Video: How Sloth Kills Road Throughput

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Here is a perfect illustration of how Sloth kills throughput on the
> road:
>
> http://www.zippyvideos.com/6203519534801576/sloth/
> --
> What the heck, I'll play too.
> - Dave

Tell me about it. I got behind someone slothing around 0.25 mph slower
than me, and I was a whole 3 seconds later at getting to my destination
than normal. I was so mad, I could have ran them off the road.

When will people learn that if they're not doing the exact speed I'm
doing, they shouldn't be on the road?

In article .com>, wrote:

> When will people learn that if they're not doing the exact speed I'm
> doing, they shouldn't be on the road?

It has nothing to do with speed, but really acceleration, lane usage,
throughput and being able to handle a motor vehicle. I out perform most
sloths while using my bicycle. That's how a I judge a sloth in most
cases, if I can out perform their driving with my bicycle. Now I don't
see how it unreasonable to expect drivers to perform better than I can
with a bicycle.

To illustrate what sloths do to the road system, my commute to my
previous employer was aproximately 6 miles. It consisted of numerous
intersections and traffic lights and stop signs. My driving time was
about 17 minutes. My bicycling time 18 minutes. And that was with sloths
still slowing me down by bicycle.

Brent P wrote:
> To illustrate what sloths do to the road system, my commute to my
> previous employer was aproximately 6 miles. It consisted of numerous
> intersections and traffic lights and stop signs. My driving time was
> about 17 minutes. My bicycling time 18 minutes. And that was with sloths
> still slowing me down by bicycle.

Wow. And all the time I thought it was just simply because there are
more cars, there tends to be more congestion, as more cars lead to more
cars arriving at an intersection at the same time, causing longer
queues.

Is that why I-285 here in Atlanta only averages 15 mph in some
locations during rush hour? Because of all the "sloths"?

In article .com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> To illustrate what sloths do to the road system, my commute to my
>> previous employer was aproximately 6 miles. It consisted of numerous
>> intersections and traffic lights and stop signs. My driving time was
>> about 17 minutes. My bicycling time 18 minutes. And that was with sloths
>> still slowing me down by bicycle.

> Wow. And all the time I thought it was just simply because there are
> more cars, there tends to be more congestion, as more cars lead to more
> cars arriving at an intersection at the same time, causing longer
> queues.

More cars means higher odds of sloth and greater magnification of their
effect. I've seen roads packed with cars move swiftly when there were no
sloth drivers present.

> Is that why I-285 here in Atlanta only averages 15 mph in some
> locations during rush hour? Because of all the "sloths"?

Yes. Slow reaction times, failure to accelerate swiftly. The difference
between slinky effect start ups at traffic lights vs. everyone moving the
moment it turns green is vast alone. Throw in the slotherating, people
not paying attention, talking on the phone, unable to accelerate and turn
at the same time, etc and so forth and it's a huge effect.

I have rutinely out accelerated drivers with my bicycle. It's not that I
am a cycling superstar, I'm not. I'm probably slower than I've ever been
right now. They just don't accelerate, they slotherate. There is no
reason for me, with a bicycle to get upwards of a block jump on the
driver in the lane next to me from a dead stop.

On 16 Apr 2006 19:35:58 -0700, "!" >
wrote:


Morons should not be allowed on Usenet. Since we can't prevent that,
we have to plonk them. Bye bye.

*************************
Dave

Brent P wrote:
> More cars means higher odds of sloth and greater magnification of their
> effect. I've seen roads packed with cars move swiftly when there were no
> sloth drivers present.

That may be so, but there is a practical limit on the capacity of a
roadway, and once that capacity is reached, traffic speeds will
degrade, regardless of how experienced and attentive the drivers are.
One person stopping to make a left turn, even when performed to the
best of the best's ability, can still impede traffic immensely, even on
a multilane road.

Even if the left turner is a sloth, the traffic flow is only further
degraded when people become irritated at the notion of being delayed a
few seconds and try to make hail mary lane changes. So instead of one
slow lane, there's now several.

> > Is that why I-285 here in Atlanta only averages 15 mph in some
> > locations during rush hour? Because of all the "sloths"?
>
> Yes. Slow reaction times, failure to accelerate swiftly. The difference
> between slinky effect start ups at traffic lights vs. everyone moving the
> moment it turns green is vast alone. Throw in the slotherating, people
> not paying attention, talking on the phone, unable to accelerate and turn
> at the same time, etc and so forth and it's a huge effect.

