29 June 2013

Your Actions are (part of) Causing that Traffic Jam You're Stuck in*

*In the morning and evening of most large American cities (especially those surrounded by plenty of suburb), when everyone is driving their cars to their 9-5 jobs, there are simply too many vehicles on the highway for the lane capacity.  You get on the highway at the nearest entrance, and proceed to average 15mph the entire distance from your suburban home to the downtown city center where you work, frequently coming to a complete stop, never going more than 25mph at the most.

In that situation, traffic is going to go slow, no matter what.
That isn't the type of traffic jam I'm talking about.
There is also another type of traffic back up.  The kind that happens in moderate traffic.  Everyone slows down, sometimes even to a complete stop, and then a few hundred feet later, you are moving again at 50, 60, 70mph, as if nothing happened.
Sometimes this happens because there is the aftermath of a crash in the shoulder, or even across the divider on the opposite shoulder of the oncoming lane, and all the drivers feel it is very important for them to take a good look at it, because humans are just like that.  Other times its because someone is getting a traffic ticket, and, even though the cop is clearly busy at the moment, people imagine they are more likely to be caught speeding if the can see a police car.
But most often, these slow downs happen for no apparent reason at all.  You get to the front of it, and cars are accelerating just as suddenly as they slowed down.
Sometimes traffic pulses like this, fast - slow - fast - slow - fast - slow for miles.  In some places, not quite as dense as in the first example above, the daily commute does this pulse jam every single day.
When you find yourself in this situation, the choices you make can either make it better, or they can make it worse.  If you are reading this, there is a decent chance you are one of the few who makes it better already - but if you are like most people, there is a much better chance you are making it worse. 
In fact, if everyone realized what I'm about to explain, and acted appropriately, those slowdowns would never happen in the first place, but, of course, most people don't know any better, so its hard to hold it against them.
At least once you have finished reading this, there will be one more person who understands whats going on, and makes it better instead of worse.

The easiest way to understand how individual actions make the backup better or worse is with an analogy.

Lets say you are in a crowd, and for some reason everyone wants to go through a doorway as quickly as possible (the iconic burning theater, perhaps, or maybe just a Black Friday sale).
Each individual is acting as an independent free agent, and each wants their own personal speed to be as fast as possible.
What happens? 
Everyone rushes the door, and they get stuck on each other as they try to squeeze through all at once.  In extreme cases people get trampled, occasionally fatally, but even if everyone stays on their feet, the chaos amplifies the bottleneck and it takes an even longer time for everyone to get through.



Now consider an equally large crowd, but imagine they consist of a highly trained military company.  When the fire alarm goes off, instead of each individual going straight for the door and attempting to shove each other out of the way, they all immediately form a single file line down the center of the room, each taking their place based on where they started, no one "cuts in line", everyone moves at a quick but controlled pace and never any faster than the person in front of them.
In the second scenario the very last person to go through the door gets through faster than the middle person in the free-for-all scenario.
What has changed?  Each individual is moving a little bit slower, they all give each other a little more space, and no one runs around to the edge of the door to try to squeeze in from the side.  The exact things that people acting as individuals do to try to optimize their own individual escape time are what cause them to get stuck on each other and, paradoxically, means they and everyone else gets out slower.
Researchers have looked at this phenomenon of "more haste, less speed":

The desire for speed overwhelms the desire to avoid collision and the blob people jam up against one another -- just as salt can jam the shaker even though the hole is bigger than the largest grain. The room takes longer to empty even though everyone tries to move faster -- handfuls of people escape in bursts between clogging events.

You can see something analogous on the highways everyday.  Drivers attempt to go as fast as possible at all times, even when there are other cars ahead of them.   Many tend to drive as close as possible to the car ahead, much closer than the recommended 2-3 second rule from drivers-ed class.  When coming up on a line of stopped cars ahead, they will keep a foot on the accelerator as long as they possibly can before hitting the brakes hard just in time to prevent impact.  And any time one lane is temporarily going slightly faster than the one they are in, they pull into it to gain one or two car lengths over those around them. 
The overly aggressive drivers are obvious.
But almost everyone contributes, if to a lesser extent, to the same general phenomenon. 
Say every car is as close as is safe to the car ahead, in every lane, and everyone is moving at a constant rate.  Now what happens if one car wants to change lanes?  Since the cars are all as close as can be already, there is no possible way that the car can change lanes smoothly, because someone is going to have to slow to let them in, and they will have to slow to make the merge.  Now the following cars in both lanes have to brake.  And since the cars behind them were already as close as possible to them, those cars also have to brake.  And since the cars behind them... you get the idea... the stopped cars now travels back through the traffic in a wave. 
Now the same scenario - except the drivers are self-regulating like our military company escaping the burning theater: each car leaves a gap from the car ahead of them large enough that another car can safely merge in front of them.
Now when a car inevitably needs to change lanes, they can do so without slowing down, and without making the car behind them slow down.  They and the car behind them will want to reopen the gap that they just filled, but this can be done gradually over time, with only minor adjustments to speed, and the wave of stopped cars never occurs.

