Traffic-Flow Algorithm Can Reduce Fuel Consumption

thecarchik writes "New projects from German automakers Audi and BMW promise to ease congestion simply by looking at traffic signals and driving style, in an effort to smooth the flow of traffic. Through a test course in Munich, vehicles were able to post phenomenal fuel efficiency gains simply by adjusting the timing of traffic lights depending on traffic volume — to whatever speed provides a so-called 'green wave' of four or more synchronized signals."

Comments

It astounds me

[skelterjohn]

That this isn't done everywhere. With all the red light cameras everywhere (for safety), you'd think they could put a few out there that would make it so I don't spend 3 minutes every morning staring at an empty intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[Garble Snarky]

Traffic timings don't even need to rely on cameras, they frequently take input from the inductive sensors (even more ubiquitous than cameras) in all four streets on the intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[NeutronCowboy]

Not only is it astounding that this isn't done, it's old hat. Where I grew up, the main arteries were all set up so that if you traveled at the speed limit, you'd hit all green lights in one direction in the morning, and all green lights going the other direction in the evening. It saved gas, dramatically reduced average travel times and kept everyone going at the speed limit.

Instead, the main arteries where I live now are all set up to turn red when a car triggers a sensor on a cross street. The end result of that is that a 5 lane thoroughfare stops 15 cars every 50-100 yards because one care on a tiny side street is making a right turn onto the thoroughfare. A 2 mile drive can easily take 5-10 minutes with no traffic, just because the lights are setup so stupidly. And god help us if there's traffic (like, say on Black Friday or something like that): going half a mile to get on the freeway easily takes me 15 minutes, just because there's a light every 50 yards, they're not coordinated, and only 2-3 cars are actually able to cross the intersection at a time.

I'm always wondering if I should go to the city council meeting and ask why they're supporting terrorists with this inane system. The loss in gas mileage is atrocious, and the reason for it is just plain stupidity.

Re:It astounds me

[tepples]

The end result of that is that a 5 lane thoroughfare stops 15 cars every 50-100 yards because one care on a tiny side street is making a right turn onto the thoroughfare.

Would you rather have the light remain red for ten minutes at a time while you wait to turn onto the thoroughfare? There's an intersection where this has happened to me.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. I also hate when a light I'm approaching turns red right before I get to it when there is little to no traffic behind me. If it would just wait 10 seconds then we could pass through, saving gas from having to stop and start the car moving again. This is especially annoying when I get stopped like that light after light all in a row when the damn system should know I just left a light and would be approaching the next.

Stopping a car at an intersection uses a lot of fuel. Not just from the cars idling but from having to accelerate from a stop.

Re:It astounds me

[gront]

Lights are intentionally mis-timed for safety. During rush-hour around here, you can breeze past most lights, always catching the green. Once rush hour passes, the lights are set so you hit every single frickin' light and can't catch a green. Forces everyone to slow down, consume gas, but hey... think of the children!

Re:It astounds me

[toastar]

going half a mile to get on the freeway easily takes me 15 minutes, just because there's a light every 50 yards,

Your freeways have lights?

Here in houston, Mayor Bill white put down an edict that said all the lights in downtown in each direction(e/w, n/s) would be green at the same time. This lasted about 2 months because people threw a fit, Basically with the timed wave approach you can get All the way across downtown without hitting a red light, I'm suprised

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cityoffortwayne.org/publicworks/street-department/faqs/2-street-department/6-what-do-i-do-if-my-street-or-alley-light-is-out.html

Call them and tell them.

Re:It astounds me

[tepples]

I have reported this intersection and a few others like it to the city's traffic engineering department, but it hasn't been corrected. The signal still doesn't activate until an SUV pulls up behind my bike.

Re:It astounds me

[ktappe]

I'm always wondering if I should go to the city council meeting and ask why they're supporting terrorists with this inane system. The loss in gas mileage is atrocious, and the reason for it is just plain stupidity.

Seems to me the reasons for stupidly-timed lights is threefold:
1) Lowball bids from traffic light installers. To keep their bids low, a simple timer is way cheaper than a smart computer.
2) Politicians who pull strings so their development's side-road gets priority over the main thoroughfare.
3) Citizens like you and me who are too busy to attend council meetings and object.

Re:It astounds me

[wgoodman]

They said "going half a mile TO GET on the freeway.."

Re:It astounds me

[hedwards]

That's not as easy as you suggest. It does depend somewhat on where you are, but unless you're living in a relatively new city, chances are it's not going to work. For instance around here, the blocks are a bit irregular, some don't go through and others are longer than the rest of the blocks. On top of that, there's significant areas where you can't build roads at all due to them running up a steep hill or trying to go along the center of a ravine.

Then you're talking about the actual timing itself, adjusting the timings isn't particularly easy to get right. You're having to deal with traffic in two different directions, and in a couple instances around here, you've got that second and a half direction. As well as a very limited number of major arterials that can be put into place due to the aforementioned geographic oddities.

If it were really as simple as you imply, they would be doing it already, but in practice it isn't that straightforward.

Re:It astounds me

[PIBM]

Turn right, make a U-turn, either straight on the road or by entering any one's parking space. Either will get town council notified and the light fixed much faster :)

Re:It astounds me

[LBt1st]

In most states, a non-functioning traffic light should be treated as a stop sign.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

Which inductive sensors suck hard for cyclists. I frequently go grocery shopping early in the morning or late at night when there's practically no traffic -- wanna make a left turn? Your choice: sit there for upwards of 5 minutes waiting for a cager to come trip the light (and then they have to wait for you to get through the intersection, a delay I'm sure they appreciate), or disregard the signal (yep, that's an infraction -- being on a bicycle gives me no immunity to laws, just to sensord) and turn when it's safe, without causing grief for others. I always come to a full stop, then turn left when there's no traffic, just to demonstrate a level of caution should that light be under observation, but I'd almost invariably be clear blowing straight through.

Fortunately, one light along the way has cameras, NOT to ticket unwary marks for racing a short yellow, but to control the intersection. Car pulls up? you get a green in a few seconds, just like the loop sensors. Bike pulls up? you ALSO get a green, although the same delay means it'll be green before you get there, and you get just enough time to make it through before yellow. I wish more lights were set up this way.

Besides, for the purpose of maintaining a green wave at traffic speed, I suspect cameras are the better oiption, as you can use the camera of the intersection you're controlling, whereas the induction sensors are usually too close (won't show the wave until the lead vehicles are practically stopped), and you'd need to use the sensors from the previous intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[CAIMLAS]

Yes. This. THIS!

I hit every single red light on the way home from work. Every. Single. Day. Sometimes twice, as one green light is too short to get through (allowing maybe 3 cars each time). People frequently run that light. I'm only 8 or so miles from work (just slightly too far to drive), and leaving late - or early - doesn't seem to help one damn bit. The drive regularly takes over half an hour.

The only time I'm able to take this route and not hit every light is when there is absolutely no traffic (IE I'm able to be the first one at a light consistently and there is at most one car going each direction within 100 feet) - and get lucky to arrive at the first light when it's green. This is either more than half an hour early (ie 7AM or so) or leave the office after dark (call it 8PM).

The sad thing is that this is a 'small city' of only around 60k people. It's just through a mountain pass, and everyone has to hit an X intersection area (actually more of two intersecting X's) to get anywhere (unless they're fortunate enough to live close enough, on the right side of the X's to where they need to go, to make it worthwhile). And the railroad tracks alongside one of those X roads doesn't help.

At any rate, traffic flow math = good. If you could vary the lights based on flow, it'd help immensely.

(To make matters worse, the last month of the summer is Tourist Season - punctuated nicely by Sturgis Bike Rally Week. This makes things... interesting.)

(The crappy intersection in question:

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a road near me, that is set up perfectly for getting a large string of green lights, unfortunately, you have to travel 10-15 km/h over the speed limit to do it. (10 km over gets a decent run (but after a while you start to run yellows) - 15 km/h over gets all greens for about 10 km.) At the speed limit it's usual to just make one set. We have non-fixed/hidden speed cameras too. I think it's a conspiracy.

Re:It astounds me

[demonlapin]

Turn right on red, do a U-turn, proceed at will. Totally legal. My favorite maneuver is similar: to turn left, go straight through the intersection, take the first U-turn, then turn right.

Re:It astounds me

[shentino]

They aren't for safety as much as they are revenue generation.

Re:It astounds me

[Hadlock]

This is done pretty much throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth area, to the point we're so used to properly timed lights that it's almost rage inducing when you come to a light that's out of sync with all the others. Most of the main artery roads here are 3 lanes in each direction and 40-55mph. Even in the thick of rush hour on a friday afternoon before a three day weekend, Preston Road out of downtown Dallas flows ~45mph all the way to northern Frisco, crossing four major highways. Most roads aren't that good, but you can usually hit five or six green lights (spaced a half mile-to-mile apart) and coast through most cities before hitting one red light. In addition to saving fuel, it really, really cuts down on traffic congestion and minimizes the number of additional roads you have to build to carry the traffic.

Re:It astounds me

[yotto]

U-Turns aren't legal here, but I frequently turn right, then turn around in a driveway or parking lot, and still get back to the intersection in plenty of time to beat the light change.

However, this is the driving equivalent of a programming kludge and doesn't fix the actual problem that the lights are set up stupidly.

Did I just make a computer analogy to better explain something about cars?

Re:It astounds me

[DigiShaman]

Fucking Austin, TX. I swear, they'll throw a Red Light at the bottom of a hill just to spite me! It may be 2am with no one around. It's green right up until I get there.

I suspect they do this to get your attention (sleeping at the wheel???) or some bullshit. Oh well, I'll just throw even more CO2 driving back up hill!

Re:It astounds me

[Dare nMc]

most of the inductive sensors I have experienced are at the intersection, so you have stopped before they work, thus saving no fuel. They also pick up a single car and only optimize for that one car, and usually only on the lessor used roads, paying no heed to what they are stopping, and for how many. IE the ones I use see a single car (wanting to make a right turn 90% of the time) from a 30 mph lane turning on to a 65 mph highway, and the light will stop a string of a dozen cars going 70. With A very smart camera it would be possible to picking up how many cars, trucks, and where is the next opening. Need dozens of loop sensors to do that.

It would be a huge fuel savings if the lights know for example we have 3 loaded semi-trucks and 5 cars going 70 wait for them to pass and make the slow moving car wait longer. It would also be extremely helpful if we could get info sharing on light timing into something like the google map android phone applications, so that it could tell me to adjust speeds to hit lights, or to create a gap, or turn earlier to avoid a string of bad lights (or join a small group of cars...)

Re:It astounds me

[w0mprat]

That this isn't done everywhere. With all the red light cameras everywhere (for revenue), you'd think they could put a few out there that would make it so I don't spend 3 minutes every morning staring at an empty intersection.

There, fixed that for you. Now the rest of your question is self answering.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks,
Now there's a divide by zero error in my skull.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

Re:It astounds me

[Dare nMc]

all the lights in downtown in each direction(e/w, n/s) would be green at the same time.

at times that is the best approach, because then half of all cars can move at once. At rush hour major streets become completely full, and thus if you don't turn all the lights in the same direction at the same time, then only a small group of cars get to move (having a green light does you no good if the cars have not cleared in front of you.) I think that is why they try to make it smarter, timing all the lights to allow cars going 30 to never stop does no good when none of the cars can go 30. So you often cant have a "timed wave" when it is rush hour, but the rush hour timing is very wasteful at other times of day.

When I worked 2nd shift, and thus drove home at 11:30pm on weeknights, I learned that the street lights always timed for 30 mph worked great at 2 speeds, 30 mph and 60mph. Very poorly at any speed in between, so guess which speed I choose (amazingly I only met cops when outside of city limits, maybe it was shift change for the city police or something.)

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Struct]

I'd add a fourth possible reason, though: I think traffic control may be a little more complicated than we give it credit for. When there's one main road and everybody's on it, it makes sense to try to get long synchronized trains of traffic flowing through green lights. But as soon as you start to get more than one big road, you have to also think about how much traffic you're allowing into different parts of the city at once. If you look at traffic management as a big picture, then giving people green lights doesn't get them off your plate, it just moves them to another part of your grid. If you're stuck at a red light for 30 seconds too long and nobody seems to be going, consider that it may be because 3 miles up the road, that bubble is intended to absorb some traffic from another busy intersection.

Or, as you say, it could just be cheap systems.

Re:It astounds me

[JWSmythe]

    Most traffic signals that I know of are either timer based, or combine timers with inductive loops. If there's a vehicle (except motorcycles and bicycles, apparently), it should trigger the light sooner. When I rode motorcycles, I never had an inductive loop pick it up. Even in my car, I usually have to rev the engine slightly (like to 2,000 rpm for about 5 seconds) for it to see me. (larger magnetic field, better impression for the loop to see). Here's some info for bikers on tripping the sensor.

    They are usually set with min/max cycle times, so the light can't stay red in one direction forever.

    Now, if places properly set up their lights, I'd *really* appreciate it. Constant speed is so much easier on your car (and it's fuel efficiency), than constant starts and stops.

    There's one stretch of road I drive a lot, with about 30 lights on it. I have to be doing 60mph (in a 45mph zone) under the first light when it's yellow to make it through the following 10 lights. They'll each turn red behind me just about 5 seconds after I go under it. I've never made it under all 30 without hitting traffic. The nighttime pattern isn't too bad, I usually stop at 5 or 6. The rush hour pattern is terrible, where you're pretty much guaranteed to stop at 20 of the 30 lights. I had the GPS in my phone tracking my speed when I was going to meet someone. It showed 60mph for several minutes, and suddenly large gaps of 0 with intermittent 40mph spikes.

    There's a particular downtown area, where the lights are almost perfect. You'll wait at the first light, and if you slowly accelerate to 40mph, you can stay one light behind the one cycling green. (i.e., The light ahead is green, the next is red. When you reach the intersection, the next one turns green). There's one light a little out of sync towards the end, where I've seen people get into accidents because they tried to hit the intersection as it turns green, and it didn't quite yet. Once you're out of the downtown area, you're screwed though, and you'll end up stuck at about half the lights.

    Don't forget though, it's in the best interest of the state for you to sit idling at traffic lights. It doesn't sound like it makes sense, but.... Sure, they'll get complaints about long lights, but they're also collecting tax money on road-use fuel (i.e., gas from the gas station). If you get 20mpg because you stop at every light, rather than 30mpg because they're timed perfectly and let you through, that's a lot of money for the state over the life of your vehicle. Who cares that you'll spend over an hour during rush hour, to make a 15 minute drive.

Re:It astounds me

[no1home]

As a motorcyclist, I run into this some as well, though they have improved greatly (or it's because I have a bigger bike now). I have been pulled over once in my hometown for running a red. I explained to the nice officer (she was hot too, BTW) that I had waited through three cycles of the lights and never was given a green for my left turn, so, when it was clearly safe, I went. She let me go. Now, I hear rumor this is legal, but don't depend on it. It might not be for your jurisdiction (or even mine). However, it might be legal simply based on the idea that the signal is malfunctioning and you must therefore take matters into your own hands. You can solve your problem with a rare-earth magnet stuck to the bottom bracket of your bicycle. I know some bikers who use it and it has helped them.

Re:It astounds me

[pearl298]

In Scottsdale Az the lights are deliberately set to stop you at EVERY intersection! WHY you ask? According to the chief traffic engineer "So you will be "encouraged" to stop and shop at the local businesses along the way!!" Yes I actually heard this from his lips! Although his head did seem a little strange from a bad case of "recto-cranial inversion". I NEVER shop in Scottsdale because of this!

