What behavior of my own have I stated? Or are you inferring unwarranted conclusions to make ad hominem arguements?
>Traffic jams are caused by braking
Guess what one of the main issues has been in AV...nuisance braking. So much so that they suppress safety-critical actions to avoid unwarranted braking.
I also think you're confusing the proximate causes of conjestion for the root causes. Traffic conjestion is a load sharing problem. Tailgating is, in part, a symptom of inadequate capacity. You are advocating a solution that exacerbates it by reducing carrying capacity.
To reiterate (yet again) we aren't in disagreement about whether slowing down, or increasing following distance, will increase safety. It will, but also, that's not the point I was making. I'm just saying that is a superficial understanding of the problem and you aren't accounting for the tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs are the reason your proposal misses its mark.
> Tailgating is, in part, a symptom of inadequate capacity. You are advocating a solution that exacerbates it by reducing carrying capacity.
Why are we still debating something that has been answered by science? Stop assuming your intuitions are correct and look at what the science actually says about how follow distances affect the maximum capacity of a road.
Has it been answered by science? Because some of the studies I've come across list "heavy traffic" as a cause of tailgating. I think you might be speaking with unwarranted confidence.
>Traffic jams are caused by braking
Guess what one of the main issues has been in AV...nuisance braking. So much so that they suppress safety-critical actions to avoid unwarranted braking.
I also think you're confusing the proximate causes of conjestion for the root causes. Traffic conjestion is a load sharing problem. Tailgating is, in part, a symptom of inadequate capacity. You are advocating a solution that exacerbates it by reducing carrying capacity.
To reiterate (yet again) we aren't in disagreement about whether slowing down, or increasing following distance, will increase safety. It will, but also, that's not the point I was making. I'm just saying that is a superficial understanding of the problem and you aren't accounting for the tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs are the reason your proposal misses its mark.