4 ms·

The success of this technique can't be accurately measured by the driver who's trying "smooth" out the waves. It needs to be witnessed from outside of traffic.

by daten 16y ago

The success of this technique can't be accurately measured by the driver who's trying "smooth" out the waves. It needs to be witnessed from outside of traffic. It usually just moves the problem to behind the "helpful" driver as other drivers can very easily continue to drive competitively and recreate the effect. Even if he's successful in removing the "wave", it's just by decreasing the average speed of traffic. Please don't try this in the left lane.

keyle 16y ago
That's exactly why nobody would play along even if they knew. Big trucks eventually do that because it's painful for them to do the gears 1,2,3 constantly, they stay in second or third and just slow down the whole thing. Here is the thing where it falls short though: the guy at the front riding the wave really slow to "help lane locks" will also get merging traffic many many time right in front of him (people taking advantage of the free space), as a result, it won't help that lane but only make it worse if you're stuck behind such driver (or truck). So if everyone stuck to their lanes, didn't change unless extremely necessary, and played the wave-canceling technique, it would work. In other words, this will work when cars will be driven by computers hooked together via apis and maybe a traffic controller. I'm not signing for the beta.
- maushu 16y ago
  Yeah, I always thought that the only way to prevent traffic jams would be to remove the human factor entirely. Makes me wonder why people fight so much against this, I would love to be able to read while going to work (when I don't catch the bus as usual).
  - daten 16y ago
    I would love seeing fewer drivers in cars already reading on their way to work. Educating human drivers may be just as good as replacing them.
- zepolen 16y ago
  Actually, the fact that people in the middle lane are taking up his 'free' space helps the long term traffic. The main cause of traffic wave is from someone stopping too abruptly, eg. if someone changes lane in tight traffic, he forces the other person to slow down too fast, which begins the wave. If you allow more people to get in front of you in a smooth manner because you have given yourself a lot of distance, then there will be less 'cutting off' slow downs from the middle lane guys, which in turn causes less cutting offs in the right lane. How much does it hurt over your entire commute to let even 100 cars in front of you? You'll be 500 meters later to your destination, what's that at 30kph...1 minute more? That's the worst case scenario. The normal case is you'll get there quicker because you've raised the average speed of the entire traffic wave.
  - superk 16y ago
    Absolutely! I've thought about this so many times... what is 5 seconds for you (allowing someone to merge in front of you) would translate to much much faster commute to _everyone_ else. It is all about the balance between my personal greed and what's better for the common good (if only we could solve this on _and_ off the road). Where I live there is terrible traffic... and I've contemplated causes and solutions many a mind-numbing commute. I realized we behave differently when we are behind the wheel... Very few people would behave or maneuver the same if it where lines of people instead of cars. That is why your best chance to merge is to make eye contact with the other driver - if they recognize you as another human not just another vehicle than they are much more likely to move over or make space. When I drive (during rush hour) I suffer a lot to justify my actions. What I have settled on... is a simple rule: In any situation the person who is in the wrong is the one who has contributed to the impediment of the overall flow of traffic. This comes back to what zepolen says (and I agree with). If we could ever make the connection that what's good for my fellow (wo)man is good for me too... we would be so much better off in general.
    - daten 16y ago
      I agree in the situation where all other drives on the road are equally intelligent and paying attention when they drive. Sadly, in the area I drive in, many drivers are constantly paying more attention to their phone than the road. Those drivers cause all of the traffic problems I see. They likely contribute to many of the accidents as well. They will end up leaving huge gaps in front of them at the expense of traffic behind them even when traffic ahead of them is moving smoothly and quickly. The cost of letting cell phone drivers in front of you can be many minutes to your commute per each driver. Add a few minutes for each traffic light or merge lane that you will spend behind the inattentive drivers. In a 5 mile commute, following the flow of inattentive drivers can add 45 minutes to my drive. Attentive driving and following the flow of other "aggressive" drivers can make it a 10 minute drive total. So what I have actually found helps, in a real world scenario, not a fictional one where all drivers are equal, is trying to identify and cooperate with other "aggressive" drivers helps the group of aggressive drivers get through traffic efficiently and gives the cell-phone drivers plenty of time to concentrate on their conversations.
lars512 16y ago
Actually, if the wave is successfully removed average traffic speed should increase. In fact, the whole post is an argument about ways to improve average traffic speeds. He basically advocates estimating how fast traffic is really going, and going at that speed. Instead of reaching a bottleneck quickly, you should slow down appropriately in advance so that you never have to actually stop. Note that you (and the people behind you) still get through the bottleneck at the same speed, so there is no cost to you (or them), just less braking and accelerating. For what it's worth, some freeway entrances near me (Melbourne, Australia) have traffic lights which rate-limit entry onto the freeway in peak hours. This is exactly the same as what this author is trying to do; by rate-limiting cars at entry, they're not actually slowing them down, since it increases average on-freeway speeds.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
ergo98 16y ago
I'm not sure if you really got the point of the article: The wave happens because everyone wants to be {X} behind the person in front (usually because they desperately want to block anyone else getting between them and {X}). If you can enforce (for lack of a better word) a constant speed, people can maintain that {X} distance without constant accelerating and braking -- just by coasting at a constant speed. >Even if he's successful in removing the "wave", it's just by decreasing the average speed of traffic. How would it decrease the average speed in any practical way? Secondly, it would dramatically reduce the energy consumption of the waves (accelerating and braking constantly) and wear and tear on vehicles. The net benefit of optimizing highway traffic -- in real environmental and economic benefits -- is significant. >Please don't try this in the left lane. The left lane has no meaning during congestion. There is no "passing" when the highway is clogged. And yes, this is actually the law in many places. One of the biggest causes of highway inefficiency are the self-important (but usually going nowhere) people who pretend that by driving aggressively, they should be allowed through the congestion.

