When Driving Your Car Causes You to Sin
May 8, 2023 7:43 AM   Subscribe

 
As a kid riding a bicycle in a suburb I learned to never be anywhere near a Church when they are letting out. I'm convinced Christian services make people want to send other to people to the afterlife they've just heard the realtor's pitch for.

Also based on countless experiences there is a simple hand gesture, like the sign of the cross, that drivers think prepares them for the absolution of all their driving sins. Just do the whoopsie wave and you're all good.
posted by srboisvert at 8:04 AM on May 8, 2023 [33 favorites]


Cars are a volatile combination of "very high stakes, lives on the line, huge financial and logistical penalties for mistakes" but also "this is my personal armored mobile rage cocoon"
posted by cubeb at 8:20 AM on May 8, 2023 [76 favorites]


Thanks for this post, gauche. I hope the article gets read far and wide and taken to heart.
posted by Bella Donna at 8:24 AM on May 8, 2023 [3 favorites]


It's like I told ChatGPT "write a persuasive article expressing my personal feelings about driving, but in the style of a habitual driver and also Catholic".
posted by gurple at 8:27 AM on May 8, 2023 [8 favorites]


In what other setting would we be angry at a person we almost just killed?

Any situation when I was doing something that could obviously be deadly if someone blundered into it.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:29 AM on May 8, 2023 [11 favorites]


the psychology of driving is really fascinating, although i don't know if it's atypical. People are always getting mad at others for their own mistakes and lashing out when confronted with them, like I've never had a calm or polite reaction to asking someone to please leash their dog. But the way for example someone will make an incredibly dangerous maneuver on the road to get in front of someone else, only to end up at the same red light we're all racing towards, but to feel like the winner in a race where the only trophy is arriving home with your limbs intact, is always insane to me. Nothing to do with sin though.
posted by dis_integration at 8:40 AM on May 8, 2023 [18 favorites]


In what other setting would we be angry at a person we almost just killed? In what other setting would we find that sentiment entirely rational and appropriate?

The author does not seem to really understand humans. In just about every other situation I can think of, people get angry at those they've almost just killed.

And no, getting angry while driving not considered rational or appropriate -- that's why we have a phrase ("road rage") specifically for it.

I'll also note this one of the genre of articles that mistakes an asymmetry in danger for a moral asymmetry. Because pedestrians (and bicyclists) are much more vulnerable, they are also held to be much less to blame, no matter what. There's no reason to think that people (used in a generic sense) who are incompetent drivers prone to fits of rage are any better as pedestrians or bicyclists (anecdotes aside).
posted by Galvanic at 8:47 AM on May 8, 2023 [7 favorites]


I think the article is solid, but I will point out that being angry like that is a very genuine response from one's adrenal system. I once participated in a lake rescue where a windsurfing teen had passed out in a PFD that didn't flip her over, so face down in the water for the amount of time it took to get out to her. (She was okay.) I was second to get to her, which was a considerable swim from the dock, adrenaline all the way, and we got her out and breathing, more adrenaline all the way, and into the van to go to the hospital.

Once the rescue (my first real one) ended, I was furious afterwards that she was wearing a PFD and not a lifejacket, even though that was the standard at the time. It wasn't entirely rational. It was pretty human though, I think.

I actually think it's really important to understand that being angry doesn't make you right, nor is it unusual. It's a sign your adrenaline spiked because there was a life-threatening encounter. IMHO, it's ignoring the life-threatening nature of driving/being around cars that gets us all into trouble.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:48 AM on May 8, 2023 [66 favorites]


In what other setting would we be angry at a person we almost just killed?

Any situation when I was doing something that could obviously be deadly if someone blundered into it.


Like some stranger pulls into your driveway and you fire at them and miss?
posted by Zedcaster at 9:02 AM on May 8, 2023 [5 favorites]


Because pedestrians (and bicyclists) are much more vulnerable, they are also held to be much less to blame, no matter what.

Hi, where do you live, please? because as someone who has spent basically my entire adult life walking and biking for transportation, I would very very much like to live there.
posted by aniola at 9:05 AM on May 8, 2023 [52 favorites]


"And you don’t hit someone’s car..."

This is a funny thing I have discovered. Whacking someone's car with the palm of your hand makes drivers absolutely apoplectic, probably in part because it is startling and confusing. I can only remember doing it a few times (three, to be exact), and in most of those instances it should have been obvious why I did it (one was blocking the crosswalk and another was sitting at a green light) but every time it became a major confrontation with a lot of yelling.
posted by anhedonic at 9:12 AM on May 8, 2023 [18 favorites]


Hi, where do you live, please? because as someone who has spent basically my entire adult life walking and biking for transportation, I would very very much like to live there.
posted by aniola at 11:05 AM on May 8

The one place I have seen this is Berkeley CA. It is astonishing.
posted by dancestoblue at 9:13 AM on May 8, 2023 [5 favorites]


Galvanic: "mistakes an asymmetry in danger for a moral asymmetry. Because pedestrians (and bicyclists) are much more vulnerable, they are also held to be much less to blame, no matter what"

With great power comes great responsibility. Driving is inherently more dangerous to the people around you than walking or cycling. Failing to exercise that power responsibly is a moral failing.
posted by adamrice at 9:13 AM on May 8, 2023 [43 favorites]


Any situation when I was doing something that could obviously be deadly if someone blundered into it.

the pedestrian isn't the one blundering. they're just walking, as designed.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:17 AM on May 8, 2023 [33 favorites]


Once the rescue (my first real one) ended, I was furious afterwards that she was wearing a PFD and not a lifejacket, even though that was the standard at the time. It wasn't entirely rational. It was pretty human though, I think.

I'm guessing you didn't take your anger out on the teen who nearly drowned.
posted by aniola at 9:23 AM on May 8, 2023 [1 favorite]


I'll also note this one of the genre of articles that mistakes an asymmetry in danger for a moral asymmetry. Because pedestrians (and bicyclists) are much more vulnerable, they are also held to be much less to blame, no matter what. There's no reason to think that people (used in a generic sense) who are incompetent drivers prone to fits of rage are any better as pedestrians or bicyclists (anecdotes aside).

Also this part reads to me as blaming the victim.
posted by aniola at 9:29 AM on May 8, 2023 [13 favorites]


As cranky as I am, I think it has probably added several stroke-free years to the end of my life to never have been a driver.

when we reflexively associate temptation with sex, we can forget the ways in which the temptation to behave badly can come up in more mundane situations.

If I can go on a tangent, this sentence encapsulates so much of what is wrong with modern American Christianity. Sure, illicit sex is a powerful temptation in many adults' lives (depending on how broadly you define it, maybe most adults'!), but your sexual conduct is only a small fraction of your dealings with the world, and there are commandments for all of them. If you're an observant Christian, you should not ever be in danger of forgetting that you can sin in mundane situations, because you easily can! Turning obedience to God into a simple sexual purity test is fucked up in so many ways and, frankly, has brought many to the near occasion of sin (as they would define it) itself.
posted by praemunire at 9:35 AM on May 8, 2023 [12 favorites]


I actually liked the article because despite being completely irreligious I enjoy reading about idealized religious behavior.

Reading about the actual behavior of the religious on the other hand is almost always deeply disappointing even when the expectations are low.
posted by srboisvert at 9:36 AM on May 8, 2023 [7 favorites]


Because pedestrians (and bicyclists) are much more vulnerable, they are also held to be much less to blame, no matter what.

I will talk smack about misbehaving bicyclists all day long, but the simple fact is that the number of deaths caused in the ordinary course by either bicyclists or especially pedestrians by themselves is a few grains of sand compared to the ocean of motorized vehicle deaths.
posted by praemunire at 9:37 AM on May 8, 2023 [26 favorites]


Because pedestrians (and bicyclists) are much more vulnerable, they are also held to be much less to blame, no matter what.

That doesn’t seem unreasonable. But I do agree that it’s pretty easy to fall into an “everybody on the road but me is a stupid asshole” frame of mind no matter how one is traveling. It’s just most dangerous in an automobile.
posted by atoxyl at 9:40 AM on May 8, 2023 [8 favorites]


Hi, where do you live, please? because as someone who has spent basically my entire adult life walking and biking for transportation, I would very very much like to live there.

I didn't say I lived in such a place, I said there's a genre of articles where this is the case.

