Video: How Sloth Kills Road Throughput

wrote:

> Brent P wrote:

>>Creating the separation required
>>for the speed of traffic before moving at all is needless, you only need
>>the separation for the speed you are moving.

> I believe I've only rarely seen people leave multiples of car lengths
> between them and the car in front when accelerating from a red light.
> Pretty much everyone starts after the car in front shows at least a
> few feet of movement.

I start just as the car in front of me starts moving. If this method
was repeated over a line of 20 vehicles, the last vehicle ought to start
moving about 5 to 10 seconds after the first vehicle. The 20th vehicle
should be able to reach the light within 10 to 15 seconds after starting
to move.

> Methinks you are safer to us all when you are on the bike!

Why do so many people resort to ad hominem?

Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>

> > I believe I've only rarely seen people leave multiples of car lengths
> > between them and the car in front when accelerating from a red light.
>
> Obviously you have difficulty grasping a simple concept.
>
> > Pretty much everyone starts after the car in front shows at least a
> > few feet of movement.
>
> But they are slotherating most of the time.

When it seems like everybody else is going too slow, it's you, trying
to go too fast. Talk about difficulty grasping a simple concept.
Christ, it doesn't get any simpler than that.

I remember a complaint of yours about how you always have to keep
fighting to get through all the sloths running in pack on the highway
only to break free and a short distance ahead... run into another pack
of sloths! It's not them, it's you.

> I think you don't have a clue how good driving can be so your desire is
> to make it completely miserable.

The reason you find driving miserable is because you're miserable at
it.
-----

- gpsman

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >>Yes. Slow reaction times, failure to accelerate swiftly. The difference
> >>between slinky effect start ups at traffic lights vs. everyone moving the
> >>moment it turns green is vast alone.
> >
> > Now that's just silly!! When the light is red and everyone is stopped,
> > there are about 5 feet between each of the cars. When the light turned
> > green, if everyone accelerated at the same rate at the same time,
> > they'd be going down the street at 45 or whatever, with 5 feet between
> > them.
>
> I already explained this. You lengthen distance once through the
> intersection. You won't be up to 45mph by the far side of the
> intersection anyway.

The rule of thumb generally accepted is to retain a following distance
of 3 seconds, maybe 2 when "accelerating from a stop into and through
an intersection".

The 5 feet you propose maintaining through the intersection would be
considered "safe" for a 2 second following distance of 1.70 mph (2.50
fps).

10 feet would be 3.40 mph (5.0 fps). 15 feet (about 1 car length)
would be 5.11 mph (7.50 fps). 20 feet would be 6.8 mph (10.0 fps).

It seems to me you're either not really in that much of a hurry... or
you feel a low speed crash is worth risking to save one second out of
the 3 or 4 it takes to cross an average intersection.

What about the throughput! Do the crashes that occur in Chicago's
intersections everyday somehow maximize throughput? If everybody was a
little more careful wouldn't there likely be fewer crashes and
throughput would be increased... perhaps "realistically maximized"...
rather than what I perceive your philosphy to be; maximize throughput
until there's a crash?

Then everybody's ****ed. Traffic fills up on alternate routes as
people divert around the crash delay... and you start ****ing and
moaning.

> > You can out-accelerate busy traffic when you are on a bike because the
> > traffic is full.
>
> I rutinely out accelerate the car in the lane next to me who has nobody
> in front of him.

You've already admitted you can't do a track stand so you have to get
in your pedal first, then routinely out-accelerate that car. Sure.
Or are you performing this miracle on a beach cruiser?

Even if you do accelerate faster you only do it for about 150 feet.
You might average 15 mph over that distance (6.8 sec.). Not much of a
feat, not much of a delay, not much to complain about.

> I am rutinely delayed by motor vehicles in front of me
> with nobody in front of them.

Who is supposed to believe that so many drivers in Chicago drive so
slowly they're in your way, on a bicycle, at 30 mph, tops. You might
near 35 mph, but you couldn't maintain it for more than 30 seconds
outside of a drafting situation. Your average top speed is likely 25
mph or less.
-----

- gpsman

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>Why do so many people resort to ad hominem?

>Because they know they cannot counter the other person's argument with
>facts.

You and Arif Khokar both conveniently dropped the smiley at the end of
my line....;<)

Furthermore, considering the ad hominems and frequently foul language
that are routinely thrown at anyone who dares suggest that speeding
isn't a good thing, what I wrote isn't much of an ad hominem anyway.
Anyone coming in to this ng who doesn't think illegally that high
speeds are good, that everyone should cram into the right lane to let a
small handful of speed freaks have their run of the road, accelerating
for position when approaching red lights, and tailgating to get through
green lights, had better have a tough constitution, thick skin, and an
ng-grade asbestos suit.

Brent P wrote:
>Obviously you have difficulty grasping a simple concept.

Of course not! Those are the kind I like the best!!!

