I've been down too many highways where all two or three lanes were occupied by people doing the speed limit or slower. Nobody could pass them since they were all near each other with no room to get around.
The result? Traffic gets backed up needlessly and transit time increases.
This is often one of the reasons why we have minimum speed limits. You are simply an impediment to traffic if you go slow.
I'm a transportation planner, and the great grandparent is incorrect. Slower speed has little to do with congestion, other than being a side effect. Up to a certain point, slower speeds actually allow more people onto the road. Congestion just has to do with the number of vehicles being too great for the amount of road, for the most part. Speed and capacity are related, but only in that speeds drop as congestion increases.
You're just talking about the situation where someone is blocking you from drivi
I don't know if that is an official term (probably not) but it's what I call it. Say you are stopped at a redlight, you and a line of cars. Light turns green. You can see the light change, but you can't go yet, you have to WAIT for the person in front of you to get going, and on up the line. it's nutz! People are looking at the back of the car in front of them, waiting for that car to move. You can see it happen, lead car gets going, then the next, then the next, etc., ie, the centipede effect. The result i
Ah yes, the "if only everyone would step on it when the light turns green" falacy. I'd normally use harsh language at this point, but for the fact that I was the same [expletive deleted] as you, not too long ago. Here's the deal:
When you're driving at speed, you maintain distance X from the car ahead. And, when you end up at the end of a line of cars at a stoplight, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you close to within X/20 of the car ahead. Once the light turns green, the safety margin you and everyone else sucked up to avoid stopping a few seconds sooner than you actually did takes everyone a few seconds apiece to reestablish.
For the "everyone step on it now" plan to work, everyone needs to either 1) slow down and stop the moment they see a red light waaaaaay off in the distance, or 2) the USDOT needs to deploy that autopilot system they've been testing that would make it possible for everyone to tailgate at 100 mph. I just don't want to be in that system when it goes south, see "The Gold Coast" [nationmaster.com] for a sample of the result.
Back on topic, a possible near-term result of the London test will be more accidents. During periods when traffic permits, many drivers will be moving at the governed speed limit. When a situation evolves when someone needs to make a quick brake/accelerate/maneuver decision, the quickest reaction is to step on it, which won't respond. It will take drivers a while to internalize this. In the meantime, somebody's gonna get screwed.
When a situation evolves when someone needs to make a quick brake/accelerate/maneuver decision, the quickest reaction is to step on it, which won't respond
While I do not know the system deployed here, the other system I have seen (a Swedish, I believe) worked so that if you stepped on it, the system would automatically deactivate and allow the driver to accelerate.
"Who alone has reason to *lie himself out* of actuality? He who *suffers*
from it."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:0)
This is one of those cases. If traffic was a liquid flowing smoothly through a pipe, then it would be. But traffic does not behave like a liquid.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:0)
I've been down too many highways where all two or three lanes were occupied by people doing the speed limit or slower. Nobody could pass them since they were all near each other with no room to get around.
The result? Traffic gets backed up needlessly and transit time increases.
This is often one of the reasons why we have minimum speed limits. You are simply an impediment to traffic if you go slow.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:4, Informative)
centipede effect (Score:2, Insightful)
Centipede effects: Spending Your Safety Margin (Score:3, Interesting)
When you're driving at speed, you maintain distance X from the car ahead. And, when you end up at the end of a line of cars at a stoplight, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you close to within X/20 of the car ahead. Once the light turns green, the safety margin you and everyone else sucked up to avoid stopping a few seconds sooner than you actually did takes everyone a few seconds apiece to reestablish.
For the "everyone step on it now" plan to work, everyone needs to either 1) slow down and stop the moment they see a red light waaaaaay off in the distance, or 2) the USDOT needs to deploy that autopilot system they've been testing that would make it possible for everyone to tailgate at 100 mph. I just don't want to be in that system when it goes south, see "The Gold Coast" [nationmaster.com] for a sample of the result.
Back on topic, a possible near-term result of the London test will be more accidents. During periods when traffic permits, many drivers will be moving at the governed speed limit. When a situation evolves when someone needs to make a quick brake/accelerate/maneuver decision, the quickest reaction is to step on it, which won't respond. It will take drivers a while to internalize this. In the meantime, somebody's gonna get screwed.
Re:Centipede effects: Spending Your Safety Margin (Score:2)
While I do not know the system deployed here, the other system I have seen (a Swedish, I believe) worked so that if you stepped on it, the system would automatically deactivate and allow the driver to accelerate.