With great power comes great responsibility. Driving is inherently more dangerous to the people around you than walking or cycling. Failing to exercise that power responsibly is a moral failing

Of course, but what I said (or meant, if you'd prefer) is that there is a presumption in this genre of article that the driver is inherently at fault because of the danger asymmetry (whatever the facts of the case) Original sin, if you will.
posted by Galvanic at 9:42 AM on May 8, 2023


Hi, where do you live, please? because as someone who has spent basically my entire adult life walking and biking for transportation, I would very very much like to live there.

Indeed, I don't really want to leave NYC, but if there's a place where pedestrians and cyclists are not automatically assumed to be responsible for their own deaths and injuries, I'd like to visit! Someone on the Astoria subreddit, after another child's death at the hands of a driver a few weeks ago, said that pedestrians are largely responsible for their own deaths.

No amount of head-on-a-swivel is going to prevent most deaths at the hands of drivers.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:45 AM on May 8, 2023 [12 favorites]


Apparently the basic right of pedestrians to stay alive can be added to the long list of things that "MetaFilter doesn't do well".
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:45 AM on May 8, 2023 [21 favorites]


I'm guessing you didn't take your anger out on the teen who nearly drowned.

I did not. I can see though that if she had been, say, NOT in need of rescue, I would have. I will also confess that the first time my kid almost ran off the cliff near our house I was furious at him, something he hadn't seen before and it was not my finest moment as a human being. I didn't say anything because I was too angry for words, I just picked him up and carried him home and put him in his bed and leaned on the door and breathed.

I'm not saying that it's okay. I'm saying that if we want people to behave better we can't start with "only in cars do people have this response" so that we can get to "you're driving a weapon around, you'd better learn what to do in case you get upset while you are holding it."
posted by warriorqueen at 9:49 AM on May 8, 2023 [13 favorites]


praemunire, the moral framing is exactly what I thought was most interesting about this article. Does the design of the automobile, or the combination of automobile and street design, prompt (many) drivers to treat or think of their fellow humans in ways that are incompatible with the commandment to love one's neighbor? It seems to me that I have to struggle much more with this when I drive than in most other contexts of my life. If my choices have moral weight, then surely my choice to put my neighbor in danger by the fact or manner of my driving has moral weight as well.

(And I 100% agree that Christian morality has been badly deprecated down to, as you well put it, a sexual purity test in ways that are absolutely fucked up.)
posted by gauche at 9:51 AM on May 8, 2023 [3 favorites]


if you want to commit murder without consequence in colorado, run a pedestrian over. no charges, ever.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:53 AM on May 8, 2023 [10 favorites]


Of course, but what I said (or meant, if you'd prefer) is that there is a presumption in this genre of article that the driver is inherently at fault because of the danger asymmetry (whatever the facts of the case) Original sin, if you will.

If you know the odds of hitting and/or killing someone when you get behind the driver's wheel and you still get in the car, then yes, you are inherently at fault. There may be other factors you're weighing, we live in an imperfect world and it's impossible to get everything right, but that doesn't make driving ok. The driver is inherently at fault.

Other entities at fault include (but are not limited to) motor vehicle manufacturers, infrastructure developers, the oil and gas industry, lawmakers, and constituents. But I'm pretty sure you're not saying pedestrians are at fault because of their politics.

It's really hard to sit here and read that it's moral for drivers to risk my life. I hope I'm reading you wrong here. I'm going for an (apparently amoral?!) bike ride.
posted by aniola at 9:56 AM on May 8, 2023 [8 favorites]


Spoiled his essay (for me, and likely others) by going to the S word -- sin. Sin tends to imply some force outside of ourselves -- nunh-uh. It's onboard, it's hard-wired into everyone I've ever known. The christian mystics used the word "self" to delineate, self-centered or god-centered -- read Fénelon someday. I "tried' to read him but wasn't able to do so, I'd come across him in what is basically a Readers Digest version of some of his quotes, a small book entitled "Let Go."

The only people I've come across who use the word "self" in this way are people in Alcoholics Anonymous, because that is the word used in their text, written in 1939, right after the word commonly used for it nowadays had just been coined: ego. I don't know this for sure, because I'm not in AA probably, and even if I was I wouldn't be able to cop to it, being as how members are to remain anonymous in matters such as this.

I can tell you that I know one person who couldn't make any sense of the way the word self is tossed around in AA, and only when the word ego was pointed out did it begin to make sense.

I will tell you this: If I am not "in a good place" when I step out into my day, when I get into my pickup my ego now is encased in 2400 pounds of steel, and if I get lit up by someone else who is "doing it wrong", my ego is not just encased in steel but rather expands to the full size of the truck, and then you're not just dealing with an asshole, now you're dealing with a 2400 pound asshole.

It's not pleasant to be an ego-centric hemorrhoid. But it's damn sure not "sin," it's a lot closer to home; the devil didn't make me do it. How handy it would be to have that to fall back upon...
posted by dancestoblue at 10:22 AM on May 8, 2023 [4 favorites]


Driving does not encourage us to be our best selves

Driving turns us into our true selves.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:39 AM on May 8, 2023 [5 favorites]


When I'm in the car with my wife driving, basically the only time I'm in a car (for anxiety reasons, and intentionally let my license expire), for years she'd randomly get overtaken by a road rage and sense of injustice, when normally she'd be driving safely with respect to my car-related phobias. It sucked but was infrequent enough, and still always led to a big blow up between us and lots of apologies. It's like, she normally could resist the impulse because I'm in the car, but even still, couldn't always.

Finally she got her current job at a company that is safety-obsessed since a worker was accidentally run over by another worker, in a company vehicle at a different branch. Now every employee nationally, even people who don't go to job sites like my wife (who doesn't leave her lab), has to take annual driving course, and separate safe driving course on top of that. Thank fuck!

She stopped! That's sort of all it took. She hasn't had a single incident since, and it's been almost a year since the courses. She does insist on comedically backing into every single parking space now, but I'll take it. It's safer, apparently. Let's have that be like, the law. Annual driving course or even every two years. Anything more than now. It'd create jobs, anyway, lol the DMV new deal.
posted by wellifyouinsist at 10:52 AM on May 8, 2023 [23 favorites]


If you know the odds of hitting and/or killing someone when you get behind the driver's wheel and you still get in the car, then yes, you are inherently at fault. There may be other factors you're weighing, we live in an imperfect world and it's impossible to get everything right, but that doesn't make driving ok. The driver is inherently at fault.

If I understand you, then, it's simply not possible to drive morally or be a moral driver?

As I said: original sin.
posted by Galvanic at 10:54 AM on May 8, 2023 [3 favorites]


It's safer, apparently. Let's have that be like, the law. Annual driving course or even every two years. Anything more than now. It'd create jobs, anyway, lol the DMV new deal.

I'm not sure backing into spots is actually safer, because it's viewed in the scope of parking a large company vehicle, possibly with extremely poor rear visibility - on side streets, not generally backing a normal sized car into parking spots at the mall or school or whatever -ie: the use case and volume is extremely different.

And putting the cones out is part of the safety program, so even you are backing in, you aren't doing that.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:01 AM on May 8, 2023


In what other setting would we be angry at a person we almost just killed? Bullies hate the people they bully; they hate themselves a little for being bullies, and blame those they bully. Racists (sexists, anti-Semites, etc.) hate the people they oppress, etc.

As a driver, I am annoyed by people who drive inefficiently, specifically, drivers in my town who forget that other people wanted to get through that light, or who blandly use 2 lanes. As a pedestrian, I hate being invisible/ inconsequential.

As a recovering Catholic (12 years of parochial schools), the term near occasion of sin makes my palms sweat. So many ways to blame kids for their feelings, so much guilt, so little compassion.
posted by theora55 at 11:05 AM on May 8, 2023 [5 favorites]


She stopped!

I went cold turkey on the road rage a few years ago. I drive a lot and wish I could drive a lot less, in a European city where anything outside a car is essentially considered to be a nuisance (though it's getting better! with bike lanes!).

I just decided to stop being so angry about the fuckwit who cuts in front of me without signaling, or who drives at 90 in the left hand lane for the 120s, or who parks in front of my garage door, or who goes the wrong way out of the one-way cul-de-sac right by my house.

(all of these things happened today, and these things happen every day. I just try to be more zen about it.)

be the driver you want to see
posted by chavenet at 11:22 AM on May 8, 2023 [21 favorites]


Does the design of the automobile, or the combination of automobile and street design, prompt (many) drivers to treat or think of their fellow humans in ways that are incompatible with the commandment to love one's neighbor?