Re:It astounds me

[theshowmecanuck]

I think the OP was talking about red light cameras that take pictures of your license plate if you run the red light, so that they can ticket you with a traffic offense. Like photo radar. He's not talking about traffic timing.

Re:It astounds me

[veganboyjosh]

In most places, provided you do wait for the numerous cycles of light changes, and it never does change for your motorcycle or bicycle, you are legally allowed to treat the signal as malfunctioning. It's not registering a legal vehicle, therefore it is malfunctioning. Treat it like a stop sign, and go through the intersection when it's safe. I am not a lawyer. I do work in/with bicycle advocacy and have heard this from several independent sources.

Re:It astounds me

[theshowmecanuck]

Or maybe... late night :/

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also illegal to do that in some (if not all) provinces in Canada. Called "avoiding a traffic control device" or something like that.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

First you say:

(just slightly too far to drive)

But then you go on to say:

The drive regularly takes over half an hour.

So which is it?

Yeah, I know what you meant, just felt the need to point out your error

Re:It astounds me

[stfvon007]

On my way home from work, There is one intersection I always have to wait at all the time for about 3 minutes even though its empty. Rights on reds are prohibited, no sensors, just a timer, and it is a 5 way intersection, So even if right hand turns were allowed on red I would need to do right - U turn, Hard Right (Which is actually completely prohibited at that intersection) U turn, Right. It is very odd because every single other traffic light on the road except for that one has sensors, some even having approach sensors changing the light before the cars even reach them.

Re:It astounds me

[skine]

I still don't quite get it.

Perhaps there's a car analogy...

Re:It astounds me

[CAIMLAS]

Forgive me, I forgot a negation. If you'd quoted what I'd said instead of an excerpt that would have been evident.

Re:It astounds me

[sco08y]

Not only is it astounding that this isn't done, it's old hat.

Why is this astounding? Transit is managed almost entirely by the government, and like everything else the government does, it is 20+ years behind the times.

Re:It astounds me

[Rick17JJ]

I had similar problems with a local stoplight which would not change for my pick-up truck, late at night. I would pull up to the T-intersection, trying to turn left, then would just sit there for 5 or 10 minutes, until another car eventually pulled up beside me. The light would rapidly cycle through various changes, without ever giving me a green light. Because it was a T-intersection, not getting a green light meant that I could neither make a left turn or go straight ahead. Unfortunately, there was also a "No Right Turn" sign at the intersection. Since no other cars were around, I was always tempted to just drive through the red light, but never did.

I would try moving my truck back and for trying to trigger the buried magnetic sensors, but that never helped. I also sometimes tried moving into the other lane, but that never did help either. Then I would usually try switching my headlights back and forth between high beam and low beam, just in case the traffic light had an optical sensor. None of that ever worked.

Finally, another car would pull up beside me and the light would always immediately change. Usually, it was a small car weighing about 2/3 the weight of my full sized 4 wheel drive pickup. Was the traffic light waiting for more than one vehicle to show up at the intersection?

Does my V-6 powered, full sized four wheel drive pickup truck sit too high off the ground relative to its mass to trigger the magnetic sensors? It is very rare for a full sized pickup truck to be powered by a V-6 and five speed manual transmission, so mine weighs less than most. However, it is the typical stock factory height off the ground for a typical full sized four wheel drive pickup truck.

I did hear about someone else who had the same problem, with the same stoplight, when driving his pickup truck late at night. That problem went on for me for a couple of years, when going to shop at the grocery store, late at night. Finally, that intersection got rebuilt a couple of years ago, and the new traffic light does not have that problem. Back then, I would sometimes drive several extra miles though a route with a much lower speed limit, just to avoid having to go through that one stoplight, late at night.

I have occasionally had similar problems at two other intersections.

Re:It astounds me

[Psaakyrn]

Mr Bean done that before, can't remember which skit that was..

Re:It astounds me

[macraig]

You just made the strongest anecdotal recommendation possible for roundabouts, and didn't even know it.

Re:It astounds me

[unkiereamus]

Which inductive sensors suck hard for cyclists. I frequently go grocery shopping early in the morning or late at night when there's practically no traffic -- wanna make a left turn? Your choice: sit there for upwards of 5 minutes waiting for a cager to come trip the light (and then they have to wait for you to get through the intersection, a delay I'm sure they appreciate), or disregard the signal.

Since I used to routinely have to drive off-road for work, I used to drive a jeep that was lifted and on over sized tires, which in fact lifted my Jeep so high that I could no longer trigger inductive sensors. Generally not a problem, since this was in California (And you can bet I took shit over driving a gas guzzler.), I'd almost never have to wait more than 20 seconds for someone else to trigger the lights.

That is, of course, until I got a new job and drove home every morning at 4AM, and had to cross an intersection that was always green for the perpendicular direction of travel until a signal was detected on the loop.

The first couple of nights I just stopped, made sure it was clear, then ran the red. Then I hit upon a brilliant idea. Every night thereafter, I would drive up to the intersection, put my Jeep in neutral, get out, walk over, hit the crosswalk button, then walk back to my car. I had it timed so I would re-buckle my seat-belt just as the light turned green.

If you were looking for a redeeming message here, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed, I was really just telling an amusing anecdote.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

It is done here. Roads in Sydney are set so that if you go at the speed limit you will hit a red every 3 lights or so. Apparently stops speeding (!?!?)

To get a wave of greens, you can travel either 20 under or 30 over. Of course this only works when nobody else is around.

The road sensors? Useless. Turning across oncoming traffic, you'd be red while there's nothing coming. Then the 1st car comes after 30s, their lights go red and hold up 20 cars while you go and turn.

Kinda like the /. comment stuff, where you must type your comment for 1min or whatever before you're allowed to submit, and you can only write 1 comment every 10min or whatever. (my record was being called a cowboy 'last posted 26min ago' before giving up)

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel your pain even if I have never seen this stupidity done in 'my' city. Where I live it's the other way around: lights are adequately timed but people are idiots and they gun the car the moment the light goes green, hitting every red light along a 5 km stretch with about 20 lights that I go through every morning. I drive at the designated speed, don't even change gears (Europe) the whole time and everyday I'm amused by the sight of a pack of cars, buses and trucks driven by imbeciles jumping from red light to red light in front of me, while I move steadily and catch all the greens. Sometimes someone gets behind me and instead of changing lanes he/she honks in a -futile- attempt to make *me* go faster (I guess *not* to miss the upcoming red light??), and this road has three lanes in each direction and it's empty in the morning in one direction and in the evening in the other. Humans.

Re:It astounds me

[alfredos]

Which inductive sensors suck hard for cyclists.

Your bike sounds like a candydate for a neodymium magnet and a drop of cyanoacrylate

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

Five way intersection? What the fuck? Source or I call bullshit. Google map that bitch

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

So what happened? Did the light ever change?

Re:It astounds me

[ztransform]

Not only is it astounding that this isn't done, it's old hat.

What isn't old hat is that many drivers now have GPS systems and increasingly they are receive real-time feedback on road conditions. But is this really the best thing?

Consider the stock market. You have a large number of people all trying to "beat the system" (much like drivers trying to avoid road blocks). When the price goes up, people try to sell, when the price goes down, people try to buy, but most importantly everybody is trying to out-guess everybody else.

From a systems and control (engineering) perspective the stock market is uncontrollable. The feedback creates an inherently unstable system.

Should GPS and life-traffic systems continue to gain widespread acceptance we could find roads behaving like the stock market - sometimes stable, but sometimes swinging from congested to free. Which wouldn't be too different to present day situations - although snarls tend to be located in the same place day after day at present.

Are we likely to gain that much in the end? With intelligent traffic lights trying to guess the behaviour of the traffic, and individual drivers trying to beat the traffic, it could well end up an arms race.

Re:It astounds me

[ztransform]

U-Turns aren't legal here, but I frequently turn right, then turn around in a driveway or parking lot, and still get back to the intersection in plenty of time to beat the light change.

You have to love Australia. That particular manoeuvre is illegal there. Also illegal is exiting a roundabout from the same road you entered.

Truth is everybody in Australia is a criminal. You just have to wait until some prosecuting authority thinks it's your turn and they find the rule to nail you with.

Re:It astounds me

[DuranDuran]

> You have to love Australia. That particular manoeuvre is illegal there. Also illegal is exiting a roundabout from the same road you entered.

You are wrong. U-turns are perfectly legal.

> Truth is everybody in Australia is a criminal.

Aha! A troll.

Re:It astounds me

[daid303]

Don't complain at slashdot, complain at the city council. It is possible to detect cyclists with inductive sensors, but they are not installed 99% of the time due to the extra costs. I work at a company that supplies traffic-lights, and I found out recently that one of the lights I used to cycle past as a kid was produced by us. And it had no problems detecting me, giving me green light without stopping.

Also, you don't get a lot of green as a cyclist because cyclist green is 'expensive' in time. They have to set the clearance time to the slowest cyclist. So all that time they cannot give green to any lights that would cross your cycle route, which impacts the flow of traffic a lot. But don't fear yellow lights if you have enough speed, you have plenty time. And if you know the intersection a bit then the beginning of red can also be safe for you. But you might need to do some explaining to the local cop from time to time.

And as last, green waves are not controlled by cameras or induction sensors but by strict timing and communication between the intersections. The first intersection just signals the rest that a group of cars is coming so the rest can prepare for that. Or, in cheap cases, the intersections just run on fixed programs designed so that the green wave always happens (totally sucks for low traffic situations, like at night)

Green waves for fuel is nothing new, we've been doing so for quite some time already. What's new here is the communication between the vehicles and the intersections (which is pretty much still in heavy research state, and involves a lot more partners then just Audi and BMW)

Re:It astounds me

[BasilBrush]

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=53.852938,-1.684717&spn=0.001737,0.003299&z=18

Re:It astounds me

[AlXtreme]

Now, if places properly set up their lights, I'd *really* appreciate it. Constant speed is so much easier on your car (and it's fuel efficiency), than constant starts and stops.

Hear hear.

They placed a new exit ramp nearby my house with ditto traffic lights and actually got it right. With no other cars waiting I can cruise off the ramp and take a right or left turn without having to wait (or even brake) due to them placing multiple loops. Drive over them on the ramp and the appropriate traffic light flips to green, lovely.

But I agree, there is little incentive for the state to go out of their way to make existing intersections as efficient as possible. Nobody but you minds when you're waiting 5 minutes at 2am for a traffic light on an empty intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[Rick17JJ]

It finally would change whenever another car pulled up along side me, after a few minutes. Fortunately, I never did have to spend all night waiting for the light to change.

Re:It astounds me

[no1home]

That's what we call the kids on the crotch-rockets. Me? I'm on a cruiser- slow and easy, nice and relaxed.

Re:It astounds me

[Leebert]

Your freeways have lights?

I live in Breezewood, you insensitive clod!

(Actually, no I don't, but such an opportunity to make a road geek joke shouldn't go unused...)

Re:It astounds me

[ztransform]

U-turns are perfectly legal.

I see NSW has been changing the rules. It used to be illegal.

Aha! A troll.

Aha! Someone that has never lived in NSW!

Re:It astounds me

[Archades54]

Blind drivers in other vehicles make no distinctions between crotch rockets + cruisers, etc

Re:It astounds me

[WNight]

What kind of helmet do you wear?

Re:It astounds me

[xaxa]

In the UK if a traffic light sensor doesn't detect a cyclist it's officially faulty. You can report it to the local council.

According to this person the in-road sensors can detect a bike, even an aluminium one.

About once a week I cycle home through central London after midnight, sticking to the quieter roads (the busy roads are full of drunk pedestrians). Usually I'm the only person at a red light, and I've never had a problem with not being detected.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

Five ways? P'shaw.

We got 6 way intersections with nothing but a few stop signs around here.

Re:It astounds me

[Eevee]

Truth is everybody in Australia is a criminal.

...Because iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me...

Re:It astounds me

[flink]

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.332616,63.193359&ie=UTF8&ll=42.211971,-71.019659&spn=0.002602,0.003857&t=h&z=18

Re:It astounds me

[dougisfunny]

With an attitude like that, you'll never evolve due to happiness, it means you don't have to worry about carrying and everstone.

Re:It astounds me

[paulej72]

Also you could say that you live in Cape May Courthouse, NJ. The Garden State Parkway has 3 lighted intersections on this section of the freeway.

Re:It astounds me

[cycleflight]

Truth is everybody in Australia is a criminal. You just have to wait until some prosecuting authority thinks it's your turn and they find the rule to nail you with.

Well... Australia was a criminal colony.... Short of the natives you're pretty much spot on.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

Mount some rare-earth magnets on the bottom of your pedals. Not infallible, but definitely increases the "hit" rate with poorly tuned inductive sensors.

Re:It astounds me

[cycleflight]

Nah, he's posting from the intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[morari]

Tell me about it. I drive through a village every day which contains about ten traffic lights. Almost every one of these intersections are dead, because they arbitrarily put the lights up at every little alley that dumps out into the road. Now mind you, this is the only road through the village and it's a fucking state route on top of it all. Add in that the speed limit jumps from 25mph to 35mph and back again after nearly every light and it is soon taking me twenty minutes just to get through his dumpy little village.

Re:It astounds me

[Thavilden]

Some cyclists will put the magnet in their shoe and report good results if they put that foot down to steady themselves after a stop.

Re:It astounds me

[Muad'Dave]

One in Richmond, VA. This is more like a 5.5 way intersection, as Hermitage Rd that dangles off Brookland Parkway is a popular route. Note also that the sum of 2 major interstates (95 and 64) has entrance and exit ramps in amongst this intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[VolciMaster]

On my way home from work, There is one intersection I always have to wait at all the time for about 3 minutes even though its empty. Rights on reds are prohibited, no sensors, just a timer, and it is a 5 way intersection, So even if right hand turns were allowed on red I would need to do right - U turn, Hard Right (Which is actually completely prohibited at that intersection) U turn, Right. It is very odd because every single other traffic light on the road except for that one has sensors, some even having approach sensors changing the light before the cars even reach them.

... You know that if you're biking you can become a pedestrian and cross using the cross walks by pushing your bicycle, and then start biking again, right? :)

that's what I always do when I can't make turns to get where I need to go.

Re:It astounds me

[Hognoxious]

Not everywhere is set out in a grid. Here's a six way: http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=53.852938,-1.684717&spn=0.001737,0.003299&z=18

Re:It astounds me

[VolciMaster]

.. they exist all over the place, pal :)

Re:It astounds me

[Hognoxious]

Ooops, I meant here

Two tramlines cross at this intersection for added amusement value.

Re:It astounds me

[Hognoxious]

The irony is he missed two greens while he was posting.

Seriously, how hard is it to have a combined sensor/timer system so that every X minutes each way gets a green if there's no traffic around?

Re:It astounds me

[FatAlb3rt]

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.522445,-95.076606&spn=0.003445,0.006169&t=h&z=18

Re:It astounds me

[CastrTroy]

What traffic?

Re:It astounds me

[fuzznutz]

INCONCEIVABLE!

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

my brain just sploded...

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

wow...just...wow.

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

Yeah, in crazy land perhaps. Never seen one in my life, and thank god too, because as bad as the drivers are where I live, I know how hard it'd be for these people here to handle a 5+ way stop, even if lights were placed there.

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

You are more patient than me. Would've ran that light eventually.

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

Just makes you an easier target.

