Safe Speed Forums

Only because of the total lack of guidance and training (and perhaps common sense). Nowadays we know better - we've learning from those early mistakes.


The fact you had to 'impose' it suggests you fell foul of drivers who aren't aware of HC rule 134 or were too inconsiderate to apply it, so if anyone was being selfish it was the people who tried to hang you out to dry; you were merely doing what is recommended in the HC (I hope). Being selfish still doesn't work!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Just for fun - here's the full pseudo-code, as developed in JT's mental software development environment, whilst walking the dog in teeming rain this afternoon.

We have a busy A road which contains a 10 mile stretch of dual carriageway with S/C at either end. It is a busy bank holiday and traffic is trundling along at the speed of the occasional HGV, which is therefore dictating a steady stream of nose to tail 40mph traffic.

Let's say we have 3 classes of driver.

1. Very selfish. Will always drive in the fastest available lane, will always merge as late as possible, will NEVER let anyone else merge in front of them.
2. Mildly selfish. Will drive in the emptiest lane, will merge reasonably early, will always also let another car in, "to repay the favour".
3. Not selfish. Won't ever "jump the queue", will always allow others to merge.

If we feed our system entirely with type 3 drivers, then the dual carriageway becomes entirely redundant, as the 40mph queue in the single carriageway will continue along the entirety of the left lane. No-one will ever overtake because it's a queue and that would be selfish.

If we feed in equal numbers of type 2 and type 3 drivers some will use the outer lane, but when they pull back in they will slow the left hand lane by letting more cars in in front of them. These will then do the same, and if unchecked the behaviour will result in a completely static left lane, with the only traffic making progress being the type 2 drivers who use the right lane to overtake the static queue. All type 3 drivers will queue indefinitely in L1 for the reasons outlined above.

With an equal mix of all 3 driver types the traffic will move once more, simply becuase the very selfish drivers will dilute the behaviour of the type 2 drivers. Now the outer lane will contain an equal mix of type 2 and type 1 drivers, but the type 1 drivers will allow L1 to move slowly, because when they return to it they will block any more L2 drivers from re-joining in front of them. L1 will still move slower than L2, and type 3 drivers will still get the longest journey time, but at least both lanes now flow.

But if we feed nothing but type 1 drivers into the system they will feed alternately into L1 and L2 at the start of the dual carriageway (as each one joins a lane the other lane then becomes the fastest one, attracting the next in the queue), travel at higher speed throughout it's length and then zip merge at the end, at the latest moment. Ideal behaviour, as it maximises throughput in the higher capacity road section, which also means that the maximum number of cars can pass any slower vehicles, and that if a vehicle joins from a sideroad during the D/C it doesn't slow the queue - as it would in the first scenario where no-one would use the outer lane to overtake it.

So "selfish" behaviour benefits society as a whole, as well as the individual. And yes, it is selfish behaviour because the reasoning for each driver taking this course of action is for the sole intent of benefitting themselves, which to me seems a fair definition of selfish. That assumes, of course, that they haven't read this thread, nor found themselves saddled with an overly fertile analytical brain that reaches conclusions such as these a propos of nothing.

Nash* would be proud of us (as would Thatcher!)

(* thanks for the aide memoire BW, and the compliment! )

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

No sweat JT. This is my main reason for taunting people on this site. The vast
majority of these threads are futile, but sometimes a real truth is
communicated in a way that can't be denied.

We now know (within reason) that some forms of selfishness are good, and we have
a demonstrable test case, which (more or less) proves it.

No longer can people say "you selfish git" and expect it to wound me. Greed IS good,
at least some of the time in certain circumstances. The next question is not whether
selfishness can be good, but is it essential?

I thought type 1 drivers didn’t zip merge: "will NEVER let anyone else merge in front", doesn’t this cause the turbulence where one is forced to yield and stop (or risk the occasional scrape)?

Surely the most ideal flow will be from a lane full of the slightly selfish type 2 drivers who are non-selfish enough to 'repay the favour'?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

They're too selfish to crash into each other. That would involve a cost.

I guess my wording wasn't quite spot on. I meant that they would never voluntarily yield to another driver; however they would eventually yield if no other option is available. In other words they will aggressively jostle for the last inch of roadspace, but eventually yield through necessity.

No. If they "repay the favour" then this ensures that the only vehicles emerging from the bottleneck will originate from L2, and L1 will stop.

I concede that the strict analytical approach throws up oddball scenarios. I've been de-bugging this algorithm in my head whilst watching TV, and I've come up with a couple of other issues that the beta test version didn't cover. The bottom line is that mathematical models don't easily replicate human behaviour because there is a bit of each type of driver in all of us, and furthermore those influences can vary dramatically in response to chaotic, random events.

However, what we can see is that certain tendencies lead to certain behaviours and trends. Despite my algorithm being a long way short of accurate I think it still demonstrates (to me at least) that certain principles are true, namely that in this circumstance selfishness tends to maximise use of roadspace, whereas politeness wastes it.

After more deliberation I think the optimum driver profile is "selfish coward". Always goes for the fastest lane, always merges late, always bottles out before he runs out of road. Sorted!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Yes, as I said, you are confused. Just because someone is selfish, and they do something, does not mean that act is selfish. Selfishly motivated it may be, but that does not mean it is a selfish behaviour, since the outcome is to the betterment of all.



No.



Not at all, you have a situation where the optimum solution is one that some may choose out of selfishness alone. In using this to deduce that selfishness is good, you're falling foul of the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Remember that, like a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, sometimes the wrong motivations still produce the right results. This does not justify the wrong motivations.