Not to get toooooo broad-stroke, but I'd argue that the design of capitalism does this. The design of automotive transit follows naturally therefrom.

I guess what I'm saying about the article is that, as someone with a horrible temper who wants to manage it merely to be a more decent human being rather than to be pleasing to a god I don't believe in, it is patently obvious to me that I am better off not driving. It should be infinitely more obvious to Christians that participating in a complex process that pits your interests against others and can result in the severe injury or death of bystanders requires moral wariness, frankly far more than standing in the vicinity of a rack of "girlie mags" (even if you take it as read that looking at girlie mags is a sin, which I obviously don't).
posted by praemunire at 11:25 AM on May 8, 2023 [5 favorites]


aniola: "If you know the odds of hitting and/or killing someone when you get behind the driver's wheel and you still get in the car, then yes, you are inherently at fault. There may be other factors you're weighing, we live in an imperfect world and it's impossible to get everything right, but that doesn't make driving ok. The driver is inherently at fault.

It's really hard to sit here and read that it's moral for drivers to risk my life. I hope I'm reading you wrong here. I'm going for an (apparently amoral?!) bike ride.
"

This kind of argument can lead us into some weird places. I ride bikes, a lot, both for commuting and pleasure. I do it knowing that I could get run over (it's happened before), which would cause my wife a great deal of distress. She worries every time I go out for a bike ride. I do it anyhow—I intentionally and selfishly put myself at risk. Is that moral? There's also a non-zero risk that I could kill a pedestrian—there is a handful of ped vs bike collisions every year that result in pedestrian deaths.

Driving does carry some inherent risks, but most motor-vehicle deaths aren't from driving but from drunk driving, or speeding, or distracted driving. If you take away just a few obvious forms of bad behavior, you mitigate a huge amount of driving risk.
posted by adamrice at 11:52 AM on May 8, 2023 [8 favorites]


This is a funny thing I have discovered.

Yeah, I can only assume you also discovered a lot of broken teeth if you are going around hitting random things with your fists you deem in your way. I don't think it's being in cars that caused people to react that way to you.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 12:10 PM on May 8, 2023 [2 favorites]


but most motor-vehicle deaths aren't from driving but from drunk driving, or speeding, or distracted driving. If you take away just a few obvious forms of bad behavior, you mitigate a huge amount of driving risk.

But in the US, those are just factors of driving. Driving is boring, ergo people are distracted by devices. Drives can be long and required when people are hungry - people are distracted by coffee or food.

The speed limits that roads are set at is a political abstraction - therefore some of them might speed.

Bars require parking spaces in most communities and are some distance away from where people live, so drunk driving as a default behavior should be expected.

So changing those behaviors takes a bit more than a scolding or demanding people 'be better'.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:11 PM on May 8, 2023 [4 favorites]


So changing those behaviors takes a bit more than a scolding or demanding people 'be better'.

To take it a bit farther, taking away the 'right' to drive means most people cannot effectively move about the US, so it's not done lightly, and you can literally kill people and commit your list of offenses multiple times before it is done.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:14 PM on May 8, 2023


I would be curious to do a study on whether road rage correlates at all with how much traffic a person endured as a kid, and how their parent/driver responded. I just don't have a road rage gene, and I suspect it's because rush hour traffic was a near-daily part of my life, and my Mom was a pretty chill driver - getting stuck in traffic just meant we had more time to yak/listen to NPR. I'm not saying I like getting stuck in traffic, but it doesn't strike me as any worse than waiting in a doctor's office. I do get annoyed at reckless drivers, but its not an anger that builds - I'll call them a jerk in the quiet of my own vehicle, and get on with it.

Which is a round about way of saying that what doesn't work about this article for me is the assumption that anger/road rage in inevitable. I take the point about adrenaline above, but a lot of road rage today isn't rooted in close calls with death.
posted by coffeecat at 12:18 PM on May 8, 2023 [2 favorites]


Because pedestrians (and bicyclists) are much more vulnerable, they are also held to be much less to blame, no matter what.

As counterpoint, let me offer up the comments section for every newspaper story about a cyclist or pedestrian killed by a driver.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:21 PM on May 8, 2023 [25 favorites]


I've had a couple similar experiences as a pedestrian. Drivers were super hostile, and of course*they* get to drive off unpunished.

I hate car culture, but I also need to learn to drive, and learning to drive makes you understand things from the other side, how dangerous pedestrians seem to be.

And yet that danger is an artifact of car culture, and moreover, your driving book warns drivers about road rage and driver anger. They're in the wrong for not paying attention to the driver's manual chapters about safe behaviors, and forgetting or failing to internalize that material after years of driving.
posted by polymodus at 12:30 PM on May 8, 2023 [3 favorites]


I have multiple people in my life who are otherwise *extremely* mild-mannered but who turn into rage beasts behind the wheel of a car. I once read a similarly-themed article which postulated that part of the reason for all of this is because being in a car messes with the normal human fight or flight response and one's ability to do either.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:36 PM on May 8, 2023 [3 favorites]


if there's a place where pedestrians and cyclists are not automatically assumed to be responsible for their own deaths and injuries, I'd like to visit!

In the Netherlands the driver is always assumed to be responible in a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian.
( Dutch Civil Code, Road Traffic Act, 1994)
posted by TDIpod at 12:49 PM on May 8, 2023 [16 favorites]


There's been some interesting research (sorry, paywalled) done on the idea of "secessionist automobility" -
Private yards and private malls are preferred over public parks and civic spaces, and most importantly for the purpose of this article, private automobiles are preferred over public transport. Mitchell (2004) extends this to the ‘SUV model of citizenship’ centered on privatized, unhindered, cocooned movement through public space, whereby people feel they have a right not to be burdened through interaction with anyone or anything they wish to avoid.
I wonder how much of road rage is driven by that kind of feeling - "I paid $45,000 for this car that's supposed to cocoon me and insulate me from interactions with all those assholes out there, and yet, all of those assholes out there are impinging on my right to drive the way I want to!"
posted by Jeanne at 1:01 PM on May 8, 2023 [21 favorites]


Yeah, I can only assume you also discovered a lot of broken teeth if you are going around hitting random things with your fists you deem in your way.

Like I (very explicitly) said, open palm. It makes a noise but is otherwise harmless, as the car has no feelings. I've done it three times in twenty-five years of living in New York City.

I don't think it's being in cars that caused people to react that way to you.

Yeah no, I really do think it is. If anything I am less confrontational than the average New Yorker.
posted by anhedonic at 1:04 PM on May 8, 2023 [17 favorites]


If I can go on a tangent, this sentence encapsulates so much of what is wrong with modern American Christianity. Sure, illicit sex is a powerful temptation in many adults' lives (depending on how broadly you define it, maybe most adults'!), but your sexual conduct is only a small fraction of your dealings with the world, and there are commandments for all of them. If you're an observant Christian, you should not ever be in danger of forgetting that you can sin in mundane situations, because you easily can! Turning obedience to God into a simple sexual purity test is fucked up in so many ways and, frankly, has brought many to the near occasion of sin (as they would define it) itself.

Yeah, I think it's really helpful to identify things that bring out our worst selves. Like how social media is designed to tempt us to enjoy hating our enemies.
posted by straight at 1:16 PM on May 8, 2023 [5 favorites]


I didn't agree with most of the article (the sin part), but I liked this part: Above all, see the other people around you as people.

That's a classic Buddhist exercise, to look at every single person you see as a being as worthy as you. Equanimity

It is obvious that driving does not encourage us to be our best selves.

This sentiment is interesting to me because I *despise* car culture, but I think that driving gives you a lot of opportunities for personal growth

You're in a machine that can easily go 80-100 mph, but you're stuck in traffic, going 3 miles in 15 minutes, etc (as the article mentions). Imagine how *frustrating* that can be. A great opportunity for developing mindfulness and compassion for everyone else

Slow down to let people cut you off -- they're just as important as you are

Driving does not encourage us to be our best selves

Driving turns us into our true selves.


Yes, I'm reminded of the (perhaps apocryphal) James Naismith quote: "Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it."
posted by mrgrimm at 1:24 PM on May 8, 2023 [6 favorites]


Lately I've been having more and more thoughts where a complicated situation suddenly becomes simple when the answer is "just remove cars."

"We need to design this corner and maybe cut down that bush so that people can see around the corner as they exit." "But we wouldn't need to do all that if we just... removed cars from the situation."

