[Winstonm]

 Antrax, on 2014-July-16, 21:18, said:

Winstonm, what about my example? There are 5 drivers waiting to enter a roundabout on your right. There are infinity drivers behind you, meaning they keep coming. Your lane has right of way. Do you drive on? If the driver ahead of you lets someone from the lane on the right merge, do you resent that?

My understanding is that a roundabout uses "yield" signs, at least the few in the U.S. I have seen. In that sense, everyone on the road is part of the same group, all trying to use the roundabout. A stoplight works differently - a person who allows a side street driver to turn into traffic may well cause 2 or 3 autos behind him to miss the light.

My contention is that these people mostly do this to prove to themselves what a nice, considerate person they are, a pat on the back, but they do not think it through that their action is quite inconsiderate to those behind them, waiting for the light.

[barmar]

Often it's not just one driver trying to get into traffic from the parking lot -- there are a line of cars behind him, too. Why should the line of cars already on the street get preferential treatment over the ones in the parking lot? If there's lots of traffic, the folks in the lot will never be able to get out, and their line will get longer and longer. Eventually, someone has to be nice and let someone in.

What bugs me is if I let the first car in the lot into traffic, and the car behind him sneaks in as well. There are usually more cars on the street, so the "fair" thing would be for every Nth street driver to allow one entry from the lot.

Another related thing is when the there's a long backlog of cars merging into an exit ramp on the highway. When I see a long line of cars leading up to the exit I want to take, I get into the right lane early, to join that mob, even though I know it will add some time to my trip. I hate dislike the people who wait until the last minute and then expect someone to let them in -- that seems selfish. And someone will always let them in, because they feel sorry for the drivers stuck behind him.

[jeffford76]

 Trinidad, on 2014-July-17, 04:04, said:

Say that there are two cars meeting at an intersection. Both cars are on their way to the train station, which is normally a 5 minute drive (but you never really know what lies ahead). The people in car A need to catch a train in 6 minutes, the people in car B need to catch a train in an hour. If our global objective is that everybody catches their train, and if we would be able to decide over this (normally we aren't) which car should we let go first? Whose minutes are the most expensive?

When I flew out of Toronto a few years ago, even though I arrived 2.5 hours before my flight, I got to sit around in a waiting area for a couple of hours while people who arrived just before their flights were allowed to go through passport control almost immediately. I had arrived plenty early so that I would have time to clear security, and then get a meal before flying, which didn't happen. Presumably this was under your theory of their minutes being more expensive, but I don't think this was the correct solution. I don't think that "everyone catches their train" is clearly a better global objective than "people go through the line in the order they show up".

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-July-17, 10:14, said:

I hate dislike the people who wait until the last minute and then expect someone to let them in -- that seems selfish. And someone will always let them in, because they feel sorry for the drivers stuck behind him.

I do most of my driving at my sister's, and often don't know when I have to get into a certain lane in order to turn, until I have seen the street sign, and then it is too late. So sometimes the person is. It being selfish but is simply unfamiliar with the roads.

What I don't understand, Winston, is this idea of being part of a group with some common objective when on the road. When I am driving, I am trying to get to my destination, and the other drivers are just people in my way. When it is about letting people in from a turning and I am already stopped or going very slowly, well, next time that person could be me -- or one of the people behind me in the traffic. I think that driving in heavy traffic can be really unpleasant and frustrating, and that what we need is more courtesy, not less.

[Winstonm]

 Vampyr, on 2014-July-17, 11:40, said:

I do most of my driving at my sister's, and often don't know when I have to get into a certain lane in order to turn, until I have seen the street sign, and then it is too late. So sometimes the person is. It being selfish but is simply unfamiliar with the roads.

What I don't understand, Winston, is this idea of being part of a group with some common objective when on the road. When I am driving, I am trying to get to my destination, and the other drivers are just people in my way. When it is about letting people in from a turning and I am already stopped or going very slowly, well, next time that person could be me -- or one of the people behind me in the traffic. I think that driving in heavy traffic can be really unpleasant and frustrating, and that what we need is more courtesy, not less.

