Johnny Au
Senior Member
Comments are here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CGPGrey/comments/50h32r/the_simple_solution_to_traffic/
Slow reaction times are the main cause of traffic congestion and banning humans from driving may be the only way to fix this.
|
|
|
The Simple Solution to Traffic
- Thread starter Johnny Au
- Start date
Comments are here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CGPGrey/comments/50h32r/the_simple_solution_to_traffic/
Slow reaction times are the main cause of traffic congestion and banning humans from driving may be the only way to fix this.
Zach6668
Active Member
Too many cars is the main cause of traffic congestion, and will continue to be the case even without human drivers.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Johnny Au
Senior Member
CGP Grey should realize that road capacity isn't infinite, even if automated traffic were to move smoothly.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The benefit of autonomous vehicles for road capacity has been significantly overstated in that video and elsewhere. It will of marginal benefit, but will by no means solve congestion. Personal automovil s will still be by far the least efficient method of moving people through cities.
cplchanb
Senior Member
While most inefficient, unless you move to Europe or Asia, the automobile will be the predominant form of transportation. The only way to solve this is to rip up everything and start over.
crs1026
Superstar
I have wondered if automated cars will actually make things worse. We know that at rush hour, the spacing of cars on the major roads is far less than the "proper" stopping distances to avoid rear-enders. The automated cars will rigidly adhere to spacing between vehicles.
I see this when I turn on the adaptive cruise control on my new vehicle....in congested traffic, it slows down a bit to increase the distance to the car ahead. Invariably, some impatient driver changes lanes into the space created....which makes my car slow down some more to restore the gap....and another car changes lanes to get around me.....and so on.
I wonder what will happen when every car in line is automated. What is the ripple effect of a car making a panic stop further ahead ? At present, if a car up the line slows down, the cars behind it bunch up.... sometimes dangerously so, but the cars further back aren't attempting to stay spaced out. Tailgating occasionally can keep traffic moving. The new technology has faster reaction time than the human brain, but it won't assess the situation the same way. I can see a single deceleration rippling backwards for further away.
The automated cars will lead to fewer rear-end collisions, yes.....but possibly at the price of reduced road capacity.
- Paul
I see this when I turn on the adaptive cruise control on my new vehicle....in congested traffic, it slows down a bit to increase the distance to the car ahead. Invariably, some impatient driver changes lanes into the space created....which makes my car slow down some more to restore the gap....and another car changes lanes to get around me.....and so on.
I wonder what will happen when every car in line is automated. What is the ripple effect of a car making a panic stop further ahead ? At present, if a car up the line slows down, the cars behind it bunch up.... sometimes dangerously so, but the cars further back aren't attempting to stay spaced out. Tailgating occasionally can keep traffic moving. The new technology has faster reaction time than the human brain, but it won't assess the situation the same way. I can see a single deceleration rippling backwards for further away.
The automated cars will lead to fewer rear-end collisions, yes.....but possibly at the price of reduced road capacity.
- Paul
Burnt creek
New Member
That's a good video. The main thing you want is traffic to flow. Cars need to move and if they dont, drivers get frustrated and make decisions that exacerbate the congestion problem through more and more stops and go's. Such as (as the video shows) changing lanes and driving too close to the next car. Also, as common sence, logic and the video shows, traffic flows better on highways and freeways. So fewer highways and freeways aint the answer.
Cars aren't going away. They may/will change (eg.: you will see electric cars and maybe even driverless cars) but people will want and need to travel distances and to places that cannot be coverred by anything other than motor transport. And then there is climate. So any planning that aims to or is contingent on people abandoning their cars completely or no longer desiring to own an automobile, is flawed. And, i would say dangerous.
The objective should be to get people to use their cars less frequenly. Therefore, good public transit is the key because with good public transit you can reduce car usage. Good public transit means transit that covers as much area as possible and moves people from point A to B in a timely fashion. Without these conditions being met, public transit investment is wasted. That means that transit stops should be efficiently spaced and travel times must match or come close to what automobile can achieve.
Cars aren't going away. They may/will change (eg.: you will see electric cars and maybe even driverless cars) but people will want and need to travel distances and to places that cannot be coverred by anything other than motor transport. And then there is climate. So any planning that aims to or is contingent on people abandoning their cars completely or no longer desiring to own an automobile, is flawed. And, i would say dangerous.
The objective should be to get people to use their cars less frequenly. Therefore, good public transit is the key because with good public transit you can reduce car usage. Good public transit means transit that covers as much area as possible and moves people from point A to B in a timely fashion. Without these conditions being met, public transit investment is wasted. That means that transit stops should be efficiently spaced and travel times must match or come close to what automobile can achieve.