"We need to find a way to calm the anger that always seems to develop when people are driving, maybe some education campaigns and happy signs." "But we wouldn't need to do that if we just... removed the cars from the situation."

I know it's an unreasonable idea in our current world, but a boy can dream.
posted by clawsoon at 1:46 PM on May 8, 2023 [12 favorites]


This will put me in a minority, but I found the 'driving a car is a near occasion for sin' framing really helpful. Made something click in my head.

I grew up in a religious tradition where that passage was translated as 'avoiding the appearance of sin', which I found much more fraught and trauma-inducing than the Catholic version (which I was also passingly familiar with as a child), because god only knew whether any given grownup would think any given activity, including 'reading a book quietly in a corner' appeared to be 'sin'. As an adult I'm part of a religious tradition where the goal is to imitate Christ, this tends to play out in ways that are soothing to my lefty tendencies (feed, clothe, and house people; liberate, and, where that's impossible, visit prisoners; heal the sick; protect people who need protection), and 'sin' is when you fuck up in ways that harm people including yourself. I tend to reject the framing of 'sin hurts God' because that's ridiculous, God is too big to hurt. 'Sin' in this framing hurts you because it makes you a worse person.

Getting irrationally angry or agitated when you are in control of a two-ton lump of fast-moving steel has serious potential to harm both other people and you, and is therefore a sin. Eating the last of the icecream when your housemate has not had their fair share yet harms them (loss of a small pleasure), and is therefore a sin. Eating a pint of icecream in one sitting when you live alone and don't do it often enough to experience negative health effects is not a sin.

Avoiding situations where you know you will tend to do things that are harmful is good and necessary in this framing. I avoid the second-hand bookstore until after I've paid out all my charity donations for the month. I avoid unnecessarily dangerous hobbies because if I get avoidably hospitalized, it takes up resources that could be used by someone who is unavoidably hospitalized. I avoid eating animals because meat is the largest contributor to climate change in most people's diets, and climate change is harming people. I avoid (albeit not perfectly) unnecessary driving because it contributes to climate change and immediately emits air pollution that harms people. Having read this, I'm going to start giving myself extra time for driving trips to minimize stress and thus likelihood of getting angry while driving.

I don't love the car culture in my country, but I can't personally do anything concrete to fix it beyond what I'm doing (mostly writing to MPs), so I can at least mitigate my part in it.
posted by ngaiotonga at 1:57 PM on May 8, 2023 [15 favorites]


I recently read Chris Sims' Understanding Comics, and there's a bit in it where he talks about the uniquely human ability to identify with virtually anything as an extension of ourselves. We aren't confined to our bodies: anything we touch, anything we connect with, anything we use, can start to feel like a part of "who we are."

Drivers do something similar. They think of their car as their body, and of other cars as other people, and they act like every little thing that happens on the streets is the equivalent of a conversation between themselves and somebody else. And that's incredibly dangerous, when the "body" in question is a giant mass of metal and momentum that can rip actual human bodies to pieces.

The part of this discussion where someone inevitably brings up poor behavior in pedestrians and bikers feels like an extension of that. You can't talk about drivers and pedestrians as equals, because one of those people's bodies is a gigantic, powerful, potentially-lethal machine. If pedestrians and bikers act like idiots, that means drivers have to be even more careful. It means that we need societal expectations that that extra level of carefulness is the norm.

But drivers don't even treat non-drivers as equals. They treat pedestrians and bikers with outright contempt—perhaps because, in their giant metal bodies, actual human bodies feel tiny and insignificant by comparison. Like vermin, rather than people. Sometimes, when drivers show their outrage, it feels like a part of what they're mad at isn't the behavior of the pedestrian or biker—it's at the idea that they could ever be expected to treat someone this puny as their equal.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and most people who drive are unbelievably familiar with their vehicles. It becomes so easy to take driving for granted. I still drive now and again, but less and less frequently; the less I drive, the more I really feel the burden of my car, its tremendous weight, the ease with which I could compel it to do something terrible. When I drove more regularly, it was easier to forget that I wasn't literally my car, and couldn't treat it as casually and thoughtlessly as I treat my own body when I move. It's easy to start thinking of your vehicle as an effortless extension of yourself, but it never is.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 2:08 PM on May 8, 2023 [50 favorites]


Driving does carry some inherent risks, but most motor-vehicle deaths aren't from driving but from drunk driving, or speeding, or distracted driving. If you take away just a few obvious forms of bad behavior, you mitigate a huge amount of driving risk.

I've met a number of people who claim to be very good, very cautious drivers. I've seen all of them, at one point or another, speed or (most often) drive distracted. Furthermore, I don't know how you would go about eliminating those bad behaviors among the segment of the population that isn't trying to drive carefully.

Even if everyone drove with perfect caution, though...

This analogy has been bouncing around in my head for a while now: Imagine someone walking down the sidewalk, swinging a sword all around them. They're very careful with the sword. They're strong, they've trained a lot, have great reflexes, excellent situation awareness. THEY ARE STILL SWINGING A SWORD AROUND OTHER PEOPLE. It's still dangerous, no matter how cautious they are, and they're still more likely to injure or kill somebody than if they walked without a sword.

Driving a car on the road is like swinging a sword while you walk down the sidewalk. It increases the danger to everyone around you.

I get why people drive. In many parts of the world it's very challenging to live without driving. (I know because I've been doing it for over a decade. I have a lot of privileges and advantages that make it comparatively easy for me, and it's still a challenge - not because being car-free is inherently difficult, but because most societies are intensely embedded in car culture.) I try not to criticize people for driving. There are a ton of valid reasons for making that choice. But I really want people to understand what they're doing when they pull that sword out and start swinging it around.

(None of this is commentary on the article, which I haven't read; I just have a lot of thoughts & feelings re: risks related to driving cars.)
posted by sibilatorix at 2:09 PM on May 8, 2023 [8 favorites]


Somehow this discussion reminded me of this article about the Audi Effect, which cites these studies:

Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior (Piff et al, 2012)
A binary logistic regression indicated that upper-class drivers* were the most likely to cut off other vehicles at the intersection, even when controlling for time of day, driver's perceived sex and age, and amount of traffic

A binary logistic regression with time of day, driver's perceived age and sex, and confederate sex entered as covariates indicated that upper-class drivers* were significantly more likely to drive through the crosswalk without yielding to the waiting pedestrian
,

* upper-class driver in this paper means the driver of a high-status vehicle

Not only assholes drive Mercedes. Besides disagreeable men, also conscientious people drive high-status cars (Lönnqvist, Ilmarinen, and Leikas 2019) [PDF]

Frankly, the conclusion is in the title here. High-conscientousness people were more likely to drive high-status cars (I wonder if this is related to being picky over vehicle fit and finish?); the least agreeable men were more than three times as likely to own a high-status car as the most agreeable ones.
posted by Superilla at 2:14 PM on May 8, 2023 [1 favorite]


I found this article to mostly be covering old ground, though the religious framing was somewhat interesting. But I thought the very actionable conclusion was the best part:

How can you reduce these near occasions of sin? Try walking more often to your nearest supermarket (if it is at all possible), and minimize the number of trips behind the wheel. When you do drive, turn a long traffic light into a challenge: “How many Hail Marys can I pray?” Acknowledge your weakness before you encounter the temptation to speed dangerously, and attempt to drive with deliberation. Above all, see the other people around you as people.

Okay, I am not about to do any Hail Mary's, but this is great advice overall. I know I personally became a much better driver when I took up cycling. A point I often make to the car supremacists online is that most of the cyclists and pedestrians you are so mad about are also car drivers too. It's not like they aren't familiar with the frustrations. But I suspect very few of the angriest drivers know what it's like to bike on a busy road. Kudos to the author for encouraging people to make useful changes in their lives.
posted by Stabilator at 2:15 PM on May 8, 2023 [6 favorites]


Bearing in mind that one can write about a religious viewpoint without arguing that it is the only viewpoint, I find the idea of avoiding the near occasion of sin pretty helpful. Everyone gets sidetracked onto "they're trying to keep you from looking at porn because IS A SIN", but once you get into the question of "what do I think is a "sin" (really bad thing to do, personal moral failing, etc)", it's pretty useful.

My feeling is that in the US we default to a sort of "other people better look out, I have no duty of care" mentality where it's okay to take risks or act in a selfish way if the only people who would be hurt are people who themselves take risks or make bad choices. As if one were to think, "I'm leaving this open bucket of caustic substances balanced on the edge of my desk, but that's cool because anyone who spills it on themselves will be someone messing with my desk, and if they're messing with my desk they deserve whatever they get".