My point is very simple - the courtesy extended to the one can be (and often is) inconsideration to others, that we tend to think within the confines of our own tiny environments when the greatest good is to do what is best for the group.

A terrific example is a convenience store near me - at a corner of two major streets. To make a left turn onto one major street requires cutting across two lanes to get into a turn lane - the outlet drive is only about 40 feet or less from the corner. I can't tell you how often I've seen someone in the right-hand lane allow a car to pull out, and then that car pulls across both lanes and is forced to stop, while the turn light cycles, thereby blocking all the right-lane drivers from making legal right turns on red.

The fault for this temporary roadblock falls on two parties - the one wanting to cut in and the one who allowed the cut in. I guess it is too complicated to figure out that a right-hand turn, with traffic, and then circling the block with two more right-hand turns gets you back to the same corner where it would be simple to merge - with traffic - into the left turn lane.

It is a pet peeve - I don't lose sleep over it - I just shake my head.

[Vampyr]

 Winstonm, on 2014-July-17, 12:20, said:

My point is very simple - the courtesy extended to the one can be (and often is) inconsideration to others, that we tend to think within the confines of our own tiny environments when the greatest good is to do what is best for the group.

Yes, this is what I mean? What "group"? Who are they and why do I care about them?

[Winstonm]

 Vampyr, on 2014-July-17, 12:35, said:

Yes, this is what I mean? What "group"? Who are they and why do I care about them?

The group=all of society.

In this particular instance, the group is all those on the road travelling in the same lane as the person who allows the cut-in. You should care because you are sometimes part of this smaller group, but at all times part of the larger group trying to live civilly with one another.

[Vampyr]

 Winstonm, on 2014-July-17, 18:43, said:

The group=all of society.

In this particular instance, the group is all those on the road travelling in the same lane as the person who allows the cut-in. You should care because you are sometimes part of this smaller group, but at all times part of the larger group trying to live civilly with one another.

LOL I guess I define "living civilly" in the opposite manner to you.

[Antrax]

It's heartening to see other people also waste brain power on these situations.

Regarding others not considering the result of their courtesy, one time on the way to work the guy in front of me stop to let a bus merge. The bus, being huge, merges awfully and blocks traffic for a short while before we can all resume. I'm sitting in my car fuming when the guy in front of me pulls up and parks right next to where I work, so I park next to him and ask him "hey, did you know you had right of way back there?" (this was before people started getting stabbed for less). So he says "yeah, I did, but there are more people on the bus than were in our lane, and I figured he rates to be a professional driver so he won't merge so poorly".
I guess the lesson is people aren't always deaf and blind to their environment, some of them just might have different ideas.

[Trinidad]

 Winstonm, on 2014-July-17, 18:43, said:

The group=all of society.

In this particular instance, the group is all those on the road travelling in the same lane as the person who allows the cut-in. You should care because you are sometimes part of this smaller group, but at all times part of the larger group trying to live civilly with one another.

So, the guy who wants to pull in from the parking lot is not part of society?

I am with you when you - for this problem - exclude the people who are sitting at home watching TV, but if you exclude the guy who is at the heart of this, it is not a miracle that you come to very strange conclusions.

So, in your mind, everybody in your lane is in your "team" and the rest of the world are your opponents?

Rik

[chasetb]

Yes Trindad, just like how he thinks President Obama is God, all Democrats are pure and good, and all Republicans are greedy and evil.

That's why the USA is in a mess, the people don't know enough to vote out the idiots in office, and those that would serve the country best won't run or can't afford to run for office.

