Isn't the real problem with traffic more perception than reality? I'd be much more interested in how much additional stress/unpleasantness is caused by stop-and-go traffic that would be alleviated with the concepts mentioned in the "wrong" article.
How traffic actually works
31–40 of 186 posts
Re: How traffic actually works
#32The catastrophe theory model seems compatible with the anti-traffic solution to traffic 'standing waves' - by slowing down a little when approaching stationary traffic, allowing that stationary blockage time to 'evaporate', you avoid slowing down below the catastrophic threshold that puts your rear bumper more than 2 seconds behind your front bumper, keeping the road in the higher capacity regime. Same reasoning is w…
OP here, excellent point. Since so much is determined by occupancy (cars per km), I think the only way to switch domains is to lower the road's occupancy, which is exactly what you're doing when you leave extra space in front of you. However, I tried to point out that this probably comes at the expense of increased occupancy somewhere else, so you're just moving the jam around.
Re: How traffic actually works
#33What an arrogant article. How can you title something 'How traffic actually works' when you don't examine actual traffic. Instead, make up a simple model, run some code, claim it shows what you want.
It's not like modelling traffic is so insanely hard that we need such simplistic models. Pick as complex a model as you like; we have the computing power to simulate it!
Re: How traffic actually works
#34That was the clearest explanation of traffic I've come across. I'm inclined to buy into it (often it seems no one knows what they're talking about when it comes to traffic). It also runs counter to what is commonly said about traffic jams. Most people focus on restoring smooth flow by doing things such as driving really slow to create space in front of you. This guy makes the case that "flow" is not really the import…
This is the one thing that really pisses me off. It gets worse when the lane that you are merging into has a line of cars going back almost a kilometer. Doing this is like saying "Hey you idiots, look how smart I am" to everyone waiting for their way in the right lane.
I don't know why people get so mad about this. You use the term "right lane", but what does that mean? It only means what you want it to mean in a given situation.
The lane is open until it is not, and as long as both lanes are open they are both "right" (in the non-directional sense, obviously). Why rely on clearly nebulous (sometimes variable, sometimes non-existent) social norms rather than concrete traffic norms? Use the open lane, or don't complain when others do. It's not asshole behavior, it's common sense driving.
There is no reason to take offense while driving so long as people 1) follow the rules of the road and 2) do not endanger others with reckless driving. Using open lanes does neither, and it only inconveniences the people that refuse to use the roads as they are intended to be used.
Re: How traffic actually works
#35The catastrophe theory model seems compatible with the anti-traffic solution to traffic 'standing waves' - by slowing down a little when approaching stationary traffic, allowing that stationary blockage time to 'evaporate', you avoid slowing down below the catastrophic threshold that puts your rear bumper more than 2 seconds behind your front bumper, keeping the road in the higher capacity regime. Same reasoning is w…
OP here, excellent point. Since so much is determined by occupancy (cars per km), I think the only way to switch domains is to lower the road's occupancy, which is exactly what you're doing when you leave extra space in front of you. However, I tried to point out that this probably comes at the expense of increased occupancy somewhere else, so you're just moving the jam around.
...so you just moving the jam around.
If there is a reliable way to move it behind me, I'd like to know!
Re: How traffic actually works
#36Since occupancy determines flow rate, there’s not much benefit to trying to “cancel out” a traffic wave
This is so fundamentally mistaken as to make the rest of the analysis useless. Traffic waves account for the majority of highway traffic (excluding on and off ramps), and cause the flow rate for a road to be decimated. It should be obvious that avoiding rate decimation is (literally) an order of magnitude more effective than preventing people from merging in front of you.
Road signs commonly ask you to use both lanes up to the point of the bottleneck. That’s reasonable advice, but it’s not going to get anyone home faster.
No, but if your line is twice as long it is twice as likely to cause contention on the roads behind you. ie, if an exit road has a traffic line twice as long, it is probably causing traffic on the non-exiting highway. So, do everyone a favor and (a) don't tailgate (b) ignore people merging in front of you (c) don't drive in rush hour, and (d) ignore traffic advice from people who don't drive.
(http://tomvanderbilt.com/traffic/the-book/ has actual good advice)
Re: How traffic actually works
#37That was the clearest explanation of traffic I've come across. I'm inclined to buy into it (often it seems no one knows what they're talking about when it comes to traffic). It also runs counter to what is commonly said about traffic jams. Most people focus on restoring smooth flow by doing things such as driving really slow to create space in front of you. This guy makes the case that "flow" is not really the import…
Except I don't consider it an asshole move because as OP points out, I'm making the best use of the road ahead (while allowing fewer people to merge ahead of me) Which solves nothing but to piss off everyone else behind you who has waited because ultimately someone will let you merge in (which they flat out shouldn't) and said behavior will only encourage others to do so in the future which inevitably will piss off e…
Yep. It's just like saying "I just jump to the front of the queue because I'm minimizing time spent waiting". Yeah, for you, whereas everyone else has to wait N more seconds.
Re: How traffic actually works
#38I'll have to try and find the article, this was years ago, but there was a study about people just tapping their brakes lightly that would cause the person behind to do the same, a little longer, etc. etc. that would cause a big traffic jam over time. The study calculated some figure that showed if people just kept their distance up to the person in front, and instead of lightly tapping the brake as a reaction to a m…
I believe the article you seek is the one being critiqued by this author.
Currently I drive for about 15 miles on a major highway (during rush hour at least once) on most days of the week. I rarely need to use my brakes.
Re: How traffic actually works
#39I don't understand the claim that front bumper to front bumper is a bigger problem the faster you go. When you're going fast, the 4 meters of a car are much shorter (in terms of time), because 4 meters at 4 m/s is a much smaller amount of time than 4 meters at 0.2 m/s.
Re: How traffic actually works
#40What an arrogant article. How can you title something 'How traffic actually works' when you don't examine actual traffic. Instead, make up a simple model, run some code, claim it shows what you want. It's not like modelling traffic is so insanely hard that we need such simplistic models. Pick as complex a model as you like; we have the computing power to simulate it!
If you RTFA, he compares the results of the model to actual data collected by the Federal Highway Administration. Why use a complex model when a simple one suffices?