The rule of thumb is that a normal freeway lane can handle 2,000 vehicles per hour. The reason for that is the need for drivers to maintain a very large buffer distance from traffic in front. It's been known at least since Norman Bel Geddes published his pivotal Magic Motorways in 1939 that if cars could synchronize their speeds, capacity could be greatly increased.
(https://i.imgur.com/jU0QhDi.png)
Most conservative assumptions on this say that capacity could rise to 4,000 vehicles per hour assuming a uniform distance between each car. That is enough to eliminate traffic congestion in most places, especially the US, but in the world's most crowded urban areas, it will not be enough.
(https://i.imgur.com/zjBcfBE.png)
But we can do better still. Thisstudy (https://archive.org/details/automatedhighway0000unse/page/156/mode/2up?view=theater) says that if cars could hook up into platoons of 10 or 20 and perfectly sync all acceleration and braking movements, lane capacities of 8,000 per hour are possible. This means that a 4 lane freeway, assuming 1.25 people per car, will move about as many people as a subway line that's standing room only
This is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
We would need all vehicles to be full self driving because there is no way you could get humans to do that on their own. Every single vehicle, even one straggler in there would screw it up.
I assume given prior ideas you had, these lanes would be full-self driving only?
Quote from: SectorZ on September 27, 2024, 07:33:45 AMWe would need all vehicles to be full self driving because there is no way you could get humans to do that on their own. Every single vehicle, even one straggler in there would screw it up.
I assume given prior ideas you had, these lanes would be full-self driving only?
Even full-self driving wouldn't be enough to get this level of synchronization K12 wants. Each car model is going accelerate and brake differently. Even the exact same models will be in differing states of wear and tear. There seems to be this broad assumption with self-driving and EV proponents that stuff like brake pads don't wear down.
Quote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
Quote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
It'd be a train basically
Quote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
One of the things here: at small vehicle separation, during breaking there isn't enough time to accumulate speed differential, so collision will be mostly harmless.
Quote from: kalvado on September 27, 2024, 04:58:56 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
One of the things here: at small vehicle separation, during breaking there isn't enough time to accumulate speed differential, so collision will be mostly harmless.
... unless the lead vehicle encounters a solid immovable object ...
Quote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 05:02:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on September 27, 2024, 04:58:56 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
One of the things here: at small vehicle separation, during breaking there isn't enough time to accumulate speed differential, so collision will be mostly harmless.
... unless the lead vehicle encounters a solid immovable object ...
How would that end differently from 2 seconds spacing?
Quote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 05:02:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on September 27, 2024, 04:58:56 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
One of the things here: at small vehicle separation, during breaking there isn't enough time to accumulate speed differential, so collision will be mostly harmless.
... unless the lead vehicle encounters a solid immovable object ...
If we're still assuming all vehicles talk to each other and occupants have no control over the vehicle, the vehicles should have instant reaction time.
After all, this is how current robotic parts within the vehicles work currently under the hood.
Quote from: kalvado on September 27, 2024, 05:10:36 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 05:02:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on September 27, 2024, 04:58:56 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
One of the things here: at small vehicle separation, during breaking there isn't enough time to accumulate speed differential, so collision will be mostly harmless.
... unless the lead vehicle encounters a solid immovable object ...
How would that end differently from 2 seconds spacing?
With 2-second spacing you can decelerate at 1G from 19.6 m/s to 0 in 2 seconds. That's from about 45MPH to stop. Typical manual breaking isn't that good, but automatically, maybe it could be. At maximum breaking (perhaps reversing the engine?) at a couple of Gs, you could stop from higher speeds. With only 0.16 seconds of spacing, even pulling 4Gs (which will probably break your ribs), you haven't a prayer.
Also, why have our own vehicles, if we don't make any decisions and can't create spacing to maneuver to take offramps? Where's are the keys to the PA-28 or even the C-172?
Quote from: michravera on September 28, 2024, 12:58:08 AMQuote from: kalvado on September 27, 2024, 05:10:36 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 05:02:46 PMQuote from: kalvado on September 27, 2024, 04:58:56 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
One of the things here: at small vehicle separation, during breaking there isn't enough time to accumulate speed differential, so collision will be mostly harmless.
... unless the lead vehicle encounters a solid immovable object ...
How would that end differently from 2 seconds spacing?
With 2-second spacing you can decelerate at 1G from 19.6 m/s to 0 in 2 seconds. That's from about 45MPH to stop. Typical manual breaking isn't that good, but automatically, maybe it could be. At maximum breaking (perhaps reversing the engine?) at a couple of Gs, you could stop from higher speeds. With only 0.16 seconds of spacing, even pulling 4Gs (which will probably break your ribs), you haven't a prayer.
Also, why have our own vehicles, if we don't make any decisions and can't create spacing to maneuver to take offramps? Where's are the keys to the PA-28 or even the C-172?
Couple g? 0.6 as best case scenario, 0.2-0.3 if the weather is less than perfect.
This study says that with radar based communication, they can get latency down to just 1 millisecond. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.09242)
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2024, 05:52:09 PMThis study says that with radar based communication, they can get latency down to just 1 millisecond. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.09242)
Is this the same radar that people say is so imperfect they need a 7 mph leeway before tickets are issued?
K12 inventing platoon driving.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 20, 2024, 06:26:21 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2024, 05:52:09 PMThis study says that with radar based communication, they can get latency down to just 1 millisecond. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.09242)
Is this the same radar that people say is so imperfect they need a 7 mph leeway before tickets are issued?
The buffer is primarily for car speedometer and US cultural speeding.
Radar is way below 1mph
Who is the "they" that keeps getting referenced on the forum today? There even is an active thread that even has "they" in the title:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35523.msg2958860;topicseen#msg2958860
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2024, 07:09:51 PMWho is the "they" that keeps getting referenced on the forum today? There even is an active thread that even has "they" in the title:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35523.msg2958860;topicseen#msg2958860
The person who liked your post, apparently.
Lol, K12 strikes again. :awesomeface:
I saw the post title and knew who it was.
Jokes on you guys, this thread is from September. I guess we weren't talking about AI cars enough.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2024, 07:09:51 PMWho is the "they" that keeps getting referenced on the forum today? There even is an active thread that even has "they" in the title:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35523.msg2958860;topicseen#msg2958860
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live#/media/File:1988They_Live_poster300.jpg
I'll believe it when it happens. Reality tends to be very underwhelming and boring.
Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2024, 08:15:57 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2024, 07:09:51 PMWho is the "they" that keeps getting referenced on the forum today? There even is an active thread that even has "they" in the title:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35523.msg2958860;topicseen#msg2958860
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live#/media/File:1988They_Live_poster300.jpg
As if anything K12 does would ever be as interesting as They Live...
