Speed vs. ControlFollow

Yes, I've heard of this idea and would love something like this.



Almost daily in Seattle there's at least 2 accidents during rush hour traffic, many times many more depending on weather. It only takes a couple of times stuck in traffic (and I mean really really stuck in traffic) that make you wish something like this was in place. There's also more than a handful of people in Seattle that equate rain to snow and also a lot of others that think there's no difference between rain and dry roads. Both of these types of people **** me off and/or worry me. If a system like this was put in place a lot of us would be relatively assured that we wouldn't have to deal with that one person doing 10 miles an hour slower than the flow of traffic while sitting in the fast lane; or vise versa the "invulnerable to the world and laws of physics" speed deamon weaving in and out of traffic.

*stares at Kelti's avatar*
*stares at Kelti's avatar*
*stares at Kelti's avatar*
*stares at Kelti's avatar*
*stares at Kelti's avatar*

Ohhhh pretty.

I actually enjoy driving. However, if it would prevent accidents and the driving challenged, I'd be in favor of this type of technology.

Damn, half the people on the road these days are so busy talking on their cell phone, drinking their coffee, smoking a cigarette and doing their makeup/reading the paper that you'd think this was already in place.

Absolutely not!

I can't imagine anything worse than someone getting between me and driving!
Anybody who doesn't care about driving should get off the damn road and take public transportation.

You bet. Especially over long (4+) hour of driving.

Hasn't anyone else ever drank so much that they don't remember driving home before? It would kinda be like that, except not so scary the morning after.

I would love to see something like this implemented in the surrounding tri-state area of NY.

I see more pro's than con's.

I'd give up control in a second.

I drive about 150 miles a day, and YES!!! Get those cars together at the same pace. The sheer number of f'ucking Ayrton Senna-wannabe idiots in cars is insane.

I think I could eventually get used to a system like this. At first I'd be afraid of giving up the control. But I'm sure I'd come to love it.

btw, i thought this was gonna be some sex talk, hehe

Yep, one lane for this auto-pilot, the rest for me.

And, Nadenu, you weren't the only one. It's bait and switch, I tell you.

I'd go with speed. I've done a lot of work to my car and can control it very well, even in poor weather. However, I am always friggin late.

Last time? Was there a first time?

hehe, just poking fun =D

On speed limits:

1) There is currently no proof that lower speed limits result in lower death rates.

2) The current speed limits are not based on road conditions nor traffic flow.

3) The speed limits where designed when cars did not have ABS, wide tires, and powersteering was in it's infancy.

4) Raising speed limits has LOWERED fatalities on highways.

For more issues on the speed laws and realities http://www.motorists.org

The ONLY time in my life when I have come close to a crash on a highway was when a driver in front me me floored his breaks because he spotted a speed trap up ahead. I tapped his bumper(no dmg).

I would NEVER vote for any of the follwing:

1) Lower speed limits.
2) Flow control devices on higways.
3) Trafic Calming devices anywhere (speed bumps etc)
4) GPS controled speed enforcment.
5) EZPass based speed enfrorcment.
6) RFID based speed enforcment.
7) Automated driving system.

All of these would only inconvinience me. If I couldn't drive at my 'normal' speed on the highways, I'd do it on local roads. I already avoid highways due to the speed traps.

If the govrnment is so concerned about highway fatalities, they should raise the speed limit. They won't though. It's too profitable. You can read about just how much income govrnemnts get from traffic tickets at NMA ( http://www.motorists.org ).

Sorry. I can't resist!



Hehe. Yes. You have discovered the governments evil plot to, um... uh... make it take longer for people to get places.

I would think for it to be some kind of conspiracy or plot, there would need to be some actual gain to be made somewhere to justify the whole thing. But hey! I don't want to get between someone and their pet theory or anything... ;)

All kidding aside, I remember that as well (remember the commercials with the guy putting the egg on the hood and under the accelerator?). While I wouldn't call it a plot or anything, I do think there's at least a tiny bit of deception involved. The ideal speed to drive for maximized fuel efficiency varies wildly by car type (and engine size, number of cylinders, etc). Back then, 55 may very well have been a good average speed. Today? Hard to say. If you're weaving in and out of traffic and speeding up and slowing down constantly, you're wasting fuel. Better to slow down your high speeds a bit since you're not able to maintain them long enough to make up the fuel cost for the acceleration. However, on long drives where I'm able to maintain a pretty constant speed, I've found that I get my best milage somewhere around 75-80 mph.

So there's some truth to the ideas. I just don't think a national limit is a really practical approach. I also agree that cars today are vastly safer to drive at higher speeds. With my old 71 Duster, you could really feel it when you went over 80 (smoothed out nicely at about 100 though). With my current car, I can cruise at 80-90 and it feels the same as going 60 in the older car. So safety isn't really as much a factor anymore as it used to be.





Not so sure it's environmentally driven. Most environmentalists would argue against cars in general (autodriven or not). They'd want us to remove our highways and replace them with tolleys and bus systems. And those are the moderal environmentalists. Mass transit is the strongest argument from that camp right now (and has been for quite some time).


The driving force for this sort of thing really are the transportation organizations. Cities spend huge amounts of money building freeway infrastructure to support their traffic. The real gain of this sort of system is that you more efficiently utilize the current freeway space. The human factor in driving is what causes the slowness during rush hour. People insisting on needing to get into that spot that's one car farther along removes the holes that other cars need in order to change lanes. The more lanes on a freeway, the more apparent this effect. That's one of the reasons why simply widening existing freeways rapidly generates a point of diminishing returns. As you add lanes, you increase the number of lane changes, which increases the percentage of "gaps" needed between cars. Many larger cities are really feeling this effect.

However, if you put the cars under computer control, the traffic problems during rush hour pretty much vanish. The exact same size freeway system could manage the exact same number of cars during the same time periods, yet maintain a much faster rate of speed.


It's not about slowing folks down. I don't see this being implemented on long stretches of interstate where you can cruise as fast as you want. It's for rush hour traffic where you're lucky to average 20 mph. I think most of us would be willing to give up control of our vehicles when traveling through those areas if it meant that we could get through them in 10 minutes instead of an hour.

Of course, the biggest problem is that you need to find a way to equip cars with the gear. The average person isn't going to want to pay for that. You'll never be able to ensure that everyone has the system installed, and it's working properly. You'd need to build two systems. One for controlled cars and one for non-controlled ones. It would cost a huge amount initially and would almost definatly require some sort of legistlation requireing new cars to have the system in order for it to ever be built. However, I think long term, it's a worthy idea. I'm just not sure if it can be practically built today.