As a society, we're very opposed to "humans often fuck this up, let's try to arrange things proactively to minimize harm". We tend to treat injuries and failures as weird, outlier, unpredictable things. As with guns - "mass shootings are this weird outlier unpredictable thing, taking away people's semi-automatics couldn't possibly prevent this". We imagine ourselves as shining, righteous, capable figures who very occasionally and unpredictably make terrible mistakes (except of course for whatever outgroup we designate as holding all the sin, etc).

Whereas the "occasion of sin" discourse - again, sub in whatever you like, "occasion of fucking up", etc - says that if we spend our time doing something that is pretty likely to go off the rails, it's probably going to go off the rails. If you're trying to eat less meat, don't suggest the steakhouse on a Friday night. If you're trying to spend less money, don't make daily stops at your favorite store. And if you have to go to the steakhouse, go in knowing that it is going to be a challenge to avoid ordering a steak.

If you don't want to drive like a rage monster but you've got to drive, go in knowing that driving pushes you into rage monstrosity and try to correct for it. Don't go in thinking that you're a terrific driver who just occasionally gets really, really pissed off at those lousy pedestrians and cyclists.
posted by Frowner at 2:31 PM on May 8, 2023 [14 favorites]


Driving turns us into our true selves.

Also in vino veritas and many other statements implying that we hide who we are 23 hours a day and only under extraordinary circumstances does our “true” self come out. Just … no. We are who we are and we behave differently under different circumstances.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:22 PM on May 8, 2023 [11 favorites]


I just want a journalist to interview people that take a vehicle the size of a Sherman tank to the grocery store and get their thoughts on why they do such a batshit antisocial thing on the regular.
posted by rhymedirective at 4:24 PM on May 8, 2023 [7 favorites]


We are who we are and we behave differently under different circumstances.

OK, but if you’re “only” a bully when you feel like you’ll get away with it — whether that’s on the Internet, behind the wheel, or when the boss isn’t watching — then that is your character.

A woman who saw me midway through the crosswalk on my run the other day (with the signal in my favor, TYVM, I was absolutely not “blundering”) made a point of speeding up to turn left in front of me. She was looking me dead in the eyes as she did it.

On the off chance that she’s a perfect angel whenever she’s not driving, and only threatens to kill other people when she is driving, then she’s still someone who threatens to kill people when she thinks she can get away with it.
posted by armeowda at 4:39 PM on May 8, 2023 [23 favorites]


amen
posted by danjo at 5:01 PM on May 8, 2023


A man I know is a yoga master, and those aren't just words I'm flinging about; he's The Real Deal. Perhaps the strongest man I have ever known, strength yet remarkable grace as he goes through his practice. On some youtube vids people are praising him -- deserved praise, absolutely -- and saying that he is a spiritual master, or whatever else it is they are saying. He has helped so many, even if only being a model in a very difficult practice.

You know what's coming next, right?

Barking mad. Starkers. Looney Toons. I know him well, and I know what's behind the screen; I think my favorite is he and another person merging from two lanes to one, slowly, inch by inch they participated in the most avoidable automobile accident that could ever be.

I am so happy that I know this. I'm smiling as I key these words in.

When he is at his very very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm.
Samuel Clemons
Letters From The Earth

Last. Terry Allen knows about human beings, writes about us, sings about us. My Amigo
posted by dancestoblue at 5:18 PM on May 8, 2023 [2 favorites]


Consider the possibility that environmental factors are affecting drivers as well:

Monitoring of carbon dioxide (CO2) accumulation in vehicle cabin
One of the main indicators of enclosed environment's air quality is the carbon dioxide (CO2) content which is released through human breathing. High level of CO 2 can cause the occupants feel fatigue, drowsiness and slow reaction of actions. Many published works show that air conditioning (AC) with recirculation mode inside a vehicle could minimize the particulate pollutant flow into the cabin. However, it does not reduce the amount of accumulated CO2 . The purpose of this paper is to study the concentration of the accumulated CO2 under different vehicle speed and number of occupants under AC recirculation mode by applying qualitative data collection method. Then, the cooling period of cabin temperature after vehicle parked under blazing sun. Experimental results show that accumulated CO2 concentration exceeded the recommended threshold value of 1200 ppm after 10 minutes when two passengers occupied the vehicle's cabin. The CO2 concentration exceeded the threshold 3.33 times faster for two occupants compare to one occupant in the cabin with the same speed. Vehicles moving at higher speed of 90km/h shows a lower accumulated concentration of CO2 when compared with lower vehicle speed. Vehicle speed of 50 km/h had recorded the shortest time taken with 9 minutes to pass 1200 ppm.
In-vehicle carbon dioxide concentration in commuting cars in Bangkok, Thailand
In some instances, the CO2 concentration exceeded 10,000 ppm, the limit of the CO2 sensor.

High CO2 Levels in Your Car
The automaker Hyundai announced that they now offer a CO2 sensor-controlled ventilation system in their 2015 Genesis model. Hyundai engineers claimed elevated carbon dioxide levels created by occupant respiration inside the vehicle cabin can cause drowsiness and slow reaction times. When the sensor detects CO2 levels above 2500 parts per million, it triggers the climate-control system to bring in more fresh air from outside.
Carbon dioxide levels on flight deck affect airline pilot performance
Commercial airline pilots were significantly better at performing advanced maneuvers in a flight simulator when carbon dioxide (CO2) levels on the flight deck (cockpit) were 700 parts per million (ppm) and 1500 ppm than when they were 2,500 ppm, according to new research led by Harvard T.H. School of Public Health. The study indicates that CO2 levels directly affect pilots’ flight performance.
Your Brain on Carbon Dioxide: Research Finds Even Low Levels of Indoor CO2 Impair Thinking
At concentrations as low as 1,000 parts per million (ppm), decision-making declined moderately, but noticeably, on most measures. At 2,500 ppm, decision-making was substantially hampered.
posted by MrVisible at 5:35 PM on May 8, 2023 [6 favorites]


Jalopnik (a car blog) wrote this a month ago:

It's Not the Bike Lane's Fault You're a Bad Driver:
I’m sorry to break it to anyone who has trouble keeping their car out of a bike lane (or off a concrete barrier), but it’s not the bike lane’s fault you’re a shitty driver. If you hit something stationary, that’s your fault. Pay attention to the fucking road while you’re driving. It’s not too much to ask when other people’s lives are literally at stake.

After all, killing someone who’s not in a car is still killing someone. And if you think they were asking for it because they were walking or riding a bike, you’re just a bad person. You’re the one driving the 5,000-lb vehicle. You’re the one responsible for making sure you don’t hit anything or anyone. Trying to blame others for your shitty driving is just ridiculous.

If that’s too much to ask, then maybe it’s time for the state to take your driver’s license away. Oh, you live in a suburban hellscape and can’t get around without a car? Too bad. Stay home and have your groceries delivered until you can prove to society that you can be trusted behind the wheel again. Or take the bus. Sorry if you think you’re too good for public transportation. You’re clearly not good enough at driving to have a license, so suck it up, buttercup. That barrier you hit could have been someone’s child.
posted by schmod at 6:10 PM on May 8, 2023 [23 favorites]


As a kid riding a bicycle in a suburb I learned to never be anywhere near a Church

...I thought that sentence was going to go someplace different than it did.
posted by doctornemo at 7:15 PM on May 8, 2023 [2 favorites]


Adorno, from Minima Moralia (1951):

Technification is making gestures in the meantime precise and rough – and thereby human beings. They drive all hesitation out of gestures, all consideration, all propriety [Gesittung]. They are subjected to the irreconcilable – ahistorical, as it were – requirements of things. Thus one no longer learns to close a door softly, discreetly and yet firmly. Those of autos and frigidaires have to be slammed, others have the tendency to snap back by themselves and thus imposing on those who enter the incivility of not looking behind them, of not protecting the interior of the house which receives them. One cannot account for the newest human types without an understanding of the things in the environs which they continually encounter, all the way into their most secret innervations. What does it mean for the subject, that there are no window shutters anymore, which can be opened, but only frames to be brusquely shoved, no gentle latches but only handles to be turned, no front lawn, no barrier against the street, no wall around the garden? And which auto-driver has not felt the temptation, in the power of the motor, to run over the vermin of the street – passersby, children, bicyclists? In the movements which machines demand from their operators, lies already that which is violent, crashing, propulsively unceasing in Fascist mistreatment. Not the least fault for the dying out of experience is due to the fact that things assume a form under the law of their purposiveness which restrict their interaction to mere application, without the surplus – were it that of freedom of behavior, were it that of the autonomy of the thing – which might survive as the kernel of experience, because it is not consumed by the moment of action.