Instead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:22:43 PMInstead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
You know what? This idea makes actual sense.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 20, 2024, 10:23:22 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:22:43 PMInstead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
You know what? This idea makes actual sense.
I do think we should still spend money on upgrading roads but a balanced transportation system makes sense. Germany manages to have the world-famous Autobahn and a better transit network than America.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:26:40 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on December 20, 2024, 10:23:22 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:22:43 PMInstead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
You know what? This idea makes actual sense.
I do think we should still spend money on upgrading roads but a balanced transportation system makes sense. Germany manages to have the world-famous Autobahn and a better transit network than America.
They have density
Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2024, 10:35:05 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:26:40 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on December 20, 2024, 10:23:22 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:22:43 PMInstead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
You know what? This idea makes actual sense.
I do think we should still spend money on upgrading roads but a balanced transportation system makes sense. Germany manages to have the world-famous Autobahn and a better transit network than America.
They have density
Parts of the US have density, like the Northeast, California, Florida, the PNW, and the Texas Triangle. We don't need high speed rail between Rapid City and Bismarck.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:36:57 PMQuote from: Rothman on December 20, 2024, 10:35:05 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:26:40 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on December 20, 2024, 10:23:22 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:22:43 PMInstead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
You know what? This idea makes actual sense.
I do think we should still spend money on upgrading roads but a balanced transportation system makes sense. Germany manages to have the world-famous Autobahn and a better transit network than America.
They have density
Parts of the US have density, like the Northeast, California, Florida, the PNW, and the Texas Triangle. We don't need high speed rail between Rapid City and Bismarck.
And yet the HSR line here has a whole bunch of stops planned for non-dense areas. That corridor should have directed lined between Los Angeles and San Francisco as a proof of concept.
Another thing that hurts the appeal of HSR: American airports are more conveniently located and better connected than their counterparts abroad.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2024, 11:18:19 PMAnother thing that hurts the appeal of HSR: American airports are more conveniently located and better connected than their counterparts abroad.
Airport security is still an issue though and takes a few hours. There's a reason why acela is so good.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2024, 10:38:39 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:36:57 PMQuote from: Rothman on December 20, 2024, 10:35:05 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:26:40 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on December 20, 2024, 10:23:22 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:22:43 PMInstead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
You know what? This idea makes actual sense.
I do think we should still spend money on upgrading roads but a balanced transportation system makes sense. Germany manages to have the world-famous Autobahn and a better transit network than America.
They have density
Parts of the US have density, like the Northeast, California, Florida, the PNW, and the Texas Triangle. We don't need high speed rail between Rapid City and Bismarck.
And yet the HSR line here has a whole bunch of stops planned for non-dense areas. That corridor should have directed lined between Los Angeles and San Francisco as a proof of concept.
the cahsr was bungled I won't disagree with you on that.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 12:37:02 AMAirport security is still an issue though and takes a few hours. There's a reason why acela is so good.
TSA pre-check exists
Quote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 01:08:44 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 12:37:02 AMAirport security is still an issue though and takes a few hours. There's a reason why acela is so good.
TSA pre-check exists
If everyone got tsa precheck the benefits would cancel out. Many don't travel enough for it to be worth it.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 01:13:00 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 01:08:44 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 12:37:02 AMAirport security is still an issue though and takes a few hours. There's a reason why acela is so good.
TSA pre-check exists
If everyone got tsa precheck the benefits would cancel out. Many don't travel enough for it to be worth it.
That's not true, Precheck is less stringent (they don't make you take your shoes off for instance) and so it takes them less time to process each person.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 01:20:04 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 01:13:00 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 01:08:44 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 12:37:02 AMAirport security is still an issue though and takes a few hours. There's a reason why acela is so good.
TSA pre-check exists
If everyone got tsa precheck the benefits would cancel out. Many don't travel enough for it to be worth it.
That's not true, Precheck is less stringent (they don't make you take your shoes off for instance) and so it takes them less time to process each person.
if you take amtrak to new york you end up in midtown. You fly it can be a pain to get there.
Where are the AI airport security robots? All this time spent on 150 MPH AI cars and not one suggestion about sentient security bots seems off to me.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 21, 2024, 08:57:04 AMWhere are the AI airport security robots? All this time spent on 150 MPH AI cars and not one suggestion about sentient security bots seems off to me.
Beware,
they just marked you as a high risk person for wanting to destroy a lot of union jobs.
Quote from: kalvado on December 21, 2024, 10:07:19 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 21, 2024, 08:57:04 AMWhere are the AI airport security robots? All this time spent on 150 MPH AI cars and not one suggestion about sentient security bots seems off to me.
Beware, they just marked you as a high risk person for wanting to destroy a lot of union jobs.
Tell
they that I'll be waiting in the Wendy's parking lot with my TSA robot goon squad.
If ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 21, 2024, 08:57:04 AMWhere are the AI airport security robots? All this time spent on 150 MPH AI cars and not one suggestion about sentient security bots seems off to me.
I think armed autonomous drones are far off.
But one interesting thing would be remotely controlled robots *on planes* that would allow air marshalls to be in multiple places at once.
When I first saw the thread title I thought it was "8,000 miles per hour per lane on the highways of tomorrow".
It's a K12 thread though, so it could be believable.
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 21, 2024, 12:51:28 PMWhen I first saw the thread title I thought it was "8,000 miles per hour per lane on the highways of tomorrow".
It's a K12 thread though, so it could be believable.
8,000 cars per hour going 8,000 miles per hour. Is that possible under Newtonian physics?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 12:56:52 PMQuote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 21, 2024, 12:51:28 PMWhen I first saw the thread title I thought it was "8,000 miles per hour per lane on the highways of tomorrow".
It's a K12 thread though, so it could be believable.
8,000 cars per hour going 8,000 miles per hour. Is that possible under Newtonian physics?
Until one needs to stop, probably.
Why stop with Newtonian physics though? Imagine how fast point A to point B is an Einstein-Rosen Bridge?
Quote from: SectorZ on December 21, 2024, 01:08:20 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 12:56:52 PMQuote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 21, 2024, 12:51:28 PMWhen I first saw the thread title I thought it was "8,000 miles per hour per lane on the highways of tomorrow".
It's a K12 thread though, so it could be believable.
8,000 cars per hour going 8,000 miles per hour. Is that possible under Newtonian physics?
Until one needs to stop, probably.
Why stop with Newtonian physics though? Imagine how fast point A to point B is an Einstein-Rosen Bridge?
Is it possible to be done safely under Newtonian physics?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Might not look into the failure rate of TSA screeners during their own tests.
