Advocacy & Safety - Amazing Book called "Traffic"- could be next bike advocacy bible

I have been a bike commuter for 12 plus years. Most all were done a city rated by Bicycling magazine as one of eleven "bike unfriendly" communitie (http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-16360-no-one-rides-for-free.html)s in 2008. Naturally, I have been eager to find information which explains why things are the nasty mess that they are. Regionalism and politics don't explain everything (though they explain much).

This book works from the standpoint of deciphering the psychology behind the behavior of drivers on the road. It cites studies which blow away most traditional perceptions about bike advocacy and driver behavior. The crux of this book is that it really wasn't written about or for cyclists. Oh, it does mention us, and since the author, Tom Vanderbilt is a New Yorker who occasionally rides a bike there, there are some direct references to bikes.

The book actually delves into driver psychology and the thinking processes behind drivers. It also discusses at length traffic engineering. The traffic engineering part is quite an illumination in and of itself. One thing Vanderbilt points out is that the human brain isn't at all designed to process information while traveling at high speeds. Apparently, engineers choose to paint the dotted lane divider lanes on freeways much larger so that they create the illusion that we are going slower than what we are. An actual painted dashed traffic lane line is far larger than what most drivers realize. Also Vanderbilt mentions how roads which have a lot of visual clutter on the sides tend to make drivers slower, since their actual speed is registered by their minds.

He also completely exposes how cell phones completely rob drivers of attention far more than any other source I've read. In fact, he submits himself to a test at a research facility and fails the phone test like all the others. Another alarming thing he describes is how even if someone on the phone appears to be looking at the road, they are actually not percieving the visual stimuli in front of them.

Another amazing tidbit he reveals is that ALL drivers think they are far better drivers than what they are. He links this to something in psychology called "fundamental attribution error," which is how we our mistakes are controlled by outside circumstances, yet we see others' mistakes as the result of a character flaw. This is likened to drivers in that if they see a cyclist run a stop sign or not signal, we think of them as "reckless anarchists," but if we run a stop sign or another driver does (to whom we can relate) we see them or ourselves as responding to outside circumstances.

It is late, I am tired, so I have to abstain from sharing more from this book (I am busy writing my own book, so my fingers are also worn out).

It has been rare that I have read a book this good about cycling and related issues. Actually, it is quite scary to read this because it becomes clear that normal human mechanisms of relating with each other inevitably go out the window once someone is in a car. This is not over emphasizing the books content. I am only a third of the way through, and I find I have to stop to process what I am learning, since it is so new. I hope this leads to some real understanding in the bike community. I like the fact that it lays out so many facts which offer new ways of trying to create bike friendly cities.

The old factions and arguments really do get tiring and with this book, now I see that we have been deprived of actual scientific analysis of our situation out on the roads. It may be a good read for drivers, but generally this book gives me enough material that feeling of dependency upon drivers, of being dominated by their stuff goes out the window. It is sort of like realizing that an annoying coworker of yours isn't "firing on all cylinders."

I'd love to scan and share the entire book. Out of respect for the copyright gods, I will share but a few pages. I have been perusing books and the internet in regards to bike advocacy for a very long time, but I have found nothing which cracks the seemingly inscrutable codes which dictate driver behavior. I wrote a little book report for another site and I've repasted it here.



View Profile


An Excerpt from and discussion about the book, Traffic
« on: July 09, 2009, 11:23:10 AM »

Vanderbilt describes in his book, Traffic how drivers lack a real forum to express their anger and other feelings as people do normally. There is no way to tell the driver who cut you off verbally how you felt about being cut off. This limits drivers to doing things like giving the finger, honking or to “act out” by trying to cut off the driver ahead of them who just cut them off. He states that when we drive, it is often impossible to send a message to the offending driver. He says, therefore, “…we get visibly mad to an audience of no one.”

He cites a sociologist from the University of California, Jack Katz, author of How Emotions Work, as the source of this study of emotion in drivers. Vanderbilt states that Katz learned, “that we are engaging in a kind of theatrical storytelling inside our cars, angrily ‘constructing moral dramas’ in which we are the wronged victims- and the ‘avenging hero-’ in some traffic epic of larger importance.”

