Driverless Cars Could Force Other Road Users To Drive More Efficiently (newscientist.com) 221
MattSparkes shares a report from New Scientist: The idea that autonomous cars, even in small numbers, can increase fuel efficiency, travel times and safety for all cars on the road will be put to the test on routes around Nashville, Tennessee, later this year. Benedetto Piccoli at Rutgers University, New Jersey, and his colleagues previously used a computer model of a simple circular road with just one lane in each direction, and found that autonomous cars could decrease overall fuel consumption of all traffic by 40 percent, even once adoption of these vehicles had only reached 5 per cent.
The best-case scenarios from these new models "rarely happen" in the real world, he says, but his team still hopes to reduce fuel consumption of all vehicles on the road during the trial -- not just the driverless cars -- by as much as 10 percent. "If you take just the overall cost of the traffic system in any country, and you reduce that by even 5 percent we are talking about billions of dollars," he says. The researchers have shared their findings in a paper via arXiv.org.
The best-case scenarios from these new models "rarely happen" in the real world, he says, but his team still hopes to reduce fuel consumption of all vehicles on the road during the trial -- not just the driverless cars -- by as much as 10 percent. "If you take just the overall cost of the traffic system in any country, and you reduce that by even 5 percent we are talking about billions of dollars," he says. The researchers have shared their findings in a paper via arXiv.org.
Hope you like to drive slowly (Score:4, Insightful)
Slowing all drivers down will increase fuel efficiency, too.
Re: Hope you like to drive slowly (Score:2)
Growing up, I remember the big "55" being highlighted on every spedometer at the time.
I also remember the indicator being well on the right hand side of "55" most of the time on the freeway and cars still zooming past.
Re: Hope you like to drive slowly (Score:2)
Do you also remember the rolling roadblocks?
Whatever those guys got off the road everybody else went 90 to make up for lost time
Re: (Score:2)
I used to have a Honda Civic hatchback and do 100 mph with it. No problems. In fact because of it's lightweight it handled better then stanard cars.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I used to have a Honda Civic hatchback and do 100 mph with it. No problems. In fact because of it's lightweight it handled better then stanard cars.
Did it have a loud ricer exhaust, stupid tyres and a big sticker in the back window also?
Re: (Score:3)
Slowing all drivers down will increase fuel efficiency, too.
Yes, but slowing down wastes time.
SDCs can increase fuel efficiency while saving time by making traffic flow more smoothly.
For instance, when an SDC approaches a traffic light, it will adjust its speed to reach the light just as it turns green, thus cruising through with minimal braking. All the HDCs behind the SDC will follow along and have the same benefit.
Fuel efficiency increases because braking is minimized, and traffic flow is optimized as more cars make it through the intersection.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a SDC/HDC?
I guess it's not a big deal to me...when I'm on the road, especially when highway driving on a long trip, efficiency is not my priority, getting to my destination as quickly as possible is...
I don't want someone or something impeding my journey.
I don't
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can't.
The only reason they can't is because traffic lights don't provide any signal that they're about to turn green.
But this is, I suspect, more about evening out the flow of stop-and-go traffic by slowing the traffic down to the average speed of the road, thus disrupting the accordion effect.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason they can't is because traffic lights don't provide any signal that they're about to turn green.
In many countries they have huge digital counters next to the traffic lights counting down - for both red AND green - so you can pace yourself properly.
Only problem is that you sometimes have traffic that gets priority (emergency services, public transport) so I'm not exactly sure how those cases are handled then.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, the count goes away and the formerly green lights go red.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems really dumb. Being able to anticipate when the light will be green means traffic can be moving at nearly full speed as soon as the light changes, which is dangerous. Here, we have counters only for pedestrian crossings (so the pedestrians know how soon they have to be out of the street). These counters are intentionally shielded from crossing traffic so they can not be used to anticipate the green.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason they can't is because traffic lights don't provide any signal that they're about to turn green.
Many lights are on timers. An SDC can look up the timer duration in a database.
There are 300k traffic lights in America, so a 32-bit value for each would mean 1.2 MB of flash, costing about $0.0001.
Re: (Score:2)
Lights that are on timers are old and need to go away. The waste an incredible amount of fuel by having you wait at a red light even when there is no traffic in the crossing direction. Almost as bad are the ones that came after timers where there is a sensor to know when there is a car waiting. These are dumb because you might get through this light, only to have to immediately stop for another one. The 'platooning' lights are much better and more efficient.
Re:Hope you like to drive slowly (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe that is why China has a vehicle fatality rate of 104.5 deaths/100000 motor vehicles/year, while the US's is 14.2. You might want to rethink who is 'backwards'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And increase road rage incidents?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While tailgating is not safe, neither is blocking the usual and reasonable flow of traffic. You could be ticketed for either offense in most places in the U.S.
What you're supposed to do in that case is change lanes, or if that is not possible, to find a safe place to pull over.
Re:Hope you like to drive slowly (Score:4, Informative)
I'd argue that the reasonable and usual flow of traffic does not include people who want to go > 10mph over the speed limit (or 15km/h in this above example)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hope you like to drive slowly (Score:2)
And you being unreasonable is not reasonable.
If someone wants to pass, let them. Then forget they exist and be at peace.
It really is that simple.
Re: Hope you like to drive slowly (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no problems with people passing me. If I'm driving I'm always in the right lane unless I too am passing. However, on a road that is a single lane in each direction, I am not going to pull to the side of the road simply because I'm doing 55 in a 45 and some guy wants to do 60-70. It is reasonable for me to continue to drive a reasonable speed and the person behind me to wait for a dashed line and no oncoming traffic to pass.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah - all i can think about is this as a good example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The number one rule for efficiency (Score:5, Interesting)
I think "force" is probably the wrong word. If they're talking about what I suspect I doubt most people will even notice what they're doing.
We've known for decades now what the number one rule for efficient traffic is - you need to minimize congestion, which kills both speed and efficiency. And that is actually *very* simple to do, even with fairly high traffic levels - ants have mastered it by instinct: Every individual strives to remain halfway between the person in front of them and the person behind them at all times.
That maximizes the resiliency of traffic flow to any disruptions, and prevents the normal speed-killing clusters of high congestion from ever forming in the first place.
Unfortunately nobody teaches that, and normal human driving behaviors are instead to drive fast until you get stopped by the back of one of those congestion-clusters - which is pretty much the best way to make the clusters as bad, and slow, as possible, as quickly as possible.
However, even a relatively small percentage of drivers (or autonomous cars) behaving "properly" to maintain healthy traffic flow has a hugely outsized effect on preventing severe congestion, which lets everyone get to their destination faster.
Drivers suck, and modeling them sucks more (Score:3)
> Unfortunately nobody teaches that, and normal human driving behaviors are instead to drive fast until you get stopped by the back of one of those congestion-clusters - which is pretty much the best way to make the clusters as bad, and slow, as possible
Yep, human nature in traffic is do the worst possible things in terms of congestion. Drivers do NOT behave according to a simple model of rational behavior. Not even close.
It has been in the real world that when you have two routes or lanes before point A
Re: (Score:2)
the number one rule for efficient traffic is - Every individual strives to remain halfway between the person in front of them and the person behind them at all times.
That maximizes the resiliency of traffic flow to any disruptions, and prevents the normal speed-killing clusters of high congestion from ever forming in the first place
This rule probably works very well where everyone obeys it. However, as soon as someone gets "too close" to the car behind, then that car will get "too close" to the car in front as it tries to keep half-way between the surrounding cars. This will then cascade forwards. Also will cascade backwards as the car behind tries to catch up.
The effect will dampen a bit, but if the 'non-conforming' driver tries to maintain a constant distance eventually everyone will match that distance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that is actually *very* simple to do, even with fairly high traffic levels - ants have mastered it by instinct: Every individual strives to remain halfway between the person in front of them and the person behind them at all times.