This study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261521000540) says that freeway lanes for autonomous cars could carry up to *12,000* vehicles per hour.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 05:02:32 PMThis study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261521000540) says that freeway lanes for autonomous cars could carry up to *12,000* vehicles per hour.
I think 25 thousand is a better number. It looks nicer, and is equally realistic
The TSA robots had a team building excursion that was posted on social media:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19oB1Wmd3n/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
Quote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:27:12 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
Hey now, stop taking these 150 AI car threads seriously...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 21, 2024, 06:29:20 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:27:12 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
Hey now, stop taking these 150 AI car threads seriously...
I mean, I don't know if this proposal was serious or not, but it does have merit. I have no doubt there will be further automation/AI in regards to driving in the future. But I approach things from the idea that reality is always much slower and more boring than what we hope. I mean, we can't even get RealID up and running, it keeps getting delayed. That's basically a piece of plastic. If we can't do that, we are gonna have super highways handling 8k+ cars an hour, fully AI controlled, with no issues?
It's the same thing with politics. You hear all these scary things that are going to happen, then in reality these things rarely happen, or they do but once removed from the sensationalism, find out aren't a big deal. Hell, look at the recent Apple Intelligence rollout. Turns out it was pretty lackluster. It just lets you do a few new things you couldn't do before. Not exactly the insane AI revolution we were told.
I wouldn't mind ai helping TSA but there has to be some form of human checking.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 06:32:56 PMI wouldn't mind ai helping TSA but there has to be some form of human checking.
Whether it is robots or humans doesn't matter much. It is all security and safety theater.
Quote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:27:12 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
AI, doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than humans.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 06:35:43 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:27:12 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
AI, doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than humans.
I'm totally fine with AI for cars as human drivers aren't that good. Flying is already so safe so why mess up a good thing? Sure TSA is annoying but I don't really mind taking my shoes off briefly.
Quote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:32:07 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 21, 2024, 06:29:20 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:27:12 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
Hey now, stop taking these 150 AI car threads seriously...
I mean, I don't know if this proposal was serious or not, but it does have merit. I have no doubt there will be further automation/AI in regards to driving in the future. But I approach things from the idea that reality is always much slower and more boring than what we hope. I mean, we can't even get RealID up and running, it keeps getting delayed. That's basically a piece of plastic. If we can't do that, we are gonna have super highways handling 8k+ cars an hour, fully AI controlled, with no issues?
It's the same thing with politics. You hear all these scary things that are going to happen, then in reality these things rarely happen, or they do but once removed from the sensationalism, find out aren't a big deal. Hell, look at the recent Apple Intelligence rollout. Turns out it was pretty lackluster. It just lets you do a few new things you couldn't do before. Not exactly the insane AI revolution we were told.
I don't entirely dismiss the notion that some of this stuff is one day possible. Like you said, the progression is often so slow that it isn't even worth putting much thought into.
Trouble is we had a huge recent rash of similar K12 threads (which I don't think you active for) that spun up the forum populace.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 06:35:43 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:27:12 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
AI, doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than humans.
What does "better" mean in this context, though? My car already has adaptive cruise control, and can do emergency braking. It can stop the car faster than I can, is that better? As I said in another example, what if I deliberately want to take a less direct, more scenic route? Will AI allow me? If not, why not? Sometimes "better" doesn't mean the most efficient or most direct, it can be mean maximizing what I want to see. That's the kind of thing where you need a manual human brain to decide. Not a programmer who is deciding for me.
Also, we can and have had many Teslas involved in self-driving crashes. "Not perfect" translates to a lot of the same issues that occur with humans behind the wheel. What about software bugs that have affected medical equipment and led to deaths? AI has to be programmed by humans, and history has shown it's not possible to have bug-free software and AI.
Quote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:39:40 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 06:35:43 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:27:12 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
AI, doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than humans.
What does "better" mean in this context, though? My car already has adaptive cruise control, and can do emergency braking. It can stop the car faster than I can, is that better? As I said in another example, what if I deliberately want to take a less direct, more scenic route? Will AI allow me? If not, why not? Sometimes "better" doesn't mean the most efficient or most direct, it can be mean maximizing what I want to see. That's the kind of thing where you need a manual human brain to decide. Not a programmer who is deciding for me.
Also, we can and have had many Teslas involved in self-driving crashes. "Not perfect" translates to a lot of the same issues that occur with humans behind the wheel. What about software bugs that have affected medical equipment and led to deaths? AI has to be programmed by humans, and history has shown it's not possible to have bug-free software and AI.
AI self-driving cars will very likely let you choose what route just like Google Maps lets you choose your routes. Or if they somehow don't there are obviously work arounds. Like if you want to take CA 1 between LA and SF just set your final destination to the Big Sur, and when you are almost there change your final destination to SF. But again I see no reason why they wouldn't let you change your route. Self driving taxis/Ubers are different.
Besides, I think most AI is best exemplified by things like CarPlay/Android Auto. Where I can use buttons on my steering wheel to tell the car what I want (play this song, etc.) Or my mapping app of choice can update me with live traffic (car crash ahead, turn here to save time). This is the perfect use case for AI/automation, because it's simple and yet has a clear, practical impact on my life. My driving experience is actively better with these services because they recognize things I am likely to do (play a song, get directions), and streamline them. I get to work faster with these services.
Problem is, a fully self-driving car that is deciding where I am going and what routes I am taking is not as useful in that case. Waze, for example, is the extreme example. It will redirect me... Onto side roads that have stop signs. Yes, I'm technically saving two minutes, but I'm really not when I have to sit at a major street and wait for traffic to clear. I've had several times I'm at a stop sign so long it just redirects me. Because these services still do not seem to understand that theoretical time savings is not the same thing as practical time savings. That's where you need a human brain and manual override. I'm going to understand the traffic flow of a local street better than Waze.
Ehhh...that adaptive cruise control in my 2024 Corolla is the bane of my existence on access control roads. It is way too sensitive and panics over a lot of non-hazardous scenarios. I found how to turn it off but it requires deactivating the collision system every time I drive the car (which I only do on long freeway trips).
Quote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:43:52 PMBesides, I think most AI is best exemplified by things like CarPlay/Android Auto. Where I can use buttons on my steering wheel to tell the car what I want (play this song, etc.) Or my mapping app of choice can update me with live traffic (car crash ahead, turn here to save time). This is the perfect use case for AI/automation, because it's simple and yet has a clear, practical impact on my life. My driving experience is actively better with these services because they recognize things I am likely to do (play a song, get directions), and streamline them. I get to work faster with these services.