Sure, while inattention and and slow drivers may slow up a queue at a
traffic signal, it's not that big a problem, even with your anecdotal
evidence. There's several factors to consider that keep a green light
at a traffic signal from proceeding like a start to an F1 race:

1. Drivers can't go as soon as the light turns green. Often, red light
runners will hold up the people with the green, replacing a couple of
seconds of legitimate, needed green time for them to proceed as they
like. If not red light runners, then it's people completing left turn
movements being blocked by pedestrians walking against the DO NOT WALK
signal.

2. Drivers have to respond to the car in front. Unlike an F1 start,
were as soon as the red light goes off, you take off, and move to the
outside or inside of the car in front, at an intersection, you're
stuck. You can't react to the light and move, you must wait for the car
in front to move first. Let's assume that everybody in the queue is an
alert driver, and able to process the abilty to go into pressing the
gas pedal in around 1 second. (Which is similar to the reaction time of
an alert driver in a braking situation). It will take 1 second,
therefore, for the lead car to get moving, and 2 seconds for the second
car--1 second for the first car to move, and 1 second to respond. The
thirtieth car won't be able to move until after 30 seconds. So, if
there's more cars in the queue than there are seconds in the green
light, the queues will increase and increase--even when everyone is
alert and quick to react.

DTJ wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2006 19:35:58 -0700, "!" >
> wrote:
>
>
> Morons should not be allowed on Usenet. Since we can't prevent that,
> we have to plonk them. Bye bye.
>
> *************************
> Dave

Plonk me then. If you're too stupid to rebut something, and instead do
the usenet version of "NNAAH I can't hear you!", I don't want you
reading what I have to say anyway.

Most intelligent people will tell you that they learn more from being
presented with alternative view points and criticism of their views
rather than just sheltering in a hole and surrounding themselves with
people that agree with them so they don't have to worry about if they
are right or not.

In article .com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> More cars means higher odds of sloth and greater magnification of their
>> effect. I've seen roads packed with cars move swiftly when there were no
>> sloth drivers present.
>
> That may be so, but there is a practical limit on the capacity of a
> roadway, and once that capacity is reached, traffic speeds will
> degrade, regardless of how experienced and attentive the drivers are.

Sloth lower the capacity of the road severely and bring on that point
much sooner than it need be.

> One person stopping to make a left turn, even when performed to the
> best of the best's ability, can still impede traffic immensely, even on
> a multilane road.

Make it every green arrow at every light, and that's what driving in the
presence of sloth is like.

> Even if the left turner is a sloth, the traffic flow is only further
> degraded when people become irritated at the notion of being delayed a
> few seconds and try to make hail mary lane changes. So instead of one
> slow lane, there's now several.

You are using an exception to prove a rule.

>> > Is that why I-285 here in Atlanta only averages 15 mph in some
>> > locations during rush hour? Because of all the "sloths"?
>>
>> Yes. Slow reaction times, failure to accelerate swiftly. The difference
>> between slinky effect start ups at traffic lights vs. everyone moving the
>> moment it turns green is vast alone. Throw in the slotherating, people
>> not paying attention, talking on the phone, unable to accelerate and turn
>> at the same time, etc and so forth and it's a huge effect.

> Sure, while inattention and and slow drivers may slow up a queue at a
> traffic signal, it's not that big a problem, even with your anecdotal
> evidence. There's several factors to consider that keep a green light
> at a traffic signal from proceeding like a start to an F1 race:

Yet, I experienced that on real roads. The absence of sloth can make a
road laid out in 16 whatever flow better than many wide arterials in the
USA.

> 1. Drivers can't go as soon as the light turns green. Often, red light
> runners will hold up the people with the green, replacing a couple of
> seconds of legitimate, needed green time for them to proceed as they
> like. If not red light runners, then it's people completing left turn
> movements being blocked by pedestrians walking against the DO NOT WALK
> signal.

Congaling can easily be stopped by just going. Same with peds. I have on
many an occasion insisted upon my right of way effectively. It is the
enablers and general sloth that allows for those behaviors.

> 2. Drivers have to respond to the car in front.

