Excuse the clickbait headline, but this is pretty damn cool.
The biggest source of congestion is phantom jams. Here's a video showing what they are
The reason for this is that we humans are very slow to react. If we see a car's brake lights in front of us, we'll take a few seconds to react and then slam on our brakes, and because of that, we have to brake harder than if we could react instantly, and that delay builds up with each driver who slows until you get bumper to bumper traffic.
But we can fix this with science. Many cars now have adaptive cruise control, which uses sensors to keep a set distance from the car in front of you. If your car could know that the one in front of it was braking, it could react instantly, and slow down more gradually, thereby maintaining a smoother flow of traffic, dissipating the shock wave. And they're working on it, it's called cooperative adaptive cruise control (https://highways.dot.gov/research/projects/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control-cacc).
All it requires is adaptive cruise control and V2V communication. The former is common and the latter is beginning to emerge, with the VW Golf, one of the best selling cars in the world, getting it this year (https://www.automotivetestingtechnologyinternational.com/features/oem-interview-volkswagen.html).
Studies have found that if every single car on the road had it, then freeway lane capacity would soar from 2,000 vehicles per hour to 4,000 (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Impacts-of-Cooperative-Adaptive-Cruise-Control-on-Shladover-Su/2361bb30032f7465e75f14c8501489b1d4f0f50e), because they could have shorter following distances. Could you imagine what would happen if the great congestion problem were finally solved? It would save us hundreds of billions of dollars in delays, it would mean far less need for freeway widenings, far fewer excuses for heinously expensive massive transit systems, and best of all, it would make driving way more enjoyable.
This seems like it would be a cool technology, but in reality it seems a little too far-fetched for the foreseeable future. It doesn't solve, for example, people's desire to go faster or do what they want to. What if one driver decided that they didn't like the speed their lane was moving and and decided to resume manual control of their car? Also, this would only work if every car on the road had it, which would take about 20 years (the average time it takes for a feature to be equipped on all vehicles in use once it becomes mandatory). So that would mean we would have to put technology into cars that can't even be used yet, and I'm willing to bet manufacturers aren't going to front that unnecessary added cost. There could also be cybersecurity concerns with computers controlling the car based on external wireless input.
Perhaps one day. But I don't see something like this being implemented in the real world anytime soon.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 12, 2021, 10:11:12 PM
This seems like it would be a cool technology, but in reality it seems a little too far-fetched for the foreseeable future. It doesn't solve, for example, people's desire to go faster or do what they want to. What if one driver decided that they didn't like the speed their lane was moving and and decided to resume manual control of their car? Also, this would only work if every car on the road had it, which would take about 20 years (the average time it takes for a feature to be equipped on all vehicles in use once it becomes mandatory). So that would mean we would have to put technology into cars that can't even be used yet, and I'm willing to bet manufacturers aren't going to front that unnecessary added cost. There could also be cybersecurity concerns with computers controlling the car based on external wireless input.
Perhaps one day. But I don't see something like this being implemented in the real world anytime soon.
If the freeway is running at full capacity, then he won't be able to go any faster. And from what I've read, it would start showing benefits once the market penetration rate reaches 40%. And even a 10% increase in capacity will make the difference between free flow and bumper to bumper and unlike a traditional widening, the capacity increase grows over time and it applies to every single mile of freeway.
Video shows 3 second intervals between those cars. Human drivers can do a bit better than 2 seconds with some truck traffic mixed in.
Add some disturbances, like entering and existing 5raffuc, deer on a shoulder, worn out tyres - and automatic system will do worse than humans
A great idea that wouldn't work because I would turn adaptive cruise off because it's so irritating.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 13, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
A great idea that wouldn't work because I would turn adaptive cruise off because it's so irritating.
Why is it irritating?
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 13, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
A great idea that wouldn't work because I would turn adaptive cruise off because it's so irritating.
Why is it irritating?
Allow me to quote his previously stated position on the subject:
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2021, 03:03:15 PM
My first experience with it came on the Kansas Turnpike through the Flint Hills. There were a lot of frustrating games of catch up to a truck going slowly up a hill, have the cruise kill my speed, and then try to get over and get pinned in the right lane by people doing the speed limit passing both of us because my car decided it knows better than me what speed I want to be going. With normal cruise control this situation would have been fine because I could join the traffic at-speed and pass along with them, but I'm not about to step out in front of a line of cars doing 75 mph unless I'm doing something approximating that speed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 13, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
A great idea that wouldn't work because I would turn adaptive cruise off because it's so irritating.
I'm not enamored with it myself. I don't have a car with it but have driven my mother's Acura with it and I'm not sure if I would prefer it over regular cruise control.
Of course, 90% of people don't use cruise control anyways. I bet this forum produces an outlier population.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 13, 2021, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 13, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
A great idea that wouldn't work because I would turn adaptive cruise off because it's so irritating.
I'm not enamored with it myself. I don't have a car with it but have driven my mother's Acura with it and I'm not sure if I would prefer it over regular cruise control.
Of course, 90% of people don't use cruise control anyways. I bet this forum produces an outlier population.
Do you have a cite for that? The number seems very surprising to me.
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2021, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 13, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
A great idea that wouldn't work because I would turn adaptive cruise off because it's so irritating.
Why is it irritating?
Allow me to quote his previously stated position on the subject:
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2021, 03:03:15 PM
My first experience with it came on the Kansas Turnpike through the Flint Hills. There were a lot of frustrating games of catch up to a truck going slowly up a hill, have the cruise kill my speed, and then try to get over and get pinned in the right lane by people doing the speed limit passing both of us because my car decided it knows better than me what speed I want to be going. With normal cruise control this situation would have been fine because I could join the traffic at-speed and pass along with them, but I'm not about to step out in front of a line of cars doing 75 mph unless I'm doing something approximating that speed.
In traffic that heavy I'm probably not using cruise control to begin with.
