Acknowledging good driving

[subaqua]

A brief wave of acknowledgement never does any harm, drivers do it all the time. In fact sometimes I acknowledge the courtesy even if I suspect they were really giving way to the car behind me. It might sow the seeds of an idea....

In fact, just like real drivers, ostentatiously moving out of their way, with a brief wave, can also sow useful ideas....

done that plenty of times

 

[theclaud]

I think there's a particular British attitude to road use that affects everyone to a greater or lesser degree - you see it more in drivers because there's so little to restrain the expression of it, (in terms of physical or legal consequences) but I've seen it in cyclists too.

That's partly what I'm getting at, but I also mean that whereas some cyclists may behave towards pedestrians much as many drivers behave towards cyclists (a tendency exacerbated by shared-use paths), it is simply inconceivable that cyclists or pedestrians would or could behave the same way towards motorists that motorists behave towards them. I don't just mean because the risk of coming off worse is a deterrent - I mean that the conditions enabling such behaviour don't exist, and that different modes and the power relations between them give rise to different forms of consciousness. I'm a bit of a fan of militant pedestrianism - that is deliberately transgressing the rules with regard to the relationship between people and cars (and their infrastructure). It can really piss drivers off, and it requires a bit of nerve at times, but my theory is that it works because it challenges the basis of the unequal relationship.

Back to the OP - I'm all for gestures of appreciation for unusually careful or considerate driving, but it does rather cause me to reflect on how something which should be an absolute basic level of consideration has managed to recast itself as an expression of gentility. I like to keep the waves and nods on a brisk and businesslike level, rather than becoming too effusive. My pet hate is that "courtesy" between two drivers that demands the oncoming one with the right of way and plenty of room to proceed waits unnecessarily to allow the one behind you to overtake.

 

[Dan B]

I think that particular dangerous behaviours are largely produced by driving (and/or by the cultural meanings of driving).

Let me suggest that it's not only cultural: it's also mechanical. Donald Norman talks about "affordances" in design - features or properties of an artefact that encourage it to be used in some ways and discourage other ways. For example, if you are installing a door, you put a flat plate on it if you want it to be pushed open and a handle if you want it to be pulled open

In a car, you have very poor vision of what's going on around you: the bodyworks gets in the way, and your seat and belt discourage you from looking around the bodywork. You have very poor manoeuvrability at low speeds: imagine how well pavements would (not) work if pedestrians could not step to one side and had to "engage reverse gear" before moving backwards. You don't even have particularly good speed control at those low speeds: in order not to stall the engine you must modulate speed by carefully partially disengaging the drive system from the wheels. And to cap it all, the first gear in many cars produces a god-awful unpleasant whine when driven at more than about 5mph, sending a very clear "get up to speed and get me into second" message. In short, the car is not designed to make it convenient or attractive to use at human (0-10mph) speeds and anyone attempting to do so is thereby placed under psychological stress which tends to make them angry or irritable. It is a source of puzzlement to me that more of them don't succumb to "road rage" in these conditions.

 

[theclaud]

Let me suggest that it's not only cultural: it's also mechanical. Donald Norman talks about "affordances" in design - features or properties of an artefact that encourage it to be used in some ways and discourage other ways. For example, if you are installing a door, you put a flat plate on it if you want it to be pushed open and a handle if you want it to be pulled open

In a car, you have very poor vision of what's going on around you: the bodyworks gets in the way, and your seat and belt discourage you from looking around the bodywork. You have very poor manoeuvrability at low speeds: imagine how well pavements would (not) work if pedestrians could not step to one side and had to "engage reverse gear" before moving backwards. You don't even have particularly good speed control at those low speeds: in order not to stall the engine you must modulate speed by carefully partially disengaging the drive system from the wheels. And to cap it all, the first gear in many cars produces a god-awful unpleasant whine when driven at more than about 5mph, sending a very clear "get up to speed and get me into second" message. In short, the car is not designed to make it convenient or attractive to use at human (0-10mph) speeds and anyone attempting to do so is thereby placed under psychological stress which tends to make them angry or irritable. It is a source of puzzlement to me that more of them don't succumb to "road rage" in these conditions.

I couldn't agree more. An excellent post.

 

[subaqua]

auto boxes are far better. if the Continuosly variable drive could be properly developed ( that would be soooo good on a cycle) it would work better

 

[Dan B]

Auto transmission would cut out a lot of the speed control issues, but until they make a car whose bodywork is entirely transparent and that can "step sideways" into a parking space, the frustrations will still be (subconsciously, at least) making themselves known.

Bicycles are not immune to this either, of course (try wheeling your bike across the pavement at Oxford Circus), but the problem is so much less pronounced there that it's hard to get excited about

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I give a little wave often. I did come unstuck once, though when the driver stopped further along the road and asked why I gave him a V sign.