Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

There was a Scientific American article a number of years ago (wish I had kept a copy) about density waves traveling through traffic. Above a certain traffic density, a slight slowdown can cause traffic to come to a halt some distance back. This is basically the fallacy of "rubbernecking" that you hear about on traffic reports all the time. As amusing as it is to believe that big traffic jams on the opposite side of the road from an accident are caused by idiots slowing down to 5mph to "take a look," they're actually caused by people slowing down a little bit when they see a problem ahead, but don't yet know if it affects them. (This is why there aren't rubbernecking delays when traffic is light.) Does anyone believe we'd be safer if people didn't slow down when they see trouble ahead?

Another interesting bit from the article is that density waves travel backward and forward from an incident. I've recognized this once I learned to look for it; people think they're out of the woods and try to speed up to cruising speed, but things haven't quite cleared out enough, so it jams up again. It can be pretty mysterious if you get onto the road after the incident, though; you keep hitting slowdowns, but never pass anything that has caused them.

>but I don't see where a need for information not available from car-based
>sensors would come in.

That's because you're not realising the total complexity of the task that you are performing when you think you're *simply* following the car in front of you. You're operating as a portion of a VERY BIG PICTURE.

ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more complex is what the engineers who HAD the money, HAD the tools, HAD the mandate, found and had to give up.

You're not just acting on the data from the car in front/back/sides etc.
When you're in traffic, you're analysing (hopefully) data that's coming in from all directions and at a range and complexity that is going to completely dwarf what some motion/distance/light sensors will give you. Just in the visual light spectrum, along with noting positions, motions, etc, you're analysing data that is being communicated in several colors (tail lights, reverse lights(!), brake lights, turn signals, traffic lights, cop lights, tow truck lights, signage, on and on and on) and this IS data that you're using when you're simply following stop and go traffic. AND you're gathering it from WAY out front, from behind, and from the sides, and all at ranges that are beyond the immediate neighbor cars.

Then there's the data that you're gathering from the distance and apparent motions of cars, front, back, side, and AT A DISTANCE far beyond the neighboring cars. You're analysing trends, events, modifications to trends, histories, and comparing it all to HUGE databases of past history and cross indexing it all on what ever cartological and geographical data you possess. And YES YOU ARE DOING THIS IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC, and YES IT DOES COME INTO PLAY- FOR EVERYONE.

And you may not realise it, but you're also observing the behaviour of the other drivers and trying to piece their behaviour into "profiles" that you then use to predict what they are likely to in certain circumstances, and do so that your response times to their behaviour can be decreased and that your responses to them are more, not less productive to your game goal. This requires a certain amount of empathy, and when that process breaks down via a particularly narcissistic or randomly influenced driver, then the whole supersystem begins to disintigrate real fast. And this is what I meant when I said that in order for a traffic autopilot (even for the brakes) to work effectively, you're eventually going to need data that transcends the POV of the individual driver. For better or for worse, drivers SYNTHESISE those other POVs on the fly in real time, and respond to them. The drivers who can better empathise with the other drivers and the drivers who can better communicate their needs and intentions at a distance are the drivers who fare better.

You're attempting to posit what is essentially an AI protocol to take over a task for you, and I'm warning you that the reason others could not succeed on time and within budget is NOT because they aren't eftychia, but because what looks to be a very straightforward task is actually orders of magnitude more complex than we ever imagined.

Welcome to AI research. Surprise! Get used to that phrase!