I got one of those dongles from my insurance company that plugged into the ODB2 port and reported my driving habits.
I was a bad driver. It would frequently beep at me to let me know that I had braked too hard. I was mystified. "What should I have done differently," I'd think, as I raged at the objective machine that judged me so.
The next time my brother came to visit, he called mom. "Oh, and presidentender is a good driver now." I didn't put the pieces together right away, but it turned out that the dongle had actually trained me, like a dog's shock collar.
The reason for my too-frequent hard-braking events wasn't speed, although that would be a contributing factor. It was a lack of appropriate following distance. Because I'd follow the drivers in front of me too closely I'd have to brake hard if they did... Or if they drive normally and happened to have a turn coming up.
Over the period I had the insurance spy box in my truck I learned without thinking about it to increase my following distance, which meant that riding with me as a passenger was more comfortable and it beeped less often. Of course since I'd been so naughty early during the evaluation they didn't decrease my rates, but I think the training probably did make me statistically less likely to crash.
Maintaining a safe following distance is incredibly challenging on busy freeways where hard braking is often 'required'. Most people have likely found themselves in this situation: vehicle changes lanes in front of you; you slow down to maintain a safe following distance, another car sees a gap and changes lanes in front of you. Repeat for your entire commute.
Incredibly frustrating, and I've driven all over North America - there's practically no major city where this doesn't happen. If you're not maintaining a safe following distance on city/residential streets, that's a different matter.
This is accurate in many ways.
I use the auto cruise feature on my car frequently and I notice several things happen unless I set the distance as close as possible (which I don’t like to do. ).
1. In any amount of traffic above “a few cars” people will cut in front of me, sometimes two, negating the safe following distance. Regardless of speed.
2. If I have a safe following distance while waiting for someone to get over. (I e they’re going 60, I want to go 70), if I have my distance set at a safe following distance, people are much more likely to weave / pass on the right.
(My theory would be that the distance I’m behind the person in front of them signals that I’m not going to accelerate / pass when the person gets over ).
Disclaimer: I don’t usually have to drive in any significant traffic, and when I do (Philly, New York City), I’m probably less likely to use the automatic features because the appropriate follow distance seems to increase the rage of drivers around me.
I always wonder why so many people observe this when I never have. It makes no sense logically; it's the speed of the car in front of you that determines whether they should switch lanes, not the size of the gap behind it. There is no reason for them to cut in when your lane is no faster. Perhaps you are just the sole person leaving enough room for people to execute needed lane changes.
At any rate, even if people are continuously going around you like water going around a rock in a stream, you only have to drive 2 mph slower than traffic to constantly rebuild your following distance from the infinite stream of cutoffs. But my experience is the majority of following distance is eaten up by people randomly slowing down, not cutting in.
I don't know you can find that traffic always bunches up. And if one is content to sit in the gaps in between, almost never anybody cuts in. I drove twice 1000 mile trips each way last year and it kind of worked. It's more of a mindset than anything else. Fastlane is not that fast or it would be empty, lol.
I do drive in the slow lane frequently - and this still occurs. (My go to is to set my cruise 6-9 mph over the speed limit, if passing to smoothly pass and get back over, and spend as much time as possible in the slow lane. )
However - I will say most of the roads I’m on are 2 lanes of traffic. I will have to experiment and see if this doesn’t occur when there are 3 or 4 lanes.
Okay I'm thinking of a very Shenzen kind of gizmo for your car that projects a bright red laser "keep out" box on the road in front of your car which is adjusted in size for your current speed.
We have something like that in eu with road markings. Both for clear weather and fog/rain. They mark some of the lines differently, and tell you how many lines you should have between you and the car in front. I think they were first trialed and then printed in several places.
Why does this require "hard" braking? If another car cuts in front of you just decelerate gently. You don't brake and wait until the gap is big enough (also if this is stop-and-go traffic, you should be trying to avoid braking at all)
Does it really matter though? Is the end result just a couple of minutes later in a 30 minute commute? Or does it actually make a large difference in travel time?
It doesn’t - but people don’t necessarily make rational choices regarding speed and driving. There’s a tendency to de personalize other drivers.
A slight increase in average speed really only makes a significant difference over long drives. (5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive can cut off 50 minutes).
Otherwise we are talking about small differences in efficiency.
(I would be very open to another opinion here.).
My opinions are formed by nearly ~2 million miles driven at this point, two different driving courses, and the motorcycle safety course.
One thing I truly think that’s overlooked is how reduced road noise in the vehicle cabin can both reduce driver fatigue, but also frustration in traffic.
> (5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive can cut off 50 minutes)
You can't really say that without knowing the starting speed, or alternatively the distance. All you can say is that a 5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive with get you 50 miles farther.
I would argue I can still say it /can/ cut off 50 minutes.
If you do a comparison of a 600 mile trip at 60 vs 55 you’re pretty close.
But yes, to be pedantic and more exact, you are spot on that it will get you 50 miles closer.
But in real world examples,
If you’re traveling 700 miles.
65 vs 70, 70 will reduce your time by 43 minutes.
So in certain scenarios, 5 mph difference must be able to save you 50 minutes ! ;)
(I do understand your point, and you’re correct. I’m just poking fun at it- my point with the mph difference is because 50 miles doesn’t have the same translation for most people at 50 minutes, but is a more accurate data approach. )
It used to be more of an issue when I was younger. Now that I'm older and more 'seasoned' (plus reflexes do slow down), I'm far more patient and have no issue maintaining a healthy following distance. I think the statistics reflect this in age vs. accident rate as well.
Unfortunately, sometimes over a 45 minute freeway commute, dropping back repeatedly means arriving 15 minutes or more later. Again, no big deal now, but it was somehow unacceptable when I was younger.
Is there any vehicle that uses it's sensors to make a gentle suggestion about following distance?
It's probably the best single thing anyone can do to improve safety. It also reduces wear-and-tear on your car, and increases your fuel economy as a side benefit.
Why hasn't gamification of safe driving habits been built directly into the car itself before now?
A lot of them do. My wife's VW beeps an alert if you're too close to the car ahead of you. It might be that it only activates above a certain speed.
I think it will also back down the cruise control (if set) if it detects that you are gaining on the car ahead. That might be MILs Toyota though.
I learned the "two second rule" in Driver's Education 45 years ago and generally follow that. Nothing more annoying than having the car behind you riding your bumper.
> Why hasn't gamification of safe driving habits been built directly into the car itself before now?
I am so glad it hasn't. Data point of one, but gamification now has the opposite effect on me: it's such a well-worn pattern that it just annoys me. It was great when it was novel. I wonder how many others feel the same but without sampling it's hard to know.