Re:It astounds me

[bzipitidoo]

Yes! There is some seriously low hanging fruit here. Traffic lights are extremely braindead. No coordination between nearby intersections, so you see things like the just released wave of traffic forced to stop again. There's the lightly trafficked side road light tripping and causing everyone on the main road to stop, and then miss the next light. Then there's poorly designed intersections handled by letting only one direction go at a time. Left turns cause long delays. I'm disgusted that apparently not much thought goes into traffic light timing, and what has gone in falls so short. Major intersections get all the attention they have to spare, which isn't much. Seems the more minor the intersection, the worse the light timing.

Politics can be a problem too. Many businesses actually want traffic lights to hold people up in front of their stores, figuring that will get them more business. They aren't shy about lobbying cities for a special light, just for the entrance to their parking lot. Then there's the lights especially for schools. Sometimes those are not a bad idea. Sometimes. These lights get thrown up for emotional reasons, not logical reasons.

Obligatory: I like traffic lights

Re:It astounds me

[M8e]

I love that movie!

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, oh shit. I'm in a crapload of trouble then, I'm an aussie and I've performed both those maneuvers plenty of times, and I'm only on my red P's!

Re:It astounds me

[ne0n]

Solve this on your motorbike with a magnet.

Re:It astounds me

[ubercam]

Here's one 5-way (light controlled) and one 6-way (stop sign controlled) within two blocks of one another no less. Hooray for diagonal streets running through a grid!

There's also this one. It's called Confusion Corner, but it's not bad at all once you know how it works, which lanes go where, etc.

Re:It astounds me

[WillDraven]

It may just be because I've been a bit high strung lately, but right now I feel like if i heard such nonsense directly from the person responsible for it, I'd end up with an assault charge.

What incredible stupidity and disregard for not only the environment but also the citizens wallets. All that wasted gas isn't cheap!

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

They couldn't put six way stop sign controlled stops where I live, due to the difficulty morons here have just dealing with a four-way stop. Seriously, I've witnessed all four ways at a four way stop here at a stand still while the slow minds of the retards that live here try to figure out who's supposed to go first.

Re:It astounds me

[Myopic]

No, I'd rather a third thing altogether. Neither of those alternatives sound very good to me. How about you?

Re:It astounds me

[jbengt]

According to that definition, a regular intersection of two streets would be a 4-way intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[xaxa]

How about the Magic Roundabout, Swindon, UK? Or is that just cruel :-D

Seven Dials is a moderately well-known shopping area in Central London. It's very quiet though, you can sit on the monument in the middle. The next junction south has five roads, the next one has six. I keep losing count for the junction to the north... eight?!?

I have to stop now, before I cover the whole West End of London. And I didn't even mention the City of London...

Re:It astounds me

[Carnivore]

I (fairly unscientifically) experimented with waving the rim of my wheel over the wire, using the theory that the faster I moved the conductor, the more I would affect the fields. The intersection in question was not usually empty during my commute, so my data are pretty noisy. That said, I think that it might work.

Re:It astounds me

[tholomyes]

I feel your pain. Some places in Portland have sensors that will detect bikes, but often times it's easier to just find a different route. But when they're there, the bike sensors work well-- there are even a couple of intersections with sensors that go diagonally through the four-way from one bike path to the other.

Re:It astounds me

[th77]

Yup, that's what I've always called it. And a T is a three-way intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[atomic777]

It all comes down to whether a particular city can justify, and is enlightened enough, to invest in a more sensible traffic system. They do exist and it is not some far-off fantasy.

Regardless of the reputation Los Angeles has, I was surprised at how well the traffic moved for the most part when I lived there for a few years. Sure, there are traffic jams, but the lights were surprisingly effective; I never once sat at an empty intersection, and there did appear to be some logic in the timing of lights.

Now contrast that with Toronto, a city half the size but with far fewer and smaller roads/freeways, where the traffic is horrendous, and worse yet, the lights will happily make you idle for 1 minute staring at an empty intersection. Costs the local economy money in productivity, increased shipping costs, pollution, and so forth, but to my knowledge nothing has been done, either because no one complains or the cost is prohibitive.

Re:It astounds me

[PingSpike]

I'm answering a question not intended for me, but we are frequently forced through this little nightmare: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=essex+jct,+vt&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.240201,54.84375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Essex+Junction,+Chittenden,+Vermont&z=13 Notice there is also the additional fun factor of an active rail network involved. It is generally referred to as "5-corners"...usually while attempting to describe to people how to avoid it altogether. A feat that is frequently impossible since it is a convergence of most main roads in the area.

I have to assume your disbelieve in the 5 way intersections existence means you hail from place with roads that were not designed primarily around horse use. The northeast at least is a hot bed of horribly designed roads that often also host massive amounts of traffic.

Re:It astounds me

[named]

Love it. This is our worst (Victoria, BC Canada)

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

Ironically that actually seems to make more sense to me than most of the 5 or 6 way stops I've seen, but then again, I've always thought of roundabouts (more common in Europe than the US) make more sense and are more efficient than multiple-way stops.

Re:It astounds me

[pcolaman]

Yeah, down here in the south, the drivers are bad enough without adding a 5th or 6th road into the equation. Hell, most morons down here could barely comprehend how to handle a three-way stop, and four-way stops are a good way to see an accident if you are patient.

Re:It astounds me

[mcgrew]

It's Texas, lots of money in oil. The more gasoline they make you waste, the more tax money they bring in.

Re:It astounds me

[Anonymous Coward]

And a road with traffic going both ways is called a 2-way, even if there is no intersection.

Re:It astounds me

[WNight]

Then you'll find out it's against the law to leave your vehicle in the road while hitting the button, or something.

How about a pop bottle full of ball bearings, on a long string? When you come to a stop on the sensor you drop the bottle over the side and let it roll under the vehicle? Or that bouncy suspension setup - just lower your vehicle down on the sensor to trigger it and bust a few moves while waiting for the light to change.

Re:It astounds me

[the grace of R'hllor]

I remember that sort of thing from when I was a wee lad. But bike lanes now have sensors specifically for bikes. What astounds me is that in the US, apparently there are no bike lanes in your cities. That's horribly unsafe, and not much of a motivation to go biking.

In Holland, we have bike paths and appropriate sensors (or buttons, like for pedestrians) going all across town, and you can get almost anywhere without having to jostle for position with cars.

Re:It astounds me

[sjames]

Or drive at twice the speed the lights are timed to...

Re:It astounds me

[Hurricane78]

It’s impressive how using your own brain for a change possibly becoming legal is such a special thing. I mean WTF?
If there is no freaking car for a mile, I cross the freaking street! I’m not wrong. The retarded rules are!
And the idiots enforcing them ignore the reason those imperfect rules were created in the first place: To accelerate traffic while lowering the risk of accidents. Which driving trough a red light when nothing is within a mile clearly is!
But nooo... most of the idiots out there are not much better than drones. It’s not in their pre-programmed hard-wiring, so they are mentally impossible to comprehend it. They literally even follow the rules, when it results in the opposite of what was once the intention that resulted in that rule.

Yay for bureaucracy and cattle mentality... NOT!

Re:It astounds me

[rdnetto]

You have to love Australia. That particular manoeuvre is illegal there

Yes, because it's not like each state implements their own traffic laws ~

Re:It astounds me

[BasilBrush]

In Britain, we say junction rather than intersection. The progression is:
T-junction
Cross roads,
5 way junction
6 way junction...

In the US, apparently, 2 streets crossing is indeed a 4 way intersection. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(road)

Re:It astounds me

[RichiH]

Cameras fix the symptoms. The root cause is that you do not have dedicated bike lanes and/or a traffic light which can be operated by a push button.

Re:It astounds me

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

I don't know where you are getting your rules from. Here is the VicRoads page on roundabouts: Roundabouts

  I see nothing about u-turns at roundabouts in there. I also checked the Road Safety Road Rules 2009 [PDF warning] Statutory Rule, and on page 132 it actually shows a diagram of a vehicle doing a u-turn at a roundabout to illustrate a legal manouvre.

I don't understand why you think turning right into a driveway and reversing back out is illegal either. What if you were turning into your friend's house, then immediately realised you forgot to bring a cake and decided to leave straight away? How long would you have to wait until it wasn't counted as a u-turn?

Re:It astounds me

[shokk]

Green Wave not to be confused with the same class of phenomena as the Red Tide or Aunt Flo visiting.

Red Wave

[Anonymous Coward]

British Local Authorities used to have a policy of halting the green wave, and trying to set up traffic lights to catch everyone on every light. This raised fuel consumption and brought in more tax for the government because of the increase in the purchase of fuel. Most lights still seem to be set up like this, at least in my experiences.

Re:Red Wave

[Sabriel]

Governments all over seem intent on breaking windows to make money...

Re:Red Wave

[Hadlock]

[[citation needed]]

Re:Red Wave

[eastlight_jim]

This policy was changed in 2009 when the Department for Transport realised the error of its ways. It now encourages more of a 'green wave' approach where possible.

Source

Re:Red Wave

[b0bby]

That's truly the most asinine thing I have ever heard of. Even for the UK government.

Re:Red Wave

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

It'd be nice if that actually contained a citation for the view that "the DfT tried to maximise fuel tax revenue by halting traffic at lights where possible". It doesn't - it actually says something like that but doesn't allow that claim to be checked. It does link to the DfT, but only to the main "contact us" page.

I'm guessing that it was an RAC press release that became "news". Unfortunately the RAC link has long since departed from their site.

What I suspect was actually the case was that the DfT historically didn't think that environmental concerns were any of its business, which is somewhat different. I bet it didn't think that fuel tax (which flows into the general exchequer, not the DfT specifically) was any of its business either.

Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[Avin22]

Here traffic lights are made to be a source of income. They are designed to stop you and increase your chances of running a yellow light so that the cops can pull you over and give you a ticket. Plus, it has the guise of making the roads safer (since people don't have as many green lights, they cannot speed as much), so much of the public is mostly ok with it. Unfortunately, in reality, we're just wasting fuel and making the roads more dangerous (more rear end crashes and angrier drivers).

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[Hijacked Public]

I was always told, by marketing people working at large retailers, that large retailers bought traffic lights because they cause more people to stop in. Whether that is out of enter/exit convenience or that there is something to making people pause in front of your store I don't know, but do you know of any Wal-Marts that don't have a red light?

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[tepples]

do you know of any Wal-Marts that don't have a red light?

This one in Fort Wayne, Indiana. It's between a strip mall to the south and some other department stores to the north. The closest traffic signals are two blocks away in each direction.

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[Hijacked Public]

Fucking google street view, passively shooting holes in my arguments.

But this isn't first time I've been lied to my a marketing person.

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[LBt1st]

Wow now that I think about it I personally Can't think of a walmart without a light. Sure there's probably a few where local laws prohibit a light (i.e. they have to be so far apart in most states), but I'd be willing to bet 95% of walmarts have a light.

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[blueg3]

You can tell because they're talking.

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[Rick17JJ]

In the early 1970s, most of the traffic lights in Phoenix, Arizona were evenly spaced and well synchronized for travel in either direction. That was back before they messed up the synchronization by adding all those extra stoplights in front of the Walmarts and other major shopping centers. The consistent even spacing between major intersections, made it possible to synchronize the lights for traveling at a specific speed such as 35 or 40 MPH. When driving, I could usually tell if I was encountering a light a little to soon or almost too late. I would then speed up or slow down slightly, to stay synchronized with the lights.

Back then, there were a occasional small signs saying what speed the lights were synchronized for. Unfortunately, very few drivers seemed to notice or understand the significance of the specific speed which they were synchronized for. Some drivers would travel slightly too fast and have to stop for almost every red light. Other drivers would travel slightly too slow, forcing them and everyone behind them, to stop for every stoplight. Whenever possible, I would pass such of of sync drivers.

Each stoplight was probably about 1/2 a mile apart. In recent decades, stoplights have been added in front of major shopping centers. So now there are three closely spaced stoplights in a row, which totally messes up the synchronization.

I have wondered if perhaps they might have been able to maintain the synchronization if traffic circles had been used in front of the Walmarts and shopping centers, instead of stoplights.

There is an ideal sized traffic circle on the highway near where in northern Arizona. Most of the time, most drivers make it through the traffic circle without having to make a complete stop. That is probably an ideal sized traffic circle, with about a 50 foot or more wide pile of landscaped dirt in the center of the circle.

There used to be a traffic light at that intersection, before they built the traffic circle. I was surprised to see how much better the traffic flow is through the new traffic circle, even during rush hour. The highway traffic is heavier than the traffic from the cross street at the traffic circle. I suspect that combination might be an ideal for using a traffic circle. Quite a few traffic circles have recently been built in the smaller cities of northern Arizona, such in the small city where I live. By the way, none of the traffic circles are in front of a Walmart or a shopping center, so I have not actually seen an example of that.

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[Rick17JJ]

Here is a link to a photo of the local traffic circle that I was talking about. The article was from a couple of years ago.
A Photo of our local traffic circle

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in US

[Qzukk]

since people don't have as many green lights, they cannot speed as much

Which is the biggest steaming pile of bullshit I've ever heard from any government official. I'm sure even the "traffic engineers" floor it when they know the light ahead of them is going to turn red right in front of them if they drive the limit.

Uphill battle

[seizurebattlerobot]

Traffic signal timing is nothing new, we've known about it a long time. Unfortunately, there is much money to be made fleecing motorists for traffic violations. As a result, our road systems are tweaked to generate revenue, not expedite traffic. Good luck getting these algorithms used in anywhere but a handful of places without a fight.

Re:Uphill battle

[ztransform]

Good luck getting these algorithms used in anywhere but a handful of places without a fight.

I take a 45-min motorway journey each morning to work. In urban areas drivers race as fast as they can to the car in front, tailgate, then slam on the brakes for the traffic lights. On the motorways drivers speed up to tailgate the car in front, then slow down, then speed up, then slow down.

If you could somehow give the British people a "chill pill" or maybe even some sexual relief they might not act as if they're about to explode every second on the road!

So much for working out the best ways of doing things. It seems that anxiety will continue to rule in the UK.

Re:Uphill battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, they're tweaked to encourage you to break the well-known and clearly-posted rules?

That's quite a hack, adjusting traffic signals to make drivers retarded. How exactly do you think they do that?

Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[tepples]

With all the red light cameras everywhere (for safety), you'd think they could put a few out there that would make it so I don't spend 3 minutes every morning staring at an empty intersection.

A lot of traffic signals are on a fixed cycle because the sensors buried in the street often fail to reliably detect a bicycle waiting to turn left (US; mirror in UK/AU/JP), even when the bicycle's wheels are directly over the edge of the loop.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[mister_playboy]

The city I live in has made it illegal to rid bicycles on the sidewalk in the downtown area near the college campus. I am forced to ride in the street in the most heavily trafficked area of town.

I hate it, but it's the law.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[jridley]

Roads are for road users. I ride a bike, I obey the laws (ALL of them - way better than ANY car I ever see on the road) and I pay at least as many taxes to pay for the roads as anyone else on the road. If the road isn't designed for my use, it's because the designers screwed up. Bikes were here before cars and they'll be here after cars.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Jaime2]

I'm not surprised, most of the sensors I drive over fail to detect my 532 pound motorcycle. I be more surprised if one of them did detect a bicycle.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Wrath0fb0b]

Roads are for road users. I ride a bike, I obey the laws (ALL of them - way better than ANY car I ever see on the road)
 

I would like to personally applaud you, since you are a better biker than virtually all the ones here in Boston. Our bikers pay no to stop signs or red lights, swerve between lanes, cut cars off, dodge back and forth from the sidewalks and generally make an unsafe nuisance of themselves.

