How to fix rush hour traffic once and for all?

[A5]

That last bit is really a great example, though- a computer is not going to be able to say 'well, it looks like I should go off onto the shoulder and risk scraping a guardrail/curb (lesser evil in general) rather than endure this massive collision that awaits me on the road.'

It also wouldn't be able to make a decision regarding what would be the softer, more forgiving thing to hit, or what action would endanger nearby pedestrians the least.

I know extremely well how bad your typical driver is. But my point was kind of that the driverless car would not have any leeway for mistakes. As soon as a 'robot' murders a child and leaves no one to blame other than the carmaker, people aren't going to want them anymore. And the manufacturers won't want to build them.

A computer could absolutely make those decisions. I'd wager it would, overall, do a far better job of it than humans due to faster reaction times and better spatial awareness. The computer decision tree would look like this:
Stopped car ahead -> Do I have time to stop? -> If yes, stop and notify cars behind so that they can start braking as well -> If no -> Is there an open lane or shoulder in this traffic direction? -> If yes, go there -> If no, apply full brakes to minimize impact

Cars can already detect pedestrians, so deciding to not ramp up onto a busy sidewalk to avoid an accident wouldn't be a terribly difficult task. It would be able to make these decisions in less time than it would take a human to check their mirror.

I also don't trust whoever would have control of the central "brain" that monitors/controls the cars. Yes, there would have to be a central brain to make everything work so perfectly as some of you claim it would operate, in order to synchronize everything.

You could probably get better results with centralized traffic planning, but you could get 90% of the way there by giving each car current, high-quality traffic data plus a database of historical data for heuristic route planning.

 

[Imported]

Reminds me somewhat of Stanford's automated car, Shelley.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/august/shelley-autonomous-car-081312.html

 

[SparkyJJO]

Public transport is something tha advances all of society. Even those that take the car save money and time when other people are taking the public transport (as roads are less congested), so they are clearly obligated to chip in. In fact moreso, because taking public transport can be more of an inconvenience, than taking the car.

Absolutely not.

Pay higher taxes for more inconvenience? What kind of logic is that

 

[Saint Nick]

It makes more sense to me to stagger company start and stop times by 15 to 30 minutes. Sounds good in theory but I'm sure it wouldn't be executed very gracefully.

I suppose, technically, businesses already work like that. If you want to leave at 3:30, just come in at 7:00 (or whatever). Instead of coming in at 8:00 or 9:00

 

[Throckmorton]

Absolutely not.

Pay higher taxes for more inconvenience? What kind of logic is that

Because it's more inconvenient to drive, especially when everybody is driving because there's no public transit.


1/3 of commuters to downtown Houston take the bus, and we have terrible traffic on the roads as it is. Imagine if there were 50% more drivers. That 1.5 hour commute is suddenly 3 hours.

 

[Throckmorton]

It makes more sense to me to stagger company start and stop times by 15 to 30 minutes. Sounds good in theory but I'm sure it wouldn't be executed very gracefully.

I suppose, technically, businesses already work like that. If you want to leave at 3:30, just come in at 7:00 (or whatever). Instead of coming in at 8:00 or 9:00

Most businesses already give you flexible schedules. I've never heard of big company downtown that doesn't do that. It doesn't matter. How could it? Rush hour is 3 hours long.

 

[wirednuts]

wired, see slash's post for an example of how to disagree. He makes excellent points. I was aggravated when I posted yesterday because of all the 'duh autodrive will be standard within ten years, it's already been invented' type of posts. There's just no thought in that; parroting an opinion does not make me agree with it, even if it was in Popular Science or Car and Driver or whatever else.

I'll still say: If you consider the details, it seems pretty clear that said opinions, no matter who publishes them, are crap.

Again, the big problem will be the lack of tolerance for not just failures of the system, but any computer-made decision that leads to something bad. Even if nine out of ten people would have had the same thing happen; maybe even something worse...there still will be issues if popular opinion (hell, even unpopular opinion) deems that it is possible that the accident (more specifically, a death) could have been avoided.

What happens when a drunk/speeding/doing-anything-bad driver plows through a kid that steps out in front of him? Yeah, he's fucked. Doesn't matter if anyone, in any state, at speed close to the limit, would have unavoidably struck the child. 'Fuck that motherfucker; he killed a kid because he was drunk.' (or whatever wrong thing he was doing)

A human completely within the realm of the law is likely to fare better.

But a computer? It's not human; there will be no forgiveness. You generally need someone to blame for accidents. If there is no one but 'I, Carbot'...what will people say? 'Well, the computer made all the right calculations. Turns out that kid deserved to get splattered.'

I just don't see that.

what the heck are you talking about? grasping at straws much?

 

[olds]

The only thing that will fix this is to the end to the 8-5 work day. Staggered start times by employers would help - but realistically will never happen.....

And dickweeds without jobs stay off the roads during commute hours.

 

[phucheneh]

what the heck are you talking about? grasping at straws much?

I apologize for attempting to demonstrate how independent thought works.

Obviously I should get a professional writing gig so I can properly spoon-feed your opinions to you.

 

[phucheneh]

And dickweeds without jobs stay off the roads during commute hours.

From someone with a constantly changing schedule who occasionally gets stuck in rush hour:

I wish these dickweeds who work monotonous jobs with set-in-stone hours would find another way to get to work, so I didn't have to try and plan my day around the ~5 hours a day during which they make the roads unusable.

Hell, in some areas, you also have to add in their lunch 'commute,' which, combined with morning and afternoon rush-hour, essentially closes down the roads from 7AM to 6PM. Dickweeds.

 

[_Rick_]

Absolutely not.

Pay higher taxes for more inconvenience? What kind of logic is that

No, you get more average convenience (something that the free market can not achieve), and much more convenience, for those that don't take public transport. So those that should pay more taxes, are those that benefit the most from public transport: People who commute by car.
Everyone else still benefits, but less so.
The inconvenience is relative - but globally, everyone is better off, if there's less cars on the road, during times when roadways can be congested.

 

[SparkyJJO]

No, you get more average convenience (something that the free market can not achieve), and much more convenience, for those that don't take public transport. So those that should pay more taxes, are those that benefit the most from public transport: People who commute by car.
Everyone else still benefits, but less so.
The inconvenience is relative - but globally, everyone is better off, if there's less cars on the road, during times when roadways can be congested.

Yay another tax to impose on everyone. When will people like you ever stop with the daggone taxes already :thumbsdown: Knock it off. Do you have any clue how many people cannot take public transit even when available because it just will not work for their jobs? And your idea is to punish them for that by more taxes? That is totally ridiculous.

If public transit is more convenient, why don't more people take it where it is already offered? Oh, because it isn't more convenient.

And your jab at the free market is baseless.

 

[Ferzerp]

P&N is that way ------->

 

[Vic Vega]

$1,000 a year to drive on roads I am already taxed for?

Not going to happen.