Last edited:
Fred.S
Active Member
I think autonomous cars are good for safety reasons, and getting more capacity out of existing roadways/highways. However, as a solution to congestion, well it comes down to the classic concept of induced demand. If these cars are faster, and more people use them, that initial time savings will eventually be eaten up, and we'll just soon end up with congestion again. It's the same scenario of widening/building more roads.
Regardless of any other benefits, it comes down to moving one person in two tonnes of mostly empty space. It's inherently inefficient.
Regardless of any other benefits, it comes down to moving one person in two tonnes of mostly empty space. It's inherently inefficient.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Marmaly
New Member
Reducing the politically-inspired turn restrictions during rush hour is the answer. We all own the streets and should be able to use them.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Want to give automobile drivers a "hint" that they shouldn't drive on the streetcar tracks?
Use cobblestones between the tracks. The vibrations of driving over them will nudge them a bit to get off the tracks.
Use cobblestones between the tracks. The vibrations of driving over them will nudge them a bit to get off the tracks.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I prefer spikes, an alligator pit or shark infested moat.
Aldebaran
New Member
Good evening,
I join my voice to and agree with those whose future vision includes cars.
There are some people who really wish cars would just disappear and refuse to accommodate them when imagining the future. Some even extend that dislike to any form of motorized transport, including public transit. This is sometimes the ascribed view of a minority of overzealous cyclists who, I think, exaggerate the utility and capability of bicycles. Of course, there is another opposing camp with antipodal views.
To those, I say: quick motorized transport is essential, and you will demand it every time you or a loved-one is feeling unwell and need to go to the nearest hospital quickly... every time someone needs your help in case of an emergency... every time you need to pick up or drop off someone... every time you like to go visit your parents somewhere remote... every time you move... every time a dress code is required and perspiration is an issue... every time you need to haul anything particularly heavy, unweildy, delicate, fragile, or weather-sensitive... every time you are obligated to be somewhere relatively far in a relatively short amount of time... every time you're just too tired to actively transport yourself... or every time you're just not in the mood for some nebulous but very human reason, just because...
I find mentions of bicycle efficiency a bit too technical. Yes, it's a wonderful machine and all, but we are not just physical, and our needs are sometimes more elaborate and organic. We and our needs can sometimes be too "messy" for the bicycle.
Elio Motors (perhaps an electric version), Lit Motors, Toyota iRoad, Nissan micromobility concept... all of these are viable solutions that do not weigh two tonnes.
I think the future should accommodate both active and passive forms of transportation. Simply give preference to active transportation unless your trip is beyond its capability, at which point you elect the car, modulo public transit.
Such an unnecessary polarity. Why do I always have to be with one side or the other? Why should I buy into an ideology that restricts me to a specific belief?
Apologies if I offended anyone. I am willing to change my opinion.
I join my voice to and agree with those whose future vision includes cars.
There are some people who really wish cars would just disappear and refuse to accommodate them when imagining the future. Some even extend that dislike to any form of motorized transport, including public transit. This is sometimes the ascribed view of a minority of overzealous cyclists who, I think, exaggerate the utility and capability of bicycles. Of course, there is another opposing camp with antipodal views.
To those, I say: quick motorized transport is essential, and you will demand it every time you or a loved-one is feeling unwell and need to go to the nearest hospital quickly... every time someone needs your help in case of an emergency... every time you need to pick up or drop off someone... every time you like to go visit your parents somewhere remote... every time you move... every time a dress code is required and perspiration is an issue... every time you need to haul anything particularly heavy, unweildy, delicate, fragile, or weather-sensitive... every time you are obligated to be somewhere relatively far in a relatively short amount of time... every time you're just too tired to actively transport yourself... or every time you're just not in the mood for some nebulous but very human reason, just because...
I find mentions of bicycle efficiency a bit too technical. Yes, it's a wonderful machine and all, but we are not just physical, and our needs are sometimes more elaborate and organic. We and our needs can sometimes be too "messy" for the bicycle.
Elio Motors (perhaps an electric version), Lit Motors, Toyota iRoad, Nissan micromobility concept... all of these are viable solutions that do not weigh two tonnes.
I think the future should accommodate both active and passive forms of transportation. Simply give preference to active transportation unless your trip is beyond its capability, at which point you elect the car, modulo public transit.
Such an unnecessary polarity. Why do I always have to be with one side or the other? Why should I buy into an ideology that restricts me to a specific belief?
Apologies if I offended anyone. I am willing to change my opinion.
Last edited:
