I live in a one-radio-station-town (a university owned NPR/FM station). Of course there are other stations on the air available, but they are made up of Top 10 crap and several getting-saved-by-Jesus stations. So my options are obviously limited.
Now on the bright side, the NPR station here in Athens plays really good music. It’s not classical music, but I can’t have everything. This I can get on the web and through my stereo via high speed cable. WOUB plays eclectic hip stuff.
BUT—there are times when even the best of the best revert to the cliché. This usually happens during a holiday. I think you know what I’m talking about. You know—when you have to put up with all of those incredibly lame rock and roll Christmas songs like; Thank God It's Christmas – Queen; Rock and Roll Christmas - George Thorogood & the Destroyers; and that classic All I Want for Christmas Is You – Foghat.
I need to clarify something here first. It takes me forever to fall asleep at night, so my only solace during this frustrating period (sometimes two to three hours) is to listen to music while my wife enjoys her slumber, next to me. Which begs the question: What happens when they play the cliché music? Well, I just have to lie there and take it (remember it’s a one-station-town).
Last night was one of those times. It was a St. Patrick’s Day weekend and the DJ of one of the “good” shows decided to play Irish music for the whole show. It was some of the most irritating music ever played in all of Christendom. Diddle dee dee, diddle dee dee, diddle dee dee, didle dee dee, for three F-ing hours. And then it ended with a fiddle being sawed in half by only two notes for over fifteen minutes, I thought that the record must have developed a skip and the DJ was off in the bathroom taking care of a problem caused by too much corned beef. It even woke my wife up. I was ready to pull my hair out.
So Mister Grumpy—why the sad tale?
I just don’t understand why we are goaded into these clichés. Why do we have to play Irish music on St. Patrick’s Day? This—everybody is Irish on St. Patrick’s Day--is as old and tired as TV antennas. Please, join the millennium, folks.
Hopefully by Christmas, I’ll have a CD player on my nightstand. This blog is written by a poor poet, so buying something that extravagant is not as easy as some of you might think.
What we put up with for our art!
Monday, March 16, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Are You Über?
Have you noticed that just about everything has become “über this” or “über that?” All you have to do is watch any segment on your favorite morning show, and surely the “so called” experts will use “über” in their descriptions of any object, trend, or fashion.
So what in the heck does it mean and how did it arrive at such a ubiquitous place in the America lexicon?
Let’s get the formalities over with first. It’s über, not uber. They are not the same thing. If you want to write it in English without the two dots, you would write “ueber.” It is from the German language and refers to something super or supreme. The literal meaning in German is “above.”
Many of us, including me, were introduced to the word when it was used as a synonym for “super” on a Saturday Night Live sketch in 1979, called What If?. They pondered the notion what if the comic book hero Superman had landed in Nazi Germany when he first came from the planet Krypton. Would he have taken on the name Überman?
Shortly after this, in the early 1980s, the California punk band, the Dead Kennedy’s, used the term in the anti-California government song “California Uber Alles,” which was a take off of the German motto of “Deustchland Uber Alles,” which means “Germany above all.” The term was then picked up by the natives of California (surfer dudes and punks), and then was adopted by the teenagers, which led to the eventual use by the majority.
It went from—“That band is uber hip”, to-- “that is an uber blog!”
I wonder if many people realize that one of their favorite terms has Nazi roots. The term “über” crossed over into English from the work of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, when in 1883 he coined the term “übermensch” to describe the higher state to which he felt man might aspire to. And then during Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, he bastardized Nietzsche’s term, using it as part of his description of an Aryan master race. Most importantly, it is this association we have with the image of the Superman hero that the term has taken on much of its English sense implying irresistibility or invincibility.
So the Nazi German anthem, re-used by punk bands, helped the term become popular in America.
When words like this come into such widespread use, I can only wonder if those speaking them have any clue as to what the hell they’re saying.
Now here’s another one for you to contemplate: fashionista.
Got any other suggestions for words to eliminate from our lexicon?
So what in the heck does it mean and how did it arrive at such a ubiquitous place in the America lexicon?
Let’s get the formalities over with first. It’s über, not uber. They are not the same thing. If you want to write it in English without the two dots, you would write “ueber.” It is from the German language and refers to something super or supreme. The literal meaning in German is “above.”
Many of us, including me, were introduced to the word when it was used as a synonym for “super” on a Saturday Night Live sketch in 1979, called What If?. They pondered the notion what if the comic book hero Superman had landed in Nazi Germany when he first came from the planet Krypton. Would he have taken on the name Überman?
