Hmmm, I'm not quite sold on those figures. Care to provide any links? I did a quick google search but didn't see anything like what you're claiming.
But in any case I don't think your analysis quite fits the example we are talking about. You may only be able to increase you're speed 1% but you will increase the speed of those behind you by meaningful amounts. And if those infront of you would do the same, you would again benefit.
Let's just take this to the logical extreme. Lets say I know I'm going to keep hitting red lights so there is no expectation to get to my destination faster. Also I get better gas milage the slower I accelerate. My goal is then to accelerate as slow as possible so that I make it through each intersection as it is turning yellow. I'm saving gas, getting to my destination in the same amount of time. Problem is everyone behind me hits every light since I make sure I'm the last to go through (hey, I gotta maximize that mpg). Now if everyone behaved like this, there would be one car per green light, and if people in front of you are now doing it you are screwed. This is one end of a continuum that you guys are advocating moving towards.
I get a number of drivers annoyed, but in the end it doesn't cost them any time at all.
You believe that the same amount of cars behind you will make it through the intersection whether you travel quickly or slowly to the next intersection? Really?
Don't do it to save the brakes, that's not going to save any money. I only do it if I'm going to accelerate quickly out of a turn or if it's a scorching summer day and I want that extra boost of ice cold a/c.
Come on, most cars have pretty light clutches these days. I'm in LA too, have 2 manual cars and have been driving manual in LA for 9 years now. No problem.;)
UK citizens must be insane for putting up with Big Brother tyranny. Weapon? Give me a break. Let's just call everything a weapon when you want to persuade the sheep.
The gap isn't the problem for the person causing the gap. But have you considered that all these gaps will change outcomes behind you? A few gaps, a dozen gaps, might be fine. What happens when the number keeps growing? The gaps are going to mess up traffic in the intersections behind you. Let's use some logic people. For some reason people can seem to visualize this. Take a mental picture of traffic now, and then picture everybody installing a big accordian to the front of their car and deciding to extend their accordian 20 feet in this situation and 15feet in that situation. Everytime you are the 1st or 2nd car at a red light during rush hour, you could have probably made the light if one or two cars ahead of you would have closed the gap.
OK, but if we are talking about congested traffic (I'm envisioning city rush hour), I don't think it makes a difference if you are approaching a red or green. Lets say the light turns green and the waiting cars are bumper to bumper. There is a maximum amount of cars that can be in that holding pattern. Even with the max amount of cars bumpers touching, all those cars can get through the green if they go fast enough. Lets say people coast to the red leaving lots of space as they slow. The max amount of cars you have waiting for the next green is less, thus you are not getting as many cars to their destination, thus congestion. Coasting means cars behind you that could have made the light might not depending how far back they are.
Not true. A traffic light stays green for a certain time period. The faster the line of cars can accelerate the more cars can pass through the intersection. The faster the better. Double the speed, double the volume. Taken to it's logical extreme, you can get all the cars on the planet through one green light if you can get them up to speed.
I am an advocate of what you are suggesting only when it applies to oneway streets, which I also advocate. But you still have the cross town problem.
They will honk, swerve in and out of traffic to get around you
Then let them. I'd much rather have a dangerous driver in front of me so that I am in control of the gap than have them behind me where there is very little I can do. When I wave someone past to overtake me, it's usually a big vote of 'no confidence' in their driving. Don't you realize that you are triggering this dangerous behaviour? These aggressive and often dangerous drivers drive straight and in their lane 99% of the time until they find some guy like you who does not follow social norms and actually consciously wants to buck the norm. The nail that sticks out gets hammered.
Also, why is it that 80-85% of cars sold in the US are automatics and 80-85% of cars sold in europe are manuals? This preference for automatics has snowballed to the point that the youngest couple generations of drivers are really completely ignorant as to what their true preference would be because they have dismissed manuals as something they can't drive. No one is teaching with manuals in drivers ed, and they have no interest in learning. So one aspect of all their future cars purchases has been made for them.
I don't smoke and can't stand it. But if others like it, good for them. I have been in many cars with drivers that smoke and have never encountered someone who lets the cabin fill with smoke. They always have the window open atleast a crack and of course flick the butt out once they are done.
Nope, you can't drive steady in the U.S. It's apparently not allowed. You must floor the gas, roar up twenty feet, and slam on the brakes to stop every time someone in line in front of you clears the stop sign.
People are idiots. No wonder researchers tend to look for technological solutions to human problems.
People can be idiots, but from what you are telling me, I think those drivers are acting somewhat rationally. Their behavior is a bit extreme, but their thought process is that they have identified you as a slow driver and they don't want to be behind slow drivers. Granted they are approaching a red light or stop sign, but they are thinking ahead, and assume you will drive too slow after the stop. You may in fact not be a slow driver in general. But the general population of drivers has made a mental association with people who behave the way you did when approaching a stop, with people who drive infuriatingly slow after the stop.
Speaking of things we can do now just by teaching... Manual trasmissions are not difficult to operate. It just becomes subconscious. You save gas and the car costs less to purchase, in my experience they are more reliable and more enjoyable to drive. While everyone is thinking up all these expensive solutions, all these slushbox drivers could be saving gas just by using their left foot a little and moving their right hand now and then. If you drive on the freeway, you probably won't have to do anything until you exit.
If that was the case we wouldn't have anything to talk about. Here's the scoop from the guys blog:
Many of you are probably wondering what happened to the Obama profile. The campaign, with the help of Myspace, have seized control of the profile without my consent, and are using it to refer traffic to a new profile they created. I have been blocked from having access to the profile. The campaign will probably have a different perspective on the events leading up to this, but until my personal profile is deleted, I'm going to take a stand on this. I believe what they did is just wrong, and someone should say something.
If you think any politician is even remotely likely to take on industry or the military industrial complex, and do what's actually right for a change, you are sadly mistaken. Life is one bigs boys club, always has been, always will be.
There is one politician, Ron Paul. 100% principled. You also forgot to mention the biggest interest group, the voters. They love to get something for nothing just as much as industry. Just sing them a song about all the free crap you'll give them that of course won't cost them a thing.
I don't think he looks like a scumbag. But I know some people think that way and others think the Obama guys look like scumbags. The difference is this guy isn't running for President so it doesn't matter for him, Obama on the otherhand shouldn't put himself in a position to look like a scumbag.
Wouldn't it make sense to say that all parking lots should be covered at least partially by solar panels? This would not only add juice to the grid but help reduce the local heating problem with asphalt, reduce temperatures inside cars (thus reducing energy used to cool them), and provide a convenient place to plug them in.
It would also reduce the amount of parking lots, how convienent. As a property owner, you're incentive to have a parking lot would go down. Either they force you invest in your own solar energy company, or you get you property rights encumbered in red tape. I think I'd find another use for my property.
Give me a single piece of evidence that says that increasing the temperature (but not solar power) increases the fertility of land (I can give you several examples of the contrary). Permanently frozen lands excluded.
How about land that is only frozen some of the time? Or places that suffer frost during the growing season?
I'm glad we established what the truth is, I wish people would just hurry up and declare what the truth is about everything so we can stop wasting time thinking about these things. But seriously, why shouldn't you challenge things that are considered the truth? If it is really true then it will stand on its own merits. I just think of all the ridiculous notions that have been considered "common sense" over the ages. I'm glad those thuths were challenged.
As far as people getting angry. It has nothing to do with how much they know, it is how emotionally invested they have become. A top brain will get just as angry as a dim wit when the ideas they have invested much of their lives on get challenged and they feel vulnerable.
Slashdot Mirror
FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!! You know damn well he can't stand anymore! He's just a clump of ash in a can. j/k
But in any case I don't think your analysis quite fits the example we are talking about. You may only be able to increase you're speed 1% but you will increase the speed of those behind you by meaningful amounts. And if those infront of you would do the same, you would again benefit.
Let's just take this to the logical extreme. Lets say I know I'm going to keep hitting red lights so there is no expectation to get to my destination faster. Also I get better gas milage the slower I accelerate. My goal is then to accelerate as slow as possible so that I make it through each intersection as it is turning yellow. I'm saving gas, getting to my destination in the same amount of time. Problem is everyone behind me hits every light since I make sure I'm the last to go through (hey, I gotta maximize that mpg). Now if everyone behaved like this, there would be one car per green light, and if people in front of you are now doing it you are screwed. This is one end of a continuum that you guys are advocating moving towards.
You believe that the same amount of cars behind you will make it through the intersection whether you travel quickly or slowly to the next intersection? Really?
Don't do it to save the brakes, that's not going to save any money. I only do it if I'm going to accelerate quickly out of a turn or if it's a scorching summer day and I want that extra boost of ice cold a/c.
Come on, most cars have pretty light clutches these days. I'm in LA too, have 2 manual cars and have been driving manual in LA for 9 years now. No problem. ;)
UK citizens must be insane for putting up with Big Brother tyranny. Weapon? Give me a break. Let's just call everything a weapon when you want to persuade the sheep.
