3 ms·
I don't like the fishing to driving analogy. It's easy to see that regulation can lead to more total fish extracted from the ocean, but I'm having a hard time i
by jon_richards 10y ago
I don't like the fishing to driving analogy. It's easy to see that regulation can lead to more total fish extracted from the ocean, but I'm having a hard time imagining an instance of this paradox for driving that isn't a consequence of fewer overall divers (or weird effects at intersections).
- stale2002 10y agoExactly, this paradox is basically nonsense. There isn't any situations where this would happen, beyond some made-up math extreme edge cases.
- jon_richards 10y agoI can see it happening quite easily in the real world if you do something like close a little shortcut that gets back on the main road via a light that only ever changes when it detects a car on the shortcut, but that's an intersection effect, which I don't think the paradox is focusing on.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- grkvlt 10y agoApart from the cited situations mentioned in the article, you mean, like: > In Seoul, South Korea, a speeding up in traffic around the city was seen when a motorway was removed as part of the Cheonggyecheon restoration project. It also mentions Stuttgart, New York City, Boston, and London.
- jon_richards 10y agoA few of those examples admit that a large number of vehicles "disappeared", which brings the others into doubt. I'd be much more interested in examples where the total traffic volume was confirmed to remain the same, but traffic conditions still improved.
- boomboomsubban 10y agoWouldn't cars "dissapearing" be a sign that people have decided the quickest route to take involves not taking a car? How does that cast doubt on the data?
- beobab 10y agoOr lift-sharing?