Slashdot Mirror
Traffic Studied Using Computer-Linked Cars
mprindle writes "Yahoo News has an AP article about a system that links individual cars to analyze traffic patterns, which allows the drivers to avoid traffic jams and accidents. This system is part of the 'smart highway' initiatives. The data from the car is sent to a central server and from that data traffic patterns in a 40 mile radius. According to the article this technology is less expensive than using poll mounted antennas or ground sensors."
From the summary:
Another fine proofreading job, Zonk.
--
Go ahead...mod me down...you know you want to.
From FTA: Acura's 2005 RL features a navigation system that provides real-time traffic updates for 20 major cities; information is transmitted to the cars via XM radio satellites. Traffic data is aggregated from local police, transportation departments and other sources. The big question: How much are people willing to spend to avoid sitting in traffic? List figures 10 to 15 percent of drivers in a given area would need to participate to make the system effective. The devices bought separately cost about $1,000.
lmao. the poster has been online too long... I believe what he was looking for was a pole mounted sensor... Its funny how what you do everyday becomes evidenced in the misspellings you cause. Go with that where you will.
Gravity Sucks
will this alert me when my wife's car in the vicinity, when my ... um ... "colleague" ... is with me in the backseat ...
If EVERYONE has a computer in their car to help them avoid traffic jams, then it would be absolutely pointless. The traffic would become more widely distributed, sure, but it'd shift away from highways that are designed to hold traffic, and into residential areas that aren't. You're going to have traffic somewhere, so whether it's on the highway or on another road is immaterial. Thus, these computers are pointless for anything more than data-gathering.
They'll tout the lower the cost of the 'system' so they can easier monitor our location, driving habits and speed. When in reality, they are artificially lowering the cost of the system just for those benifits.
*takes off tinfoil cap*
Doubt it'll ever happen in my lifetime (with all the whisle blowers and such out there) but still.
But how long until we can get some level of computer-controlled vehicles? Once the technology has matured a bit, I'd MUCH rather trust a reasonably engineered computerized system than the thousands of other drivers around me on my way about town. Not that I shouldn't be able to turn it off, but I think the concept would really grow once we switched the carpool lane to the auto-drive lane, and manual drivers learn to stay clear of the 80+mph traffic that flows on it.
Ryan Fenton
I find that in the cities where i've lived (San Diego, Atlanta), that even when the highways are gridlocked, there really aren't viable alternatives on surface streets. They're either too far off the route or they're also crowded. So even with a system like this, I don't know that the alternate routes would be that much better a solution, you're still spending close to the same amount of time on the road. It's either gridlocked on the highway or you're gridlocked on the city streets. Maybe better mass transit is the answer.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
It's funny how we spend so much time on alleviating traffic concerns, when it would be simpler to just abandon the car. It's to the point where it's often twice as fast and cheap to use public transport. When I'm in a large city, I park my car at a terminal, hop the train, and go. Not only do I not have to worry about traffic and the associated stress, I also buy back all the time I'd waste behind the wheel to catch up on reading and paperwork. And while using public transport can sometimes mean walking a block or two, it's no worse than finding a parking spot. Really, why, in North America, are we so fixated on the automobile for personal transport?
Be relentless!
No mention of the cell tracking method someone demo'ed a couple years ago? It used data from cell towers to monitor anonymized speed data for cell phones for a certain service, as measured by 2d direction finding the various towers could perform on a phone based on signal strength.
The method, while it generated controversy on slashdot for the possible privacy implications, was a viable and cheap method to get this same data without adding specific new hardware.
Some of the previous post write this type of tech off without considering it could be used as one part of the solution. The only way to improve traffic is a system that effectively intergrates several options. One option, let's say mass transit, cannot do it alone.
Imagin if you could tie this system into traffic signals. The combination of routing a certain set of vehicles to alternate routes along with changing the timing of lights on several routes could ease congestion in many cases. Most of the gridlock I see is not caused my a major accident but small incidents. Add an effecient system that deals with moving hazards off the road quickly,something like what they have on the autobahn we probably see huge back ups reduced. There will always be some gridlock but that does not mean a system has failed.
What you just described is optimal utilization of all available routes. That means no traffic jams at all, anywhere (unless there just is no more capacity anywhere at all, in which case you have gridlock).
It's an alternative to a select antenna.
I'd say that's four steps, with turn signals and not cutting people off being separate. However I guess they really could be lumped into one group of "learn how to use lanes" which I think is my biggest pet peeve. I guess this rant is more directed at freeway traffic, so stop signs and lights aren't that big of an issue.
The major points are:
-Find a lane and stick with it. Weaving in and out of lanes to get a car ahead almost never actually moves you ahead in traffic, and is a big part of why there is congestion in the first place. The major exception is in using the left, or passing lane. Use it when the person in front of you is going slower than what you are comfortable with. Get out of it when someone is coming up on your tail.
-Get into the lane you need to be in as soon as is reasonably safe. Don't swerve over four lanes of traffic to barely make your exit. It's annoying, dangerous, stressful and just plain dumb.
-Learn how to merge and switch lanes: if one car goes at a time from each lane/ramp merging, traffic fits together like a zipper and can move smoothly. If people keep nosing in, traffic comes to a halt and accidents ensue. Using a turn signal and actually looking is a definate prerequisite. And if someone wants to merge into the opening in front of you (You do have a big enough gap, right? more on this later) let them. There's a good chance that they'll be switching over to the next lane or exit soon anyways.
Notes to traffic engineers (I bet there's a couple of slashdot):
-Left lanes are PASSING LANES. They are NOT on/off ramps. That's what the right lane is for. If there isn't enough room to fit the ramp on the right, maybe a ramp isn't needed there.
-Merging traffic needs time to actually merge. Two or three car lengths is NOT enough space to effectively merge into.
Notes on tailgating:
-Stop it already. Creeping up on the person in front of you will not get them to go any faster. I repeat, it will not get them to go any faster. I see the person being tailgated slow down more often than speed up or get out of the way. Tailgating also actually gets you through SLOWER than not tailgating. If the person in front of you makes a minor speed adjustment, you need time to compensate. If you are tailgating, a minor slowdown on a curve or from being cut of means you end up stomping on the breaks. That means the person behind you has to step on the breaks harder... eventually someone can't stop in time. You aren't getting yourself where you want to go any faster, you're just tying up traffic, being a hazard, and stressing yourself out.
-If you are the one being tailgated, ask yourself, are you in the passing lane? If yes, get out of the way. I'd rather have that asshole in front of me where I can see him and react (Because I leave enough room that I KNOW I can react) than behind me where I have no control over the situation and what he'll do. Chances are he'll end up passing you on the right and cutting you off anyways.
And wherever you are: give right of way to emergency vehicles. It should be common sense and common decency, but it doesn't seem to be a common act. If the lights and siren are going, that means there is AN EMERGENCY
But, I guess I really didn't say much new from what you said, just kinda expounded on basically the same things.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Hmm... maybe we could eventually implement a system to allow for timeshifting traffic rather than spatial shifting. Reward people for driving in off peak hours (or rather penalize for driving in peak hours) such as higher tolls during rush hour in places that already have tolls. Reward companies that offer more flexible scheduling. Schedule semis/other large trucks to avoid rush hour traffic. Dynamic planning of delivery routes which incorporates traffic flow information. This would, however, take a lot more sociological engineering than a box that says "I recommend that you take a right at the next exit."
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I call shenanigans! Everyone knows that slashdotters don't have wives.
What are you doing with your colleague in the back seat? Board games?
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla