Expect a break after these because I only have three more cartoons drawn.

hahahaha @ 377.

I wouldn’t have taken you for a Hunger Games fan, moll.

Well you may think that a number being discovered as the lowest uninteresting number by mollwollfumble and still current is not interesting, but I beg to differ.

No, I agree.

No, it really is interesting.

…

Divine Angel said:

hahahaha @ 377.

I wouldn’t have taken you for a Hunger Games fan, moll.

except people rarely name their children like that.. it would be their ‘celebrity name’

I don’t really get 376

dv said:

I don’t really get 376

A bit mathematical?

In plain English, people need to get from A to B, a fixed distance. So the number of cars on the road at any particular time, the traffic T, is proportional to the time taken to get from A to B, which is proportional to one divided by the average speed S. So if everyone who wants to drive on the road does drive on the road then the traffic T = cP/S. But some people are put off by the heavy traffic and slow speed, which is where the (1-mu) term comes from.

Accidents are a function of traffic times speed (to be specific it’s the relative speed, but away from freeways the speed is the relative speed) so, because traffic is proportional to one over speed, the speed cancels out of the equation.

Slowing down traffic by imposition of speed bumps and speed limits does not make roads safer, except through the secondary pathway of making roads undriveable.

dv said:

I don’t really get 376

The point would seem to be that if you use over-simplistic statistical models, you can arrive at some dumb conclusions.

I think that’s actually a good point.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I don’t really get 376

A bit mathematical?

In plain English, people need to get from A to B, a fixed distance. So the number of cars on the road at any particular time, the traffic T, is proportional to the time taken to get from A to B, which is proportional to one divided by the average speed S. So if everyone who wants to drive on the road does drive on the road then the traffic T = cP/S. But some people are put off by the heavy traffic and slow speed, which is where the (1-mu) term comes from.

Accidents are a function of traffic times speed (to be specific it’s the relative speed, but away from freeways the speed is the relative speed) so, because traffic is proportional to one over speed, the speed cancels out of the equation.

Slowing down traffic by imposition of speed bumps and speed limits does not make roads safer, except through the secondary pathway of making roads undriveable.

Oh.

Well in that case:

Apart from the fact that accidents are not a linear function of average speed x traffic density, reducing the speed limit does not reduce the average speed in proportion to the limit reduction.

In fact on roads with traffic densities close to the limit where grid-lock kicks in, reducing the speed limit actually increases the average speed.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I don’t really get 376

The point would seem to be that if you use over-simplistic statistical models, you can arrive at some dumb conclusions.

I think that’s actually a good point.

Fair

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I don’t really get 376

A bit mathematical?

The fact that it is mathematical is the good part.

But none of it seems to be grounded in reality.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I don’t really get 376

A bit mathematical?

In plain English, people need to get from A to B, a fixed distance. So the number of cars on the road at any particular time, the traffic T, is proportional to the time taken to get from A to B, which is proportional to one divided by the average speed S. So if everyone who wants to drive on the road does drive on the road then the traffic T = cP/S. But some people are put off by the heavy traffic and slow speed, which is where the (1-mu) term comes from.

Accidents are a function of traffic times speed (to be specific it’s the relative speed, but away from freeways the speed is the relative speed) so, because traffic is proportional to one over speed, the speed cancels out of the equation.

Slowing down traffic by imposition of speed bumps and speed limits does not make roads safer, except through the secondary pathway of making roads undriveable.

Oh.

Well in that case:

Apart from the fact that accidents are not a linear function of average speed x traffic density, reducing the speed limit does not reduce the average speed in proportion to the limit reduction.

In fact on roads with traffic densities close to the limit where grid-lock kicks in, reducing the speed limit actually increases the average speed.

I never said “linear,” and the argument does not rely on the function being linear. What I said will still hold even if the relationship is quadratic or exponential.

As for grid lock, no, decreasing the speed limit diverts traffic on to longer routes which both increases total traffic and decreases average speed along the roads that act as diversions.