cross-posted from: https://feddit.it/post/28637207
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
Bus with line changes is usually slower than by bike. Why not compare with the for most people fastest option, if your criticism is speed?
Because I don’t like biking 30k in the morning at -20 with a meter of snow on roads with assholes and no shoulder?
Urban spread and car infrastructure is a cancer, but sadly it often means the only viable option is a car.
Moving soon closer to work though. So that’ll help.
Because I am sure that line changes are the more common situation.