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

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Light Traffic

#41

Post by maxander »

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 orders of magnitude more expensive and yeah you'll get something better- 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. (Granted, more clever schemes might be produced that might get better results from this scenario- it's hard to prove that they can't be effective.)

Better idea- instead of having the world pay for sensor/communication systems on every car, have the same sensor packages installed on the traffic lights so that they can operate in a smarter fashion. Orders of magnitude less expensive, and quite possibly as effective in reducing traffic backup.

Re: Light Traffic

#42

Post by tomxor »

purplejacket wrote: post #18

For fucks sake, where are the pedestrians??

This reminds me of another article on HN a while ago, about really wide multilane road outside of a school with a pedestrian crossing. The argument was against the design of this road, generally you shouldn't have pedestrians crossing giant roads like this because it's so big and comfortable for vehicle to go fast. I imagine this animation could be reality on a large crossroad without road level crossings, but on smaller ones the vehicles would have to navigate signals still... although they would have the benefit of being able to interface with the pedestrian light system to A) wait to let immediate stream of traffic pass and B) slow down the next lot approaching to increase efficiency by preventing complete stop while the pedestrians cross.

Re: Light Traffic

#43

Post by icebraining »

orasis wrote: post #33
zhoujianfu wrote: post #7

What would people give the odds we achieve a world of autonomous flying drone transport for local travel before a world of autonomous self-driving cars? It seems right now like we’re really close with self-driving cars but objectively flying ones would be a lot better: Shorter distances to travel (point to point), easier to implement collision avoidance, faster, no need for this crazy infrastructure we build/maintain…

Drones are far too loud.

Drones don't have to be quad/octocopters. I'd love to see a self-driving electric paraplane.

Re: Light Traffic

#44

Post by YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 »

tinco wrote: post #30
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean in the USA. In a cyclist-friendly country like the Netherlands, it is considered completely normal even by pedestrians.

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.

Re: Light Traffic

#45

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #40
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is kind of funny because pedestrian crossings already kind of work like this in China. The car will never ever stop for you, rather, it will adjust its speed and swerve slightly to avoid a collision (if expected, if unexpected, then its a totally different game). Likewise, the pedestrian is expected to move in a consistent direction and adjust their speed to avoid being in the way of a car. The result is that car…

"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.

Re: Light Traffic

#46

Post by tomxor »

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 are objectively easier and safer to navigate (one stream of traffic) and partly (but mostly) because they are dominant in the UK.

But for the same reason (familiarity) I expect many in the US would find roundabouts hard to navigate (and maybe unsafe as a result?), it's more about what you are used to and what you had to learn as part of your driving test.

Are roundabouts part of driving tests in the US?

Re: Light Traffic

#47

Post by chiefofgxbxl »

I think people are focused on maximizing the wrong metric. Traffic projects like this tend to want to maximize car throughput, when what we really need is to minimize travel distance/time. Maybe then society would start looking at the effects that cars have made to sprawl, and the self-reinforcement cycle that emerges.

Re: Light Traffic

#48

Post by acranox »

mgbmtl wrote: post #37

I feel like so many similar proposals tend to ignore how saturated our roads are, how expensive the road infrastructure maintenance is, and how fast people expect to drive (because of long commutes from endless suburbs). We need to find innovative ways to implement forms of collective transportation (rail or what not) in already dense areas. Rail/subways have already proven how effective they are. Autonomous vehicles…

They also seem to ignore people riding on bikes, and people walking around.

Re: Light Traffic

#49

Post by IshKebab »

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.

Is this satire? How do you walk anywhere otherwise?

Re: Light Traffic

#50

Post by jakecopp »

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #47

I think people are focused on maximizing the wrong metric. Traffic projects like this tend to want to maximize car throughput , when what we really need is to minimize travel distance/time . Maybe then society would start looking at the effects that cars have made to sprawl, and the self-reinforcement cycle that emerges.

I view maximizing car throughput as beneficial because it means less roads need to be built (more money for mass transit).
Post reply on HN