Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Light Traffic

senseable.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 124 posts

Re: Light Traffic

#51

Post by danmaz74 »

ryth_ wrote: post #32
rcarmo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that shared spaces make sense in small towns, university campuses, and other contexts where traffic flow is low due to the inherent context (and, above all, where pedestrians can support each other). But for modest to high volume traffic, roundabouts are better (although if the traffic flow is constant, you usually have to place the crossings a bit further away from the center of the roundabout, which makes i…

They actually introduced a shared space at Amsterdam Central Station about 1-2 years ago that I cross daily. The shared space is right next to the incredibly busy ferries and perpendicular to what used to be a bicycle lane. It's now one big square shared by bicycles, pedestrians and scooters. It does work incredibly well and there are rarely any accidents. The downside however is that it's quite a struggle to cross.…

> one big square shared by bicycles, pedestrians and scooters

You mean, no cars?

Re: Light Traffic

#52

Post by danmaz74 »

ColanR wrote: post #16
rcarmo wrote: post #14

There's been a marked tendency to replace intersections with roundabouts and shared spaces ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space ) in many places, including the outskirts of Lisbon (as well as a few legendary mazes in Britain). There was even a BBC report on the latter (which I can't find right now, as usual, only a follow-up: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33303031 ). Drawing a (admittedly inaccurate) parallel wi…

re shared spaces, from the wikipedia: > Hans Monderman and others have suggested that, by creating a greater sense of uncertainty and making it unclear who has priority, drivers will reduce their speed, in turn reducing the dominance of vehicles, reducing road casualty rates, and improving safety for other road users. clearly, Hans Monderman has never driven in Mumbai, India.

> clearly, Hans Monderman has never driven in Mumbai, India.

Or Naples, Italy.

Re: Light Traffic

#53

Post by [deleted] »

sharpercoder wrote: post #39
purplejacket wrote: post #18

For fucks sake, where are the pedestrians??

On roads where you can drive 30+MPH (50 KMPH+), I would suggest removing any possiblity for pedestrians to cross. Either make the road 20MPH (30KMPH) max where all space is shared with pedestrians, bicycles and cars - or make much better, safer & faster 50KMPH+ roads.

[deleted]

Re: Light Traffic

#54

Post by nsp »

tomxor wrote: post #46
rcarmo wrote: post #14

There's been a marked tendency to replace intersections with roundabouts and shared spaces ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space ) in many places, including the outskirts of Lisbon (as well as a few legendary mazes in Britain). There was even a BBC report on the latter (which I can't find right now, as usual, only a follow-up: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33303031 ). Drawing a (admittedly inaccurate) parallel wi…

> Drawing a (admittedly inaccurate) parallel with shared spaces (which are harder to navigate by sensory deprived humans than standard intersections), I'd say roundabouts (which preserve crossings) would be a more sensible short-term approach overall -- especially considering the remaining human drivers. I actually find roundabouts easier to navigate than large crossroads, I think this is partly because they actually…

n=1, but roundabouts we’re not a part of my driving test in Texas. That said, driving tests are done at the state level, not nationally.

Re: Light Traffic

#55

Post by Retric »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #34
avip wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roundabout throughput drops when traffic load increases. They are useful (and great) for low volume traffic/suburbs.

Even for large roundabouts with traffic lights?

Yes, large roundabouts have horrible throughput vs the space they take up.

Re: Light Traffic

#56

Post by rahimnathwani »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #45
rahimnathwani wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The car will never ever stop for you" This hasn't been my experience. At least twice in the last 7 years, a car has stopped when about to do a right-on-red, to allow me to cross. Sure, that's 0.01% of the time, but not never :) "The car will ... will adjust its speed and swerve slightly to avoid a collision" This also does not match my experience. Whether or not I make eye contact with a driver, it's very rare that…

As for (a), it was probably a foreigner. As for (b), it only counts if traffic is going slow enough, and it should be part of a human wave. Otherwise, it is a bit like a game of frogger.

Maybe. I was so stunned I didn't think to ask where they were from.

Yes, like a game of frogger.

Re: Light Traffic

#57

Post by jakecopp »

maxander wrote: post #41

So a system that requires all vehicles on the road to have flawless sensor and communications systems can achieve some improvement over current-day technology (from the paper, approximately a "doubling of capacity" for intersections with this implemented.) This is a profoundly uninteresting result, given the current-day technology in question is "a dozen lights attached to a timer." Add devices that are several order…

What I don't understand is why every traffic light doesn't have cameras and some image recognition/machine learning (whether local or remote) to improve the timing - it would be such a cheap and easy fix compared to putting a sensor in each car.

Re: Light Traffic

#58

Post by peter_l_downs »

maxander wrote: post #41

So a system that requires all vehicles on the road to have flawless sensor and communications systems can achieve some improvement over current-day technology (from the paper, approximately a "doubling of capacity" for intersections with this implemented.) This is a profoundly uninteresting result, given the current-day technology in question is "a dozen lights attached to a timer." Add devices that are several order…

> that they only achieve a factor of two improvement (in theory!) reads as a stunning failure of autonomous vehicle technology to pull their weight in this regard.

Sounds like a profoundly interesting result to me -- strong evidence that we'd need to look elsewhere to increase transit carrying capacity. Maybe AI cars can't reduce traffic that much afterall.

Re: Light Traffic

#59

Post by tinco »

YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 wrote: post #44
tinco wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That it is normal doesn't mean it's not pedestrian hostile. I catch myself cycling over-aggressively. For example, everyone knows that pedestrians have right of way on a zebra-crossing. Good luck with that in The Netherlands. Cyclists will simply not give you right of way, they'll swerve around you, ignore you, and generally make you uncomfortable. The Netherlands is a cyclists country in much the same way as the U.S…

I've always thought the reason many cyclists treat red lights and stop signs mere warnings instead of rules is because it's annoying to have to speed up from standstill with your own power. IMO it's a flaw in human-powered vehicles, although some purists will certainly vehemently disagree such a thing can even exist.

Well.. though I'll admit to cycling aggressively, I don't think I've ever ignored a traffic light unless there was literally no traffic around (and even then only when I was in a hurry), and I don't think many cyclists I know do ignore traffic lights very often.

I definitely get not wanting to stop, and I'll try and optimize. For example in Amsterdam there's traffic lights with counters, and as a cyclist you can usually safely go when there's 5 seconds left, but I don't count that as ignoring the traffic light.

Cutting a red light into slow traffic would be very rude.. I don't think that happens a lot here.

Re: Light Traffic

#60

Post by tedmiston »

jakecopp wrote: post #57
maxander wrote: post #41

So a system that requires all vehicles on the road to have flawless sensor and communications systems can achieve some improvement over current-day technology (from the paper, approximately a "doubling of capacity" for intersections with this implemented.) This is a profoundly uninteresting result, given the current-day technology in question is "a dozen lights attached to a timer." Add devices that are several order…

What I don't understand is why every traffic light doesn't have cameras and some image recognition/machine learning (whether local or remote) to improve the timing - it would be such a cheap and easy fix compared to putting a sensor in each car.

A sensor itself isn't expensive but moving, storing, and processing all of that data to ultimately take action is.

Let alone concerns with people about being recorded in public, even if red light cameras are permitted in some states today.

Post reply on HN