He says, “Katz argues to create new meaning in this ‘moral drama’ and in an effort to create ‘new meaning’ for the encounter, we will try to find out something after the fact about the driver who wronged us (perhaps speeding up to see them), meanwhile running down a mental list of potential villains (e.g., women, men, senior citizens, teenagers, Democrats, Republicans, “idiots on cell phones”… before finding a suitable resolution to the drama.”

Vanderbilt describes this as a version for drivers of what psychologists call the “fundamental attribution error;” in which we blame the actions of others on who they are, and in turn, “attribute our own actions to how we were forced to act in specific situations.”

Vanderbilt goes on to illustrate this by saying, “Chances are you never have looked at yourself in the rearview mirror and thought, “Stupid #$%&! Driver.” He says that psychologists theorize that this tendency arises as a possible means of feeling in control of complex situations like driving. He also surmises that fundamental attribution error based chastisement is easier than fully analyzing the circumstances which caused the other driver to behave as he/she did.

He also suggests this is the root cause of why even drivers make statements like, “West Virginians are horrible drivers,” and other assumptions based on geography.

Vanderbilt says that traffic research shows that when bicyclists violate the law, drivers see them as “reckless anarchists,” and meanwhile are more likely to “view the violation of a traffic law by another driver as somehow being required by the circumstances.”


http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg36.jpg

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg37.jpg

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg30.jpg

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg31-1.jpg

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg60.jpg

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg61.jpg

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg62.jpg

There's a nice interview w/ the author on the paperback's Amazon page (http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249908065&sr=1-1). Hmmm, due out tomorrow. Convenient timing?

In light traffic, i don't worry too much. But when the traffic gets heavy, I act like a cop. I look back at the person, make eye contact, point assertively, and take charge. Usually people are
not sure what's gong on. I let them know. If verbal communication is possible, I use it. I try to be nonconfrontational, just assertive. I bellow 'thank you' a lot. If I am not certain the person is aware of me, I holler 'hello' really, really loudly.
One time a guy in a mercedes was leaving his fancy development and not paying attention. I hollered 'hey' twice as loud as i could and nearly gave him a heart attack.

While riding Saturday, I had a driver almost swipe me with the passenger side wing mirror in their rush to get around me and up (100 feet) to turn at a stop light. I yelled "Hey!", and wiaved. When I got to the red light, a truck pulled up next to me and said that he thought I was pulling people over...

Hey I just got this book from the LA County Library system. I agree, so far it's very interesting reading.

.....
This book works from the standpoint of deciphering the psychology behind the behavior of drivers .......


D'oh. Just what the world needs. Another cycling book where drivers who think they own the road should be replaced with cyclists who think they own the road. Sure to be a bestseller among the take-the-laners and mazzhole clique.

roughstuff

D'oh. Just what the world needs. Another cycling book where drivers who think they own the road should be replaced with cyclists who think they own the road. Sure to be a bestseller among the take-the-laners and mazzhole clique.

roughstuff

It's not a cycling book. It's not even a cars are bad book. It's in equiry into the psychology of a typical driver and the effect of being in a car on an individual.

But seriously, share the road, it's my lane as much as yours. :p

It's not a cycling book. It's not even a cars are bad book. It's in inquiry into the psychology of a typical driver and the effect of being in a car on an individual. ...

This is extremely valuable information, because most people are unaware of several aspects of motorist behavior, such as the narrowing of the visual field with increasing speed or the subconscious neglect of vertical objects. Automobile technology continues to evolve, leaving our visual cortex and image processing "wetware" behind. The only short term partial solution I can offer is to reduce the speed limits somewhat on many of our rural roads and prime arterials. Unfortunately, the trend has been toward higher speed limits.

It's not a cycling book. It's not even a cars are bad book. It's in equiry into the psychology of a typical driver and the effect of being in a car on an individual.

