Road sharing - does it matter what road users think of each other?

What is a moral model?9generalised types 3 (e.g. ‘bus driver’) each associated with and/or defined bya number of characteristics (e.g. ‘sits in the driver’s seat of a bus’, ‘stops atbus stops to pick up passengers, then continues on route’, ‘may not alwaysindicate before pulling out’).These types – which may nest or intersect – serve as heuristics, or mentalshortcuts, which maximise the scope and speed of our understanding, albeitat the risk of getting things wrong some of the time.The use of a model can be seen as comprising two steps:• Identification of a person as a member of type X on the basis of one ormore characteristics.• Attribution to that person of other characteristics associated with type X.For instance, in the example above, I identify a person as a ‘bus driver’ on thebasis of the only characteristic that is actually visible to me: the fact that theyare sitting in the driving seat of a bus. On this basis, I attribute to them thecharacteristic ‘may not always indicate before pulling out’.For all I actually know, the person in the driving seat might actually be amember of a gang of bank-robbers, about to turn as suddenly as he caninto the traffic to create a diversion. The heuristic types in my working modelusefully spare me from wasting valuable processing time and energy on bizarre(and, crucially, really unlikely) possibilities like this – usefully, that is, until theday I encounter said gang of bank-robbers.Caveat: abstractions and brainsIt is very important to stress that this simplistic description of a model ascomprising a large number of types is a theoretical abstraction – one of themany elements of the discussion that stands in need of future improvement.In reality, our ability to anticipate the behaviour of other road users almostcertainly depends not on a single model lodged somewhere in our brains, buton the interaction of many different systems and the knowledge they embody.It seems reasonable to assume that these systems, collectively, produceresults that are somewhat like the results of the simplistic model describedabove. This assumption is what makes the simplistic approach good enoughfor current purposes.3 There is a fairly obvious connection here between our concept of a ‘type’ and the psychologicalconcept of a ‘schema’. Nevertheless, we will continue using the term ‘type’. The concept of a ‘schema’covers a far broader range of cognitive structures containing generalised knowledge; and in this contextthe everyday term ‘type’ is more self-explanatory.