Live data from Hacker News

Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

sciencenews.org

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#41
post #35

As a motorcyclist, I'm going to disagree completely if the standard technology that is used to detect cars is used. Generally there's some sensor in the road that detects a large metal object above. If you're riding a 400 pound motorcycle, it doesn't trigger. I've sat at lights for several cycles trying to get a left turn signal, only to be required to run the light (illegally) to get through while traffic built up b…

[deleted]

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#42

Not to sound like a radical libertarian but imagine a world in which roads were operated with some sense of incentives to actually MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH. Lets have Tolls - but you get a refund when you are delayed. I imagine construction would suddenly be done 24/7 and be finished in half the time. Traffic light systems would be heavily automated/AI so that there isn't much traffic. Instead they give out construction…

What matters is moving people, not traffic. http://commontragedies.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cars-vs-b...

That's a bare assertion, and the link doesn't support it.

There's a very important vehicle missing from the list: trucks.

Add "cargo" to "people" and, suddenly, it's no longer easy to measure. How many cars are carrying cargo in addition to persons, thereby being partially a truck in function?

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#43

If they remove timers from lights entirely, they better improve the sensors. There are already numerous lights that do not detect the presence of my motorcycle.

When I used to ride a bicycle, I would lay my bike down in the sensor ring that opened my apartment complex's gate. Simply riding over it wouldn't work.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#44
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What matters is moving people, not traffic. http://commontragedies.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cars-vs-b...

That's a bare assertion, and the link doesn't support it. There's a very important vehicle missing from the list: trucks. Add "cargo" to "people" and, suddenly, it's no longer easy to measure. How many cars are carrying cargo in addition to persons, thereby being partially a truck in function?

Most freight does not need to move during peak traffic flow, and of course much of it already does.

I'd be curious to hear your speculation about how much cargo is actually move by cars during peak traffic volume.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#45

Not to sound like a radical libertarian but imagine a world in which roads were operated with some sense of incentives to actually MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH. Lets have Tolls - but you get a refund when you are delayed. I imagine construction would suddenly be done 24/7 and be finished in half the time. Traffic light systems would be heavily automated/AI so that there isn't much traffic. Instead they give out construction…

Almost every place I've lived in the US construction does occur 24 hours, but maybe not 7. Commute and daily traffic require it. Maybe you're just not out 24/7 to see it? Most traffic systems are automated and their goal is to MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH. The minimal use sensors in the roads to help determine when to switch lights. The most advanced are integrated and use many metrics and algorithms in controlling traffic s…

While their goal is to MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH, they move it in the worst possible way. Ask any traffic official, they program the system to limit the speed of the vehicles, rather than help them find the most effecient. This "safety feature" leads to exactly what the article cites: stop lights that inhibit someone from going too far without stopping or at least slowing down.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#46

In plenty of countries this is a reality already. Sensors are placed anywhere from a few meters to hundreds of meters ahead of the actual lights to determine the flow of traffic, there are 'green waves' which you can synchronize with to guarantee uninterrupted passage (both for congestion control and to save fuel) and there are adjustments made based on the expected flow from different routes depending on the time of…

They do this here, too. Last year the system failed spectacularly in Montgomery County (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11...), and it was a nightmare.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#47

even better: here was someone who tried to change it for good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html there is also a brief interview on youtube with him explaining his theory of change.

The only reason his intersections are safer is that the lack of signage makes drivers uncomfortable and therefore more careful. Get rid of signs everywhere and that discomfort goes away.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#48
post #28
post #4

Getting rid of cars as much as possible in congested areas is the best way. Promoting very good public transportation and prioritizing people walking and riding bicycles. If they optimize the flow of cars in a little time there will be more people using cars in those areas and no operations researcher can solve that bigger traffic jam. People, like any biological entity, adapt to the environment.

I don't see how it's self-evident public transportation and bikes work best for all environments.

It's more about the externalities. Your car is fine for you, but it has strange effects on other people.

I agree though, that it's a testable proposition, and not self-evident.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#49
post #33
post #15

Radical, but there's only one word needed here. ROUNDABOUT. Build some.

I live in a small midwestern town that has recently taken to the idea of roundabouts. At first, I was extremely pleased (having good experiences with them in Paris/French HW systems) but I quickly became discouraged when I realized that 90% of drivers had no idea what they were doing. I now avoid certain routes through town because I'm afraid of getting in an accident.

What's so hard to get for those people? Roundabouts seem simple enough to me (though I may be biased, coming from Europe and now living in Britain).

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#50
A sort of vague way to do the green wave, but okay I guess. But -- and I say this in all seriousness -- one of my PhD graduate students had a far more interesting and elegant technique five years ago.

In short: each car has a piggy bank. As you're sitting at a red traffic light, it dispenses tokens into your piggy bank. When you go through a green traffic light you have to give some tokens back. Here's the catch: when deciding who to give the green to, a traffic light awards the green light to the compatible set of lanes which have cars with the most total tokens. [Also: tokens expire. And emergency vehicles can be given infinite tokens].

Thus if you've been waiting at a zillion reds, you'll accumulate enough tokens to force your way through green lights later on. The idea is to spread the pain.

http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/papers/aamas06-traffic.pdf

Post reply on HN