Emphases added.
posted by doctornemo at 7:19 PM on May 8, 2023 [10 favorites]


OK, but if you’re “only” a bully when you feel like you’ll get away with it — whether that’s on the Internet, behind the wheel, or when the boss isn’t watching — then that is your character.

That is a part of your character, yes. You are also a loving and kind person who has two foster kids and adopts stray puppies. Your true self incorporates both of those and a lot more.

In short, driving may reveal an unseemly side of you but that is only a small part of your “true self”.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:23 PM on May 8, 2023 [2 favorites]


I've met a number of people who claim to be very good, very cautious drivers.

I reckon about 96% of drivers reckon they are better than average.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:35 PM on May 8, 2023 [2 favorites]


angry at a person we almost just killed?

Basically the only times anyone has shouted “fuck you” or similar at me in the past 10 years has been while I’ve been cycling. Almost 100% of those times it’s been a driver who just did something flagrantly dangerous and/or illegal in my immediate vicinity. Several times with my toddler seated behind me on my bike. It’s incredible what happens to people when they’re caught doing something wrong.

My big question: is there a name / psychological term for this irrational angry response! I do badly want there to be, so that I can name it when I see it (or feel it!) and process it. What is it called when someone reacted with irrational fury when they are, in fact, the one who is wrong?
posted by pkingdesign at 7:46 PM on May 8, 2023 [11 favorites]


My big question: is there a name / psychological term for this irrational angry response! I do badly want there to be, so that I can name it when I see it (or feel it!) and process it. What is it called when someone reacted with irrational fury when they are, in fact, the one who is wrong?

ty. quoted for truth. I'm gonna cast about for discussion.
posted by j_curiouser at 8:28 PM on May 8, 2023 [3 favorites]


That is a part of your character, yes. You are also a loving and kind person who has two foster kids and adopts stray puppies. Your true self incorporates both of those and a lot more.

In short, driving may reveal an unseemly side of you but that is only a small part of your “true self”.


This feels a bit like a "...but you commit one murder..." situation. Yes, the being a murderous bully is only part of your character, but it kinda makes the other bits not matter at all to me, I want to be nowhere near you regardless. The bully bit overshadows everything else. Just like burning down once orphanage would.
posted by Dysk at 8:42 PM on May 8, 2023 [6 favorites]


I recently read Chris Sims' Understanding Comics,

Scott Mccloud wrote Understanding Comics 🙂
I was also thinking of that book's explanation of how a driver's proprioceptive senses expand to include the car they're driving into their sense of self.

There's also the fact that, while it feels as if you're making conscious decisions at every moment while you're driving, you're actually operating mostly on muscle memory and automatic responses.

Think of all the times you started to drive a very familiar route without thinking.

When you get into a car, you stop being human and become the car's dream.
posted by Zumbador at 9:16 PM on May 8, 2023 [11 favorites]


This feels a bit like a "...but you commit one murder..." situation. Yes, the being a murderous bully is only part of your character, but it kinda makes the other bits not matter at all to me, I want to be nowhere near you regardless.

Finding parts of someone repugnant seems like a very good reason to avoid them. Obliviating the rest of them because you don't like one part seems less good. Not a lot of good has come out of people treating each other as caricatures over the years.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:42 PM on May 8, 2023 [1 favorite]


>What is it called when someone reacted with irrational fury when they are, in fact, the one who is wrong?
It must be closely related to the 'Look what you made me do' response.
posted by theory at 3:24 AM on May 9, 2023 [1 favorite]


And which auto-driver has not felt the temptation, in the power of the motor, to run over the vermin of the street – passersby, children, bicyclists?
Adorno's remark puts the murderous rage drivers feel toward cyclists squarely in the only category I think is robust enough, or perhaps basic enough, in terms of its roots in human nature, to explain it: the tourettean — in which under some circumstances the forbidden becomes compulsory, or at least compulsive.
posted by jamjam at 3:41 AM on May 9, 2023 [2 favorites]


What is it called when someone reacted with irrational fury when they are, in fact, the one who is wrong?

I suspect that projection is a big part of it. I mean, this is my own experience with it, at least - there's a half-second when I am totally unable to process "Oh, heck, I just did something that really endangered myself and others," I have a need to protect myself from that anger and that guilt, and the only thing I can process is anger at the other person.

(For context, I am relearning how to drive in an unfamiliar largeish city with aggressive drivers; I am really careful but I'm still having moments of "Wait, did that car come out of nowhere or did I not look well enough?")
posted by Jeanne at 4:52 AM on May 9, 2023 [5 favorites]


Finding parts of someone repugnant seems like a very good reason to avoid them. Obliviating the rest of them because you don't like one part seems less good. Not a lot of good has come out of people treating each other as caricatures over the years.

This is an expression of motornormativity. How would you feel about someone who knowingly and for their own convenience exposed your family to a deadly disease? Or someone who in a rage fired a gun, not at you, but near you and in your direction? Would you think, "they probably volunteer at the humane society and love their mother so it all balances out"?

Cyclists and pedestrians know that drivers love their moms and contain multitudes. They know because you cannot, at least in the US, live in the world and exclude drivers from your social circle. But the experience of pedestrians and cyclists in this very thread suggests that many drivers see them as obstacles to be threatened and overtaken and taught their place, not as people who contain multitudes in their own right. To paraphrase Margaret Atwood, drivers are annoyed that pedestrians are going to slow them down; pedestrians are afraid that drivers are going to kill them.
posted by gauche at 6:13 AM on May 9, 2023 [12 favorites]


As a cyclist bicycling in a well-defined bike lane (so not by any measure inconveniencing drivers) I've had drivers swerve into the bike lane at me and then away, presumably to "give me a scare" or "teach me a lesson", four times in the past two years. I watched the same driver do the same thing to another cyclist about a block ahead of me and I recently witnessed a car do the same thing to still another rider. Minneapolis is a bike-friendly city.

Like, that's completely bananas. Whatever was going on with those people, it wasn't just "I'm frustrated that I have to make room for a cyclist" or "it's been a long drive in heavy traffic". They wanted to scare me and either didn't mind or didn't think about what would happen if they misjudged and killed me. They weren't driving erratically in any other way.

I add that about 3/4 of my biking is in fact on sequestered paths or maybe, maybe on extremely quiet side streets. The majority of these incidents happened on a mid-sized street in good weather with good visibility.

I mean, sucks to be them, because I didn't realize that it was happening until after it happened, so to speak, because there's a limit to how much you can see of traffic approaching behind you, and therefore it wasn't scary as much as enraging. I usually try to catch up to them because I'm mad enough to get into it, stupid as that may be, but the lights have been against me so far.

But like, if that's Adorno's or a "tourette's" compulsion (I find that a weird comparison, having known someone with a tourette's-like condition), we as a society have to get rid of cars. If what's going on is an uncontrollable deep-brain desire to target cyclists and pedestrians, cars can't be allowed at all.

I tend to think that it's just general American shittiness and selfishness, probably mixed in with masculinity issues and therefore not literally intrinsic to driving, but that's just me.
posted by Frowner at 6:46 AM on May 9, 2023 [10 favorites]


"...so it all balances out?"

I said absolutely nothing about it balancing things out or whatever sort of conclusions you want to make about the whole human person.

I did say that reducing the person to a caricature, focusing narrowly on some trait you dislike and ignoring the rest of them, has repeatedly led to bad situations in history.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:56 AM on May 9, 2023


In the last year or so, I've entirely stopped speeding, whatsoever, unless I'm on the freeway.

Most of the time, it feels wonderful. It forces the people behind me also not to speed, and it does a tiny bit to shift the Overton Window on how fast we should all be driving on this particular street. I pat myself on the back a lot. It's great.

But every once in a while someone revs up and passes me as fast as they can, sometimes even in a turn lane, clearly furious. So, my not-speeding is indirectly leading to this extra dangerous behavior that could get someone killed.

Cars. The only winning move is not to play.
posted by gurple at 9:06 AM on May 9, 2023 [7 favorites]


I did say that reducing the person to a caricature, focusing narrowly on some trait you dislike and ignoring the rest of them, has repeatedly led to bad situations in history.

