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 driving as fast as you want to. That's just life.;)
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
The result is a huge waste of time at a limited green interval just getting back up to speed, whereas if everyone looked at the light and just went, it would allow faster and more coordinated acceleration and smoother traffic flow.
And everyone would be tailgating the guy in front of them. A fender bender at any point in the line would propagate back through more cars causing more property damage. But, that would be one less red light for someone to wait I guess.
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 el
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.
I'm a transportation planner, and the great grandparent is incorrect.
Just saying "I'm a transportation planner" means absolutely nothing to us unless you can tell us which city you work for, and which roadways you've planned.
If you've planned some of the roads near where I live, I'd take whatever you say with a large grain of salt.
> Go a few miles slower and the traffic will be more "smooth" > and global highway capacity will increase: the net effect will > be that more cars wil go over a milestone on a time frame, and > contrary to common sense everybody will arrive faster to their > destinies.
The slower the cars are travelling, the less distance required between each car, therefore the higher number of cars that can be on the road at the same time, therefore the increased capacity of the road..
The problem (of course) is that it assumes that all the cars are travelling the same speed.
Most traffic collisions result from cars travelling different speeds. One car goes much faster (or slower) than the rest causes an accident.
Or (following the line of reasoning present in the preceeding two posts) we could make the speed limit on every road 5KPH, which would maximize the road capacity!
Hopefully, once this system is installed in all cars, it can also be used to ensure people don't 'slow' (the opposite of speed?).
I have seen so many instances of these pathetic people doing under the speed limit for no reason other than they *think* they are being safer. However, the congestion and frustration they cause behind them lead to many incidents.
Obviously it will be a lot harder to implement a device that makes you travel faster due to the requirement to determine obstacles. But it needs to be
Obviously, speed and carrying capacity are correlated...
I mean, it's not like drivers going 80MPH are going to be directly on eachother's asses--although I have to admit some are. If drivers follow the 1 car length/10 MPH rule--or the 3 second rule, then cars will be spaced much farther apart at higher speeds. Finding the highest throughput at the highest speed assuming certian condidions should be a easy enough to find.
That said, I've known several factors to increase the liklihood of congestion--I'm
You're right to some degree, about predicting traffic flow being damn hard (I run traffic models for a living). There's a whole variety of software for predicting traffic at different levels of detail, from fairly coarse models of a region down to simulations that model individual vehicles (including driver behaviour etc). Unfortunately the very detailed models require huge amounts of data (intersection geometry etc..) and are impractical for modelling whole cities.
Basically there's no way of modelling en
I read an article a few years back where ADDING routes for traffic to take actually added to congestion in some cases.
This one city had two basic routs between points a lot of traffic went through and to ease congestion they ran a third road. Congestion went up. After doing some math they realized the problem and made the new road not through and congestion went back down.
Wish I could rember why that worked that way (and no it wasn't grandma/bubba/blondie getting confused over which way to go and p
Vehicle speed is like ping times. Road capacity (vehicles per hour) is like network capacity (mbps). When a site gets slashdotted, ping times go way up. During rush hour, it takes forever to drive anywhere. Same idea, basically.
As for effect of speed or speed limits on road capacity: if you want to download your mp3s faster, you don't look for an isp with better ping times. You get a higher capacity connection. Similarly, if you want to get more cars into the city per hour, you don't raise the speed
I'm guessing that the speed reductions on the M25 that frequently occur at peak time with no obvious reason are just to reduce traffic speed to reduce congestion? Could be wrong though...
You're correct - the loops under the road ahead detect a body of congested traffic and attempt to 'smooth' the flow by reducing the speed of the traffic approaching it from behind. I think the hope is that the effect of the back-propagating wave that's produced when people start braking more and more sharply (until they come to a standstill, if it's really bad) having encountered a body of slower moving traffic (lorries overtaking each other at 0.1mph, for example) can be reduced.
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.
Wow, you must be one of those guys that like to blow by me when im doing 5 over the speed limit. You know
It's the same in the States, just no one cares to follow it (esp. people driving too slowly). It's easy to justify if you think you are going fast enough for everyone else. Of course you have to be pretty self-righteous to think that, but it is the Americans* I'm talking about.