But seriously, share the road, it's my lane as much as yours. :p



....., Jack Katz, author of How Emotions Work, as the source of this study of emotion in drivers. Vanderbilt states that Katz learned, “that we are engaging in a kind of theatrical storytelling inside our cars, angrily ‘constructing moral dramas’ in which we are the wronged victims- and the ‘avenging hero-’ in some traffic epic of larger importance.”

Ridiculous, pompous puffery. Like I said...a sure bestseller among the anti-car luddites and mazzholes.

roughstuff

......The only short term partial solution I can offer is to reduce the speed limits somewhat on many of our rural roads and prime arterials. Unfortunately, the trend has been toward higher speed limits.


There is an even shorter term complete solution, which is simply to practice what we preach and drive at these lower speeds on rural roads and primer arterials. I never hear much about this...which leads me to believe that its a 'lets you and him slow down!' mentality.

roughstuff

Ridiculous, pompous puffery. Like I said...a sure bestseller among the anti-car luddites and mazzholes.


good god, man, must you troll everything?

....., Jack Katz, author of How Emotions Work, as the source of this study of emotion in drivers. Vanderbilt states that Katz learned, “that we are engaging in a kind of theatrical storytelling inside our cars, angrily ‘constructing moral dramas’ in which we are the wronged victims- and the ‘avenging hero-’ in some traffic epic of larger importance.”

Ridiculous, pompous puffery. Like I said...a sure bestseller among the anti-car luddites and mazzholes.

roughstuff

The Internet is awesome. There is an unlimited potential in dismissing that which one knows nothing about.

Road Fan

His blog is pretty good too.

http://www.howwedrive.com/

I haven't read "Traffic" yet (it's on my queue).

good god, man, must you troll everything?


No I occasionally hop in my car or my friends car and enjoy a leisurely Sunday ride while I construct moral dramas’ in which I am the wronged victim- and the ‘avenging hero-’ in some traffic epic of larger importance.”



roughstuff

....., Jack Katz, author of How Emotions Work, as the source of this study of emotion in drivers. Vanderbilt states that Katz learned, “that we are engaging in a kind of theatrical storytelling inside our cars, angrily ‘constructing moral dramas’ in which we are the wronged victims- and the ‘avenging hero-’ in some traffic epic of larger importance.”

Ridiculous, pompous puffery. Like I said...a sure bestseller among the anti-car luddites and mazzholes.

roughstuff:rolleyes:

From your criticisms, I'm pretty sure that you didn't read the book. Or if you did, you didn't comprehend it. So read it, then get back to us. Or confine your criticisms to the many excerpts that the OP kindly provided for us.

as for pompous puffery.....


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:G-JEtZJwb72jmM:http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mfl/lowres/mfln130l.jpg

:rolleyes:

From your criticisms, I'm pretty sure that you didn't read the book. Or if you did, you didn't comprehend it. So read it, then get back to us. Or confine your criticisms to the many excerpts that the OP kindly provided for us.

as for pompous puffery.....


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:G-JEtZJwb72jmM:http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mfl/lowres/mfln130l.jpg


It is a direct quote from the page excerpt provided, Roody. I am not judging the book from its cover, I am making a very reasonable inference about its style and content based upon a sample of its pages, which is, as I pointed out, pompous fluff .

roughstuff

NPR interview with author, (audio & transcript):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92945220

It is a direct quote from the page excerpt provided, Roody. I am not judging the book from its cover, I am making a very reasonable inference about its style and content based upon a sample of its pages, which is, as I pointed out, pompous fluff .

roughstuff

The difference between adolescence and adulthood is taking responsibility for your
actions. Dismissing a book based on a good sized body of research after having read a page or two tells me you have a degree in Psych (so that you have a familirarity with behavioral research and how to interpret it) and expertise in traffic management issues.

Or your inner child could simply be running your show.

Here's a hint, we know which one it is.

It is a direct quote from the page excerpt provided, Roody. I am not judging the book from its cover, I am making a very reasonable inference about its style and content based upon a sample of its pages, which is, as I pointed out, pompous fluff .

roughstuff

I have read the book, and I find it to be an important summation of scientific studies of the psychology and engineering behind traffic. Human perception and judgment are key factors in the traffic equation, but so far they have been largely ignored by traffic engineers and auto designers. When (not if) the principles explained in this book are more widely applied, the roads will be safer for both cyclists and motorists.

As for appealing to what you called "anti-car luddites and mazzholes," this book is about as far opposite of that as I can imagine. Luddites don't believe in science or new technology, and this book is all about science and new technology. You might be right about the mazzholes, as I don't know what that they believe.

Didn't this book come out at least a couple years ago?

The cover is new, since it now says "National Bestseller" in big letters. So maybe that's what they mean when its release date is listed as Aug 11th.

Didn't this book come out at least a couple years ago?

The cover is new, since it now says "National Bestseller" in big letters. So maybe that's what they mean when its release date is listed as Aug 11th.

Hard-cover published a year ago.
Soft-cover published tomorrow.

I highly recommend Traffic. He has done his research. Some of his conclusions are counterintuitive, but make a lot of sense, once you read his arguments.

The difference between adolescence and adulthood is taking responsibility for your
actions. Dismissing a book based on a good sized body of research after having read a page or two tells me you have a degree in Psych (so that you have a familirarity with behavioral research and how to interpret it) and expertise in traffic management issues.

Or your inner child could simply be running your show.

Here's a hint, we know which one it is.

It is amusing---even more fun than "constructing moral dramas in which I am the wronged victim- and the ‘avenging hero-’ in some traffic epic of larger importance"---to watch you guys jump to conclusions. I have not dismissed the book, nor have I on the other hand made it a priority on my reading list. I have merely drawn a very reasonable inference that the book is pompous and vacuous fluff. The amazon.com interview text convinces me of this even more.


roughstuff

My Psych Exp Methods teacher liked to say the only bad thing about most theories is that they are wrong. Such is the case with your inference.

First Rule of Holes - when you're in one, stop digging.

yeah... i saw the movie about this a while back. I dont remember any references to cyclists... hmm

http://alag3.mfa.kfki.hu/dcsabas/movie/c_z_j/traffic/traffic.jpg

yeah... i saw the movie about this a while back. I dont remember any references to cyclists... hmm


But it was an *excellent* movie!:lol:

It is amusing--- bzz bzz bzz I have not dismissed the book, bzz bzz bzz the book is pompous and vacuous fluff bzz bzz bzz

hey, if you think analysis is vacuous or three syllable words are pompous or the combining of the two is fluff, that's cool. you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. the internet, however, doesn't necessarily want to hear about it, though, okay?

okay.

hey, if you think analysis is vacuous or three syllable words are pompous or the combining of the two is fluff, that's cool. you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. the internet, however, doesn't necessarily want to hear about it, though, okay?

okay.



AHHH! I forgot I was talking to the all mighty 'internet spokesperson!' And yes...I am entitled not only to my opinion, but the right to express it as well. If that puts a burr in your buttcrack, so much the better.

roughstuff

But it was an *excellent* movie!:lol:



Four Academy Awards!!;)

It is amusing---even more fun than "constructing moral dramas in which I am the wronged victim- and the ‘avenging hero-’ in some traffic epic of larger importance"---to watch you guys jump to conclusions. I have not dismissed the book, nor have I on the other hand made it a priority on my reading list. I have merely drawn a very reasonable inference that the book is pompous and vacuous fluff. The amazon.com interview text convinces me of this even more.


roughstuff

The thing is, it takes a minimum amount of pomposity for someone to decide that 1) they have some extra knowledge, 2) they think everyone else might want to know, and 3) to actually expend the effort to put their words in front of complete strangers.

It's like how deciding to become a comedian means being quite a jackass. It takes a good amount of self-importance to effectively declare, "I'm funnier than everyone in this room, and I think they want to see me prove it."

My point is, anyone who writes a book is going to be pompous. Nobody should be surprised to find that kind of tone in this book, either.

I skimmed some of it at a bookstore last year, and, IMO, he made a LOT of sense. I even found myself going, "This is what I've been telling people all along..."

(I'm pompous enough to post on BF, but not write a book.. :lol:)

Another amazing tidbit he reveals is that ALL drivers think they are far better drivers than what they are.

How about cyclists, lol. Unlike drivers, Cyclists not only think they are competent cyclists, but that they are good looking. rofl again.

But it was an *excellent* movie!:lol:

I only saw the previews but clearly it was just pompous puffery.

;)

I only saw the previews but clearly it was just pompous puffery.

;)


I'll be darned I saw those pompous puffery reviews too! :)

roughstuff

Read the book a few months ago and discussed it on a thread here

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=503711&highlight=Tom+Vanderbilt

Another cycling book where drivers who think they own the road should be replaced with cyclists who think they own the road

Ummm, not. It's a book about the psychology of driving, just like the OP wrote.

The author has a blog -- http://www.howwedrive.com/

Traffic will be available in paperback Real Soon Now. I own the hard cover edition.

This is extremely valuable information, because most people are unaware of several aspects of motorist behavior, such as the narrowing of the visual field with increasing speed or the subconscious neglect of vertical objects. Automobile technology continues to evolve, leaving our visual cortex and image processing "wetware" behind. The only short term partial solution I can offer is to reduce the speed limits somewhat on many of our rural roads and prime arterials. Unfortunately, the trend has been toward higher speed limits.

One thing that needs emphasis too is that drivers do not register things that they are not looking for. This can frequently include cyclists, both pedaled and motorized. Years ago I had a motorcycle totaled out from under me by a driver who pulled a left turn in front of me w/o signaling. I would have sworn that she looked right at me before making the turn. The motorcycle had its headlight on and it was a bright day when the accident happened.

I was within the speed limit and it was on a residential two lane throughfare. The driver told the policeman that she did not see me. IMO she was not looking for a motorcycle so that even though she looked in my direction I never registered on her conscious mind.

Maybe this is why bike riders in countries and areas with a lot of bikes in use, such as Holland & Denmark, are much safer than in most of the USA. Drivers there have learned that they have to be aware of bicyclists so they register them when driving and take appropriate precautions.

"angrily ‘constructing moral dramas'"


Ridiculous, pompous puffery. Like I said...a sure bestseller among the anti-car luddites and mazzholes.

roughstuffAngrily constructing moral dramas, eh? Are you posting from your car? :)

D'oh. Just what the world needs. Another cycling book where drivers who think they own the road should be replaced with cyclists who think they own the road. Sure to be a bestseller among the take-the-laners and mazzhole clique.
This proves that you are talking out of your heiny. The book isn't about "cycling".


It is a direct quote from the page excerpt provided, Roody. I am not judging the book from its cover, I am making a very reasonable inference about its style and content based upon a sample of its pages, which is, as I pointed out, pompous fluff.

No, you are making an inference about "pomposity" from a single quote from somebody that the author quoted. This inference is very unreasonable!


AHHH! I forgot I was talking to the all mighty 'internet spokesperson!' And yes...I am entitled not only to my opinion, but the right to express it as well.
Which is the same right other people are expressing.

=================


My point is, anyone who writes a book is going to be pompous. Nobody should be surprised to find that kind of tone in this book, either.
This, of course, isn't true as a rule. Some authors are pompous; some authors are not. The "pomposity" being discussed isn't Vanderbilt's (who, as far as I can tell, isn't at-all pompous). It's some guy he quoted.

So get the book from the library or LBS (local book shop). It's a good read. It will probably make you a better rider/driver, and it will definitely give you interesting things to talk about at social gatherings. :)

. . . .I have merely drawn a very reasonable inference that the book is pompous and vacuous fluf . . .

Do your homework and you will be saved the effort of constructing excuses.

Talking about Traffic (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090810/people_nm/us_douglas)ing...

D'oh. Just what the world needs. Another cycling book where drivers who think they own the road should be replaced with cyclists who think they own the road. Sure to be a bestseller among the take-the-laners and mazzhole clique.

roughstuff

That's not at all what he described.