Interesting, remind me of this "Why Don't Ants Get Stuck In Traffic?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There is one thing they can do, that is crawl over a slower ant. However, ants have a socialist system so getting Americans to do anything remotely that might have elements of a "S" system, might as well title that topic as from the good-luck-with-that dept.
Re:The number one rule for efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, humans are slow to react.
Your reaction time to a standard test might be around 250ms or so, but doing a complex task like driving, it can take 2-3 SECONDS to react. For example - if traffic ahead of you slows suddenly, you will spend about 1-2 seconds just recognizing that fact, then probably another second or two to comprehend what has happened and actually act (like step on the brake). And that's in the ideal case - reaction times of 8-10 seconds from something happening to when action is taken is more "normal".
This is why you can easily start a brake wave - some guy in front steps on the brakes briefly, causing the guy behind him to do the same but harder because the reaction time gave him less braking time, and now a wave starts that propagates backwards and all of a sudden a few miles back you end up in a traffic jam with no cause.
On the other hand, autonomous vehicles can perform their processing loop much faster, so slight speed differences between vehicles can be quickly adjusted for without burning up distance so brake application may be avoided, thus keeping traffic at a more constant pace. Plus, it's possible to react far more quickly, so a block of vehicles can move as one big block rather than a bunch of individual vehicles when the light turns green. Surely you've noticed it - the first vehicle moves when the light turns green, but the second vehicle is slower to react and now the first vehicle is on the other side of the intersection while the second vehicle has just started moving - imagine how many more cars could go through if everyone could smoothly accelerate at the same time.
By driving more consistently and forcing traffic to do the same, this can result in far smoother and faster moving traffic.
And driving slower can be faster - speeding through doesn't actually save you all that much time in the end - a few seconds to a minute tops. It just "feels" faster because you don't feel you stop as long.
Especially in city traffic - if two cars constantly meet at the same traffic light, but one keeps speeding to the next light and braking versus just driving at a slower but constant pace, both vehicles are moving through at the same speed.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that doesn't work for cars.. Congestion builds up because people deaccelerate into it faster than they accelerate out. You could argue people are driving too fast into congestion, but I could even better argue they are not driving fast enough out of congestion.
Re: (Score:2)
Right! And counter-intuitively: When done right it will on average reduce travel time. (because you increase throughput at congestion points).
Re: (Score:2)
I used to enjoy driving
I'm a very efficient driver, time and congestion wise
I am a safe driver (I used to be a VERY safe driver, but there are times when the correct thing is no longer safe)
I've also come to the conclusion that paying attention to the road ahead, mirrors, other drivers and pedestrians has become a 'chore' for people that they have completely de-prioritized. Where I live, I'd say 5-10% of dr
I don't believe in driverless cars (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost burden for that would be too high, just consider insurance as part of the car's price. Driverless cars only need to be slightly safer than human to justify putting them on the road. If they resulted in 39,999 deaths instead of 40,000 killed that would be a win. We are paying billions of dollars to stop violent crime, when less than 20,000 people die from crime .. but 40,000 are killed in traffic accidents and it's not considered a big deal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Firearm injuries have been the #1 cause of death for children and adolescents since 2019. Motor vehicle accidents are #2.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/... [nejm.org]
https://www.usnews.com/news/na... [usnews.com]
Re: I don't believe in driverless cars (Score:2)
I was speaking about overall deaths. If you want to reduce overall deaths and could choose to ban only one thing. Banning human-driven vehicles would save the most lives by far.
Re: (Score:3)
Most gun deaths, are due to suicide. And that's every year.
It truly is incredible in our day and age of sensitivity for all, that we still refuse to acknowledge a serious problem with mental health. Instead, we'll continue to turn a blind eye to the powerful psychotropic drugs most mass killers are running on. How ironic Senator Biden was recognizing the deficiency in mental health in 2007. The end result was the era of Pill Mills and now record-breaking deaths by drugs, twice that of guns. Drug compa
Re: (Score:2)
The CDC is forbidden from collecting a lot of gun statistics, for political reasons, so what it collects is just based on death certificates and then estimating. The FBI keeps more stats, but only on the crime side of things. We really don't have a nationwide collection for gun injury stats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The CDC is the "Center for Disease Control and Prevention". They should have absolutely nothing to do with firearms. It's the Left that's trying to call guns a disease and health issue in order to politicize the CDC as a gun control agency. We have the ATF and FBI to collect such statistics.
Re: I don't believe in driverless cars (Score:3)
Well, we need somebody to track it. If not the CDC, somebody. We need to know the mechanism by which people die. What are you so insecure about that you donâ(TM)t want it tracked? Besides any time someone hurts themselves or others, it is the result of a failure it the brain. Failure to empathize with the targeted group or person, failure to channel pain, failure of judgement. Of course the brain wiring is responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to add rules of enforced ignorance to have the CDC not to know about gun related deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
But I thought gun violence was a mental illness? Should the CDC care about mental illness? The left wants to ban guns, the right wants to claim that the use of a gun to commit violence is simply a health issue to hand wave away the fact that no one actually wants to solve this problem on either side.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting stats, but not really relevant. The firearms-related deaths are almost entirely either criminal violence (mostly gang and drug related) or suicide. Both of those are, one way or another, intentional acts. Even if you could remove guns from the picture, the underlying violence and suicides would remain. If you can't shoot someone, you can still stab them, or hit them over the head with a rock.
Traffic deaths, on the other hand, are accidents and therefore preventable. Autonomous cars have the po
Re: (Score:2)
If you take out the suicide numbers from that, that changes it drastically.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not. I live in deep-purple whatever, and we have drill teams that fire blanks in the football stadium all the time. There's even a famous Civil War cannon that gets fired at football games. There's a hunting club, a target-shooting club, a firearms safety club, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, the NRA used to be all about firearms safety until they got all political.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They still do firearm safety courses and certify trainers. They only got political because taking guns away became political and someone with funding had to stand up against it.
Re: (Score:2)
They still do firearm safety courses and certify trainers. They only got political because taking guns away became political and someone with funding had to stand up against it.
You mean like how the NRA stood up against nationwide concealed carry in order to stop black people from carrying guns?
Re: (Score:2)
They only got political because taking guns away became political and someone with funding had to stand up against it.
False. The NRA got political when black people were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and a white Republican didn't think people should be allowed to carry guns in the open [californialocal.com].
In fact, that Republican stated at that time:
“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,”
And the NRA was fine with it.
Re: (Score:2)
GOA (Gun Owners of America) and JPFO (Jews for Preservation of Firearm Ownership) are organizations with much less tendency to compromise on the right of self-defense, than the NRA.
Indeed, I have always suspected that the NRA is "controlled opposition."
Re: I don't believe in driverless cars (Score:2)
You cannot maintain the innocence of a child through a policy of enforced ignorance.
And yet, people constantly try this method. Even when it has been proven to be disastrously ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies are already working with car manufacturers to bundle insurance directly into a lease. So it will simply appear that it's included in the cost of your car. They see the end of personal car ownership coming and they are probably right.
Re: (Score:2)
unless the manufacturer pays for the insurance.
The insurance will cost about the same whether you buy it or it is added to the price of the car.
So why do you care?
Driverless Cars and Force, Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Driverless Cars and Force, Great! (Score:2)
How about we form driverless car hunting packs and destroy our four wheeled overlords before they have a chance to take over?
Re: (Score:2)
Driverless Cars Could Force Other Road Users To Dr (Score:2)
HAHAHA!
(clears throat) Yes, the public will fa... ::ppfftf::HAHAHA!
(Sorry, I just can't finish that one)
OK who wants to be the paying passanger? (Score:2)
There won't be any other drivers (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:There won't be any other drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: There won't be any other drivers (Score:2)
Competition, for one thing. Car companies like Tesla already offer insurance, if they donâ(TM)t reduce prices they wonâ(TM)t be able to compete and would go bankrupt.
Re: There won't be any other drivers (Score:2)
Oops ignore my above reply, I misread your comment. Thatâ(TM)s what I get for commenting without reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would medical costs rates skyrocket? Medical/Drug companies make plenty of money off the current rates. No reason for them to not continue to do so.
Let's try those edits on for size. Imagine you saying that 30 years ago, and how much you would be laughed out of the room today.
Re: (Score:3)
Insurance costs will skyrocket for anyone without a self driving car
Why in particular? It's not like driving manually will suddenly become more dangerous. It's likely to become less dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's enough competition in the insurance market that if one company charges too much, the other companies will get all the business.
The reason smokers get charged so much is because their healthcare is more expensive. The insurance companies can charge everyone else less by excluding them.
Re: (Score:3)
You think the pool of manual drivers will be small 10 years after automated driving comes out? Heh. A big percentage of people can't afford a car that's only 10 years old. Those very people are the ones who are not going to be willing to pay higher insurance rates, because they can't afford it. Insurance companies know they can't get blood from a stone.
Re: (Score:2)
Driverless cars will only be certified on certain roads
Self-driving cars are not certified by road or by type of road.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality trumps certification
Re: (Score:2)
Honda and Audi have level 3 self driving cars that are only legally certified for certain roads.
Level 3 allows the driver to divert their attention. You can read a book or watch a movie while the car drives for you. The only requirement is that the driver can take over in a reasonable amount of time if the car decides that it is necessary.
Traffic Drones (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I always thought we needed traffic drones to buffer traffic. Most slow downs occurs because of irratic driving that ends up rippling down stream. (I studied traffic theory many years ago in college).
They tried this in Texas a few years ago. As an experiment, they had variable speed limits to try to buffer traffic. The problem was that people still drove like insane assholes, weaving in and around people that were observing the speed limit. It increased the number of accidents IIRC, and basically wound up making things worse. In the past I've done a lot of interstate driving, and new things like adaptive cruise control have come out. There's nothing more frustrating when you're cruising along at the spe
Re: (Score:2)
It's mainly the people that are not going with the flow of traffic causing issues. That can both be someone driving significantly faster than everyone else, or significantly slower. Any situation that causes others to have to slow down (speeders can cause this by weaving between cars which brake as a reflex when cut off) or maneuver around others. There are also people who realize they're going to miss their exit and stop in the left lane to let cars pass on their right so they can cross three lanes and
One lane circular road? (Score:2)
[...] a computer model of a simple circular road with just one lane in each direction, and found that autonomous cars could decrease overall fuel consumption of all traffic by 40 percent [...]
In other news, computer models show decreased fuel consumption when they're simulating spherical cars in a vacuum.
countermeasures (Score:2)
You just need to have some countermeasures, maybe projected road signs, projected road lines, radio interference on communication channels.
At least until road rage sets in (Score:3, Interesting)
I just finished a road trip from SF Bay Area to L.A. area and back. (No not Disneyland) I hadn't done it for a while.
Pretty much the whole way, particularly but not only on I-5, most of the 18-wheel truck traffic was cruising at about 75MPH. That meant the left-lane traffic was typically 80 or more, and often I was driving at 85 to keep optimal distance from other cars. But at that speed I was often passed and I always move to the right lane to let them pass.
Now stick a self-driving car in there, programmed to honor obsolete concepts such as speed limits. Which on that route is 70. A clump of such cars would very likely frustrate a lot of drivers that would be stuck behind them and the trucks trying to pass them but still be able to see open road ahead. This dynamic might be more pronounced on many metro-area commuter routes. I don't think anyone can predict how that small but dangerous percentage of drivers will react in those conditions.
