You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
I'm going to disagree with many other reviews and put this at 1 star. I could not get past chapter 1.
a prologue to a book will often try to do one or two things. It may seek to whet your appetite as a reader, or it may introduce the premise of the book. Ideally, the author wants both.
In the prologue the author notes that in the United States only the passenger side mirror is convex, whereas in Europe both mirrors are convex, and says this is wrong. "Both cannot be optimal." That right there is incorrect. The width of the vehicle, the width of the lane, the speed at which vehicles travel, all of these things may differ between environments and make one system optimal in one place and another system optimal in another. For example, if I drive my car around 7 miles per hour entirely surrounded by pedestrians it would make a lot of sense for me to have convex mirrors. In fact, vehicles like buses have exactly this. If I am driving at 100 miles an hour with only other similarly paced cars around me and lanes that are each 20 feet wide, convex mirrors make no sense.
This weak-way-out writing, plus the frequent use just in the prologue and chapter 1 of phrases like "studies have shown" or " one study said that" are the mark of Pop journalism, not scientific writing.
if you do not care to learn, and do not care about the scientific method, then pick this up.
a prologue to a book will often try to do one or two things. It may seek to whet your appetite as a reader, or it may introduce the premise of the book. Ideally, the author wants both.
In the prologue the author notes that in the United States only the passenger side mirror is convex, whereas in Europe both mirrors are convex, and says this is wrong. "Both cannot be optimal." That right there is incorrect. The width of the vehicle, the width of the lane, the speed at which vehicles travel, all of these things may differ between environments and make one system optimal in one place and another system optimal in another. For example, if I drive my car around 7 miles per hour entirely surrounded by pedestrians it would make a lot of sense for me to have convex mirrors. In fact, vehicles like buses have exactly this. If I am driving at 100 miles an hour with only other similarly paced cars around me and lanes that are each 20 feet wide, convex mirrors make no sense.
This weak-way-out writing, plus the frequent use just in the prologue and chapter 1 of phrases like "studies have shown" or " one study said that" are the mark of Pop journalism, not scientific writing.
if you do not care to learn, and do not care about the scientific method, then pick this up.
The book explores human behavior when driving and how improvements in technology sometimes have counter-intuitive results. Safety improvements can make us take more risks (drive faster etc.). Also looks at cultural differences in how we drive. Some very interesting observations on how to mix various traffic types together (pedestrians, cars, rickshaws) - letting them mix is better than trying to segregate them. And the more signs on a road, the more we ignore them. Driving is a complex task and too much information can be worse than no information, which we adapt to fairly well. And finally we are never really trained to drive with technology (like using ABS) or to drive when the unexpected happens (swerving vs. braking). Personally, taking the motorcycle course taught me to be a better car driver and taking a driving test every 5-10 years seems to be a good thing - I ended up doing that because I moved countries. Lots to think about.
Pretty good, but I remain unconvinced about some of his conclusions.
This book is beyond fascinating, and one of the most interesting things I have *ever* read. (And no, I don't think it's just because I recently had a nearly life-ending car accident.) Every chapter, every page, discusses some research or insight into how people drive, how traffic works (or doesn't work), how when where and why accidents happen, etc. The most interesting chapters for me were: "How Our Eyes and Mind Betray Us on the Road," about the limits of what we see, or think we see, and how we process it while driving; "When Dangerous Roads Are Safer," about the seemingly paradoxical relationship between a road's perceived and actual safety; and "Driving with a Local Accent," on the differences in traffic as reflections of culture. (From this last chapter, for example, it turns out that a country's rate of corruption is directly proportional to its rate of accident violations and fatalities.) I'd recommend this book to everyone who drives, because driving is such a large, yet still largely mysterious, part of our lives.
Some very interesting insights into the psychology of driving. Do I feel less safe on the road now? Yes.
A very eye-opening book. It is a bit scary to realize how ill-adapted we are to driving.
What a great read! Vanderbilt did an amazingly thorough job of exploring so many aspects related to driving. This book felt especially applicable to me since I've started a new job that's downtown and am dealing with a lot more traffic than I'm used to.
Traffic has a funny way of playing "strange games our perception of time, our feeling of satisfaction, even our sense of social justice".
