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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
>
> 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. 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!) But a self-driving car could be really EASY to make, in comparison, with less electronic gadgetry than that which powers most modern calculators. The real hurdle is building the infrastructure needed to support self-driving vehicles. Like retro-fitting all roadside signs (even the mile markers) with RFID or something that the car can sense. Then installing sensors in the roads and bridges to allow automated steering (something to aim at, or steer AWAY from). ETC. It will be a major headache. But the car itself, will be really rather simple, as long as it doesn't have to conform to DARPA. -Dave |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
> > 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? > > Your estimate sounds about right to me. > > However, > I do not believe there is any way of fixing that,though,even with better > driver training.There will always be the clueless,slothful,elderly,people > on cellphones,eating,shaving,reading,sightseers,etc. > In fact,I believe it will get worse. > > Political Correctness alone would be an impossible hurdle. And yet they want to punish freeway snipers... -- Cheers, Bev 01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101 01010 Q. What's the difference between Batman and Bill Gates? A. When Batman fought the Penguin, he won. -- J. Levine |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:39:04 -0400, "JohnH" >
wrote: >Until cars are computer controlled and linked to a central controller, >driving will be horribly inefficient. Agreed. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On 21 Jun 2005 00:00:02 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>> 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. > >Your estimate sounds about right to me. > >However, >I do not believe there is any way of fixing that Sure there is. Ever ridden a train? Ever notice how all the cars of the train move together in unison? When the car in front slows down, your car slows down; when the car in front speeds up, yours speeds up with NO lag. Of course, rigidly coupling automobiles together is not particularly practical, but suppose the couplings were VIRTUAL, and computers coordinated the entire "train?" Already we have vehicles like Kenny's that have adaptive cruise control; how difficult would it be for each car to tell its neighbors in the mesh that it's about to brake, or accelerate, or change lanes, or exit the freeway? When each car knows EXACTLY what the other cars are going to do, tolerances can be tightened even as overall safety and efficiency are increased. I'm looking forward to it. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
> 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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Why not try to figure out how your driving style is slowing down the general flow of traffic. By your own posts, it is clear that you are frequently guilty of causing congestion at on ramps and intersections. You are always complaining about old people getting in your way, etc., etc., - for once look in the mirror. There is a very good chance you are personally responsible for slowing down thousands of you fellow motorist in your efforts to jump ahead by one more car at an intersection or cut off one more motorist at an on ramp. Try a little courtesy and respect for your fellow drivers. For the most part they are not out to get you (although given your self described driving habits, there may be a few who are trying to get you). Not one individual "owns" the road. There are traffic rules for many situations, but not all of them. I find driving a lot less stressful if I just live and let live on the road and quit hyperventilating every time someone does not conform to my personal desires. The next time you jump ahead by one more car at an intersection, why not figure out how many seconds you saved AND how many seconds you cost the other drivers. The next time you pinch off someone at an on-ramp why not try to calculate how many seconds you cost all the other people on the on ramp who now have to slow down or stop because you just had to get one car further ahead. The next time you weave through traffic, think about how all the cars you cut off react and how much time, gas, and brake pad thickness is wasted because you had to get one car further ahead. If you want the law of the jungle to prevail, don't be surprised if there are bigger badder predators out there than you. Ed |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave C." > wrote in message eenews.net... > > "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message > ... >> 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? >> > > 95% or higher. Definitely not LOWER than that. -Dave 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? Or do you meant that 95% of our roads don't carry their maximum capacity at some point in time becasue of incompetent drivers? Or are you averaging in the fact that many roads are empty for significant periods of time (which of course is not the result of incompetent drivers)? It is a poorly worded question and a non-sensical answer. Heck, I suspect many roads are running at well over their designed capacity during peak traffic hours. I suppose if everyone drove perfectly, the capacity would be higher, but unless you know the assumptions, how can you decide the roads are at, below, or above capacity? If everyone drove at the same speed, say 70 mph, you would not need more than one lane in each direction, and the capacity for the road would be directly related to the space between cars. If cars maintained a 2 sec interval, one car would pass any spot on the road every 2 seconds - right? At 70 miles per hour, 2 second is equivalent to around 200 feet, which is equivalent to 26 cars per mile and 1800 cars past any point per hour. Is this capacity? I don't think so, but don't know what would be. I suppose if cars were bumper to bumper in the right lane, all doing 70, you could have 330 cars per mile, and a car passing a spot every 1.62 seconds - 2,200 per hour. I am assuming everybody is in the right lane, since they are all driving 70, and no one needs to pass (you know keep right except to pass). Is this capacity? I am pretty sure I-40 from Raleigh to RTP carries a lot more than this every morning during rush hour, but then all 3 or 4 lanes are filled. So do you think capacity for an 8 lane highway (4 in each direction) would be 4 lanes filled with cars bumper to bumper at 70 miles per hour? This would be somewhere around 8,800 cars per hour in each direction, except it makes no allowance for cars changing lanes as they get on or off the road or for semis, or even medium sized trucks. For my theoretical 8 lane highway, I suspect maximum capacity is probably less that 3500 cars per hour in each direction. So do you think many 8 lane highways are only moving 175 cars per hour in each direction (5% of 3500)? Ed |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 09:39 PM |
Audi All Road reliability | LIW | Audi | 2 | November 3rd 04 08:39 PM |