Video: How Sloth Kills Road Throughput

! wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > Sloth lower the capacity of the road severely and bring on that point
> > much sooner than it need be.
>
> The sloths, sure, but so do the people acting aggressively behind the
> sloth.
>
> > > One person stopping to make a left turn, even when performed to the
> > > best of the best's ability, can still impede traffic immensely, even on
> > > a multilane road.
> >
> > Make it every green arrow at every light, and that's what driving in the
> > presence of sloth is like.
>
> The problem there, then isn't sloths, it's having unrestricted driveway
> access to major thoroughfares that is holding the problem. By
> consolidating entrances, using frontage roads, or at the least, adding
> a dedicated left turn lane, the effect of any driver turning left,
> sloth or not, deminishes.
>
> > > Even if the left turner is a sloth, the traffic flow is only further
> > > degraded when people become irritated at the notion of being delayed a
> > > few seconds and try to make hail mary lane changes. So instead of one
> > > slow lane, there's now several.
> >
> > You are using an exception to prove a rule.
>
> How so? What's the exception in this case? The people acting
> aggressively towards sloths? Or the fact that aggressive, interrupting
> movements and lane changes in heavy, congested traffic cause further
> disruptions?
>
> > Yet, I experienced that on real roads. The absence of sloth can make a
> > road laid out in 16 whatever flow better than many wide arterials in the
> > USA.
>
> I've also experienced many occasions where I had to wait several light
> cycles simply because there was nowhere for the traffic to proceed. If
> traffic is in gridlock due to too much volume on a road not designed
> for it, if nobody's moving or going anywhere, it doesn't matter how
> fast you can accelerate.
>
>
> > Congaling can easily be stopped by just going. Same with peds. I have on
> > many an occasion insisted upon my right of way effectively. It is the
> > enablers and general sloth that allows for those behaviors.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to risk being involved in a serious or
> fatal accident just to prove a point to red light runners.
>
>
>
> > > 2. Drivers have to respond to the car in front.
> >
> > Um no.
>
> Umm, yes. If the car in front isn't moving, you can only move as far as
> that car's rear bumper. Unless you want to take to the shoulder,
> sidewalk, or median.
>
> > > Unlike an F1 start,
> > > were as soon as the red light goes off, you take off, and move to the
> > > outside or inside of the car in front, at an intersection, you're
> > > stuck. You can't react to the light and move, you must wait for the car
> > > in front to move first.
> >
> > In an environment with competent drivers trained properly, the slinky
> > effect is too tiny to be noticed. In the USA drivers are trained to start
> > moving 2 seconds after the car in front has moved away. Assinine waste of
> > throughput.
>
> Do you have some sort of model or video footage describing this? I fail
> to see how a group of 30 cars that are in a line stopped can accelerate
> into a 30 car group with sufficient distance between each car without
> some sort of noticeable delay. After all, if 30 cars are stopped at a
> light, 1 foot apart, there has to be either a delay between cars,
> increasingly slower acceleration, or decreasing speed as you go back in
> the queue to achieve a sufficient gap between cars at speed.

Brent's just another driver here who has nothing but problems with
traffic.

Even on a bicycle Brent becomes befuddled as to why the obvious
solution to all of his traffic problems (in Chicago) aren't immediately
rectified by all other drivers recognizing his haste and simply getting
out of his way, or off the road entirely if necessary, while he's
traveling.

His conclusion: *They're* all incompetent MFFY's.

Figger that one out... for me.
-----

- gpsman

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:47:34 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >> Is that why I-285 here in Atlanta only averages 15 mph in some
> >> locations during rush hour? Because of all the "sloths"?
> >
> >Yes. Slow reaction times, failure to accelerate swiftly.
>
> That's it exactly.
>
> The standard rule of thumb is to increase following distance as speeds
> increase. The problem with Sloth is they increase following distance
> as speeds DECREASE. Look around you the next time you're in
> stop-and-go traffic. How many morons are keeping a 10-carlength
> following distance even though their average speed is 5 MPH? Some do
> it to "save wear and tear" on their brakes; some do it to "damp out
> the waves" of slowing and make traffic flow more smoothly; and some
> are just oblivious ****s who are extremely slow to realize that the
> car ahead of them has moved on and thete is now a 10-carlength gap in
> front of them.
>
> But whatever the cause, the result is the same: WASTED SPACE. All that
> empty space between the cars means fewer cars passing any given point
> per unit time. Fewer cars means lower throughput. And it's all due to
> Sloth.