I concur with you regarding gamification. When I am aware of the gamification it fills me with exhaustion to annoyance to extreme frustration. This is especially true of things that I want to use for one purpose.
I also think some of the car sensors (Subaru especially) that are trying to make you safer are notoriously bad.
I also find the random “coffee break” notice on Subarus frustrating.
My personal examples: “eyes on the road” - triggered frequently by one pair of sunglasses I have, looking left to check blind spot, checking mirrors, etc.
“Hands on the steering wheel” - triggered occasionally on long drives when I have been giving input, but very light input.
As a passenger, I really notice the difference, and I wish more drivers (including professionals) would learn as you did. It probably saves energy as well, especially when driving in cities, although I guess it's marginal.
Safe following is super important. Few years back about a month after I bought a new car I was driving to work keeping a larger than normal gap thanks to a bit of "new car" anxiety. I was in the left lane, keeping pace with a cluster of three cars ahead of me, two of them tailgating. I don't know what happened but within seconds the middle car swerved, side swiped a car in the middle lane then rear ended the lead car while the trailing car rear ended them. Four cars smashed up right in front of me. I was fine because I had plenty of time to slow down and pull onto the shoulder to clear the chaos.
I have a friend who would also follow too closely to the cars in front and got one of these. Her rates went up and she eventually got into an accident (no injuries to anyone) because she would follow too closely and still break too hard.
Now she still has the machine, still follows too closely, and still breaks too hard in her new car...
A cousin of mine is abysmal to drive with as a passenger. He follows too closely to the car in front of him, regardless of lane / speed. He will slow down, follow closely, and then aggressively pass. Repeating ad nauseam.
No smooth maintaining of speed and nice passes as able without slowing down.
Surprisingly, his accidents have mostly seemed to involve gas pumps, barriers, and other obstacles at low speed.
This is left lane driving policy. I am like this, and I was not at first. What makes you drive like this is rush hour traffic. "Move up the lane or move out of the lane" is the sentiment, basically. As others have noted, it is essentially an adversarial process. If you drive nice, people cut in front and you're unable to drive nice to both those behind you and in front.
Nice research. This is fairly well known in insurance circles. Most auto insurers that do telematics consider hard braking the strongest indicator of risk. One of the things that we do at work (Cambridge Mobile Telematics) is build tools to deal with this risk. We have apps that monitor driving and we play a tone to indicate that a hard braking event was detected. Simply letting people know that they had a hard braking event is an effective mechanism for behavior change (other companies have similar tech)
Insurance is thinking about hard braking as an indicator of a driver with riskier behaviour. Google is showing that it can also be an indicator of risky road designs. These actually kind of point in opposite directions in terms of the causes of hard braking. The certainly can be used in different ways.
(Though for an insurer, it’s the same thing - whether you’re risky because you’re a bad driver or because you drive on poorly constructed roads or around other poor drivers is inconsequential to them)
Yeah well fuck insurers. We are supposed to get spied upon by our cars with their blackboxes, by our insurers, by Google, by national security services of various countries... and what do we get in return? Dinged for other people's bad behavior which we cannot reasonably control. Either you follow the car in front of you very closely and get hard braking events, or other people switch lanes in front of you and in the worst case slowing down during lane change, provoking yet another hard braking event.
Some road designs are risky because they encourage risky behavior. And "risky" is relative. A good driver should recognize risky road segments and drive even more defensively than normally.
This is true - but it’s hard even for “good” drivers to always understand especially on roads they might not be familiar with.
Example: open space on either side of the road, tends to encourage people to drive faster.
Closing that space (whether by buildings, shrubbery, etc ) will slow the speed.
But I will say there are also “obvious” bad designs - the rare far to short on ramp to merge, where drivers don’t understand how to adjust.
Or the one I most frequently encounter are “blind spots” created by the speed of an intersecting road, where a mirror may be attached to a pole / tree, or a sign reminding people to look left right left, or even instructing where cars should be beyond for a safe pull out.
I know of one intersection near me that both has markers on the road(don’t pull out if cars are at or beyond this marker), and a reminder about looking, but still has a high frequency of accidents.
My mom had a device installed in her car to get a discount on her insurance, and she was always upset at the hard braking thing - whenever she did it, it was because another car was doing something unsafe that she couldn't control, like pulling out in front of her.
Some amount of that is inevitable, but there is another level of defensive driving where you anticipate poor behavior and arrange that it won't cause an accident.
Have a look at a few dash cam accident videos [1]. There are many maladaptive patterns of behavior, but a frequent one that the average good driver can improve on is limiting speed on two occasions: when approaching a blind spot, and when passing stopped or slow traffic.
That second one gets lots of otherwise good drivers. They seem to think that by limiting their speed vs slow/stopped traffic they'd be encouraging people to dart in front of them. Which is somewhat true. But with limited speed, that's an avoidable or less injurious accident. By gunning it past stopped traffic, you make the accident unavoidable and more serious.
Without wanting to paint with too broad a brush, I would say in my experience driving in 10x countries, U.S. drivers, being most habituated to spending their lives in cars, drive in the most distracted, least careful way. Especially in places where the typology is the U.S. default of low-density, car-oriented sprawl. Accordingly there are an appaling number of deaths and injuries on the road: 1 in 43,750 people dies each year in the U.K. in automobile accidents vs. 1 in 8,500 in the U.S.A.
Inb4 deaths per mile driven, I'd argue higher VMT in the U.S.A. only proves the point - too many cars being driven too much because of silly land use. High VMT is acutally a symptom of a dangerous mobility system as much as a cause.
Adding on to this, a common reaction I see to online videos of driving incidents is "why did this person just stop? of course you are going to crash into them. They shouldn't have stopped" and many people agreeing with it. It seems they are blind to the fact that if the following driver was using a safe following distance and speed, they should easily be able to stop, making the incident the fault of the driver following too close, not the one stopping.
I haven't checked on this in a long time, but IIRC, the insurance company will always blame the person in back in a rear-end collision, for just this reason. A rear-end collision should always be avoidable.
Usually but not always. A common insurance scam is to pass a car, cut in just in front of it, then brake hard causing a collision. Dash cams video is a good thing to have to fight this if it happens to you.
I learned next-level defensive driving by bicycle commuting to work 5.5 miles each way on busy roads in rush hour traffic. On a bicycle you're invisible, and if you expect any less, you're going to get hurt. As it was, I had some very very close calls- at least one of them had the potential to be fatal. Ironically, the only time I ever crashed was my own fault.
