Can Ants Teach Us How to Program Self-Driving Cars? (scientificamerican.com) 43
gdm (Slashdot reader #97,336) writes:
A study published in Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives investigates how ants avoid traffic jams.... Quoting the abstract: "The results show that ants adopt specific traffic strategies (platoon formation, quasi-constant speed and no overtaking maneuvers) that help avoid jam phenomena, even at high density."
"Researchers are now studying these insects' cooperative tactics to learn how to program self-driving cars that don't jam up," writes Scientific American:
"We're maximizing the interests of individuals, [which] is why, at a given point, you start to have a traffic jam," says study co-author Nicola Pugno, who studies sustainable engineering at the University of Trento in Italy. But self-driving cars, if they one day become ubiquitous, could have more cooperative programming. In one vision of this future, autonomous vehicles would share information with nearby cars to optimize traffic flow — perhaps, the researchers suggest, by prioritizing constant speeds and headways or by not passing others on the road...
Today's drivers can learn at least one thing from ants to avoid causing a traffic jam, says Katsuhiro Nishinari [a mathematical physicist at the University of Tokyo, who studies traffic]: don't tailgate. By leaving room between their car and the one ahead of them, drivers can absorb a wave of braking in dense traffic conditions that would otherwise be amplified into a full-blown "phantom" traffic jam with no obvious cause. "Just keeping away," he says, can help traffic flow smoothly.
In the article the researchers admit there are differences between humans stuck in traffic and ants. "Unlike cars, ants don't crash; they can literally walk over one another." And if they're backed up in a tunnel, "they'll find a way to walk on the ceiling!"
Today's drivers can learn at least one thing from ants to avoid causing a traffic jam, says Katsuhiro Nishinari [a mathematical physicist at the University of Tokyo, who studies traffic]: don't tailgate. By leaving room between their car and the one ahead of them, drivers can absorb a wave of braking in dense traffic conditions that would otherwise be amplified into a full-blown "phantom" traffic jam with no obvious cause. "Just keeping away," he says, can help traffic flow smoothly.
In the article the researchers admit there are differences between humans stuck in traffic and ants. "Unlike cars, ants don't crash; they can literally walk over one another." And if they're backed up in a tunnel, "they'll find a way to walk on the ceiling!"
Cooperative vs competitive (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe self-driving cars can be trained to be cooperative, which would probably result in better driving.
Maybe some of these strategies can be expressed as situational behaviors for driving that are simple enough to be easily understood, indicated as desirable by easily observable local conditons, work when only some people use them, and can be shown to be good for success of the person using them.
Then we could just teach them and gain some of the benefits via voluntary actions driven by enlightened self-int
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe some of these strategies can be expressed as situational behaviors for driving that are ... indicated as desirable by easily observable local conditions ...
If that works out, then we can look into what additional driving tactics could be enabled by an infrastructure that brings in information that is NOT available by local observation, presenting it to the driver in a way that does not cause more problems by distraction that it solves. That would let drivers get some of the advantages of self-drivin
Wanna fix traffic? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ban humans from driving altogether. Self driving cars would probably be a done deal if it didn't have to deal with insane human drivers that do unpredictable things.
Part of me is totally on board with no humans driving on public roadways because of how much more efficient it could be made. Of course, without a car, you lose a huge amount of freedom of movement. So long as I maintain my car and keep it fueled up or charged, I can go where ever I want, whenever I want. Not having that freedom would be very upsetting.
I could see humans mostly banned from driving in the future. It may take another 40 years but younger folks are much less likely to have a car then compared to the same age two decades ago. If that trend continues, I expect today's children to be 100% okay with not being allowed to drive in the way we do today.
For me, it seems like giving up to much freedom for the theoretical cost savings and, depending on your perspective, the convenience of just summoning a ride.
I'll keep driving until they take my license from me.
Re: (Score:2)
And sometimes with a car, you lose a huge amount of freedom of movement! [youtube.com]
We badly need [imgur.com] more buses that don't get stuck in traffic, [youtu.be] it would free up the roads for people who are forced to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of movement isn't about owning a car. It's about building cities and functioning mass transit systems so you don't need to. You want true freedom, live in a a place where a car isn't *needed*.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of movement isn't about owning a car. It's about building cities and functioning mass transit systems so you don't need to. You want true freedom, live in a a place where a car isn't *needed*.
And where an urban park is as close as you will come to wilderness. If you want true freedom get out of the city more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't imagine all of Japan but Tokyo seems to do pretty well
Why so few people drive in Tokyo [brandondonnelly.com] (It references an Economist article, but I don't subscribe to The Economist)
Among developed cities, Tokyo has the lowest car use in the world. About 12% of trips are completed with a car, whereas 17% of trips are done with a bicycle. Most people walk and/or take transit. Tokyo has the most-used public transit system in the world -- about 30 million people each day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self-driving taxis means you will not need to own a car. In the city a self-driving taxi will always be closer to you than anywhere you could possibly store a private car. And as opposed to human-driven taxis, you can keep the self-driving taxi at your rural location while you are there. Self-driving taxis can also be parked very densely as there is no need for an arbitary one to be able to exit the parking garage at any time.
I fully expect private car ownership to quickly be only for collectors and hobbyis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having people computing by car it's an huge waste of resource and time. Designing cities to make easy and fast to use public transportation
Re: Wanna fix traffic? (Score:2)
"design cities"... Like they're making more all the time and just need to get one fresh off the conveyor belt and plop it down.
You can't "design" a city anymore. I used to love this idea, but it's a fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Autonomous cars would make for freaky things like traffic-light-less intersections, where cars can space themselves out and just go straight on through the intersection because conflicting traffic will simply not happen.
