People say cyclists are not supposed to ride through red lights, or on the pavement.
On my way home there are some "auto" changing traffic lights.
These change for cars, but not for cyclists (I think cyclists are too small and slow). Tests have shown I can wait for at least 5 turns of the other 3 ways without my way getting a green light (if no cars come to my side).
There is no alternative route which avoids these lights.
If I get home late at night, when there are no cars, then how am I supposed to get home? Do I have to get off and walk?
What they do here is cruise up to the Pedestrian-operated button, and they get a green light at the same time that a car would have triggered it. That's when they don't just cruise through the red light, of course.
And I can't wait for driverless cars, I don't care what they cost, they have to be the solution to all sorts of stuff. Like traffic jams caused by idiot drivers, accidents and fatalities caused by drunken drivers, etc etc. We'd be able to plan a journey and know it would take as long as we expect it to. Still have to allocate a chunk of precious time to find a parking space ...
Originally posted by Kewpie What they do here is cruise up to the Pedestrian-operated button, and they get a green light at the same time that a car would have triggered it. That's when they don't just cruise through the red light, of course.
And I can't wait for driverless cars, I don't care what they cost, they have to be the solution to all sorts of stuff. Like traffic jams caus ...[text shortened]... expect it to. Still have to allocate a chunk of precious time to find a parking space ...
Driverless cars would be a boon to avoiding traffic jams only if they are connected say through wifi, to central computer watching all the roads and giving directions to each car to drive at such and such a speed and to route cars around accidents and so forth. A driverless car with just a local onboard computer to do the work usually done by humans would perhaps have more smarts on the road, would not go to sleep and so forth but would be just as likely to get caught in jams as humans.
Ethics aside, this could be stated as a game theoretic problem. You just need to specify the rules of the game (e.g., the ordering of players actions, whethet nature has a turn, in some cases players' information sets and/or beliefs), the set of strategies, and the individual payoffs for each outcome. If you want to consider welfare of the players as a group then you need some social welfare function which defines how to weight each individuals payoff.
Originally posted by sonhouse So you are driving on a three lane one way road and you see a traffic jam. Does it do any good to change lanes, that is to say, is there a tactic you can use like the 'what's behind the three doors' game, where you make a guess and then get a second guess, do you stay where you are or change lanes?
You assume everyone wants to get to his destination as quickly as possible. I am quite happy pootling along on a crowded motorway and just sticking to my lane. If dickheads want to weave in and out in a desperate attempt to be two cars further ahead, let them!
Originally posted by Pianoman1 You assume everyone wants to get to his destination as quickly as possible. I am quite happy pootling along on a crowded motorway and just sticking to my lane. If dickheads want to weave in and out in a desperate attempt to be two cars further ahead, let them!
And don't forget the accidents they cause doing the roadway weave.
Originally posted by sonhouse So you are driving on a three lane one way road and you see a traffic jam. Does it do any good to change lanes, that is to say, is there a tactic you can use like the 'what's behind the three doors' game, where you make a guess and then get a second guess, do you stay where you are or change lanes?
Reducing this to the Monty Hall problem requires that someone knows which of the three lanes is doomed, and suggests a choice of the other two.
The three door problem on the road:
05 Jul '12 03:483 edits
Back to Top