Perhaps where you live, those people are a minority and most of the bikers are like you. Until we all get to that level, please excuse the more rabid anti-bike folks (the GP) because they what they are really angry about is the arrogant rules-violating bikers that are the majority here.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[LBt1st]

That's all well and good till you discover that the laws of physics do not yield to the laws of the land.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[rootofevil]

if you dont drive a car, you dont pay NEARLY as much as anyone else on the road. gas taxes are the primary source for road funding. you dont buy gas, ergo you dont pay to maintain the roads.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Centurix]

I've seen 'solutions' for some bikes which consist of putting RE magnets either under the bike or on the bottom of your shoe to try and trigger the induction loop.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[tsm_sf]

I'm not going to argue with your point of view (since you're more or less correct), but I would like to point out that offensive (as opposed to defensive) riding is unfortunately essential in a large urban environment. Getting out in front of traffic at a stop light, riding two abreast, moving from sidewalk to road and back again, and splitting lanes are all part of not being hit. For every asshole bunny-hopping the curb or cube-gleaming your fender, there's another who's totally oblivious to the fact that they're behind two tons of metal.

It's a lose-lose scenario, yet for some reason blame is passed between various forms of commuters instead of placed on urban planners where it so rightfully belongs. We need one lane for transit/commerce/utility, one lane for personal motorized transport, one for muscle powered, and one for pedestrians. Crying that it's difficult is begging the point.

((Critical Mass doesn't fit into this picture. It's a protest, and you know full well when and where it will occur. Getting your side mirror bashed or your windshield krypto'd is your own damn fault))

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[yotto]

A lot of traffic signals are on a fixed cycle because the sensors buried in the street often fail to reliably detect a bicycle waiting to turn left (US; mirror in UK/AU/JP), even when the bicycle's wheels are directly over the edge of the loop.

Is there some reason I can't think of why they can't do both?

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Kozz]

Glue a rare-earth magnet to the underside or insole of your shoe or boot. That should trip the induction coil, or whatever the sensor is made of.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Wrath0fb0b]

You are right, the blame lies with the urban planners but also with the fact that we have historically narrow roads that cannot just be arbitrarily widened. No amount of urban planning can will a bike lane into a spot where there is no room for it.

More importantly, however, there is no excuse for endangering everyone around you by breaking the traffic rules. Despite your lame protests they do, in fact, apply to everyone (the PD here has no remorse ticketing cyclists either) even if, in your opinion, it would be safer if you broke the law. As an avid biker (during summer anyway), I can assure you that you can bike safely without splitting lanes or running lights -- the only risk is that it will take you a little longer to get where you want to be.

Also, I've never seen a critical mass but it seems kind of counter-productive to encourage traffic harmony by committing senseless violence against cars. Anyone who expects cars to be kinder to cyclists after having their mirrors bashed has probably hit their head too many times.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Dare nMc]

every study I have seen shows that less than 50%, more like 20-30% of road maintenance is paid for by gas taxes (at least in the US.) The other 70-80% is from other taxes that bicyclists certainly pay. Since cars are so much harder on roads, every mile driven by car definitely creates a deficit. IE for every 100 miles we drive a car, we now need to do ~$3 more maintenance on the roads, we pay ~$1 in gasoline taxes over those same miles; net cost to other tax payers caused by our driving = $2/mile. Every 100 miles driven by a bicyclist results in $0.01 additional road maintenance, $0 paid in gas taxes. Thus those riding a bike instead of a car save tax payers $1.99 per every 100 miles driven, over driving a car the same distance. So essentially at equal income/spending levels; a bicyclist will contribute a much higher percentage than a car driver to maintaining roads.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[dougmc]

Then the sensors are faulty. Properly adjusted, they will reliably pick up a bicycle. Even a bicycle with a carbon fiber frame -- the wheels alone are enough to trigger a properly adjusted sensor.

In Austin, you can call 311 (the non-emergency line) and report an intersection where it doesn't work and they'll fix it in a few days.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[dr2chase]

No no fucking no. They do not work that way. You want to align a large conducting loop or blade across the sensor's AC magnetic flux. It's looking to form a short-circuited transformer with the body of your car, or a bicycle wheel.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[insufflate10mg]

Can you elaborate on the second sentence of the second paragraph? Sounds quite interesting but unfortunately inefficient. Lanes can be shared between "transit/commerce/utility" and "personal motorized transport" more efficiently than splitting them up (unless the ratios are 1:1 which would almost never happen). As for bicycles, for inner-city roads they can simply share the roads as they will typically go the same speed as the cars. For rural roads, they have the shoulder. For roads in between, they can stay to the side or on the sidewalk as there won't be nearly as many pedestrians.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[dougmc]

Actually, gas taxes typically only pay for the highway system, and only a fraction of that, like 50% or so overall?

City roads that aren't part of the highway system -- the ones cyclists use the most, are mostly paid for by sales and property taxes. In Texas (where I'm the most familiar with the situation), not a single penny of the gasoline tax pays for these roads!

Of course, this varies from place to place, but I'm talking about most states in the US. I'm not aware of any states that are different -- but I haven't checked them all either.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[driptray]

The argument that cyclists don't pay their way is absurd - the reality is the opposite; public funding of roads is a massive subsidy from those who don't drive a car to those who do. As a cyclist I'd love a system of user-pays for roads.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[wiredlogic]

They don't detect weight. Metal bicycle rims can be easily detected provided they are placed directly over the wire. For the figure-8 loops the middle section has two wires providing effectively twice the sensitivity and is more reliable. If the road has been repaved and the loop cuts are no longer visible this task can be challenging to futile. The same applies for motorcycles. You can't just stop in the general area and expect it to work like with a car.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of using neodymium magnets to solve this issue.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

if you dont drive a car, you dont pay NEARLY as much as anyone else on the road. gas taxes are the primary source for road funding. you dont buy gas, ergo you dont pay to maintain the roads.

If he's riding a bicycle rather than driving a car he is not causing NEARLY as much wear and tear on the roads. Additionally he uses products that are transported over roads in vehicles that use fuel that is taxed, so therefore he is paying to maintain the roads even if he is doing so indirectly.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[paeanblack]

I would like to personally applaud you, since you are a better biker than virtually all the ones here in Boston. Our bikers pay no to stop signs or red lights, swerve between lanes, cut cars off, dodge back and forth from the sidewalks and generally make an unsafe nuisance of themselves.

We have traffic laws in Boston?

I think the jaywalking culture here has a big part to play in the chaos. Since the fines are laughable ($1 for the first 4 offenses in a 12-month period, $2 for the 5th and subsequent) and there are so many one-way streets (easier mid-block crossings), the only people using the crosswalks are tourists. Pair that with a severe lack of bikelanes where they really matter (places where most bikers can't maintain car speeds, like the Harvard Bridge), and you get the mess that is Boston traffic.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[paeanblack]

((Critical Mass doesn't fit into this picture. It's a protest, and you know full well when and where it will occur. Getting your side mirror bashed or your windshield krypto'd is your own damn fault))

I would assume it's the fault of the asshole vandalizing your car.

Just because an asshole is in proximity to several other assholes doesn't make them less of an asshole. Usually it makes them more of one. There are too many people who use Critical Mass as an excuse to smash others people's property while they hide in a crowd. It's the organizers' damn fault for tolerating that shit

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Tim C]

Trust me, pedestrians hate dodging bicycles just as much as cyclists hate dodging cars.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[SnowZero]

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has a report from 2005 titled "MTP2035 Road Maintenence" which states:
"The typical local road maintenance and rehabilitation budget comes
about 25% from gas taxes, 45% from sales tax-based revenues, 10% from
other local sources including general funds, and 20% from state and
federal funds for road rehabilitation, but it varies among
jurisdictions."

And later:
"The inadequacy of the state gasoline tax is widely misunderstood; it
now covers only 20% of actual local road maintenance and
rehabilitation costs, with nothing left over for road improvements."

So, according to some real local governments, you are quite wrong. I seriously doubt that a bicycle causes 75% of the wear on a road that a car causes, even in areas with winter weather, so bicycle riders who don't drive much are paying disproportionately more for what they use than car drivers.

So, that's the best reputable information I could find. What do you have to back up your statement?

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[SnowZero]

Sorry there was a typo when I copyied from the PDF; "now covers only 20%" should have read "now covers only 25%". The conclusion remains the same.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[unkiereamus]

I would like to personally applaud you, since you are a better biker than virtually all the ones here in Boston. Our bikers pay no to stop signs or red lights, swerve between lanes, cut cars off, dodge back and forth from the sidewalks and generally make an unsafe nuisance of themselves.

Yeah, well, so do the cars.

Don't get me wrong, I think driving in Boston is great fun, a sort of vehicular brawl (which, when one is driving an ambulance, you almost always win, particularly in Boston), but let's not have a double standard here, eh?

PS: for those of you not familiar with driving in Boston, a while ago the city decided that there was a problem with people failing to yield for emergency vehicles who were running lights and sirens, so they changed the law such that if you fail to yield for a vehicle running code 3, the emergency vehicle has the right to push you out of the way, and not only are they not liable for any damage you incur, you are liable for any damage they incur. Apparently, it took a while, but people started pulling the fuck over.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay at least as many taxes to pay for the roads as anyone else on the road.

So exactly how much gas do you buy and dump down the drain on a weekly basis to ensure you are paying at least as many taxes as the next guy for road maintenance.

I don't dispute for a second that you are a much lower impact on the roads but if you don't drive a motor vehicle and buy the fuel needed to power it, you are not participating in the major tax source used to generate funds for road maintenance.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[pcolaman]

I say blame the French. Those assholes!

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[pcolaman]

What in the fuck does Optimus Prime have to do with vehicle detectors?

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen 'solutions' for some bikes which consist of putting RE magnets either under the bike or on the bottom of your shoe to try and trigger the induction loop.

Yes, this is what I do, and it works well.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[aug24]

I can vouch that in the UK, in Southampton, in 1992, the loops could reliably detect me on my chromoly frame hybrid.

I think this, if this is still a problem where you are, it is not a technical issue so much as an implementation one.

Justin.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I'm currently living the inductive sensors placed on most of the high traffic roads and intersections do detect bicycles with no problems.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[zippthorne]

No, they're on a fixed cycle because it's cheaper, and officious jackasses can adjust the signals for maximum inconvenience.

At least that's how it goes in my county. Every time there's an accident on one of the main roads, a block of people come out demanding more lights, not to protect intersections, but to slow down traffic. They never consider maybe reducing the number of cuts (there are spots where lights are no more than two truck-lengths apart! and that doesn't include the non-signaled intersections and driveways) and enforcing the "no backing out of driveways" rule would help more.

I'm not even sure what the goal is, other than "ever slower," since it currently takes thirty minutes to travel nine miles with just the lights and no traffic.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[zippthorne]

I would like to personally applaud you, since you are a better biker than virtually all the ones here in Boston. Our bikers pay no to stop signs or red lights, swerve between lanes, cut cars off, dodge back and forth from the sidewalks and generally make an unsafe nuisance of themselves

So, they're just like the auto drivers in Boston.

Your argument would have worked better if you'd chosen a city where you could actually find even a single driver obeying the rules on any given day.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[zippthorne]

In Austin, you can call 311 (the non-emergency line) and report an intersection where it doesn't work and they'll fix it in a few days.

That's a long time to wait patiently at a light. I'd hate to be "a few days" late to work in the morning.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Overzeetop]

Yes, but safe bicycle travel requires more road maintenance, as cleaning is expensive (ever tried cycling on a rocky street?), and requires the addition of lane areas for the traffic which cannot (generally) accelerate or maintain traffic speeds. The sales tax on a bike isn't really going to cover that.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[xaxa]

Trust me, pedestrians hate dodging bicycles just as much as cyclists hate dodging cars.

Which is a little odd, really. I've run into someone cycling on the pavement (I ran on the pavement round a corner straight into the bicycle, knocking the rider off and tripping up myself). It hurt, but it didn't cause anywhere near as much damage as a cyclist being hit by a car would. We both got up, she apologised, and we walked away.

I'd like to see more courtesy from all road/pavement users. I walk and cycle the way I wish others would, which means giving pedestrians as much space as possible on a shared path, stopping for people crossing the road, slowing down if there are young children or unleashed dogs on a narrow pavement, and generally not getting in anyone else's way if it's easily avoidable.

Whenever I stop for pedestrians on an unmarked crossing and they don't give me a strange look I think cycling has become a little bit more accepted in London.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[xaxa]

You are right, the blame lies with the urban planners but also with the fact that we have historically narrow roads that cannot just be arbitrarily widened.

Close some/many/all narrow streets to motorised traffic. Problem solved!

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[drinkypoo]

Of course, this varies from place to place, but I'm talking about most states in the US. I'm not aware of any states that are different -- but I haven't checked them all either.

This is certainly all true in California. California is continually suffering because it's the most populous state in the union, and indeed has to bear the brunt of illegal immigration caused by policies intended to produce cheap farm labor, since it also produces more food than any other state, yet it also is expected to support other states in the union; it's one of a minority of states which gets less in funding than it pays to the federal government. And as you say, the highway taxes don't pay for the highways. This is spectacularly more true here than anywhere else, so our highways are pretty craptacular. Then again, I remember a trip from Houston to Dallas in the rain and remarking at how amazingly foul the highway was; it held water like it was designed to do so, and no part of it was smooth.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[xaxa]

Getting out in front of traffic at a stop light

Being at the front when the lights turn green is sufficient, you don't need to run the red light.

riding two abreast

Riding in the centre of the lane seems better to me, if there's a safety reason for not being towards the side.

moving from sidewalk to road and back again

Sounds more dangerous to me. Car drivers don't pay as much attention to the sidewalk as to the road lane, so a cyclist "appearing" is a surprise.

and splitting lanes

Between stopped traffic? OK, but you need to go really slowly in case someone opens a door, and in slow moving traffic it's safest to overtake in the middle of the road (where car drivers expect people to be overtaking) or wait.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[drinkypoo]

The city I live in has made it illegal to rid bicycles on the sidewalk in the downtown area near the college campus. I am forced to ride in the street in the most heavily trafficked area of town.

It's illegal in my entire state to ride bicycles on sidewalks except as posted, because bicycles are vehicles. Riders are also required to obey traffic signs and signals, though they usually don't. Which is why I get immediately annoyed when I see a bicyclist, even though many bicyclists are more considerate than the average driver. I live on a one lane road and will regularly have bicyclists taking over the road to the point where it's difficult for me to get a vehicle by, when it is just not necessary. I don't mind slowing down around a turn on Mt. St. Helena so that a bicyclist can use the lane on a downhill or anything like that, but when you don't need the space and you use it anyway you're just trying to create an accident to fulfill your deathwish. "See how dangerous cars are? I was only all the way out in the street!"

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Eevee]

Bicycles don't damage the road, either. "The relative damaging effect of an axle is considered to be approximately proportional to the fourth power of the load." If we assume 100 pounds per axel for a bicycle and 1,000 for a subcompact, then the bike is doing 0.01% of the damage of the car. Compared to a large SUV with 3,000 per axel, it's only doing 0.00012% of the damage. We won't even bother comparing to a fully loaded semi.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[xaxa]

Safe walking requires both those things too, and there's no sales tax on feet.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Kozz]

Well, I knew that if I posted a very poorly-informed comment that someone would help out (oblig. "someone on the Internet is wrong!"). Honestly, I'd read about people using rare-earth magnets to trip these sensors. Perhaps there are different kinds of sensors? Or maybe I just shouldn't believe everything on the intarweb.