Please be under no illusions that most, if not all, readers and contributors are well aware that your desire here is to draw a fallacious parallel that will allow you to try to justify your indefensible position on wilfully impeding the progress of others on the roads.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Then everyone is selfish, especially the type 3 drivers; oddly enough joyriders would be the least selfish of all !... Are you sure your definition of selfish is appropriate here?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

How long does "eventually" take? I’ve watched selfish drivers at merge points, they refuse to 'lose' until they both can go on no further – they literally stop and so does everyone behind them The one with the relatively more 'disposable' car is usually the one brave enough to inch forward.


Sorry, I didn't mean to use your definition of 'repay the favour'. I meant 'repay the favour' as in letting the person in L1 proceed ahead and joining behind them, as opposed to following the L2 vehicle joining in front and cutting in in front of the L2er (which is selfish and not repaying anything). Repaying the favour (as I define it) works better.


Personally, I always make the best use of the road space, if that means I bypass miles of L1 queuers then so be it. I would have felt guilty about doing it but I know it is accepted as being the best way when considering the system as a whole (throughput, congestion etc). More significantly, I know others understand this too and will progress past me if I decide to queue in L1, so I would actually end up dipping out. I have to make a choice between being needlessly delayed because of the ignorance of others, or making progress whilst remaining within the rules of the HC – I have to either lose or gain; there is no middle ground. I choose to go to prevent myself from being disadvantaged, not because I want to gain an advantage, hence I'm not doing it out of selfishness - I can't help it if the ignorance of others turns out to be my gain.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That is ridiculous. An act has no cognisance at all, and has no sense of self. Hence, the act itself cannot be regarded as selfish.
The doer is the selfish thing, as you know.



Read back, and you'll see that we've dismissed this issue already.

A selfish person doesn't care about the outcome for the community, only for himself.
That is what makes him selfish (not the act, which has no "self") . It is selfish motivation
that has a good outcome in this case. And, as "behaviour" has no sense of self, it is only possible for
behavior to be regarded as selfish in a loose sort of way. A rigorous discussion soon determines
that "behaviour" has no self...

Indeed - that is the truth. Everyone is entirely motivated by selfish considerations.
It would be irrational to act in a way that caused you damage.
It is only rational to act in a way that improves your lot, else
why bother?

Please elaborate on that - in what way are joyriders motivated out of concern for the
community more than concern for themselves?

I'd certainly like to discuss it in detail. For example, it might be the case that
joyriders aren't rational? That would get pretty weird pretty quick. I actually
expect that they are sometimes rational and sometime not, but in any case, their
expected gains are "hard to measure" things like fun, or peer-respect etc.

No it wasn't - it was reductio ad absurdum. How can everyone be something which is relative?

Being concerned for one's self isn't selfish, being concerned for one's self at the exclusion (or above the needs or desires) of others is. Did you spot the critical difference there?

It doesn't really matter now, I think my previous post might have blown the whole 'zip-merging is selfish' idea out of the water.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yeah, we're going round in circles. Aber has failed to troll his way to a vindication of selfishness, and is posting increasingly nonsensical rubbish. Once again, I'm sick of this.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Darwin and Dawkins suggest that natural selection was the action that caused it. Species that were not selfish died out, leaving only selfish entities to continue.

You give up too easy. Now that he's gone, does anyone else want to argue against Darwin? I'd be interested to see some alternatives to natural selection, so trot them out, if you please!

I don't need or want to vindicate selfishness (apart, perhaps for the moral aspects to it, which are not relevant now). Economists can show us that the success of many large companies depends on putting thier own needs first. We know they exploit externalities, so we know it works, at least inasmuch as it enriches some people, and impoverishes others.

But in this particular case, selfishness ideals enrich everyone! Weird, eh?

The drivers moving to the left lane early could also be exhibiting selfish behaviour. They can relax and do not have to expend the effort of trying to negotiate a safe merge point closer to the pinch point, for them this reduction in stress and effort may well be their optimum path. If drivers are in the less clear, slower moving lane then that is where they want to be at that time. They may well want to be moving faster, however they have made the choice not to use the clearer lane.

I tend to use the clearer lane then speed match with the merge lane and look to pull over at around the 200yard mark. That is just my balance between gaining an extra few seconds by pushing right to the end and higher likelihood of being able to merge earlier without another driver being 'arsey' about it.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Once again you're confusing the issue with nonsense Aber. I don't "give up easy", I simply doubt you possess the reasoned intellect or moral fortitude to deal with the matter in a sensible fashion.

To try to confound with parallels to Darwinism or Game theory shows both a deep lack of understanding of the issues, and a worrying attitude towards road use. If I suspected you had the cranial capacity to undertake such machinations wilfully I could even accuse you of insulting the intelligence of the readers of this forum by expecting us to swallow such drivel, and be led in your unsubtle attempts at manipulation, but I'm quite sure you don't. There is no "win state" to driving, nor is driving a competition with others for limited survival, there is no reason why everyone should not reach their destinations safely and expeditiously.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

That's an interesting idea, and completes the notion that RobinXe was on about. But I like it.

We discount "acts of selfishness" - human behaviour is the only factor. And behavior depends on motivation.
And motivation can be (at the extremes) selfish or altruistic.

An altruistic person would behave such that he considers the benefit/cost to the community as much (or more) than the benefit/cost to himself (we are on about intent here, not outcome, before RobinXe comes wading in).

And a selfish person would behave such that he never considers the benefit/cost to the community, whatever the outcome may be - his own interests come first. He's not remotely unhappy if his actions benefit the community or not - in either case, he's still selfish, for it must be the ap priori intent that forms his motives, not the actual outcome (which happens too late for forming motives, even the normally disagreeable RobinXe would agree there).

But now we have two types of selfish person - those whose selfishness create an overall benefit by accident, and another group, who are just a pain in the arse...