A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How Much Road Capacity is Wasted Due to Poor Driving?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old June 21st 05, 05:00 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:19:02 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>>> Until cars are computer controlled and linked to a central
>>>>> controller, driving will be horribly inefficient.
>>>>
>>>> Because centralized decision making has worked SO WELL in society as a
>>>> whole.
>>>
>>>Who's talking about society? I'm simply suggesting cars are in essence
>>>machines better controlled by computer(s) than moody, differeing and
>>>sometimes drunk humans.

>>
>>Unfortunately for that suggestion, most drivers are better able to
>>drive a car than any computer. In the "Grand Challenge 2004", a DARPA
>>initiative to develop an unmanned ground vehicle, no team was able to
>>pass the challenge. And that's _without_ traffic. It's a
>>surprisingly difficult problem.

>
>Difficult != unsolveable.


The problem is intractable given current and reasonably forseeable
technology.

The present-tense statement "cars are [..] better controlled by
computers than [...] humans" is therefore false.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Ads
  #43  
Old June 21st 05, 08:53 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> >> "C. E. White" > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anyone want to take a guess as to how much of our existing road
>> >> >> capacity is wasted by LLBs, poor mergers, Sloths,
>> >> >> rubberneckers, people who don't speed up when the traffic ahead
>> >> >> of them does, etc. etc.?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd say the waste is at least 40%, i.e. that our roads never
>> >> >> achieve more than 60% of their true capacity due to incompetent
>> >> >> drivers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's your guess?
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't forget to add in the waste that is caused by rude and
>> >> > inconsiderate drivers who jump lanes at intersection,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > who
>> >> > squeeze people out who are trying to merge,
>> >>
>> >> These are part of the PROBLEM;they screw up and expect others to
>> >> slow,or stop,and make way for them,CAUSING slower traffic flow.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > [snip...]
>> >
>> > Not always Jim, sometimes the others disrupt traffic flow in a
>> > desperate attempt to get in front of the merger at all costs.
>> >
>> > In fact, I've seen multiple times where I'm already up to speed in
>> > the merge lane and well ahead of the car in the right lane as the
>> > solid line of the merge lane becomes a dashed line, but the idiot
>> > in the right lane decides to accelerate such that they near-miss
>> > pass me AS THE DASHED LINE OF THE MERGE LANE HAS COME TO AN END.

>>
>> How can they accellerate quickly enough to keep you from merging,if
>> you

> are
>> "well ahead" and moving faster than them?
>>
>> If you were "well ahead",what were you WAITING FOR????
>> The opportunity to merge was there,and you dawdled,and lost it.
>> And then you expect them to hold back and make way for you.
>> It appears you are a "last-minute merger".
>>

> At least two headlights in the rearview mirror is well ahead. And the
> entire merge lane is there for me to use, right?
>
> Or now is it--according to the MFFY speeder/race-driver mentality and
> mantra--must I cut in sharply at the first available opportunity even
> though the merge lane defines all the usable space I can use to
> complete my merge?


If those are the only alternatives you can imagine,no wonder you have
trouble.
Why must you "cut in sharply",are you that incompetent a driver?
No,you are just a last-minute larry that expects others to make room for
them.

>
>> >
>> > So, they are the problem because they very recklessly cut off my
>> > legitimate merge opportunity due to their own MFFY tendencies.
>> >
>> >
>> >

>>
>> No,it's that you apparently never learned how to merge properly in
>> the first place,and expect others to make way for you in spite of
>> your errors.
>>

> I say again--as the solid line goes dashed, there are two headlights
> in my rearview mirror, and then when I make a double-check to the left
> before I make the merge, the idiot is passing in a near-miss manner.


Damn,he must have a HEMI under the hood,to accelerate that fast.
(or you're just asleep at the wheel,until the last minute.)

Just goes to show ya,if you have the chance to merge,do it,don't wait until
it's too late.

> Sorry, I still assert it's 100% of the idiots fault.


You,sure.
>
> And no, it's not that I didn't learn how to merge properly--it's that
> I am entitled to use the entire merge lane as needed,


Ah,the "entitled" argument!
Except for the fact you are the one merging,it's -your- responsibility to
do it when safe to do so,and not expect others to make it possible for you.


> and no race-car
> driver mentality is going to rush my merge


Anyone with common sense would merge when they had the chance,not wait
until the last minute and the opportunity has gone,-then bitch about others
not "letting you merge".