I know jack squat about electricity, so your comment doesn't help me out. Is there any kind of "trick" one could use (akin to magnets or some other tool) that would prevent cyclists of one flavor or another from waiting endlessly at a light? What would you recommend, then?

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

You Krypto my windshield, and I Glock your ass, motherfucker.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[tepples]

No amount of urban planning can will a bike lane into a spot where there is no room for it.

A street with two lanes each way can be turned into a street with one and a half lanes each way (full lane for cars and half lane for bikes) and a shared left turn lane. My city is trying this for one street.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[daten]

We need one lane for transit/commerce/utility, one lane for personal motorized transport, one for muscle powered, and one for pedestrians.

I agree that we need actual lanes for cyclists. Currently the roads are designed for cars and the sidewalks for pedestrians. This leaves the cyclists in a tough spot because no matter where they ride, they're a hazard to the lane they're trying to share. They take up too much space and move too fast for sidewalks, putting pedestrians in danger. They're too hard to see and move too slow for car lanes, causing traffic accidents.

I would love to have a safe place for cyclists to ride and I'm happy to blame urban planners, but in the meantime I'm not going to pretend that the cyclists that are trying to use the road that's not designed for them now, and get their own safe lane later, aren't the problem.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[tepples]

In Austin, you can call 311 (the non-emergency line) and report an intersection

Fort Wayne has 311 as well. I've reported three or four intersections like this, but they never ended up fixed.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

... because you don't benefit from materials transported in trucks?

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

the reality is the opposite; public funding of roads is a massive subsidy from those who don't drive a car to those who do.

Citation?

Pretty much every time I check the numbers, I find that gasoline taxes cover all the highway maintenance costs. Though this year, gas tax revenues are falling short of the required amount in a lot of places....

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Myopic]

You pay as many taxes for roads as car drivers?

That strikes me as difficult to believe. So, you buy lots and lots of gasoline, the taxes on which pay for roads, even though with your bike you don't need it? You pay high vehicle registration fees, which help pay for roads, even though bike registrations are usually ignored and always far lower than car registrations?

I love riding my bike, and avoiding those taxes is quite a bonus in my mind. If you somehow convince me that bikers are paying as many road-specific taxes as drivers, then that might lessen my enjoyment.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Myopic]

Wait, you are a Boston driver complaining about Boston bikers? Boston drivers are, bar none, the absolute worst drivers I've ever experienced, having lived there for a couple years, and having traveled to 49 of our 50 states. At the end of my two years living there I saw a car use a turn signal before making a turn, and Boston drivers never ever use turn signals, and I swear it is true that for about two seconds I was wondering "Why does that car have its emergency blinkers on, and does that driver know that one of them doesn't work?" Only after completing that cogitation did I realize that the driver must be from out of town, unaware that the local custom is to drive like a lunatic on cocaine.

Leave the Boston bikers alone. You should be so lucky that they haven't clogged your ridiculous streets with another car.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[xaxa]

On the one-lane road the cyclist perhaps feels there's not enough room for a car to overtake safely. I regularly take the whole lane in that situation. If someone's behind me they can wait -- presumably your small road leads to a large one reasonably soon.

(Most often the drivers who get annoyed about this have tried using a narrow residential street as a short-cut, and know they shouldn't really have done so. Obviously if you live there it's different -- but don't you prefer that the traffic goes slowly past your house? That makes it safer for children, and quieter for everyone.)

Or did you mean one lane in each direction?

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[drinkypoo]

On the one-lane road the cyclist perhaps feels there's not enough room for a car to overtake safely. I regularly take the whole lane in that situation. If someone's behind me they can wait -- presumably your small road leads to a large one reasonably soon.

Nope. It's about ten miles of one-lane road. It wouldn't even be paved if not for someone living on it having become a high mucky-muck some years back.

(Most often the drivers who get annoyed about this have tried using a narrow residential street as a short-cut, and know they shouldn't really have done so. Obviously if you live there it's different -- but don't you prefer that the traffic goes slowly past your house? That makes it safer for children, and quieter for everyone.)

My road is not suitable for "traffic", it is intended for local use only. Which isn't to say that nobody else should be on it.

Further, as a child I knew enough to get out of the way of cars, and I never played in the street. Safer for idiot children? Doesn't concern me. People who love their children and pets will keep them out of the road. I do slow down and go way around people when I see them walking or biking, because not to do so is stupid, but not as stupid as arguing with traffic when you're on foot, or riding around on some scraps of tubing.

Or did you mean one lane in each direction?

No really, it's just one lane for a long, long time. I live in the boonies. I personally don't ride a bicycle on roads because I think it's a very bad idea. I do have a full-suspension MTB and I like to singletrack, haven't been out in a while though.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[dr2chase]

Yeah, the magnet meme is widespread.

There's a web page that explains it in gory, but still somewhat EE-oriented, detail: http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm

What you need to imagine is that there is a big stream of something flowing out of the top of the loop, around, and back in the bottom. Position your bicycle so that you put a closed conducting arc around the largest possible amount of that flow. For example, position a wheel on a wire, in the plane of the wire or tilted inwards towards the middle of the loop. That puts your wheel perpendicular to the "flow", and thus you cut a large part of the flow, and the detector will sense you.

Note that if you position your bike perfectly vertically in the dead center of the detector, you will intersect little or none of this "flow", and hence you will not be detected. If you lay your bike down flat on the pavement, you will detect a lot.

Some detectors have a figure eight configuration (two side-by-side rectangles, usually) and for those, the flow is directed from one rectangle into the other (over the line separating them). So for those, it is GOOD to be dead center and perfectly vertical, you will intersect a lot of the flow.

And electrically speaking, that "flow" is the alternating magnetic field caused by a current in the detector. Anything conducting that intersects the field, forms a transformer, and that is electrically different from not-a-transformer, and that is what the detector actually detects. It has to be a changing field; a constant, DC field (like a magnet) has no effect. If you knew the frequency of the detector (10-200 KHz, says the article) and moved the magnet back and forth across that wire that fast (10,000x per second) then the magnet would work.

See also: http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magpipes.htm -- a falling magnet is also a changing magnetic field.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. :)

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[xaxa]

Fair enough. Everything I said only applies to narrow roads in built-up areas.

Playing near the street might be the only option in some settlements, and was normal for hundreds of years before the last bit of the 20th century. I usually see children playing on the grass near my home in the evening, which is next to the small roads that link up the buildings. Sometimes there are children in the road, but everyone goes slowly so it's fine.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! I've known how these detectors worked for years and reading all these comments about magnets was driving me crazy. It's easy to trigger the detector with a bike once you understand the principle. No need for gimmicks. Seriously, mod parent up!

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Dare nMc]

First entry in my google search for california:

The typical local road maintenance and rehabilitation budget comes about 25% from gas taxes, 45% from sales tax-based revenues, 10% from other local sources including general funds, and 20% from state and federal funds for road rehabilitation, but it varies among jurisdictions.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

I always find it funny when car drivers complain about bicyclists ignoring traffic laws when car drivers do it all the time. On your way home, count the number of car drivers that exceed the speed limit, turn or change lanes without using a turn signal, do a right on red without coming to a complete stop, don't stop on a yellow light when it is clearly safe to do so, take a left turn at a traffic light after the light has turned red, fail to yield to a pedestrian at a crosswalk, etc., etc. And I'd be willing to be those drivers complaining most about the bicyclists are the worst offenders.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[mcgrew]

pay at least as many taxes to pay for the roads as anyone else on the road.

No you don't. Roads are mostly paid for by gasoline taxes, both state and federal. The taxes are mostly hidden, as they're included in the price of the gasoline. federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, the mean state tax is 27 cent per gallon, giving almost half buck a gallon tax. here in Illinois the state tax is 57.2 cents per gallon, meaning I pay 75.6 cents a gallon.

There's no way in hell you're paying your share of those taxes.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[sjames]

Of course a bike doesn't put nearly as much wear and tear on those roads nor does it require much of the road.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Jaime2]

I never expected them to detect weight. But, 532 pounds of metal should be more likely to register on an inductive sensor than a thirty pound bicycle. The center of masses are about the same, but the bicycle's lowest metal point is a bit lower.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[BraksDad]

What about aluminium or carbon fiber wheels?

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[dr2chase]

Anything that conducts, is good, so aluminum is fine. Carbon fiber probably not, since it is embedded in a not-so-conductive epoxy matrix.

However, the frame, unless it is also carbon, conducts, so you tilt the bike "into" the magnetic flux (wheels on or just outside the wire, frame tilted in). If you've got CF wheels, the bike is light, so you can just drop the whole thing to the ground if you want to (I have done this, borrowing a friends wonder-bike).

If the frame and wheels are both carbon, you are kinda-sorta out of luck. It wouldn't take very thick copper wire to make a loop, though.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Overzeetop]

Shoes are technically optional, but asphalt and concrete are pretty hard on bare feet!

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[xaxa]

Apparently, if you don't use shoes much the soles of your feet harden. You also walk more softly, landing on the front of your foot rather than the back, which might be healthier.

(I use shoes; this is just what I've read on the web.)

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[jridley]

Gas taxes are almost exclusively used to pay for interstate roads, which bikes aren't allowed onto. Normal state and local roads are paid for out of non-gas-tax funds, which I pay as much as any car driver. Since a bike causes much less damage and demands much less space than a car, bicycle riders are actually paying more than their fair share of taxes to support the roads.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[jridley]

Please read the numerous replies to this argument above. Gas taxes pay for a miniscule amount of roads. Mostly roads are paid for by other taxes, which cyclists pay just as much of as car drivers, and cyclists are causing wear on the roads on the order of less than a hundredth of a percent as much as a passenger car, and require about 1/20th as much space on the roads, so in actuality, yes, cyclists are paying for a larger proportionate share of roads than car drivers do, by far.

Re:Poorly designed vehicle detectors

[Myopic]

If your premise is correct (gas taxes pay for a "miniscule" amount of road costs) then I concede the point. But, in my ignorance of the topic, I am skeptical of that premise. We need not argue: if you are sure of the premise, then you can be sure of my concession, even if I ain't.

Drawbacks of bikes and buses

[tepples]

You want green, invest in buses, trains, bikes, etc.

Being car-free, I know the limitations of bikes and buses. Bikes can't carry a week of groceries for a family of four at a time, and they're uncomfortable in a thunderstorm or the freezing season. Buses in many cities don't run at night, on Sundays, or on national holidays, due to low ridership.

Re:Drawbacks of bikes and buses

[Cylix]

I actually manage quite well without a car.

I gave it up when I moved to a metropolitan area. I can pretty much get anywhere I need to go and the same goes for most of my co-workers. The guys with larger families tend to have what equates to a part time use vehicle.

For groceries I prefer a delivery service which charges a very nominal fee for the savings and time. However, if I want to drive some distance there is always zip car for quick trips.

That said for me being vehicle-less is more or less an experiment and I will likely purchase another one at the end of the trial. Where I previously resided was complete suburbia and there was no way to exist without a vehicle.

Notice, I could care less if I save the environment... I am a bastard like that...

Re:Drawbacks of bikes and buses

[iNaya]

I am quite happy to take my groceries on a bus or train. It's also a bit of a money saver because it prevents me from buying stuff I don't need like ice cream, coke, etc.

Re:Drawbacks of bikes and buses

[MrEricSir]

You bring up some good points; carpooling and off-hour transit are perfectly good reasons to use a car. Personally I use a car sharing program for these reasons perhaps once or twice a month.

But these trips account for a relatively small amount of trips; aren't there more cars on the road during rush hour?

Re:Drawbacks of bikes and buses

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me or have you never seen a stretched bicycle before?

Re:Drawbacks of bikes and buses

[Anonymous Coward]

There is not much that can be done about the thunderstorms, but how about a trailer for your groceries? It does make parking a bit of an issue, however for the weekly grocery run this can be dealt with in my opinion.

Or just make your kids do the grocery shopping and send them out every day (alternating between the two of em)

Re:Drawbacks of bikes and buses

[tepples]

There is not much that can be done about the thunderstorms, but how about a trailer for your groceries?

A car can keep the refrigerated and frozen food in the air-conditioned back seat so that it doesn't spoil as fast, especially in the 86 deg F (30 deg C) weather we're having in Indiana lately. And though I've managed to carry a reel mower home in my bike trailer, it's about the biggest thing that will fit.

So can making only right turns !!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been proven buy Tory, Cary, and the other guy.

Re:So can making only right turns !!

[Hijacked Public]

And UPS

Re:So can making only right turns !!

[Anonymous Coward]

The other guy? Grant is BY FAR the most technologically inclined and geeky member of the cast.

Re:Greenwashing

[pookemon]

Yeah! Because buses, tram and trains can't benefit from studies like this! They don't use fuel and aren't affected by traffic!

And if more were spent on buses etc. then EVERYONE would use them - because it's a perfect world where additional investment in these modes of transportation will result in people being able to travel from every location to every other location whenever they want.

Now get off my lawn!

Where the money is

[XiaoMing]

This is somewhat old hat. Companies that depend on urban transportation efficiency for a profit (FedEx and UPS) have long ago implemented systems that recommend routes to drivers. UPS for example uses technology to help reduce/eliminate left turns (usually involve sitting at an intersection idling and waiting, wasting gas and time): http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/ups-driving-cost-savings-by-eliminating-left-hand-turns/2190 (2005 article). True it hasn't been done on such a scale or for specifically this exact purpose, but data mining this informational ore vein isn't exactly new.

Off topic, but another slightly more shocking example of just how the drive of money has helped corporations know everything about us: How about being able to predict your marriage and divorce percentage to 90% accuracy? Better yet, how about doing that based on _what you buy_? Visa's got you all covered: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/visa-predicts-divorce/story?id=10320638 ;)

Things like this make me wonder what knowledge about society these companies know about us, and aren't letting ourselves know, simply to help them turn a better profit.

Thinking about drug companies is a scary thought.

Another reason it's not done in the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want traffic moving swiftly thru the city, because cars tend to go faster and faster and hit things. "Traffic Calming" is how they euphemistically describe things such as lane narrowing and speed humps, to deliberately keep traffic moving slowly. Yes, it really stinks and makes me angry to think about it, but that's politics in action.

Re:Another reason it's not done in the US...

[tepples]

"Traffic Calming" is how they euphemistically describe things such as lane narrowing and speed humps

Then I've got an even better euphemism: "keeping the crosswalk safer for pedestrians". That's what politicians call it when they want votes.

Re:Another reason it's not done in the US...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The leading cause of death for people between 15 and 35 in the US is automobiles.

You sound like a big part of the problem.

The leading cause of death is not automobiles, just like the leading cause of homicides is not guns.

Every single automobile death is caused by either someone not paying sufficient attention (which includes driving faster than you can plan ahead for any given set of road conditions), or mechanical failure (usually coupled with some degree of someone not paying attention). The idiot who pulled out "right in front of me" today might have caused an accident -- he certainly wasn't paying attention, but I was. I saw the potential for him to make a stupid choice about four seconds ahead of time (as soon as he approached the intersection*) and by the time he actually did it two seconds later, I had already dealt with the situation.**

The point is this: most accidents require two parties not paying attention: the one who is making the active mistake and does something stupid like pulling into traffic, or driving faster than he can react; and the one who should have seen the possibility for the event to occur, and reacted to avoid it. Obviously this doesn't apply in all cases - but I suspect it does in most. (Heck - even getting t-boned when crossing a protected intersection ... why did you assume you didn't have to look first, just because your light was green?)