Re: At least until road rage sets in (Score:2)
Uh, whose self driving is programmed to follow absolute concepts? The AI can be configured to do whatever you like. In the Tesla FSD beta, you can set the percent above speed limit for example. You can decide if you want your car to drive like a crazy person. Your choice and obviously if you get pulled over for setting the car to break the law you are responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll vote for a commissioner who does that?
Re: (Score:2)
They are currently in the process of trying to limit all trucks, private and fleet, to be governed at a certain speed.
They should. Here in California the speed limit for any vehicles while towing is 55 but the big rigs are all going 70. Usually, not in their fucking lane.
Re: (Score:2)
Two words for this...
Fuck That!!
Re: (Score:2)
I can't drive 55 (Score:3)
one foot on the brake and one on the gas Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass.
Driverless cars needs to drive with traffic and not at under posted speed limits.
How about getting dangerous drivers off the road (Score:2)
Anyone caught on a cell or texting while driving should get an automatic 1 year suspension. Same for first offense DUI.
Drivers have one responsibility and that is the safe operation of your metal box on wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, in CA a DUI is a misdemeanor.
Academic conclusion for media headlines (Score:2)
I Don't Want (Score:2)
To live in a soul-less world where everything is controlled by a machine.
I physically enjoy driving. It is fun. It is very satisfying.
Re: (Score:2)
Some areas, particularly metro areas, should be automated driver only: the overall flow of traffic in dense are
Driver Behaviour Model (Score:2)
Re:Driver Behaviour Model (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they won't, they'll piss everyone off (Score:3)
This research has already been done. (Score:2)
The research has already been done. It was done near Eindhoven in The Netherlands. Maybe not with autonomous cars, but with people who agreed to drive the system-recommended speed exactly. (little box in their car).
Check your left lane laws (Score:4, Insightful)
It is NOT up to any driver (or autonomous system) to perform traffic control on another.
Indeed, this sort of thing is known to be both stupid and dangerous.
Sure. Easy. (Score:2)
Just have autonomous vehicles drive at slower speeds and of course fuel economy for cars behind them will increase. Derp.
Why not block both lanes with slow moving autonomous vehicles? That would prevent passing.
That would solve the road rage problem too, as you canâ(TM)t intimidate someone that isnâ(TM)t there. You might encourage some potentially nasty treatment of autonomous vehicles, howeverâ¦
All you get (Score:2)
is a lot of smashed autonomous cars as impatient drivers start to drive like maniacs.
Single-lane roads with no passing rarely exist (Score:3)
In reality, human drivers will tailgate the slow moving car blocking traffic and then try to pass when legal (or even when not legal). That's the reason that two-lane roads (one lane in each direction) allow passing in some situations, because otherwise the road would be a instigator of road rage. That's why the study's assumption of single-lane roads with no passing is not useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Single-lane roads with no passing rarely exist
That depends on where you live. In rural areas in many countries they are very common - and yes it is a pain when you get stuck behind a tractor or even a farmer and a dog driving a flock of sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't care what the situation, tailgaters should die in a fire. Slowly. You can be the only two cars on the road for miles and you are doing speed limit + 15 and they are so close a passer by will think you are towing that unsafe tailgater.
Driving (Score:2)
Cars form a wave function.
In part, this is because you can't drive at an identical speed to the car in front, so will drive slower than faster where the average matches the car in front. It obviously can't be faster, but equally, it can't be slower because you'd accelerate when the gap starts to get too big.
However, there's also some latency in the system. And that latency must be cumulative, as you can't react before the car in front.
And there are a bunch more similar effects. The end result is that cars w
Won't help (Score:2)
Drivers will get pissed at the annoying driving of the SDC, and they will try to get it to crash or otherwise F with it to get around it and past it.
it seems logical (Score:2)
It's clear to anyone with moderate road experience that a few people puttering along slows EVERYONE down. I've often wondered that it might not be cheaper and more effective to just give some greybeards back their driver's licenses than to hire 100 more state troopers to hand out speeding tickets.
This is just automating that process.
Alternatively (Score:3)