this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
238 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

15554 readers
628 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Those who use the bike know this very well: in the city, speeding motorists overtaking other cars, only get one thing: they arrive first to the next red.

With a simple model, the author estimated the probability that one car that overtakes another, will then be reached again at a later red light. Then he estimated the probability that the same thing will happen when there are multiple successive traffic lights, as usual in the cities.

The result is that as fast as an aggressive driver goes, the presence of multiple traffic lights makes it virtually certain that a slower driver will catch up

So, if someone aggressively overcomes you, when you reach him at the next traffic light, you can tell him that it is mathematically proven that he/she is an idiot.

In addition, this study has implications for the 30 km/h city, demonstrating how in urban areas the traffic lights determine the travel times, not the maximum speed reachable between one traffic light and the next.

The original scientific article is here: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/4/260310/481212/The-Voorhees-law-of-traffic-a-stochastic-model

crossposted from: https://poliversity.it/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/116419204210303856

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Tell me how useful is a minimum speed if they're going to stop anyway on the next red light? If anything it shows how stupid is having speed limits higher of 30kmh in cities

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago) (1 children)

You realize light-timings are calibrated and coordinated based-on intended traffic speeds, right? Just because the speeders get stopped at the next light doesn't mean a too-slow driver doesn't get stopped by that same light after the speeder's got their green and gone-on.

Apparently you've never been on one of the roads I mentioned long-enough to notice they tend to have 4-lanes and lights spaced over a mile-apart, but even on a regular road with room to pass, demanding no-one do-so while you putter-along at just-over-half the speed limit is asinine. Drivers can pass farm-equipment that takes up a lane-and-a-half, stopped emergency-vehicles/cops, mail-trucks, busses, street sweepers and dumptrucks, but not you?

So where's the part about what your asking in any way resembles sharing the road again? The article doesn't even mention bikes, golf carts, or glorified mobility-scooters, btw.

Oh, and it literally says the opposite of what OP claims, even between motor vehicles moving with normal traffic, not obstructing it:

That means, on average, the lead of one car over the other remains the same after the light as before.

The results suggest the idea the slower car will inevitably catch up at the lights is something of an illusion.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I think your hyphen-minus key is acting up.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 31 minutes ago* (last edited 28 minutes ago)

I would rather be called an AI than deal with the confusion that results when I don't link certain words and phrases as thoroughly as I can. The language's propensity for and inconistency with hyphenated words isn't my fault either.

The older I get, the more I think I should just switch to Chinese or some other such language and never look back.

Edit: I took the opportunity to remove as many hyphens as I felt comfortable with removing. I really can't complain that you called me out for what amounts to lazy composition and editting on my part.