* I'm American, so this is insight, not flame. Thnx.
most of the highways where I live (central/upstate NY) have only 2 lanes, plus on/off ramps. Except for a span of an exit or two, that's how it is. I tend to drive fast, but I follow the "drive right" rule whenever possible. As long as everyone stays as far to the right as possible, there should be no problems.
However, to ensure that passing is possible, I suggest that to pass someone, you must be going at least 5 mph faster than they are. Nobody going 70.1 mph should pass someone going 70.0 mph. Soun
I personally think this would be a great idea but I also don't think it will ever happen.
I imagine the revenue stream lost by lack of speeding tickets issued would be incentive enough to make sure these things stay out of cars.
It's unlikely we will ever see a device to actively restrict drivers to the speed limit in the U.S., given the huge amount of revenue generated from speeding fines. If we were to implement such a device, it would likely be one that automatically *fines* a driver who exceeds the speed limit, as opposed to slowing their vehicle down.
Thankfully in Florida they are trying to pass a bill that states if you are in the left lane and you arent passing the car in the lane next to you, you could be pulled over for impeding traffic.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having more than one lane?
"We have a six-lane motorway here, and everyone damn well better be driving in the far right lane except to pass."
How many "I'm passing you and he's passing me and you're passing him" cycles would it take to get someone actually using the right-most lane on during rush hour?
I'm sure there's an exception for when there's a car right in front of you. Basically, if you're in the left lane you should either be passing someone or unable to pass due to a car in front of you.
Thankfully in Florida they are trying to pass a bill that states if you are in the left lane and you arent passing the car in the lane next to you, you could be pulled over for impeding traffic.
Sure, we might as well add a few MORE rediculous nonsense laws to the books, we certainly don't have enough.
Since you are so in favor of this wackiness, answer this for me. What if the right hand lane is actually doing the speed limit? Technically, and this comes from driving class that I had to go to for spe
Trading loss of freedom for personal safety is a long slippery slope and once we start down it will very, very difficult to stop.
Sorry, it's too late to worry about starting down the slippery slope in the U.S. - we're already seriously in need of ice (mud?) axes to help arrest our slide:( See Kelo v New London; See gun control laws; See...:( Heck, the U.S.
The funny thing is all those idiots trying to go so fast are usually stupid enough that they finally lane jocky themselves behind someone doing the minimum and get stuck there.
Of course some manage to do it repeatedly. I recall a few times when the SAME idiot passed by me several times.
Really it all depends. If you're on an open highway with relatively little traffic, then a couple cars in the wrong lanes going to slow can have a bad impact. But on the other hand, if traffic is merging, say from two lanes to one, then moving faster than you can safely merge is going to actually slow things down.
Define to slow, if you mean the speed limit then by definition they are not going to slow, but rather as fast as permited and if you want to got faster you have no right to insist they get a ticket for you.
And no right to inconvience them by insisting they change lanes or whatever just so you can get a ticket sooner.
Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
Define to slow, if you mean the speed limit then by definition they are not going to slow, but rather as fast as permited and if you want to got faster you have no right to insist they get a ticket for you.
What is too slow really depends on the situation. If you're heading toward a merge in heavy traffic going the speed limit would be much too fast.
Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
>Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
>>No, it most certainly won't.
Unless you are talking about a very simple (or very familliar perhaps) trip you are wrong. I'm not saying perhaps, or IMHO or even sometimes, because after years of driving and PROVING what I said daily basis I know what I'm talking about.
Not guessing, not going on just a few anectedotes, but years of driving and comparing to others who drive for a living.
The fastest way to get somewhere is at traff
Maybe I'm just confused about what you say. Yes, in order to get from one point to another as fast as you can you have to be smart. But 9 times out of 10, you have to speed as well.
Assuming normal traffic conditions, there is an optimal speed, above this and traffic conditions slow you down, below this and you slow yourself down. Once you get within a smallish percentage of traffic speed (usually 5 over) your close enough to optimal that smarts are the only way to reduce trip time.
