Insinuating that traffic is caused by the size of cars is like saying blood cells cause heart attacks. Shit drivers contribute to traffic conditions more than anyone here seems willing to recognize, and being a self-important fuckstick in the passing lane trying to make everyone else behave like you want is directly causing traffic.
Bottom line: if you’re not the fastest vehicle in the far right lane, get the fuck over.
Didn’t even get me started on entrance ramps or blinkers or stopping at non-existent stop signs. Those are also related to how far one’s head is up one’s own ass, but I’ve better things to do here than shake my young guy stick at a blithe population beset with systemic mental health issues. 🤷🏼♂️
It’s the density of people on roads that’s an issue. When you add more lanes, you get more conflict, which also reduces traffic flow. It’s an inefficient way to move a lot of people.
And no, someone driving 65 in a 70 or whatever isn’t causing traffic directly, but they are contributing to road rage, which does cause traffic. Traffic is caused by conflict, which increases the more lanes and cars you have on a roadway. Reducing the density of cars on roads reduces conflict, thus traffic.
Teaching people to drive better will have limited impact. The better change is to make more efficient ways to move people so there’s less conflict.
It seems you’re conflating terms, friend. Congestion is not caused by road rage, but the impaired attention and decision making that the latter leads to certainly contributes to inefficient traffic conditions (ie. congestion), just like with self-absorbed and unskilled drivers. And, contrary to your feelings on the matter, slowing the flow of traffic behind you by failing to move with it at the speed your chosen lane is indicating directly contributes to congestion further behind you for the hundreds of others that couldn’t give a flying fuck about your (editorial) personal crusade to save the world, one villainous speeder at a time. Which, btw, is selfish AF and infantile. 🤷🏼♂️
But it is. If one person needs to slam on their brakes, that causes a ripple effect all the way down, which results in stop and go traffic. Road rage tends to cause people to slam on their brakes, thus road rage can cause congestion.
slowing the flow of traffic behind you by failing to move
That doesn’t really impact congestion though, unless it leads to something that causes people to slam on their brakes. Going 65 instead of 75 isn’t congestion.
selfish
Oh I absolutely agree that not moving over is selfish, which is why I always move over when the lane next to me is open. I also move over when traffic to my right is traveling about the same speed as me and there are cars behind me.
But my point is that cars camping in the left-most lane are annoying, but they aren’t causing congestion themselves. Passing on the right absolutely can cause congestion because it is likely to cause someone else to slam on their brakes, which dominoes into stop and go traffic.
My apologies, friend, but correlation is not causation. There are many reasons why stopping suddenly would cause a ripple effect, which is exacerbated by too short of a follow distance, among other things. “Road rage” is an informal term closer to an idiom than a quantifiable variable, furthermore. However, I believe I hear what you’re intending to convey.
To your second point, that is fundamentally incorrect; just because it is not an abrupt change is no proof that it doesn’t affect the wider scope of traffic on said road. In fact, one could make an argument that ignoring this fact may be due to a perspective too focused on one’s own locality within said traffic instead of perceiving the conversation as a whole.
I appreciate your candor and neighborly discourse, all the same. 🙇🏽♂️
Yeah, it’s just like people complaining about traffic when their car takes up as much space as everyone else.
The problem is two fold:
The first is the bigger issue, but the second shouldn’t be discounted.
Insinuating that traffic is caused by the size of cars is like saying blood cells cause heart attacks. Shit drivers contribute to traffic conditions more than anyone here seems willing to recognize, and being a self-important fuckstick in the passing lane trying to make everyone else behave like you want is directly causing traffic.
Bottom line: if you’re not the fastest vehicle in the far right lane, get the fuck over.
Didn’t even get me started on entrance ramps or blinkers or stopping at non-existent stop signs. Those are also related to how far one’s head is up one’s own ass, but I’ve better things to do here than shake my young guy stick at a blithe population beset with systemic mental health issues. 🤷🏼♂️
It’s the density of people on roads that’s an issue. When you add more lanes, you get more conflict, which also reduces traffic flow. It’s an inefficient way to move a lot of people.
And no, someone driving 65 in a 70 or whatever isn’t causing traffic directly, but they are contributing to road rage, which does cause traffic. Traffic is caused by conflict, which increases the more lanes and cars you have on a roadway. Reducing the density of cars on roads reduces conflict, thus traffic.
Teaching people to drive better will have limited impact. The better change is to make more efficient ways to move people so there’s less conflict.
It seems you’re conflating terms, friend. Congestion is not caused by road rage, but the impaired attention and decision making that the latter leads to certainly contributes to inefficient traffic conditions (ie. congestion), just like with self-absorbed and unskilled drivers. And, contrary to your feelings on the matter, slowing the flow of traffic behind you by failing to move with it at the speed your chosen lane is indicating directly contributes to congestion further behind you for the hundreds of others that couldn’t give a flying fuck about your (editorial) personal crusade to save the world, one villainous speeder at a time. Which, btw, is selfish AF and infantile. 🤷🏼♂️
But it is. If one person needs to slam on their brakes, that causes a ripple effect all the way down, which results in stop and go traffic. Road rage tends to cause people to slam on their brakes, thus road rage can cause congestion.
That doesn’t really impact congestion though, unless it leads to something that causes people to slam on their brakes. Going 65 instead of 75 isn’t congestion.
Oh I absolutely agree that not moving over is selfish, which is why I always move over when the lane next to me is open. I also move over when traffic to my right is traveling about the same speed as me and there are cars behind me.
But my point is that cars camping in the left-most lane are annoying, but they aren’t causing congestion themselves. Passing on the right absolutely can cause congestion because it is likely to cause someone else to slam on their brakes, which dominoes into stop and go traffic.
My apologies, friend, but correlation is not causation. There are many reasons why stopping suddenly would cause a ripple effect, which is exacerbated by too short of a follow distance, among other things. “Road rage” is an informal term closer to an idiom than a quantifiable variable, furthermore. However, I believe I hear what you’re intending to convey.
To your second point, that is fundamentally incorrect; just because it is not an abrupt change is no proof that it doesn’t affect the wider scope of traffic on said road. In fact, one could make an argument that ignoring this fact may be due to a perspective too focused on one’s own locality within said traffic instead of perceiving the conversation as a whole.
I appreciate your candor and neighborly discourse, all the same. 🙇🏽♂️