* what is with those people who will pull up to an intersection, sit and STARE at oncoming traffic for several seconds, THEN pull into it, causing much swerving and slamming on of brakes? Are they just spaced out while they watch a few dozen tons of metal bearing down on them, or perhaps they know they *should* look left -- so they do it for form's sake though they've already made up their minds to go?
** no, "dealt with" does not mean slamming on the brake and potentially causing more incidents behind me. With so many more controls than the horizontally long pedal in the middle (or left), WHY is that so often a person's first reaction?

As far as GP goes - I feel his frustration, and it's nothing to do with wanting to speed. Driving in a residential area I only drive as fast as I can comfortably react to the unexpected - often given the potential for kids and animals coming onto the scene from hidden places, it's at or only slightly over the speed limit. But when I hit six lights in a row, and the timing of the lights causes yet more delays and backups because of volume... i can't help but get frustrated at what a waste of time and gas it is. Those lights *could* be sequenced together, but they're simply not -- usually in order to either raise ticket revenue for the city, or because some politician who doesn't know anything about traffic management decides something must be "done" about how unsafe it is in the city.

Re:Greenwashing

[Avin22]

While I agree with you that cars are not nearly as green as buses, trains, bikes, etc, they are still sometimes a necessity. Some of us don't have a choice on the matter since there is no public transport for our commute. Ya, I would love it if there was, and we should invest in adding some, but until then, we need all the green solutions we can get. These companies found something that was cheap, easy to implement, and could make a real difference. I for one am quite happy about it.

Interesting perspective...

[RyanFenton]

The perspective taken for this bit of problem solving is interesting, because it is stepping above the usual street engineering up to city planning - maximizing the number of people able to use shared resources, while minimizing resources used. This is decidedly NOT a perspective that is common in the US, as our cities tend to 'sprawl' at the whim of investors and politicians with 'complicated' priorities rather than anything as idealized as proper engineering to make best use of resources.

Greater use of mass transit to maximize available road where possible, waves of greens with appropriate buffers to keep congestion manageable to even extreme capacities, traffic system that work to inform the driver and minimize late decision making - these are good moves.

I would hope we could use some of these moves to create a road system that would allow for us to approach automated driving systems - where you would decide where you needed to be, and an appropriate vehicle would pick you up within a few minutes, using the minimum amount of fuel for the entire city worth of people using the system, and giving non-automated drivers plenty of road space as they go. Nobody limited in choices - but maximizing efficiency and convenience for everyone.

It probably won't happen here in the US (different priorities, as mentioned), but I hope such a system could be established in my lifetime.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Interesting perspective...

[AK Marc]

This is decidedly NOT a perspective that is common in the US, as our cities tend to 'sprawl' at the whim of investors and politicians with 'complicated' priorities rather than anything as idealized as proper engineering to make best use of resources.

Bullshit. You can design 'sprawl' intelligently, or stupidly. There is no planning in the US, no matter who's doing it or when. NYC is not sprawled, and wasn't well planned. Same with Boston. Dallas is relatively new, and was planned better than many of the older cities and is much more sprawled. It'd better designed than Houston or LA that are more sprawled out it is, though LA managed to deal with the sprawl better than Houston by throwing more and larger highways at it (and it probably doesn't hurt that Californians like to tailgate at high speed, increasing the number of cars in pileups and greatly increasing the throughput of highways).

Look at even bigger cities, like Beijing, with up to 6 or so ring roads and spurs out from the center and it grows more rings as it grows out. They are sprawled, yet planned. So I don't believe that you can't plan sprawl, or, even if not planned, at least modify any existing plan to handle it. What I think happens is that planning means that one politician spends money to make his successor look better. That doesn't win any votes, and if someone from the opposing group gets power, then they will steal the credit, or worse, screw it all up and blame it on your party. So no politicians plan, it's bad politics. And that's a function of the American voters, and not a problem with sprawl.

Re:Interesting perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

The short answer is that it's more complicated than that. If it helps, think of traffic flow management as similar to process scheduling in an operating system. Cars are processes. You want to minimize the global wait time (time cars spent stuck waiting at lights). However, you also want to limit the individual process wait time (you don't want any specific car to spend ten whole minutes waiting at the same light). You also want to schedule IO in advance, at least as much as you can, so that there aren't any bottlenecks (specific street getting clogged and the jam propagates throughout the city. or letting one street go all green at the expense of all the side streets backing up). You also need to manage shared resources do that you don't get gridlock - process A has resource A and needs resource B to continue, but process B has resource B and needs resource A to continue (cars on a grid pattern of streets are backed up in a circle, such that cars can't go forward through an intersection because the line from one jam goes all the way around to block itself). You want to minimize unnecessary context switching because there's a penalty involved with each one (if you have a road that heavy trucks or buses travel, and you make the light timings too tight, you get a lot of lights changing while the intersection is blocked, and a lot of stop and go traffic). You want your nice shiny new pipelined superscalar processor to keep grinding away on problems parallel enough to keep all its features busy (you don't want to have two good roads to the same place, but one is empty and the other is jammed). And I don't have a good CPU term for this last one, but for safety reasons, you want to keep the speed difference small at merges for fewer collisions, which sometimes means the lights are actually timed to NOT give drivers a long straight shot through a crowded area, because people are far more likely to break the speed limit than they are to run a red light. (Um, maybe a multicore chip where each core can independently over/underclock itself, yet they'd still need to synch speeds to touch main memory and devices?).

Unfortunately, you can't actually optimize all these requirements at the same time, so any implementation ends up being a trade-off. Even an entire city of *only* computer-driven cars would still not have a perfect solution.

Re:Greenwashing

[Garble Snarky]

You want green, join the voluntary human extinction movement. Not more power generation and transportation.

With the number of people who currently drive a car to work every day, and clearly have no plan to stop that any time soon, it is absurd to suggest that nobody should invest in improving the fuel efficiency of cars.

Re:The green light is "half empty"

[masterwit]

BMW makes cars, which are not "green" by any standard. You want green, invest in buses, trains, bikes, etc. Not more cars.

This is pretty clearly a greenwashing attempt by BMW.

Yes, and I am OK with that...you see they do not make trains, bikes, (or even buses?),...

When a coal company stops mountain-top removal, we acknowledge this and do not disapprove. You do not have to agree with their actions, but even a feeble attempt at smart fuel consumption should be welcomed.

I can see that we need more mass transit "smart solutions", but complaining about some speculation/proposal for improved traffic signals...well cheer up man!

Such a method sounds ripe for deployment on U.S.-style boulevards, where obsolete signals, each running on their own cycle, can bring light traffic to a congested snarl.

That is a true statement, my city fixed its lights, lowered my commute by five minutes+, green washing right into my pocket!

No left turn

[tepples]

Making only right turns works when your streets are laid out in a nice grid. But where I live, this grid is interrupted by rivers, railroad tracks, parks, subdivisions with only one road in and out, a subdivision with streets oriented at 45 degrees to the rest of the town, shopping centers, a cemetery, and a college campus. Making no left turns would double or triple the distance, as I'd have to spiral way out and then spiral back in. Would you like me to plot the route to show exact figures?

Re:No left turn

[grimdawg]

yes i would like that very much

This is why the American economy is fucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the American economy is so fucked. Instead of drawing people in based on reputation, fair prices and high-quality goods, American retailers have to resort to trickery to sell their shitty Chinese-manufactured trinkets and wares.

This marketing trickery ends up causing a net loss for the economy as a whole. In this case, it's due to the consumers wasting money on gas while idling, not to mention the extra wear and tear on their vehicles due to the constant starting and stopping.

These resources are essentially wasted, rather than being used productively.

Ya hit a sore spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Duuuuuh. Really, coordinating the red lights so that you don't have to stop at EVERY DAMN ONE of them will save fuel? How about that!

Oh, how about saving brake pads and rotors, along with less wear and tear so that you only spend 15 minutes going to work instead of 25 since you don't have to stop at EVERY DAMN RED LIGHT on your way (because, of course, the traffic on the cross streets should only have to stop long enough for their light to turn green, so that the traffic on the main road has to stop for 60 seconds).

In these here parts (Pennsylvania) it seems as though the traffic engineers WANT you to have to stop at all the red lights (oh, and all the damn 4-way stop signs, too). Would be nice if some of the ideas the Germans are coming up with (or, perhaps, just some common sense) would migrate over here to the states.

they have video traffic detection cameras at some

[Joe The Dragon]

they have video traffic detection cameras at some light as well sensors at others.

Re:The green light is "half empty"

[tepples]

BMW makes cars, which are not "green" by any standard. You want green, invest in buses, trains, bikes, etc. Not more cars.

This is pretty clearly a greenwashing attempt by BMW.

Yes, and I am OK with that...you see they do not make trains, bikes, (or even buses?)

I know BMW makes "bikes" in a sense, and another German car company makes buses and sold them in the USA until the 1964 chicken tax.

Re:Greenwashing

[mister_playboy]

BMW makes cars, which are not "green" by any standard.

The MPG of even the most efficient vehicle is at zero when it is stopped by a red light. Vehicle manufactures are expected to do all this work to improve gasoline efficiency, but it is put to waste by inefficiency in traffic light patterns. If we are really serious about better MPG in passenger vehicles, than cities will have to do their part, rather than simply passing the blame on to car makers.

I can also guess with some confidence that the current BMW 335d is more efficient than whatever you happen to be driving. It offers a very compelling blend of performance and efficiency.

Of course, any driver knows this

[gelfling]

40 cars standing motionless at an intersection are getting exactly 0.0 mpg. With the added benefit of all that extra pollution that zero mpg brings.

Re:Of course, any driver knows this

[Technician]

Some cars burn much less gas while waiting for a light. It is true even in a Prius that the electricity consumed sitting does amount to fuel wasted at a light, even if the engine is off at that time. In a Hybrid, the loss is less.

Re:Of course, any driver knows this

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that a modern vehicle uses less fuel idling for a minute or two than it does accelerating back up to the speed limit.

IOW, it's not the waiting, it's the stopping and starting.

robocab

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be interesting to try it with a taxi first. that way you could get people to start using it without a big outlay=less perceived risk (no purchase or lease) and also they could sign a waver too, like an automatic teller with a pad where you can give an electronic signature (im sure this could be done to be legally standing, together with photos or other biometrics, like fingerprints, together with a CC or potentially eftpost (all taxis have eftpos here in australia), to cover any potential experimental nature.

if someone can figure out how to do this, and the beauty is you could start with only pretrained routes, and if you keep it local (say cbd) it could easily be kept upto date with road works etc. the toughest thing is navigating with, or around other cars. i think we need to model the intelligence of the othercars, in a min/max way, so you can figure out what the most probable thing is that the other cars could do next, and also consider contingencies for a worst outcome. do this with plenty of tolerance and you've just eliminated the cost of wages for taxi drivers. thats go to be worth a few mill$$. hey if you feel guilty about all the money you make from this idea just send some to AC /co /.

Re:robocab

[marcosdumay]

"i think we need to model the intelligence of the othercars, in a min/max way, so you can figure out what the most probable thing is that the other cars could do next"

And all that time I tought the drivers on the street had a colaborative goal to stay alive and don't destroy their cars... But your sugestion makes a lot of sense.

HEADLINE NEWS

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Through a test course in Munich, vehicles were able to post phenomenal fuel efficiency gains simply by adjusting the timing of traffic lights depending on traffic volume — to whatever speed provides a so-called 'green wave' of four or more synchronized signals."

This just in! Stopping and idling at each of four consecutive lights uses much more gas than driving straight through them without stopping!

Re:HEADLINE NEWS

[iksbob]

It's not even the idling that's the biggest problem... Accelerating once the light turns green uses far more fuel than either idling or cruising through a green light. When you step on the brakes to stop at a red light, you're converting your car's kinetic energy into waste heat via friction between the brake pads/shoes and the brake disks/drums. That wasted energy has to be replaced once the light turns green, or the car won't move. The faster the traffic flow, the greater the kinetic energy of each car and energy wasted by each red light that catches a wave of cars.
Regenerative braking systems found in hybrid cars help to some degree, but they still have limitations and conversion losses that waste energy. The battery can only be charged so fast, which leads to falling back on the mechanical brakes (assuming driving style isn't altered to compensate) in situations calling for anything more than casual brake application. Mechanical losses (additional load causing increased friction in axles, transmission, etc), conversion from mechanical to electrical energy (resistance in the generator windings and power conditioning), and conversion from electrical to chemical (battery internal resistance and chemical process efficiency) all take a two-fold toll on efficiency: Once when using braking energy to charge the battery, and again when using the battery to accelerate the vehicle. It's better than just letting the energy blow away on the wind, but still far from perfect.

Re:Greenwashing

[OrangeCatholic]

>This is pretty clearly a greenwashing attempt by BMW.

It would still be nice if roads were designed better. Of course this takes more than timing the lights.

Re:Greenwashing

[OrangeCatholic]

>The MPG of even the most efficient vehicle is at zero when it is stopped by a red light.

Nope. Not if the engine is turned off. Now you've got 0/0, is that zero or infinity?

It figures the Germans would do this

[OrangeCatholic]

Here in the US, you have an on-ramp, and you have a traffic jam next to the on-ramp. It happens every day. Every day drivers get fucked.

Then they have electric signs that tell you when the next traffic jam is coming up. The signs say (basically), "Traffic jam at next on-ramp."

I realize that past a certain point in the day, there's enough cars that the traffic flow becomes unmanageable. But when you have traffic jams at 6am (60mph to gridlock and back to 60 again), it just says to me that voters, politicians, traffic planners, etc. collectively don't give a shit about their morning commute, safety, sanity, or even how they look to the outside world.

Re:Greenwashing

[Lars T.]

>The MPG of even the most efficient vehicle is at zero when it is stopped by a red light.

Nope. Not if the engine is turned off. Now you've got 0/0, is that zero or infinity?

As soon as it has to start moving again, that falls apart.

Want to see real improvements?

[dreamer.redeemer]

Just stop allowing people to drive already. We'd all be amazed at the increase in fuel efficiency and road safety.

Dangerous?

[Laxori666]

From the article:

"Likewise, if the light is about to change to yellow, the system prompts the driver and momentarily cuts power."

Am I the only one who thinks that could end badly?

Re:Dangerous?

[JWSmythe]

    Since I accelerate into lane changes to clear my blind spot, yes, that does look like a beautiful mix for an accident. I signal, I check to see if I can see anyone. I didn't see the car in my blindspot, but I accelerated and wouldn't have hit him. But instead, as I start accelerating and moving over, the light turns yellow, so now I just barely got in front and slowed down. That's a great plan, if you're in the body repair business too.

Re:Greenwashing

[pclminion]

Getting the public to switch to mass transit is hard. It involves convincing everybody to give up what they see as a fundamental part of their own independence. Optimizing fuel consumption with traffic signals is easy. It involves tweaking some code.

You sort of people piss me off. If the solution isn't your ideal solution, then fuck the solution. Fuck the environment, fuck the planet basically. You're more interested in idealism than actually helping anything. Or maybe you just enjoy gloating about your obvious moral superiority. Go jump off a bridge. And fuck yourself on the way down.

Wrote People in Charge of Highways

[JimboFBX]

I actually wrote the local government entity that is in charge of designing and maintaining the highway system where I live (I forget what is called... its not the DOT) describing just this idea. They actually wrote back and said they were already implementing such a thing with cameras and a fiber-optic system.