"look ahead,plan ahead,act ahead".
Of course,that requires THINKING.You might want to try it.


> since the lane(s) to the
> left are available passing lanes. Just because the line goes dashed
> does not mean I need to cut in immediately... especially in the case
> of the idiot, it's even better that I use the entire merge lane or
> else the idiot would probably end up hitting me from behind instead of
> near-miss passing me.
>
> After all, that's also merging from the rightmost lane, which does
> double as the slower traffic lane. Instead, the impatient MFFY drivers
> should feel free to merge left into the passing lane is passing is
> such a high priority.


A clue;merging traffic does not have the right-of-way,through-traffic does.

>
> Too bad if you disagree, because that's the way the roads have been
> engineered... too allow mergers to use the entire merge lane.
>


The extra length is to allow more chances to make that merge,not for you to
run to the end and THEN see you have no opportunity anymore.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #44  
Old June 21st 05, 08:57 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"JohnH" > wrote in
:

>
>>>> There's not a computer system in existence that could handle that
>>>> task. Nor will there be.
>>>
>>> "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
>>>
>>> Charles H. Duell, Patent Commissioner, 1899
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Please explain how the computers will know when a child runs out or a
>> pedestrian is crossing the road,or Brent's unregistered bicycle is
>> "taking the lane"? There are so many variables that a computer system
>> will not be aware of or be able to handle.

>
> An intelligent car /roadway *system* can be fitted with many more
> sensors than a human could possibly have, and wouldn't get distracted
> by cell phones, big macs, or budweisers. It could do a far better
> calculation of stopping distance than a human based on tire type,
> temperature, dynamic surface friction and other variables, and could
> constantly be on the lookout in all directions simultaneously -
> something a human could never approach. And car to car data sharing
> would be far more efficient than a CB
>
>
>
>
>
>


Yeah,and the bandwidth for all those millions of sensors(many on each
vehicle x number of vehicles) does not even exist,nor any computer system
that could handle the input,make the decisions for all those vehicles,and
transmit responses to each vehicle in time for it to matter.

Dream on.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #45  
Old June 21st 05, 08:58 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:00:32 GMT, "C. E. White"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:39:09 -0400, "C. E. White"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Anyone want to take a guess as to how much of our existing road
>>>>> capacity is wasted by LLBs, poor mergers, Sloths, rubberneckers,
>>>>> people who don't speed up when the traffic ahead of them does,
>>>>> etc. etc.?
>>>>
>>>>Don't forget to add in the waste that is caused by rude and
>>>>inconsiderate drivers who jump lanes at intersection, who
>>>>squeeze people out who are trying to merge, and who
>>>>constantly switch lanes in an attempt to get ahead in slow
>>>>traffic situations.
>>>
>>> I noticed how you used the opportunity to forward your Arrogant
>>> Sloth agenda, but couldn't even be bothered to answer the question.

>>
>>Actually, I am sure you weren't serious when you asked the question.
>>You were just trying to demonize everyone who doesn't conform to your
>>rule of the jungle mentality.

>
> You're confused. "The Law of the Jungle" is Don Quijote's theme, not
> mine. Mine is "Sloth Kills."
>
> Do try to keep up.
>
>>Why not try to figure out how your driving style is
>>slowing down the general flow of traffic.

>
> Since my driving style is "I'll stay out of your way, just as I would
> have you stay out of mine," it's blatntly obvious that my driving
> style is not slowing the general flow of traffic down one whit.
>
> This is in stark contrast to PLBs who refuse to speed up or stay out
> of the passing lane because they claim they're driving "fast enough."
> These people are like a rock in a stream - the flow is forced to slow
> down and go around it.
>


I agree 100%.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #48  
Old June 21st 05, 10:06 PM
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .
> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> >> > .. .
> >> >> "C. E. White" > wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Anyone want to take a guess as to how much of our existing road
> >> >> >> capacity is wasted by LLBs, poor mergers, Sloths,
> >> >> >> rubberneckers, people who don't speed up when the traffic ahead
> >> >> >> of them does, etc. etc.?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'd say the waste is at least 40%, i.e. that our roads never
> >> >> >> achieve more than 60% of their true capacity due to incompetent
> >> >> >> drivers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What's your guess?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Don't forget to add in the waste that is caused by rude and
> >> >> > inconsiderate drivers who jump lanes at intersection,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > who
> >> >> > squeeze people out who are trying to merge,
> >> >>
> >> >> These are part of the PROBLEM;they screw up and expect others to
> >> >> slow,or stop,and make way for them,CAUSING slower traffic flow.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > [snip...]
> >> >
> >> > Not always Jim, sometimes the others disrupt traffic flow in a
> >> > desperate attempt to get in front of the merger at all costs.
> >> >
> >> > In fact, I've seen multiple times where I'm already up to speed in
> >> > the merge lane and well ahead of the car in the right lane as the
> >> > solid line of the merge lane becomes a dashed line, but the idiot
> >> > in the right lane decides to accelerate such that they near-miss
> >> > pass me AS THE DASHED LINE OF THE MERGE LANE HAS COME TO AN END.
> >>
> >> How can they accellerate quickly enough to keep you from merging,if
> >> you