By the way, I don't believe the President should be impeached, because Joe Biden is far worse than Dick Cheney (not that Cheney was worth anything). Then on down the line, John Boehner is next and might be the best, but that's like saying "I'd rather have herpes than AIDS". Patrick Leahy and John Kerry are after Boehner **shudders violently at that horrific thought**

[helene_t]

As a pedistrian/cyclist/bus passenger, I hate cars. But I can see why car drivers must hate bicycles. Btw I have no clue what this discussion is about. I obviously miss out on something by not driving. But I think Stephanie nailed it. Car driving is probably bad for many people's psychological wellbeing.

[GreenMan]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-17, 05:47, said:

This is just silly.

Well, so was yours.

[Winstonm]

 Trinidad, on 2014-July-17, 23:38, said:

So, the guy who wants to pull in from the parking lot is not part of society?

I am with you when you - for this problem - exclude the people who are sitting at home watching TV, but if you exclude the guy who is at the heart of this, it is not a miracle that you come to very strange conclusions.

So, in your mind, everybody in your lane is in your "team" and the rest of the world are your opponents?

Rik

Not at all, Rik. I simply submit that individual decisions often cause unintended consequences, consequences that should be thought through instead of relying on a knee-jerk reaction of helpfulness. See, the question is: helpfulness to whom? There will always be a break in the traffic at some point, and the waiting car will get out - why is that person's time more valuable than those waiting in traffic at the light?

Seemingly simple situations often have larger ramifications about which we tend not to think.

[Winstonm]

 chasetb, on 2014-July-18, 00:24, said:

Yes Trindad, just like how he thinks President Obama is God, all Democrats are pure and good, and all Republicans are greedy and evil.

That's why the USA is in a mess, the people don't know enough to vote out the idiots in office, and those that would serve the country best won't run or can't afford to run for office.

By the way, I don't believe the President should be impeached, because Joe Biden is far worse than Dick Cheney (not that Cheney was worth anything). Then on down the line, John Boehner is next and might be the best, but that's like saying "I'd rather have herpes than AIDS". Patrick Leahy and John Kerry are after Boehner **shudders violently at that horrific thought**

Rupert? Is that you?

[Vampyr]

 Winstonm, on 2014-July-18, 08:03, said:

There will always be a break in the traffic at some point, and the waiting car will get out - why is that person's time more valuable than those waiting in traffic at the light?

That "break in traffic" might not be for 30 minutes or more.

Quote

Seemingly simple situations often have larger ramifications about which we tend not to think.

OK, I have now thought about the ramifications. I don't really care, though.

[Winstonm]

 Vampyr, on 2014-July-18, 14:16, said:

That "break in traffic" might not be for 30 minutes or more.



OK, I have now thought about the ramifications. I don't really care, though.

Interesting. It's a pet peeve of mine. But you might have guessed that already.

[Fluffy]

good manners are like public transport, its something you only really wish others use them.

[Fluffy]

 Trinidad, on 2014-July-17, 04:04, said:

Perhaps in the natural sciences, but not in planning and logistics. Needing extra seconds on a so called critical timeline causes delays. Preventing the need for these extra seconds is worth money. Extra seconds that are not on a critical path just shift waiting periods from one point in time to another. They do not cause delays.

Say that there are two cars meeting at an intersection. Both cars are on their way to the train station, which is normally a 5 minute drive (but you never really know what lies ahead). The people in car A need to catch a train in 6 minutes, the people in car B need to catch a train in an hour. If our global objective is that everybody catches their train, and if we would be able to decide over this (normally we aren't) which car should we let go first? Whose minutes are the most expensive?

Car A is on a critical timeline. Delays have significant consequences (missing the train). Car B is not on a critical timeline. If Car B has to wait 2 minutes for a truck to unload, that only means that they wait 2 minutes less at the platform. The wait might even have a positive value (and, hence, time "saved" a negative value), e.g. because they now need to pay less for parking at the station.