Problem is, a fully self-driving car that is deciding where I am going and what routes I am taking is not as useful in that case. Waze, for example, is the extreme example. It will redirect me... Onto side roads that have stop signs. Yes, I'm technically saving two minutes, but I'm really not when I have to sit at a major street and wait for traffic to clear. I've had several times I'm at a stop sign so long it just redirects me. Because these services still do not seem to understand that theoretical time savings is not the same thing as practical time savings. That's where you need a human brain and manual override. I'm going to understand the traffic flow of a local street better than Waze.
A fully self-driving car has uses that you might not think of. With them, you could do a red-eyed drive like a flight being able to go overnight without having to worry about staying awake. Also, they would be very big for safety simply because drunk people coming home from the bar could just get driving home.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 06:46:57 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:43:52 PMBesides, I think most AI is best exemplified by things like CarPlay/Android Auto. Where I can use buttons on my steering wheel to tell the car what I want (play this song, etc.) Or my mapping app of choice can update me with live traffic (car crash ahead, turn here to save time). This is the perfect use case for AI/automation, because it's simple and yet has a clear, practical impact on my life. My driving experience is actively better with these services because they recognize things I am likely to do (play a song, get directions), and streamline them. I get to work faster with these services.
Problem is, a fully self-driving car that is deciding where I am going and what routes I am taking is not as useful in that case. Waze, for example, is the extreme example. It will redirect me... Onto side roads that have stop signs. Yes, I'm technically saving two minutes, but I'm really not when I have to sit at a major street and wait for traffic to clear. I've had several times I'm at a stop sign so long it just redirects me. Because these services still do not seem to understand that theoretical time savings is not the same thing as practical time savings. That's where you need a human brain and manual override. I'm going to understand the traffic flow of a local street better than Waze.
A fully self-driving car has uses that you might not think of. With them, you could do a red-eyed drive like a flight being able to go overnight without having to worry about staying awake. Also, they would be very big for safety simply because drunk people coming home from the bar could just get driving home.
Yes, that's all true. But again, my take is I will believe all of this when it happens. Practical rollouts are very slow and gradual. And that's assuming these things even work, there will no doubt be many software bugs. Apple earlier this year showed off the next-gen CarPlay, said it would be up and running this year. Looks like that won't happen, not a single car manufacturer has gone ahead with it.
And you still have to deal with humanity. What happens if a drunk person decides to just drive home anyway? The NFL, for example, offers all of their players on-demand Uber. Specifically to counter the issue of drunk players. We saw what happened with Henry Ruggs.
Quote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:50:45 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 06:46:57 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:43:52 PMBesides, I think most AI is best exemplified by things like CarPlay/Android Auto. Where I can use buttons on my steering wheel to tell the car what I want (play this song, etc.) Or my mapping app of choice can update me with live traffic (car crash ahead, turn here to save time). This is the perfect use case for AI/automation, because it's simple and yet has a clear, practical impact on my life. My driving experience is actively better with these services because they recognize things I am likely to do (play a song, get directions), and streamline them. I get to work faster with these services.
Problem is, a fully self-driving car that is deciding where I am going and what routes I am taking is not as useful in that case. Waze, for example, is the extreme example. It will redirect me... Onto side roads that have stop signs. Yes, I'm technically saving two minutes, but I'm really not when I have to sit at a major street and wait for traffic to clear. I've had several times I'm at a stop sign so long it just redirects me. Because these services still do not seem to understand that theoretical time savings is not the same thing as practical time savings. That's where you need a human brain and manual override. I'm going to understand the traffic flow of a local street better than Waze.
A fully self-driving car has uses that you might not think of. With them, you could do a red-eyed drive like a flight being able to go overnight without having to worry about staying awake. Also, they would be very big for safety simply because drunk people coming home from the bar could just get driving home.
Yes, that's all true. But again, my take is I will believe all of this when it happens. Practical rollouts are very slow and gradual. And that's assuming these things even work, there will no doubt be many software bugs. Apple earlier this year showed off the next-gen CarPlay, said it would be up and running this year. Looks like that won't happen, not a single car manufacturer has gone ahead with it.
And you still have to deal with humanity. What happens if a drunk person decides to just drive home anyway? The NFL, for example, offers all of their players on-demand Uber. Specifically to counter the issue of drunk players. We saw what happened with Henry Ruggs.
Calling an uber takes more time and money than just clicking the self drive option in the car. And eventually maybe some cars won't even have personal driving as an option.
Quote from: kalvado on December 21, 2024, 05:07:02 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 05:02:32 PMThis study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261521000540) says that freeway lanes for autonomous cars could carry up to *12,000* vehicles per hour.
I think 25 thousand is a better number. It looks nicer, and is equally realistic
Why stop at 25k? 100,000 is nice and round!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2024, 10:38:39 PMAnd yet the HSR line here has a whole bunch of stops planned for non-dense areas. That corridor should have directed lined between Los Angeles and San Francisco as a proof of concept.
Serving the Central Valley and providing some regeneration is worth the time penalty of a slightly longer route, not least because it is much less challenging to build than the crow-flies line that remains mountainous. The planned service for a fully-fleshed out line sees most trains skipping lower density/smaller city stops (though they still get served with an hourly or better service). You can get high speed trains close together (the biggest problem is switches, followed by station dwell times) and so you can run frequent services on several service patterns on a two-track railway (especially if stations are 4-track).
However, building the Central Valley section first and using that as test of principal for HSR in the US is silly - you have some 'beet field' stops alongside two decent-sized intermediate cities, fail to get to either metropolis and leaving a huge amount of capacity that is awaiting later phases to make use of it. It will look like a white elephant.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 06:52:18 PMAnd eventually maybe some cars won't even have personal driving as an option.
Which demonstrates my point. What I don't want to happen. You always need to have some kind of manual override. What happens if the self-driving feature has a software bug? What if it does something you don't want it to do? Going 100% fully automated is going to have a lot of practical issues, and because no one ever will create truly perfect software, sooner or later the issues with that will reveal themselves.
A simple example is when Apple releases public beta software. There is always some weird or obscure issue that shows up because people have tons of use case scenarios that the programmers at Apple can't anticipate. Or how people will find bugs in Microsoft Windows 20 years after a particular version was released. The difference is those kind of bugs won't lead to car crashes and potential deaths.
Quote from: english si on December 21, 2024, 08:03:39 PMQuote from: kalvado on December 21, 2024, 05:07:02 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 05:02:32 PMThis study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261521000540) says that freeway lanes for autonomous cars could carry up to *12,000* vehicles per hour.
I think 25 thousand is a better number. It looks nicer, and is equally realistic
Why stop at 25k? 100,000 is nice and round!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2024, 10:38:39 PMAnd yet the HSR line here has a whole bunch of stops planned for non-dense areas. That corridor should have directed lined between Los Angeles and San Francisco as a proof of concept.