Some tenants revealed by the author:
1. Unoccupied time feels longer than occupied time. See: radio and cell phone use in cars.
2. Anxiety makes waits seem longer.
3. Uncertain waits are longer than known, finite waits. This why changeable message signs broadcast how long a stretch of commute will take.
4. Unfair waits are longer than equitable waits. This is one reason that ramp meters that delay entrance onto a freeway are so reviled.
5. Unexplained waits are longer than explained waits.
6. Solo waiting feels longer than group waiting.
The "two second" rule was also fascinating to me; most people will look away from the road - whether it's to send a text, dig for something in their purse, whatever - for no more than two seconds. By doing this however, you're driving "as if the world is a television show viewed on TiVo that can be paused in real time - one can duck out for a moment, grab a beer from the fridge, and come back to right where they left off without missing a beat."
The author also examined concepts such as time not being as readily a measured cost as time, simplifying the traffic environment by removing signs can actually make a street safer, issues of capacity, and the concept of diminishing marginal returns (90% of our roads are uncongested for well over 90% of the time).
When you consider all the uninternalized externalities of driving, driving is really a bargain; we're so far from picking up the entire tab for the full consequences of our driving. Many argue that some of these externalities should be priced in; this has happened already via high-occupancy toll roads. It's a simple fact that pricing changes behavior: consider Black Friday sales or a buffet with a flat fee for one visit vs. one that allows unlimited trips. The former patron will pile their plate as full as possible, balancing the precarious creation carefully back to their table. The latter patron, however, will inevitably waste more food and in general be more careless with what they decide to sample. As is, our current model is that of an all you can eat buffet - take as many trips as you like, whenever you like, for whatever reason.
There were lots of morbid stats and info, of course, but they were presented not to scare the reader, but to supply information and allow the reader to think critically about the decisions they make while driving. An overarching theme was that when a situation feels dangerous to you, it's probably more safe than you know; when a situation feels safe, that's precisely when you should feel on guard. After all, most crashes happen on dry roads, on clear, sunny days, to sober drivers.
This book has definitely made me look at traffic and driving in a new light; a great read that I highly recommend.
Traffic has a funny way of playing "strange games our perception of time, our feeling of satisfaction, even our sense of social justice".
Some tenants revealed by the author:
1. Unoccupied time feels longer than occupied time. See: radio and cell phone use in cars.
2. Anxiety makes waits seem longer.
3. Uncertain waits are longer than known, finite waits. This why changeable message signs broadcast how long a stretch of commute will take.
4. Unfair waits are longer than equitable waits. This is one reason that ramp meters that delay entrance onto a freeway are so reviled.
5. Unexplained waits are longer than explained waits.
6. Solo waiting feels longer than group waiting.
The "two second" rule was also fascinating to me; most people will look away from the road - whether it's to send a text, dig for something in their purse, whatever - for no more than two seconds. By doing this however, you're driving "as if the world is a television show viewed on TiVo that can be paused in real time - one can duck out for a moment, grab a beer from the fridge, and come back to right where they left off without missing a beat."
The author also examined concepts such as time not being as readily a measured cost as time, simplifying the traffic environment by removing signs can actually make a street safer, issues of capacity, and the concept of diminishing marginal returns (90% of our roads are uncongested for well over 90% of the time).
When you consider all the uninternalized externalities of driving, driving is really a bargain; we're so far from picking up the entire tab for the full consequences of our driving. Many argue that some of these externalities should be priced in; this has happened already via high-occupancy toll roads. It's a simple fact that pricing changes behavior: consider Black Friday sales or a buffet with a flat fee for one visit vs. one that allows unlimited trips. The former patron will pile their plate as full as possible, balancing the precarious creation carefully back to their table. The latter patron, however, will inevitably waste more food and in general be more careless with what they decide to sample. As is, our current model is that of an all you can eat buffet - take as many trips as you like, whenever you like, for whatever reason.
There were lots of morbid stats and info, of course, but they were presented not to scare the reader, but to supply information and allow the reader to think critically about the decisions they make while driving. An overarching theme was that when a situation feels dangerous to you, it's probably more safe than you know; when a situation feels safe, that's precisely when you should feel on guard. After all, most crashes happen on dry roads, on clear, sunny days, to sober drivers.
