Running up that hill

I run at least three times a week at set times in the morning, sometimes alone, sometimes with my wife.  I have three routes, which I can break into chunks and combine in order to introduce some variation in length and technicality but all routes are in a wooded area and consist of trail running.  At points the trails can be quite narrow such that only one person at a time can pass.

Because I am a creature of habit, I recognize the very few other runners and walkers I encounter in the early morning.  They recognize me too, and we often verbally acknowledge each other.  We also adopt a standard of running on the left hand side to ease transition, and if we encounter each other at a spot where only one can pass, the runner going up hill has right of way.  When all is equal one of us will signal to the other to take priority and that person picks up pace so as not to stop the other.  On average walkers allow runners to pass first under all conditions.

Today my wife and I went running later than usual and encountered two sets of strangers. Both sets violated these conventions.  This association between later running and convention busting is a phenomenon I have noticed before, and when it happens I sometimes jokingly comment to my wife that these people should seek my permission before entering my patch.  I have written about ownership recently.

The second encounter went as follows:

We were running up a very slight incline on a broad path, two abreast.  Ahead of us we saw four power walkers on the other side of a section narrowed by rain water and deep mud.  I took the lead, and then veered to the left, off the path altogether, through some rough ground which caused me to slow my pace.  Three men in the walking group did something similar on their side, and my wife made to run quickly through the narrow patch before all four began to pass.  However, the woman in the group moved forward and attempted to get through this gap before my wife, but without increasing pace.  The situation resolved itself at the last moment, with no bumps, through a few deft manoeuvres on my wife's part.

This whole interaction was a one shot Prisoner's Dilemma.  The basic issue was whether or not to cooperate on passing.  There are no explicit rules, but the costs differ across individuals.  For my wife, she was running up a slight incline and was going faster than the walker.  The walker was going much slower and slightly downhill.  Any errors made whilst running are more costly as they are more likely to lead to tripping and potentially a fall. The walker may have got her feet muddied and wet if she had been forced into the flooded area.

Initially I signalled that there was an obstacle by veering off the path.  The three walkers who behaved similarly reciprocated this, leaving the final negotiation to the two women.  My signal did not convey the solution to the problem, but it might have conveyed the need to solve it, which might in turn have caused the female walker to try and get through before my wife.  But, she did not respond to a friendly acknowledgement as I began my change of course, and she kept her eyes averted, all of which suggests she accepted some risk.

In summary, I cooperated on the first move, the other men reciprocated and cooperated on the next.  We all accepted some costs for this.  My wife made to enter the narrow section, and at that point the female walker entered causing evasive behaviours to avoid a fall.  In short, she defected and got away with it.

If she thought about this before acting I should be most surprised.  But I imagine she did reflect on it later, and if she were to encounter us again her behaviour might begin to shift, not least as our response will also be different. For example, I may well shout my intentions clearly in the future - "coming through, watch out!"  I have done this when approaching a large group of individuals from behind- "good morning, I am coming through on your left."

These minimal verbal structures may be sufficient to establish new social norms between strangers, especially if they are consistent and do not impose high costs.  Normally, the likelihood of encountering an individual again is a crucial factor.  If it is low, then it is hard to stabilize cooperation, people are more likely to defect.  This could explain why this morning's incident occurred - the walker was not going to see my wife again, so the chances of reprisal etc. in the future were very low.  Again, that does not have to be a conscious thought, but those parameters might mean conscious thought about my wife's perspective simply was not engaged.  So, a verbal prompt might solve the problem, effectively allowing explicit deals to be brokered, thereby reducing problems.

In this particular situation, however, the problem of runner and walker traffic will be constant.  All six of us have a low likelihood of having another encounter with one another, but we will definitely have encounters with other people exercising in this area.  These are the conditions under which social norms must surely develop fairly fast, in part thanks to the (verbal) actions of a few that help to shape and model a solution.  Given this, I think these walkers were fairly new to the area.

After my run, and after breakfast, I get on the tube (London Underground) and travel to work with several million other people.  The dynamics of seat acquisition, choice of standing spot, platform use, and obedience to exit and entrance signs may well form the topic of future entries.