: Well, I would be the roads planner, doing the socially necessary job of ensuring the regular running of our roads, the freedom invovled here would be the freedom to complete your journey in as swift a time as possible.
Unless you get it wrong. If you do, and another person offers a better road journey then let the best idea win. The 'freedom' to complete a journey quickly is rather a loose use of the term though.
: 1:Slowed down cars mean less stopping distances, consequently more cars can be fitted onto the same stretch of road.
: 2:Slower cars means fewer accidents, consequently less stopapges.
: 3:Slower cars going through a contolled system meant a smoother flow than eratic spurts, etc. which meant a lower time to travel.
I would like to have seen the mathimatical model but it sounds reasoned. Smooth flows counter the 'caterpillar' effect in traffic where changes 10 miles ahead lead to a mysterious traffic jam which, upon exiting it, appears to have no discernable cause.
: everyone *but the first few* has their journey time cut. And I doubt that first few are losing too much.
How much (%) did they reckon? or didnt they go into that kind of detail?
Anyway, the principle suggested here can lead to dangerous unconnected conclusions - "hey look, if we control their driving we can improve their journeys, that means that if we control every aspect of their lives we can make everyone happier!" - its a trap that Marcos appears to fallen into.