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 13, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2021, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 13, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
A great idea that wouldn't work because I would turn adaptive cruise off because it's so irritating.
Why is it irritating?
Allow me to quote his previously stated position on the subject:
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2021, 03:03:15 PM
My first experience with it came on the Kansas Turnpike through the Flint Hills. There were a lot of frustrating games of catch up to a truck going slowly up a hill, have the cruise kill my speed, and then try to get over and get pinned in the right lane by people doing the speed limit passing both of us because my car decided it knows better than me what speed I want to be going. With normal cruise control this situation would have been fine because I could join the traffic at-speed and pass along with them, but I'm not about to step out in front of a line of cars doing 75 mph unless I'm doing something approximating that speed.
In traffic that heavy I'm probably not using cruise control to begin with.
The instance that I described didn't happen in heavy traffic conditions at all, just typical rural interstate conditions with the usual platooning behavior.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 12, 2021, 09:51:59 PM
The biggest source of congestion is phantom jams.
Is there a source for this? Im pretty sure the largest source of congestion is more vehicles than the carry capacity of a road.
Quote from: jamess on March 13, 2021, 05:57:44 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 12, 2021, 09:51:59 PM
The biggest source of congestion is phantom jams.
Is there a source for this? Im pretty sure the largest source of congestion is more vehicles than the carry capacity of a road.
Phantom jams are the reason why our freeways have low carrying capacity.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
Are there cars on the market today that will accept instructions to turn on their adaptive cruise control (even if the driver has turned it off)? Or that will let the device know that it's been turned on?
Quote from: oscar on March 13, 2021, 07:05:04 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
Are there cars on the market today that will accept instructions to turn on their adaptive cruise control (even if the driver has turned it off)? Or that will let the device know that it's been turned on?
I think that's a simple software fix if cars were equipped with V2X
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
I expect at some point in the future some urban freeways will be entirely self-driving with traffic density being controlled by computers controlling the cars. I'd be fine getting in my car, driving to the onramp, and entering my destination then taking a nap, reading a book, or sightseeing until I reached my destination. With almost nobody paying a gas tax, your trip would be metered and car owners will be charged a mileage tax monthly much like FasTrak does for HOT lanes. Drivers would get points or possibly even lose their license for turning off the autopilot before exiting the highway.
Quote from: skluth on March 13, 2021, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
I expect at some point in the future some urban freeways will be entirely self-driving with traffic density being controlled by computers controlling the cars. I'd be fine getting in my car, driving to the onramp, and entering my destination then taking a nap, reading a book, or sightseeing until I reached my destination. With almost nobody paying a gas tax, your trip would be metered and car owners will be charged a mileage tax monthly much like FasTrak does for HOT lanes. Drivers would get points or possibly even lose their license for turning off the autopilot before exiting the highway.
Toyota is working on a system that aims to seamlessly blend human and AI driving, they compare it to the blended envelope control on aircraft. That means you could still drive in manual mode with the car taking over only in emergencies.
Quote from: skluth on March 13, 2021, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
I expect at some point in the future some urban freeways will be entirely self-driving with traffic density being controlled by computers controlling the cars. I'd be fine getting in my car, driving to the onramp, and entering my destination then taking a nap, reading a book, or sightseeing until I reached my destination. With almost nobody paying a gas tax, your trip would be metered and car owners will be charged a mileage tax monthly much like FasTrak does for HOT lanes. Drivers would get points or possibly even lose their license for turning off the autopilot before exiting the highway.
Yuck. I don't want the car navigating for me. I want to drive myself, select my route myself, get around slowpokes if I so wish, etc.
Also yuck on mileage taxes. I prefer how it's mostly invisible now. I don't want to get big bills for my car usage.
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 13, 2021, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
I expect at some point in the future some urban freeways will be entirely self-driving with traffic density being controlled by computers controlling the cars. I'd be fine getting in my car, driving to the onramp, and entering my destination then taking a nap, reading a book, or sightseeing until I reached my destination. With almost nobody paying a gas tax, your trip would be metered and car owners will be charged a mileage tax monthly much like FasTrak does for HOT lanes. Drivers would get points or possibly even lose their license for turning off the autopilot before exiting the highway.
Yuck. I don't want the car navigating for me. I want to drive myself, select my route myself, get around slowpokes if I so wish, etc.
Also yuck on mileage taxes. I prefer how it's mostly invisible now. I don't want to get big bills for my car usage.
With electric cars, mileage taxes are the only option to keep our roads funded.
And I suspect tomorrow's cars will offer a manual mode (with the AI stepping in as necessary)
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 10:21:05 PM
With electric cars, mileage taxes are the only option to keep our roads funded.
And I suspect tomorrow's cars will offer a manual mode (with the AI stepping in as necessary)
Easy: just slap a per kwh tax on everyone's electric bill and at chargers. Or push hydrogen fuel cell cars instead of electric, as they work just like gas cars, except cleaner.
I'd rather not deal with the AI at all. Things like Scott's story of adaptive cruise make me want absolutely nothing to do with it.
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:40:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 10:21:05 PM
With electric cars, mileage taxes are the only option to keep our roads funded.
And I suspect tomorrow's cars will offer a manual mode (with the AI stepping in as necessary)
Easy: just slap a per kwh tax on everyone's electric bill and at chargers. Or push hydrogen fuel cell cars instead of electric, as they work just like gas cars, except cleaner.
I'd rather not deal with the AI at all. Things like Scott's story of adaptive cruise make me want absolutely nothing to do with it.
And yet, Scott's example also highlighted with us being in control of our vehicles, we don't think about the hazards we create. If his car started slowing him down automatically, it sensed that it was too close to the car in front of him. He could've easily have moved over into that line of traffic seconds earlier, but chose to remain in his lane.
