You’re just wrong, chum, you’re just wrong. If, as described, there is a line-up of cars already merged into the continuing lane, then people who zip around at higher speed will invariably cause a shockwave effect. I’ve observed it countless times on the road, and also observed the calming and smoothing effect when it is forcibly corrected by someone behaving as I describerd earlier. When people aren’t intimidated by the idea of someone cutting in front of them, they naturally allow more space between cars, and this naturally leads to a smoother merge point. When people are concerned about line jumpers, invariably ranks close up more, and fewer people are willing to allow the line-jumpers to merge, which causes worse traffic.
You’re arguing for some ideal-world scenario, and I am arguing for what actualy happens in the real world. Speeding around queued up traffic is a douche thing to do. Yes, the early mergers may have created a sub-optimal situation, but line-cutters make the situation worse.
I disagree. Braking in nasty conditions may require you to accelerate to avoid an obstacle or another car that is unable to brake in time. I prefer (and most driving manuals I’ve seen recommend) that you always have the car in gear when moving so you have more control of the environment.
This doesn’t make sense to me logically. If the other 10% went with what the other 90% were doing, then you have 100% compliance, in which case you don’t have any problems. In fact if you had 100% compliance then as a whole, the population of drivers would be able to pull off a proper zipper merge.
However, the reality is that there will always be that 10% (or 5 or 1%). So it really makes more sense for more of the 90%, not less, to say, hey why don’t I use this other lane and try to do the zipper.
To put it another way, if it weren’t for early mergers, the problem wouldn’t exist. On the other hand, if everyone was a late merger, then true, you don’t have angry people – but you have a backup that’s twice as long as it needs to be.
Actually this is completely backwards. Even assuming that early merging does not slow down traffic, early merging will cause a backup twice as long as it needs to be.
You merge-arguers keep saying the same thing over and over and over. Just agree to disagree already (I’m a late merger, btw - a recent convert, actually.)
Oops, I meant to say early merger. If everyone was an early merger then no one would be angry but the backup would be twice as long. If everyone was a late merger, zipper win.
OK, then, I’m going to ask for a cite. I provided one back in Post #177. Do you have one?
If, as described, you have a whole line of cars occupying the lane that is ending, then it is impossible to have anyone zipping around anybody, provided that everyone merges at the end of the lane, which is the proper merge point.
The problem is created by the early mergers, who tend to open the lane up. The problem is not created by people who take advantage of the open lane. Ideally, the situation would never arise, though, if people would wait to merge.
What’s interesting is that a significantly greater rate of cars get through BOTH lanes (as much as twice as much, IIRC) if everybody does a late merge at a single merge point. This is discussed in the book I cited.
Yes, it’s counterintuitive. Early mergers think they are helping by getting over, but they are actually slowing traffic down and creating a situation that is not helpful for anybody.
To switch gears, it reminds me of another do-gooder tactic that drives me up the wall. You’re trying to make a left turn across several lanes of traffic, and some idiot stops to wave you in front of them, instead of taking their right-of-way. I’ve seen at least two accidents because of this. In each case, the guy waving the person in front of them wasn’t aware of another vehicle passing them in the adjacent lane, and the person making the turn couldn’t see that vehicle because the do-gooder idiot is blocking their view. A collision ensued in each case.
I had a similar situation arise a few weeks ago, except that I was driving behind the do-gooder. I almost rear-ended her because I did not expect her to come to a complete stop in the middle of a street with nobody in front of her.
It is far safer for everyone concerned if people would TAKE THEIR RIGHT-OF-WAY! Don’t wave people through when you have the right of way. Predictability is better than courtesy. I expect people to take their right-of-way. I do not expect people to stop in the middle of the street.
When traffic is heavy, it’s a different situation. You may not be able to move over until forced to at the merge point.
Really, how hard is it? Left lane ends 2500 feet. Left lane ends 1000 feet. Left lane ends 500 feet. Accompanied by flashing lights, arrows on trucks and painted on the ground. The left lane is gonna end. This means that if you are in the left lane, and want to continue, you should get in the through lane. Sheesse. On the road that I travel they even have a big sign over the right lane next to the left lane ends sign pointing down stating ‘Through Lane’.
Yes, it is a pet peeve of mine when people cobble this up because they are either not paying attention, or just have to try to pass one more car before moving over.
Enough with the merging for me.
YES! This drives me nuts and happened to me yesterday. I was caught trying to make a left across a two way street and there was lots of traffic and pedestrians. Do not stop and wave me in. I have a completely different picture of the traffic than you do.
It’s different when it’s gridlock and you stop to keep from blocking the intersection. But if you have the ROW and your way is clear, TAKE IT! Don’t be unpredictable.
This annoys me as a pedestrian as well. I’f I’m at the side of the road waiting for you to pass so I can cross, don’t slow and stop to wave me across! Your passing will take less time than that, and then the road is clear.
(If I’m already on the road crossing it, that’s a different matter.)
It’s summarized in the conclusion portion. Basically it says for slow heavy congestion a late merge system is ideal and for faster lighter traffic the conventional early merge system is ideal. Designing a dynamic system that directs people how to merge under various traffic levels is the goal but is a more costly solution.
Just to be clear, I’m only talking about when there is heavy traffic. If traffic is light and we’re all moving at a decent clip then I don’t really care when people merge, as long as it’s not into my quarter panel.
If you’re a pedestrian in Calgary and standing anywhere near a crosswalk, me proceeding in my car after you wave me on could cost me $500, if the cops are watching. Pedestrians need to take their right-of-way, too (carefully!). On the other hand, cars that stop for jay-walkers are endangering the pedestrians, and I won’t do that if I can help it.
Interesting to see that the issue that’s emerged from this driving thread is merging, instead of the usual “driving slower in the left lane.”
There are lots of crosswalks in a town I drive through. It’s a tourist town and lots of folks don’t seem to know where they are going. Some will stand in the crosswalk, and when you stop for them, they wave you on. Maybe not worth a :mad:, but make up your mind people.
1 time in a zillion,meanwhile 50% of the time you will have made it so you have blocked someone who wants to get into the left turn lane, but now can’t, due to 5 cars each with a 1 car gap also. :mad:
You’re right, he’s wrong. Yes, changing lanes in an intersection can be a “unsafe lane change”, but there’s nothing magical about an intersection that makes it illegal, nor does his cite say that.
You’re right about the Jaywalking. except on certain types of highways, etc, of course!