> > are
> >> "well ahead" and moving faster than them?
> >>
> >> If you were "well ahead",what were you WAITING FOR????
> >> The opportunity to merge was there,and you dawdled,and lost it.
> >> And then you expect them to hold back and make way for you.
> >> It appears you are a "last-minute merger".
> >>

> > At least two headlights in the rearview mirror is well ahead. And the
> > entire merge lane is there for me to use, right?
> >
> > Or now is it--according to the MFFY speeder/race-driver mentality and
> > mantra--must I cut in sharply at the first available opportunity even
> > though the merge lane defines all the usable space I can use to
> > complete my merge?

>
> If those are the only alternatives you can imagine,no wonder you have
> trouble.
> Why must you "cut in sharply",are you that incompetent a driver?
> No,you are just a last-minute larry that expects others to make room for
> them.
>

Whatever dude, you seem like at this point you just want a flamewar and
don't want to really discuss or resolve anything. Just because you and I
disagree doesn't make you the end-all-be-all driving authority and it
doesn't make me an incompetent driver either.

> >
> >> >
> >> > So, they are the problem because they very recklessly cut off my
> >> > legitimate merge opportunity due to their own MFFY tendencies.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> No,it's that you apparently never learned how to merge properly in
> >> the first place,and expect others to make way for you in spite of
> >> your errors.
> >>

> > I say again--as the solid line goes dashed, there are two headlights
> > in my rearview mirror, and then when I make a double-check to the left
> > before I make the merge, the idiot is passing in a near-miss manner.

>
> Damn,he must have a HEMI under the hood,to accelerate that fast.
> (or you're just asleep at the wheel,until the last minute.)
>
> Just goes to show ya,if you have the chance to merge,do it,don't wait

until
> it's too late.
>
> > Sorry, I still assert it's 100% of the idiots fault.

>
> You,sure.
> >
> > And no, it's not that I didn't learn how to merge properly--it's that
> > I am entitled to use the entire merge lane as needed,

>
> Ah,the "entitled" argument!
> Except for the fact you are the one merging,it's -your- responsibility to
> do it when safe to do so,and not expect others to make it possible for

you.
>

And I continue to assert that:

1) if the thru traffic car is behind the merger at the time the solid line
turns dashed the thru traffic car must BACK OFF or change lanes so that the
merging car can complete the merge;

2) if the thru traffic car meet at about the same position after the dashed
line has ended, the merger must back off a bit;

3) if the thru traffic car is ahead of the merger at the time the merger
must back off and drop back into the next gap, see also #1 for the car
behind the merger.

In other words, while thru traffic may have the right of way, the fact that
a yellow diamond CAUTION sign with a graphic showing merging traffic ahead
indicates that thru traffic is supposed to cooperate with merging traffic,
not act combative about it.

Add to all of this...

4) thru traffic is still supposed to follow at a reasonable following
distance so that gaps actually exist to merge into.

>
> > and no race-car
> > driver mentality is going to rush my merge

>
> Anyone with common sense would merge when they had the chance,not wait
> until the last minute and the opportunity has gone,-then bitch about

others
> not "letting you merge".
>
> "look ahead,plan ahead,act ahead".
> Of course,that requires THINKING.You might want to try it.
>

I always do, which is why I use the entire merge lane because of MFFY last
minute passers. I still reserve the right to criticize those reckless
drivers who do such actions, though.

>
> > since the lane(s) to the
> > left are available passing lanes. Just because the line goes dashed
> > does not mean I need to cut in immediately... especially in the case
> > of the idiot, it's even better that I use the entire merge lane or
> > else the idiot would probably end up hitting me from behind instead of
> > near-miss passing me.
> >
> > After all, that's also merging from the rightmost lane, which does
> > double as the slower traffic lane. Instead, the impatient MFFY drivers
> > should feel free to merge left into the passing lane is passing is
> > such a high priority.