Thank you for that clarification.
posted by gauche at 9:06 AM on May 9, 2023


I did say that reducing the person to a caricature, focusing narrowly on some trait you dislike and ignoring the rest of them, has repeatedly led to bad situations in history.

...is this an oblique Godwin?
posted by Dysk at 9:38 AM on May 9, 2023 [1 favorite]


As a 3rd gen atheist, I can't maintain interest in anything going on about 'sin' and 'temptation'. It's like somebody taking about some obscure point of Cricket or Curling.
posted by signal at 9:38 AM on May 9, 2023 [4 favorites]


As a 3rd gen atheist, I can't maintain interest in anything going on about 'sin' and 'temptation'. It's like somebody taking about some obscure point of Cricket or Curling.

I imagine the author of this piece would've written it differently if it were intended to be read by his curling club.
posted by gurple at 9:40 AM on May 9, 2023 [1 favorite]


I find it interesting and a bit worrying how both the writer of the article and many commenters in this thread see, to feel that road rage is just a normal, to-be-expected part of the driving experience.

I'm not any sort of saint and I'm only an adequate driver, but in almost 40 years of driving, I've never gotten angry at anyone while driving. I can remember being really upset once when I was driving cross-country with broken headlights trying to reach my destination before dark and realizing that a misreading of the map had led me to waste over an hour driving in a big circle. But despite screaming a cathartic "FUCK!" to the heavens, I wasn't angry at anybody in particular.

Other than that, traffic jams are boring and make me anxious if I'm going to be arriving somewhere late. Really bad drivers make me nervous and I stay clear of them. But anger and rage ... are those really part of most people regularly experience while driving?
posted by tdismukes at 9:42 AM on May 9, 2023


But anger and rage ... are those really part of most people regularly experience while driving?

Yes. I don't get angry myself, but I see it all the time.

I recently nearly got killed by a car while I was cycling on two separate occasions. Both times the driver was completely at fault.

On the first occasion, the driver was incredibly shocked afterwards and apologised profusely for not seeing me (which would be pretty useless if he'd injured or killed me but OK I guess)

On the second occasion my husband, after seeing the driver lunge his car at me on purpose, slapped the car with his open hand as it went past.

That was *the absolutely unforgivable insult*apparently. The guy slammed on his breaks, got out of the car, and stormed at my husband.

I inserted myself between them on the theory that he'd be less likely to hit me with a fist than a car, seeing as I'm a grey haired female person and all that.

But all that was necessary was my husband encouraging him to tell us why he was so angry, which totally took the wind out of the guy's sails.

After a bit more bluster he drove off.

I'm absolutely convinced that at no point did this guy realise that *he'd nearly killed me*

Most people simply don't understand the physics involved, and what actually happens when metal moving at speed hits a body. Cars are way too cosy and smooth to know what they really are.

By chance I have experienced what happens when a car hits you, but that's another, story. Maybe some people really need to FEEL and SEE the possibile consequences?
posted by Zumbador at 10:12 AM on May 9, 2023 [4 favorites]


This is a sad story: Last November, I was coming back one evening on the bike path and got to chatting with this woman riding the same way. She looked to be in her early sixties but very vigorous, wiry and strong, and she was telling me that she'd been biking in Minneapolis since the eighties year round. She was really nice and I regretted that the ride was short enough that it would have been awkward to suggest meeting up for coffee. I kept my eye out for her since we live more or less in the same part of town and hoped that at some point I'd run into her again.

So early in April someone on local twitter linked to a gofundme for her - she is currently in supportive care with brain damage and serious physical injuries, and while she's still herself it's not at all clear how much of a recovery she'll make. I just hate it. What if she never rides again? What if she can never live on her own again? Obviously she's not someone I know, but talking to her made a big impression, especially as a fellow year-round cyclist.

A car hit her, presumably pretty hard, and then drove off, leaving her in a snowbank. The cops are nominally baffled but of course their crime clearance rate is like 30% and they're on work-to-rule because they're mad about George Floyd anyway so they're not doing shit. If you want to talk about rage, actually, I'd like to get in touch with the person who did it with a crowbar.

Anyway. It really upset me, and it's so unfair and stupid but there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it, just one more asshole driver while the universe burns.
posted by Frowner at 10:28 AM on May 9, 2023 [14 favorites]


That's awful, Frowner.
posted by doctornemo at 10:33 AM on May 9, 2023


focusing narrowly on some trait you dislike and ignoring the rest of them, has repeatedly led to bad situations in history.

Nah, if the “trait I dislike” is that the person literally, recklessly threatens my life while I am lawfully crossing a four-lane street, I am totally OK with not getting to know my would-be killer on a deeper level as a dog-loving pastry chef or whatever.

They see me as an obnoxious runner who is mildly inconveniencing them, and that’s apparently enough motivation to devalue my life. My very existence seems to inspire dangerous aggrieved entitlement.

Why do we always expect the people with less power to thoughtfully reflect on whether the oppressors have layers? History’s rife with examples of that, too, you know.
posted by armeowda at 10:36 AM on May 9, 2023 [13 favorites]


I saw a story online about someone being FURIOUS that a person parked their car in front of their house, despite not needing the space themselves, and it reminded me that I have neighbors like that and it's absolutely bonkers to expect that public parking is YOURS. It really speaks to this rage coming from within, that the car is an extension of your body, and people impinging on your body in any fashion is upsetting enough to confront strangers over it. I don't think it's only about driving in a moving car.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:56 AM on May 9, 2023 [2 favorites]


Impinging even on the space you think your body should be inhabiting, even if it isn't at the moment!
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:08 AM on May 9, 2023


On the sidebar right now are several comments from this thread. There is also a link which says "Good Answer! kevinbelt makes a reasonable observation about honking: danger or menace?" which is a comment that said "If honking caused accidents, every car in Massachusetts would be totaled" and made sense in its original motor normative context but when juxtaposed against the comments they shared from this thread, it hurt.

I don't know the honking culture of Massachusetts but here on the West Coast, it's associated with road rage. When someone honks at me, as far as I can tell it's pretty much always either "HI I'M LOOKING AT YOUR COOL BIKE INSTEAD OF THE ROAD!" or "GET OUT OF MY WAY, THIS IS MY ROAD HOW DARE YOU TAKE UP SPACE AND SLIGHTLY INCONVENIENCE ME." And as people have been describing throughout this thread, drivers get angry with me for daring to co-exist on the road with them all the time.

When someone says it's ok to devalue my life, it hurts. When it's curated and amplified, that hurts more.

But you know what I'm realizing biking under these circumstances and living in this motor normative society is good for? I've been holding my own against people in dangerous positions of power day in, day out for decades. It's speaking truth to power. It's great practice.

Still hurts.
posted by aniola at 11:38 AM on May 9, 2023 [4 favorites]


The entrance road to my neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks out to the main road, so everybody ends up walking or running on the street in the inside lane into oncoming traffic. Knowing this, I reflexively get in the left lane whenever I enter the neighborhood. It is never busy to the point that it is not possible to be in the left lane.

When I'm out running, I've noticed that about 10% of the cars refuse to move to their left when they see me jogging at them in the right lane. They can't concede the space to the pedestrian; it belongs to them.

Anyway, as a lapsed Catholic who has only been to church for funerals and weddings for the last 25-odd years, I liked this article. It was nice to see a Christian actively trying to be a better person. It's not as common as it should be.
posted by COD at 11:51 AM on May 9, 2023 [6 favorites]


Driving does carry some inherent risks, but most motor-vehicle deaths aren't from driving but from drunk driving, or speeding, or distracted driving. If you take away just a few obvious forms of bad behavior, you mitigate a huge amount of driving risk.

This is a false statement. You take away a huge proportion not a huge amount. It may even be the largest proportion (probably!) but the amount left behind is still quite huge.
posted by srboisvert at 4:30 PM on May 9, 2023 [1 favorite]


Driving does carry some inherent risks, but most motor-vehicle deaths aren't from driving but from drunk driving, or speeding, or distracted driving. If you take away just a few obvious forms of bad behavior, you mitigate a huge amount of driving risk.

I guess all the safe drivers around will join me in campaigning for blanket speed camera coverage of the road network, then? No?
posted by Dysk at 11:45 PM on May 9, 2023 [5 favorites]


In what other setting would we be angry at a person we almost just killed?

