I saw the same thing in Boston. Instead of "violating the rules", I would say that local drivers obey a set of unwritten local rules that are more appropriate for the situations they encounter. These local rules make things safer and more efficient because the global rules that are written for wide, straight highways don't map well onto low visibility corners, confusing or incorrect signage, low speed side roads merging onto fast thoroughfares, roads (sometimes purposely) without painted lines, etc. I felt that Boston drivers often adopted Right of Way, a notion familiar to boaters. Faster cars with more maneuverability are in general expected to avoid slower cars or those with less maneuverability. If someone pulls out in front of you (perhaps because they were stopped and couldn't find a better time to merge), it's your duty to not hit them. On the other hand, if you are on a side street waiting to merge, it's expected that you wait for a break that's "big enough", then pull out and accelerate as fast as possible. None of these rules are written, but they are still consistent and safer than trying to rigidly apply global rules to the situation.

The roundabout on the Cambridge side of the BU bridge, which I unfortunately have to take home most evenings, is something I can't imagine a driverless car handling. Sometimes it's a single-lane roundabout, but at peak hours it can support as many as five cars wide, eventually merging into a single lane over the bridge, and the traffic pattern is different every day.

Driving on highways is easy, and solving that is still valuable, but it's going to be amazing to see these things work in situations like those.

Tesla know this. Don't forget that every car they make records telemetry and tests new algorithms. It would be great to see Elon stomping around stage like Ballmer: "data, data, data, data, data, data, data!"

"Posession of data is 9/10 of the lore"

There are unwritten rules for driving everywhere and one reason everyone thinks drivers from other states are terrible is that they are not adhering to the same unwritten rulebook.

Back when I commuted more regularly, the traffic around the beginning of September was always particularly awful. My assumption was that school was back in session and that, as a result, you had a lot of people with new travel routes who weren't quite up on the patterns at various rotaries and other traffic chokepoints.

One unwritten rule is - evidently - to attempt to limit speed in the passing lane so that those who wish to pass must do so in the right lanes. Also: brake-check anyone who annoys you.

:(

This on I5 in Oregon. I was so happy to cross the border into Washington.

Oh noes! I got downvoted!

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It is rather self-serving to say that people following the rules are creating danger. If you are driving in such a way that a dangerous (as opposed to merely inconvenient) situation results from someone following the rules, you are not driving with sufficient caution.

This is silly. You're ignoring a reality where a culture has _figured out on their own_ an optimal way to navigate from point A to B in bad traffic, (mostly) safely while constraining themselves to the _intent_ of the law, if not the letter.

There's no better realization of distributed peace. Who is the self-serving person who thinks they are entitled to travel to Paris and drive around without understanding the cultural norms of their unspoken driving rules?

> You're ignoring a reality where a culture has _figured out on their own_ an optimal way to navigate from point A to B in bad traffic, (mostly) safely while constraining themselves to the _intent_ of the law, if not the letter.

Is it a reality? Sounds like conjecture to me, and the fact that many humans are killed in traffic fatalities certainly suggests otherwise.

Driving at roughly the same speed as the rest of traffic is definitely much safer than driving the posted speed limit.

Any other such commonly observed violation would probably have to be studied to answer the question - and given humans' tendencies to take on a fairly uniform level of risk no matter what the rules are, I suspect the question may need to be "does this keep the risk level constants while increasing throughput" rather than "does this reduce risk".

So ... it's plausible both ways so far as I can tell.

> Driving at roughly the same speed as the rest of traffic is definitely much safer than driving the posted speed limit.

Who is causing the danger of driving the maximum legal speed.

Also, it's rare that all of the traffic flow is above the maximum legal speed. The ones speeding then cause the differential, which is the danger.

The fault is not with those not keeping up. But rather with those breaking the law because it's convenient.

Maybe it's rare where you are, but it's common for traffic to flow at greater than the speed limits in many places. Here in the DC area, for example, if freeway traffic isn't so dense that it's jammed up, it's probably flowing at 5-10 MPH over the limit. I usually drive at 60MPH in 55MPH zones and stick to the right lane because I'll be one of the slower cars on the road. Sometimes the difference is so great that 60MPH is still too slow to be safe and I bump it up a bit more.

What one ignores is the traffic that you pass when you're going 65 in a 55. I would estimate probably 1/4 of traffic is moving at or just below the limit. I'm in Houston and we deal with traffic quite a bit and I'm not addressing rush hour bumper to bumper here.

The fundamental question is who is at fault for the differential in speed (i.e. that which increases risk of injury/death with an accident)?

The answer is the person who breaks the law and the one who does so as a precaution to themselves (i.e. following the flow of traffic). An accident by this group disproportionately affects those obeying the law.

So I see three groups.

1. The speeder. 2. The law abiding citizen. 3. The person who is aware of their surroundings and adapts.

Ethically between 1 and 2, 2 has the upper hand. 3, when driving with 1 increases risk to 2. But if 3 joins 2 they increase risk to themselves and to the larger group 1.

> Driving at roughly the same speed as the rest of traffic is definitely much safer than driving the posted speed limit.

Absolutely. I went into some details here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15495904

France, specifically, has one of the highest rates of traffic fatalities in Europe. Roughly 3500 people die every year on their roads. If those cultural norms resulted in safer traffic, I'd be all for giving them precedence - they don't, though. So now you have to weigh the value of cultural norms around driving style vs. people's lives.

First 3500 is the total amount. You need the number of deaths that were caused by local trafic rules and could have been prevented by strict adherence to traffic laws. You'll be lucky if 5% of those meet that criteria.

You also have to weigh the lives against the value of the time saved -- the whole reason those norms exist. There's no way it comes out in favor of the deaths.

Let's try and ballpark whether it's worth it to speed 5km.

Roughly 410 billion miles driven yearly by the French.

The average speed of a journey in France is ballpark 60km/hr

Average salary is 36k in France with a 1450 work hours a year for €25/hr.

Putting it all together we get €0.42/km or €170B.

Now suppose that everyone always drives 5km over the limit bringing that average to roughly 65km/hr or €.38/km or €156B for a ballpark €14B in savings.

Say you can save 10% of those deaths by driving the speed limit which is extremely generous. I would take odds that not even 1% of the deaths could be traced to speeding 5km over but let's pretend. Even then each life saved still costs €400M.

Is it worth it?

If that were what caused it, maybe - do Germans drive slower than the French?

> You're ignoring a reality where a culture has _figured out on their own_ an optimal way to navigate from point A to B in bad traffic, (mostly) safely while constraining themselves to the _intent_ of the law, if not the letter.

But the intent is not always sufficiently appreciated.

Case in point, urban speed limits at 50Km/h in EU or 35MPH in US. For most drivers (me included), they feel terribly slow and overly precautious. Yet the intent has to do with stopping distance. In those areas, you should be prepared to come to a full stop on a very short notice because a child/dog/ball could be darting out in front of you with zero notice. Not only that but the cars behind you should also be able to stop. Whenever you're driving at 45 in a 35 zone, keep that in mind: not only you need to be ready to slam on your breaks but you must have enough distance with the vehicle in front of you, should they need to slam on their brakes.

Most people only consider the "happy path" scenario, not the "error handling" one.

I suppose, but lawmakers optimize for the 1% error case, actual drivers optimize for the 99% case.

Let me take a thougher position. The value society gains by upping the speed limit on a major road will quickly outpace the value of the lives lost due to accidents. It's just that the injuries and deaths are more visible.

The evidence should be that almost everyone drives at the faster speed anyway and 35mph roads aren't death traps.

Cultural norms have nothing to do with optimal driving. It used to be a cultural norm in parts of the US to drive around with a 6-pack of beer in the console, and one in your lap. Just because a culture has "unspoken driving rules" doesn't mean they're safe or sound.

> You're ignoring a reality where a culture has _figured out on their own_ an optimal way to navigate from point A to B in bad traffic, (mostly) safely while constraining themselves to the _intent_ of the law, if not the letter.

This is self evidently not true though. Humans are terrible drivers, and the road would be safer if all of those people who are unsafely not following the rules instead followed them.

The reality of the world that we live in is one of terrible drivers that get into lots of accidents.

