this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
267 points (96.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

15772 readers
486 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
[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

This doesn't take into account the vast safety benefits of getting away from incompetent/inattentive drivers. I'm not necessarily passing you to "get there" faster, it's pretty easy to tell when a driver has no clue what they're doing and I don't want to have anything to do with that shit.

I actually have no clue if it doesn't take that into account, I didn't read the article, but you see what I'm saying.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Just leave some distance with them in front of you, if they crash you have space to slow down before overtaking their burning wreck.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The options under discussion are pass and not be involved in a wreck or stay behind and wait to be involved in a wreck and somehow the second option is more appealing to you? Yeah no thanks, I'll pass and avoid it entirely instead of waiting for it to happen, hoping it happens in a predictable & easy-to-avoid way, hoping that every other driver on the road with us is also waiting for it to happen, hoping we all have perfect reaction time, hoping all our cars respond properly, and hoping that road conditions are "ideal." That's a lot of luck. If you can predict how and when a bad driver is gonna crash, you go ahead and caravan with them, I know I personally can't see the future so I'm going to get as far away as I possibly can.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Do you know how to drive behind another vehicle at a safe distance?

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes I was a mail carrier, I've driven professionally. Which means I also know how to most safely and efficiently get to my destination, and neither involve being at the whims of a dangerously negligent idiot going 30 mph slower than the flow of traffic. 🤷‍♂️

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I would rather be behind than in front of a dangerous driver.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

There are different kinds of dangerous drivers. The kinds you don't want behind you are usually either easy to pass and leave far behind or easy to let pass you. My whole premise is based around the first kind, that is driving negligently slower than the flow of traffic. Anyone staying behind them (read: you) would then also be driving negligently. Since they're, as established, going way too slow, they are very easy to pass and get plenty of distance between without adding an extra hour onto my and every other driver's commute.

As explained elsewhere in these replies, the biggest fear from being in front of this kind of driver is being directly in front of them and getting rear-ended at a stop when they're not paying attention, but if I can overtake them, that means I can just stay in a different lane from them and there's no real concern.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you leave enough safe space between you and the next vehicle, someone is bound to get into it though.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Now that person is your crumple zone

[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

And you need to show down more to open a safe gap with them

You don't have to be in the wreck to end-up "involved with" the wreck. Even if you're not decent enough to stick-around to assist with the fall-out or give a witness-statement, there's always the physical and time barrier of the wreck itself and the ensuing wait for emergency services, police, or even just a tow-truck.

[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I find I want the incompetent/inattentive drivers far off in front of me. Behind me I have a harder time keeping an eye on them along with everyone else. Far ahead, I have a better chance of reacting and correcting to their improper driving.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Like I said I'm a different reply, It's not in anyone's best interest for me to go 15 to 30 mph below the flow of traffic just because I ended up behind someone who doesn't know they're on Earth much less operating an automobile. If there's a legal way to pass them, I'm going to. Once they're behind you, you only have to worry about getting rear-ended at a stop, which is only an issue in slower city traffic where it is easier to keep an eye on someone behind you. In which case, just stay in the lane you used to get around them.

If they're driving erratically, however that's another story and I definitely agree that I want to stay as far back from them as I can. But they're usually speeding and my whole point is centered on the premise of being stuck behind a slow inattentive or otherwise neglegent driver. They don't even need to be a bad driver, maybe they're new to the area, looking for parking, having a medical issue, etc. Just pointing out that not all overtaking is about getting there first.

Oh yeah, slow drivers get ahead of I get ya.