Like cicadas emerging from a deep sleep, so appear pollsters in autumn of every election year. Unlike cicadas – whose period of hibernation has tended to prime numbers as an evolutionary tactic of starving all but the most persistent predators (fun fact of the day!) – pollsters and their critics seem tightly bound in a Sisyphean struggle that we all must endure.
Let’s step back again for a second. Why does your estimated arrival continue to change throughout the course of a trip?
GPS navigation (at least the ones I’m using) does not extrapolate from trends in data to prediction about future trends. If it did, then the estimate of arrival time would be jumping around all over the place every time I sped up or slowed down. Those of you with cars that do on-the-fly estimates of miles per gallon gas mileage know what this would look like. In the case of estimated arrival time it’s probably prudent to make bets on a safe number (like estimated speed for the road) rather than current speed. Imagine slowing down or stopping for road construction zone and having your estimated arrival suddenly jump to three weeks from now.
Let’s say that you were driving from Chicago to Orlando. Google maps lets us know that it’s right around a 20 hour trip, and based on the distance and time it seems that the average speed that they’re estimating is right around 60 miles per hour. How much time would you save if you drove the whole trip at 60mph? Well, none. It would take you around 20 hours. How much time would you save by driving 61mph for that whole 20 hours?
Well, a single mph doesn’t buy you too much. The gain per hour is only on the order of minutes. It’s not until around 63mph over the course of the trip that you get yourself an hour back. Still, driving 63mph instead of 60mph isn’t that bad, right? To go back to my original example, 5mph over (65mph) gets you around an hour and a half back in your total trip.
This actually matches with what I described before – on a five hour trip, going five miles an hour faster saves you a little less than 25 minutes.
Let’s just cut to the chase – how about going 20mph over the speed limit for the whole trip? Well, on a five hour trip that saves you around an hour and 15 minutes. On the 20 hour trip? About 5 hours. Crazy.
Now, I don’t want to just come out as if I’m saying that you should be doing 80mph on every 60mph road you come across. What I’m saying is that the longer you have to cause a change, the larger change you can make with the same effort.
I’m also talking about average speeds. These graphs take into account that you’re picking a speed and then sticking with it the rest of the trip. If you start driving 80mph but then pull back a bit to 70mph or 60mph, or even something less than estimated (e.g. 55mph), the trend will work back toward the original estimate.
If you think about each of these lines as an estimate of error in the original 60mph based estimate you can also see that making estimates of your arrival time based on a 20 hour trip has a much wider range than if that trip was only an hour.
You can also see that the earlier you start making a change the larger impact it has. If you want to save an hour on your 20 hour trip you simply need to drive around 63mph the whole time. If you want to save that same hour from the last 5 hours of the same trip you need to do 75mph the whole time.
There’s another way to look at it, as well. Imagine that you wanted to average 65mph on your trip, and for simplicity’s sake there was no traffic. If you’re just starting the 20 hour trip, you simply need to drive 65mph for every hour of the trip.
Say you forget to speed up in the beginning, though, and start the trip driving 60mph. If you only drive 60mph for the first hour it doesn’t take much extra speed to compensate and get back to a 65mph average in the remaining 19 hours. If you forget your plan for half the trip you’re in a little more trouble. How much trouble? Here’s a graph:
Halfway through, not that much trouble. You simply need to drive 70mph for the rest of the trip. Things really start to ramp up at the end – if you’ve made it to the last hour before realizing that you needed to average 65mph you need to do 160mph during that last hour of your trip.
There’s a Zeno’s paradox element to this in that you can see that this line is asymptotic. The closer you get to your destination, the faster you need to go. At a certain point this would break down from a practical standpoint given that a) your car (even assuming it’s really fast) can only accelerate so quickly in any given space, and b) the speed of light is a thing (even if skydivers regularly break it).
How likely is it that you’re going to be able to pull off 160mph for that last hour? Not very likely. At the same time, how likely is it that you’d be able to pull of exactly 65mph for all 20 hours? While more likely, it still has some problems. At the start of that trip it’s really hard to say how fast you’ll be able to go, or even how fast you’ll want to go in a few hours.
Let’s step back for a second again. Remember how GPS units calculate arrival estimates – the only thing that really changes is how fast you get to the next point that estimation occurs. The closer and closer you get to the destination (in the above graphs the closer you get to the zero point on the right side), the narrower the error on the estimate of your arrival. The reason is that imparting the same impact that you might have been able to make 19 hours prior with a speed change of 5mph now comes at a much greater cost.
The closer you get to an event the easier it is to predict because you have less time for error in prediction to accumulate.
If we know that you’re likely to have an average speed somewhere between 60mph and 80mph we can now look at these above graphs as ranges of estimation. If there is 5 hours left in the trip, the best you can do is really pick out a 75 minute window that you know you’ll arrive in. At four hours your window closes a bit to an hour, and with only an hour remaining you should be able to estimate a 15 minute window in which you’ll arrive.
As a sidebar, this is also a good illustration of confidence intervals, but we’ll talk about that some other time.
Instead, imagine that someone else started the trip from the same place at the same time, that you each have a dozen or so different and differently reliable GPS units in each car and each of them only updates every week or so, and now you have a presidential race complete with polls.
That was supposed to be the punchline, but as I think about that last graph I think there’s actually another message there. Imagine the difference between studying over the course of a week for a test, or pulling an all nighter. Seems the message is pretty clear on that one, so I won’t belabor the point.
Of course, none of this should be used as an excuse for speeding unless you feel like explaining all of it to a cop to see if he buys it. But – by all means – next time you’re in the car feel free to use this as an excuse to do a little math.
Just gotta say – Google Maps does some amazing prediction with all the traffic out here. I’m not sure what Google uses for their speed estimates (real time data from GPS-enabled devices using the maps app?) but even if there’s deadlocked traffic due to a rush to get to the pumpkin patch, it’s pretty much spot on with arrival time.
Totally hate how GPS has robbed my math games (I do them too). I used to call my dad on the way home and give him really precise estimates: “I’ll be there at 2:34pm”. I got to the point where I was usually within a minute. Now I have the stupid phone (or gps) there telling me something different and I don’t know what to believe.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that kills time with these type of math games.
I think your comments taken together (Aaron & Ed) are actually pretty interesting. My take on things is that GPS usually overestimates, though I do agree with Aaron that some of the methods (e.g. Google) have become incredibly sophisticated. If traffic is involved (i.e. Google can predict your max speed), I’m not shocked that they should produce much better estimates.
That means that the estimates are probably considerably better in a city, where you’re more likely to run up against traffic. The trip Ed is talking about (correct me if I’m wrong), involves significantly less city driving. Because no traffic means that a max speed can’t be estimated, the GPS unit would have to do a lot more work (i.e. on-the-fly learning) to predict the speed it thinks you should be going the rest of the way.
That logic would suggest that Google’s predictions should be more accurate for a trip in a city than one between cities, time or distance of trip held constant. That would be fun to test.
HIRE ME AT GOOGLE, GOOGLE.
Anyway, the fact that we can find some situations where GPS does really well, but other situations where it doesn’t leaves us with the machine-based confusion and trust issues that Ed is describing. You think you should be right in your own estimates (you probably are), but a computer that should be (and can be!) better at this makes you second guess yourself.