How Much Road Capacity is Wasted Due to Poor Driving?

"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.

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

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> 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.
>
>

Got news for ya;it ain't gonna happen.Dream on.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"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".

>
> 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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"JohnH" > wrote in news:FoudnbqsPaOIFCrfRVn-
:

>> 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.

Then there are failures,system or component.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> 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.
>
>

You would see the first artificial intelligence long before that became a
possibility.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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.

>>> 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

>>
>> I'm looking forward to it.
>>
>>
>
> Got news for ya;it ain't gonna happen.Dream on.

Really. The odds of us doing that are like putting a man on the moon.

Such the forward thinker, you.

"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?

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

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

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

In article ws.net>,
Dave C. > wrote:
>>
>> 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!)

A human driver performs the same task, without all that much trouble.
The DARPA rules aren't unreasonable.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.