But now even when in a car, I retain that "I'm invisible" mentality, which makes me much more aware of what other drivers are doing, and much more skeptical of their ability to make good decisions. This has saved me several times.
The landing page video's first incident is a car coming from behind and from the right, cutting off the filming car. The filming car didn't react at all when instant (but measured) braking would've been safer to start building a distance buffer.
One thing HPDE taught me is that most people under brake in dangerous situations because they simply don't know the limit of their vehicle nor the sensitivity range of the brake pedal.
The hard braking heuristic makes sense when estimating risk of road segments, but not as a proxy for driver competence.
It certainly makes sense as a proxy for competence across a diverse population for insurance purposes. You have a baseline of hard braking events that a competent driver may encounter under normal circumstances. If a driver routinely exceeds that number, they are either unable to correctly estimate closing distance and reaction times, which makes them higher risk for causing accidents, or they are driving abnormally aggressively, which also makes them a higher risk for causing accidents. If you consistently put yourself in situations where hard braking is required, it doesn't matter what your skill is, you've reduced your safety margins and an accident is statistically more probable. You said it correctly with "would've been safer to start building a distance buffer", that is the proxy the insurance companies want to use for risk assessment.
35 years without an accident on my record isn't because I'm a magnificent driver, it's because I always try to leave a way out for when something unexpected happens, because the unexpected _does_ happen.
The fact that some people may have the skill to drive more aggressively means nothing in the aggregate as far as insurance companies are concerned. If you are skilled enough to drive in that manner, you are skilled enough to avoid it as well. It's simply statistics.
> You said it correctly with "would've been safer to start building a distance buffer", that is the proxy the insurance companies want to use for risk assessment.
Then use it? Mandate reaction speed tests or other driving mechanics competency evaluation (not road sign comprehension) and watch insurance margins explode.
The driver in my example did poorly and scored top marks in the heuristic.
If you take a seasoned motorcycle rider and put them in one of those dashcam subs, they'll rip their hair out.
Most people have near zero defensive driving skill, and view someone pulling out in front of them as "nothing I could have done", when the dashcam shows the offending driver showed 5 signs of pulling out ages before the accident occurred.
At one point in my life I rode a bicycle 40+ km per day. I see things nobody else seems to and I think that has a lot to do with it. I cannot win the collision.
Much of being a good driver is just awareness.
One time my light turns green, I don't go. As my wife asks what I'm waiting for, a pickup blows the light. We weren't the first car at that light, and years later she still talks about how there's no way I could know. Well, I didn't get us t-boned at 80 so I must have done something right.
I'm definitely a better driver because of bicycling. You gain new skills when you know that you're going to come out the loser in almost every collision.
Drivers often believe that their insurance rates should be based solely on whether they follow driving rules, but the risks to insurance are not isolated to this. Someone can follow every rule perfectly, but if they are involved in an accident they incur costs for their insurance company.
First, the insurance company incurs costs just processing the claim. If things escalate with the other party, they may even incur legal and court costs.
Additionally, there are some costs that are incurred regardless of fault -- like personal injury protection.
Even defining "who was at fault" is a complicated situation. A lot of people presume that it is as simple as: whoever the police issues a citation to at the scene is 100% at fault. But that's not the way things actually work. The way liability is assigned depends on the state, but in a comparative negligence state you could be proportionately liable for as little as one percent of the fault of the accident. Maybe someone else ran a red light, you entered the intersection on green, and hit them. You could end up sharing some of the cost for that, if it is found that you could have avoided the accident but decided not to.
And even after all of this, if the other party runs out of money, doesn't have insurance, or runs away at the scene, your insurance company is stuck paying the costs under their uninsured/underinsurred motorist coverage.
It does cost them just to process the claim because the other guys side is unlikely to completely roll over if there is any chance to reduce the payout. Obviously its not as much as the claims themselves but it also isn't free.
Yep. I have a friend that was plowed into from behind while waiting at a red light, twice within a few months time. Two separate intersections. Totaled her car both times. Her insurance rates went up, even though she was clearly not at fault.
I hate the warning myself and I use the app the parent is from. I also suspect I am an outlier in not having an accident in 20 years.
It’s this obnoxious audio warning that tells me I had a hard breaking and it’s 9/10 because I stopped at a red light that I would not have made on yellow. And then it sends me tips and reminders about reducing hard breaking events and it’s annoying. I know they have done the analysis but it detects moderate hard breaking which is frustrating. One of those things that I am sure in net is positive but perhaps slices of the population it does not benefit.
No doubt but I think it’s two fold. Lights stink in that so many are setup not for safety so they rip through the yellow quick as possible. Second, I don’t think of these as hard breaking even but I am sure from a data perspective the cutoff is probably correct. Hard invokes a vision of an emergency brake event. These apps really capture any medium to hard brake event.
> Simply letting people know that they had a hard braking event is an effective mechanism for behavior change
Has this been studied in isolation? Many of the tools that notify upon hard braking also are used to impose financial penalties for doing so... I suspect people may be reacting to the financial incentives.
Yep. We work with CMT and we’ve both done extensive testing on this. I think that often people don’t necessarily know what a hard braking event actually means, or how it’s quantified. Giving that realtime feedback helps close that gap in understanding
Does it matter why? The important part is getting people to change behavior.
of course if they change such that they don't break hard when needed that is bad, but if the change such that they don't need to break hard in the first place because they slow down in places that are dangerious that is the point.
When you modify their braking behavior, is that enough to improve their overall driving behavior? Or do forward collisions and rear-enders make up substantially all of what the driver can control, so training the behaviors to reduce that type of near-miss reduces the driver's overall crash risk? To the point that it's similar to the safest tranche?
Is it that hard braking events are broadly indicative of surprises of lots of sorts, and so it happens that the only way to eliminate them all is to develop a full range of defensive driving habits?
Regardless of everything else, forward collisions are most likely to have the driver considered at-fault. Seems like reducing those in your insured population would reduce covered losses more than reducing collisions where your insured may not be at fault.
How does one not already know that they had a hard braking event? Surely the jamming their foot on the brake pedal and the rapid deceleration would send an even more obvious signal than playing a chime?
Have you used one of these apps before? They capture a lot more than emergency stops, what I would classify as the above normal brake effort but not hard braking. Im sure the data exist to set the cutoff but its a lot more than “jam your foot on the pedal braking”.
It’s still out of the norm braking for my style of driver but from what I see on the road, people drive aggressively like this. Especially in the US.
Obviously people know, but theres no impulse to introspect on why or how. Knowing that someone else knows you had a hard braking event taps in to our social brains to provide a much stronger response to the event. When we know people are watching we're more likely to try and justify our behaviour.
> We have apps that monitor driving and we play a tone to indicate that a hard braking event was detected. Simply letting people know that they had a hard braking event is an effective mechanism for behavior change (other companies have similar tech)
... How do people not notice that they are braking hard?
Because their definition of hard is not a slam on the pedal braking. It’s definitely out of the normal stopping but it’s not as hard as you might imagine. I could easily see people not realizing this.
This type of research is highly valuable but too rare; this is generally because of how we view Road Accidents at a core level:
- Road Accidents: "A driver caused this, let's determine who, and find them at fault."
- With Air Accidents: "The system caused this, let's determine which elements came together that ultimately lead to this event."
The first is essentially simplifying a complex series of events into something black and white. Easy to digest. We'll then keep doing it over and over again because we never changed the circumstances.
The second approach is holistic, for example even if the pilot made a mistake, why did they make a mistake, and what can we do to prevent that mistake (e.g. training, culture, etc)? But maybe other elements also played a part like mechanical, software, airport lightning, communications, etc.
I bet everyone reading this knows of a road near them that is an accident hotspot and I bet they can explain WHY it is. I certainly do/can, and I see cops with crashed cars there on a weekly basis. Zero changes have been made to the conditions.
this google research is a fascinating pivot from the usual driver-centric data we look at in insurance risk modeling. usually we use hard braking as a proxy for how safe an individual driver is. but using it to identify specific road segments or intersections with bad geometry is huge. it basically flips the script from individual liability to infrastructure-level risk assessment.
This is definitely pie in the sky but I dream of a future where you have so many autonomous vehicles all the road that we can not only collect this data but also incentivize the slow turning wheels of government to fix it.
yeah the interesting part is that the carriers already have most of this data from telematics apps, it's just sitting in corporate silos.
if we could bridge that gap, the economic incentive for municipalities would be massive lower accident rates mean less property damage and fewer expensive liability lawsuits for the city. it's basically a potential safety feedback loop that just needs the right data sharing protocol to actually kick in.
There’s a section of I-15 in Utah’s Salt Lake County which reliably has a crash on weekdays at 6pm. It was unfortunately at a pinch point in the mountains with no good alternate route… very annoying.
In a similar way that Google Maps shows eco routes, it’d be fun for them to show “safest” routes which avoid areas with common crashes. (Not always possible, but valuable knowledge when it is.)
Not surprising but it is nice to have these data streams to explore locations that could potentially be remediated. I think anyone who drives interstates in metro areas would agree cloverleaf interchange are generally terrible with any significant traffic. Add in the general proclivity to drive much higher than the posted speed limit and these become dangerous due to the speed differentials and we've known this for 50 years.
"A 1974 study by Hall and Dickinson showed that speed differences contributed to crashes, primarily rear end and lane change collisions"
Hall, J. W. and L. V. Dickinson. An Operational Evaluation of Truck Speeds on Interstate Highways, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, February, 1974.
When we worked at a p2p car sharing company it was well understood what a treasure trove that past accelerometer data was as good input to frequency prediction of a claim resulting from a particular rental.
This research team used Google's first-party location data to identify San Jose's Interstate 880/US 101 interchange as a site with statistically extreme amounts of hard braking by Android Auto users.
But you don't need machine learning to know that... San Jose Mercury News readers voted that exact location as the worst interchange in the entire Bay Area in a 2018 reader poll [1]
It's not a lack of knowledge by Caltrans or Santa Clara County's congestion management agency that is keeping that interchange as-is. Rather, it's the physical constraints of a nearby airport (so no room for flyovers), a nearby river (so probably no tunneling), and surrounding private landowners and train tracks.
Leaving aside the specifics of the 880/101 interchange, the Google blog post suggests that they'll use this worst-case scenario on a limited access freeway to inform their future machine-learning analyses of other roads around the country, including ones where presumably there are also pedestrians and cyclists.
No doubt some state departments of transportation will line up to buy these new "insights" from Google (forgetting that they actually already buy similar products from TomTom, Inrix, StreetLight, et al.) [2]
While I genuinely see the value in data-informed decision making for transportation and urban planning, it's not a lack of data that's causing problems at this particular freeway intersection. This blog post is an underbaked advertisement.
Caltrans could lower the speed at that interchange, and use traffic calming to actually get people to drive slower. Good traffic engineering can still make a difference even with the existing physical limitations.
>No doubt some state departments of transportation will line up to buy these new "insights" from Google (forgetting that they actually already buy similar products from TomTom, Inrix, StreetLight, et al.) [2]
Google/Apple probably collect a massively larger amount of data than those other companies, putting those other companies at a risk of losing future revenue.
Between Google and Apple pretty much every car in the US is monitored.
Yeah, Google and Apple do probably have much more first-party probe data of passenger vehicles. But it really depends on the type of traffic data product. For some use-cases, it's more than sufficient for the vendor to buy probe data from specific types of fleet vehicles (like work trucks).
Where Google/Apple's coverage is quite valuable is for near-real-time speeds for atypical events -- say like yesterday's Super Bowl. But that's not what this blog post is about -- this post is about a well-established pattern that can be identified with historical datasets.
All that to say that vendors sell a wide variety of data products to transportation planners, but just because Google is now entering this niche market doesn't mean they'll be "the best" or even realize what their strengths are.
Indeed why would you even need this or a poll? The crash statistics already exist. What's the purpose of a proxy predictor unless the label is something too low signal to detect but may become a big issue later. The only such case is a new road that recently opened.
I got one of those dongles from my insurance company that plugged into the ODB2 port and reported my driving habits.
I was a bad driver. It would frequently beep at me to let me know that I had braked too hard. I was mystified. "What should I have done differently," I'd think, as I raged at the objective machine that judged me so.
The next time my brother came to visit, he called mom. "Oh, and presidentender is a good driver now." I didn't put the pieces together right away, but it turned out that the dongle had actually trained me, like a dog's shock collar.
The reason for my too-frequent hard-braking events wasn't speed, although that would be a contributing factor. It was a lack of appropriate following distance. Because I'd follow the drivers in front of me too closely I'd have to brake hard if they did... Or if they drive normally and happened to have a turn coming up.
Over the period I had the insurance spy box in my truck I learned without thinking about it to increase my following distance, which meant that riding with me as a passenger was more comfortable and it beeped less often. Of course since I'd been so naughty early during the evaluation they didn't decrease my rates, but I think the training probably did make me statistically less likely to crash.
Maintaining a safe following distance is incredibly challenging on busy freeways where hard braking is often 'required'. Most people have likely found themselves in this situation: vehicle changes lanes in front of you; you slow down to maintain a safe following distance, another car sees a gap and changes lanes in front of you. Repeat for your entire commute.
Incredibly frustrating, and I've driven all over North America - there's practically no major city where this doesn't happen. If you're not maintaining a safe following distance on city/residential streets, that's a different matter.
This is accurate in many ways. I use the auto cruise feature on my car frequently and I notice several things happen unless I set the distance as close as possible (which I don’t like to do. ).
1. In any amount of traffic above “a few cars” people will cut in front of me, sometimes two, negating the safe following distance. Regardless of speed.
2. If I have a safe following distance while waiting for someone to get over. (I e they’re going 60, I want to go 70), if I have my distance set at a safe following distance, people are much more likely to weave / pass on the right. (My theory would be that the distance I’m behind the person in front of them signals that I’m not going to accelerate / pass when the person gets over ).
Disclaimer: I don’t usually have to drive in any significant traffic, and when I do (Philly, New York City), I’m probably less likely to use the automatic features because the appropriate follow distance seems to increase the rage of drivers around me.
I always wonder why so many people observe this when I never have. It makes no sense logically; it's the speed of the car in front of you that determines whether they should switch lanes, not the size of the gap behind it. There is no reason for them to cut in when your lane is no faster. Perhaps you are just the sole person leaving enough room for people to execute needed lane changes.
At any rate, even if people are continuously going around you like water going around a rock in a stream, you only have to drive 2 mph slower than traffic to constantly rebuild your following distance from the infinite stream of cutoffs. But my experience is the majority of following distance is eaten up by people randomly slowing down, not cutting in.
I don't know you can find that traffic always bunches up. And if one is content to sit in the gaps in between, almost never anybody cuts in. I drove twice 1000 mile trips each way last year and it kind of worked. It's more of a mindset than anything else. Fastlane is not that fast or it would be empty, lol.
Just drive in the slow lane and you won’t have this problem. The people cutting in front of you rarely want to be in the slow lane.
I do drive in the slow lane frequently - and this still occurs. (My go to is to set my cruise 6-9 mph over the speed limit, if passing to smoothly pass and get back over, and spend as much time as possible in the slow lane. )
However - I will say most of the roads I’m on are 2 lanes of traffic. I will have to experiment and see if this doesn’t occur when there are 3 or 4 lanes.
Okay I'm thinking of a very Shenzen kind of gizmo for your car that projects a bright red laser "keep out" box on the road in front of your car which is adjusted in size for your current speed.
We have something like that in eu with road markings. Both for clear weather and fog/rain. They mark some of the lines differently, and tell you how many lines you should have between you and the car in front. I think they were first trialed and then printed in several places.
Why does this require "hard" braking? If another car cuts in front of you just decelerate gently. You don't brake and wait until the gap is big enough (also if this is stop-and-go traffic, you should be trying to avoid braking at all)
Does it really matter though? Is the end result just a couple of minutes later in a 30 minute commute? Or does it actually make a large difference in travel time?
It doesn’t - but people don’t necessarily make rational choices regarding speed and driving. There’s a tendency to de personalize other drivers.
A slight increase in average speed really only makes a significant difference over long drives. (5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive can cut off 50 minutes).
Otherwise we are talking about small differences in efficiency.
(I would be very open to another opinion here.).
My opinions are formed by nearly ~2 million miles driven at this point, two different driving courses, and the motorcycle safety course.
One thing I truly think that’s overlooked is how reduced road noise in the vehicle cabin can both reduce driver fatigue, but also frustration in traffic.
> (5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive can cut off 50 minutes)
You can't really say that without knowing the starting speed, or alternatively the distance. All you can say is that a 5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive with get you 50 miles farther.
I would argue I can still say it /can/ cut off 50 minutes.
If you do a comparison of a 600 mile trip at 60 vs 55 you’re pretty close.
But yes, to be pedantic and more exact, you are spot on that it will get you 50 miles closer.
But in real world examples,
If you’re traveling 700 miles.
65 vs 70, 70 will reduce your time by 43 minutes.
So in certain scenarios, 5 mph difference must be able to save you 50 minutes ! ;)
(I do understand your point, and you’re correct. I’m just poking fun at it- my point with the mph difference is because 50 miles doesn’t have the same translation for most people at 50 minutes, but is a more accurate data approach. )
It used to be more of an issue when I was younger. Now that I'm older and more 'seasoned' (plus reflexes do slow down), I'm far more patient and have no issue maintaining a healthy following distance. I think the statistics reflect this in age vs. accident rate as well.
Unfortunately, sometimes over a 45 minute freeway commute, dropping back repeatedly means arriving 15 minutes or more later. Again, no big deal now, but it was somehow unacceptable when I was younger.
Thanks for sharing. I'm genuinely impressed to hear someone publicly share a story of growing self awareness and improvement.
Is there any vehicle that uses it's sensors to make a gentle suggestion about following distance?
It's probably the best single thing anyone can do to improve safety. It also reduces wear-and-tear on your car, and increases your fuel economy as a side benefit.
Why hasn't gamification of safe driving habits been built directly into the car itself before now?
A lot of them do. My wife's VW beeps an alert if you're too close to the car ahead of you. It might be that it only activates above a certain speed.
I think it will also back down the cruise control (if set) if it detects that you are gaining on the car ahead. That might be MILs Toyota though.
I learned the "two second rule" in Driver's Education 45 years ago and generally follow that. Nothing more annoying than having the car behind you riding your bumper.
> Why hasn't gamification of safe driving habits been built directly into the car itself before now?
I am so glad it hasn't. Data point of one, but gamification now has the opposite effect on me: it's such a well-worn pattern that it just annoys me. It was great when it was novel. I wonder how many others feel the same but without sampling it's hard to know.
I concur with you regarding gamification. When I am aware of the gamification it fills me with exhaustion to annoyance to extreme frustration. This is especially true of things that I want to use for one purpose.
I also think some of the car sensors (Subaru especially) that are trying to make you safer are notoriously bad.
I also find the random “coffee break” notice on Subarus frustrating.
My personal examples: “eyes on the road” - triggered frequently by one pair of sunglasses I have, looking left to check blind spot, checking mirrors, etc.
“Hands on the steering wheel” - triggered occasionally on long drives when I have been giving input, but very light input.
As a passenger, I really notice the difference, and I wish more drivers (including professionals) would learn as you did. It probably saves energy as well, especially when driving in cities, although I guess it's marginal.
Safe following is super important. Few years back about a month after I bought a new car I was driving to work keeping a larger than normal gap thanks to a bit of "new car" anxiety. I was in the left lane, keeping pace with a cluster of three cars ahead of me, two of them tailgating. I don't know what happened but within seconds the middle car swerved, side swiped a car in the middle lane then rear ended the lead car while the trailing car rear ended them. Four cars smashed up right in front of me. I was fine because I had plenty of time to slow down and pull onto the shoulder to clear the chaos.
Just like Lightning McQueen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvhFjVj7k44
I have a friend who would also follow too closely to the cars in front and got one of these. Her rates went up and she eventually got into an accident (no injuries to anyone) because she would follow too closely and still break too hard.
Now she still has the machine, still follows too closely, and still breaks too hard in her new car...
Good it worked for you though!
A cousin of mine is abysmal to drive with as a passenger. He follows too closely to the car in front of him, regardless of lane / speed. He will slow down, follow closely, and then aggressively pass. Repeating ad nauseam.
No smooth maintaining of speed and nice passes as able without slowing down.
Surprisingly, his accidents have mostly seemed to involve gas pumps, barriers, and other obstacles at low speed.
This is left lane driving policy. I am like this, and I was not at first. What makes you drive like this is rush hour traffic. "Move up the lane or move out of the lane" is the sentiment, basically. As others have noted, it is essentially an adversarial process. If you drive nice, people cut in front and you're unable to drive nice to both those behind you and in front.
I'm always surprised at the number of people that follow too closely.
This always stuck with me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJFOTSYJrtw&t=466s
Nice research. This is fairly well known in insurance circles. Most auto insurers that do telematics consider hard braking the strongest indicator of risk. One of the things that we do at work (Cambridge Mobile Telematics) is build tools to deal with this risk. We have apps that monitor driving and we play a tone to indicate that a hard braking event was detected. Simply letting people know that they had a hard braking event is an effective mechanism for behavior change (other companies have similar tech)
Insurance is thinking about hard braking as an indicator of a driver with riskier behaviour. Google is showing that it can also be an indicator of risky road designs. These actually kind of point in opposite directions in terms of the causes of hard braking. The certainly can be used in different ways.
(Though for an insurer, it’s the same thing - whether you’re risky because you’re a bad driver or because you drive on poorly constructed roads or around other poor drivers is inconsequential to them)
Yeah well fuck insurers. We are supposed to get spied upon by our cars with their blackboxes, by our insurers, by Google, by national security services of various countries... and what do we get in return? Dinged for other people's bad behavior which we cannot reasonably control. Either you follow the car in front of you very closely and get hard braking events, or other people switch lanes in front of you and in the worst case slowing down during lane change, provoking yet another hard braking event.
Fuck all of that.
Some road designs are risky because they encourage risky behavior. And "risky" is relative. A good driver should recognize risky road segments and drive even more defensively than normally.
This is true - but it’s hard even for “good” drivers to always understand especially on roads they might not be familiar with.
Example: open space on either side of the road, tends to encourage people to drive faster.
Closing that space (whether by buildings, shrubbery, etc ) will slow the speed.
But I will say there are also “obvious” bad designs - the rare far to short on ramp to merge, where drivers don’t understand how to adjust.
Or the one I most frequently encounter are “blind spots” created by the speed of an intersecting road, where a mirror may be attached to a pole / tree, or a sign reminding people to look left right left, or even instructing where cars should be beyond for a safe pull out.
I know of one intersection near me that both has markers on the road(don’t pull out if cars are at or beyond this marker), and a reminder about looking, but still has a high frequency of accidents.
A driver who frequents risky roads is a concern to insurers, just as a driver who has risky behaviors.
The cause of hard braking isn’t mutually exclusive: bad driving or bad road design.
Driving on bad roads is just as bad for insurance as a bad driver is.
My mom had a device installed in her car to get a discount on her insurance, and she was always upset at the hard braking thing - whenever she did it, it was because another car was doing something unsafe that she couldn't control, like pulling out in front of her.
Some amount of that is inevitable, but there is another level of defensive driving where you anticipate poor behavior and arrange that it won't cause an accident.
Have a look at a few dash cam accident videos [1]. There are many maladaptive patterns of behavior, but a frequent one that the average good driver can improve on is limiting speed on two occasions: when approaching a blind spot, and when passing stopped or slow traffic.
That second one gets lots of otherwise good drivers. They seem to think that by limiting their speed vs slow/stopped traffic they'd be encouraging people to dart in front of them. Which is somewhat true. But with limited speed, that's an avoidable or less injurious accident. By gunning it past stopped traffic, you make the accident unavoidable and more serious.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@IdiotsInCars1
Without wanting to paint with too broad a brush, I would say in my experience driving in 10x countries, U.S. drivers, being most habituated to spending their lives in cars, drive in the most distracted, least careful way. Especially in places where the typology is the U.S. default of low-density, car-oriented sprawl. Accordingly there are an appaling number of deaths and injuries on the road: 1 in 43,750 people dies each year in the U.K. in automobile accidents vs. 1 in 8,500 in the U.S.A.
Inb4 deaths per mile driven, I'd argue higher VMT in the U.S.A. only proves the point - too many cars being driven too much because of silly land use. High VMT is acutally a symptom of a dangerous mobility system as much as a cause.
Coming from outside the US, I was shocked to see how many drivers were on their phones _while the car is in motion_, scrolling Instagram or similar.
Adding on to this, a common reaction I see to online videos of driving incidents is "why did this person just stop? of course you are going to crash into them. They shouldn't have stopped" and many people agreeing with it. It seems they are blind to the fact that if the following driver was using a safe following distance and speed, they should easily be able to stop, making the incident the fault of the driver following too close, not the one stopping.
I haven't checked on this in a long time, but IIRC, the insurance company will always blame the person in back in a rear-end collision, for just this reason. A rear-end collision should always be avoidable.
Usually but not always. A common insurance scam is to pass a car, cut in just in front of it, then brake hard causing a collision. Dash cams video is a good thing to have to fight this if it happens to you.
People also don’t realize that just because you can does not mean the insurance will side with you 100%.
I learned next-level defensive driving by bicycle commuting to work 5.5 miles each way on busy roads in rush hour traffic. On a bicycle you're invisible, and if you expect any less, you're going to get hurt. As it was, I had some very very close calls- at least one of them had the potential to be fatal. Ironically, the only time I ever crashed was my own fault.
But now even when in a car, I retain that "I'm invisible" mentality, which makes me much more aware of what other drivers are doing, and much more skeptical of their ability to make good decisions. This has saved me several times.
The landing page video's first incident is a car coming from behind and from the right, cutting off the filming car. The filming car didn't react at all when instant (but measured) braking would've been safer to start building a distance buffer.
One thing HPDE taught me is that most people under brake in dangerous situations because they simply don't know the limit of their vehicle nor the sensitivity range of the brake pedal.
The hard braking heuristic makes sense when estimating risk of road segments, but not as a proxy for driver competence.
It certainly makes sense as a proxy for competence across a diverse population for insurance purposes. You have a baseline of hard braking events that a competent driver may encounter under normal circumstances. If a driver routinely exceeds that number, they are either unable to correctly estimate closing distance and reaction times, which makes them higher risk for causing accidents, or they are driving abnormally aggressively, which also makes them a higher risk for causing accidents. If you consistently put yourself in situations where hard braking is required, it doesn't matter what your skill is, you've reduced your safety margins and an accident is statistically more probable. You said it correctly with "would've been safer to start building a distance buffer", that is the proxy the insurance companies want to use for risk assessment.
35 years without an accident on my record isn't because I'm a magnificent driver, it's because I always try to leave a way out for when something unexpected happens, because the unexpected _does_ happen.
The fact that some people may have the skill to drive more aggressively means nothing in the aggregate as far as insurance companies are concerned. If you are skilled enough to drive in that manner, you are skilled enough to avoid it as well. It's simply statistics.
> You said it correctly with "would've been safer to start building a distance buffer", that is the proxy the insurance companies want to use for risk assessment.
Then use it? Mandate reaction speed tests or other driving mechanics competency evaluation (not road sign comprehension) and watch insurance margins explode.
The driver in my example did poorly and scored top marks in the heuristic.
If you take a seasoned motorcycle rider and put them in one of those dashcam subs, they'll rip their hair out.
Most people have near zero defensive driving skill, and view someone pulling out in front of them as "nothing I could have done", when the dashcam shows the offending driver showed 5 signs of pulling out ages before the accident occurred.
At one point in my life I rode a bicycle 40+ km per day. I see things nobody else seems to and I think that has a lot to do with it. I cannot win the collision.
Much of being a good driver is just awareness.
One time my light turns green, I don't go. As my wife asks what I'm waiting for, a pickup blows the light. We weren't the first car at that light, and years later she still talks about how there's no way I could know. Well, I didn't get us t-boned at 80 so I must have done something right.
I'm definitely a better driver because of bicycling. You gain new skills when you know that you're going to come out the loser in almost every collision.
A seasoned motorcycle rider should be unable to rip out any hair, due to safely wearing a helmet!
Drivers often believe that their insurance rates should be based solely on whether they follow driving rules, but the risks to insurance are not isolated to this. Someone can follow every rule perfectly, but if they are involved in an accident they incur costs for their insurance company.
If they are not found at fault then indeed there's no cost for their insurance company?
A common misconception.
First, the insurance company incurs costs just processing the claim. If things escalate with the other party, they may even incur legal and court costs.
Additionally, there are some costs that are incurred regardless of fault -- like personal injury protection.
Even defining "who was at fault" is a complicated situation. A lot of people presume that it is as simple as: whoever the police issues a citation to at the scene is 100% at fault. But that's not the way things actually work. The way liability is assigned depends on the state, but in a comparative negligence state you could be proportionately liable for as little as one percent of the fault of the accident. Maybe someone else ran a red light, you entered the intersection on green, and hit them. You could end up sharing some of the cost for that, if it is found that you could have avoided the accident but decided not to.
And even after all of this, if the other party runs out of money, doesn't have insurance, or runs away at the scene, your insurance company is stuck paying the costs under their uninsured/underinsurred motorist coverage.
It does cost them just to process the claim because the other guys side is unlikely to completely roll over if there is any chance to reduce the payout. Obviously its not as much as the claims themselves but it also isn't free.
Yep. I have a friend that was plowed into from behind while waiting at a red light, twice within a few months time. Two separate intersections. Totaled her car both times. Her insurance rates went up, even though she was clearly not at fault.
There might be, if the at-fault driver is uninsured and you are carrying uninsured motorist coverage.
I hate the warning myself and I use the app the parent is from. I also suspect I am an outlier in not having an accident in 20 years.
It’s this obnoxious audio warning that tells me I had a hard breaking and it’s 9/10 because I stopped at a red light that I would not have made on yellow. And then it sends me tips and reminders about reducing hard breaking events and it’s annoying. I know they have done the analysis but it detects moderate hard breaking which is frustrating. One of those things that I am sure in net is positive but perhaps slices of the population it does not benefit.
The lights should be timed so that you don't have to do that if you are driving the posted speed, but I know that's not always true.
No doubt but I think it’s two fold. Lights stink in that so many are setup not for safety so they rip through the yellow quick as possible. Second, I don’t think of these as hard breaking even but I am sure from a data perspective the cutoff is probably correct. Hard invokes a vision of an emergency brake event. These apps really capture any medium to hard brake event.
> Simply letting people know that they had a hard braking event is an effective mechanism for behavior change
Has this been studied in isolation? Many of the tools that notify upon hard braking also are used to impose financial penalties for doing so... I suspect people may be reacting to the financial incentives.
Yep. We work with CMT and we’ve both done extensive testing on this. I think that often people don’t necessarily know what a hard braking event actually means, or how it’s quantified. Giving that realtime feedback helps close that gap in understanding
Does it matter why? The important part is getting people to change behavior.
of course if they change such that they don't break hard when needed that is bad, but if the change such that they don't need to break hard in the first place because they slow down in places that are dangerious that is the point.
When you modify their braking behavior, is that enough to improve their overall driving behavior? Or do forward collisions and rear-enders make up substantially all of what the driver can control, so training the behaviors to reduce that type of near-miss reduces the driver's overall crash risk? To the point that it's similar to the safest tranche?
Is it that hard braking events are broadly indicative of surprises of lots of sorts, and so it happens that the only way to eliminate them all is to develop a full range of defensive driving habits?
More Goodhart's Law or Serenity Prayer?
Regardless of everything else, forward collisions are most likely to have the driver considered at-fault. Seems like reducing those in your insured population would reduce covered losses more than reducing collisions where your insured may not be at fault.
How does one not already know that they had a hard braking event? Surely the jamming their foot on the brake pedal and the rapid deceleration would send an even more obvious signal than playing a chime?
Have you used one of these apps before? They capture a lot more than emergency stops, what I would classify as the above normal brake effort but not hard braking. Im sure the data exist to set the cutoff but its a lot more than “jam your foot on the pedal braking”.
It’s still out of the norm braking for my style of driver but from what I see on the road, people drive aggressively like this. Especially in the US.
Obviously people know, but theres no impulse to introspect on why or how. Knowing that someone else knows you had a hard braking event taps in to our social brains to provide a much stronger response to the event. When we know people are watching we're more likely to try and justify our behaviour.
> We have apps that monitor driving and we play a tone to indicate that a hard braking event was detected. Simply letting people know that they had a hard braking event is an effective mechanism for behavior change (other companies have similar tech)
... How do people not notice that they are braking hard?
Because their definition of hard is not a slam on the pedal braking. It’s definitely out of the normal stopping but it’s not as hard as you might imagine. I could easily see people not realizing this.
This type of research is highly valuable but too rare; this is generally because of how we view Road Accidents at a core level:
- Road Accidents: "A driver caused this, let's determine who, and find them at fault."
- With Air Accidents: "The system caused this, let's determine which elements came together that ultimately lead to this event."
The first is essentially simplifying a complex series of events into something black and white. Easy to digest. We'll then keep doing it over and over again because we never changed the circumstances.
The second approach is holistic, for example even if the pilot made a mistake, why did they make a mistake, and what can we do to prevent that mistake (e.g. training, culture, etc)? But maybe other elements also played a part like mechanical, software, airport lightning, communications, etc.
I bet everyone reading this knows of a road near them that is an accident hotspot and I bet they can explain WHY it is. I certainly do/can, and I see cops with crashed cars there on a weekly basis. Zero changes have been made to the conditions.
this google research is a fascinating pivot from the usual driver-centric data we look at in insurance risk modeling. usually we use hard braking as a proxy for how safe an individual driver is. but using it to identify specific road segments or intersections with bad geometry is huge. it basically flips the script from individual liability to infrastructure-level risk assessment.
This is definitely pie in the sky but I dream of a future where you have so many autonomous vehicles all the road that we can not only collect this data but also incentivize the slow turning wheels of government to fix it.
yeah the interesting part is that the carriers already have most of this data from telematics apps, it's just sitting in corporate silos.
if we could bridge that gap, the economic incentive for municipalities would be massive lower accident rates mean less property damage and fewer expensive liability lawsuits for the city. it's basically a potential safety feedback loop that just needs the right data sharing protocol to actually kick in.
Ok but where is the public Maps overlay for this? Is it available?
There’s a section of I-15 in Utah’s Salt Lake County which reliably has a crash on weekdays at 6pm. It was unfortunately at a pinch point in the mountains with no good alternate route… very annoying.
In a similar way that Google Maps shows eco routes, it’d be fun for them to show “safest” routes which avoid areas with common crashes. (Not always possible, but valuable knowledge when it is.)
Not surprising but it is nice to have these data streams to explore locations that could potentially be remediated. I think anyone who drives interstates in metro areas would agree cloverleaf interchange are generally terrible with any significant traffic. Add in the general proclivity to drive much higher than the posted speed limit and these become dangerous due to the speed differentials and we've known this for 50 years.
"A 1974 study by Hall and Dickinson showed that speed differences contributed to crashes, primarily rear end and lane change collisions"
Hall, J. W. and L. V. Dickinson. An Operational Evaluation of Truck Speeds on Interstate Highways, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, February, 1974.
When we worked at a p2p car sharing company it was well understood what a treasure trove that past accelerometer data was as good input to frequency prediction of a claim resulting from a particular rental.
What is the actual use of this?
This research team used Google's first-party location data to identify San Jose's Interstate 880/US 101 interchange as a site with statistically extreme amounts of hard braking by Android Auto users.
But you don't need machine learning to know that... San Jose Mercury News readers voted that exact location as the worst interchange in the entire Bay Area in a 2018 reader poll [1]
It's not a lack of knowledge by Caltrans or Santa Clara County's congestion management agency that is keeping that interchange as-is. Rather, it's the physical constraints of a nearby airport (so no room for flyovers), a nearby river (so probably no tunneling), and surrounding private landowners and train tracks.
Leaving aside the specifics of the 880/101 interchange, the Google blog post suggests that they'll use this worst-case scenario on a limited access freeway to inform their future machine-learning analyses of other roads around the country, including ones where presumably there are also pedestrians and cyclists.
No doubt some state departments of transportation will line up to buy these new "insights" from Google (forgetting that they actually already buy similar products from TomTom, Inrix, StreetLight, et al.) [2]
While I genuinely see the value in data-informed decision making for transportation and urban planning, it's not a lack of data that's causing problems at this particular freeway intersection. This blog post is an underbaked advertisement.
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/13/101-880-ranks-as-bay-...
[2] https://www.tomtom.com/products/traffic-stats/ https://inrix.com/products/ai-traffic/ https://www.streetlightdata.com/traffic-planning/
On the interchange in question, they can always redo how the merge is designed in the same space. There is no excuse for that.
Caltrans could lower the speed at that interchange, and use traffic calming to actually get people to drive slower. Good traffic engineering can still make a difference even with the existing physical limitations.
>No doubt some state departments of transportation will line up to buy these new "insights" from Google (forgetting that they actually already buy similar products from TomTom, Inrix, StreetLight, et al.) [2]
Google/Apple probably collect a massively larger amount of data than those other companies, putting those other companies at a risk of losing future revenue.
Between Google and Apple pretty much every car in the US is monitored.
Yeah, Google and Apple do probably have much more first-party probe data of passenger vehicles. But it really depends on the type of traffic data product. For some use-cases, it's more than sufficient for the vendor to buy probe data from specific types of fleet vehicles (like work trucks).
Where Google/Apple's coverage is quite valuable is for near-real-time speeds for atypical events -- say like yesterday's Super Bowl. But that's not what this blog post is about -- this post is about a well-established pattern that can be identified with historical datasets.
All that to say that vendors sell a wide variety of data products to transportation planners, but just because Google is now entering this niche market doesn't mean they'll be "the best" or even realize what their strengths are.
It does look much more like a revenue play. The data already exists, but not from the conglomorates and not as uniformly formatted.
Indeed why would you even need this or a poll? The crash statistics already exist. What's the purpose of a proxy predictor unless the label is something too low signal to detect but may become a big issue later. The only such case is a new road that recently opened.
How long until my insurance company can figure out my commute route and adjust my rates based on the collective risk of the segments?
Or it could suggest a less risky route and offer you a discount in exchange for taking that route instead.
Why can't Gooapple suggest this today?
Like another poster said, this is very well known already. It's one of the reasons why municipalities purchase this data from data brokers.