I’ve just recently discovered that myself as well as a mass of other people have been approaching the “Construction Ahead: Lanes Merge” traffic problem the wrong way according to DOT experts.
Some bridge in the area is going to be shut down to one lane each way all summer and they are already facing driver rage problems. The usual signage miles before the bridge reads “Construction ahead, left lane ends, merge right.”
So of course the courteous drivers immediately merge right and the right lane suddenly becomes a long line to the bridge. Meanwhile other drivers zip down the left lane till the last possible moment pissing off people in the long line. People in the long line have even tried to prevent them from merging by holding tight in formation, or someone in line will move out into both lanes to block those trying to zip down the left lane.
Apparently they are all wrong. The DOT says both lanes should be fully utilized all the way up to the merge point at which time cars should merge left-right-left-right like a zipper.
That’s news to me and I guess it really does make sense. But the DOT is placing blame on drivers being stupid and not knowing how to handle the merge situation properly.
I actually think it’s more a DOT signage problem. Why would you put command type signs “Merge Right” miles before the actual merge if you don’t want people doing that. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have signage stating “Slow: Lanes merge ahead, form two lines” and then another sign at the merge point stating with arrows “Merge Here”.
Give some better directions rather than blaming the drivers.
(not sure if this is a debate or a rant so please place accordingly)
The real error is the DOT assuming that drivers are rational actors. It really doesn’t matter what the signage says, even if the two lines follow all the way to the “Merge here” sign, they aren’t going to alternate car by car like some kind of robotic assembly line. As soon as the two lanes get to that Merge Here sign, the right lane will close ranks, almost every driver in it determined not to let “that lazy idiot who didn’t merge back there” in.
Of course, I often say that the only problem I have with freeway/highway driving is that other people are allowed to drive on them at the same time I do, so take it with a grain of salt…
Edited: I should also disclose that I am an “early merger”, if that makes a difference. My thought is that if it’s 2 miles to the merge point and there’s space in the lane that’s not ending, why shouldn’t I switch lanes here instead of being stuck in that lane when all the irrational other drivers decide to shut out the lazy idiots who didn’t merge back there.
Why is it only Pennsylvanians have replied so far? More experience with construction?
I used to merge shortly after I saw the signs saying the lane was going to end but then I read that you are supposed to use both lanes to the merge point and, like Vetbridge, I now try to wait until the merge point and, if I’m already in the lane which isn’t going away, make sure I let one person in. Two, however, is pushing it.
I agree that just telling people one lane will end without telling them to use both lanes to the merge point is poor signage.
I LOVE those signs. I would cheerfully give the guy at PennDOT who came up with those signs a blow job.
I’m not sure that was an appropriate comment for Great Debates. But really, the signs are that good. In addition to encouraging people to, you know, actually use both lanes until merge point, it also seems to reduce the amount of pissiness about letting cars in … because everyone has more realistic expectations of what’s going to happen.
I think signs like that would be great here. As delphica says, it would set expections of how this should work, so most drivers would be more cooperative about merging properly.
I totally agree with the OP that the signs are at fault for the situation where people zoom ahead in the (now) empty lane, and then try to squeeze in.
My experience does not fit jayjay’s assumption that people will not alternate. Just the other day I was on a 2 lane highway with some kind of obstruction in the right lane. Because there were no stupid signs a mile back saying “lane ends, merge right”, people used both lanes, and then when the obstruction was reached, they merged alternately. Everyone was happy, and everything was fair. I guarantee that if there had been a “merge ahead” sign, we would have seen the lane zoomers, and I would have cursed them.
This has always been common sense to me, and in recent years I’ve heard and read things supporting it. I’ve never thought of the big line of early mergers as “courteous.” I think of them as congestion-causers.
I’ve seen where they make the merge point go down the middle of the road so it’s obvious both lanes merge together, then they bend the lane to whichever side they actually want people on. It seems to work quite well.
My understanding has always been to merge at the merge point, not earlier. However, many, if not most, drivers merge the instant they see the first sign indicating a lane closure. Unfortunately, this has the effect of making me look like an asshole to other drivers because I (properly) merge at the merge point. I’ve never had anyone honk at me or not let me in, but I get the sense that at least a few of the drivers must be thinking I’m being a dick. Better signs would be helpful.
I think I just don’t trust other drivers. Period. I’m a very defensive and paranoid driver. In my mind, all other drivers behind the wheel have obviously blown their driver’s test proctor in order to receive their license, because there’s no way they got it on the merits of their driving skill.
Yeah, I do tend to elicit amusement when people ride with me…my vocabulary takes a precipitous dip into the gutter when I get behind the wheel.
Here they do early signage, so we’ve got the earlier mergers slowing everything down and refusing to allow people in. If both sides had to leave “their” lane, and signage was done better, I think it would all work.
I am always surprised no one honks at me as I’m breezing past them (properly) and I never have trouble merging at the end either. I always think many have already merged because they think it will be difficult later, but that they do actually realize, even without the signs, it’s permissible and preferable to keep two lanes active till the merge point.
And I agree, those PA signs, when they first appeared, were a refreshing vindication that all those years I had been right to “use both lanes until merge point.”
There is a well-known back-up every Friday afternoon just south of Tamaqua, PA, on Route 309. For a mile or so tractor-trailers always famously straddled the middle to prevent both lanes being used. I haven’t been in that area for years. Does anyone know if that has changed since these signs started to appear?
