|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 13, 2014 4:32:25 GMT
on the surface, it looks like it is an obvious no - go slower = less progress, right? but when you think about following distances, if they are following a two second rule, then you get about one car through every two seconds - only varying by how long it takes the actual car to go past. If people tend to crowd the two second rule as they slow down, it might even get more than one car every two seconds.
the more complex question is whether it affects lane hopping, and the ripple effect. does the ripple effect have more impact at higher speeds or lower speeds?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 13, 2014 7:58:29 GMT
The ideas behind this...
Slower Motorway speeds, less accidents, free-er moving traffic, less past the post, yes less past the post, allows more cars to get out of the damn way where they exit the motorway.
These motorways are feeding surface roads that dont run as fast as the motorway, if there isnt enough room, they clog up quickly, and that backs up the motorway.
It is all a con trick, you do take longer moving on your journey, but, you spend less time not moving.
The bonus is all the motorway traffic is now running at the same speed, less brake testing of Heavy Goods as someone makes a gap in the front bumper.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 13, 2014 13:43:05 GMT
The ideas behind this... Slower Motorway speeds, less accidents, free-er moving traffic, less past the post, yes less past the post, allows more cars to get out of the damn way where they exit the motorway. These motorways are feeding surface roads that dont run as fast as the motorway, if there isnt enough room, they clog up quickly, and that backs up the motorway. It is all a con trick, you do take longer moving on your journey, but, you spend less time not moving. The bonus is all the motorway traffic is now running at the same speed, less brake testing of Heavy Goods as someone makes a gap in the front bumper. ramp congestion is definitely a thing. our more congested areas use traffic lights on the on-ramps to limit the number of cars that can flood the lane at a time. however, that does little about cars backing up to get OFF the freeway. but the thing is - though the surface street runs lower velocity, it should still pass a car past the post every two seconds - just closer together. of course, if it is at a stop because of a traffic light, it throws all that out the window. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 16, 2014 13:50:51 GMT
I been asking questions....
The jury is out.
If you count how many vehicles pass a certain point, then more vehicles pass a certain point if they are all sticking to a set speed limit.... say 50mph on an otherwise 70 limit with suicide lane.
HOWEVER....
If that traffic slows to say 40mph, the count gets worse.
So the question is, how does it affect peoples journey times?...
I cant find that.
Strange, because more vehicles pass the point, they stopped researching there and then, as it proved the point they were trying to make.
The research into did that make peoples average journey time longer was cherry picked to a hand picked few who said it was better for them.....
It didnt cover every single road user.
Yes it did help heavy transport, because moving at 50mph is moving, not stop start of mixed speed traffic.
But then again, 50mph is pretty much maxed out under a full load anyway?...(In UK max 55mph law)
Try as hard as I can, I cant find an unbiased research that shows the whole truth from any side.
Either someone has an axe to grind or it proves something for some govt. Agency....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 16, 2014 16:18:50 GMT
I been asking questions.... The jury is out. If you count how many vehicles pass a certain point, then more vehicles pass a certain point if they are all sticking to a set speed limit.... say 50mph on an otherwise 70 limit with suicide lane. HOWEVER.... If that traffic slows to say 40mph, the count gets worse. So the question is, how does it affect peoples journey times?... I cant find that. Strange, because more vehicles pass the point, they stopped researching there and then, as it proved the point they were trying to make. The research into did that make peoples average journey time longer was cherry picked to a hand picked few who said it was better for them..... It didnt cover every single road user. Yes it did help heavy transport, because moving at 50mph is moving, not stop start of mixed speed traffic. But then again, 50mph is pretty much maxed out under a full load anyway?...(In UK max 55mph law) Try as hard as I can, I cant find an unbiased research that shows the whole truth from any side. Either someone has an axe to grind or it proves something for some govt. Agency.... my question was essentially whether having a town with a reduced speed limit on a highway would make it necessary to add lanes to compensate for the reduced speed limit. or - if one assumed you had all competent drivers, could you take a high speed motorway and have them all reduce speed to pass a set point at half the normal speed, without causing a backup on the motorway. my question had no bearing on whether going slower increases an individual car's travel time - because the answer to that is a mathematically sound yes. the question of mixed velocity traffic boggling things up is another very relevant question. And for the record(I know I've said it before) my opinion is that mandating mixed speed traffic will tend to magnify bad driving. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 20, 2014 10:53:50 GMT
I cant work this out, so perhaps I need to ask.
If every individual spends LONGER getting there.....
Just how can you process more traffic?...
I just cant work out the maths.
Proposal, 100 vehicles of all descriptions leave points A, B, and C, for destination Z, at random times within say 10 min window.
They all converge at point "M" which is roughly in the middle of the average distance and from then in, they all have to travel the same roads.
You have no speed limit restrictions, so normal road speeds apply, whatever they should be.
You do not HAVE to go as fast as is legal, its a limit, not a bloody target....
You repeat the experiment, but now, you restrict those vehicles to 50mph.
Its a known that the average time to get to "Z" is going to be longer.....
