> the wastefully pointless "idle there for 3 minutes with no other cars anywhere in sight" scenario happens quite often.
The climate activists should be focused on solving that problem.
The climate activists should be focused on solving that problem.
No AI required, just basic thoughtfulness and requirements gathering.
Contrast it with the flow achieved when there's a traffic cop managing an intersection. It's an enormous improvement.
Annoying because there are hardly any stoplights here. So it works by killing the engine for one second at the first roundabout you roll up to before you remember to hit the button that disables it for the rest of the trip.
I always thought they would work great in the states.
Shouldn't they have been pro-nuclear if they actually cared about the planet? But it seems to me they really care more about pushing their own ideology instead.
Do you know that "they" aren't? Who is "they" even? None of this makes any sense. This is arguing against a group that is imagined to be homogeneous when that's clearly not the case.
Doing 75-80 on flat land, or 65-70 over the Sierra Nevadas, it gets 24 mpg. With city traffic in other cities it gets 18 mpg.
The reason it is so bad here is that the environmental activists passed traffic quiescence laws that try to discourage people to drive by making the roads worse.
Of course, they don’t make obvious fixes to improve public transit, and the bike lane “improvements” they put in are mostly textbook “how to kill bicyclists” designs that European countries phased out decades ago.
Here are two classic favorites: concrete barriers that are too close to the curb to allow street sweeping, and adding bike lanes between parallel parking spots and the sidewalks.
They must have realized people started re-routing their trips to avoid stoplights unless they were making right turns, since they’ve also started erecting barriers or adding red arrows to make it impossible to make right turns on red.
Anyway, this wastes time, but it also costs us at least $100 a month on gasoline. Our primary car is an EV.
Anyway, around here, even a small investment in reducing idling (or just cutting funding for traffic quiescence projects) would be equivalent to increasing vehicle fuel economy by something like 20-80%.
sure, but I'd rather just lobby against cars at that point. Especially in a place like the Bay Area that should be mostly served by public transit and dense housing. Lobbying to micromanage idling just feels like a waste of effort for such a negligible benefit.