We often get irritated when a car behind us gets too close to us - we have no control of that car, and it's invading that space which makes us uncomfortable if we need to slam on the brakes. Yet, if we're the ones driving that vehicle, we are in control, and we know (or really, think we know) that we have enough room to slow down.
And that goes back to kernals' opening remarks...we as humans are slow to react, and when we do we need to slam on the brakes, which gets repeated by those behind us, a traffic jam forms. Or, someone eventually hits someone else. And when that happens, even if they were to move to the side of the road, that temporary stoppage when both drivers quickly realized what happened, creates an even bigger jam behind them as those motorists are forced to stop as well.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 13, 2021, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 13, 2021, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 13, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
A great idea that wouldn't work because I would turn adaptive cruise off because it's so irritating.
I'm not enamored with it myself. I don't have a car with it but have driven my mother's Acura with it and I'm not sure if I would prefer it over regular cruise control.
Of course, 90% of people don't use cruise control anyways. I bet this forum produces an outlier population.
Do you have a cite for that? The number seems very surprising to me.
I don't, but just among the population I personally know those numbers are sound. Maybe my circle of friends and families are outliers.
I did try looking up any data about usage, and I can't find a thing.
The biggest flaw of adaptive cruise control (ACC) is it's inability to allow gaps for vehicles to enter from on-ramps. From what I can tell, there are no plans from any manufacturer to equip autonomous mode with that ability either. Whenever someone sets the ACC for 85 mph operation and pulls into the right lane during rush hour, it is impossible to merge in front of them (then the string of following traffic gets into a speed accordion). I'm amazed how many times a week that I see 10 car-length gaps disappear at on-ramp merges (and I'm not driving near as much these days).
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 14, 2021, 01:07:56 PM
The biggest flaw of adaptive cruise control (ACC) is it's inability to allow gaps for vehicles to enter from on-ramps. From what I can tell, there are no plans from any manufacturer to equip autonomous mode with that ability either. Whenever someone sets the ACC for 85 mph operation and pulls into the right lane during rush hour, it is impossible to merge in front of them (then the string of following traffic gets into a speed accordion). I'm amazed how many times a week that I see 10 car-length gaps disappear at on-ramp merges (and I'm not driving near as much these days).
This is where V2X comes in. If your car is on the on ramp, it can send a signal to the car going 85 mph to either slow down or even change lanes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2021, 12:11:03 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:40:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 10:21:05 PM
With electric cars, mileage taxes are the only option to keep our roads funded.
And I suspect tomorrow's cars will offer a manual mode (with the AI stepping in as necessary)
Easy: just slap a per kwh tax on everyone's electric bill and at chargers. Or push hydrogen fuel cell cars instead of electric, as they work just like gas cars, except cleaner.
I'd rather not deal with the AI at all. Things like Scott's story of adaptive cruise make me want absolutely nothing to do with it.
And yet, Scott's example also highlighted with us being in control of our vehicles, we don't think about the hazards we create. If his car started slowing him down automatically, it sensed that it was too close to the car in front of him. He could've easily have moved over into that line of traffic seconds earlier, but chose to remain in his lane.
Most people do not keep three second following distances in front of them. Even Driver's Ed classes only tell people to keep two. I would guess most people on the road only keep one. And if you're following what traffic several car lengths ahead is doing (as you're supposed to) rather than just the car ahead, anything that would cause braking to occur shouldn't be a surprise.
Moving over that early would also mean that you're holding up traffic in the left lane longer. Keep right except to pass exists for a reason. I was taught not to move over way early to pass someone as a courtesy - in fact, I tend to get quite annoyed at drivers that do and hold me up for longer than need be! I imagine drivers behind me get quite annoyed when they need to wait for me to finish passing, too. Having to move over much earlier prolongs the duration of said annoyance.
I also wouldn't want the car to slow down in the event someone moved back quickly after passing (as happens often on the Thruway).
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 13, 2021, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
I expect at some point in the future some urban freeways will be entirely self-driving with traffic density being controlled by computers controlling the cars. I'd be fine getting in my car, driving to the onramp, and entering my destination then taking a nap, reading a book, or sightseeing until I reached my destination. With almost nobody paying a gas tax, your trip would be metered and car owners will be charged a mileage tax monthly much like FasTrak does for HOT lanes. Drivers would get points or possibly even lose their license for turning off the autopilot before exiting the highway.
Yuck. I don't want the car navigating for me. I want to drive myself, select my route myself, get around slowpokes if I so wish, etc.
Also yuck on mileage taxes. I prefer how it's mostly invisible now. I don't want to get big bills for my car usage.
If you're the one zipping around "slowpokes" on the freeway, you could be the one creating new roadblocks by causing drivers to brake as you zip between cars, thereby increasing congestion behind you. Others have done the same ahead of you. Allowing the computer to navigate, chances are cars would normally travel well over the legal 55 mph in cities and closer to the 65-70 mph that cars normally drive through urban areas. I would gladly give up control to get from Riverside to Santa Monica at an average speed of 65 mph or more.
Also, somebody will have to pay for new roads. They won't pay for themselves.
Quote from: vdeane on March 14, 2021, 02:32:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2021, 12:11:03 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:40:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 10:21:05 PM
With electric cars, mileage taxes are the only option to keep our roads funded.
And I suspect tomorrow's cars will offer a manual mode (with the AI stepping in as necessary)
Easy: just slap a per kwh tax on everyone's electric bill and at chargers. Or push hydrogen fuel cell cars instead of electric, as they work just like gas cars, except cleaner.
I'd rather not deal with the AI at all. Things like Scott's story of adaptive cruise make me want absolutely nothing to do with it.
And yet, Scott's example also highlighted with us being in control of our vehicles, we don't think about the hazards we create. If his car started slowing him down automatically, it sensed that it was too close to the car in front of him. He could've easily have moved over into that line of traffic seconds earlier, but chose to remain in his lane.