They have two lights rigged up with cameras so far. The weird thing about these cameras is that they actually judge the speed of the last car and get him to run a yellow so that the light is green (or red depending on how you look at it) for minimum time. Really cool tech until your the motorcyclist behind that last car who isn't seen by the camera and find yourself either slamming your brakes or running a red light with a 50 mph cross street. Another con is that they will cycle the lights at blazing fast speeds if they don't see any cars coming from a direction for a while, even if it sees imminent traffic coming from the other direction, based on the assumption that maybe the camera malfunctioned. When it cycles the lights in this manner it is a 3 second yellow and green, which as you might imagine isn't nearly enough time to comfortably stop if your going 50 mph.

On the flip side, the cameras tend to see motorcyclists a lot more reliably than the magnetic inductance sensors detect them.

The problems with any intersection as it turns out is:

Unlimited traffic from one direction
Unknown traffic ratios
Traffic that is equally congested in both directions and people have plenty of reason to turn left from both sides

That third one is the biggest problem, because it makes running "green waves" up and down road harder, especially if you have a single cross-street that sees the same traffic density as the road in question.

how about we make personal cars illegal

[cinnamon colbert]

say in 15 years, no more personal cars that would really do it for the enviroment; all this making cars green stuff is hypocritical; even when the are zero tailpipe emission (aka just as bad but you can fool yourself cause the emission is somewhere else) cars foster a lifestyle that is bad, bad, bad. I say, ban them altogether; cars are like heroin - just no reason to have em around

Re:how about we make personal cars illegal

[drinkypoo]

I say, ban them altogether; cars are like heroin - just no reason to have em around

I say the same thing, but you've chosen an amazingly dumb way to say it. Heroin can be used as a painkiller if you lack access to Morphine. Cars can and will be used to get to PRT or whatever we end up with for the foreseeable future. Eventually we could get down to the point where a Chrysler GEM was a "luxury" car... you only need it to get to the local transport hub anyway.

Re:how about we make personal cars illegal

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

cars foster a lifestyle that is bad, bad, bad. I say, ban them altogether; cars are like heroin - just no reason to have em around

Let's replace the word cars with smug douche bags. Wow, I really like that sentiment.

Re:how about we make personal cars illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

well, cars are unhealthy - you spend your time sitting on your fanny, instead of walking; cars are dangerous - as you may know, auto accidents are a leading cause of death and morbidity, esp among teens; cars allow a suburban life style, which, afaik, implies much higher energy use then an urban lifestyle (eg, you drive 5 miles to get your kid to a soccer game instead of walking or taking mass transit)
roads and pavement promote water runoff, bad for aquifer refill
The salt used in northern climates is bad for the environment

I could go on for a while; people are not allowed to do things, and each society sets its own rules which change over time (we no longer allow slavery).
Many things which were once considered truly outlandish - like gay rights, I was born in the 50s and the idea that we would have gay ongress people would have seemed truly fantastical - become the norm.

Just because some people may like their cars doesn't mean they can have them; it is something we as a society have to think about

Hybrid or electric

[foniksonik]

Hybrid or eletric cars don't use any fuel while stopped or even during normal in city acceleration.

Re:Hybrid or electric

[GonzoPhysicist]

That still doesn't account for my time wasted at lights.

Re:Hybrid or electric

[Overzeetop]

You waste energy every time you stop and start. Even the best regenerative system is not 100% efficient.

Also, you clearly put no value on your time. Since you probably get paid a fixed salary, I pity your employer.

Re:Hybrid or electric

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true, but only tells part of the story. Whenever I touch the brake in my hybrid, I am effectively throwing away the energy I used to achieve the forward momentum. As a result, I have to use the accelerator regain my forward momentum. One way or another, that power comes from the gasoline engine. Based upon a year's worth of experience with a 12.5 mile suburban/city commute in a Ford Fusion Hybrid, I find that there is a 15 mpg difference between the days I hit all of the lights and the days I hit none of the lights. I would expect the differential to be larger for vehicles that burn fuel when idling.

Re:Hybrid or electric

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they do use more energy from the battery, which ultimately comes from a fuel source somewhere.

Re:Hybrid or electric

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it doesn't use petrol doesn't mean that it doesn't use fuel. How do you think your gauges and radio are kept on?

Re:Hybrid or electric

[Hurricane78]

That is physically impossible. There always are energy losses. Or is that thing fully made out of superconductors?
What you mean is: “Significantly less”.

Re:Greenwashing

[mirix]

Cars aren't going away any time soon. So we can:

A. Do nothing.

B. Fix the traffic lights for minimal cost and offer some improvement on things.

But I guess since B doesn't remove cars entirely, we should do nothing right? That's pretty fucked logic you've got there. If doing this saves only 10% on urban fuel consumption, it will have the same effect as 1 out of 10 people stopping driving entirely. Seems like a net positive to me, and a lot more feasible than hoping 10% of people to give up their cars and start walking everywhere.

My route to work is horrible. I hit nearly every light, every day, even when coming home in the middle of the night. I'd like to send the city a bill for 20%+ of my gas, and half the cost of replacing brakes & clutch when the time comes, as this could have been easily saved by fixing the fucking lights. The rage induced by hitting every light probably knocked a few years off my life too.

Re:Greenwashing

[mister_playboy]

In your pedantry, you miss the forest for the trees. I'm sure you understand the physics of repeatedly starting and stopping a car use way more energy than allow it to continue at a steady pace.

Having engines that shut off is good, but it's a bit like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.

Critical Mass

[dougmc]

Critical Mass is different things to different people, and people ride for different reasons. A few do ride to screw with motorists -- but they're typically the minority, and their fellow riders get them to cut that crap out or not come back.

As for cars getting their mirrors bashed or other similar acts of vandalism, that's pretty rare. Most riders are just out there to ride and have a good time. Red lights are often run, yes, "no more than two abreast" is flaunted (as it should be with hundreds of cyclists on a road) but beyond that ... it's mostly just a fun big bike ride.

As for "encouraging traffic harmony" -- that's really not the point for most. Perhaps the biggest reason people do it is that it's fun, and if there's a message it's more "we're here!" than anything else.

If you want to read more, the Wikipedia page on it is a pretty good starting point.

Re: Eliminate Intersections

[rubaker]

You're right that intersections have some unsolvable problems, that once you meet a certain level, the only solution is to eliminate them (or live with congestion). A system exists which can economically provide destination-to-destination non-stop transportation without any intersections at all. It's called Personal Rapid Transit.

UK Governmint did the converse for the fuel tax..

[cmaxx]

Seriously, with the combination of North Sea oil and high fuel taxes, making the motorists stop and go at every set of lights by making sure they were deliberately out of sync seemed like an easy and inoffensive way to bring in tax revenue without hurting anyone.

Only recently have they permitted traffic regulators to synchronize the lights for the benefit of motorists, society, the environment, and utlimately the tax coffers too.

Systems thinking.. meh, they haven't even heard of it.

Re:The green light is "half empty"

[masterwit]

Haha nice...doubt my friend who rides would ever be caught on one of those, that and a Harley. Nice link though

They need to give Bill Gates a call

[critter42]

I hear he and Paul Allen know a thing or two about traffic data computers...

Re:Greenwashing

[JWSmythe]

    Actually, an idling engine usually takes very little fuel. It's when it's trying to move it that it burns up a lot of fuel.

    Try driving for an hour, and see how much fuel you burn. Then leave the car idling in your driveway for an hour.

    I moved cross country once, in the middle of the summer. We had a U-haul, and the car on a trailer behind us. We had 3 cats to transport, which simply couldn't fit in the cab of the U-haul. We left them in the car, with it idling and the A/C on. The cats were very comfortable, and over 2,700 miles we only used about 4 gallons of gas. 675 mpg is very good mileage for a performance car. :) The truck on the other hand averaged 4mpg, but that was primarily because of the weight inside it.

Rebound effect

[purplie]

The faster the roads are, the farther people are willing to drive. So an increase in driving counteracts the hoped-for savings to some extent.

See various papers on "time travel budget".

See also Rebound effect and Downs-Thomson paradox.

Re:Rebound effect

[Myopic]

The goal isn't to reduce driving, rather to reduce emissions.

The gigantic waste of fuel goes into accelerating a car from stop to full speed, and that happens at stoplights and stop signs. Cruising at speed and idling both use little fuel compared to accelerating from stop.

So, for emissions, the stop/go thing is low hanging fruit.

Re:Greenwashing

[megrims]

Anyone for a false dichotomy? No?

What about Toronto ON, Canada?

[pearl298]

How is this different from the system that Metro Toronto put in place CA 1960?

There was a huge fuss about the "waste of money" until they took the system down to relocate the central computer.

The streets were so clogged that the Metro govt spent many millions to cut the down time by a few weeks.

The algorithm was simple - it "bunched" the traffic then tried to increase the probability that each "bunch" would get a green light at the next traffic light.

Not only did it effectively add an extra lane of traffic to every street, it effectively eliminated speeding! If you got ahead of your "bunch" then you got held up at the next light until your (legal speed limit) "bunch" caught up!

Why hasn't this been done for years?

[XDirtypunkX]

It always seemed like a pretty simple an effective way to reduce fuel consumption to me.

Harmonics

[pearl298]

"Do the math"

If you hit a red light at 30 mph, then at 25,45,55, or ?? you will "make" the green!

Also at 25 and 15, but who drives THAT slowly! Certainly no one in Arizona the "Surveillance State"

Re:Harmonics

[JohnnyBGod]

Well, it depends. Around here, there's a particularly obnoxious light at a T-intersection with both a side street and some light rail tracks. The light is permanently red and only turns green when you are near it, going pretty slowly (50 km/h, I think), a tram isn't coming and the side street is also red. So... it's totally unpredictable.

Re:Greenwashing

[trouser]

... or you could invest in buses, trains, bikes, etc. like the original poster suggests.

My route to work is horrible too. Traffic congestion so bad I could get to work faster on foot, public transport so crowded I can only get on if somebody else gets off at my stop. So I ride a bike. The exercise has improved my health and fitness such that I've probably added a few years to my life too.

It's not for everybody - I live too far from work, in the mountains, and it snows, even in summer, and there are wild animals and cannibals and I'd look gay in bike shorts and ... Harden the fuck up.

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in ARIZONA!

[pearl298]

As one of the 50(??) people to have lived in Arizona since then, I remember the (then) Phoenix traffic engineer expound at great length about the EVILS of left turns and especially the COMMUNIST PLOT of LEFT TURN ARROWS!

As I recall he considered LEFT turns to be some sort of COMMUNIST PLOT (OOOOH!) so he carefully desinged every intersection to make LEFT turns as difficult as possible.

This did wonders for the numbers of anyone who did not need to make an (EVIL) LEFT turn!

"Subversives", "Snowbirds" and "Illegals" however got the punishment they richly deserved for "choosing" such a terrible "lifestyle".

Sigh - so many snowbirds, so little freezer space.

"Welcome to Arizona - leave your money and GO HOME"

Re:Greenwashing

[mxh83]

Not quite right. Over a period of time, the gas will evaporate, so the denominator will be a number>0

Space = you're going too slow

[lmnfrs]

If somebody isn't tailgating already, they're not going fast enough. A light being red doesn't mean they should stop accelerating; they still have time to slow down.

There's an urge to go faster if there's somebody ahead. There's no reason behind it, but that's just how people drive. I have lived in my town long enough that I know the correct speed to drive. I don't use my brakes downtown because it's all one-way streets whose lights turn green on arrival if you're traveling at 12.5MPH. The only time I have to brake is when the person tailgating me changes lanes, floors it, changes back to my lane, then halts at the red light just ahead. They have to accelerate from a stop so I have to brake while they're so slow.

Sometimes they honk. Sometimes they keep accelerating until the light turns red and they have to stop again. For blocks, and blocks, and..

When driving downtown from my suburb, I use the brakes when turning 90 degrees onto the onramp, then again when I have reached the offramp after several highway and freeway intersections. I don't vary speed more than 5MPH away from the posted limit. But people don't like it. It's too simple to work.

Re:Space = you're going too slow

[lmnfrs]

Oh, P.S., my city mileage is significantly higher than my car is rated at, highway mileage slightly higher, and the only time I had to get new brakes was due to a malfunction. I've owned the car for almost 3 years and the brakes have a ways to go.

Re:Space = you're going too slow

[gront]

you drive 12.5 mph downtown and people only "sometimes" honk at you? If you do this on a regular basis, make a sign that explains what you are doing so other drivers don't think you are insane.

Re:Space = you're going too slow

[Myopic]

...did you say 12.5 MPH? That's absurd! Why not just get out of your car and push it, you'd go just as fast!

I can understand your complaint about the other drivers, but the obvious problem is the untenably slow speed of the timed lights.

I have a similar problem here in Madison, WI. There is a long road that I take home, where the posted limit is 25MPH. Okay, sure 25 is a bit slow, it should be 35, which is a comfortable driving speed. But the lights are all times at exactly 40MPH, which frankly is a little faster than I feel comfortable driving. But, unless I want to stop at every second or third light, I have to drive that fast (and break the law, too).

In my opinion, they should raise the limit to 35 and time the lights at the speed limit. Why would they time lights at +15? It's not just that one road, either, many of the roads in this town are timed at +15, it's actually pretty consistent (and baffling).

Another thing is that they are timed *poorly*. There is one block where I know I need to speed way up to 45 or 50, because that next light is about four seconds ahead of the flow; but then I have to immediately slow down to 30 because the light after that is a couple seconds behind.

Don't even get me started on the other road problems here. I've been to 49 states and I have never, ever seen a town with such maddeningly badly managed roads, not even Boston.

If we had well-designed roundabouts...

[macraig]

... then we wouldn't need to even concern ourselves with auto-adjusting traffic signals. Roundabouts require no energy, no maintenance, and are inherently self-adjusting to traffic flow.

I'm just sayin'.

Re:If we had well-designed roundabouts...

[Marcika]

... then we wouldn't need to even concern ourselves with auto-adjusting traffic signals. Roundabouts require no energy, no maintenance, and are inherently self-adjusting to traffic flow.

I'm just sayin'.

The drawback: roundabouts don't cope well with unbalanced traffic -- large one-way flows (rush-hour traffic, stadium traffic) will swamp the intersection. Busy roundabouts still need traffic lamps.

Re:If we had well-designed roundabouts...

[Rick17JJ]

Here is link to of a photo of a local roundabout which works quite well. That traffic circle is large enough to work very well. Most of the time, the drivers only need to slow down to about 20 to 25 MPH, without having to make a complete stop. It helps that the large dump trucks and tractor-trailer rigs usually do not have to make a complete stop. When they keep rolling, they can get back up to the 50 MPH highway speed much more quickly, without holding up everyone behind them. When a car does need to stop, it is rarely for more than a few seconds.

A local traffic circle near where I live

After the traffic circle was built, most of the local drivers gradually learned that the person in the circle has the right of way. Everyone entering the circle has a yield sign. About once every 30 minutes a horn is honked, because of someone who still does not know the rules.

I really like the traffic circle myself. At that particular location, the traffic circle has proven to be far superior to the traffic light which it replaced. However, I have not seen enough example to know for sure how they work in various other types of locations. This one is in a small city in Arizona. It is at the intersection of a 4-lane highway and a 2-lane side street. The traffic on the highway appears to probably be about 3 times as heavy as the traffic on the other street. During rush hour, the traffic is much heavier than how it appears in the photo. But even so, it is not super heavy traffic, like in a large city.

When there used to be a traffic light at that intersection, during rush hour, occasionally the tail end of the line could not get moving good before the light turned red again. I wish that there were more traffic circles, instead of traffic lights, between where I live and town.