Most people who insister a greater mph is always quicker trip are those who fail to understand this simple fact.
I suspect most of the people complaining about slowpokes in these threads are the idio
Assuming normal traffic conditions, there is an optimal speed, above this and traffic conditions slow you down, below this and you slow yourself down.
You must live in LA, or consider rush hour traffic conditions to be normal. In normal traffic conditions where I live there is usually an open lane available to go pretty much as fast as you want. Obviously this is only true to some extent, and if you go 5000 mph you're going to die and never reach your destination, but the optimal speed to increase your
No actually I live on the edge of suburbia near St. Louis, MO. I can only guesse you live in a rural setting. I am speaking of the majority of cases. The vast majority of people live in or near a city.
And what I said is true, traffic condition durring most of the day will eventually cause the lane jocky trying to do +20 (when most everyone else is doing +0 to +5) to get stuck in the right lane on most two lane highways, or in the case of one lane roads this idiot will crowd the 'slowpoke' ahead of him
I can only guesse you live in a rural setting. I am speaking of the majority of cases. The vast majority of people live in or near a city.
I live in Tampa, Florida. It's not a big city, but that *is* a city.
And what I said is true, traffic condition durring most of the day will eventually cause the lane jocky trying to do +20 (when most everyone else is doing +0 to +5) to get stuck in the right lane on most two lane highways, or in the case of one lane roads this idiot will crowd the 'slowpoke' ahead
It apears that Tampa is a very different place in that case.
If people really do speed up when crowded form behind around there I can only be thankfull most people around here aren't that stupid.
If you drive emergency services you get a very distorted view of what 'normal' people see as traffic. I hope that's not confusing things here.
The loss of time I implied does occure quite often, but not every time, and somtimes it's very significant (the wreck the idiot speeder caused or when he got pulled
It apears that Tampa is a very different place in that case.
Probably so. And New Jersey, where I lived most of my life, is probably even more different.
If people really do speed up when crowded form behind around there I can only be thankfull most people around here aren't that stupid.
I'm not sure where I said they do that. Some people do it, I suppose. If I'm in the left lane and I see someone coming really fast behind me I'll usually speed up to pass the car on my right and get over.
As a counter point to what you're saying I live 5 miles from work in Fairfax Va. Having traveled that same 5 miles for over 2 years I find making 4 lane changes on the same road tends to save me 5 min on the drive home. Now this is based around where people get onto / off of said road coupled with a large number of unsynchronized traffic lights which tends to exaggerate the value of a few car lengths. It's hard to say if it's worth it but 5min * 50weekds *5days/week * 2years/60(min/h) = ~42 hours saved
"Now I don't do the jack rabbit lane changes that some people do but by avoiding the lanes that get congested I can save significant amounts of time."
This is what I meant by driving smart is faster than driving 'faster'.
Avoid the problems rather than try and do 80 in a 60.
That said if you can save five minutes in five miles other than by doing and EXTRA 60mph (on an empty road) I feel sorry for you for the kind of rush hour nightmare you must deal with.
Actually, traffic does behave like a liquid... kinda...
The traffic simulations I've seen use a particle model to work out traffic flows. The idea being that people over and under estimate the speed of their own car, and others on the road. The result of this is each car "vibrates" against others (with a certain air gap, hopefully).
The result of *that* is that traffic tends to slow *more* than the slowest driver would travel at. Which is why you get congestion at points of merging and corners for no apparent reason - nervous/careful people slow down, and it cascades into a near stop for everyone else.
Side note, slowing traffic down "for safety reasons" is inane. Traffic will slow itself down as volumes increase (eg, peak times) all you engineers have to do is make the road flow smoothly.
Which is why you get congestion at points of merging and corners for no apparent reason - nervous/careful people slow down, and it cascades into a near stop for everyone else.