You may get more-vehicles-past-the-post-per-minute at pint "M", which is what is being claimed by this research, but, as each vehicle is spending longer on the road, isnt that pumping out more "Cancer forming" toxic gasses?....
Just how is this helping?...
The judgement of it being better is the REDUCTION of journey times isnt it?.. just when did it become more vehicles past the post per minute at a certain point in the middle of a journey?...
I am not understanding the maths being used that "prove" this is a better way to do things if in actual fat its increasing the average journey times...
Ok, maybe I am looking at this from a different direction...
So thats what you expect from me isnt it?..
But anyway, anyone care to venture an opinion here?.. 'Cos I cant be right can I?.. all this research is complete Bunkum, and restrictions like that are not helping?...
Or is something else going on.
Show me the research that it has a definite remarkable effect on traffic safety....
If it reduces my "chance" of being in an incident, maybe they have a point.
If this is a known accident black-spot, or its through roadworks, go ahead, there is a valid point.
But to just restrict all express ringroads bypasses and motorway ($Freeway) to 50 just to get numbers... why?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 20, 2014 15:54:24 GMT
I cant work this out, so perhaps I need to ask. If every individual spends LONGER getting there..... Just how can you process more traffic?... I just cant work out the maths. Proposal, 100 vehicles of all descriptions leave points A, B, and C, for destination Z, at random times within say 10 min window. They all converge at point "M" which is roughly in the middle of the average distance and from then in, they all have to travel the same roads. You have no speed limit restrictions, so normal road speeds apply, whatever they should be. You do not HAVE to go as fast as is legal, its a limit, not a bloody target.... You repeat the experiment, but now, you restrict those vehicles to 50mph. Its a known that the average time to get to "Z" is going to be longer..... You may get more-vehicles-past-the-post-per-minute at pint "M", which is what is being claimed by this research, but, as each vehicle is spending longer on the road, isnt that pumping out more "Cancer forming" toxic gasses?.... Just how is this helping?... The judgement of it being better is the REDUCTION of journey times isnt it?.. just when did it become more vehicles past the post per minute at a certain point in the middle of a journey?... I am not understanding the maths being used that "prove" this is a better way to do things if in actual fat its increasing the average journey times... Ok, maybe I am looking at this from a different direction... So thats what you expect from me isnt it?.. But anyway, anyone care to venture an opinion here?.. 'Cos I cant be right can I?.. all this research is complete Bunkum, and restrictions like that are not helping?... Or is something else going on. Show me the research that it has a definite remarkable effect on traffic safety.... If it reduces my "chance" of being in an incident, maybe they have a point. If this is a known accident black-spot, or its through roadworks, go ahead, there is a valid point. But to just restrict all express ringroads bypasses and motorway ($Freeway) to 50 just to get numbers... why?... because you are still fixating on how long it takes YOU to get to your destination. the question is about whether, when I have something that forces traffic to slow down, such as a particularly obnoxious corner, I have to add more lanes to compensate. as I said, if you cut the speed in half it will take twice as long for a car to get from point A to point B. that is a mathematically confirmed fact, and nobody is arguing with it. However, we have one particular town on the highway to the coast, where the speed limit is 25 MPH. invariably on weekends, there is a line a half an hour long or more to go through town. the question is, is it the fact that the speed limit is 25 which is causing the backup? It appears to me from further thought that the answer is no. (I think the problem is more that the town also reduces the number of available travel lanes.) I think a town would still need to add lanes, because if the highway is also used as a city street, the city will add its own traffic, and that will need to be accommodated, or it will create a problem. where the theory is currently being applied is in congestion areas - if traffic starts getting boggled up, the speed limit on incoming traffic is reduced with the intention of adding cars to the jam more slowly - in the hope that the jam will dissipate. the science would be to determine that given the AVERAGE driver - what speed moves the most cars per minute past the post; and set the limit at that until the jam has dissipated, and you can raise the limit, again. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 21, 2014 9:33:54 GMT
I still dont get how increasing travel time is better in anyone's estimation.
Getting more vehicles per hour past a certain point doesnt make sense....
Its just THAT point.
Why does that increase the travel time for each vehicle?...
]If that point isnt the final destination, it isnt important is it?...
But again, if more vehicles are getting past that point, how the heck are they not getting to final destination faster?.... what happens to all those vehicles??..
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 21, 2014 15:32:36 GMT
I still dont get how increasing travel time is better in anyone's estimation. Getting more vehicles per hour past a certain point doesnt make sense.... Its just THAT point. Why does that increase the travel time for each vehicle?... ]If that point isnt the final destination, it isnt important is it?... But again, if more vehicles are getting past that point, how the heck are they not getting to final destination faster?.... what happens to all those vehicles??.. it isn't. that is why I asked whether having a reduced speed zone would still allow as many cars to pass as the full speed zone - because the alternative is that you have just created the world's largest circular car park and ain't NOBODY getting where they are going in any reasonable time. I'm not asking if you can drive a hundred miles at 60 MPH faster than you can drive a hundred miles at 30 MPH. I am asking if having a 100 yard stretch of the hundred miles at 30 MPH will result in you driving the entire hundred miles at 30 MPH with one finger on the horn and the other out the window. |
|
