▲ 47 ▼ Some US cities begin rewarding careful drivers with fewer red lights by giving early greens to those driving under or at the speed limit (apnews.com) submitted 4 days ago by onionsinmypores@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world 11 comments fedilink hide all child comments Combining both the concepts of the "rest in red" along with speed tracking sensors, those going at or under the posted speed limits can be rewarded with early green lights at the intersections.
[–] tgcoldrockn@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago* (1 child) Aint the surveillance state s'wonderful? permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago* (3 children) Seriously, also aren't lights supposed to be programmed to move the most traffic throughout the day... Why would people want to make it less efficient. Edit: went back and watched the video. They aren't giving preferred treatment to anyone, they just timed the lights so if you go from 1 to the next it should turn green based on speed/distance. I'm not really sure why you would even need the speed sensors, you can just measure the distance and set them.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) Why would people want to make it less efficient. Slower speeds are more efficient. This is because at higher speeds, far more safety distance is needed. Because it is dominated by the braking distance, the safety distance increases roughly quadratic with speed. The transport capacity of a steet is however defined by speed divided by safety distance times its lanes. Which means that at higher speed, fewer vehicles per second can pass a point. And small, slow city streets can easily, and safely, transport more vehicles per second than a highway. That's also why at an airport, a plane needs a runway with kilometers of free space for a single plane. It is the speed, which requires lots and lots of longitudinal space to retain safe control. And this is also why bike paths can generally transport far more vehicles per second than streets for cars. For example, Copenhagen has a bicycle bridge that spans the harbour, which is called Cykelslangen. It has only two lanes, and at rush hour times, it transports over two vehicles per second. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 days ago We've had this forever. It is called the "green wave" permalink fedilink source parent [–] onionsinmypores@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 3 days ago I had thought this too, but in the article they mentioned speed sensors that track the speeds of vehicles in one (maybe two?) of these cities. So I think it's a mix of both of those things, with them probably preferring the preferential approach. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago* (3 children) Seriously, also aren't lights supposed to be programmed to move the most traffic throughout the day... Why would people want to make it less efficient. Edit: went back and watched the video. They aren't giving preferred treatment to anyone, they just timed the lights so if you go from 1 to the next it should turn green based on speed/distance. I'm not really sure why you would even need the speed sensors, you can just measure the distance and set them.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) Why would people want to make it less efficient. Slower speeds are more efficient. This is because at higher speeds, far more safety distance is needed. Because it is dominated by the braking distance, the safety distance increases roughly quadratic with speed. The transport capacity of a steet is however defined by speed divided by safety distance times its lanes. Which means that at higher speed, fewer vehicles per second can pass a point. And small, slow city streets can easily, and safely, transport more vehicles per second than a highway. That's also why at an airport, a plane needs a runway with kilometers of free space for a single plane. It is the speed, which requires lots and lots of longitudinal space to retain safe control. And this is also why bike paths can generally transport far more vehicles per second than streets for cars. For example, Copenhagen has a bicycle bridge that spans the harbour, which is called Cykelslangen. It has only two lanes, and at rush hour times, it transports over two vehicles per second. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 days ago We've had this forever. It is called the "green wave" permalink fedilink source parent [–] onionsinmypores@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 3 days ago I had thought this too, but in the article they mentioned speed sensors that track the speeds of vehicles in one (maybe two?) of these cities. So I think it's a mix of both of those things, with them probably preferring the preferential approach. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) Why would people want to make it less efficient. Slower speeds are more efficient. This is because at higher speeds, far more safety distance is needed. Because it is dominated by the braking distance, the safety distance increases roughly quadratic with speed. The transport capacity of a steet is however defined by speed divided by safety distance times its lanes. Which means that at higher speed, fewer vehicles per second can pass a point. And small, slow city streets can easily, and safely, transport more vehicles per second than a highway. That's also why at an airport, a plane needs a runway with kilometers of free space for a single plane. It is the speed, which requires lots and lots of longitudinal space to retain safe control. And this is also why bike paths can generally transport far more vehicles per second than streets for cars. For example, Copenhagen has a bicycle bridge that spans the harbour, which is called Cykelslangen. It has only two lanes, and at rush hour times, it transports over two vehicles per second. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 days ago We've had this forever. It is called the "green wave" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] onionsinmypores@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 3 days ago I had thought this too, but in the article they mentioned speed sensors that track the speeds of vehicles in one (maybe two?) of these cities. So I think it's a mix of both of those things, with them probably preferring the preferential approach. permalink fedilink source parent