Other example:
You are young, free and single (I know you aren't and neither am I, at least you are still young ) and a nice girl is coming for dinner at 6PM. You decide to cook pasta with a nice sauce and to bake a bread.
For the bread you need to mix and kneed the ingredients (10 minutes), let the dough rise for an hour, and bake for 20 minutes.
To cook the pasta you will need to bring water to a boil (5 minutes) and cook the pasta in 10 minutes.
To make the sauce, you will cut tomatoes, zucchini, bell peppers and onions (takes 10 minutes) and cook it all with ground beef (takes 10 minutes).

The dinner needs to be ready at 6PM, and now it is 4:30PM. You start by mixing the flour and yeast and the phone rings. This phone call will delay your meal or ruin the bread, which will not impress the nice girl. You decide to let it ring since you are on a critical timeline.
The dough is mixed and is starting to rise. It is 4:40. You decide to start cutting the vegetables for the sauce. At 4:45, when half the vegetables are cut, the phone rings again. This time a phone call will not delay your meal and you answer the phone. You talk for 10 minutes to your mother, who reminds you to put basil, thyme and oregano in the sauce.

In both cases, it was your mother who called. The first time, the 10 minutes were expensive and would have caused a delay (and perhaps the girl). The second time, the 10 minutes didn't cost you anything.

In physics (ignoring relativistic effects ), a second always is the same second: 1000 ms, 1/3600 of an hour.
In logistics, not all seconds are equal. Some seconds are indifferent, others may be life changing.

Rik

Your logic is sound as always, except than you are assuming every objective has the same "gain" when achieved, because they are all deliveries from the same company or some such. Your objective is that each person arrives before their time limit while I think best is for the ammount of total time invested on the move is minimum. There will be cases where your approach is better, but as jeffford pointed out, it is really unfair to favor always those who arrive late.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2014-July-15, 19:22, said:

People who, when there is heavy traffic, stop to allow another driver to pull out into the traffic from a parking lot or mall entrance. These people don't realize that this little gesture may make them feel good about themselves, but it is grossly unfair to all those behind them who may miss the traffic light because they, too, were forced to wait.

The best way to help everyone is to follow the stated traffic laws and customs - when the light is green, go, and let the person trying to merge into traffic find his own method - including taking an alternate route or choosing a different time of day next time.

Likewise, people who ignore double yellow lines and turn left illegally across them - and the police who constantly ignore this traffic offense, once again delaying all the law-abiding traffic in order to satisfy the wants of one person who can't figure out that there are alternative ways to reach a destination.

Around here we have some of the worst traffic anywhere. I think the drivers are pretty good. We are all in this together and most, not all, calmly accept practical solutions. For example:

I am often on route 32, one lane in each direction, with heavy traffic. I would not stop to let someone come in, that would be dangerous, but I may well see that a guy has a problem and leave enough space so that if he is alert he can easily get in. Other people do the same and it balances out. As far as the light is concerned, if 40 people can get through on a green light, then 40 people get through. Car number 41 was not getting through whether this guy gets in or not. Car number 40 becomes car 41 and has to wait, but as long as we all behave that way it's fair.

Here is one thing we do: Rte 32 narrows down from a divided hwy with 2 lanes in each direction to non-divided with 1 in each direction. At busy times there is a wait as we merge. If we all get over to the right there will always be a jackass who passes everyone and butts in. So someone stays in the left lane and blocks it, even thought there is space in front of him. And we all sort of know where he belongs in line, so when it really is down to one lane he is given his proper place. It works, except ofr the truly determined who go off onto the left shoulder to pass the blocker.

And I have t say something about New Yorkers. I drove up to Brooklyn, taking the Verrazano bridge and then the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. Expressway? There was a lot of roadwork and lanes kept disappearing. Again, there was great cooperation and I congratulate them.

Every region has its expectations. When I moved East from Minnesota I had to adjust to the following. In MN, when the light turns green, you are to go. Right then. No thinking. And so when it turns red you had better stop. Out here, every time that I think maybe I should really have stopped, I probably could have stopped, for this changing light I find that 3 or 4 cars come through after me. So when the light turns from red to green for me, I have to sit and wait for about 3 cars to go through the intersection. Different culture.