Shortly after this, in the early 1980s, the California punk band, the Dead Kennedy’s, used the term in the anti-California government song “California Uber Alles,” which was a take off of the German motto of “Deustchland Uber Alles,” which means “Germany above all.” The term was then picked up by the natives of California (surfer dudes and punks), and then was adopted by the teenagers, which led to the eventual use by the majority.
It went from—“That band is uber hip”, to-- “that is an uber blog!”
I wonder if many people realize that one of their favorite terms has Nazi roots. The term “über” crossed over into English from the work of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, when in 1883 he coined the term “übermensch” to describe the higher state to which he felt man might aspire to. And then during Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, he bastardized Nietzsche’s term, using it as part of his description of an Aryan master race. Most importantly, it is this association we have with the image of the Superman hero that the term has taken on much of its English sense implying irresistibility or invincibility.
So the Nazi German anthem, re-used by punk bands, helped the term become popular in America.
When words like this come into such widespread use, I can only wonder if those speaking them have any clue as to what the hell they’re saying.
Now here’s another one for you to contemplate: fashionista.
Got any other suggestions for words to eliminate from our lexicon?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tale of Two Cities
Once again, I am faced with the prospect of the “Tale of Two Cities.” One is for the filthy rich and the other for the rest of us. They seem to be fortressing themselves in their gated communities as the masses gather their pitch forks and torches at the walls.
As the rest of us (as tax payers) have doled out nearly a trillion dollars in emergency bailout funds, Wall Street big wigs have awarded themselves with a reported $18.4 billion in year-end bonuses.
Are they just thumbing their noses at us?
Did you know that the average CEO makes 344 times as much as the average worker?
The now former CEO of Merrill Lynch, John Thain, spent $1.2 million on redecorating his office when his company was going down the toilet. Then he had the gall to ask for $10 million for his year-end bonus.
At the same time, here in my state of Ohio, the governor has announced his new budget. In it, the Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities is taking a crippling hit. They will have to cut operating spending at about 87 percent of the last budget.
Why do the people who need our help the most always become the first to suffer in times like these? The ones who depend on us the most (those in need of home services, children at risk of developmental disabilities, and early intervention services) are left out to dry, while the rich keep getting richer.
Sharpen those pitch forks. I’m just getting started.
When I married my lovely wife, I inherited a step son who is disabled and has to live in a nursing home. He is incapable of even living in a group home. We are not rich and have to depend on many of these services. The rich, with children in these circumstances, always have the option of private institutions. We don’t. Our son who has been helped by the wonderful people working at the MRDD facilities in the county where he resides are facing cuts in staffing. They are also faced with reducing the number of clients that they can help.
Let us not forget the possibility of closings of many services to this dependent population. It would remove the critical safety net for families who have run out of options in their homes and communities.
The money involved here, which pales in comparison to that we have handed over to the centa-millionares, is microscopic. The damage that will be done to children is infinitely disproportionate to the amount of money involved.
Get forward to seeing our juvenile-detention facilities becoming overloaded with mentally ill offenders who will not have access to doctors and medications.
This has been a very short rant, but my blood pressure is about give me a brain hemorrhage. I better stop now, before I need one of the many services that poor people like us depend on.
As the rest of us (as tax payers) have doled out nearly a trillion dollars in emergency bailout funds, Wall Street big wigs have awarded themselves with a reported $18.4 billion in year-end bonuses.
Are they just thumbing their noses at us?
Did you know that the average CEO makes 344 times as much as the average worker?
The now former CEO of Merrill Lynch, John Thain, spent $1.2 million on redecorating his office when his company was going down the toilet. Then he had the gall to ask for $10 million for his year-end bonus.
At the same time, here in my state of Ohio, the governor has announced his new budget. In it, the Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities is taking a crippling hit. They will have to cut operating spending at about 87 percent of the last budget.
Why do the people who need our help the most always become the first to suffer in times like these? The ones who depend on us the most (those in need of home services, children at risk of developmental disabilities, and early intervention services) are left out to dry, while the rich keep getting richer.
Sharpen those pitch forks. I’m just getting started.
When I married my lovely wife, I inherited a step son who is disabled and has to live in a nursing home. He is incapable of even living in a group home. We are not rich and have to depend on many of these services. The rich, with children in these circumstances, always have the option of private institutions. We don’t. Our son who has been helped by the wonderful people working at the MRDD facilities in the county where he resides are facing cuts in staffing. They are also faced with reducing the number of clients that they can help.
