“Giving people more viable alternatives to driving means more people will choose not to drive, so there will be fewer cars on the road, reducing traffic for drivers.”
Concise, easy to understand, and accurate. I have used it at least a dozen times and it is remarkable how well it works.
Also—
“A bus is about twice as long as a car so it only needs to have four to six passengers on board to be more efficient than two cars.”
so basically, the scenario is “the bus driver is a bad driver and the people in cars are not bad drivers”. seems a bit situational.
IMO, they need to be around the same level of drivers to make said decision.
If the car drivers in question were any better, they would think “there is only a single car space in the target lane” and not jump the yellow, because that would cause that section to clear later (I, on a bicycle wouldn’t go ahead). The 3rd driver in this case, just realised there was no space, so didn’t go forward.
The only difference is that the bus driver (who needs to be better than the car driver to prevent similar stuff) caused the current junction to be blocked, just because of the vehicle size, causing other paths (which were free before) to now be jammed too.
I was told in my childhood that a driving license for larger vehicles had more stringent requirements. Guess that’s not the case anymore. But it doesn’t change the fact that one actually needs to be a better driver to be driving a bus. ⇒ More money expected ⇒ More passengers needed, lest the better driver will leave and the bus company will hire a cheap one.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Maybe nobody should run yellow lights. Sounds like that is the problem in your scenario, not the vehicles.