This book has definitely made me look at traffic and driving in a new light; a great read that I highly recommend.
Lots of facts and explanations that help explain road safety issues. Highly recommended for all who deal with traffic: engineers, planners, traffic enforcement, and anyone with a drivers license!
read this with the intention of trying to help with my lack of patience and general frustration with other drivers. made me even more scared to be on the road with them
I’ve rated this charitably, and though this is undoubtably an interesting and engaging book, it is not without its drawbacks, some of which I am just very tired of coming across.
The author sets out to uncover why we drive the way we do: how human psychology, road and car design, traffic rules and cultural differences all factor into driver behavior. Generally, Vanderbilt does a great job, he covers a lot of ground, references a diversity of relevant sources and breaks them down to the point of mind-numbing simplicity. Really accessible and well-structured book.
What peeved me most is the repetitiveness. Oh god, the book could serve as a museum exhibit for this ever present sin of American non-fiction. It reads like dozens of pages could be slashed if only all the pointless repetition was cut out. And it is not the relatively justifiable reiteration of concepts chapter to chapter, it is literal, almost verbatim repetition of the same thought sequentially, sometimes in the span of a single paragraph. It feels like Vanderbilt accumulated scores of precedents to share, yet found no better way to cram them all into the book than to repeat a single sentence with a different example amended until he got through all of them.
Vanderbilt, writing a decidedly US-centered book (nothing wrong with that) nevertheless tries to venture into other driving cultures and attempt some explanations and comparisons. That was rather grating, because as it so often happens his cultural musings come out misguided and contradictory. He inexplicably brings Confucius into the fold when attempting to understand Chinese driving culture and juxtaposes the chaos of Chinese traffic with relative orderliness of rule-compliant American streets. Yet, several pages later he is suddenly talking about only “on paper” traffic rules in the US and his surprise with Italian compliance with them. It really discredits his argument in my eyes, and I am grateful he brings in Jah Gehl to present an alternative view of cultural differences in driving (Vanderbilt generally does not shy away from representing opposing viewpoints, which is commendable).
The book is ultimately written by a driver for drivers, and while it does not affect the quality (and general impartialness), it does show in some of the attitudes expressed throughout. With all these (admittedly minor) qualifiers, it is nevertheless a recommended read.
The author sets out to uncover why we drive the way we do: how human psychology, road and car design, traffic rules and cultural differences all factor into driver behavior. Generally, Vanderbilt does a great job, he covers a lot of ground, references a diversity of relevant sources and breaks them down to the point of mind-numbing simplicity. Really accessible and well-structured book.
What peeved me most is the repetitiveness. Oh god, the book could serve as a museum exhibit for this ever present sin of American non-fiction. It reads like dozens of pages could be slashed if only all the pointless repetition was cut out. And it is not the relatively justifiable reiteration of concepts chapter to chapter, it is literal, almost verbatim repetition of the same thought sequentially, sometimes in the span of a single paragraph. It feels like Vanderbilt accumulated scores of precedents to share, yet found no better way to cram them all into the book than to repeat a single sentence with a different example amended until he got through all of them.
Vanderbilt, writing a decidedly US-centered book (nothing wrong with that) nevertheless tries to venture into other driving cultures and attempt some explanations and comparisons. That was rather grating, because as it so often happens his cultural musings come out misguided and contradictory. He inexplicably brings Confucius into the fold when attempting to understand Chinese driving culture and juxtaposes the chaos of Chinese traffic with relative orderliness of rule-compliant American streets. Yet, several pages later he is suddenly talking about only “on paper” traffic rules in the US and his surprise with Italian compliance with them. It really discredits his argument in my eyes, and I am grateful he brings in Jah Gehl to present an alternative view of cultural differences in driving (Vanderbilt generally does not shy away from representing opposing viewpoints, which is commendable).
The book is ultimately written by a driver for drivers, and while it does not affect the quality (and general impartialness), it does show in some of the attitudes expressed throughout. With all these (admittedly minor) qualifiers, it is nevertheless a recommended read.