This happens at least once every time I ride a bicycle in traffic: A driver will be momentarily slowed behind me. Once it is clear to pass, the driver will accelerate quickly (every now and then “getting rubber”) to a speed above the limit in order to pass. A short distance after passing, the driver will be forced to brake because s/he has approached a plainly visible barrier, e.g. traffic control or the bumper of the next vehicle.
Now let’s review rational choice theory:
The basic idea of rational choice theory is that patterns of behavior in societies reflect the choices made by individuals as they try to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. In other words, people make decisions about how they should act by comparing the costs and benefits of different courses of action. As a result, patterns of behavior will develop within the society that result from those choices.
Acknowledging that there has been much significant work published by rational choice theorists about very particular circumstances, I consider this theory problematic. And there’s no better way to make that plain than in traffic.
Humans are emotional creatures bound by, among other things, history and culture. That daily driver who passes me in the way described would not do so if s/he were trying to maximize benefits and minimize costs.
A rational choice in the scenario above would be to pass at low acceleration thereby avoiding the cost of wasted gas and the potential cost of a crash. One could argue, however, that the driver is trying to maximize time and accepts those costs. Problem is: The barrier. They can see that they will have to slow down or stop. So no time savings are even possible. Therefore the decision to accelerate quickly is emotional not rational.
What accounts for this?
Hypothesis #1: Humans are emotional creatures and, in certain situations, will act in ways that do not maximize (culturally-bound) benefits and minimize (culturally-bound) costs.
Hypothesis #2: The automobile, because of the kind of machine it is and the kind of work humans do with it, encourages emotional choices over rational choices.
Hypothesis #3: The automobile, because of the cultural mythology (advertising) used to create a personal need for cars, encourages emotional choices over rational choices.
Hypothesis #4: A combination of the above hypotheses.
Some answers may be found in Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt. You may also wish to vist his blog. Understanding that I’ve offered only a particular and limited set of hypotheses, I think Vanderbilt’s book argues that #4 comes closest to describing what’s going on in Traffic.
Without doing the necessary experimental work to (dis)prove these hypotheses, I’ll blunder ahead with my opinion.
Hypothesis #1: Totally obvious.
Hypothesis #2: Cars isolate us from the environment and our fellow travelers. The speed with which one can cover short distances encourages us to expect to be able to travel fast with ease. The whole point of the car seems thwarted by control of any kind. Hindrance, therefore, becomes intolerable. Cars encourage us to treat other road users as objects and treat traffic laws as suggestions.
Hypothesis #3: Advertisers promise an open road, so we expect an open road. Except in the middle of Wyoming, such roads are hard to find. The typical urban experience is gridlock.
Hypothesis #4: See hypothesis #1.
Comments 8
Another rational choice would be to accelerate to minimize the time spent to complete the pass, making things safer for the motorist AND the cyclist. Motorists routinely make this second choice when passing other motorists.
While low acceleration makes for a “gentle” pass, I’d really rather not have a car off the port beam on the wrong side of the road for excessive time periods. Such a rational motorist choice would create entirely different hypotheses.
Posted 01 Aug 2009 at 11:16 am ¶I was going to say what steve said. When i pass a 18 wheeler on the high way i speed past it to minimize the time spent in what i will call THE DANGER ZONE. and i think the same can apply to passing a biker because you more than likely have to partially leave your lane to do so.
Posted 01 Aug 2009 at 12:06 pm ¶Most times, a motorist passing me has made a full lane change (not too many shareable lanes locally). Often that lane change is across a double yellow line.
Posted 01 Aug 2009 at 2:35 pm ¶Steve… It is always likely that local conditions will upset a generalized hypothesis
Posted 01 Aug 2009 at 3:03 pm ¶All of this assumes the driver is actually thinking, of course, but I tend to agree that Hypothesis #2 is a good explanation. 1) We expect the more powerful vehicle to get in front of the lower-powered vehicle and 2) the isolation from the environment does allow people to avoid an unrewarding interaction with another fellow human being.
Question: Is it a measure of sophistication that a driver simply makes their way past us when there is no reason for the acceleration?
Posted 01 Aug 2009 at 3:55 pm ¶You see the problem is time and knowledge. So when people seem to act against their interests or don’t seem to have made the cost / benefit analysis we just have to realize we’ve mis-perceived their calculation process….
so if people are not acting the way we predict, we just didn’t understand their calculation process… it’s a great theory you know lots of published articles that have really lead to concrete gains in our knowledge about the world… hey could you pass the crack pipe? 
Posted 02 Aug 2009 at 6:23 pm ¶Alex… That’s some of what I meant by “problematic”
Posted 02 Aug 2009 at 9:40 pm ¶Commenting in the barrier issue, it reminds me of the psychology experiement where a mark would “torture” a subject (who was in on the experiement) for incorrect answers on a quiz. The study found those who administered the quiz directly were less likely to “shock” for wrong answers than those separated from the subjects.
Of course this was to form a conjecture about Nazi soldiers following orders, but an interesting observation none-the-less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Posted 04 Aug 2009 at 11:54 am ¶