You oblivious ****. You assume that whatever space is open in 5 mph
traffic would somehow be occupied by vehicles... by their being beamed
into it? Or... if they would just close the gaps another few moronic
SoCal drivers could squeeze into 5 mph traffic... and that would fix
everything?

What you understand about traffic flow and throughput would rattle
around like a #9 shot in an olympic sized swimming pool.

Wasted space, my ass. You obviously measure your progress toward your
destination by the foot, like so many idiots today.

Whatever space a driver reserves to their front in a traffic jam in
SoCal is inconsequential to your travel time... you ****ing moron.

You just think you know how everyone else should drive, even in heavily
congested traffic at 5 mph. There could hardly *be* a more positive
indication you don't know jack-**** about driving.

You're not the boss of them. Get used to it.
-----

- gpsman

In article .com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> Sloth lower the capacity of the road severely and bring on that point
>> much sooner than it need be.

> The sloths, sure, but so do the people acting aggressively behind the
> sloth.

rarely, and as an effect of sloth, irrelevant. I deal with root-cause
problems not the symptoms. The sloth is the root cause.

>> > One person stopping to make a left turn, even when performed to the
>> > best of the best's ability, can still impede traffic immensely, even on
>> > a multilane road.

>> Make it every green arrow at every light, and that's what driving in the
>> presence of sloth is like.

> The problem there, then isn't sloths, it's having unrestricted driveway
> access to major thoroughfares that is holding the problem. By
> consolidating entrances, using frontage roads, or at the least, adding
> a dedicated left turn lane, the effect of any driver turning left,
> sloth or not, deminishes.

Poor road design plays a part in some areas. Sloth are a problem in all
areas.

>> > Even if the left turner is a sloth, the traffic flow is only further
>> > degraded when people become irritated at the notion of being delayed a
>> > few seconds and try to make hail mary lane changes. So instead of one
>> > slow lane, there's now several.

>> You are using an exception to prove a rule.

> How so? What's the exception in this case? The people acting
> aggressively towards sloths? Or the fact that aggressive, interrupting
> movements and lane changes in heavy, congested traffic cause further
> disruptions

You are taking a unprotected turn midblock without traffic control device
and applying it to the overall intersection conditions where traffic
control devices are. You are using an exception.

>> Yet, I experienced that on real roads. The absence of sloth can make a
>> road laid out in 16 whatever flow better than many wide arterials in the
>> USA.

> I've also experienced many occasions where I had to wait several light
> cycles simply because there was nowhere for the traffic to proceed. If
> traffic is in gridlock due to too much volume on a road not designed
> for it, if nobody's moving or going anywhere, it doesn't matter how
> fast you can accelerate.

I am not talking about grid lock conditions. I am discussing sloth. There
is open road on the other side of the intersection.

>> Congaling can easily be stopped by just going. Same with peds. I have on
>> many an occasion insisted upon my right of way effectively. It is the
>> enablers and general sloth that allows for those behaviors.

> I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to risk being involved in a serious or
> fatal accident just to prove a point to red light runners.

I've never risked a thing by doing so. You merely need to show that you
are standing up for yourself. It's a bicycling technique. The bicyclist
who teeters on the edge of the road affraid is going to be pushed around
and off the road a lot more than one who takes confident stance on the
road. People push when they think the other person isn't going to stand
up for himself.

>> > 2. Drivers have to respond to the car in front.
>>
>> Um no.

> Umm, yes. If the car in front isn't moving, you can only move as far as
> that car's rear bumper. Unless you want to take to the shoulder,
> sidewalk, or median.

Everyone can respond to the light. I've seen it work, I've commuted in
it. It wasn't in the US. It works wonderfully.

>> > Unlike an F1 start,
>> > were as soon as the red light goes off, you take off, and move to the
>> > outside or inside of the car in front, at an intersection, you're
>> > stuck. You can't react to the light and move, you must wait for the car
>> > in front to move first.

>> In an environment with competent drivers trained properly, the slinky
>> effect is too tiny to be noticed. In the USA drivers are trained to start
>> moving 2 seconds after the car in front has moved away. Assinine waste of
>> throughput.