>
> A clue;merging traffic does not have the right-of-way,through-traffic

does.
>

See above, it's still a cooperative driving operation on the part of the
merger AND thru traffic.

> >
> > Too bad if you disagree, because that's the way the roads have been
> > engineered... too allow mergers to use the entire merge lane.
> >

>
> The extra length is to allow more chances to make that merge,not for you

to
> run to the end and THEN see you have no opportunity anymore.
>

Do you have a source to support this claim? Remember, not talking about
bumper-to-bumper traffic here, but regular flowing traffic.

Really though, I'm just expecting that you'll probably just deliver more
insults and name-calling.


  #49  
Old June 21st 05, 11:15 PM
Dave C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Let me get this straight, you think that on average our roads are only
> carrying 5% of their theoretical maximum capacity because of incompetent
> drivers?


Yes, because incompetent drivers create a snowball effect. Good examples
(just a couple out of millions) . . . the sloth ahead of you is doing 10
below the limit in good weather in an area with NO PASSING ZONES. So that
slows you down just a little, right? Well, slowing down just a little
causes you to get stuck behind a *$#)*$)#* SCHOOL BUS FOR THE NEXT FIFTEEN
MILES MAKING STOPS EVERY FEW FEET!!!! Same with traffic. Many people with
commutes longer than five minutes have noticed that if they leave even five
minutes later, it can DOUBLE their commute time (or worse). Or, if they get
stuck behind an LLB, it has the same effect as if they left too late and got
caught in traffic that they normally would have avoided. Like I said, just
two examples out of millions. -Dave


  #50  
Old June 21st 05, 11:28 PM
Dave C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >It could be a LOT easier if it didn't have to conform to DARPA rules.
For
> >example, the DARPA vehicles have to have no remote link to anything

outside
> >the vehicle, EXCEPT the emergency kill switch (or whatever they call it)
> >that allows the vehicle to be shut down if required for safety reasons.

Any
> >wonder then that no vehicle has passed DARPA yet? You basically have to
> >have a supercomputer on board to process all the information being fed to
> >the vehicle from CCTV, radar or whatever else is being used to "guide"

it.
> >That's because the car ITSELF has to make all decisions about
> >acceleration/braking/steering with nothing at all outside the car to

guide
> >it. (YIKES!)

>
> A human driver performs the same task, without all that much trouble.
> The DARPA rules aren't unreasonable.



A human mind is a very efficient super computer. It can process a LOT of
information very quickly. Not all humans use their brains efficiently, but
it doesn't matter. A human brain can still process a lot of information
quickly.

You are right that the DARPA rules aren't unreasonable . . . for the purpose
of the DARPA "race". The DARPA challenge is to create an autonomous weapon
of some sort capable of self-locomotion and self-navigation. Because it is
a WEAPON, it must operate alone without help from anything outside (because
it is in enemy territory obviously, so it would have to MISTRUST anything
outside trying to help to guide it, if such existed)

Now compare that with the challenge of building a self-driving car. The
self-driving car doesn't have to operate with no contact with the world
around it. While you theoretically could take any car into a hostile
environment, your average commuter vehicle would encounter nothing more
hostile than automated toll collection booths. As the car would be EXPECTED
to follow certain paths (literally, any paved road), the roads themselves
could be equipped to help guide the car.

But don't expect terrorists to equip the roads leading into their
strongholds with sensors to guide a self-driven weapon into their midst.
Now you see the difference, right? DARPA rules ARE unreasonable, if your
goal is to build a self-driving car.

DARPA is looking for a very advanced form of self-driving vehicle, when a
plain old ordinary commuter car that can drive itself hasn't even been
invented yet. (DARPA is skipping a few intermediate, easier steps.) -Dave


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Black box" in cars to log toll road use in Britain coming [email protected] Driving 1 June 6th 05 10:33 PM
YOU CAN'T DRIVE TOO SLOW Laura Bush murdered her boy friend Driving 93 April 21st 05 10:34 AM
Road recordings for Kerouac Project [email protected] Driving 0 April 1st 05 09:58 AM
Is it legal to hit other cars on the road? Universal Soldier Driving 51 February 26th 05 10:39 PM
Audi All Road reliability LIW Audi 2 November 3rd 04 09:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.