You hit the nail on the head with that one. I really wish there was a way to keep people who are unaware of their impact on the flow of traffic off the freeway. Like the people who decide that it's time to go 40mph when they see their exit ahead. Just one of them can turn the right lane into one big clusterfuck real fast. Of course,
Part of this problem can be helped if people stop driving so close to the car in front. That way you can slow down a lot more gracefully and nobody needs to hit the brakes. This probably reduces overall speed but it does mean a more consistent slightly slower speed than fast sections between jams.
Speeding does slow you down. Especially when it's significantly faster than the limit/traffic flow.
The reasoning is simple, there are enough people who don't want to get ticketed, die in a car wreck, ect. that when you are trying to maintain the high rate of speed you will eventually have to go around one of them, and sooner or later you will get stuck in the outside lane by one. The outside lane is called the slow lane for a reason. By the time you Unstick yourself the cars you were in front of in the
I mostly agree with you. My motto is "drive smarter, not faster", but it includes driving a bit faster when it will mean not having to stop at a light. This is in opposition to the people who drive with their balls instead of their brains. I know you're familiar with their habits.
The freeway is a bit different. Since there are no lights forcing you to stop every block or three, going fast can make a signifigant difference in travel time. (Even five miles per hour over the limit adds up if you can maintain
Anyone who routinely uses the brake on the motorway/freeway is not a competent driver.
That's exactly what they taught me in driving school. Of course, they also scared me shitless by making me drive a non-roadworthy vehicle on the freeway during rush hour.... o_O
This is really easy to work out.
If we select describe the mean journey length, l, and we have a maximum speed s, then the journey time t = l/s.
If we decrease the maximum speed, then we can see that this increases the mean journey time.
People will start there journeys at different times. This means that there will be a rate of journeys being started, and they will exist for a time (mean journey time).
A journey, means a car on the road.
If you increase the amount of time a journey takes, you must inc
It's not that simple. The stoping distance increases with speed, so therefore the space taken up by a car will increase. Secondly, unless you drive at a constant speed at all times, the algorithm to calculate your time on the road is not correct. It is possible that when speeding your journey will take exactly the same time.
Yeah, I know it's not *that* simple, but I guess what I was getting at, is that even with an incredibly simple model (increase speed, reduce journey time), this is affected by the increased severity of accidents - which represent a critical failure of the road network.
But the algorithm is correct in its own terms (mean journey length, speed limit) means that there is a minimum mean time a journey can take.
But of course traffic behaves like the weirdest fluid ever. It doesn't just expand and contract at
Speeding does slow you down. Especially when it's significantly faster than the limit/traffic flow.
The reasoning is simple, there are enough people who don't want to get ticketed, die in a car wreck, ect. that when you are trying to maintain the high rate of speed you will eventually have to go around one of them, and sooner or later you will get stuck in the outside lane by one. The outside lane is called the slow lane for a reason. By the time you Unstick yourself the cars you were in front of in the
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:4, Informative)
centipede effect (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:centipede effect (Score:2)
And everyone would be tailgating the guy in front of them. A fender bender at any point in the line would propagate back through more cars causing more property damage. But, that would be one less red light for someone to wait I guess.
Traffic gets compressed at a red light. It
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 el
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.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:3, Funny)
Just saying "I'm a transportation planner" means absolutely nothing to us unless you can tell us which city you work for, and which roadways you've planned.
If you've planned some of the roads near where I live, I'd take whatever you say with a large grain of salt.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
> and global highway capacity will increase: the net effect will
> be that more cars wil go over a milestone on a time frame, and
> contrary to common sense everybody will arrive faster to their
> destinies.
The slower the cars are travelling, the less distance required between each car, therefore the higher number of cars that can be on the road at the same time, therefore the increased capacity of the road..
THAT seems common sense t
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Most traffic collisions result from cars travelling different speeds. One car goes much faster (or slower) than the rest causes an accident.
Or (following the line of reasoning present in the preceeding two posts) we could make the speed limit on every road 5KPH, which would maximize the road capacity!
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
I have seen so many instances of these pathetic people doing under the speed limit for no reason other than they *think* they are being safer. However, the congestion and frustration they cause behind them lead to many incidents.
