This doesn't appear to be anything new. Traffic engineers have been optimizing lights in large networks for decades.
They just have access to all the data they've been collecting on you, which is way more than the traffic meter cords can provide.
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
64 points (89.0% liked)
Technology
59377 readers
5843 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I imagine Google has more traffic information both in aggregate and in real time than any traffic engineer just because so many people have Google maps or Waze installed.
Personally I really like it when I get rerouted around traffic jams and that is just because Google can tell that there are a lot of cars moving slower than normal. I've gotten notifications on my phone warning me of traffic problems on my way to work before I leave the house.
There's no way any civil engineer would have access to that kind of data. If that information could be used to improve traffic lights why wouldn't that be a good thing? How many times have you idled at a red light with absolutely no cross traffic?
I'm not trying to say that Google's some magnanimous gift to humanity but it also isn't a malevolent villain trying to destroy humanity.
I can’t wait to get green waves through watching youtube ads until the project gets finally killed causing massive traffic problems for the participating cities.
I’d never trust google with anything, yet alone letting it run vital public infrastructure.
The article says it makes suggestions that someone has to accept before it’s changed. It’s safe from the lights not being able to talk to each other because they’re not all talking through the same google messaging service.
My concern is this means traffic light removal which will impact public safety.
I think this is more about having the lights change more intelligently. I could be wrong though.
But more intelligently for who? Faster traffic flow is not an unadulterated good. In my view we probably want areas with many intersections to have slower traffic, not faster. Faster traffic means less safety, especially for non-car users and could trigger induced demand, eliminating any GHG benefits.
It all depends on the model and what the inputs and goals are. I’ve noticed that signals optimally timed for vehicle traffic are often more difficult and dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.
I don't think this involves faster traffic. Speed limits would still be there. I think they're trying to reduce idling. Idling engines are wasteful source of pollution.
For everything in this world there are trade-offs a win for someone might be a detriment to someone else. That's just the way of the world.
Better public transportation would be good. Cycling and pedestrian friendly cities & towns would also be good. To me those are not connected to this. Those are better addressed by government alone. If these things are important to you I'd recommend that you go to a city/town council meeting and make your voice heard. To me this is specifically about trying to improve traffic flow and reduce pollution.
Keep in mind that a lot of traffic collisions with pedestrians or other vehicles happen when lights change and cars need to (suddenly) slow down.
Person A might slam on their brakes at the first sight of a red light. Person B make floor it to make the light. Put person A and B in the same lane and they might hit each other. Or in different lanes person B might blast through the red light right as a pedestrian started crossing.
Predictability is the most important thing. Unfortunately I’m not sure how much I trust an AI to be predictable.
Also when I’m walking and when I’m driving I want as little intersections as possible. There are other ways to slow down traffic besides awful intersections.
monkey no drive car
?
learn it from hexagon guy
Hexagons are the best-agons
Yes please, let's fix cars so we can have more cars because cars good! If only cars didn't have as much emission
How does this fix cars?
It doesn't, it's just a "solution" to make cars "better" without fixing anything. But some people think that "if we just make cafs cars better" they will eventually become good
And what about pedestrians? Are they getting fucked over as always or does this Goolag shite include people with functioning legs as well?
Assuming that Goolag is a US business, I guess it probably doesn't... You know what would solve emission problems in the big cities, though? Getting rid of private cars and instead investing in busses, trams and subways. Trying to "cure" the symptoms won't get us far if the main problem still persists.
I feel like you're conflating two separate issues. If you want to "get rid of" cars and replace them with public transportation then you have a mighty big task in front of you and, in my opinion, that has nothing to do with optimizing traffic lights to minimize pollution due to idling. As for pedestrians I imagine it would be the same as it is now. If you think they could improve it then you ought to consider contacting the development team maybe they can answer your questions or implement some of your ideas.