When you approach a red light, everyone slows down and the space
between the cars is reduced until you all come to a stop and there are
only a few feet between each car. When the race light goes to green,
you have to gradually increase the room between the cars once again.
While you shouldn't wait to put 5 car lengths in front of you before
STARTING to accelerate, it is similarly unwise to have an entire string
of, say, 15 cars hit the gas at the same time. Somewhere between the
two extremes there is a reasonable, safe medium that gets the cars
through safely. You still have to have room to stop before you hit the
car in front of you when HE stops. And once in a while he will,
because someone runs the red, a kid falls off the curb, a car door gets
opened on the far side of the intersection, space aliens land in the
intersection.....whatever. Stuff happens; don't pile on.


>I think you don't have a clue how good driving can be so your desire is
>to make it completely miserable.

I love good driving. It involves leaving appropriate safety margins so
I don't clobber your back end when you slam on the brakes because
someone falls off the curb in front of you. I'm not miserable at all,
unless someone is trying to draft me as a I go through an intersection.
Or cuts in front of me as I stop for a red light, making me squeal
rubber to avoid hitting him, just so he can be in front.

I used to get more frustrated when I was younger. One day I realized
that the traffic doesn't care. And once in a while people make
mistakes, including me. Folks around the occurrence of a mistake have
to help account for it. It's part of the deal.

In article .com>, wrote:

> When you approach a red light, everyone slows down and the space
> between the cars is reduced until you all come to a stop and there are
> only a few feet between each car. When the race light goes to green,
> you have to gradually increase the room between the cars once again.

Do it once through the intersection. The primary goal is getting through
the intersection swiftly. This is how congestion is minimized or even
eliminated. On top of that, the intersection is a dangerous place, don't
linger there.

> While you shouldn't wait to put 5 car lengths in front of you before
> STARTING to accelerate, it is similarly unwise to have an entire string
> of, say, 15 cars hit the gas at the same time. Somewhere between the
> two extremes there is a reasonable, safe medium that gets the cars
> through safely. You still have to have room to stop before you hit the
> car in front of you when HE stops. And once in a while he will,
> because someone runs the red, a kid falls off the curb, a car door gets
> opened on the far side of the intersection, space aliens land in the
> intersection.....whatever. Stuff happens; don't pile on.

Why do you want congestion? WHY? You aren't geting any safer driving like
that. In fact, I would consider it more dangerous because you are greatly
increasing your time in and around an intersection.


>>I think you don't have a clue how good driving can be so your desire is
>>to make it completely miserable.

> I love good driving. It involves leaving appropriate safety margins so
> I don't clobber your back end when you slam on the brakes because
> someone falls off the curb in front of you.

And a metor might strike your car if you don't accelerate too. When you
start this sort of logic there is no right answer.

> I used to get more frustrated when I was younger. One day I realized
> that the traffic doesn't care.

So you became part of the problem.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, wrote:
>
> > When you approach a red light, everyone slows down and the space
> > between the cars is reduced until you all come to a stop and there are
> > only a few feet between each car. When the race light goes to green,
> > you have to gradually increase the room between the cars once again.
>
> Do it once through the intersection. The primary goal is getting through
> the intersection swiftly. This is how congestion is minimized or even
> eliminated. On top of that, the intersection is a dangerous place, don't
> linger there.

Clue: The primary goal is getting through the intersection safely.
It's not going to speed your travel or maximize throughput if you
collide with someone.

> > While you shouldn't wait to put 5 car lengths in front of you before
> > STARTING to accelerate, it is similarly unwise to have an entire string
> > of, say, 15 cars hit the gas at the same time. Somewhere between the
> > two extremes there is a reasonable, safe medium that gets the cars
> > through safely. You still have to have room to stop before you hit the
> > car in front of you when HE stops. And once in a while he will,
> > because someone runs the red, a kid falls off the curb, a car door gets
> > opened on the far side of the intersection, space aliens land in the
> > intersection.....whatever. Stuff happens; don't pile on.
>
> Why do you want congestion? WHY? You aren't geting any safer driving like
> that. In fact, I would consider it more dangerous because you are greatly
> increasing your time in and around an intersection.

You seem to have mistaken the danger in an intersection for the danger
in the core of a nuclear reactor. You can probably safely remain in
the center of an intersection for as long as it takes to be towed out
of it after a crash.

> >>I think you don't have a clue how good driving can be so your desire is
> >>to make it completely miserable.
>
> > I love good driving. It involves leaving appropriate safety margins so
> > I don't clobber your back end when you slam on the brakes because
> > someone falls off the curb in front of you.
>
> And a metor might strike your car if you don't accelerate too. When you
> start this sort of logic there is no right answer.

And a meteor might strike your car if you move, how do you know which
decision is best? Of course we'll dismiss the odds of a pedestrian
standing with their toes curled over the curb losing their balance and
stepping into traffic vs a meteor striking the intersection. When you
start that sort of logic I'm convinced you couldn't come up with the
right answer.

> > I used to get more frustrated when I was younger. One day I realized
> > that the traffic doesn't care.
>
> So you became part of the problem.

You're the problem. Who on this planet is qualified to tell you how to
drive? Have the same entity contact me. You're not the boss of other
drivers, get over it.
-----

- gpsman