Obviously it will be a lot harder to implement a device that makes you travel faster due to the requirement to determine obstacles. But it needs to be
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
I mean, it's not like drivers going 80MPH are going to be directly on eachother's asses--although I have to admit some are. If drivers follow the 1 car length/10 MPH rule--or the 3 second rule, then cars will be spaced much farther apart at higher speeds. Finding the highest throughput at the highest speed assuming certian condidions should be a easy enough to find.
That said, I've known several factors to increase the liklihood of congestion--I'm
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
This one city had two basic routs between points a lot of traffic went through and to ease congestion they ran a third road. Congestion went up. After doing some math they realized the problem and made the new road not through and congestion went back down.
Wish I could rember why that worked that way (and no it wasn't grandma/bubba/blondie getting confused over which way to go and p
Translation for computer people: (Score:2)
As for effect of speed or speed limits on road capacity: if you want to download your mp3s faster, you don't look for an isp with better ping times. You get a higher capacity connection. Similarly, if you want to get more cars into the city per hour, you don't raise the speed
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, you must be one of those guys that like to blow by me when im doing 5 over the speed limit. You know
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
And...if you go by the general rule of thumb...sloweer traffic in the right lane...leaving the left lane for faster traffic...no problems.
Works great on the Autohahn....
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
It's the same in the States, just no one cares to follow it (esp. people driving too slowly). It's easy to justify if you think you are going fast enough for everyone else. Of course you have to be pretty self-righteous to think that, but it is the Americans* I'm talking about.
* I'm American, so this is insight, not flame. Thnx.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
However, to ensure that passing is possible, I suggest that to pass someone, you must be going at least 5 mph faster than they are. Nobody going 70.1 mph should pass someone going 70.0 mph. Soun
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
"We have a six-lane motorway here, and everyone damn well better be driving in the far right lane except to pass."
How many "I'm passing you and he's passing me and you're passing him" cycles would it take to get someone actually using the right-most lane on during rush hour?
Seems silly to me.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
I'm sure there's an exception for when there's a car right in front of you. Basically, if you're in the left lane you should either be passing someone or unable to pass due to a car in front of you.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
Sure, we might as well add a few MORE rediculous nonsense laws to the books, we certainly don't have enough.
Since you are so in favor of this wackiness, answer this for me. What if the right hand lane is actually doing the speed limit? Technically, and this comes from driving class that I had to go to for spe
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
Sorry, it's too late to worry about starting down the slippery slope in the U.S. - we're already seriously in need of ice (mud?) axes to help arrest our slide :( See Kelo v New London; See gun control laws; See ... :( Heck, the U.S.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Of course some manage to do it repeatedly. I recall a few times when the SAME idiot passed by me several times.
Mycroft
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
And no right to inconvience them by insisting they change lanes or whatever just so you can get a ticket sooner.
Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
Mcyroft
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Define to slow, if you mean the speed limit then by definition they are not going to slow, but rather as fast as permited and if you want to got faster you have no right to insist they get a ticket for you.
What is too slow really depends on the situation. If you're heading toward a merge in heavy traffic going the speed limit would be much too fast.
Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
No, it most certainly won't.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
>>No, it most certainly won't.
Unless you are talking about a very simple (or very familliar perhaps) trip you are wrong. I'm not saying perhaps, or IMHO or even sometimes, because after years of driving and PROVING what I said daily basis I know what I'm talking about.
Not guessing, not going on just a few anectedotes, but years of driving and comparing to others who drive for a living.
The fastest way to get somewhere is at traff
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Most people who insister a greater mph is always quicker trip are those who fail to understand this simple fact.
I suspect most of the people complaining about slowpokes in these threads are the idio
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Assuming normal traffic conditions, there is an optimal speed, above this and traffic conditions slow you down, below this and you slow yourself down.