Serving the Central Valley and providing some regeneration is worth the time penalty of a slightly longer route, not least because it is much less challenging to build than the crow-flies line that remains mountainous. The planned service for a fully-fleshed out line sees most trains skipping lower density/smaller city stops (though they still get served with an hourly or better service). You can get high speed trains close together (the biggest problem is switches, followed by station dwell times) and so you can run frequent services on several service patterns on a two-track railway (especially if stations are 4-track).
However, building the Central Valley section first and using that as test of principal for HSR in the US is silly - you have some 'beet field' stops alongside two decent-sized intermediate cities, fail to get to either metropolis and leaving a huge amount of capacity that is awaiting later phases to make use of it. It will look like a white elephant.
One of the early concepts proposed was to run the HSR south from Pacheco Pass in the median of I-5. The rationale for swinging the line east was supposedly having to deal with tunneling in Tejon Pass near the San Andreas Fault. Considering much of the line around Pacheco Pass is in similarly seismically prone terrain that argument seemed faulty to me.
What I think really drove getting the HSR in the Central Valley was Fresno buying in lock stock and barrel as a form of urban renewal. That and there probably was an assumption that farmers wouldn't fight against eminent domain tooth and nail. The latter assumption turned out to be categorically false.
Quote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 08:32:18 PMGoing 100% fully automated is going to have a lot of practical issues, and because no one ever will create truly perfect software, sooner or later the issues with that will reveal themselves.
Quote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:39:40 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2024, 06:35:43 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 21, 2024, 06:27:12 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 11:44:07 AMIf ai took over the tsa I'm never flying again. I don't trust ai to keep airplanes safe.
Everything needs some kind of manual backup. Yes, the planes actually CAN fly themselves for the most part, but you still need a pilot as a backup. You always will. It's the same reason you can't fall asleep behind the wheel of your Tesla.
It's like the old Jurassic Park issue. Automation is great, but what happens if/when it fails and you've got no manual backups? Just because your automation works, doesn't mean the car next to you does. Since I've had my Subaru, which uses adaptive cruise control, I've found I am still overriding it a lot. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well: it will stop so suddenly it can be really jerky. I've found doing a manual override lets me get a smoother slowdown, and it will still always apply an emergency break anyway to prevent a crash.
As I said earlier in this thread, my takeaway is that all this stuff is cool in theory, but I'll believe it when it happens. Not to mention we can't even agree on what the "highway of tomorrow" will be. Remember the experiment of putting solar panels on them and having cars drive over them to generate electricity? It didn't work out in practice. Will "highways of tomorrow" be fully computer controlled like what we saw in "Minority Report," and thus be overridden if/when the powers that be end up not liking you or think you've done something wrong? What if I want to take a scenic route, but my smart car only lets me go the most optimal route?
AI, doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than humans.
What does "better" mean in this context, though? My car already has adaptive cruise control, and can do emergency braking. It can stop the car faster than I can, is that better? As I said in another example, what if I deliberately want to take a less direct, more scenic route? Will AI allow me? If not, why not? Sometimes "better" doesn't mean the most efficient or most direct, it can be mean maximizing what I want to see. That's the kind of thing where you need a manual human brain to decide. Not a programmer who is deciding for me.
Also, we can and have had many Teslas involved in self-driving crashes. "Not perfect" translates to a lot of the same issues that occur with humans behind the wheel. What about software bugs that have affected medical equipment and led to deaths? AI has to be programmed by humans, and history has shown it's not possible to have bug-free software and AI.
If we're talking about safety, I'd say "better" can be measured based on number of accidents per mile travelled.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 06:43:19 PMAI self-driving cars will very likely let you choose what route just like Google Maps lets you choose your routes. Or if they somehow don't there are obviously work arounds. Like if you want to take CA 1 between LA and SF just set your final destination to the Big Sur, and when you are almost there change your final destination to SF. But again I see no reason why they wouldn't let you change your route. Self driving taxis/Ubers are different.
Even Google Maps won't let you do that on mobile, and I don't think others do even on desktop. Incidentally, this route planning software is already here on electric cars. If any of them have that option, I haven't heard of it.
Quote from: vdeane on December 21, 2024, 08:50:07 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2024, 06:43:19 PMAI self-driving cars will very likely let you choose what route just like Google Maps lets you choose your routes. Or if they somehow don't there are obviously work arounds. Like if you want to take CA 1 between LA and SF just set your final destination to the Big Sur, and when you are almost there change your final destination to SF. But again I see no reason why they wouldn't let you change your route. Self driving taxis/Ubers are different.
Even Google Maps won't let you do that on mobile, and I don't think others do even on desktop. Incidentally, this route planning software is already here on electric cars. If any of them have that option, I haven't heard of it.
Just do a multi stop route among the route you want to go on. It takes more work as most normals don't care about this stuff but it's nowhere near impossible.
I'm all for the 150 MPH AI cars if they carry the normals away from my favorite back roads.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 21, 2024, 08:43:03 PMOne of the early concepts proposed was to run the HSR south from Pacheco Pass in the median of I-5. The rationale for swinging the line east was supposedly having to deal with tunneling in Tejon Pass near the San Andreas Fault. Considering much of the line around Pacheco Pass is in similarly seismically prone terrain that argument seemed faulty to me.
That's a different question to the Central Valley. I-5 is in the Central Valley.
Serving Fresno and Bakersfield directly by following the CA99 corridor rather than the I-5 bypass-the-lot corridor makes sense. There's capacity for stopping trains and these are not small places. Serving them with Haute-Picardie-esque 'beet field' stations on I-5 is really bad. Other issues with the route (like not just following CA99 almost all the time to save on land costs) are other issues with the route than the serving of the Central Valley properly.
Serving Palmdale is much less of a good idea - hence the engineering (there's zero way a road median route through those mountains on any pass would ever work - too tight horizontal and vertical curvature for high speed (or even mid-speed), too steep grades for any railway, despite high speed rail being able to deal with steeper grades than other passenger rail) 'earthquakes' reasoning, rather than economic justification.
Quote from: english si on December 22, 2024, 09:46:30 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 21, 2024, 08:43:03 PMOne of the early concepts proposed was to run the HSR south from Pacheco Pass in the median of I-5. The rationale for swinging the line east was supposedly having to deal with tunneling in Tejon Pass near the San Andreas Fault. Considering much of the line around Pacheco Pass is in similarly seismically prone terrain that argument seemed faulty to me.
That's a different question to the Central Valley. I-5 is in the Central Valley.
Serving Fresno and Bakersfield directly by following the CA99 corridor rather than the I-5 bypass-the-lot corridor makes sense. There's capacity for stopping trains and these are not small places. Serving them with Haute-Picardie-esque 'beet field' stations on I-5 is really bad. Other issues with the route (like not just following CA99 almost all the time to save on land costs) are other issues with the route than the serving of the Central Valley properly.