The gap isn't the problem for the person causing the gap. But have you considered that all these gaps will change outcomes behind you? A few gaps, a dozen gaps, might be fine. What happens when the number keeps growing? The gaps are going to mess up traffic in the intersections behind you. Let's use some logic people. For some reason people can seem to visualize this. Take a mental picture of traffic now, and then picture everybody installing a big accordian to the front of their car and deciding to extend their accordian 20 feet in this situation and 15feet in that situation. Everytime you are the 1st or 2nd car at a red light during rush hour, you could have probably made the light if one or two cars ahead of you would have closed the gap.
OK, but if we are talking about congested traffic (I'm envisioning city rush hour), I don't think it makes a difference if you are approaching a red or green. Lets say the light turns green and the waiting cars are bumper to bumper. There is a maximum amount of cars that can be in that holding pattern. Even with the max amount of cars bumpers touching, all those cars can get through the green if they go fast enough. Lets say people coast to the red leaving lots of space as they slow. The max amount of cars you have waiting for the next green is less, thus you are not getting as many cars to their destination, thus congestion. Coasting means cars behind you that could have made the light might not depending how far back they are.
Not true. A traffic light stays green for a certain time period. The faster the line of cars can accelerate the more cars can pass through the intersection. The faster the better. Double the speed, double the volume. Taken to it's logical extreme, you can get all the cars on the planet through one green light if you can get them up to speed. I am an advocate of what you are suggesting only when it applies to oneway streets, which I also advocate. But you still have the cross town problem.
Also, why is it that 80-85% of cars sold in the US are automatics and 80-85% of cars sold in europe are manuals? This preference for automatics has snowballed to the point that the youngest couple generations of drivers are really completely ignorant as to what their true preference would be because they have dismissed manuals as something they can't drive. No one is teaching with manuals in drivers ed, and they have no interest in learning. So one aspect of all their future cars purchases has been made for them.
I don't smoke and can't stand it. But if others like it, good for them. I have been in many cars with drivers that smoke and have never encountered someone who lets the cabin fill with smoke. They always have the window open atleast a crack and of course flick the butt out once they are done.
People are idiots. No wonder researchers tend to look for technological solutions to human problems.
People can be idiots, but from what you are telling me, I think those drivers are acting somewhat rationally. Their behavior is a bit extreme, but their thought process is that they have identified you as a slow driver and they don't want to be behind slow drivers. Granted they are approaching a red light or stop sign, but they are thinking ahead, and assume you will drive too slow after the stop. You may in fact not be a slow driver in general. But the general population of drivers has made a mental association with people who behave the way you did when approaching a stop, with people who drive infuriatingly slow after the stop.I'm pretty sure it's not... unless you are staring at the cig. Who needs to look at their cigarette? On the otherhand you do need to look at the road.
Personally, I have to punch the gas everytime I get behind one of you guys. I've learned to pass as soon as possible.
Speaking of things we can do now just by teaching... Manual trasmissions are not difficult to operate. It just becomes subconscious. You save gas and the car costs less to purchase, in my experience they are more reliable and more enjoyable to drive. While everyone is thinking up all these expensive solutions, all these slushbox drivers could be saving gas just by using their left foot a little and moving their right hand now and then. If you drive on the freeway, you probably won't have to do anything until you exit.
Doesn't smell good to me.
There is one politician, Ron Paul. 100% principled. You also forgot to mention the biggest interest group, the voters. They love to get something for nothing just as much as industry. Just sing them a song about all the free crap you'll give them that of course won't cost them a thing.
I don't think he looks like a scumbag. But I know some people think that way and others think the Obama guys look like scumbags. The difference is this guy isn't running for President so it doesn't matter for him, Obama on the otherhand shouldn't put himself in a position to look like a scumbag.
Ahh, I never learned about the 1000s of senators before.
It would also reduce the amount of parking lots, how convienent. As a property owner, you're incentive to have a parking lot would go down. Either they force you invest in your own solar energy company, or you get you property rights encumbered in red tape. I think I'd find another use for my property.
I watched Cowboy Bebop before seeing Firefly/Serenity and found the similarities a bit glaring. Perhaps inspiration is too kind of a term.
Or compare it to an original dirt cheap XBOX modded with XBMC.
How about land that is only frozen some of the time? Or places that suffer frost during the growing season?
I'm glad we established what the truth is, I wish people would just hurry up and declare what the truth is about everything so we can stop wasting time thinking about these things. But seriously, why shouldn't you challenge things that are considered the truth? If it is really true then it will stand on its own merits. I just think of all the ridiculous notions that have been considered "common sense" over the ages. I'm glad those thuths were challenged. As far as people getting angry. It has nothing to do with how much they know, it is how emotionally invested they have become. A top brain will get just as angry as a dim wit when the ideas they have invested much of their lives on get challenged and they feel vulnerable.