Motorists Should Never Play Chicken with Runners

The “game of chicken” is a two-player model of conflict in game theory. Think of two drivers approaching a one-lane bridge from opposite directions. Only one of the drivers can drive safely across the bridge and win the game. The other driver must swerve away from the bridge to prevent a crash (on the bridge).

The name of the game comes from the popular use of the label “chicken” for identifying cowards — because the game of chicken is won by one player when the other player behaves like a “chicken” (coward) and yields to the first player — say, by swerving out of the way of the first player.

There are four possible scenarios in the game of chicken played by players A and B:

1. A yields. B yields. So neither player wins because both yielded.
2. A does not swerve. B yields. So A wins because A did not swerve.
3. A yields. B does not swerve. So B wins because B did not swerve.
4. A does not swerve. B does not swerve . So both players lose because neither player swerved.

So the worst possible outcome for both players is when both players do not yield. But a player who yields knows for certain that he or she will not win. Hence each player has a dilemma — to yield or not to yield.

If you are a motorist who encounters a pedestrian in your path on the road, then it may seem at first glance that you two are playing a game of chicken. After all, if neither of you yield to the other person, then there will be a crash.

But let A be the motorist (driver) and B be the runner (pedestrian) in the above four scenarios so that we can consider the outcomes more thoroughly.

1. Driver swerves. Pedestrian steps out of the way.
2. Driver does not swerve. Pedestrian steps out of the way.
3. Driver swerves. Pedestrian does not step out of the way.
4. Driver does not swerve. Pedestrian does not step out of the way.

In contrast to the traditional game of chicken, both parties win in scenarios 1, 2, and 3 because both survive.

Regarding scenario 4, some would argue that the motorist does not lose when there is a crash with a runner. Their argument is that the runner is much more likely than the motorist to die or become seriously injured in a crash.

But the reality is that both players lose in scenario 4. While it is true that the motorist may not be injured physically, the motorist in scenario 4 will have to endure at least some of the following:

• psychological trauma from seriously injuring or killing an innocent human being;
• going to criminal trial and possibly prison for negligent homicide or other criminal charges;
• facing a civil lawsuit from the runner.

The phrase “playing chicken with someone” in the common vernacular means that you will not yield because you expect the other party to yield to you.

If you are a motorist, then do not “play chicken with a runner” because the outcome of the other player — the runner — not yielding will be disastrous for you, too.

Instead, your best strategy as a motorist is to always yield to the runner!