Traffic engineers can control individual driver behavior by putting in deliberate bottlenecks, called metering lights - the kind found at toll plazas and some on-ramps, where everyone is supposed to wait just a couple seconds before they merge with traffic.  Everyone ends up on the highway, but that moment of waiting forces everyone to space themselves out, and even though you had to wait, it is more than made up for by higher average speeds for everyone - including you. 
Sometimes you can even see a similar effect from lane closures or rubbernecking - a section of highway that is moderately backed-up everyday, but on one occasion has a lane closed for construction or due to an accident, if its near the beginning of your trip, occasionally has you get to your destination faster than usual.  As the cars slow down for the bottleneck, and then reach the end and start to accelerate one at a time, they spread themselves out, just like a metering light would have done. 
An identical effect is seen with the crowd of pedestrians trying to get through a doorway; putting an obstacle in the way of the exit actually makes the crowd get though it faster.


Most fire codes require that the pathway to an emergency exit be kept wide open, but according to researchers in Japan, placing an obstruction next to an exit may actually help crowds of people to get out of a room more efficiently.

Researchers found that when people bottleneck near an exit, they start to jostle each other for position. The jostling acts much like friction, slowing down the rate at which people can exit. Introducing a strategically-placed obstacle near the exit can reduce the number of people pushing for the exit, speeding up the rate at which people can pass through.

"We found that we can evacuate faster if we put an obstacle at the suitable position in front of the exit," said Daichi Yanagisawa, who lead the study from the University of Tokyo in Japan.
Even without metering lights, though, you can make a conscious choice to help traffic you are in move more smoothly.
Pay attention to the road ahead.  If you see an ocean of brake lights up ahead, take your foot off the accelerator.  There is no point in racing to be the first to come to a stop.  Resist the urge to change lanes every time one appears to be going slightly faster, unless you have enough space that you can do it without anyone having to slow down for you. Leave a big enough gap between you and the car ahead of you that someone else could safely merge in front of you without you having to slow down.  That applies at any speed, from stop and crawl to over the posted limit** - not only will it smooth out traffic flow, it will also reduce your chances of being involved in a collision, not to mention reduce other people's road rage.  No one can cut you off if you choose to slow down and let them in.
That means people will get it front of you.
And that's ok.
At as slow as 10mph, one car length costs you all of one second.  At 35 it costs you one third of one second.  Big freggin deal!  Let 50 cars get in front of you on a trip with a 45mph average speed, and you get where you are going all of 30 seconds later than you would have had you made sure to be the one to go first.
Not only have you made 50 people a little happier, but you have helped traffic flow a little better for all the people behind you, all the way back down the highway.
Better still, when you are coming up to one of those pointless braking waves, and you start slowing down well in advance, often times it will have completely cleared itself up by the time you get to where it was.  Which means by simply taking your foot off the accelerator, you never have to brake at all.  By avoiding coming to a complete stop, your average speed ends up being higher!  Its quite like timing traffic lights - if you try to go faster than the timed lights are designed for, you have to stop for the red, and someone driving at the speed limit will pass you just as it turns green again while you are accelerating from a stand still.
And if driving with less pointless starting and stopping, less stress, and helping to clear up traffic jams wasn't enough, this also happens to be the best way to minimize fuel when driving in traffic, so you save cash too, along with the environment and America's energy independence. 

Next time you are driving, think about this essay.  When someone exits in front of you, leaving a huge gap between you and the next car, don't rush to catch up.  When you are entering the highway, and the on-ramp is clear but the merging lane is slow, don't stay on the on-ramp until the very last second and then cross over the solid white line in an attempt to pass as many other cars as possible.  You are saving yourself a negligible amount of time, probably less than a second, but you are creating a braking wave that will snarl the traffic behind you potentially for miles.  Think about the orderly single file line, and how much faster everyone exits the building.  Everyone else is going to drive how they are going to drive, but at least you won't be making it worse.  And who knows, if enough of us start doing it, a few others might just take notice, and sooner or later stop and go traffic waves will simply cease to exist.

28 June 2013

Trespassing in the Commune


I'm not much of one for ideology or party lines.
If I see an error in someone's thinking, I'm just as likely to mention it if I agree with their overall point as if I don't.  Trying to get people to see all sides of things tends to put me in the roll of Devil's Advocate, and so I have been accused of being a capitalist by communists, a communist by capitalists, a fan of Ayn Rand (HA!) by anarchists.

A few years ago I wrote some about illegal immigration:

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/02/viii-in-which-national-origin-is.html

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/05/23-on-immigration.html

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/05/27-join-california-resistance.html

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2006/12/two-immigration-articles-in-week.html
You just might get the idea from those that I have some particular opinion on the issue.
But really, I was trying to point out what one side of the debate prefers to ignore.
That doesn't mean the issue is one-sided or simple.
The other side does just as good a job ignoring what it doesn't want to see.
Just like with the abortion debate, I mostly agree with the progressive side in practice, but I recognize that they are right for the wrong reasons, while in principal the conservative side at least gets the question right, even if they are mistaken about the answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Imagine a hippy commune, out in the country side.  A few hundred people live there together, they come up with house rules, they all do chores, everyone contributes to the property taxes and insurance costs of the land and building and to a communal maintenance and repair fund.  Lets say this particular commune works really well, they come up with a system to manage internal conflicts, they are reasonably self-sufficient, but everyone also has real jobs so they have cash for trading with the outside world.
Sooner or later people are going to have children, and a new generation will be raised there. 
Now and then some people will want to leave, and that's just fine.
Other times new people will want to join.  These people are all about peace and love, sharing and community, but that doesn't mean they won't want to screen applicants.  They want to know, as anyone would, if their prospective new member shares their values and work ethic and whether they are responsible.  They may want to know about any drug addictions, criminal history, or if the applicant is employed.  They may decide to allow someone to join who doesn't meet a particular criteria if they have a good explanation, that could be decided on a case-by-case basis, but it would be hard to find fault in the community for wanting to at least ask the questions.  It is, after all, their home, and simply opening the floodgates would mean its rapid destruction. 
Now lets say this place is so successful, so popular, that there is a waiting list to even be interviewed by the residents.  But its a huge estate, and its hard to keep track of all the residents, not to mention all the guests and visitors, and someone gets the idea that instead of getting on the end of the waiting list, they can just come as a guest, and then just never leave - or maybe even sneak it through an open window.
They find a spare storage room that no one is using and set up a little bedroom in it.  No interview, no lease agreement.  They don't help pay for the property tax, but they do more than their share of chores, they contribute to the communal maintenance fund, and they follow all of the rules.
This trespasser has not really done anything terrible.  They are contributing their fair share.  But they also snuck in without permission.  When the residents figure out that they did, they are fairly likely to throw the trespasser out, or at least to consider it.  If it takes long enough before they are caught, there's a chance they will have friends and advocates, but the very fact of having snuck in in the first place is likely to be a strike against them.  And no matter how good of a roommate they have proved themselves to be, the fact remains that they are taking up a slot that could have otherwise been filled by someone who has been waiting on the waiting list.
Ultimately, whether they stay or go would be up to the official residents. 
Would it be unreasonable if their ultimate decision is that the trespasser can not stay?
America - every nation - is essentially a commune: a community of people living together, sharing common interests, property (private property may exist as well, but so does public space) and resources.  This land is home to all the people who were born here.  As I pointed out in my earlier essays, no one "deserves" to be born any particular place, its nothing but luck - going back to the analogy, suppose none of the residents personally built the commune, say the estate was originally inherited long ago, and an entire generation has turned over since then.  It is still their home, and they still have a right to demand that no one sneak into their windows and move in without permission.

When you look at it this way, arguments such as "I work hard", "I have family here", or "I have been here for 20 years" all seem a bit less reasonable or even relevant.  If you feel you have a good reason, put it on your application, but its still ultimately up to the residents to admit you or not.
Why should any of that change just because the scale changes?
What does it really imply when someone wants to redefine illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers", because "no person is illegal"?
The logical conclusion is that there should be no boarders, that everyone should be able to live anywhere.  New Zealand has low crime, high quality medical care, schools and transportation, and excellent weather.  If I want to go there, the country is going to make me apply for a visa - and if I don't already have family there, a high level degree, a special skill and a job offer in the country, or a lot of money and a promise to invest there, chances are the application will be turned down.  Just like in America, and every other country.  If an American is in Taiwan on a work visa, and gets fired, the country will deport them.

