« The Trade Ruler Game | Main | Is early admission a good idea? »
The Tullock effect
Motorists give greater leeway to cyclists who do not wear safety helmets.
Thanks to Jeff Ely for the pointer. And here is a brief explanation of The Tullock Effect.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 13, 2006 at 04:50 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Motorists give greater leeway to cyclists who do not wear safety helmets, according to a study by a academic in Britain who was hit by traffic twice as he rode his bike to carry out his research.
Bicyclists ARE traffic, using public roads for transportation. (Grumbling) Stupid attitude that cars are the "real traffic", and cyclists are cluttering up their roads. Also, I was nearly doored twice this week. I'm on my way to being one of the righteous bike activists.
Posted by: Megan at Sep 13, 2006 5:07:21 PM
Mind you motorists give even more leeway to women, so some of us, even with cranial protection, still come out ahead ;).
Posted by: Andromeda at Sep 13, 2006 5:26:40 PM
In Amsterdam, I was repeatedly instructed that street crossings would go much easier for me if I did not look at oncoming traffic. If the drivers saw that I noticed them, I was told, they would simply speed up because no one would deliberately step in front of a car. But if I did not look, the drivers would stop. Eventually, I got to the point where I could just cross myself and step into the street without looking. Never got hit.
Posted by: Kiril at Sep 13, 2006 5:44:08 PM
Megan, wait til you start trying to key any car within reach. Then you'll truly be one of us.
Really, if they're within reach, they're too close. Here the new law even says so. And it only took one cute blond girl getting killed to make that happen.
Posted by: ptm at Sep 13, 2006 5:47:20 PM
There's a (relatively!) famous "traffic calming" experiment in Dratchten, Holland whereby sidewalks & traffic lights etc. were removed. The theory appears to be similar to the Tullock effect - that everyone pays close attention to their environment. It was due to be adopted by a central London council near the V&A museum, but was not (as far as I know) implemented due to fear of the consequences should there be an accident.
A brief description (unverified) is on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachten
Posted by: nick at Sep 13, 2006 6:02:49 PM
What? No reference to Sam Peltzman's famous seat-belt article?
I have a link to some of his work here:
http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1136439060.shtml
Posted by: EclectEcon at Sep 13, 2006 6:25:53 PM
The obvious solution being to wear a helmet *and* a blond wig.
Posted by: Franz at Sep 13, 2006 6:29:43 PM
I like this idea to key every car within reach, but unfortunately, city bus drivers could care less
if you key their bus. Those are the ones that really freak me out. (My solution is to ride directly in
the traffic lane, so cars actually have to change lanes to pass.)
Posted by: Sameer Parekh at Sep 13, 2006 8:20:20 PM
Bicyclists using the roads (as opposed to designated bike paths) are, in my opinion, self-centered jerks. And they worsen their self-centered jerkiness by being self-righteous about it to boot.
Note to Bicyclists: Nobody has a problem with bicycles per se. BUT YOU FAIL TO KEEP UP WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC!! You are too damn slow. This causes traffic bunch-ups and is dangerous for the vehicles around you (not that you seem to care). Bicyclists using the roads are no different than rubbernecking drivers who slow down traffic, except that rubbernecking drivers aren't also self-righteous in their clueless self-centeredness.
Posted by: Keith at Sep 13, 2006 11:00:39 PM
Follow-up: As far as I'm concerned, a bicyclist talking about their rights to the public roads is like someone talking about their right to urinate in the water supply.
Posted by: Keith at Sep 13, 2006 11:05:01 PM
well keith, I think that people who choose to user their vehicle to put my life at risk so that they can get to their critically important hair appointment a few seconds earlier are more than just jerks.
I've been hit by cars 5 times, I don't choose to ride in traffic because I want to slow down such critically important people as yourself. I ride there simply because I have no alternative. I'd gladly use an alternative if one existed, but sadly, one doesn't. Believe it or not, it's not pleasant to shoulder check hummers every day.
Posted by: ringer at Sep 13, 2006 11:27:33 PM
I think not wearing a helmet is completely irresponsible, for both bikes and motorcycles.
Not because of their safety. But for the liabilities of everyone else.
You hit another car, your insurance company is out a few bucks and everyone goes home, most of the time. Hit another motorcycle or bike, and there's likely to be major industries.
I wrote a brief essay on this topic, available Here.
Posted by: GMR at Sep 13, 2006 11:59:07 PM
motorist passing people with helmets on closer and people without helmets further is strictly human psychology. i thoroughly agree with the writer in that people expect the bikers with helmets to be more secure on a bike and more predictable, while the people without helmets are less predictable and may not have the "hard-core" biker effect.
Posted by: Malcolm at Sep 14, 2006 1:25:52 AM
Keith, bicycles are safer on roads than on bicycle paths.
http://johnforester.com/
Posted by: Russell Nelson at Sep 14, 2006 1:52:24 AM
I thought wearing of helmets both for cyclists and
motorists is mandatory!
Posted by: tinay35 at Sep 14, 2006 2:14:41 AM
I'd call it the adams effect http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa335.pdf
Posted by: cars, cows, and cholera at Sep 14, 2006 4:00:44 AM
Keying cars? No wonder people dislike cyclists so. The police here in London call them organ donors - for obvious reasons. Its nice to know that if I ever need a kidney it will came from one of these discourteous cylists.
Posted by: Stuart at Sep 14, 2006 6:30:50 AM
I have read the Tullock Effect also applies to SUVs vs small cars. Although SUVs do better in crash test they do not seem to be that much safer in the real world. But maybe it is just their tires blow out and the roll over. In any case SUVs annoy me more than bicyclists becaues most bicyclists do seem to be trying not to impede traffic flow.
