This reminds me of an experiment I once read about. It was a comparison between 'angry' and 'calm' driving, during the angry days the driver was supposed to avoid letting people in front of them and on the calm days they were supposed to slow down and let people turn into their lane from side roads. This wasn't about fuel efficiency, it was about how much time it would cost you and quite counter-intuitively the 'calm' drivers who let multiple vehicles go in front of them actually ended up getting to work faster.
They also mention the ants collecting behind an ant that's carrying something. It's probably for a different reason (IE not losing the food) but it reminds me of the fleet-style of driving where they want to get vehicles to drive behind each other, sharing the same air pocket, which IIRC Mythbusters showed that tailing a big rig could reduce drag by up to 80%, however that was equivalent to being like 5 feet behind the big rig and they couldn't drive 'calm' enough at that distance and reduced efficiency, but at around 10 feet they got like a 60% drag reduction. Fleet driving (by computer) would allow vehicles to drive at 5 feet behind a big rig and get that drag reduction. However, I don't know how you'd pay for fleet-style driving because vehicles like a big rig would be improving efficiency for dozens of vehicles, which would assume nationalized transportation control so big rig drivers don't get ripped off on gas.
> However, I don't know how you'd pay for fleet-style driving because vehicles like a big rig would be improving efficiency for dozens of vehicles, which would assume nationalized transportation control so big rig drivers don't get ripped off on gas.
You're assuming that the "drafters" cost the big rig gas (actually diesel), presumably by increasing air-resistance. They don't. Drafting reduces air-resistence for the lead vehicle too.
You can see this in car races. Two (or more) cars running close together, front-to-back, are faster than any of the cars are when running by themselves.
I don't know how much fuel drafting would save big-rigs (there's a somewhat an odd relationship between fuel used and work done in diesels) but at the very least, it doesn't cost them fuel.
I know it doesn't cost the big rig, but it doesn't save them much either (only a nominal amount from reduced tail drag as they don't form a complete air bubble), so why should they allow someone to basically metal-hump their vehicle for marginal to no benefit? For example: If it saves you $0.50 for every 5 minutes you tail a big rig, should the drafter be paying $0.25 to the truck driver?
I'm also talking about the electronic fleet, where it's controlled by computers in each vehicle. However there's also the mechanical fleet, where two (or more) vehicles actually latch on to each other, this would be great for electric cars and would also allow them to power-share. For example, 5 vehicles join together but only 2 keep their engines running but the power comes from all 5 vehicles' batteries equally.
A example of your first point: Road narrows signs. In my home state of IL, they always (in moderately congested traffic) lead to jams. In MI, they didn't seem to (I have not collected much data there, however), as MI has a law about getting over when you first see signs, not getting over when the lane ends.
Hofstadter has an article about traffic and the benefit of defection. A Universally Optimal (UO) path isn't necessarily Individually Optimal (IO) if everyone else is obeying the laws of UO. So if I know that everyone is going to obey UO laws, there's an increased incentive to defect to an IO route and save substantial time off my travel. However, if everyone follows the IO route, travel is slower for me than the UO route is for me.
The underlying theme of cooperation v. defection reappears through time, from the Ring of Gyges to the Prisoner's Dilemma to experiments with splitting money. I'd be all for a computerized traffic system if everyone had to follow it.
Experiments where n units are divided between two people where one person can split the money, and the other person can approve/disapprove of the split. If the second person approves, both walk away with the money, if they disapprove, nobody gets anything. I'm sure someone has links to experimental results, but if the divide is too large ($9 / $1), even though it's a gain for the second person, they reject the offer.
They also mention the ants collecting behind an ant that's carrying something. It's probably for a different reason (IE not losing the food) but it reminds me of the fleet-style of driving where they want to get vehicles to drive behind each other, sharing the same air pocket, which IIRC Mythbusters showed that tailing a big rig could reduce drag by up to 80%, however that was equivalent to being like 5 feet behind the big rig and they couldn't drive 'calm' enough at that distance and reduced efficiency, but at around 10 feet they got like a 60% drag reduction. Fleet driving (by computer) would allow vehicles to drive at 5 feet behind a big rig and get that drag reduction. However, I don't know how you'd pay for fleet-style driving because vehicles like a big rig would be improving efficiency for dozens of vehicles, which would assume nationalized transportation control so big rig drivers don't get ripped off on gas.