If we open the flood gates, and half of  Guatemala, 1/2 of Haiti, a quarter of Mexico and Jamaica, everyone in Somalia and most from Ethiopia, everyone who can scrape together any means of travel and lives somewhere poor, they all come to the US which no longer has any boarder patrol, no longer has any immigration service,  no longer has any program for deportation, what happens then?  Is life better for the new immigrants, in now ridiculously-crowded-with-
unskilled and-uneducated America, which doesn't have the resources to provide either jobs not welfare?  Before they may not have had an opportunity to get ahead, but at least they were getting by. Is life better for the now severely underpopulated folk left behind in the mother countries, where the only people left are those who had so little they couldn't make the trip, and doesn't have enough people to get all the jobs done that need to get done?  Is life better for the Native born Americans?  Over all, between the 3 groups, would this change be positive? 

Some people are supportive of "undocumented" immigrants.
They say things like "no human being is illegal" (I just saw that on one of those petition / donation emails).  They are focused on not punishing people for trying to find a better life, not breaking up families.  They are focused on people, on individuals.  They are looking at individual people, they see that people are unhappy, they don't like people being unhappy, so they don't like the situation or the rules, or whatever.  But it seems like few, if any, want to take a step back and look at the big picture.

The anti-immigrant people, many of them are racist, nationalist, selfish, angry and reactionary.  But what they are reacting to is the idea of the scenario described above.  Their solutions are largely unreasonable, and there motivations are often unjust.  But they are at least capable of seeing the big picture.  They are right, even if for the wrong reasons.
Of course its not so simple as that.  The real world rarely is.  If you agreed with my previous blog posts on immigration, then this one was for you.  If you agree with this one, go back and read the links I posted in the beginning.  Because if you have a strong opinion, chances are high that you are going on ideology instead of reason.  And that's all I have to say about that.

17 June 2013

The Common Thread

I was at a party yesterday, and I was talking about who knows what, and, I guess maybe because I have an "educated" accent, or whatever, I really have no idea why, she commented that she was surprised I hadn't gone into some field of science.

And I mentioned that I had been expecting to in high school, I had interned in  microbiology and biotech labs, focused mainly on science classes in high school and college, got associate degrees in biology and earth science - but then, by random acts of fate, I had ended up doing semi-skilled manual labor which afforded me not only decent money, but an extremely flexible schedule and the ability to be my own boss. 
I said I still satiated that side of my mind with plenty of reading, and occasional writing.

She asked where I wrote, whether it was just for myself - basically just this blog, and given the size of it's readership, yeah, pretty much just for myself.
and what topics I wrote about, and I tried to think of all the various things I've covered.

She asked what they all have in common.

Nothing really, other than I find them interesting.  And I find of lot of things interesting.  The world is a vast and complicated place.  reality is fascinating.  I really can not comprehend how so many people can willingly specialize, focus on just one area of human knowledge, when there is just so much else out there.  I'm much more interested in understanding a little about everything than everything about a little.

So, yeah, my blog has no theme.
Probably why I will never be able to generate any significant readership.  People subscribe to stuff that focuses on what interests them, and mine doesn't focus on anything.

She insisted that there must be some angle where a common theme could be found.  She said that in what she did, there were always commonalities emerging, even when they weren't obvious at first.

We kept talking more, I elaborated slightly on a few posts, she suggested that maybe challenging preconceptions might  be a consistent thing, and then I realized, duh! it's right there in the header of the blog.



Nothing inspires me to write - to really write, something in depth and well thought out, with perhaps hours of research and weeks of drafting in my head - like something where I find millions of people hold a particular piece of "common wisdom" which just happens to be completely wrong.


But I learned something recently:
People are stubborn. 
I mean, like, really stubborn.

No surprise, right, but the extent of it is.

Its not just rejecting arguments that you don't already agree with.  We humans have a tendency, even in the face of independent evidence or clear factual data, to believe our wrong beliefs EVEN HARDER when they are challenged.

That certainly isn't encouraging in terms of my chances of changing anyone's mind about anything!

Therefore, perhaps I should make this article:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

mandatory reading before you can read any of the more potentially controversial things I've written.
Except of course that there is no way for me to enforce it.

Well, read it anyway.  And be aware of it, not just when you're reading what I write, but all the time, in day-to-day life, and whenever you argue with anyone.  You can go a long way to overriding your own cognitive biases, if only you are aware of them.  You will make yourself smarter, and by so doing, be able to make your own life better in every way, forever.

You may still disagree with me on all sorts of stuff.  But, at least if you approach it with a truly open mind, you will disagree for the right reasons.