by daten 16y ago

keyle 16y ago

That's exactly why nobody would play along even if they knew. Big trucks eventually do that because it's painful for them to do the gears 1,2,3 constantly, they stay in second or third and just slow down the whole thing. Here is the thing where it falls short though: the guy at the front riding the wave really slow to "help lane locks" will also get merging traffic many many time right in front of him (people taking advantage of the free space), as a result, it won't help that lane but only make it worse if you're stuck behind such driver (or truck). So if everyone stuck to their lanes, didn't change unless extremely necessary, and played the wave-canceling technique, it would work. In other words, this will work when cars will be driven by computers hooked together via apis and maybe a traffic controller. I'm not signing for the beta.

maushu 16y ago
Yeah, I always thought that the only way to prevent traffic jams would be to remove the human factor entirely. Makes me wonder why people fight so much against this, I would love to be able to read while going to work (when I don't catch the bus as usual).
- daten 16y ago
  I would love seeing fewer drivers in cars already reading on their way to work. Educating human drivers may be just as good as replacing them.
zepolen 16y ago
Actually, the fact that people in the middle lane are taking up his 'free' space helps the long term traffic. The main cause of traffic wave is from someone stopping too abruptly, eg. if someone changes lane in tight traffic, he forces the other person to slow down too fast, which begins the wave. If you allow more people to get in front of you in a smooth manner because you have given yourself a lot of distance, then there will be less 'cutting off' slow downs from the middle lane guys, which in turn causes less cutting offs in the right lane. How much does it hurt over your entire commute to let even 100 cars in front of you? You'll be 500 meters later to your destination, what's that at 30kph...1 minute more? That's the worst case scenario. The normal case is you'll get there quicker because you've raised the average speed of the entire traffic wave.
- superk 16y ago
  Absolutely! I've thought about this so many times... what is 5 seconds for you (allowing someone to merge in front of you) would translate to much much faster commute to _everyone_ else. It is all about the balance between my personal greed and what's better for the common good (if only we could solve this on _and_ off the road). Where I live there is terrible traffic... and I've contemplated causes and solutions many a mind-numbing commute. I realized we behave differently when we are behind the wheel... Very few people would behave or maneuver the same if it where lines of people instead of cars. That is why your best chance to merge is to make eye contact with the other driver - if they recognize you as another human not just another vehicle than they are much more likely to move over or make space. When I drive (during rush hour) I suffer a lot to justify my actions. What I have settled on... is a simple rule: In any situation the person who is in the wrong is the one who has contributed to the impediment of the overall flow of traffic. This comes back to what zepolen says (and I agree with). If we could ever make the connection that what's good for my fellow (wo)man is good for me too... we would be so much better off in general.
  - daten 16y ago
    I agree in the situation where all other drives on the road are equally intelligent and paying attention when they drive. Sadly, in the area I drive in, many drivers are constantly paying more attention to their phone than the road. Those drivers cause all of the traffic problems I see. They likely contribute to many of the accidents as well. They will end up leaving huge gaps in front of them at the expense of traffic behind them even when traffic ahead of them is moving smoothly and quickly. The cost of letting cell phone drivers in front of you can be many minutes to your commute per each driver. Add a few minutes for each traffic light or merge lane that you will spend behind the inattentive drivers. In a 5 mile commute, following the flow of inattentive drivers can add 45 minutes to my drive. Attentive driving and following the flow of other "aggressive" drivers can make it a 10 minute drive total. So what I have actually found helps, in a real world scenario, not a fictional one where all drivers are equal, is trying to identify and cooperate with other "aggressive" drivers helps the group of aggressive drivers get through traffic efficiently and gives the cell-phone drivers plenty of time to concentrate on their conversations.

lars512 16y ago

Actually, if the wave is successfully removed average traffic speed should increase. In fact, the whole post is an argument about ways to improve average traffic speeds. He basically advocates estimating how fast traffic is really going, and going at that speed. Instead of reaching a bottleneck quickly, you should slow down appropriately in advance so that you never have to actually stop. Note that you (and the people behind you) still get through the bottleneck at the same speed, so there is no cost to you (or them), just less braking and accelerating. For what it's worth, some freeway entrances near me (Melbourne, Australia) have traffic lights which rate-limit entry onto the freeway in peak hours. This is exactly the same as what this author is trying to do; by rate-limiting cars at entry, they're not actually slowing them down, since it increases average on-freeway speeds.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

ergo98 16y ago

I'm not sure if you really got the point of the article: The wave happens because everyone wants to be {X} behind the person in front (usually because they desperately want to block anyone else getting between them and {X}). If you can enforce (for lack of a better word) a constant speed, people can maintain that {X} distance without constant accelerating and braking -- just by coasting at a constant speed. >Even if he's successful in removing the "wave", it's just by decreasing the average speed of traffic. How would it decrease the average speed in any practical way? Secondly, it would dramatically reduce the energy consumption of the waves (accelerating and braking constantly) and wear and tear on vehicles. The net benefit of optimizing highway traffic -- in real environmental and economic benefits -- is significant. >Please don't try this in the left lane. The left lane has no meaning during congestion. There is no "passing" when the highway is clogged. And yes, this is actually the law in many places. One of the biggest causes of highway inefficiency are the self-important (but usually going nowhere) people who pretend that by driving aggressively, they should be allowed through the congestion.