> culture has _figured out on their own_ an optimal way to navigate from point A to B in bad traffic, (mostly) safely while constraining themselves to the _intent_ of the law, if not the letter.

Exactly. This is why the speed limit on highways is always min("one or two under the misdemeanor speed in this state" "as fast as conditions allow").

> as fast as conditions allow

This is the part humans (who almost invariably overrate their abilities at everything, especially driving) are really bad at determining.

> Who is the self-serving person who thinks they are entitled to travel to Paris and drive around without understanding the cultural norms of their unspoken driving rules?

Anyone licensed to drive in France, actually. The requirement is that they understand the traffic laws and regulations.

For example, to change lanes, a Parisian will put on his flashing light and change lanes just after even if a car is arriving. He knows that in Paris everyone is attentive to other cars and have seen his flasher. A non-Parisian guy's gonna put on his flasher and wait for space. This never happens and he ends up changing lanes very unexpectedly.

So... when there is somebody who isn't a Parisian and they hit a car because they did not know this, are they in fault?

I live in Paris, and although I do not drive I have the impression that most drivers here are extremely inconsiderate. As an example, there is a crossing which is constantly congested with buses and lorries stuck in the middle here. This is mainly because nobody respects the rules or priorities. When an officer comes in to control the traffic instead of the lights, it gets "magically" cleaned up and the circulation is fluid.

> He knows that in Paris everyone is attentive to other cars and have seen his flasher.

'We'll all just avoid making any mistakes' is a really unwise attitude anywhere, but particularly when driving a car.

If that driver is signaling, then a move should not be unexpected, especially if the unwritten rule is that one must force one's way into another lane.

You are actually providing an example that the Parisian way of doing things is not as benignly efficient as you suggested in your first post.

If you adopt the Parisian way, you can change lane very easily and quickly even if there is a big traffic jam. I have drive in traffic jam in smaller towns (like Cherbourg), it was more difficult to change lane.

The fact that you can not change lane without forcing is a normal consequence of the increase of the traffic. I think the unwritten rule is that people should not turn on flashing lights too early before acting. The better communication of the intents and a fair level of trust that other drivers will understand it (and not try to block you) makes driving a lot easier (in Paris).

> I think the unwritten rule is that people should not turn on flashing lights too early before acting.

A bunch of highly nuanced rules like this seems very fragile. If you are driving in this manner, you have a responsibility to be alert for things breaking.

The parisian way is resulting in a city with one of the highest traffic fatality rates in the world.

The facts show that whatever the parisians are doing is definitely the wrong way to do it, and should be changed.

The best way is, if someone signals a lane change, let them in.

> It is rather self-serving to say that people following the rules are creating danger

Not so simple.

The rules are created via legislation affected by lobbying.

The AAA for decades have been lobbying to keep speed limits low.

In the perfect world, speed limits would be informed by the 85% percentile speed of engineering surveys.

In reality, it's much different.

If a large number of drivers are driving at a speed higher than a prima facie speed limit, the speed limit could actually be low, in which case, the drivers actually following the prima facie speed limit are creating a hazard to the flow of traffic.

OTOH, if the prima facie limit were followed consistently (or enforced effectively), people would not be exceeding it, and speeds would be more tightly clustered and safer.

What are the rules for if following them makes them dangerous?

The rules are not "for" something in France. They just appear out of committees and political compromises and are often half-assed implementations of nonsensical middle-ground between two coherent positions. Some may occasionally align with public interest.

One of the things you learn living in France is a sense of the rules that make no sense and that everybody is probably disregarding, and the ones that are actually useful and probably enforced.

Always smile to a clerk. They will tell you which mandatory paper is not mandatory and which rule you can break. They will also tell you which rule the state is incapable of following and how to get around it.

To selectively enforce against people you arbitrarily do not like.

To provide some means for censuring those people who flagrantly disregard the unwritten rules (I know that, formally, that looks nonsensical, but in practice it is not.)

With traffic, agreement often matters more than the specific rules.

The rules are supposed to be a universal agreement. Otherwise it makes it very dangerous to drive in a different city even though the laws are the same.

This is why lots of people die every year in traffic accidents.

They are.

Try driving in Asia and get back to me.

(Disclaimer: I'm hard line traffic law follower.)