Um no.

> Unlike an F1 start,
> were as soon as the red light goes off, you take off, and move to the
> outside or inside of the car in front, at an intersection, you're
> stuck. You can't react to the light and move, you must wait for the car
> in front to move first.

In an environment with competent drivers trained properly, the slinky
effect is too tiny to be noticed. In the USA drivers are trained to start
moving 2 seconds after the car in front has moved away. Assinine waste of
throughput.

<blah,blah,blah>

I've experienced it, it can and does work. period.

! wrote:
> DTJ wrote:
> > On 16 Apr 2006 19:35:58 -0700, "!" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Morons should not be allowed on Usenet. Since we can't prevent that,
> > we have to plonk them. Bye bye.
> >
> > *************************
> > Dave
>
> Plonk me then. If you're too stupid to rebut something, and instead do
> the usenet version of "NNAAH I can't hear you!", I don't want you
> reading what I have to say anyway.
>
> Most intelligent people will tell you that they learn more from being
> presented with alternative view points and criticism of their views
> rather than just sheltering in a hole and surrounding themselves with
> people that agree with them so they don't have to worry about if they
> are right or not.

The plonk is the refuge of the first man to run out of argument.

DTJ doesn't understand your perspective... so he assumes *you're*
stupid. Being plonked by DTJ is like being plonked by Richard the
St00pid.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.i...d?lnk=lr&hl=en

Hil****inlarryous... Made my Easter, just before midnight.
-----

- gpsman

Brent P wrote:
> Sloth lower the capacity of the road severely and bring on that point
> much sooner than it need be.

The sloths, sure, but so do the people acting aggressively behind the
sloth.

> > One person stopping to make a left turn, even when performed to the
> > best of the best's ability, can still impede traffic immensely, even on
> > a multilane road.
>
> Make it every green arrow at every light, and that's what driving in the
> presence of sloth is like.

The problem there, then isn't sloths, it's having unrestricted driveway
access to major thoroughfares that is holding the problem. By
consolidating entrances, using frontage roads, or at the least, adding
a dedicated left turn lane, the effect of any driver turning left,
sloth or not, deminishes.

> > Even if the left turner is a sloth, the traffic flow is only further
> > degraded when people become irritated at the notion of being delayed a
> > few seconds and try to make hail mary lane changes. So instead of one
> > slow lane, there's now several.
>
> You are using an exception to prove a rule.

How so? What's the exception in this case? The people acting
aggressively towards sloths? Or the fact that aggressive, interrupting
movements and lane changes in heavy, congested traffic cause further
disruptions?

> Yet, I experienced that on real roads. The absence of sloth can make a
> road laid out in 16 whatever flow better than many wide arterials in the
> USA.

I've also experienced many occasions where I had to wait several light
cycles simply because there was nowhere for the traffic to proceed. If
traffic is in gridlock due to too much volume on a road not designed
for it, if nobody's moving or going anywhere, it doesn't matter how
fast you can accelerate.


> Congaling can easily be stopped by just going. Same with peds. I have on
> many an occasion insisted upon my right of way effectively. It is the
> enablers and general sloth that allows for those behaviors.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to risk being involved in a serious or
fatal accident just to prove a point to red light runners.



> > 2. Drivers have to respond to the car in front.
>
> Um no.

Umm, yes. If the car in front isn't moving, you can only move as far as
that car's rear bumper. Unless you want to take to the shoulder,
sidewalk, or median.

> > Unlike an F1 start,
> > were as soon as the red light goes off, you take off, and move to the
> > outside or inside of the car in front, at an intersection, you're
> > stuck. You can't react to the light and move, you must wait for the car
> > in front to move first.
>
> In an environment with competent drivers trained properly, the slinky
> effect is too tiny to be noticed. In the USA drivers are trained to start
> moving 2 seconds after the car in front has moved away. Assinine waste of
> throughput.

Do you have some sort of model or video footage describing this? I fail
to see how a group of 30 cars that are in a line stopped can accelerate
into a 30 car group with sufficient distance between each car without
some sort of noticeable delay. After all, if 30 cars are stopped at a
light, 1 foot apart, there has to be either a delay between cars,
increasingly slower acceleration, or decreasing speed as you go back in
the queue to achieve a sufficient gap between cars at speed.