Let us not forget the possibility of closings of many services to this dependent population. It would remove the critical safety net for families who have run out of options in their homes and communities.
The money involved here, which pales in comparison to that we have handed over to the centa-millionares, is microscopic. The damage that will be done to children is infinitely disproportionate to the amount of money involved.
Get forward to seeing our juvenile-detention facilities becoming overloaded with mentally ill offenders who will not have access to doctors and medications.
This has been a very short rant, but my blood pressure is about give me a brain hemorrhage. I better stop now, before I need one of the many services that poor people like us depend on.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Business As Usual in Detroit
Well, The Big Three in Detroit have gotten their bailout. Not as much as they came looking for with their hands out, but still the package is in the multi-billions. Let us not forget that the CEOs showed up in Gulfstreams. So for the mean time, they are living on borrowed money. GM and Chrysler have received $4bn each in emergency loans, and Ford has secured a $9bn credit line.
It is just not the economy that has brought them to their knees. The foreign car makers are living in the same environment. But the Big Three have functioned with an antiquated business plan that does not accommodate with the times and customer needs. In fact, to my shock and horror, during my precious football playoffs I have been inundated with commercials for trucks. This does not represent a new business model, revolutionary thinking, or restructuring.
It is business as usual.
Here’s a trend for you to contemplate: US consumers purchased 13.2 million new cars and trucks in 2008, down 18% from the year before. So why not continue following something that isn’t working? This seems to be the logic involved by saturating the airwaves with commercials for trucks, and more trucks. This is the business model that has brought their sales down nearly 24%, which incidentally are double the declines by Asian automakers. Their sales only declined by 12%.
The strategy indicates that Detroit’s policy is to bank on the loans as support for the second-half recovery, and pray that the economy improves or that there is an improvement of financial market conditions.
During only a couple of playoff games, a person will have had to view hundreds of commercials for the new Ford F-150. They are betting the farm on this truck (Who are these idiots?). They say the F-150 played a significant role in its fourth quarter market share gains. They even have the audacity to remind us that the F-150 line of pickups has been America’s best-selling trucks for 32 years in a row. So why not sell more of what got them into this mess?
In a Dodge truck ad they even brag that it gets 21 mpg on the highway. So much for meeting customer demands for better fuel economy.
Why am I so adamant that Detroit change the way they do business, instead of shoveling us the same old shit, year after year? Because, if the bankruptcy threatened automakers don’t pull through, as many as three million US jobs could disappear (according to the Independent Center for Automotive Research).
As for General Motors, their business plan is not changing either. They rely on lending to make their money. In fact their policy is to loosen their lending policy, after learning that the federal government would inject $6bn into Gm’s financing arm. Remember loose lending is what got the economy, in general, into such a pickle.
Even Chrysler Financial has applied to become an independent lending corporation. This would enable them to acquire more money to make car loans.
As I just mentioned, loose lending is what got our economy into this mess. So why not have GMAC lower the FICO score threshold for financing from 700 to 620? Guess what? This is just what they have done.
Tell me again what school, these economic wizards’s went to? My guess would be one from the Ivy League. Maybe we should start relying on State University educated people to make these decisions. These are the people who had to work their way through college, and have a sense of reality.
Oh, and if we are to implement looser lending, why not let the dealers in on the deal? Wait a minute—they have just jumped on the bandwagon. They are starting to finance used cars, because they can make money on interest points they don’t get from all-cash sales.
It is just not the economy that has brought them to their knees. The foreign car makers are living in the same environment. But the Big Three have functioned with an antiquated business plan that does not accommodate with the times and customer needs. In fact, to my shock and horror, during my precious football playoffs I have been inundated with commercials for trucks. This does not represent a new business model, revolutionary thinking, or restructuring.
It is business as usual.
Here’s a trend for you to contemplate: US consumers purchased 13.2 million new cars and trucks in 2008, down 18% from the year before. So why not continue following something that isn’t working? This seems to be the logic involved by saturating the airwaves with commercials for trucks, and more trucks. This is the business model that has brought their sales down nearly 24%, which incidentally are double the declines by Asian automakers. Their sales only declined by 12%.
The strategy indicates that Detroit’s policy is to bank on the loans as support for the second-half recovery, and pray that the economy improves or that there is an improvement of financial market conditions.