True story:

Baby is in hospital. Dr goes to administer meds.

Parents: that's way more meds than the baby usually gets.

Dr, angrily: what would you know

Nurse: that's way more meds than the baby usually gets

Doctor, very angrily - I'm a doctor and you're only the nurse, what would you know.

*administers massive overdose of meds*

*baby dies*

*whole thing hits the news at the coronial inquest*
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 8:53 AM on May 10, 2023


I’ll just note that many more drivers die than either pedestrians or bicyclists in the US every year. So people using cars are putting themselves much more at risk than they are pedestrians or bicyclists.
posted by Galvanic at 2:58 PM on May 11, 2023


That is not at all how statistics work.
posted by schmod at 3:43 PM on May 11, 2023 [7 favorites]


Statistics work in a lot of ways, usually at the behest of someone’s agenda. I’m going to stay with the point that more drivers than cyclists and pedestrians die per year in the US.
posted by Galvanic at 4:05 PM on May 11, 2023


I’ll just note that many more drivers die than either pedestrians or bicyclists in the US every year. So people using cars are putting themselves much more at risk than they are pedestrians or bicyclists.

Not a fan of drivers setting my risk level to their standard.
posted by srboisvert at 5:25 PM on May 11, 2023 [3 favorites]


So people using cars are putting themselves much more at risk than they are pedestrians or bicyclists... I’m going to stay with the point that more drivers than cyclists and pedestrians die per year in the US.

You can't go from raw numbers straight to risk like that. That would make a big city where one person in ten thousand dies riskier than a hamlet where everybody dies. In this example, the big city has more raw deaths, but the hamlet has more risk.

The basis of comparison that you'd use for cars vs bikes vs pedestrians might be a bit tricky to decide on - do you compare per mile travelled? per hour spent travelling? per trip? per person? - but you need some basis of comparison to go from raw numbers to comparison of risk.
posted by clawsoon at 5:39 PM on May 11, 2023 [8 favorites]


And aside from that, even if it were true that driving is inherently riskier, that wouldn't matter. You choosing to risk your life is fine. It does not make it fine for you to choose to risk my life.
posted by Dysk at 9:09 PM on May 11, 2023 [5 favorites]


I’m going to stay with the point that more drivers than cyclists and pedestrians die per year in the US.

And more gun deaths are suicides than homicides in the U.S.

And people who ignored every possible COVID precaution died at greater rates than the more-cautious people they selfishly exposed.

And active smoking kills more people than passive smoking.

Sing along if you know the words: we live in a society. OF COURSE recklessness is more dangerous in the first-person. It still kills a lot of people who didn’t consent to be subjected to the recklessness. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.
posted by armeowda at 9:41 PM on May 11, 2023 [11 favorites]


I’ll just note that many more drivers die than either pedestrians or bicyclists in the US every year. So people using cars are putting themselves much more at risk than they are pedestrians or bicyclists.

I think this is a really interesting example of how much we've internalised and accepted the car centric way of living as inevitable and natural.

This quote conjures up a strangely passive relationship between driver and car, as if all those drivers are just randomly poofing into non existence because, I don't know, the god of car death decided it was their time?

Let's see what happens when I rephrase it:

" I’ll just note that many more people who drive cars are killed by other people who also drive cars, or by themselves, than either people who walk near people who drive cars, or people who cycle near people who drive cars in the US every year.

So people who drive cars using are putting themselves much more at risk than they are putting people who walk or cycle in their vicinity."

Does it that still seem rational?
posted by Zumbador at 10:24 PM on May 11, 2023 [1 favorite]


OF COURSE recklessness is more dangerous in the first-person. It still kills a lot of people who didn’t consent to be subjected to the recklessness

And here we've cycled (ha!) around to my original point about how the discussion around this always becomes a moral one, with the drivers as the ones at moral fault.

we've internalised and accepted the car centric way of living

Or "how much Americans prefer and enjoy using cars."

But then that wouldn't have fit with the same agenda, would it?
posted by Galvanic at 6:49 AM on May 12, 2023



Or "how much Americans prefer and enjoy using cars."

You quoted me 🙂

Unlike many Americans, when I don't specify what country's people I'm referring to, I'm referring to all people, not just Americans.

So that should be be:

Or "how much people prefer and enjoy using cars."


But because I'm deeply, deeply pedantic it should actually be:


Or "how much many people prefer and enjoy using cars."

posted by Zumbador at 9:50 AM on May 12, 2023 [1 favorite]


Unlike many Americans, when I don't specify what country's people I'm referring to, I'm referring to all people, not just Americans.

Unlike you, I specified that I was talking about Americans, so I'm going to continue to do that, thanks. But I appreciate you trying for the gotcha -- it's always entertaining to watch someone else face plant.

But because I'm deeply, deeply pedantic it should actually be:

Or "how much many people prefer and enjoy using cars."


I'm good with the way I phrased it.
posted by Galvanic at 12:01 PM on May 12, 2023


I’ll just note that many more drivers die than either pedestrians or bicyclists in the US every year. So people using cars are putting themselves much more at risk than they are pedestrians or bicyclists.

I think this is a really interesting example of how much we've internalised and accepted the car centric way of living as inevitable and natural.


In America it is much worse than that as it is with oh-so-many things. Americans have internalized an abnormally high rate of pedestrian and cyclist death compared to almost the entire rest of OECD. Just like gun deaths and shitty health insurance we are supposed to simply accept it as the background risk radiation of our lives despite the fact that those extra deaths are politically, socially and technologically engineered into the system by certain parties who are at best just willfully negligent and probably more realistically Stalinesque social engineering mass murderers.

It's choices made by people all the way down and the choices are different ones from what other safer countries make.
posted by srboisvert at 1:17 PM on May 12, 2023 [6 favorites]


I’ll just note that many more drivers die than either pedestrians or bicyclists in the US every year. So people using cars are putting themselves much more at risk than they are pedestrians or bicyclists.

I'll just note that many many many more drivers kill pedestrians or bicyclists than are killed by pedestrians or bicyclists.
posted by straight at 2:08 PM on May 12, 2023 [7 favorites]


By the way, someone asked earlier, so just to add in:

Death rate for drivers: ~14 per 100000
Death rate for pedestrians: ~2 per 100000
Death rate for bicyclists: 0.2 per 100000

In the US, in case someone wants to try for a gotcha and fail…again.
posted by Galvanic at 3:15 PM on May 12, 2023


Galvanic: Per 100,000 miles travelled? Hours travelled? Trips taken? Per passenger mile?

If it's per-person, is it comparing full-time commuters to full-time commuters for each mode of transportation, or is it mixing in casual users?

FWIW, I have no idea. I just want to know what your numbers mean.
posted by clawsoon at 3:44 PM on May 12, 2023 [3 favorites]


(Googling various studies with per-hour rates, it appears that it is most dangerous to be a young man in a car or an old man on a bike.)
posted by clawsoon at 3:56 PM on May 12, 2023 [2 favorites]


Galvanic: Per 100,000 miles travelled? Hours travelled? Trips taken? Per passenger mile

Per 100,000 people.
posted by Galvanic at 6:43 PM on May 12, 2023


Per 100,000 people.

Thanks.

If you were to switch all of your driving to bicycling, do you think a per-person comparison would be the best basis for gauging your changed risk on the road? Would you really be ~70 times safer?
posted by clawsoon at 7:44 PM on May 12, 2023 [1 favorite]


Unlike you, I specified that I was talking about Americans, so I'm going to continue to do that, thanks. But I appreciate you trying for the gotcha -- it's always entertaining to watch someone else face plant.

This is frankly just mean-spirited, unkind, and uncalled for. You were also rephrasing someone else's general point about people and motornormativity, and changing people to Americans. They were pointing out that you'd changed the meaning - it wasn't a 'gotcha'.
posted by Dysk at 9:26 PM on May 12, 2023 [6 favorites]


This is frankly just mean-spirited, unkind, and uncalled for

You tried for a gotcha and explained to me what I really should have said, and now you're complaining because I wasn't sweetness and light in response? Please.
posted by Galvanic at 9:52 AM on May 13, 2023


No, I didn't? You seem to be confusing me with somebody else.
posted by Dysk at 10:40 AM on May 13, 2023


Mod note: No comments removed, but folks need to end the fighty derail at this point. Continuing it may result in a ban.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:50 AM on May 13, 2023


« Older Love and a Peaceful World   |   "I find I have to be the sad clown." Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments