8. Traffic Lights, Speed Limits, and Directional Signals
Walking along a busy street, I realized how powerful traffic lights really are. Not in how bright they are, as in visible from two hundred yards away, but in the power they have over us. They are truly the boss. People respect traffic lights and rarely run them. Maybe some will run one at a rural location, late at night when there’s no traffic, but most of us obey the red, yellow, and green. In this land of the free, we all defer to government-installed devices that tell us when we must stop and when we can go.
Also, these devices don’t care who is in the car. A red light stops the rich person and the less wealthy person equally. This is one of the rare instances where a first-class travel perk isn’t available. The traffic light is an equitable outlier in our modern world. Even the wealthy must obey traffic signals. Not only does this government device take away one’s freedom to decide for themselves at the intersection, but it also ignores capitalistic principles, the benefits of having money. Darn Commie lights.
Speed limits have much less power. A speed limit is a number that if you exceed by ten miles per hour, you may face the risk of getting a ticket. These limits are informational, more like suggestions. They are FYI statements carrying a vague and distant threat with relatively minor consequences.
Directional signals, or blinkers, are not like traffic lights are, but they relate to how we drive. We use directional signals to tell others what we plan to do. They don’t control us; we use them, but using them is still required by law. Blinker use is pretty inconsistent despite being the law in my state. Walking or driving in town, I don’t see any consequences for failure to use blinkers.
Why did I discuss traffic lights, speeding rules, and blinkers? I wanted to introduce a thought about rules and consequences. In the earlier essay “Alien Inquiries,” I asked what we would say our values and codes of conduct were. Perhaps by examining how these three driving codes and mechanisms operate in our lives, we can gain insights to help with that inquiry. How well these three driving-related codes work shows something about what we value and how effective our behavior codes are.
One takeaway is that codes, or rules, are meaningful only if consequences come with noncompliance. In the finance world, we use the term “expected value,” which is the potential financial benefit or cost of a decision multiplied by the probability of the outcome occurring. This allows for a comparison of expected value across several options.
Expected value is a calculation each of us does subconsciously when we see a traffic light or speed limit sign or decide we want to turn at the next corner. Instead of cost, we substitute the severity of the outcome times the percentage likelihood. The lower the expected value of the consequences, the less we care to obey the rule.
My traffic light example has three elements that cause people to obey it: severity, likelihood, and immediacy. If you run a red light, the potential consequences are very high. You could crash into an oncoming vehicle. The likelihood of a negative consequence is high too because oncoming cars trust that the traffic light controls traffic flow. In addition, consequences follow immediately on the action, with no long delay. There is a very high expected value of a bad day for noncompliance.
With speeding, the consequences are low, assuming that the consequence is a ticket, not an accident. One may drive above the speed limit for a long time with no negative consequences and lots of time saved. Low expected value consequence.
For blinkers, there seems to be no consequence for non-use, zero expected value of noncompliance.
Besides the consequences, there is the benefit we gain by breaking the rule. Regarding the traffic light and speed limit, the benefit of disobeying is time saved. For the directional signal, the benefit is avoiding the inconvenience of moving the left hand up or down to switch the blinker stick. These are small benefits, but over time they reinforce the reason we would break the rule.
What is the point of this discussion? How does it relate to the theme of morality in this series? The main connection here is that consequences are not effective unless they are significant, likely, and timely. Plus, consequences matter most when they are real, not constructed or contrived. For instance, a car crash is a real consequence; a violation notice sent in the mail is a constructed consequence. Contrived consequences, or societally manufactured consequences, are just not very effective. People pay attention to the risk of real consequences such as crashing their car. People care less about the delayed and uncertain contrived consequence of getting a ticket. Rules and societally structured consequences are simply not very effective at governing behavior.
I mentioned earlier that codes are expressions of key values. If we want to influence behavior, we need to focus on the foundational values that underlie the code. Strong underlying values make codes work. Probably the two underlying values in these three traffic-related situations are Respect Others and Prioritize Safety. We make a mistake if we think only of the code or law and disregard the value principle upon which the codes rest.
This analogy extends to the broader world of human interaction. Let’s discuss the contrasting words I began this series with: truthfulness and deceit, and compassion and cruelty. Laws and codes established to bring about truthfulness and compassion will not be very effective in themselves. We first need to get people to appreciate the essential value of these types of behavior.
Regarding truthfulness, let’s look at the classic fable of a boy who repeatedly, and falsely, claims a wolf is attacking his flock. Each time the boy cries wolf, the villagers rush to aid until they recognize the falseness of the claims and stop responding. Eventually, the actual wolf shows up, and the villagers are not there to help. Both the villagers, and the wolf too, I suppose, together had to impose real and timely consequences on the boy. Unless there are meaningful and real consequences, the boy will continue doing this. No law governed the situation. The boy did not get a ticket in the mail. The villagers defended the value of truthfulness by ignoring the boy’s words. They brought real consequences in a timely manner.
Normally, people use the fable to teach a lesson to a child who would consider lying. There is a lesson here for the villagers, too. The villagers have agency and can bring consequences when someone breaches their values. We, just like the villagers, should not continue to listen to the words spoken by a repeated teller of falsities. We should treat a person who repeatedly tells falsehoods as wholly untrustworthy, period. For as long as it takes, we must ignore what they say until they can rebuild our confidence. This is a real, likely, and timely consequence of spreading lies.
The same goes for cruelty. Let’s not just count on laws to intervene in these situations. There are important core values under siege now, compassion toward others, for one. What real, likely, and timely consequences can we bring to bear when people, including our leaders, dismiss or harm these values? We have voices and votes. If we are the unfortunate people who are asked to deliver the blows, tasked with carrying out the cruelty, we can practice civil disobedience and abstain. If we are among those witnessing abuse, we can call out what we see and offer support to the abused people. These are several real things we can do that may make a difference. I hope I have the wisdom to see when my values are under attack and the fortitude to stand up to that assault.
The problem the aliens encountered was not that we have inconsistent codes; it was more that we have weak or nonexistent core values. Rules and codes of conduct express our values. We will never have rules and codes that work unless we have core values that are widely accepted throughout society. Codes can only be as good as the values they express.
This is a reason legislation of what people think of as “values” often fails, does not bring about the desired outcomes. The values must come first at a personal level. We cannot impose values on others; we must encourage and nurture the growth of values in others. We need to talk and influence our way to commonly appreciated values that support humanity. Ones that, if everyone acted that way, would make the world better.
In the end, it all must be voluntary. We can encourage, lead, and offer some consequences for deviations from accepted values, but life is an individual exercise, and it is up to us individually to recognize the situations and opportunities we face and adopt values that are healthy for life.