Most people do not keep three second following distances in front of them. Even Driver's Ed classes only tell people to keep two. I would guess most people on the road only keep one. And if you're following what traffic several car lengths ahead is doing (as you're supposed to) rather than just the car ahead, anything that would cause braking to occur shouldn't be a surprise.
Moving over that early would also mean that you're holding up traffic in the left lane longer. Keep right except to pass exists for a reason. I was taught not to move over way early to pass someone as a courtesy - in fact, I tend to get quite annoyed at drivers that do and hold me up for longer than need be! I imagine drivers behind me get quite annoyed when they need to wait for me to finish passing, too. Having to move over much earlier prolongs the duration of said annoyance.
I also wouldn't want the car to slow down in the event someone moved back quickly after passing (as happens often on the Thruway).
Adaptive cruise control doesn't require a 3 second interval. On my vehicle, I can choose 1, 1.5, 2 or 3 seconds. I have it set to 1...and that's probably still more room than I usually allow.
Most people don't watch vehicles several vehicles in front of them, which is why rear-end accidents are so prevalent, especially when traffic suddenly slows down.
If you're moving over with less than 1 second between you and the vehicle in front of you, then you're tailgating that vehicle in front of you. Sure, don't move over too early, but at some point you have to judge the speed of everyone around you and decides when it's best for you to move over. If the car slows down on its own, it'll speed back up automatically when you merge over and the distance widens.
As far as merging traffic goes, my car senses the speed of the next vehicle ahead. If a vehicle merges in front of me and it's going a faster speed than I am, my car won't slow down as it recognizes I will gain that 1 second distance interval on its own. In fact, there's a function on my display that shows me the distance between me and the vehicle in front of me. After approximately 100 yards, it goes away, as the next vehicle in front of me is far enough away to not be a concern.
What we all learn in drivers ed changes over time. For years, we were told to hold the wheel at 10 and 2. Now, it's 9 and 3. A DUI limit was .10, now it's .08. Things like flashing yellow arrows and roundabouts probably weren't commonplace in most manuals. Bicycle lanes either. Heck, even seat belts weren't mandatory until the 80s. Trainings change, and what you might have been taught doesn't apply anymore, or applies in a different fashion.
One thing that worries me is that this will turn into an excuse to take away lanes from our freeways and force us to always drive in platoon mode, which would take the fun out of the interstate.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2021, 05:47:34 PM
As far as merging traffic goes, my car senses the speed of the next vehicle ahead. If a vehicle merges in front of me and it's going a faster speed than I am, my car won't slow down as it recognizes I will gain that 1 second distance interval on its own. In fact, there's a function on my display that shows me the distance between me and the vehicle in front of me. After approximately 100 yards, it goes away, as the next vehicle in front of me is far enough away to not be a concern.
Wrong idea. If you set your ACC at 20MPH over the speed limit and are pacing the car ahead at a 1-second interval when they change lanes to let a car merge into traffic, your car shoots ahead and leaves the merging vehicle with no safe braking margin to take the gap created for it. If the merging vehicle takes the gap, the ACC vehicle in the "slow lane" will need to take action to avoid collision. Which is difficult from full acceleration. Also note that safe braking distances are much different when a vehicle is assumed to be under full acceleration.
Quote from: skluth on March 14, 2021, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 13, 2021, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
I expect at some point in the future some urban freeways will be entirely self-driving with traffic density being controlled by computers controlling the cars. I'd be fine getting in my car, driving to the onramp, and entering my destination then taking a nap, reading a book, or sightseeing until I reached my destination. With almost nobody paying a gas tax, your trip would be metered and car owners will be charged a mileage tax monthly much like FasTrak does for HOT lanes. Drivers would get points or possibly even lose their license for turning off the autopilot before exiting the highway.
Yuck. I don't want the car navigating for me. I want to drive myself, select my route myself, get around slowpokes if I so wish, etc.
Also yuck on mileage taxes. I prefer how it's mostly invisible now. I don't want to get big bills for my car usage.
If you're the one zipping around "slowpokes" on the freeway, you could be the one creating new roadblocks by causing drivers to brake as you zip between cars, thereby increasing congestion behind you. Others have done the same ahead of you. Allowing the computer to navigate, chances are cars would normally travel well over the legal 55 mph in cities and closer to the 65-70 mph that cars normally drive through urban areas. I would gladly give up control to get from Riverside to Santa Monica at an average speed of 65 mph or more.
Also, somebody will have to pay for new roads. They won't pay for themselves.
I don't really weave, but I'd rather make the decision for myself when to pass rather than have a computer and its thoughts of what level of "priority" I am. At least the government probably won't do anything like "pay more to get first priority to get around the truck kicking up debris", but I could see private roads like ON 407 doing it.
Actually, I only go 7 over, so for a 55 mph road that's 62, and there's still plenty of people going slower. Same with the Thruway going 72.
Something tells me that the computer would always go exactly the speed limit and that the government (especially in places more obsessed with safety) would not raise the limit.
I have no objection to paying for roads - in fact, I believe the gas tax should be raised, significantly. But I do want it to stay essentially invisible, as it is now. Of course, the fact that a big bill for mileage would discourage driving is probably considered a "feature" by the Urbanists. If a per kwh tax on electric bills and charging ins't something we're willing to do, then maybe the push should have been for hydrogen cars instead of electric.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 14, 2021, 06:45:20 PM
One thing that worries me is that this will turn into an excuse to take away lanes from our freeways and force us to always drive in platoon mode, which would take the fun out of the interstate.
From what I've read, that's EXACTLY what they're planning.
Quote from: vdeane on March 14, 2021, 09:18:54 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 14, 2021, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 13, 2021, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
I expect at some point in the future some urban freeways will be entirely self-driving with traffic density being controlled by computers controlling the cars. I'd be fine getting in my car, driving to the onramp, and entering my destination then taking a nap, reading a book, or sightseeing until I reached my destination. With almost nobody paying a gas tax, your trip would be metered and car owners will be charged a mileage tax monthly much like FasTrak does for HOT lanes. Drivers would get points or possibly even lose their license for turning off the autopilot before exiting the highway.