Serving Palmdale is much less of a good idea - hence the engineering (there's zero way a road median route through those mountains on any pass would ever work - too tight horizontal and vertical curvature for high speed (or even mid-speed), too steep grades for any railway, despite high speed rail being able to deal with steeper grades than other passenger rail) 'earthquakes' reasoning, rather than economic justification.
My understanding on why the HSR switches from the Union Pacific to Southern Pacific was so there could be a dual Hanford-Visalia station. Mind you, the station (along the one slated for Madera) isn't close to the downtown center of either city.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35143.msg2951239#msg2951239
Since we're bringing up the idea of chaining vehicles together... again, see the question I posed in the '150 MPH Highways' discussion that went unanswered:
QuoteVehicles entering and exiting the highway are going to create unpredictable gaps in traffic. Assuming they're all AI, they would have to manipulate the cars so they can merge or exit without colliding, so either traffic on the highway gets throttled to fit incoming traffic, or all the ramps are essentially metered, including traffic transitioning from another freeway onto the 150 MPH highways.
And as referenced, each vehicle has its own destination, so in order to chain them efficiently, you'd have to connect cars going to similar destinations. But how does that happen when cars are freely entering and exiting randomly?
Quote from: kernals12 on September 27, 2024, 04:51:25 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
It'd be a train basically
And considering K12 is acknowledging that we are essentially reinventing trains, it's worth noting that
how moving cargo via train involves several rail yards where rail cars are sorted and assembled into train sets. To apply this to personal vehicles would be combining the wait times of ferries with toll plazas as drivers would have to wait in these yards for other people who are going to similar destinations. The closest example is probably people who drive their cars through the English Channel, either by ferry or by train through the Channel Tunnel. Whatever value there is in 'chaining' a bunch of vehicles together would have to offset the delays that would come with sitting in a staging area for an undetermined amount of time.
Secondly, there was an incident at a drone show in Orlando where they malfunctioned and caused at least one injury. I think that's relevant in this discussion because the people that are advocating for cars to be connected to each other through AI and traveling at highway speeds (either 70-150 MPH) seem to believe that AI malfunctioning is either not that big of a deal, or an acceptable risk. So, depending on how you look at it, a malfunctioning AI 'chain' is either going to be an inconvenience when cars go through a dead zone, or we may have an increase in multi-car pile-ups.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 22, 2024, 10:45:18 PMhttps://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35143.msg2951239#msg2951239
Since we're bringing up the idea of chaining vehicles together... again, see the question I posed in the '150 MPH Highways' discussion that went unanswered:
QuoteVehicles entering and exiting the highway are going to create unpredictable gaps in traffic. Assuming they're all AI, they would have to manipulate the cars so they can merge or exit without colliding, so either traffic on the highway gets throttled to fit incoming traffic, or all the ramps are essentially metered, including traffic transitioning from another freeway onto the 150 MPH highways.
And as referenced, each vehicle has its own destination, so in order to chain them efficiently, you'd have to connect cars going to similar destinations. But how does that happen when cars are freely entering and exiting randomly?
Quote from: kernals12 on September 27, 2024, 04:51:25 PMQuote from: michravera on September 27, 2024, 01:35:24 PMQuote from: thspfc on September 26, 2024, 05:21:43 PMThis is at least 30 years away from being a topic for legitimate discussion on a road forum.
Basic math says that, with 2 seconds of following time, you can only do 1800 vehicles per hour (that's neglecting the length of a vehicle). Cut the time to 1 second and you double the throughput to 3600. Yeah, cut the following time to 0.45 seconds and you'd get 8000, but at 20 m/s (72 km/h), that's only 9 m between the fronts of vehicles. Chevy Suburbans are just 5.73 m. That not only gives only 0.16 s of reaction time, but requires that lead vehicles not break much faster than the trailing vehicle. There's only roughly the width of a lane between bumpers.
It'd be a train basically
And considering K12 is acknowledging that we are essentially reinventing trains, it's worth noting that how moving cargo via train involves several rail yards where rail cars are sorted and assembled into train sets. To apply this to personal vehicles would be combining the wait times of ferries with toll plazas as drivers would have to wait in these yards for other people who are going to similar destinations. The closest example is probably people who drive their cars through the English Channel, either by ferry or by train through the Channel Tunnel. Whatever value there is in 'chaining' a bunch of vehicles together would have to offset the delays that would come with sitting in a staging area for an undetermined amount of time.
Secondly, there was an incident at a drone show in Orlando where they malfunctioned and caused at least one injury. I think that's relevant in this discussion because the people that are advocating for cars to be connected to each other through AI and traveling at highway speeds (either 70-150 MPH) seem to believe that AI malfunctioning is either not that big of a deal, or an acceptable risk. So, depending on how you look at it, a malfunctioning AI 'chain' is either going to be an inconvenience when cars go through a dead zone, or we may have an increase in multi-car pile-ups.
Computers can run trillions of calculations per second, I think that forming and dismantling platoons on the fly is well within their capabilities.
QuoteComputers can run trillions of calculations per second, I think that forming and dismantling platoons on the fly is well within their capabilities.
The aspirations that we could get a throughput of 8,000 VPH per lane falls apart when cars are constantly being reshuffled. The disconnect is between what a computer can theoretically do and what is physically and logistically possible.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 22, 2024, 11:28:14 PMQuoteComputers can run trillions of calculations per second, I think that forming and dismantling platoons on the fly is well within their capabilities.
The aspirations that we could get a throughput of 8,000 VPH per lane falls apart when cars are constantly being reshuffled. The disconnect is between what a computer can theoretically do and what is physically and logistically possible.
If, hypothetically, cars could travel bumper to bumper, with a 20 foot berth for each vehicle, at 65 mph, you could run 17,100 cars per lane. So, 8,000 leaves more than half of the road as a buffer.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 22, 2024, 11:47:06 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on December 22, 2024, 11:28:14 PMQuoteComputers can run trillions of calculations per second, I think that forming and dismantling platoons on the fly is well within their capabilities.
The aspirations that we could get a throughput of 8,000 VPH per lane falls apart when cars are constantly being reshuffled. The disconnect is between what a computer can theoretically do and what is physically and logistically possible.
If, hypothetically, cars could travel bumper to bumper, with a 20 foot berth for each vehicle, at 65 mph, you could run 17,100 cars per lane. So, 8,000 leaves more than half of the road as a buffer.
If my aunt had wheels she'd be a bycicle
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:36:57 PMQuote from: Rothman on December 20, 2024, 10:35:05 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:26:40 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on December 20, 2024, 10:23:22 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:22:43 PMInstead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
You know what? This idea makes actual sense.