The thing is, it takes a minimum amount of pomposity for someone to decide that 1) they have some extra knowledge, 2) they think everyone else might want to know, and 3) to actually expend the effort to put their words in front of complete strangers.

It's like how deciding to become a comedian means being quite a jackass. It takes a good amount of self-importance to effectively declare, "I'm funnier than everyone in this room, and I think they want to see me prove it."

My point is, anyone who writes a book is going to be pompous. Nobody should be surprised to find that kind of tone in this book, either.

I skimmed some of it at a bookstore last year, and, IMO, he made a LOT of sense. I even found myself going, "This is what I've been telling people all along..."

(I'm pompous enough to post on BF, but not write a book.. :lol:)

Critiquing a non-fiction book because it's "pompous" is ridiculous. It's attacking the messenger.

Critiquing a non-fiction book because it's "pompous" is ridiculous. It's attacking the messenger.

Just because it's not a fictional story doesn't mean that it's not loaded with opinions from the author. There's fiction, there's nonfiction, and then there are opinion pieces.

That said, remember that I've already stated that I agree with what I read in the book, too.

Just because it's not a fictional story doesn't mean that it's not loaded with opinions from the author. There's fiction, there's nonfiction, and then there are opinion pieces.

That said, remember that I've already stated that I agree with what I read in the book, too.

I think that Traffic is firmly in the non-fiction category rather than opinion or fiction. It's controversial only in the sense that he reports on some new and innovative comcepts like Monderman's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman) Shared Streets. But his reporting is largely fair and his research is thorough.

*Thread officially hijacked*

Okay, Roughstuff. Aside from that its obvious you haven't even touched the book, you are actually demonstrating fundamental attribution error by denying completely the human falliability while driving. Tell, me, if someone cut you off while driving, coming inches from your front bumper and you scream and give them the finger, how is this not related to moral dramas? You call them an *******. We do indeed have moral dramas when we drive.

Lets try old people who drive. Most people, including myself I humbly admit, assume they go very, very slow because they see people in our modern age rushing around too much or we assume they only drive to get to church. Or as for moral dramas, might I suggest your moral drama about how all cyclists are anarchists seeking to trash cars with our U-locks. I suppose now, us "anarchistic hoodlums" are going to ivy league schools and studying traffic engineering now. :rolleyes:

This is partially my fault though, since I just added snippets of what is a long discussion in the book. so to help or feed the beast, here's more (why I bother, is beyond me!).

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg19.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg20.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg21.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg22.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg23.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt64/bonkersyonkers/pg24.jpg

The excerpts seem dead on to me. I've worked a lifetime to maintain calm, abiding attention and behave rationally on the road. I'm still stumped sometimes as to whether there's a rational thing to do in some circumstances! And I still get that flash of anger sometimes.

Motorcycling proved the best training. I moved off my commuting bicycle to a moto (too much need for 15 mile round trips in the daytime). And then decided I wouldn't drive my truck unless absolutely required. I really have to keep my head on straight to drive a moto. It's really the only activity that has allowed me to easily become a focused, objective driver. If something rattles me I pull over and rest a minute. I don't drive more than 45 minutes without stopping and getting rid of any brain fade or overload. I'm finding this approach bleeds over into other vehicles. For example, I found I'm a much more aggressive cyclist than I realized. And I'm a much less assertive and possibly overly slow 4 wheel driver than I need to be, not controlling my environs as much as I should.

Always something to learn and understand.

Angrily constructing moral dramas, eh? Are you posting from your car? :)

now that's funny.

Angrily constructing moral dramas, eh? Are you posting from your car? :)


No. I don't text. I have narrow scrawny fingers, but i still can't see how folks can send text messages at all, let alone while driving, or walking down a hallway, or as I saw today, while walking a couple dogs! Also I don't have a car at the moment either..I take it off the road in the warm months to save $ on gas and insurance, since as many people have pointed out, we hop in our cars far to easily these days.


roughstuff