tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post267778202802043537..comments2024-03-18T23:52:31.939-04:00Comments on The Invisible Visible Man: Citibikes, drivers - and the science of moral developmentInvisible Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15942359504874275065noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-21496865866189773832013-07-09T19:27:19.671-04:002013-07-09T19:27:19.671-04:00Anonymous,
Thank you for your kind words. New fan...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thank you for your kind words. New fans are always welcome (hey, so are old fans - don't feel neglected, the rest of you).<br /><br />The ultimate problem is that cars feel like a private space but drivers are engaged in about as complex a social activity as anyone engages in (at least after people stop trying to pick up life partners in bars, as someone pointed out to me). There is definitely a distancing effect.<br /><br />As for the NYPD, their current attitude to cyclists will, no doubt, one day be held up for ridicule the way old attitudes to race (come to that, their present attitudes to race) are now.<br /><br />The current stance, however, is utterly disheartening.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />Invisible.Invisible Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15942359504874275065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-69495614355090241692013-07-09T18:19:07.616-04:002013-07-09T18:19:07.616-04:00What a thoughtful post - loved it. You've a ne...What a thoughtful post - loved it. You've a new fan.<br /><br />Re the morality issue - I think being enclosed in a car can have the effect of making the people around you seem "other". <br /><br />Similar to the ease with which one might press a red button to drop a bomb in some distant location - when you're a driver in your metal bubble, you don't really interact with those people around you - you just (hopefully) obey the signals. RED. GREEN. PAUSE. GO FOR IT! etc etc. You barely notice those humanising details all around you.<br /><br />I almost never see a cyclist barging through pedestrians or causing people to be scared at intersections - I think most cyclists are like me - happy to wave someone infront, give a smile or go round the long way, regardless of what color light happens to be shining. And this is because we are forced to be in contact with our surroundings. If cyclists do break the rules of the road by briefly using a pavement or crossing a red light, 99.9% of the time it's with caution and care - and in a way that endangers no one. <br /><br />it would be great if we could find a wider way to communicate these things, but there I am at a loss.<br /><br />(And yes skimming over manhattan bridge bike path is the best - one day i will fill those too-wide gaps with something though...)<br /><br />ps. Just to counter the wonderfully thoughtful tone of the article, i'd like to say here on this public forum, ABSOLUTELY. FUCK. THE. POLICE. (please mentally re-size those capitals to a four-figure font)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-74961514379502020822013-06-04T18:30:25.440-04:002013-06-04T18:30:25.440-04:00I agree that enforcement can serve a valid purpose...I agree that enforcement can serve a valid purpose when it's selectively aimed at the most dangerous types of behavior. I would like to see a lot more enforcement of failing to yield to pedestrians because that's something which routinely kills/injures people. And I think speed enforcement should be automatic, but only after making sure speed limits are properly set (or the cameras will be opposed because they mainly serve to generate revenue, not to increase safety). I'm a big proponent of strictly camera enforced speed limits on crowded urban streets. On the flip side, in the interests of fairness, I feel many highways shouldn't have speed limits unless dictated by curvature or lines of sight. The idea is obviously to let motorists go fast where it's relatively safe, and doesn't endanger vulnerable users, but not in crowded cities where speeds much over 25 or 30 mph really have no place.<br /><br />I also think the biggest way enforcement can help by example is as you said-when people lose their licenses for "amoral" behavior. In that regard, I would really like to see anyone who seriously injures or kills a vulnerable user through negligence, recklessness, or plain old incompetence lose their driver's license for good. That would certainly stick with others who might start thinking "Hey, I really better be careful or I might not be driving any more, either." So yes, I agree with you-mainly focus on changing street layout but reinforce this with zero tolerance for the most dangerous types of behavior, and also zero tolerance for anyone who actually kills people while driving.<br /><br />BTW, I'm Joe R. from Streetsblog. I'm just posting anonymously because none of the other options work for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-83391135863853939032013-06-04T18:02:18.944-04:002013-06-04T18:02:18.944-04:00Anonymous,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful ...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment.<br /><br />You are, I think, right to say there's not much time when actually riding one's bike to think about the morality of one's behavior. But there is plenty of time before and after. One can even start a blog where one gets one's knickers all in a twist (as we British say) about the morality of one's behavior and its higher meaning. Not that I'd recommend such an extreme course. Good or bad behavior becomes automatic the more one does it.<br /><br />I'd certainly favor a change to the layout of New York City streets (I argued so here: http://invisiblevisibleman.blogspot.com/2012/07/grids-lights-and-why-new-yorks-traffic.html). But I do think enforcement is needed to push people in the right direction. It's one of the great merits of speed cameras that they catch people reliably and take away the chance element that one's only caught when there's a policeman about. But I think the effect of enforcement isn't just on the person who's caught. It's on the person who drives by and thinks "that could have been me" and the person who finds out his friend has lost his license for speeding. That's what makes the real difference - the example effect.