I do think we should still spend money on upgrading roads but a balanced transportation system makes sense. Germany manages to have the world-famous Autobahn and a better transit network than America.
They have density
Parts of the US have density, like the Northeast, California, Florida, the PNW, and the Texas Triangle. We don't need high speed rail between Rapid City and Bismarck.
I'd argue we do, but that's so far down the priority list as to make it not worth considering.
How many vehicles per hour down the backstretch at Talladega?
They certainly do a good job at demonstrating how catastrophic a wreck at 200 MPH speeds (much less 150 MPH) goes in bumper to bumper traffic.
Bump drafting at 200 mph, you travel 293 feet per second. At roughly 18 feet long about 16 cars can fit in a lane per second. 16 cars*60 seconds*60 minutes = 57,600 cars per hour. I think that's a pretty safe theoretical max. 8,000 cars per hour is roughly 14% of the theoretical max assuming the pack is traveling at 200mph Superspeedway speeds.
Quote from: tradephoric on December 26, 2024, 01:06:21 PMBump drafting at 200 mph, you travel 293 feet per second. At roughly 18 feet long about 16 cars can fit in a lane per second. 16 cars*60 seconds*60 minutes = 57,600 cars per hour. I think that's a pretty safe theoretical max. 8,000 cars per hour is roughly 14% of the theoretical max assuming the pack is traveling at 200mph Superspeedway speeds.
I'm bored with life and in a bad mood. BRAKE CHECK!
Hopefully you see the problem.
Quote from: Bickendan on December 26, 2024, 02:12:56 PMQuote from: tradephoric on December 26, 2024, 01:06:21 PMBump drafting at 200 mph, you travel 293 feet per second. At roughly 18 feet long about 16 cars can fit in a lane per second. 16 cars*60 seconds*60 minutes = 57,600 cars per hour. I think that's a pretty safe theoretical max. 8,000 cars per hour is roughly 14% of the theoretical max assuming the pack is traveling at 200mph Superspeedway speeds.
I'm bored with life and in a bad mood. BRAKE CHECK!
Hopefully you see the problem.
Cars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents, just like those manual shift modes that prevent you from downshifting so much that you'd damage the engine
Quote from: Bickendan on December 26, 2024, 02:12:56 PMQuote from: tradephoric on December 26, 2024, 01:06:21 PMBump drafting at 200 mph, you travel 293 feet per second. At roughly 18 feet long about 16 cars can fit in a lane per second. 16 cars*60 seconds*60 minutes = 57,600 cars per hour. I think that's a pretty safe theoretical max. 8,000 cars per hour is roughly 14% of the theoretical max assuming the pack is traveling at 200mph Superspeedway speeds.
I'm bored with life and in a bad mood. BRAKE CHECK!
Hopefully you see the problem.
Idea that with the small gap, there is not enough time to get significant speed differential. So the crash can be relatively non violent without major damages.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Quote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Further I propose that in the interest of future AI car use we shift clothing to work with the technology instead of against it. All future clothing should be of Onesie design with velcro pull downs to make using the onboard chemical toilet easier.
Quote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Yes, it'd be one of the many rules that we impose on road users that sacrifices minor convenience for a few to achieve safe and efficient traffic flow for the rest.
Quote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Billboard has to be placed at least 10 miles upstream, so that decisions can be made at least 3 min before exit for the flow departure orders to be properly processed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Just keep a plastic bottle in your car.
Quote from: tradephoric on December 26, 2024, 10:59:22 AMHow many vehicles per hour down the backstretch at Talladega?
I'm glad you posted this. It illustrates that it is in fact possible for cars to travel at extremely high speeds closely spaced. And given computer guidance it should be doable with acceptable levels of safety.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Further I propose that in the interest of future AI car use we shift clothing to work with the technology instead of against it. All future clothing should be of Onesie design with velcro pull downs to make using the onboard chemical toilet easier.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 04:26:00 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Just keep a plastic bottle in your car.
Too low tech. Plus going number one into a bottle isn't easy for the female gender. Going number two into a bottle is just plain difficult for everyone.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 26, 2024, 04:32:44 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Further I propose that in the interest of future AI car use we shift clothing to work with the technology instead of against it. All future clothing should be of Onesie design with velcro pull downs to make using the onboard chemical toilet easier.
I'm sure we all would be greatly intrigued to learn about how waste is transported to parallel dimensions. I would imagine that would require unfathomable amount of computing power be woven into clothing.
Regarding race cars: they crash a lot more often than once every 300,000 miles.
Probably also worth noting that race car drivers don't have the issue of having to stop to use the restroom. There is a reason they usually pour water all over their driving suit just prior to the start of a post race interview.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 04:26:00 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Just keep a plastic bottle in your car.
So you support so much advance tech but you can't even come up with in car toilets? SMH.
You'd figure it would be something akin to a Dune style Still Suit?
Recapping the technological proposals we have for dealing with 150 MPH AI car waste removal. The current list is:
- Bottles
- Onesies and onboard chemical toilets
- Teleportation
- Still Suits
- Handling it like you're on the lead lap of the Daytona 500
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Further I propose that in the interest of future AI car use we shift clothing to work with the technology instead of against it. All future clothing should be of Onesie design with velcro pull downs to make using the onboard chemical toilet easier.
Two separate issues: At 150 MPH, the need for restroom breaks would be far less. If you can get where you are going in 90 minutes, you stop when you get there. At 8000 autonomous vehicles per lane per hour (which almost doesn't happen on trains), you simply program in your rest room stop a few minutes in advance and your car exits and pulls right up to loo.
Quote from: michravera on December 26, 2024, 05:12:25 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Further I propose that in the interest of future AI car use we shift clothing to work with the technology instead of against it. All future clothing should be of Onesie design with velcro pull downs to make using the onboard chemical toilet easier.
Two separate issues: At 150 MPH, the need for restroom breaks would be far less. If you can get where you are going in 90 minutes, you stop when you get there. At 8000 autonomous vehicles per lane per hour (which almost doesn't happen on trains), you simply program in your rest room stop a few minutes in advance and your car exits and pulls right up to loo.
Sounds great in theory. Still doesn't account for what happens when what you ate the day prior suddenly isn't agreeing with your stomach.
Quote from: michravera on December 26, 2024, 05:12:25 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Further I propose that in the interest of future AI car use we shift clothing to work with the technology instead of against it. All future clothing should be of Onesie design with velcro pull downs to make using the onboard chemical toilet easier.