It's freaky just watching a demo of it happening, being in the vehicle when barely missing conflicting traffic must be very unsettling.
But it does allow you to sail through the intersection without stopping
Uh huh ... (Score:2)
Today's drivers can learn at least one thing from ants to avoid causing a traffic jam, ... By leaving room between their car and the one ahead of them, ...
And then someone else inevitably pulls in between.
Researchers fail by using the words "driver" and "learn" in the same sentence. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Are these headlines always terrible? (Score:2)
Seriously, can we just ban headlines with question marks at the end of them?
"Researchers study the behaviors of ants, implications for self-driving cars" is so much better than this nonsense. It's one step away from One Cool Trick Ants Hate.
15 minute cities (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
We already have examples of these cities and they are fucking GREAT. Driving is the absolute worst. It takes my time away and forces me to abandon all other activities while it's being done.
As for the global elite giving up their cars, they don't have cars. Their drivers have cars. You want a taste of what it's like to be a global elite? Catch public transport and marvel at the ability to get from one place to another while being free to read a book, use your phone, or chat with a friend.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Driving it's totally the worst.
Especially when it rains
Or you have to do more than carry something that fits in a backpack
Or you've been injured
Or you have a disability
Or you're too old to ride a bike
Or you need to transport your children
Re: (Score:2)
This! The only people clamoring to ban cars are either students, childless, or clueless. Sure, if you're single, live downtown, and party, owning a car likely doesn't make sense. If you have 2 young kids, you're going to find that bus ride with 2 car seats, a double stroller, diaper bag, and groceries a bit suboptimal. Think that homeless guy on the bus needs a shower? Wait until you experience the aroma of a diaper blowout with feces smeared on your clothes on a warm summer day bus ride or the scent of a 4
Re: (Score:2)
"Not having to drive" is NOT THE SAME as "not allowed to drive". You moron, and so frightened to spasms of illogic.
Here's the first test (Score:2)
The car is driving on a road at the speed limit when there is a short, sixty feet or so, downward hill in the road which then goes up the other side. If the car brakes going down that short hill to stay at the speed limit rather than coast, it fails.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how you create congestion, by speeding up and slowing down.
When you slow down, the driver behind you slows down, but to maintain the same following distance and compensate for their reaction time, they have to slow down slightly more than you for a bit, then speed back up. The driver behind them needs to do the same, but more so.
It can get to the point where cars end up stopping completely before they start moving again.
Constant speed, hill or no hill, fixes that type of congestion. The other way to
Re: (Score:2)
That's how you create congestion, by speeding up and slowing down.
This is on a short hill. Letting your car coast down a short hill uses gravity and momentum to your advantage. You use less fuel/electricity than braking going down then having to reaccelerate harder to go up the other side. It also reduces the wear and tear on your brakes by not using them as much, especially in electric vehicles which are heavier than ICE vehicles.
Braking while going down short hills causes congestion because it holds up
Re: (Score:2)
The probable self-driving car is a hybrid or an EV, and it gets most of the energy back going down the hill that it spends going up it.
Hills aren't big problems for modern gasoline vehicles either, it's now common to do a fuel cut whenever it's feasible. I only have one major hill on my way to work because it's Humboldt, but going up that hill I only lose 10 mpg, and on the way down I get 90 or so — on cruise control, which I can just barely do in 6th or can do comfortably in 5th. And I'm not driving
Re: (Score:2)
The electic or hybrid car gets NEGATIVE MPG when going down hill, so the gas car is pretty bad in comparison.
You are certainly right about speed. From the distance our PHEV gets on batteries alone, it is obvious that travelling at about 1mph (in really bad traffic) is about 2x more efficient than at higher speeds, in that the battery really goes 2x the distance. This is due entirely to wind and rolling resistance being lower.
Not a new concept (Score:3)
Way back in the 70s in driver's-ed classes they taught us this: the best way to get where you're going quickly is to cooperate with other drivers, settle into the flow and leave room for traffic to merge in and generally don't disrupt the smooth flow of traffic even when that means driving slower than you might otherwise. They even demonstrated the differences for us. But people are greedy, and while they'll cheerfully take credit for gaining one spot by cutting in and out they'll equally cheerfully blame everyone else for the traffic jams that cutting in and out generate. Fortunately we can program self-driving cars to not be greedy. Humans are a bit harder to issue wetware updates for.
But seriously, if these researchers are just now realizing this then they need to go back to the traffic studies done in the 60s and 70s (and possibly earlier). All of it's applicable to self-driving cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are a bit harder to issue wetware updates for.
A bit. But that's what traffic court is for.
Re: (Score:2)
To all those who think they're being extra cautious by merging onto a 70MPH highway at 40MPH, I think he's talking to you.
Fluid dynamics (Score:2)
By leaving room between their car and the one ahead of them, drivers can absorb a wave of braking in dense traffic conditions that would otherwise be amplified into a full-blown "phantom" traffic jam with no obvious cause. "Just keeping away," he says, can help traffic flow smoothly.
Some driving techniques make traffic behave like fluids: Compressible gasses (Car ahead of you slows - you slow some but progressively more as you get closer, Car beside you jogs left two feet, you jog one foot. etc.) Liquid
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic is horribly non linear. One might end up making some terrible engineering decisions assuming otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic is horribly non linear.
So is fluid dynamics.
It's also very complicated and counter-intuitive, to the point that even experts had to resort to models in wind tunnels and scaling laws, until supercomputers and their algorithms could model it down to submicroscopic levels and handle the details of the positive-feedback transitions.
Sounds promising (Score:2)