Yuck. I don't want the car navigating for me. I want to drive myself, select my route myself, get around slowpokes if I so wish, etc.
Also yuck on mileage taxes. I prefer how it's mostly invisible now. I don't want to get big bills for my car usage.
If you're the one zipping around "slowpokes" on the freeway, you could be the one creating new roadblocks by causing drivers to brake as you zip between cars, thereby increasing congestion behind you. Others have done the same ahead of you. Allowing the computer to navigate, chances are cars would normally travel well over the legal 55 mph in cities and closer to the 65-70 mph that cars normally drive through urban areas. I would gladly give up control to get from Riverside to Santa Monica at an average speed of 65 mph or more.
Also, somebody will have to pay for new roads. They won't pay for themselves.
I don't really weave, but I'd rather make the decision for myself when to pass rather than have a computer and its thoughts of what level of "priority" I am. At least the government probably won't do anything like "pay more to get first priority to get around the truck kicking up debris", but I could see private roads like ON 407 doing it.
Actually, I only go 7 over, so for a 55 mph road that's 62, and there's still plenty of people going slower. Same with the Thruway going 72.
Something tells me that the computer would always go exactly the speed limit and that the government (especially in places more obsessed with safety) would not raise the limit.
I have no objection to paying for roads - in fact, I believe the gas tax should be raised, significantly. But I do want it to stay essentially invisible, as it is now. Of course, the fact that a big bill for mileage would discourage driving is probably considered a "feature" by the Urbanists. If a per kwh tax on electric bills and charging ins't something we're willing to do, then maybe the push should have been for hydrogen cars instead of electric.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 14, 2021, 06:45:20 PM
One thing that worries me is that this will turn into an excuse to take away lanes from our freeways and force us to always drive in platoon mode, which would take the fun out of the interstate.
From what I've read, that's EXACTLY what they're planning.
Why is it that cyclists have such a well organized lobby but driving enthusiasts don't?
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 14, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2021, 05:47:34 PM
As far as merging traffic goes, my car senses the speed of the next vehicle ahead. If a vehicle merges in front of me and it's going a faster speed than I am, my car won't slow down as it recognizes I will gain that 1 second distance interval on its own. In fact, there's a function on my display that shows me the distance between me and the vehicle in front of me. After approximately 100 yards, it goes away, as the next vehicle in front of me is far enough away to not be a concern.
Wrong idea. If you set your ACC at 20MPH over the speed limit and are pacing the car ahead at a 1-second interval when they change lanes to let a car merge into traffic, your car shoots ahead and leaves the merging vehicle with no safe braking margin to take the gap created for it. If the merging vehicle takes the gap, the ACC vehicle in the "slow lane" will need to take action to avoid collision. Which is difficult from full acceleration. Also note that safe braking distances are much different when a vehicle is assumed to be under full acceleration.
Invalid example. You're not using the equipment as intended. If you hit that merging driver, are you going to tell the cop you had your ACC set for 90 mph in a 70 mph zone and you're not liable for the crash?
Also, if you saw the car merging onto the highway, why didn't you merge over as well or hit the brake pedal yourself?
You're supposed to use the ACC to set the top speed that you want to go, not to continously pace traffic in front of you. That car in front of you could merge out of the lane for any number of reasons - a pedestrian or kid entered the roadway, there's a debris in the road, a cop has someone pulled over on the side of the roadway, or for no particular reason in general. In none of these examples is it prudent to simply let your car speed up without interacting with it to merge over or slow down yourself, and especially with the claim that you set the top speed to be 20 mph over the limit.
Quote from: vdeane on March 14, 2021, 09:18:54 PM
Something tells me that the computer would always go exactly the speed limit and that the government (especially in places more obsessed with safety) would not raise the limit.
How fast do Teslas go compared to the speed limit?
While this technology is out there now, based on what I've seen for my vehicle, it has a long way to go. My car will show the speed limit based on the previous sign it saw. But...it has to see that sign, and it has to be accurate. There's one Speed Limit 50 sign that my car always seems to think it says Speed Limit 60. Just one of them though - the sign is clearly a 50 sign, and it's not dirty or obstructed. Sometimes it mis-reads or doesn't read other speed limit signs. Other times, it misreads a route sign or something else to be a speed limit sign. The car's speed limit indicator will max out at 100 mph. But for now, this is all just for show - the speed limit indicator does not factor in to the car's performance, and there's nothing I can set in relation to the speed limit shown on the car.
Also, the car won't know the speed limit has changed if I turn onto a different road. It won't know the limit of a highway until it sees a sign. It won't know the statutory limit.
So, there's certainly some work to be done. There's a bit of programming that will need to draw from *accurate* state and local databases, and signage out in the field. It's far from perfect by any means, but we also shouldn't expect to go from nothing to everything right away either.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 14, 2021, 06:45:20 PM
One thing that worries me is that this will turn into an excuse to take away lanes from our freeways and force us to always drive in platoon mode, which would take the fun out of the interstate.
For the majority of drivers, this will be absolutely fine with them. There's just a very small percentage of drivers that don't want to get from point A to point B the fastest way possible.
Quote
For the majority of drivers, this will be absolutely fine with them. There's just a very small percentage of drivers that don't want to get from point A to point B the fastest way possible.
That's not true. 78% say they enjoy driving to some degree https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx
Why do you think all those car commercials sell us on the fun of driving?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2021, 05:47:34 PM
As far as merging traffic goes, my car senses the speed of the next vehicle ahead. If a vehicle merges in front of me and it's going a faster speed than I am, my car won't slow down as it recognizes I will gain that 1 second distance interval on its own. In fact, there's a function on my display that shows me the distance between me and the vehicle in front of me. After approximately 100 yards, it goes away, as the next vehicle in front of me is far enough away to not be a concern.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 14, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Wrong idea. If you set your ACC at 20MPH over the speed limit and are pacing the car ahead at a 1-second interval when they change lanes to let a car merge into traffic, your car shoots ahead and leaves the merging vehicle with no safe braking margin to take the gap created for it. If the merging vehicle takes the gap, the ACC vehicle in the "slow lane" will need to take action to avoid collision. Which is difficult from full acceleration. Also note that safe braking distances are much different when a vehicle is assumed to be under full acceleration.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2021, 09:11:15 AM
Invalid example. You're not using the equipment as intended. If you hit that merging driver, are you going to tell the cop you had your ACC set for 90 mph in a 70 mph zone and you're not liable for the crash?
I totally agree, but this is already a major problem here. I'm seeing this happen at least 5 times a week now along the eight-lane section of I-85/I-40 in Central North Carolina, and I'm not driving near as much these days. I'll get cut off myself about once or twice a month, sometimes by folks who are not even paying attention (using autonomous mode); one of those guys was reading a newspaper. It's usually easy to slap on the brakes hard and then blast out behind the offender, but sometimes you get boxed out by the car behind you on the on-ramp. We don't see this much on the four-lane sections of I-40 or I-85 [to the south and east of us, respectively].
You also see the same maneuver used by super-aggressive drivers, but you can usually see them coming as they switch lanes frequently.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 14, 2021, 11:01:41 PM
Why is it that cyclists have such a well organized lobby but driving enthusiasts don't?
Heck, to be absolutely honest, we don't have a great organized lobby here either, on what's probably the only real forum for road enthusiasts. We like talking about roads to each other, but don't like talking roads to the officials that can actually push forth change. I've seen myself where I'll post info about a public meeting or public comment periods on this forum: They almost always result in no responses, and I can't recall seeing any attendees or comments filed as a result. We can have a 300 count thread about roads that need to be widened or signage that needs to be improved, but when it matters the most, the government only gets comments for better bicycle lanes. Guess where they're going to put some excess money towards, if they are basing it on what they hear from the public?
I've mentioned something I saw a while back...a (human) traffic counter at an intersection. Every time a bicyclist pedaled by, they would note that on a clipboard. Then I noticed quite a number of bicyclists rolling by, way more than I've ever seen at this location. Clearly word had gotten out among the bicyclist community that there was going to be a survey done at a particular location and time, so they coordinated to go out there and add to the count. Now, since then, not only have I never seen those bicyclists again, but no other improvements have been done either. That lobby may have done a little too much for their own good...an unannounced observation where the DOT may have sent an employee out and watched traffic go by at a similar time probably would reveal that the survey results was clearly flawed.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 09:28:18 AM
That's not true. 78% say they enjoy driving to some degree https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx
Not sure what you're getting at. They enjoy driving, but that doesn't mean they drive excessively. They can just enjoy driving to work compared to taking the bus, or enjoy driving so they can listen to their radio, stop at stores on the way home, or go straight to another event.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 09:28:18 AM
Why do you think all those car commercials sell us on the fun of driving?
Because commercials try to show things in a positive light.
How many people enjoy laundry, mopping the floor, taking medication because they feel like crap, or buying insurance? Not many. But commercials will still show people happily doing all of this, because smiles sell.
Just wondering...have you ever seen commercials for mass transit? Have they convinced you to take mass transit?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2021, 10:41:11 AM
Just wondering...have you ever seen commercials for mass transit? Have they convinced you to take mass transit?
I've seen billboards for the MBTA and for some of the private long-distance buses (like Greyhound, except that particular one hasn't), and I've seen online banner ads for Amtrak.
I think an average following distance of 80 feet is enough for the various maneuvers that make freeway driving fun. With a berth of 20 feet for the car itself, that's a traffic density of 53 cars per lane mile, at 60 mph, that's 3200 vph lane capacity, which is still a 60% improvement over the current 2000 vph.
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 10:46:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2021, 10:41:11 AM
Just wondering...have you ever seen commercials for mass transit? Have they convinced you to take mass transit?
I've seen billboards for the MBTA and for some of the private long-distance buses (like Greyhound, except that particular one hasn't), and I've seen online banner ads for Amtrak.
[/quvehicle.
Also, airlines spend a shit ton on advertising
But their ads usually focus on price or tell you that you need to get away from it all. They don't pretend that the flight itself is fun.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 06:49:32 PM
Phantom jams are the reason why our freeways have low carrying capacity.
So, like, when a driver steps on the brakes for no good reason for a split-second (tell me you've never been behind drivers like that, or ones that drive two-foot-style and flutter the brake pedal)? After the first four times of that, you figure out what's going on and don't bother braking every single time you see the red lights flicker in front of you. Except, with cooperative adaptive cruise control, wouldn't your vehicle automatically slow down every time?
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2021, 11:49:24 AM
So, like, when a driver steps on the brakes for no good reason for a split-second (tell me you've never been behind drivers like that, or ones that drive two-foot-style and flutter the brake pedal)? After the first four times of that, you figure out what's going on and don't bother braking every single time you see the red lights flicker in front of you.
Yes. I have had this happen in both free-flowing and congested traffic conditions.
There have even been occasions where I started counting how many times the guy in front braked when I didn't. Say I got up to ten: I see that as ten favors that I've done for drivers behind me. I'm of the belief that it reduces congestion and provides a smoother driving experience to roll along at a consistent (but slow) speed rather than gas > brake > gas > brake > etc.
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2021, 11:49:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 06:49:32 PM
Phantom jams are the reason why our freeways have low carrying capacity.
So, like, when a driver steps on the brakes for no good reason for a split-second (tell me you've never been behind drivers like that, or ones that drive two-foot-style and flutter the brake pedal)? After the first four times of that, you figure out what's going on and don't bother braking every single time you see the red lights flicker in front of you. Except, with cooperative adaptive cruise control, wouldn't your vehicle automatically slow down every time?
The car would slow down if that braking was done to the point where car slows down. If it was just a light tap, it shouldn't affect you much if you were both going slow to begin with. If you're going 60 to 30 to 60 to 30, yeah, that'll be an issue though.
BUT, as more and more vehicles have this function, and if it's used more and more, then that'll reduce the occurrences of this type of activity. As noted above, the guy driving his car in 'manual mode', so to say, is causing the problem.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2021, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2021, 11:49:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 06:49:32 PM
Phantom jams are the reason why our freeways have low carrying capacity.
So, like, when a driver steps on the brakes for no good reason for a split-second (tell me you've never been behind drivers like that, or ones that drive two-foot-style and flutter the brake pedal)? After the first four times of that, you figure out what's going on and don't bother braking every single time you see the red lights flicker in front of you. Except, with cooperative adaptive cruise control, wouldn't your vehicle automatically slow down every time?
The car would slow down if that braking was done to the point where car slows down. If it was just a light tap, it shouldn't affect you much if you were both going slow to begin with. If you're going 60 to 30 to 60 to 30, yeah, that'll be an issue though.
BUT, as more and more vehicles have this function, and if it's used more and more, then that'll reduce the occurrences of this type of activity. As noted above, the guy driving his car in 'manual mode', so to say, is causing the problem.
However, you do have to be careful using adaptive cruise control in heavy traffic because of the risk if someone tailgates you when you're using the feature and the car ahead of you slows abruptly, or someone cuts you off, such that your adaptive cruise control essentially brakes heavily (causes your car to slow very suddenly). Good chance you get rear-ended in that situation if the guy behind you is not also using adaptive cruise control (which, if he's tailgating you, he probably isn't). When I drive my wife's car I do sometimes use that feature in traffic, but I hit the "Cancel" button if someone follows too closely for precisely this reason–when I take control, I bleed off speed a lot more gradually than the adaptive cruise control does.
As I've said in other threads, I very much like the adaptive cruise control feature, but there is definitely a bit of a learning curve with it compared to conventional cruise control (which is what our other cars have and which I used this morning to keep my speed down on the way to and from an appointment in Fairfax City). On my wife's car the system can actually be changed from adaptive to conventional, though neither of us has ever done that–we leave in adaptive mode.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 14, 2021, 11:01:41 PM
Why is it that cyclists have such a well organized lobby but driving enthusiasts don't?
Well, there's a lot of grass-roots organizing, it's a much larger group, and it's not just one lobby. In addition to cyclists, you have every advocate for non-motorized transportation (transit, the disabled, pedestrian safety, etc.), every safety group out there, people who want the self-driving ridesharing future to get out of car ownership, Urbanists, the environmental movement, people against climate change, etc. We have roadgeeks (mostly this forum and the broader community of people who go to roadmeets and on the Facebook groups) and car enthusiasts. Most people drive to get from point A to point B. For them, driving is about getting to the destination, not the destination itself. And regardless of how you may think people enjoy driving (as mentioned, there are a lot of qualifiers on that), few people go gaga over driving an urban interstate for the sake of it. Those car ads you mention tend to focus on things like tourism roads of off-roading for a reason - even for most people who enjoy driving, those are the experiences they prefer for recreation, not things like interstates (even rural ones, much less urban ones).
It's also worth noting that, even within the roadgeek community, things like the driving experience on urban freeways is not the slam dunk issue you may think it is. There are actually roadgeeks who oppose new urban freeway projects and/or favor urban freeway teardowns! Not as many as in the general population (especially the general population in urban cores), but there are some.
Quote from: vdeane on March 15, 2021, 01:00:59 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 14, 2021, 11:01:41 PM
Why is it that cyclists have such a well organized lobby but driving enthusiasts don't?
Well, there's a lot of grass-roots organizing, it's a much larger group, and it's not just one lobby. In addition to cyclists, you have every advocate for non-motorized transportation (transit, the disabled, pedestrian safety, etc.), every safety group out there, people who want the self-driving ridesharing future to get out of car ownership, Urbanists, the environmental movement, people against climate change, etc. We have roadgeeks (mostly this forum and the broader community of people who go to roadmeets and on the Facebook groups) and car enthusiasts. Most people drive to get from point A to point B. For them, driving is about getting to the destination, not the destination itself. And regardless of how you may think people enjoy driving (as mentioned, there are a lot of qualifiers on that), few people go gaga over driving an urban interstate for the sake of it. Those car ads you mention tend to focus on things like tourism roads of off-roading for a reason - even for most people who enjoy driving, those are the experiences they prefer for recreation, not things like interstates (even rural ones, much less urban ones).
It's also worth noting that, even within the roadgeek community, things like the driving experience on urban freeways is not the slam dunk issue you may think it is. There are actually roadgeeks who oppose new urban freeway projects and/or favor urban freeway teardowns! Not as many as in the general population (especially the general population in urban cores), but there are some.
Maybe electric cars, with the low cost of pleasure driving, will mint a critical mass of driving enthusiasts
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 01:44:17 PM
Maybe electric cars, with the low cost of pleasure driving, will mint a critical mass of driving enthusiasts
Have the current EV drivers become driving enthusiasts since purchasing their electric car? I'm guessing not.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 01:44:17 PM
Maybe electric cars, with the low cost of pleasure driving, will mint a critical mass of driving enthusiasts
I doubt gas vs. electric has anything to do with it. Gas isn't expensive enough to make me want to drive less, especially with my Civic, and electric cars won't stay cheap when the government rolls out mileage taxes (though it's worth noting that charging is NOT free). If anything the combination of getting billed for the mileage tax and having to stop for 30 minutes every couple hours to recharge (which will vastly change roadtripping; EVs are best suited for commuter cars) will make people want to drive LESS. Most people just don't like sitting in a box for long periods of time (especially in traffic) and/or feel they have better things to do with their time (especially as time behind the wheel is time you're not spending texting or on social media, which is sadly more important for most people in Gen Y/Z).
IMO, most people view driving as a chore you have to do rather than something they look forward to doing. They might enjoy the chore of driving, as some do with the chore of yard work, but it's still a chore that has to be done. Very few people wake up in the morning with, "Yay! I get to drive to work! Joy!" In fact, it's pretty likely they don't think about it. It's just that thing you do to get from your house to your work location or your vacation spot or wherever you need to go. I'd argue that the example above of people in car commercials smiling just like they do in laundry commercials is a point of evidence towards that fact.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 01:44:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 15, 2021, 01:00:59 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 14, 2021, 11:01:41 PM
Why is it that cyclists have such a well organized lobby but driving enthusiasts don't?
Well, there's a lot of grass-roots organizing, it's a much larger group, and it's not just one lobby. In addition to cyclists, you have every advocate for non-motorized transportation (transit, the disabled, pedestrian safety, etc.), every safety group out there, people who want the self-driving ridesharing future to get out of car ownership, Urbanists, the environmental movement, people against climate change, etc. We have roadgeeks (mostly this forum and the broader community of people who go to roadmeets and on the Facebook groups) and car enthusiasts. Most people drive to get from point A to point B. For them, driving is about getting to the destination, not the destination itself. And regardless of how you may think people enjoy driving (as mentioned, there are a lot of qualifiers on that), few people go gaga over driving an urban interstate for the sake of it. Those car ads you mention tend to focus on things like tourism roads of off-roading for a reason - even for most people who enjoy driving, those are the experiences they prefer for recreation, not things like interstates (even rural ones, much less urban ones).
It's also worth noting that, even within the roadgeek community, things like the driving experience on urban freeways is not the slam dunk issue you may think it is. There are actually roadgeeks who oppose new urban freeway projects and/or favor urban freeway teardowns! Not as many as in the general population (especially the general population in urban cores), but there are some.
Maybe electric cars, with the low cost of pleasure driving, will mint a critical mass of driving enthusiasts
For those that really hate driving, and would rather deal with the TSA and fly rather than driving to relatively close destinations, I think self-driving cars, more than electric cars, will encourage those to drive instead. Short-haul flights are decent money makers for airlines, so that will impact their bottom line.
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2021, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 01:44:17 PM
Maybe electric cars, with the low cost of pleasure driving, will mint a critical mass of driving enthusiasts
Have the current EV drivers become driving enthusiasts since purchasing their electric car? I'm guessing not.
Do you not know anything about Tesla fan Boys?
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 03:17:59 PM
Do you not know anything about Tesla fan Boys?
Are you saying they weren't driving enthusiasts before buying a Tesla, but now they are?
I think it's pretty obvious that the relationship we have with our cars is very different from the one we have with our other possessions.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 07:30:04 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that the relationship we have with our cars is very different from the one we have with our other possessions.
At the very least, there are homes and yards.
Quote from: kalvado on March 15, 2021, 07:41:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 15, 2021, 07:30:04 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that the relationship we have with our cars is very different from the one we have with our other possessions.
At the very least, there are homes and yards.
And dogs.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2021, 03:40:08 PM
One idea would be to allow these cars to use HOT lanes. You could have a device at the on ramps that tells the cars to automatically turn on their adaptive cruise control. This would incentivize take up.
All it would do is incentivize me to drive to my dad's house and have him help me find the sensor for the adaptive cruise so I could take a pair of wire dikes to it.
By the way, some versions of adaptive cruise control might still have some nasty bugs. About 2-1/2 years ago, I was in ACC and following a small pickup truck at 72MPH on I-40 [northbound] in the Warsaw area. After the truck passed the on-ramp, he slammed on his brakes and pulled across the merge lane and over onto the berm. Once he got onto the berm, he dropped down to about 20MPH and looked for a smooth place to stop. The ACC refused to "let go of him", dragging me down to 20MPH in a hurry. I was a long distance ahead of the next pack, so I pulled into the left lane and still couldn't shake him. He did eventually stop, and once I was past his bumper the car rocketed back up to 72MPH. For whatever reason, it never occurred to me to tap my brakes or hit the "Cancel" button.
I had another issue with the vehicle that week, and so I took the time to make a report to the manufacturer. We found out that the ACC would "let go of the vehicle" if I put on my turn signal before changing lanes. Also, it probably would have "let go of him" if I had used my left turn signal and not changed lanes. They took this report seriously, and I suspect that the software has been corrected and updated.
Berthold Horn at MIT claims to have devised a solution (http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/Traffic_Flow_Animation) to phantom jams that doesn't require complicated V2X systems. His solution is just put some sensors on the back of the car and program it so that cars keep an equal distance between traffic in front and behind.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 16, 2021, 07:29:21 PM
Berthold Horn at MIT claims to have devised a solution (http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/Traffic_Flow_Animation) to phantom jams that doesn't require complicated V2X systems. His solution is just put some sensors on the back of the car and program it so that cars keep an equal distance between traffic in front and behind.
I heard about this, or something like it, on the radio a year or two ago. Most people only focus on the car in front of them, but that's not necessarily the solution to traffic slowdowns.
BMW is putting 5G (https://www.slashgear.com/bmw-idrive-8-embraces-big-screens-fewer-buttons-5g-and-the-road-to-autonomy-15663721/) in its cars starting with the 2022 iX. It's starting.
This One Weird Trick Could Double the Capacity of our Freeways: let the air out of the tires of every other car.
Quote from: Fran Hestermann (Ludell, KS)
I wish everyone else would just get off the road when I drive.
One thing to note: this effectively cuts the cost of new freeways in half on a per passenger mile basis.