During only a couple of playoff games, a person will have had to view hundreds of commercials for the new Ford F-150. They are betting the farm on this truck (Who are these idiots?). They say the F-150 played a significant role in its fourth quarter market share gains. They even have the audacity to remind us that the F-150 line of pickups has been America’s best-selling trucks for 32 years in a row. So why not sell more of what got them into this mess?
In a Dodge truck ad they even brag that it gets 21 mpg on the highway. So much for meeting customer demands for better fuel economy.
Why am I so adamant that Detroit change the way they do business, instead of shoveling us the same old shit, year after year? Because, if the bankruptcy threatened automakers don’t pull through, as many as three million US jobs could disappear (according to the Independent Center for Automotive Research).
As for General Motors, their business plan is not changing either. They rely on lending to make their money. In fact their policy is to loosen their lending policy, after learning that the federal government would inject $6bn into Gm’s financing arm. Remember loose lending is what got the economy, in general, into such a pickle.
Even Chrysler Financial has applied to become an independent lending corporation. This would enable them to acquire more money to make car loans.
As I just mentioned, loose lending is what got our economy into this mess. So why not have GMAC lower the FICO score threshold for financing from 700 to 620? Guess what? This is just what they have done.
Tell me again what school, these economic wizards’s went to? My guess would be one from the Ivy League. Maybe we should start relying on State University educated people to make these decisions. These are the people who had to work their way through college, and have a sense of reality.
Oh, and if we are to implement looser lending, why not let the dealers in on the deal? Wait a minute—they have just jumped on the bandwagon. They are starting to finance used cars, because they can make money on interest points they don’t get from all-cash sales.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Basement of Birth
A birth can come from
Body, mind, or fortune.
The deformities can be
Unlearned or circumstantial.
Seldom, said Plutarch, do
Honesty and beauty abide in each other.
Hannibal had only one eye, but the
Retina of the soul perceives the best—
Anyway. And Socrates was as
Hairy as an Ape.
Body, mind, or fortune.
The deformities can be
Unlearned or circumstantial.
Seldom, said Plutarch, do
Honesty and beauty abide in each other.
Hannibal had only one eye, but the
Retina of the soul perceives the best—
Anyway. And Socrates was as
Hairy as an Ape.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tell Detroit--No More!
Reality is setting in. I voted for Obama, yet his first foray into presidential politics found him asking President Bush to help bailout the automotive industry in Detroit. Well Mr. President-elect, you are now 0 for 1.
What happened to CHANGE?
This is the same type of thinking that has wielded the scepter in this country since the industrial revolution began: no matter how strong the evidence of market failure, we refuse to believe in anything but our own permanence. So once again the automotive industry has approached the federal government with its hand out, instead of changing their products or business model (They have rather chosen to spend fortunes on lobbyists). And let us not forget that in September of 2008, Congress already gave the industry a loan totaling $25 billion. But with $50 billion more, they can turn things around.
Not if they don’t CHANGE!
This is a market economy. The auto-industry will perish, whether they get a bailout or not, if they do not change their business model.
A solid business model is the bedrock of every successful investment. If we are to invest in an industry, we need to learn how to describe and evaluate a company’s business model, in order to distinguish the great companies from the losers. This is just simple business sense. We need to look at how the company makes money. It is equally clear; we need to understand that as industries change, companies can’t always stick to the same business model. Joan Magretta, former head of the Harvard Business Review, has said that when business models don’t work, it’s because they don’t make sense and the numbers just don’t add up to profits.
When you consider G.M.’s model, it becomes clear that they don’t make money selling cars and trucks. In fact their business is based on (more than 60%) earnings from finance payments. This is a business model that has failed the test. In 2003, Ford, Chrysler and G.M. (in order to compete against foreign markets) offered customers such deep discounts and interest-free financing that they sold vehicles for less than it cost to make them. This is as a model that squeezed all the profits out of their operations.
So now we have an industry adverse to change in an environment that is in the middle of a housing slump and credit crisis. There is a drop in demand and a change in the vehicles consumers are buying. Detroit has been making large trucks and sport utility vehicles, while the foreign markets (with working business plans) are making more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Detroit and our policy makers prefer continuity to discontinuity, evolution to revolution. What has become clear is that in discontinuous times, efforts to evolve at one’s own pace will spell doom. External thoughts and actions need to keep up with the pace of external change. Economics tells us that if you are not able to cope with external pressures that demand a revolutionary approach to structure- you need a new business model.
The automotive industry has convinced the federal government that our economy revolves around it. But what I want to know is—why? Target, AT&T, GE, IBM, McDonalds Citigroup, Kroger, Sears, and Wal-Mart, all employ larger number of workers than any of the Big Three auto makers. Since 1997, thirty one steel companies have gone bankrupt, putting at risk over 62,000 jobs. The economy didn’t tank then.
The precondition of successful transformation is to close the gap between the automotive industry management’s (and our own) perception of present reality and the truth. They don’t need a bailout. What they need is—
1. Look out for major shifts in the conditions governing the marketplace, and transform their business model to fit.
2. Let the customers and their needs determine the model.
3. Be prepared to cannibalize the present, in order to preserve the future.
So Mr. President-elect, please don’t just throw more money at the problem. Think—CHANGE. Fix the problem!
What happened to CHANGE?
This is the same type of thinking that has wielded the scepter in this country since the industrial revolution began: no matter how strong the evidence of market failure, we refuse to believe in anything but our own permanence. So once again the automotive industry has approached the federal government with its hand out, instead of changing their products or business model (They have rather chosen to spend fortunes on lobbyists). And let us not forget that in September of 2008, Congress already gave the industry a loan totaling $25 billion. But with $50 billion more, they can turn things around.
Not if they don’t CHANGE!
This is a market economy. The auto-industry will perish, whether they get a bailout or not, if they do not change their business model.
A solid business model is the bedrock of every successful investment. If we are to invest in an industry, we need to learn how to describe and evaluate a company’s business model, in order to distinguish the great companies from the losers. This is just simple business sense. We need to look at how the company makes money. It is equally clear; we need to understand that as industries change, companies can’t always stick to the same business model. Joan Magretta, former head of the Harvard Business Review, has said that when business models don’t work, it’s because they don’t make sense and the numbers just don’t add up to profits.
When you consider G.M.’s model, it becomes clear that they don’t make money selling cars and trucks. In fact their business is based on (more than 60%) earnings from finance payments. This is a business model that has failed the test. In 2003, Ford, Chrysler and G.M. (in order to compete against foreign markets) offered customers such deep discounts and interest-free financing that they sold vehicles for less than it cost to make them. This is as a model that squeezed all the profits out of their operations.
So now we have an industry adverse to change in an environment that is in the middle of a housing slump and credit crisis. There is a drop in demand and a change in the vehicles consumers are buying. Detroit has been making large trucks and sport utility vehicles, while the foreign markets (with working business plans) are making more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Detroit and our policy makers prefer continuity to discontinuity, evolution to revolution. What has become clear is that in discontinuous times, efforts to evolve at one’s own pace will spell doom. External thoughts and actions need to keep up with the pace of external change. Economics tells us that if you are not able to cope with external pressures that demand a revolutionary approach to structure- you need a new business model.
The automotive industry has convinced the federal government that our economy revolves around it. But what I want to know is—why? Target, AT&T, GE, IBM, McDonalds Citigroup, Kroger, Sears, and Wal-Mart, all employ larger number of workers than any of the Big Three auto makers. Since 1997, thirty one steel companies have gone bankrupt, putting at risk over 62,000 jobs. The economy didn’t tank then.
The precondition of successful transformation is to close the gap between the automotive industry management’s (and our own) perception of present reality and the truth. They don’t need a bailout. What they need is—
1. Look out for major shifts in the conditions governing the marketplace, and transform their business model to fit.
2. Let the customers and their needs determine the model.
3. Be prepared to cannibalize the present, in order to preserve the future.
So Mr. President-elect, please don’t just throw more money at the problem. Think—CHANGE. Fix the problem!
Monday, November 10, 2008
Stopped Traffic--What Would Charlie Do?
We all have our own particular annoyances when driving. Mine is what I refer to as the “Imaginary Slow Down Zone,” affectionately referred to as ISDZ’s. This happens on highways, when the traffic comes to a crawl. You slowly approach the area where everyone starts to speed up, and you look around for an accident or any other reason which could have caused the slow down, but there is nothing there. Cars just resume speed. This phenomenon happens quite frequently in Columbus, Ohio, so I was sure that this had to be an isolated thing.
Columbus has the worst drivers on the planet. Particularly so, if you can see a #3 decal displayed anywhere on the vehicle. This type of driver suffers from the disease called, “the NASCAR” syndrome. They weave in and out of lanes at high speed, as if headed for the checkered flag. Severe accidents are so common in Columbus that they have a section on the nightly local news broadcast, which is titled, “Car Crash Dejour.” Points are given based on death count (this is not quite true, but just wait for sweeps week).
Now I admit that there have been many times when I used to commute to work on I-270, when the slow down ended and I had to pass six or more mangled cars and at least two or more emergency helicopters parked on the medium revving up for take-off, so I don’t want to take this too lightly.
I used to think that we were so gun-shy in Columbus that the ISDZ’s were some sort of post-traumatic-stress thing. But my wife and I found ourselves in one, on I-77 in West Virginia recently. Not only did the traffic come to a crawl, but it actually came to a complete stop. I really thought that there had to have been a terrible accident ahead when the eighteen wheelers turned their lights off. Surely they knew the scoop and were getting ready for a considerable wait. It was dark (really, really dark). After I finally came to a sense of acceptance, the traffic started up. So I waited to see what in the world had caused this. As we approached the spot where all the cars started to gain speed there was nothing. I mean NOTHING!
So I decided that there has to an explanation for his irritating phenomenon. The next step was to ask: what would Charlie Epps do? For those of you who are not familiar with Charlie, he is the fictional character on the TV Show “Numbers.” He is a math genius who can figure the mathematical roots of any conceivable problem.
So here’s what I found out to my dilemma--
There actually is a mathematical model that shows that traffic jams, like ISDZ’s, are mostly caused by a single driver who brakes too much when faced with any number of unexpected events. The driver behind him will also slow down and then the next, until the road is totally blocked several miles back. The traffic jam moves backwards, creating a “backward traveling wave,” miles upstream from the initial braking, several minutes after it was triggered. So, in other words, when someone taps their brakes, the traffic may come to a stand-still several miles behind them. Now it is pointed out that it is the heavy braking, usually caused by a driver reacting to some idiot with the “NASCAR” syndrome who has cut them off, that can affect traffic flow for many miles.
Thanks to the work of Dr. Gabor Orosz of the Dynamical Systems & Control research institute of the School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics at the University of Exeter, UK, I can now impress my colleagues, friends, and family with the answer to this mystery, the next time one of them complains about all the unexplained traffic slow downs on the highway.
Columbus has the worst drivers on the planet. Particularly so, if you can see a #3 decal displayed anywhere on the vehicle. This type of driver suffers from the disease called, “the NASCAR” syndrome. They weave in and out of lanes at high speed, as if headed for the checkered flag. Severe accidents are so common in Columbus that they have a section on the nightly local news broadcast, which is titled, “Car Crash Dejour.” Points are given based on death count (this is not quite true, but just wait for sweeps week).
Now I admit that there have been many times when I used to commute to work on I-270, when the slow down ended and I had to pass six or more mangled cars and at least two or more emergency helicopters parked on the medium revving up for take-off, so I don’t want to take this too lightly.
I used to think that we were so gun-shy in Columbus that the ISDZ’s were some sort of post-traumatic-stress thing. But my wife and I found ourselves in one, on I-77 in West Virginia recently. Not only did the traffic come to a crawl, but it actually came to a complete stop. I really thought that there had to have been a terrible accident ahead when the eighteen wheelers turned their lights off. Surely they knew the scoop and were getting ready for a considerable wait. It was dark (really, really dark). After I finally came to a sense of acceptance, the traffic started up. So I waited to see what in the world had caused this. As we approached the spot where all the cars started to gain speed there was nothing. I mean NOTHING!
So I decided that there has to an explanation for his irritating phenomenon. The next step was to ask: what would Charlie Epps do? For those of you who are not familiar with Charlie, he is the fictional character on the TV Show “Numbers.” He is a math genius who can figure the mathematical roots of any conceivable problem.
So here’s what I found out to my dilemma--
There actually is a mathematical model that shows that traffic jams, like ISDZ’s, are mostly caused by a single driver who brakes too much when faced with any number of unexpected events. The driver behind him will also slow down and then the next, until the road is totally blocked several miles back. The traffic jam moves backwards, creating a “backward traveling wave,” miles upstream from the initial braking, several minutes after it was triggered. So, in other words, when someone taps their brakes, the traffic may come to a stand-still several miles behind them. Now it is pointed out that it is the heavy braking, usually caused by a driver reacting to some idiot with the “NASCAR” syndrome who has cut them off, that can affect traffic flow for many miles.
Thanks to the work of Dr. Gabor Orosz of the Dynamical Systems & Control research institute of the School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics at the University of Exeter, UK, I can now impress my colleagues, friends, and family with the answer to this mystery, the next time one of them complains about all the unexplained traffic slow downs on the highway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
