Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Elmer >
wrote:

>On Apr 23, 7:57 pm, larry_scholnick > wrote:
>> We've all gotten used to the term "Sloth" which is used here for those
>> who drive slower than the flow of traffic in other than the rightmost
>> lane, and who accelerate at barely measurable rates.
>>
>> Have you ever wondered what real traffic engineers call such drivers?
>>
>> Have you ever wondered how they refer to drivers who keep up with
>> traffic and actually pass such slower vehicles?
>>
>> I was looking for something unrelated to these questions on the
>> Caltrans web site when I ran across a link to an engineering study
>> that focused on these two different groups of drivers.
>>
>> Sloths were referred to as SLUGS; the drivers who passed them were
>> referred to as Rabbits.
>>
>> The link to the study:http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/resear.../2002/to_4113_...
>>
>> Enjoy!
>
>
>Well, it was somewhat enjoyable to read, but painful too. While the
>study puts drivers into one of two categories, Rabbits or Slugs, it
>assumes the Slugs to be "timid" and that they ALL drive in the
>rightmost lane. Our "Sloths" who block flow in the left lane should
>probably be called "Elephants", as in being in the room but totally
>ignored by the study.
>
>I have to wonder, do the researchers even have driver's licenses?
>Clearly, they never spent any time driving in traffic. One of the
>silly hypotheses the study tried to prove is that Rabbits will leave
>less headroom when a string of them are passing Slugs, but they'll
>leave more space when there's no opportunity for anyone to pass. Of
>course, WE know drivers do this quite naturally; you've got to hold
>your place in the line and keep up with the car ahead of you to
>prevent a Sloth from cutting in.
>
>An observation made by the study was that "flow collapse" happens
>after a reduction of flow in the left lane. Gee, who would have thunk
>it? The study also talks about the cause of these left lane speed
>disturbances as being "events", rather than what they really a
>drivers violating the law by moving slower than other traffic but
>failing to keep right!!!
>
>The study is rather comical though, when you picture the researchers
>trying to over-analyze the limited set of data generated by a few
>traffic meters, coming up with fancy equations and graphs and coining
>terms like reversed-lambda and inverted-V traffic flows, yet
>apparently having little real-world knowledge of what it's like to
>actually drive on the highway being studied.
>
>Elmer

You seem surprised that researchers have little real-world knowledge.
When it comes to gvt funded research that's the norm. Esp in regard
to transportation related research. It is MANDATED that a certain
percentage of all federal highway funds be spent on research and in my
many years of experience at least 50 percent of the research is
worthless rehashing of crap by people getting their masters and PhD's
and those people almost never have even a hint of real world
experience. And today a large percentage of them can barely speak
English. Another large chunk of the money is spent on gilding of
lilies - much of what's developed is nothing more then a full
employment scheme for professors - they persist in making simple
things complicated, but no more useful, so their services will
continue to be needed. And one of the other reasons so much of the
research is worthless is that it's almost always formulated and
managed by COMMITTEE and most of the people on the committee have very
limited expertise on the subject, whatever it may be.

In article >,
Elmer > wrote:
>
>The study is rather comical though, when you picture the researchers
>trying to over-analyze the limited set of data generated by a few
>traffic meters, coming up with fancy equations and graphs and coining
>terms like reversed-lambda and inverted-V traffic flows, yet
>apparently having little real-world knowledge of what it's like to
>actually drive on the highway being studied.

Publish or perish.


--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Apr 25, 12:50*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Elmer > said:
>
> >On Apr 24, 12:34*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> However, outside of this newsgroup, these
> >> are among the few people who are actually trying to study the Sloth
> >> phenomenon.
>
> >Are they studying that phenomenon? (slow drivers failing to keep
> >right)
>
> No, traffic flow in general.
>
> >From the paper, it sounds like they have yet to even discover it.
>
> Their careers have barely begin. Give them time.

I say, give them a daily commute on a miserably congested highway.
That'll give 'em plenty of time to study the situation.

Elmer

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:51:53 -0700, Scott in SoCal
> wrote:

>Last time on rec.autos.driving, Ashton Crusher > said:
>
>>You seem surprised that researchers have little real-world knowledge.
>>When it comes to gvt funded research that's the norm. Esp in regard
>>to transportation related research. It is MANDATED that a certain
>>percentage of all federal highway funds be spent on research and in my
>>many years of experience at least 50 percent of the research is
>>worthless rehashing of crap by people getting their masters and PhD's
>>and those people almost never have even a hint of real world
>>experience. And today a large percentage of them can barely speak
>>English. Another large chunk of the money is spent on gilding of
>>lilies - much of what's developed is nothing more then a full
>>employment scheme for professors - they persist in making simple
>>things complicated, but no more useful, so their services will
>>continue to be needed. And one of the other reasons so much of the
>>research is worthless is that it's almost always formulated and
>>managed by COMMITTEE and most of the people on the committee have very
>>limited expertise on the subject, whatever it may be.
>
>Welcome to Academia.


