The first hundred or so passes through a driverless intersection are going to be terrifying.
As with all problems in life, the solution is getting rid of people.
Seems like it would need some kind of hub mounted on each intersection in order to serve as a traffic controller for all vehicles. All vehicles talking to one another directly seems like it would open up the system to serious issues, like people making phantom vehicles or disguising the presence of other vehicles and causing accidents.
A network of hubs placed in elevated positions in a city could not only serve as a series of reliable hubs to communicate with, but they could communicate with one another to confirm the accuracy of data. It would make hacking the system much more difficult.
An elevated city-wide network. We could call it air network. Or air net. Or ooh, skyne-FUCK WHY DO ALL ROADS LEAD TO SKYNET
Video ignores the problem of pedestrian crossings - especially in high density urban areas. These can cause congestion, especially around school pick-up/drop-off hours
Also, cyclists, motorcyclists etc would still need traditional traffic lights
I look forward to getting rid of all the piece-of-shit human drivers. Driving is fun, but commuting by car is only a test of patience.
[QUOTE=sb27;50979439]Video ignores the problem of pedestrian crossings - especially in high density urban areas. These can cause congestion, especially around school pick-up/drop-off hours
Also, cyclists, motorcyclists etc would still need traditional traffic lights[/QUOTE]
the solution, get rid of people.
self sustaining, self driving cars. the solution is to basically just become a re-enactment of pixar's cars.
[QUOTE=sb27;50979439]Video ignores the problem of pedestrian crossings - especially in high density urban areas. These can cause congestion, especially around school pick-up/drop-off hours
Also, cyclists, motorcyclists etc would still need traditional traffic lights[/QUOTE]
Not all vehicles need be automated, it's just that the more of them there are the less congestion issues we will have even if traffic traffic lights and other causes remain a factor.
Elon and Google should've focused on teleporters rather than self-driving cars. Solves traffic immediately.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;50979664]Elon and Google should've focused on teleporters rather than self-driving cars. Solves traffic immediately.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI[/media]
[QUOTE=subenji99;50979689][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI[/media][/QUOTE]
thanks, I didnt want to sleep anyway.
The highway thing is something I've known for a while and try to do whenever traffic slows. It becomes a game for me to never stop moving. Go at a speed that will always keep you moving behind the car in front of you, even if it creates a large gap. The most important thing is to never stop moving.
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;50979530]the solution, get rid of people.
self sustaining, self driving cars. the solution is to basically just become a re-enactment of pixar's cars.[/QUOTE]
It's like you didn't even read my post at all. How do you make bicycles self-driving? How do you make pedestrians self-driving?
[QUOTE=sb27;50981056]It's like you didn't even read my post at all. How do you make bicycles self-driving? How do you make pedestrians self-driving?[/QUOTE]
You don't. But self driving cars would still make a massive improvement in all other areas.
[QUOTE=sb27;50981056]It's like you didn't even read my post at all. How do you make bicycles self-driving? How do you make pedestrians self-driving?[/QUOTE]
You don't. You can't control all factors and all variables.
Ultimately, bike lanes in an automated system are asking for trouble because an error can happen. What I imagine is most likely to happen in the event of wide spread mass automation adoption is for the reconstruction and redesigning of major traffic routes and intercity ones leaving the rest to be fixed over time. Bike lanes and pedestrian lanes will likely be raised, distanced, or separated from the road to keep them from mixing.
But ultimately, if automated vehicles are able to communicate with each other, the existence of a pedestrian or a bicycle in that system isn't catastrophic because the cars can pass the information along and react in anticipation of that event.
Is it really better to just leave people as the drivers forever even though we cause a crazy number of fatalities a day?
its fucking ironic that the shit heads who tailgate and swerve around traffic to shave save 30 seconds off their commute time by risking the safety of everyone actually make traffic worse.
I recall looking at something not unlike this during second year in a course that was essentially mathematical logistics - looking at longitudinal waves in traffic, and working out an efficient way to solve for a basic system (think taxi-driver problem but a warehouse with forklifts). Never realised how complex it was until I started to dig deeper and more variables arose.
We could choose what we wanted to look into.
[QUOTE=subenji99;50979689][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI[/media][/QUOTE]
That just remind me an episode when there's two Captain Kirk, the negative and the positive.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;50981594]its fucking ironic that the shit heads who tailgate and swerve around traffic to shave save 30 seconds off their commute time by risking the safety of everyone actually make traffic worse.[/QUOTE]
Why is that ironic, those people don't give a shit about traffic, the only thing they're interested in is their own comfort.
On the note of self-interest, I really-really hope that this ultimate solution to the problem can wait until I die or get really old. I really enjoy driving and don't want to be barred from it.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;50981594]its fucking ironic that the shit heads who tailgate and swerve around traffic to shave save 30 seconds off their commute time by risking the safety of everyone actually make traffic worse.[/QUOTE]
Mythbusters tested it too IIRC, and aggressively passing everyone doesn't really save any time as you said with the 30 seconds. Just relax while driving and only change lanes when it really is necessary.
Also I find it weird that some people think we WON'T ban purely human-driven cars on public roads eventually, it just makes too much sense to not ban it. Or if we don't ban it, you'll get absolutely crushed with insurance because surprise surprise, you're so much more of a risk if you are driving yourself.
Racing and ricing will probably still be hobbies for those who really enjoy it, so even for enthusiasts I wouldn't worry too much, you'll actually be saving your vehicle for events rather than making it suffer in stop and go traffic.
[QUOTE=OvB;50979246]The first hundred or so passes through a driverless intersection are going to be terrifying.[/QUOTE]
Or when on a freeway, I have to imagine that if these cars are communicating there will just be sudden bursts of everyone changing lanes and then stabilizing as they all figure out where each car should be as new people enter the freeway.
[QUOTE=GunFox;50979394]Seems like it would need some kind of hub mounted on each intersection in order to serve as a traffic controller for all vehicles. All vehicles talking to one another directly seems like it would open up the system to serious issues, like people making phantom vehicles or disguising the presence of other vehicles and causing accidents.
A network of hubs placed in elevated positions in a city could not only serve as a series of reliable hubs to communicate with, but they could communicate with one another to confirm the accuracy of data. It would make hacking the system much more difficult.
An elevated city-wide network. We could call it air network. Or air net. Or ooh, skyne-FUCK WHY DO ALL ROADS LEAD TO SKYNET[/QUOTE]
We shall call it Smart asphalt or smartas for short
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.