XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com
In article ,
Bernard Peek wrote:
> But every time a manual and
> automatic traffic stream cross you lose the advantage of automated
> traffic. Automated vehicles can cross a junction without either stream
> needing to stop. When you throw manual drivers into the mix you need to
> go back to having traffic lights.
Not necessarily. Have you ever taken a motorcycle safety course? One
of the exercises they do is to travel in a figure 8 where the riders
have to alternate crossing without screwing up the flow. No traffic
lights necessary. Perhaps we just need to train car drivers to the same
standards.
Also, keep in mind that the topic is supposed to be having a "transition
state". You don't "go back" to traffic lights; they are *already* the
standard that is in place. A self-driving car would have to cope with
them, and yours is the first call I've seen to eliminate them completely.
> I do see rails, or at least separate roadways, as part of the solution
> if we have both automatic and manually driven vehicles. But a large part
> of the advantage of automated driving is the ability to make better use
> of even minor roads.
But, again, when the issue is transition, you don't have to give those
edge conditions the same priority as the lower-hanging fruits. Traffic
nightmares seldom happen on side streets, so it makes less sense to pour
resources into having a 100% solution that covers that. Of you can get
a 90% solution at 20% the cost, that's a steal.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
