make when they think that this survey is an example of how people can 
fool themselves, is that they assume that there is an objective 
measurement possible on a linear scale for driving ability.

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. 
First we have to create a committee that can judge drivers capacity. 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.
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.

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. 
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

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> First we have to create a committee that can judge drivers capacity. 

On the other hand, I think it's safe to say that there *are* objective 
criteria for bad drivers: If you frequently get in an accident, you're a 
worse driver than those who never do.

I saw a study where they put cameras into 300 cars for a year to see what 
the driver was doing when they got in an accident. Even knowing they were 
being monitored, 100 people that year got in an accident.  That tells me an 
average driver (assuming they picked randomly, which might not be the case 
now that I think of it) gets in an accident every 3 years. This boggles my 
mind. I don't even ding a door in the parking lot every 3 years.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 8/12/2010 7:59 AM, Warp wrote:
> 
>>    I liked one thing the commentator said in the show, which was
>> something
>> about the outright contradictory attitude many drivers have towards their
>> own car: When the car is parked, it's the most valuable and fragile thing
>> in the entire world to them. Even a minor scratch is comparable to the
>> end
>> of the world. However, when they are driving the car, their attitude
>> seems
>> completely the opposite, as their driving is completely reckless, as
>> if they
>> couldn't care less how many scratches, bumps or even major damage
>> their car
>> could get from it.
>>
> 
> Wow... I can totally see that attitude in some people. I get annoyed by
> the constant nicks the front-end of my car gets from gravel coming off
> the road, which reminds me of another annoyance:
> 
> Gravel haulers. This is a tractor-trailer hauling a huge load of gravel.
> They've passed a law recently requiring them to place a tarp over the
> load. It helps, but I see so many that are in such a sad state of repair
> that have huge holes in the tarp. Flinging rocks toward windshields as
> they make their way down the road, usually driving way too fast.

My annoyance:
Snow and ice on trucks. I know the top of those transfer trucks are hard
to reach, but that three inch slab of rock hard ice, that built up while
you were stuck in at a rest stop cause the roads were closed, is going
to fly off at some point. Surprises me that more people aren't killed by
that stuff.

The people who leave the sheet of ice on their cars just have no excuse.
If I ever get hit by that on my bike, and survive, I will track them down.

Post a reply to this message

> I saw a study where they put cameras into 300 cars for a year to see what 
> the driver was doing when they got in an accident. Even knowing they were 
> being monitored, 100 people that year got in an accident.  That tells me 
> an average driver (assuming they picked randomly, which might not be the 
> case now that I think of it) gets in an accident every 3 years. This 
> boggles my mind. I don't even ding a door in the parking lot every 3 
> years.

That's because you're not 18 :-)  In the UK I think the average was once 
every 7 years, but I assume for young males that's about once a year and 
about once every 15-20 years for older people.

Post a reply to this message

> My annoyance:
> Snow and ice on trucks. I know the top of those transfer trucks are hard
> to reach, but that three inch slab of rock hard ice, that built up while
> you were stuck in at a rest stop cause the roads were closed, is going
> to fly off at some point. Surprises me that more people aren't killed by
> that stuff.

I once saw the whole top sheet of ice slide off onto the footpath as a truck 
went around a sharp corner, luckily there was nobody there.

I also had a big lump of ice (about 30x20 cm) come off the van that had just 
overtaken me and smash right into my windscreen, it was coming straight for 
my face but luckily the glass held up, it was the loudest bang I'd ever 
heard in the car!

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.08.2010 00:25, schrieb Darren New:

>> First we have to create a committee that can judge drivers capacity.
>
> On the other hand, I think it's safe to say that there *are* objective
> criteria for bad drivers: If you frequently get in an accident, you're a
> worse driver than those who never do.

Ah, so frequent drivers (traveling salesmen, taxi drivers etc) are 
inherently bad drivers?

Of course you could put the number of accidents into relation with the 
mileage traveled. But again: Are city commuters and taxi drivers 
inherently worse drivers than those who only use their car once in a 
blue moon for a long-distance journey on the highway?

You see, it's not so easy finding a flawless objective criterion, is it?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2010 1:57 PM, andrel wrote:

> There are probably as many driver styles as there are drivers. There is
> for instance the aggressive style, though they would probably describe
...

Interesting point. I'm probably more of the cooperative driver, though 
depending on the circumstances I'm probably edge in a small amount of 
aggressiveness when called for. E.g. crowded road, no one will leave a 
good enough gap. You have to do something because you're running out of 
road (trying to merge onto the freeway)

Interestingly, I used to race in autocross back when I had a car that 
was appropriate for it. It gave me a good outlet for carving corners and 
doing some fast driving at the limit, something not appropriate for the 
street.

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.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 8/13/2010 4:52 AM, clipka wrote:

> Ah, so frequent drivers (traveling salesmen, taxi drivers etc) are
> inherently bad drivers?

I would say if the accidents are consistently and clearly their fault, 
then: Yes.

> Of course you could put the number of accidents into relation with the
> mileage traveled. But again: Are city commuters and taxi drivers
> inherently worse drivers than those who only use their car once in a
> blue moon for a long-distance journey on the highway?

Again, if they're easily proven to be at fault....

> You see, it's not so easy finding a flawless objective criterion, is it?

Not easy in the least.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2010 6:10 PM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> My annoyance:
> Snow and ice on trucks. I know the top of those transfer trucks are hard
> to reach, but that three inch slab of rock hard ice, that built up while
> you were stuck in at a rest stop cause the roads were closed, is going
> to fly off at some point. Surprises me that more people aren't killed by
> that stuff.

Oh, yeah... that doesn't happen very often around here. Not a whole lot 
of snow/ice.

> The people who leave the sheet of ice on their cars just have no excuse.
> If I ever get hit by that on my bike, and survive, I will track them down.

Yep. Though *if* there is a layer of soft snow, I usually won't bother 
with it, but I generally try to brush off anything that isn't adhered to 
the car.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 13/08/2010 12:10 AM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The people who leave the sheet of ice on their cars just have no excuse.
> If I ever get hit by that on my bike, and survive, I will track them down.

Reminds me of an incident that happened to me once years ago, with my 
first bike. It was an old, very under powered 90 cc Honda. I got caught 
behind a lorry either going to or coming back from an abattoir. It was 
full of dead and rank cattle and I could not overtake it because of 
narrow roads and oncoming traffic. I still remember the smell 40 years 
on and the heads poking over the sides. Yeuch!
That was a bike that taught me a lot the most important was get a bigger 
bike. ;-)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I saw a study where they put cameras into 300 cars for a year to see 
>> what the driver was doing when they got in an accident. Even knowing 
>> they were being monitored, 100 people that year got in an accident.  
>> That tells me an average driver (assuming they picked randomly, which 
>> might not be the case now that I think of it) gets in an accident 
>> every 3 years. This boggles my mind. I don't even ding a door in the 
>> parking lot every 3 years.
> 
> That's because you're not 18 :-) 

Neither were the people in these experiments.  Granted, they may have been 
driving in New York City or something.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

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] sanrrcom> 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

Mike Raiford wrote:
> * Riding the bumper of the person in front of you will not make the
> person in front of you go any faster. Also, throwing up your hands and
> screaming is not going to magically cure the situation either. Yes,
> they're guilty of blocking the left lane. Yes, I understand your
> frustration, no, its not going to help to use tailgating as an outlet.

http://qdb.us/301644

Post a reply to this message