If only it were limited to that. But most of the research done by the
State DOTs is controlled by the same cabal of people. I recently
reviewed a major synthesis and policy paper on highway friction that
is intended to set federal policy for the next decade. You would not
believe the absolute lack of knowledge of vehicle dynamics and skid
properties in the document. It was written by some of the "best" in
the field and the committee that oversaw it's devolvement and reviewed
it before me had several of the "best" in teh field on it. Yet none
of them noticed some of the most rudimentary of errors, stuff that
many of the regulars here would have caught or at least questioned.
Some of the stuff they stated as "current knowledge" hasn't been
current since radial tires replaced bias ply tires and disk brakes
replaced drums. This was the product of nearly $500,000 of tax money
and if I had been grading it as a students term paper it would have
gotten an D.

On 4/25/2010 5:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> If only it were limited to that. But most of the research done by the
> State DOTs is controlled by the same cabal of people. I recently
> reviewed a major synthesis and policy paper on highway friction that
> is intended to set federal policy for the next decade. You would not
> believe the absolute lack of knowledge of vehicle dynamics and skid
> properties in the document. It was written by some of the "best" in
> the field and the committee that oversaw it's devolvement and reviewed
> it before me had several of the "best" in teh field on it. Yet none
> of them noticed some of the most rudimentary of errors, stuff that
> many of the regulars here would have caught or at least questioned.
> Some of the stuff they stated as "current knowledge" hasn't been
> current since radial tires replaced bias ply tires and disk brakes
> replaced drums. This was the product of nearly $500,000 of tax money
> and if I had been grading it as a students term paper it would have
> gotten an D.

That would certainly explain why curve advisory speeds are, for all
practical purposes, consistently too low. Did that policy paper on
highway friction have a recommendation for the degree of "ball bank
deviation" with regard to setting curve advisory speeds?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:22:40 -0400, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>On 4/25/2010 5:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> If only it were limited to that. But most of the research done by the
>> State DOTs is controlled by the same cabal of people. I recently
>> reviewed a major synthesis and policy paper on highway friction that
>> is intended to set federal policy for the next decade. You would not
>> believe the absolute lack of knowledge of vehicle dynamics and skid
>> properties in the document. It was written by some of the "best" in
>> the field and the committee that oversaw it's devolvement and reviewed
>> it before me had several of the "best" in teh field on it. Yet none
>> of them noticed some of the most rudimentary of errors, stuff that
>> many of the regulars here would have caught or at least questioned.
>> Some of the stuff they stated as "current knowledge" hasn't been
>> current since radial tires replaced bias ply tires and disk brakes
>> replaced drums. This was the product of nearly $500,000 of tax money
>> and if I had been grading it as a students term paper it would have
>> gotten an D.
>
>That would certainly explain why curve advisory speeds are, for all
>practical purposes, consistently too low. Did that policy paper on
>highway friction have a recommendation for the degree of "ball bank
>deviation" with regard to setting curve advisory speeds?

No, that's a separate specialty then this thing addressed.
Unfortunately, many curves are now given advisory signs based on sight
distance restrictions, not ball bank limits. While sight
restrictions are a problem, drivers assume a yellow warning sign is
for sharp curvature and it makes them ignore ones they should pay
attention to (although those are actually very rare). And while I
can't be sure, I'm getting suspicious that some of these pinhead
traffic engineers are only looking at the amount of curve and not
considering the amount of bank/super elevation when deciding a curve
needs an advisory sign - I see way too many needless signs on banked
curves that can easily be taken at normal or even high speeds.

On 04/25/2010 09:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:22:40 -0400, Arif >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2010 5:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>>> If only it were limited to that. But most of the research done by the
>>> State DOTs is controlled by the same cabal of people. I recently
>>> reviewed a major synthesis and policy paper on highway friction that
>>> is intended to set federal policy for the next decade. You would not
>>> believe the absolute lack of knowledge of vehicle dynamics and skid
>>> properties in the document. It was written by some of the "best" in
>>> the field and the committee that oversaw it's devolvement and reviewed
>>> it before me had several of the "best" in teh field on it. Yet none
>>> of them noticed some of the most rudimentary of errors, stuff that
>>> many of the regulars here would have caught or at least questioned.
>>> Some of the stuff they stated as "current knowledge" hasn't been
>>> current since radial tires replaced bias ply tires and disk brakes
>>> replaced drums. This was the product of nearly $500,000 of tax money
>>> and if I had been grading it as a students term paper it would have
>>> gotten an D.
>>
>> That would certainly explain why curve advisory speeds are, for all
>> practical purposes, consistently too low. Did that policy paper on
>> highway friction have a recommendation for the degree of "ball bank
>> deviation" with regard to setting curve advisory speeds?
>
> No, that's a separate specialty then this thing addressed.
> Unfortunately, many curves are now given advisory signs based on sight
> distance restrictions, not ball bank limits. While sight
> restrictions are a problem, drivers assume a yellow warning sign is
> for sharp curvature and it makes them ignore ones they should pay
> attention to (although those are actually very rare). And while I
> can't be sure, I'm getting suspicious that some of these pinhead
> traffic engineers are only looking at the amount of curve and not
> considering the amount of bank/super elevation when deciding a curve
> needs an advisory sign - I see way too many needless signs on banked
> curves that can easily be taken at normal or even high speeds.