Two separate issues: At 150 MPH, the need for restroom breaks would be far less. If you can get where you are going in 90 minutes, you stop when you get there. At 8000 autonomous vehicles per lane per hour (which almost doesn't happen on trains), you simply program in your rest room stop a few minutes in advance and your car exits and pulls right up to loo.
You are making assumptions about average trip length being the same. More likely average trip duration would be the same with WV commute to DC becoming a new normal
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 05:17:40 PMQuote from: michravera on December 26, 2024, 05:12:25 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Further I propose that in the interest of future AI car use we shift clothing to work with the technology instead of against it. All future clothing should be of Onesie design with velcro pull downs to make using the onboard chemical toilet easier.
Two separate issues: At 150 MPH, the need for restroom breaks would be far less. If you can get where you are going in 90 minutes, you stop when you get there. At 8000 autonomous vehicles per lane per hour (which almost doesn't happen on trains), you simply program in your rest room stop a few minutes in advance and your car exits and pulls right up to loo.
Sounds great in theory. Still doesn't account for what happens when what you ate the day prior suddenly isn't agreeing with your stomach.
I heard those horror stories happening on NY thruway. No AI needed.
Heh, let's just say I'm glad that not everything on CA 58 east of Barstow is freeway mileage. Some of those dirt road turnouts came in handy in 2022 when I wasn't feeling well while driving overnight to Las Vegas. The AI car (and adjacent lane stuff) as proposed in this thread seems to fail to account for similar over the road emergencies.
Quote from: michravera on December 26, 2024, 05:12:25 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 26, 2024, 04:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on December 26, 2024, 03:47:29 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
So a user sees a billboard, decides that a hamburger would taste good right now, but is prevented from exiting the freeway because the system running 8k cars per hour knows better. Uh huh.
Opportunity for the helicopter grappling hook concept to be repurposed into food delivery operations. I keep telling you guys that the concept goes with 150 MPH AI cars like jelly does with peanut butter.
Of course one must wonder how is the issue of having to go to the bathroom solved? In an emergency simply asking the AI car to find you a public restroom might not be fast enough. For an answer it seems we must look back to the past:
https://www.carscoops.com/2010/11/meet-louie-mattar-and-his-fabulous/
Further I propose that in the interest of future AI car use we shift clothing to work with the technology instead of against it. All future clothing should be of Onesie design with velcro pull downs to make using the onboard chemical toilet easier.
Two separate issues: At 150 MPH, the need for restroom breaks would be far less. If you can get where you are going in 90 minutes, you stop when you get there. At 8000 autonomous vehicles per lane per hour (which almost doesn't happen on trains), you simply program in your rest room stop a few minutes in advance and your car exits and pulls right up to loo.
Glad every human is on the same digestive cycle.
After all this time, we finally learn the truth: the signature scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey was about a man having a bathroom emergency in one of K12's self-driving cars.
Quote from: vdeane on December 26, 2024, 08:58:38 PMAfter all this time, we finally learn the truth: the signature scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey was about a man having a bathroom emergency in one of K12's self-driving cars.
"This mission is too important for me to allow your bowel movement to jeopardize it."
Maybe we can just give everyone a free pack of adult diapers with their 150 mph ai car.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 26, 2024, 10:39:29 PMMaybe we can just give everyone a free pack of adult diapers with their 150 mph ai car.
It depends.
I wonder what happens when the lead car in the 8000-platoon at 150 mph has a septic system failure, and the waste spews behind it.
:confused:
Quote from: GaryV on December 27, 2024, 07:54:05 AMI wonder what happens when the lead car in the 8000-platoon at 150 mph has a septic system failure, and the waste spews behind it.
:confused:
Robotic helicopters are called to spray disinfectant at the arrival point.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMQuote from: Bickendan on December 26, 2024, 02:12:56 PMQuote from: tradephoric on December 26, 2024, 01:06:21 PMBump drafting at 200 mph, you travel 293 feet per second. At roughly 18 feet long about 16 cars can fit in a lane per second. 16 cars*60 seconds*60 minutes = 57,600 cars per hour. I think that's a pretty safe theoretical max. 8,000 cars per hour is roughly 14% of the theoretical max assuming the pack is traveling at 200mph Superspeedway speeds.
I'm bored with life and in a bad mood. BRAKE CHECK!
Hopefully you see the problem.
Cars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents, just like those manual shift modes that prevent you from downshifting so much that you'd damage the engine
I think we've determined based on discussions regarding lane departure and adaptive cruise control that the human driver may prefer to override those features if they end up causing too much discomfort to the driver if they frequently jerk in response to the adjacent traffic. To 'lock out' the driver might give them the impression that there is a malfunction, think stuck accelerator.
It also calls back the spontaneity of cars entering and exiting the highway in general.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2024, 02:55:20 PMCars could ignore user inputs that would cause accidents
This is one of those statements that tells you someone has never written a line of code in their life.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2024, 10:38:39 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:36:57 PMQuote from: Rothman on December 20, 2024, 10:35:05 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:26:40 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on December 20, 2024, 10:23:22 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 20, 2024, 10:22:43 PMInstead, we should spend money on high-speed rail around the country. I will not elaborate.
You know what? This idea makes actual sense.
I do think we should still spend money on upgrading roads but a balanced transportation system makes sense. Germany manages to have the world-famous Autobahn and a better transit network than America.
They have density
Parts of the US have density, like the Northeast, California, Florida, the PNW, and the Texas Triangle. We don't need high speed rail between Rapid City and Bismarck.
And yet the HSR line here has a whole bunch of stops planned for non-dense areas. That corridor should have directed lined between Los Angeles and San Francisco as a proof of concept.
Yes, I strongly agree. First they should make the high-speed line between large cities with traffic between them that can fully justify the cost of the line. Then you can add non-express services later as they are justified.
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2024, 03:26:26 PMQuote from: Bickendan on December 26, 2024, 02:12:56 PMQuote from: tradephoric on December 26, 2024, 01:06:21 PMBump drafting at 200 mph, you travel 293 feet per second. At roughly 18 feet long about 16 cars can fit in a lane per second. 16 cars*60 seconds*60 minutes = 57,600 cars per hour. I think that's a pretty safe theoretical max. 8,000 cars per hour is roughly 14% of the theoretical max assuming the pack is traveling at 200mph Superspeedway speeds.
I'm bored with life and in a bad mood. BRAKE CHECK!
Hopefully you see the problem.
Idea that with the small gap, there is not enough time to get significant speed differential. So the crash can be relatively non violent without major damages.
No, I really, really wanna come to a full stop on the freeway. Like, now you're pushing into me but now you're getting slowed down, so now you've got the person behind you pushing against your rear bumper. Also, it's causing your forward motion to shift side to side, so now you brush up against the car in the next lane over, and that causes a spin out and the collisions now become a pileup.