this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
215 points (96.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

15558 readers
604 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
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
215
Overtaking and going fast in urban areas is not only dangerous, but also useless: a mathematical demonstration (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by lgsp@feddit.it to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] sorter_plainview@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

My mental model is slightly different. I think of average speed of the car between source and destination. Every segment of the road will have an average speed at a given time, which may vary depending on the time of the day. This average speed is dictated by numerous factors, including traffic lights, number of slow vehicles on the road, speed limits, etc. You cannot really go significantly higher than this average speed, even if you try as aggressively as possible.

There are exception, especially in Asian roads. If you are a large vehicle, who doesn't care about the law and limits, and they do very aggressive driving, then they go at a larger average speed. I have some completely asshole private bus services in my country.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 3 points 1 day ago

I find people who say this don't properly account for their time waiting at lights. Sure, you may be going faster when you aren't stopped, but you will catch those reds more often and will be stopped longer, reducing those average speeds. Which is the entire point of the article.