Software Speeds Response To Road Accidents

coondoggie alerts us to research out of Ohio State University that could help authorities respond to car accidents more quickly and ease traffic back-ups at lower cost, particularly in rural areas. The software improves the efficiency of communications from in-road vehicle detection loops to transportation engineers monitoring conditions in order to improve traffic flow. Faster response to accidents and traffic jams could have huge payoffs: a 2002 study estimated that traffic jams cost the average city almost a billion dollars a year.

Comments

Now..

[ThisIsWhyImHot]

If only there was some computer software that would stop people from slowing down and gawking at small fender bender, we'd have no more traffic jams.

Re:Now..

[moderatorrater]

Unless, of course, you understand the meaning of the word "minimum."

Re:Now..

[TubeSteak]

Not just California

Is it true that the state of Massachusetts is using large tarps to cover accidents so there would less rubbernecking", hence less accidents?
According to an AP story from February 23, The Massachusetts Highway Department is indeed using "large portable screens" to obstruct drivers' views of accident sites and decrease rubbernecking. The state has nearly 30 of these tarps, seven feet tall and up to 30 feet wide. The screens are assembled in five to 10 minutes, and, according to the Highway Department, have been used in about 15 accidents since their implementation in December of last year. The total cost for the current amount of screening equipment is just under $38,000. "Most of our feedback has shown they've been pretty effective," James Carlyle, a spokesperson for the Highway Department, told The Stamford Advocate. "It's no silver bullet for congestion, but it's been helping."
Last Updated: 25 Apr 2005

February 23, 2005 Here's an article from the Boston Globe
It says they were assembled in house & (then Governer) Mitt Romney brought the idea to their attention. Each set of screens costs $1,300 bucks, which, considering their benefits, seems cheap enough to me.

They key to success: Aim low.

[Scrameustache]

ease traffic back-ups at lower cost, particularly in rural areas. For my next trick, I will quickly and efficiently shave all the hairs off a dolphin!

Re:About time.

[ushering05401]

True, we innovate. We also allow the innovators to strangle competition including those who would make incremental improvements to their designs.

Back on topic...

With the vast majority of major American cities possessing some of the shittiest public transit in the developed world, I see this innovative idea as yet another cash sink-hole that ignores the real problem. Whether or not you believe all the peak oil arguments, the fossil fuel environmental impact arguments, or whatever, it is pretty hard to argue that congestion and accidents in general could not be reduced by making real investments in quality public transportation.

I have lived in three of America's biggest cities for several years each and NYC was the only one with decent mass transit. True, the traffic there sucked, but a system like this will not have an impact on NYC streets. Further improvements to mass transit will.

The L.A. mass transit system was beyond inept. No where I else that I lived is even worth mentioning.

Regards.

Link in post is outdated -- here's the new one!

[Science_Writer]

Hi, everyone. I'm the author of the news release referenced in the post... It looks like you linked to an older story. The new one is here: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/smartbox.htm Thanks for posting it! Pam Gorder