> Do you have some sort of model or video footage describing this?

No. Drive the main street through flensburg Germany I doubt it's changed.

> I fail
> to see how a group of 30 cars that are in a line stopped can accelerate
> into a 30 car group with sufficient distance between each car without
> some sort of noticeable delay. After all, if 30 cars are stopped at a
> light, 1 foot apart, there has to be either a delay between cars,
> increasingly slower acceleration, or decreasing speed as you go back in
> the queue to achieve a sufficient gap between cars at speed.

You create your separation on the far side of the intersection when you
are actually getting up to speed. The idea is to get as many cars
through on the green signal as possible. 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.

> On 4/16/2006 11:25 PM ... Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:47:34 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> Is that why I-285 here in Atlanta only averages 15 mph in some
>>> locations during rush hour? Because of all the "sloths"?
>> Yes. Slow reaction times, failure to accelerate swiftly.
>
> That's it exactly.
>
> The standard rule of thumb is to increase following distance as speeds
> increase. The problem with Sloth is they increase following distance
> as speeds DECREASE. Look around you the next time you're in
> stop-and-go traffic. How many morons are keeping a 10-carlength
> following distance even though their average speed is 5 MPH? Some do
> it to "save wear and tear" on their brakes; some do it to "damp out
> the waves" of slowing and make traffic flow more smoothly; and some
> are just oblivious ****s who are extremely slow to realize that the
> car ahead of them has moved on and thete is now a 10-carlength gap in
> front of them.
>
> But whatever the cause, the result is the same: WASTED SPACE. All that
> empty space between the cars means fewer cars passing any given point
> per unit time. Fewer cars means lower throughput. And it's all due to
> Sloth.

Obviously military convoy drivers training is in order.

Brent P wrote:

> I have rutinely out accelerated drivers with my bicycle. It's not that I
> am a cycling superstar, I'm not. I'm probably slower than I've ever been
> right now. They just don't accelerate, they slotherate. There is no
> reason for me, with a bicycle to get upwards of a block jump on the
> driver in the lane next to me from a dead stop.

Well, your power to weight ratio at low speeds beats the socks
off your average car. When cycling, I'm usually across the
intersection before their back wheels have entered it.

Also, it can be correct for drivers to drive slowly if there is another
red light shortly ahead.

In article . com>, Old Wolf wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> I have rutinely out accelerated drivers with my bicycle. It's not that I
>> am a cycling superstar, I'm not. I'm probably slower than I've ever been
>> right now. They just don't accelerate, they slotherate. There is no
>> reason for me, with a bicycle to get upwards of a block jump on the
>> driver in the lane next to me from a dead stop.

> Well, your power to weight ratio at low speeds beats the socks
> off your average car.

I could beat my best bicycle acceleration with the torqueless wonder car
easily.

> When cycling, I'm usually across the
> intersection before their back wheels have entered it.

That's because of the drivers, not the car. I do similiar or
better regardless of vehicle. (car or bicycle)

> Also, it can be correct for drivers to drive slowly if there is another
> red light shortly ahead.

I have corrected my sampling for that.

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. Won't happen!! Furthermore, if it did, when the light turned
red again, everyone would have to stop at the same time, no matter how
far back they were. That won't happen either. This is traffic, not a
train. (Acutally, even a train has some slack that must be taken up
when it gets going.)

You can out-accelerate busy traffic when you are on a bike because the
traffic is full. If there is only one or two cars on the road, you
probably don't have a chance, unless traffic lights stop them every
other block, as would happen in city traffic.

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.
A coordinated group acceleration is fine in theory, but nearly
impossible in traffic. Especially since everyone has to watch for the
super-hero who tries to run the red light from the sides.....

Methinks you are safer to us all when you are on the bike! ;<)

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.

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

> If there is only one or two cars on the road, you
> probably don't have a chance, unless traffic lights stop them every
> other block, as would happen in city traffic.

I out accelerate sloths when it's just me and the sloth.

In article .com>, 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.

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.

> A coordinated group acceleration is fine in theory, but nearly
> impossible in traffic.

Yet I saw it for an entire work week's worth of commuting in a foreign
country. I doubt that week was anything special and the roads were full.

> Especially since everyone has to watch for the
> super-hero who tries to run the red light from the sides.....

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

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