Posted by: joan at Sep 14, 2006 7:42:44 AM
I ride a lot, and cars never give me nearly as much space as they did when I was towing the kids in a trailer. I've even toyed with the idea of towing an empty trailer when I go out on my long rides -- there would be more wind resistance, but with no kids in it, it doesn't weight much (and I'm going for a workout anyway). Maybe I could even get an inflatable kid dummy to strap in like people have tried to use in HOV lanes...
"Bicyclists using the roads (as opposed to designated bike paths) are, in my opinion, self-centered jerks. And they worsen their self-centered jerkiness by being self-righteous about it to boot."
I'm an avid cyclist and I'm with you just a little bit. I do hate it when I see a cyclist riding on a busy main road during rush hour -- when there are good alternatives available. Usually those alternatives are NOT designated bike paths (most places have nowhere near enough of those), but there are often low-speed, lower-traffic side roads that cyclists can and should use, and there's no excuse for not using them when they are available.
Posted by: Slocum at Sep 14, 2006 8:21:04 AM
(1) Note to the cyclist activists: please start watching out for pedestrians and not ringing bells to force them out of the way before you complain about cars. A cyclist ringing a bell at pedestrians is the courtesy equivalent of a car honking a horn while driving through a peleton.
(2) It would also REALLY help if cyclists obeyed the traffic laws. I do the right thing and try to change lanes completely to get around the large flocks of bicycles in my (artsy suburban) town. 99% of the time, cyclists return the courtesy by going straight through the next stop sign to pass me, leaving me stuck behind them and needing to pass again. Does it surprise you that most cars have given up on courtesy and just go as close to the cyclists as they can get away with?
Thus we get another Tullock effect -- cars have to act dangerously around cyclists, to keep the cyclists from being too aggressive and creating the potential for additional accidents.
Posted by: DK at Sep 14, 2006 8:44:51 AM
I do what Sameer does: I occupy the road like I have the right to be there (because I do), and force cars to change lanes to pass me.
I've found that if I hug the curb, and let a car pass without changing lanes, the car is likely to leave me little room. But if I hog the road, and make the car change lanes, I get plenty of room.
Also, rear-view mirrors are mandatory safety equipment when cycling on the streets.
That said, I suspect that a cyclists are more likely to be hit by a car pulling into the street, or making a left turn in front of her, than by a passing car.
Posted by: The Other Brock at Sep 14, 2006 9:14:21 AM
I've always considered helmets to be a signalling device. Bicyclists with
helmets tend to follow the rules of the road (ride with traffic, signal
turns), ones without tend to jump off curbs in front of moving cars,
ride against traffic, etc.
Posted by: rmark at Sep 14, 2006 9:42:46 AM
This "study" is deeply flawed. Come on, people!
(1) He knew what he was measuring, even an unconscious bias would change the actual path of his bicycyle.
(2) No indication of correction for which roads at which times.
(3) etc. (not worth my time ripping apart).
This was published in the MSM before it was beat up by his peers. Cold fusion.
Posted by: Anon E. Mouse at Sep 14, 2006 10:21:05 AM
Five quick comments: (a) bicyclists were heavy users of our nation's roads long before cars were, especially in the first decade of the twentieth century, (b) bicyclists and motorists are both taxpayers and both have a right to the road, (c) while cycling, I occupy the middle of the lane because I know I will be sideswiped otherwise, but I make every safe effort to be courteous to automobiles and move to the shoulder periodically to let cars pass safely, and (d) my only reason for ringing the bell when approaching pedestrians from behind is so that they know I am there and don't make a sudden move in front of the bike -- no rudeness is intended, it is just a necessary part of sharing the path so we can all get along safely and happily, and (e) every person who rides a bike or takes a train makes life more pleasant for automobile drives -- it is the surplus of cars that most commonly puts you in a traffic jam. Peace, Parke
Posted by: Parke at Sep 14, 2006 12:38:00 PM
"(a) bicyclists were heavy users of our nation's roads long before cars were, especially in the first decade of the twentieth century"
So what? People rode horses on roads before there were bikes.
I still wouldn't like to be stuck behind a trotting horse.
"(b) bicyclists and motorists are both taxpayers and both have a right
to the road."
Pedestrians pay taxes too. Does that give you the right to jog on I-95?
I will say this. Perhaps we can have special bicycle license
plates that would entitle cyclists to surface streets, and cyclists
would pay extra for those licensesto reflect the extra congestion
they cause. I'd be all for that.
"c) while cycling, I occupy the middle of the lane because I know I
will be sideswiped otherwise, but I make every safe effort to be
courteous to automobiles and move to the shoulder periodically to let
cars pass safely"
So you make some small effort to slightly lessen the bad effects of
obnoxious behavior. Okay.
"(d) my only reason for ringing the bell when approaching pedestrians from behind is so that they know I am there and don't make a sudden move in front of the bike -- no rudeness is intended, it is just a necessary part of sharing the path so we can all get along safely and happily"
So you don't mind honking from cars as a wee signal to pull over
to the shoulder so you can slightly lessen your negative impact
on traffic.
"(e) every person who rides a bike or takes a train makes life more
pleasant for automobile drives -- it is the surplus of cars that
most commonly puts you in a traffic jam."
No, cyclists on roads create pockets of congestion, which makes life
less pleasant for drivers. But people who ride buses/trains do in fact
make life more pleasant for drivers. Mozoltov to them.
Posted by: Keith at Sep 14, 2006 1:12:44 PM
