I used to leave wide gaps, but then I found that market economics started to apply and my gaps were just filled by other drivers looking to arbitrage my attempts at stabilizing the economy. Making matters worse, they would just cut me off when their lane slowed, causing the market to suddenly crash in my lane. So now I leave no gaps.
While most of us academics may be familiar with the problem here, it's moot in the end. No amount of education or public awareness will fix this. Our only hope are self-driving cars or other forms of transportation -- train, hyperloop...
The question is too vague to give a good brief answer. Narrowing it down, I believe that it is possible for a good driver to reduce the stop-go element of heavy traffic by following the car in front at a judicious (more than average) distance and then braking more slowly than the car in front as the traffic in front is reducing speed. When the traffic in front starts to accelerate again the driver then accelerates more slowly until a sufficient distance is achieved between him and the car in front such that the slower braking technique can be used again as necessary. I know from personal experience that it is possible to reduce the stop-start nature of the traffic in this way.
When I'm in LA and it's stop-and-go traffic, I find it's best to follow the trucks in the right lane. I average a much higher speed because they don't have the ability to tailgate and slam on their brakes like the most aggressive drivers in the fast lane who are actually causing the traffic jam, and consequently go an even 15 mph as opposed to 0-30-0-30-0, etc.
There's always a wide range of gaps in stop-n-go traffic. Anything from a car length to 1,000 feet. It's the 1Kft gappers that seem to bring out the crazy in other drivers.<p>Tangent: how about the drivers that think we should all be merging one entire mile before the merge point and therefore start straddling two lanes in an attempt to prevent passing in the empty lane?<p>We're supposed to use all the pavement and then zipper merge at the merge point. This would be even easier if traffic would be consistent about gaps.
No. Please leave lots of gaps ... ones just long enough for my motorcycle to sneak into. In all seriousness, in many parts of the world it is natural for two-wheelers to filter past stopped cars to fill every available space in stop and go traffic. Given that bikes fit more people into a given space (pushbikes and motorcycles etc) having the cars leave gaps while stopped can be more efficient. But only where there are enough bikes willing to filter, which is rare in north america.<p>What is really interesting to me is the math behind leaving extra space in moving traffic. I have to cross a major bridge every day (Vancouver, Lions Gate Bridge) which is often only one lane for my direction. A driver leaving 5 or 10 seconds worth of space impacts everyone behind them. 10 seconds x 350 cars means that one person leaving too much of a gap is actually creating an hour's worth of delay.
I've often thought about traffic flow when stuck in traffic. I'm in favor of a bit of a gap. I'll try to describe it. I'll start with what lead me to my conclusion.<p>At a stop light that has turned green all the cars do not go at once. They all proceed sequentially from first to last. If the line is long enough, and the light short enough, the last car cannot make it through. If all cars were to accelerate at the same time simultaneously like a train then many more cars would make it through the light. Of course this will never happen with human drivers.<p>I believe keeping a reasonable buffer in traffic helps prevent the above situation that I see occur at lights. The delay of this affect is repeated for each and every stop.<p>I think an excessive gap would make the flow worse in the way described in the article. I'm thinking there's a happy medium somewhere. Somewhere between the excessive gap of the one that wants to teach everyone the 'wisdom' of the gap and the hot-heads that want to drive over the person in front.
I've had numerous debates about this, I've asked someone who works for my local municipalities traffic office about simulations regarding this (though she didn't have the correct simulators to do it, just for intersections).<p>I know the theory, but people frequently and incorrectly state that emergent traffic jams are proof that leaving large gaps to smooth traffic behind you improves traffic flow. That to me this is an unacceptable leap of logic. Why are their no contrasting simulations showing traffic flow with and without these "smoothing" agents? Creating a simulation that has rolling traffic jams, introduce agents that disperse the traffic jam (can you actually disperse these traffic jams anyway? Again, not demonstrated in the story.) Has throughput increased? It's not a given that it has.<p>My concern is that the people who tried to do what I am saying only achieved negative results, so they did not publish. Regardless of my concerns, I believe this theory might be true. Which is why this is so frustrating!
Here's some evidence that creating those wide gaps does help.<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2011/10/rolling_speed_harmonization_how_colorado_fights_congestion_on_i_.single.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2011/10/rolling...</a>
You stay with in 3 seconds so like 25 feet in most traffic NOT 1000 feet!!!<p>It is all about how many cars flow through a certain spot a minute. If you have space you have more time therefore creating MORE traffic behind you!<p>If I had a billion dollars this would be a Super Bowl Commercial and I would blast YouTube and FaceBook with ads.