Shimagnolo

But it was an *excellent* movie!

frymaster

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.

Roughstuff

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

alicestrong

Four Academy Awards!!

BarracksSi

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.. )

geo8rge

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.

Roody

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

Roughstuff

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

roughstuff

closetbiker

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

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...Tom+Vanderbilt

richardmasoner

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

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

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

tatfiend 

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.

cooker

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

njkayaker

This proves that you are talking out of your heiny. The book isn't about "cycling".

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

Which is the same right other people are expressing.

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

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.

Roody

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.

gcottay

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

cooker

Talking about Trafficing...

crhilton

That's not at all what he described.

crhilton

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

BarracksSi

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.

Roody

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 Shared Streets. But his reporting is largely fair and his research is thorough.

spandexwarrior

*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.

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!).

spandexwarrior

mandovoodoo

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.

frymaster

now that's funny.

Roughstuff

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