Re:If we had well-designed roundabouts...

[macraig]

You might have a point to some degree, though I think you might have the point backwards: it should be TWO-way (perpendicular) flows that swamp it, not flows in opposite directions. Flows only in opposing directions never have to mingle in the roundabout and can pass through relatively quickly. Heavy traffic from more than just opposing directions demands substantial mingling and increases travel time through the circle, possibly including less-than-optimal travel arcs (i.e. a full circuit or more). That is no different than stoplight intersections, though. However, those are HUMAN engineering problems, I suspect: poorly educated drivers who are indoctrinated with stoplight intersections might be annoyingly slow to adjust to the new paradigm. In reality there's no reason heavy multi-directional traffic should snarl any worse than it does in a stoplighted intersection; it all hinges on whether drivers handle the situation cooperatively or competitively.

Re:If we had well-designed roundabouts...

[macraig]

That was my point to the other person who responded first to my comment: the primary problem with (modern) roundabouts is one of HUMAN engineering, in other words reeducation. Drivers who have been indoctrinated with the stoplight paradigm have been trained to be competitive; when you place those drivers into a roundabout paradigm - which requires far more voluntary cooperation - with no prior training, you can expect major dischord... and you'll get it!

You might say that stoplights are representative of capitalism, while roundabouts are representative of socialism/communalism/mutualism.

*ducks*

Re:If we had well-designed roundabouts...

[Marcika]

You might have a point to some degree, though I think you might have the point backwards: it should be TWO-way (perpendicular) flows that swamp it, not flows in opposite directions. Flows only in opposing directions never have to mingle in the roundabout and can pass through relatively quickly. Heavy traffic from more than just opposing directions demands substantial mingling and increases travel time through the circle, possibly including less-than-optimal travel arcs (i.e. a full circuit or more). That is no different than stoplight intersections, though. However, those are HUMAN engineering problems, I suspect: poorly educated drivers who are indoctrinated with stoplight intersections might be annoyingly slow to adjust to the new paradigm. In reality there's no reason heavy multi-directional traffic should snarl any worse than it does in a stoplighted intersection; it all hinges on whether drivers handle the situation cooperatively or competitively.

Yes, heavy traffic from all compass directions (N-S and E-W) gridlocks overloaded roundabouts -- but it gridlocks overloaded signalled intersections too. What I was talking about is the situation where there is fairly continuous traffic S to N, and (assuming rhs driving) literally not a single car from E has right-of-way to enter the intersection for minutes or sometimes even hours, no matter how long the queue from E. Traffic lights (or if the situation is rare, traffic cops) can force some "fairness" with alternating traffic every minute in this situation.

Re:If we had well-designed roundabouts...

[endus]

I disagree. The problems with rotaries come when people fail to be aggressive enough...they yield in the rotary rather than taking the right of way that is rightfully theirs. They think this is 'being nice' or 'being careful' when really all it's doing is disrupting the flow of traffic and fucking everything up for everyone.

I do love rotaries, though, and think we need more of them.

Re:If we had well-designed roundabouts...

[macraig]

Maybe the drivers who can't be retrained to cooperate should just be shot? That might solve the gridlock in and of itself, you know, thinning the herd.

Re:Greenwashing

[afidel]

Uh, the BMW x1 xdrive20d is a freaking full time 4wd SUV that gets 41mpg US. I can't wait till they go on sale next year in the US because there is literally nothing else in the segment within 10mpg of it. Sure they also make gas guzzlers, but they have some of the best technology of any car company to achieve good fuel economy. Also 41mpg is better than any US bus system outside of NYC and possibly Chicago or DC (though I've ridden on plenty of mostly empty smoke belchers in both)

Re:Greenwashing

[TubeSteak]

Cars aren't going away any time soon. So we can:

A. Do nothing.

B. Fix the traffic lights for minimal cost and offer some improvement on things.

First of all, when it comes to urban planning, things are rarely an either/or proposition.

Second, what you claim is a "minimal" cost for fixing traffic lights might be a big frakking deal to the budget of whichever government dept is in charge.
This is particularly true right now, since most municipal budgets are hammered from the recession.

Re:Too Bad It Won't Happen in ARIZONA!

[Rick17JJ]

I remember hearing that Phoenix traffic engineer from the 1970s, say on TV why he disliked using left turn signals. If I remember correctly, roughly what he said was that adding a left turn signal for each direction, significantly reduced the time that the light could be green. That would reduce traffic flow, although it does make it easier and to make a left turn. I only heard him talk for a few seconds on TV, once back then.

I had noticed the same thing when traveling through well timed, evenly spaced lights and then encountering a traffic light which had a turn signal. It was much harder to make it through an intersection which had a left turn signal. Presumably, the shorter amount of time that the light was green was the problem. So, I think he actually had a good point.

I only head him talk once for a few seconds once when I was watching the local the local television news back then. What he said was in response to one or more people who wanted more left turn signals. I found his brief anti-left turn signal response, to be sufficiently thought provoking, to have vaguely remembered what he said decades later.

I moved away from Phoenix, just before it got too big, with too many people, too much smog, and too much heavy traffic.

Obligatory XKCD

[vidnet]

I'd like to smack the idiot who designed this intersection.

(Also happens to be my favourite xkcd ever, finally I get to use it)

Living in germany...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Germany and travel between two cities regularly and can tell you - one of them has green waves whilst the other has not. And the one lacking such a system has roughly twice the population and you get stopped constantly by traffic lights. And the other one has at least several thousand cyclist (students) on the road and still manages to have better flow of traffic.
Would be nice if more cities wisened up but I wont hold my breath ;)

Philadelphia

[EmagGeek]

Philadelphia already does this on some of the arterials in and out of the city. They have big signs that say "Lights timed for XX MPH" where they can change XX on the fly. You can ride the green wave all the way into the city. It works pretty well as long as the traffic isn't TOO heavy.

This isn't that new an idea

[john.r.strohm]

In the late 1970s, I was commuting by motorcycle in Austin, TX. I discovered that a long stretch of North Lamar, and another long stretch of Guadalupe, were set for a "green speed" of 35 mph. There was one stretch where I'd generally get caught, the Triangle cutover from Lamar to Guadalupe, but the rest was an easy cruise from almost to 183 on the north end to the University of Texas at Austin on the south end.

The vast majority of Austin commuters never realized it. The speed limit on those roads was 40 mph, and they all insisted on running at or above the limit between red lights.

Even more savings with gasoline-cars

[redelm]

Being done in Germany, I expect they simulated the German fleet, ~70% diesel. Even more savings are possible on a ~90% gasoline fleet like the US because gasoline engines have very high idle fuel consumption (0.5 L/L/h) versus diesel engines (0.1 L/L/h). So fuel losses because/while stopped are much more significant.

Both gasoline and diesel have the same braking losses proportional to GVW. Hybrids do not so long as you can stay below their regenerative braking power limit (not easy in traffic). For reacceleration, gasoline engines are not that bad v. diesel -- 230 vs 220 g/kWh near best efficiency points.

Detroit's been doing this for years

[mantis2009]

Eight Mile Road and other major thoroughfares in Detroit, Michigan have traffic lights timed so that drivers traveling at the speed limit will almost always encounter green lights.

Re:The green light is "half empty"

[FearlessReader]

BMW makes cars, which are not "green" by any standard. You want green, invest in buses, trains, bikes, etc. Not more cars. This is pretty clearly a greenwashing attempt by BMW.

Well unfortunatly you like the rest of the world measures "green" by little stamps on the back of cars that say "hybrid" ... should say toxic battery for disposal. BMW from a systems prespective; the one that matters when going green is the greenest auto maker in the world. The manufacturing of the product, recycling of materials is noted as making the largest "green" impact; CO2 footprint wise. http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/06/dow-jones-names-bmw-the-greenest-automaker-again/

Not Groundbreaking Tech

[tanderson92]

This is not a particularly groundbreaking development, and Audi/BMW definitely are not geniuses for implementing it. I had this idea two or three years ago (except the part involving cruise control changing.) My brother and I, in highschool, did a science fair project and implemented the algorithms, with interfaces and communications to let the light know there were cars coming. Guess where the project ended up: 3rd place at regionals. Turns out judges are not interested in projects without the proper scientific terms and mandatory use of laboratories. Bonus points if you manage to solve cancer in a way that has already been done.

Revolutionary research is not appreciated. Sigh

Closed Sundays

[tepples]

I am quite happy to take my groceries on a bus or train.

But the buses in Fort Wayne don't run 59 days out of the year (Sundays, New Year's, Memorial Day, Independence Day, the day of the city parade, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas), and 52 of them happen to be the day of the week when we do our grocery shopping.

It's also a bit of a money saver because it prevents me from buying stuff I don't need like ice cream, coke, etc.

Coke Zero: because you can't snort Pepsi.

Double yellow line violations

[tepples]

Being at the front when the lights turn green is sufficient, you don't need to run the red light.

I have had car drivers cross the double yellow line to pass my bike while I am slowing down to stop at a red light. This saves them what, three seconds?

Re:Double yellow line violations

[xaxa]

I have had car drivers cross the double yellow line to pass my bike while I am slowing down to stop at a red light. This saves them what, three seconds?

Today I had one give up overtaking when he saw the lights ahead were red. (Although thinking about it, if he hadn't started to overtake I'd not have noticed at all.) That balanced out the 4x4 (SUV) driver overtaking me before getting stuck ahead of me on a narrow road.

Also today, a lorry driver held off overtaking on a left-hand bend (UK here). He overtook on the wide, straight bit a few second later :-)

In the last 18 months (6000km) I've reported two drivers to the London police online. I don't think much happens for a first report (possibly they get sent a letter), but if a driver gets multiple reports the police should investigate. I've only done it when I genuinely believed the driver was dangerous.

(The first, a lorry driver who overtook on a left-hand bend on a narrow bit of road under a long bridge, then -- at the red lights -- shouted at me for going "too fast".

The second, who overtook on a short single lane road, then stopped ahead and shouted at me for going "too slow" -- on a narrow, residential road past a school?!.)

One route is 70 percent longer

[tepples]

This is my ordinary route to and from work: 3.3 miles

This is the shortest route I could find from home to work with no left turns: 5.6 miles

And back from work to home with no left turns: 4.2 miles

I pay my fair share of taxes

[tepples]

So exactly how much gas do you buy and dump down the drain on a weekly basis to ensure you are paying at least as many taxes as the next guy for road maintenance.

I live in the United States, whose roads aren't funded purely out of motor fuel tax. I pay just as much income tax, sales tax, and property tax as the driver of a motor vehicle. In addition, retailers pay to have goods shipped from a warehouse and build this into the price of the goods; part of what I pay for the goods goes to tax on the fuel used for such shipping.

That's called a Michigan left

[tepples]

You recommend making a right and then a U-turn. Where do you think I live, Michigan? :P

REVOFUCKINGLUTIONARY!

[endus]

You mean stopping at a red, then driving 100 yards straight down a main road before being forced to stop at another red isn't fuel efficient? "Signals timed to require frequent stops" on a major commuter artery wastes gas?? NO WAY!!!!

Seriously, though, yea...no kidding! A while ago, they timed the lights out in a certain section of Boston that is always a nightmare to get through. I had driven through there earlier in the day before reading the article about it and had actually noticed that the trip was a order of magnitude quicker than usual despite a relatively heavy volume of traffic.

There are so many poorly timed lights in this city, and I have been saying forever that we could save a ton of gas, a ton of money, and a ton of time if we just fixed this. I know it's not something we can snap our fingers and get done but, honestly, it seems like the state is actively working against doing this at times. Some of the situations with the lights around here are just absolutely beyond belief. There's one place I can think of where you sit at a red (on a major 3 lane road) then drive 50 feet before getting another red. Every time. 50 feet! No joke! Situations like this create congestion and gridlock and just make the city a huge mess. There are so many benefits to doing this, and absolutely no downsides whatsoever. Let's get this happening ASAP.

Pointless

[drsquare]

Improve efficiency and people will just drive more.

Re:Pointless

[Myopic]

So, people could get more of something (driving) by spending less (money, emissions)? How is that pointless? It sounds pretty good to me.

Re:Pointless

[drsquare]

They wouldn't spend less though, they'd drive more to make up the difference.

Re:Pointless

[Myopic]

Are we talking past eachother?

Getting the same amount of a thing for less money and getting more of a thing for the same amount of money are equivalent.

If I want to drive more, and if I can drive more without paying more, then that sounds pretty good to me.

Please describe this third thing

[tepples]

No, I'd rather a third thing altogether.

Please describe this third thing so that we can discuss its merits.

Re:Please describe this third thing

[Myopic]

There are lots of options. The obvious one would be to have a 60- or 90-second light (ten minutes seems uselessly long). Another would be to have a dedicated turn lane with a merge lane on the main road. Another would be to have a light on the main road, a quarter mile back, so that there are breaks in the traffic pattern. There are probably a bunch of other, perhaps better, options that a professional could come up with, if he spent more time thinking about it than the 30 seconds I did.

But stopping 15 cars every 50 yards, or having a six-hundred-second wait to turn onto a road, are both bad options.

Re:Greenwashing

[Nethead]

Sure:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=6016+Mission+Beach+Rd,+Marysville,+WA+98271&daddr=4400+Carillon+Point,+Kirkland,+WA+98033&hl=en&geocode=&mra=ls&dirflg=b&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=44.25371,93.076172&ie=UTF8&ll=47.859361,-122.215176&spn=0.073598,0.181789&t=h&z=13&lci=bike

And it's been raining for the last three weeks.

Apparently they do it on purpose

[JustNiz]

I live in Phoenix AZ. Its mostly mile long blocks. I've noticed after getting caught at one light, the next light has been stuck on green even though any waiting traffic passed ages ago, then it always turns red right as you get to it. The next light does the same, then the next, and so on. Consequently every light is an almost guranteed stop-start so you get innefficient and more dangerous 'pulses' of traffic rather than streams.

Someone told me they do it on purpose for 'traffic calming', which if true is f*cking idiotic thinking.
Apart from extra unnecessary fuel costs, air pollution, and extra brake and engine wear, it increases the average number of cars on the road at any one time by making everyones journey take 3 times as long. It also punishes drivers who don't speed with extra delays, while rewarding those who speed to make the next green light before it changes.

Induction rings in the road.

[sunyjim]

Being a motorcyclist I have also had trouble with induction rings.
The trick is to identify the ring, by the cut in the road.
Then to ride up one cut side of the ring as quickly as possible and stop abruptly at the end. If it's a double loop, the trick is to ride up the middle cut in the road.

And induction ring is creating a current like a motor does. But your bike, or my motorcycle is the magnet or metal in the motor, and the ring of wire is the coil. The speed and amount of metal makes a difference in the amount of current created.
Apparently once your stopped if you lean your bike over the ring, almost laying it down, it will help increase the current in the ring, changing the traffic signal.

And

[mahadiga]

Different set of timings for schools, businesses and govt offices will save lots of fuel.

Re:Greenwashing

[MrEricSir]

"Independence" implies car ownership? So humans weren't truly independent until Henry Ford?

Inductive sensors and bicycles

[jdeking1]

Odd. I rarely have trouble with inductive sensors when riding a bicycle, so long as the traffic allows me to ride over the sensor loops. They will usually trip even though my bike has an aluminum frame.

Try riding along one side of the loop. That extends your time within the sensor's effective range. I have found that technique necessary in particular intersections.

Note to city planners: you can put those sensor loops in paved bike trails too, so it is safer to cross intersecting streets. It's been done in Tallahassee and probably other places as well.