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />Invisible.Invisible Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15942359504874275065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-10763975295243687162013-06-04T17:45:09.307-04:002013-06-04T17:45:09.307-04:00This is a very interesting way of thinking of thin...This is a very interesting way of thinking of things. The main flaw I'm seeing here is the idea of applying higher stages of moral thinking to a process which is inherently mostly automatic and thoughtless. I've noticed when I'm riding my bike, I'm nearly 100% on autopilot, simply reacting to things around me in a manner which my experience has taught me minimizes my overall risk. About the closest I might come to planning my actions in advance is to judge whether or not I can make the next few traffic signals, and if I must increase my speed to do so. That's the root of the problem here-you can't apply higher thought processes to something which by necessity must be nearly reflexive and thoughtless. It's possible to gradually effect long term changes in the way people react to given situations if there's some advantage to them personally for doing so. I've modified many aspects of my behavior over the years based on seeing what caused me to crash in the past, and then thinking what steps I could have taken to avoid such a crash. The first few times I take the new action when the situation arises I have to consciously think about it. After a dozen or so times it starts to become automatic as I want it to. Note however that the change in behavior always starts when I'm off the bike, thinking about what caused a crash or a near miss, not while I'm on it. I'm often on sensory overload while riding. The higher brain functions are pushed aside in favor of "animal" reactions because anything else would be suicidal. I don't have time to consciously reason "OK, if I'm passing a red light with given lines of sight then I need to figure what speed is safe". Rather, I just feel it out based on prior experience which I know has worked in the past. If it doesn't work as well as I thought it might, then I can tweak my reaction a little on the fly.<br /><br />Now how does this relate to what you're saying? Well, if we want drivers to behave "morally", then we have to make it in their best interests to do so. Punitive laws are generally not of much help there because we'll never have enough police to guarantee even a reasonable chance of getting caught every time you do something dangerous. The alternative is to make driving which is dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists also dangerous to drivers. We can do that by removing traffic controls at intersections. Drivers will slow down to 15 or 20 mph each and every time, not because of any concern for vulnerable users, but because they don't want to collide with another motor vehicle. And if intersections are closely spaced, as they are in most of NYC, they'll see little point of going fast in between intersections, only to slam on their brakes at the next intersection. In places where space between intersections is longer, you can curb speeding by putting bollards between lanes, or otherwise sprinkling in hazards which motorists can only avoid by going slow. Drivers will behave "morally" not because of higher thought processes, but because they'll crash their cars if they don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-43529156116233067752013-06-03T11:43:40.290-04:002013-06-03T11:43:40.290-04:00Stephen,
You are precisely correct. I was thinkin...Stephen,<br /><br />You are precisely correct. I was thinking about many of these issues as I wrote.<br /><br />Targets have had a bad press in the UK because they've been wrongly applied. For US police forces, meanwhile, the targets often seem to be just to stop or arrest a set number of people per month. The actual end product (crime levels, road deaths) seems to be left out.<br /><br />It seems to me that current New York road death levels (and indeed the US's 30,000 annual road deaths more generally) reflect an application of the wrong kinds of targets just as surely as the North Staffordshire hospital deaths do. I guess I'm appealing for people to come up with good, useful targets that push behaviour in the right direction.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />Invisible.Invisible Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15942359504874275065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-81324217455563302572013-06-03T11:37:11.340-04:002013-06-03T11:37:11.340-04:00What a thought-provoking post. Yet again. How do y...What a thought-provoking post. Yet again. How do you do it?<br /><br />I'm sure I'll be pondering your ideas for days to come. I'm an NHS Manager in the North of England. I've had a very good experience of targets making a huge difference in my field, research. We've trebled the numbers of patients going into trials in the last few years by targeting recruitment. Enrolment in a trial is ethically controlled but also good for the patient, the hospital, the researcher and society. Now akmost 20% of cancer patients in England are in a trial compared to around 2% in the US. <br /><br />However the recent Francis Report into the tragedy at North Staffordshire shows what happens when the wrong targets are applied in the wrong way. Can a hospital be judged a success if it meets it's financial performance target, but an extra 5% more patients die? Clearly not. <br /><br />I realise this is off topic, but I think it is important we understand the effect on public servants of the targets we set them. It happens all over the place. <br /><br />Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552272006214407968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-71199642065040383852013-06-02T22:32:48.745-04:002013-06-02T22:32:48.745-04:00Anonymous,
I'm very excited! You spotted the ...Anonymous,<br /><br />I'm very excited! You spotted the deliberate mistake that I now put into every post so that I can heap praise on a single reader who spots it.* Well done!<br /><br />I've now changed the passage back to what you correctly suspected I always intended to write.<br /><br />Invisible<br /><br />*All or part of this comment may be a lie to cover for my own negligence.Invisible Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15942359504874275065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-2148359275527829752013-06-02T22:30:36.328-04:002013-06-02T22:30:36.328-04:00Babble On,
Firstly, how nice to see you commentin...Babble On,<br /><br />Firstly, how nice to see you commenting here. I've read many of your comments over on Bike Snob NYC.<br /><br />There is a controversy, if I recall correctly, about whether the highest level of moral development exists at all, given how few people appear to have reached it. If motorists' traffic behaviour were the yardstick in this controversy, I suggest, it would no longer be a controversy. It would be clear that such a level of development doesn't exist.<br /><br />I trust, nevertheless, that people's traffic behaviour doesn't show their best side - and that such higher moral development is possible, if unlikely in rush-hour traffic lines.<br /><br />Invisible.Invisible Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15942359504874275065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-2142187772141133722013-06-02T22:13:57.963-04:002013-06-02T22:13:57.963-04:00"...the truck policing unit that ticketed mor..."...the truck policing unit that ticketed more cyclists than bikes"? I suspect "...than trucks" was intended.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3002171964909690430.post-44325364593342000172013-06-02T21:43:24.634-04:002013-06-02T21:43:24.634-04:00Sadly, such a sea-change in moral development on a...Sadly, such a sea-change in moral development on a grand scale is a long, long way off all over the place, not just in New York.babble onhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08895102832912891306noreply@blogger.com