But the ball bank indicator would take that into account and indicate a
higher advisory speed, no?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Apr 25, 9:26*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, many curves are now given advisory signs based on sight
> distance restrictions, not ball bank limits.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on why advisory speeds based on
sight distance are unfortunate...?

> While sight
> restrictions are a problem, drivers assume a yellow warning sign is
> for sharp curvature and it makes them ignore ones they should pay
> attention to (although those are actually very rare).

Perhaps you would favor us with the method by which you have
determined this which you profess to know...?

>*And while I
> can't be sure, I'm getting suspicious that some of these pinhead
> traffic engineers are only looking at the amount of curve

"The amount of curve"...?!

> and not
> considering the amount of bank/super elevation when deciding a curve
> needs an advisory sign - I see way too many needless signs on banked
> curves that can easily be taken at normal or even high speeds.

Are you suggesting advisory speeds should be relative to the limits of
traction...?
-----

- gpsman

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:51:53 -0700, Scott in SoCal
> wrote:

>Last time on rec.autos.driving, Ashton Crusher > said:
>
>>You seem surprised that researchers have little real-world knowledge.
>>When it comes to gvt funded research that's the norm. Esp in regard
>>to transportation related research. It is MANDATED that a certain
>>percentage of all federal highway funds be spent on research and in my
>>many years of experience at least 50 percent of the research is
>>worthless rehashing of crap by people getting their masters and PhD's
>>and those people almost never have even a hint of real world
>>experience. And today a large percentage of them can barely speak
>>English. Another large chunk of the money is spent on gilding of
>>lilies - much of what's developed is nothing more then a full
>>employment scheme for professors - they persist in making simple
>>things complicated, but no more useful, so their services will
>>continue to be needed. And one of the other reasons so much of the
>>research is worthless is that it's almost always formulated and
>>managed by COMMITTEE and most of the people on the committee have very
>>limited expertise on the subject, whatever it may be.
>
>Welcome to Academia.

True.
Several years ago a professor at Arizona State University obtained a
grant for research into the electrical contracting business. He knew
absolutely nothing about the subject and contacted me for a meeting.
Primarily, he wanted info as to what questions he should ask during
his research in order to validate his grant.
Yes, I did assist and he received additional grants due to the
"accuracy" of his research.

On 2010-04-25, Ashton Crusher > wrote:

> If only it were limited to that. But most of the research done by the
> State DOTs is controlled by the same cabal of people. I recently
> reviewed a major synthesis and policy paper on highway friction that
> is intended to set federal policy for the next decade. You would not
> believe the absolute lack of knowledge of vehicle dynamics and skid
> properties in the document. It was written by some of the "best" in
> the field and the committee that oversaw it's devolvement and reviewed
> it before me had several of the "best" in teh field on it. Yet none
> of them noticed some of the most rudimentary of errors, stuff that
> many of the regulars here would have caught or at least questioned.
> Some of the stuff they stated as "current knowledge" hasn't been
> current since radial tires replaced bias ply tires and disk brakes
> replaced drums. This was the product of nearly $500,000 of tax money
> and if I had been grading it as a students term paper it would have
> gotten an D.

And that's par for the course for government policy research. The
research they do and what they fund. Government needs intellectuals to
build a case for what government wants to do. Much of the best of it is
just outdated information. The very worst of it is out right lies.

Driving and road research usually can achieve the goals by just using
out of date information and methods. It's really easy to justify a low
speed limit when the 'average' car is a 1962 ford falcon and the desired
factor of safety is really high.

Research that doesn't justify what the government wants to do is burried
and the researchers often get cut off from future grants. Showing that
speed limits are too low gets the paper hidden if not severely edited.
Any crap that shows why we need low speed limits and heavy handed
enforcement ends up on the nightly news.

The way driving research is done changed how I look at all of the
government sponsored work. Look at climate research. Researchers bending
over backwards to the point of outright lies to show a warming so the
state could proceed as planned. It's the same theme over and over again.
Speeding tickets are just one of many scams.