You must live in LA, or consider rush hour traffic conditions to be normal. In normal traffic conditions where I live there is usually an open lane available to go pretty much as fast as you want. Obviously this is only true to some extent, and if you go 5000 mph you're going to die and never reach your destination, but the optimal speed to increase your
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
And what I said is true, traffic condition durring most of the day will eventually cause the lane jocky trying to do +20 (when most everyone else is doing +0 to +5) to get stuck in the right lane on most two lane highways, or in the case of one lane roads this idiot will crowd the 'slowpoke' ahead of him
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
I can only guesse you live in a rural setting. I am speaking of the majority of cases. The vast majority of people live in or near a city.
I live in Tampa, Florida. It's not a big city, but that *is* a city.
And what I said is true, traffic condition durring most of the day will eventually cause the lane jocky trying to do +20 (when most everyone else is doing +0 to +5) to get stuck in the right lane on most two lane highways, or in the case of one lane roads this idiot will crowd the 'slowpoke' ahead
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
If people really do speed up when crowded form behind around there I can only be thankfull most people around here aren't that stupid.
If you drive emergency services you get a very distorted view of what 'normal' people see as traffic. I hope that's not confusing things here.
The loss of time I implied does occure quite often, but not every time, and somtimes it's very significant (the wreck the idiot speeder caused or when he got pulled
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
It apears that Tampa is a very different place in that case.
Probably so. And New Jersey, where I lived most of my life, is probably even more different.
If people really do speed up when crowded form behind around there I can only be thankfull most people around here aren't that stupid.
I'm not sure where I said they do that. Some people do it, I suppose. If I'm in the left lane and I see someone coming really fast behind me I'll usually speed up to pass the car on my right and get over.
Most of th
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
This is what I meant by driving smart is faster than driving 'faster'.
Avoid the problems rather than try and do 80 in a 60.
That said if you can save five minutes in five miles other than by doing and EXTRA 60mph (on an empty road) I feel sorry for you for the kind of rush hour nightmare you must deal with.
Mycroft
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:5, Informative)
The traffic simulations I've seen use a particle model to work out traffic flows. The idea being that people over and under estimate the speed of their own car, and others on the road. The result of this is each car "vibrates" against others (with a certain air gap, hopefully).
The result of *that* is that traffic tends to slow *more* than the slowest driver would travel at. Which is why you get congestion at points of merging and corners for no apparent reason - nervous/careful people slow down, and it cascades into a near stop for everyone else.
Side note, slowing traffic down "for safety reasons" is inane. Traffic will slow itself down as volumes increase (eg, peak times) all you engineers have to do is make the road flow smoothly.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
You hit the nail on the head with that one. I really wish there was a way to keep people who are unaware of their impact on the flow of traffic off the freeway. Like the people who decide that it's time to go 40mph when they see their exit ahead. Just one of them can turn the right lane into one big clusterfuck real fast. Of course,
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
The reasoning is simple, there are enough people who don't want to get ticketed, die in a car wreck, ect. that when you are trying to maintain the high rate of speed you will eventually have to go around one of them, and sooner or later you will get stuck in the outside lane by one. The outside lane is called the slow lane for a reason. By the time you Unstick yourself the cars you were in front of in the
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
The freeway is a bit different. Since there are no lights forcing you to stop every block or three, going fast can make a signifigant difference in travel time. (Even five miles per hour over the limit adds up if you can maintain
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Anyone who routinely uses the brake on the motorway/freeway is not a competent driver.
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:1)
That's exactly what they taught me in driving school. Of course, they also scared me shitless by making me drive a non-roadworthy vehicle on the freeway during rush hour.... o_O
Slower speed does increase congestion...but (Score:1)
Re:Slower speed does increase congestion...but (Score:1)
Re:Slower speed does increase congestion...but (Score:1)
Re:Slower speed does increase congestion...but (Score:3, Insightful)
The reasoning is simple, there are enough people who don't want to get ticketed, die in a car wreck, ect. that when you are trying to maintain the high rate of speed you will eventually have to go around one of them, and sooner or later you will get stuck in the outside lane by one. The outside lane is called the slow lane for a reason. By the time you Unstick yourself the cars you were in front of in the
Re:Doesn't slower speed increase congestion? (Score:2)
Traffic Waves [amasci.com].