Discussion:
Surprise Whilst Driving
(too old to reply)
Charles Bishop
2017-06-09 01:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made a
while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from AL to
NV, roughly 1900 miles.

Driving though NM, there was some road work being done, or at least the
road was coned off in places, and the left lane had to merge into the
right hand lane. The signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.

Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.

I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
--
Charles
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-06-09 03:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:44:55 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
he signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
At its most fundamental:

You can be the merger or the mergee. The mergee always gets
pissed at the merger if he does so "late" (open to definition).

Would you rather be pissed off, or the one being pissed off at?

There's other somewhat more practical considerations, but
nut-shell-wise... Pissed off, or on?
Kerr Mudd-John
2017-06-09 18:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:44:55 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
he signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
You can be the merger or the mergee. The mergee always gets
pissed at the merger if he does so "late" (open to definition).
Would you rather be pissed off, or the one being pissed off at?
There's other somewhat more practical considerations, but
nut-shell-wise... Pissed off, or on?
Cillax , Bro.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-06-10 00:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:23:45 +0100, "Kerr Mudd-John"
Post by Kerr Mudd-John
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:44:55 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
he signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
You can be the merger or the mergee. The mergee always gets
pissed at the merger if he does so "late" (open to definition).
Would you rather be pissed off, or the one being pissed off at?
There's other somewhat more practical considerations, but
nut-shell-wise... Pissed off, or on?
Cillax , Bro.
IMFFHO:

http://imgur.com/gallery/jZdrN
Les Albert
2017-06-09 04:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:44:55 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made a
while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from AL to
NV, roughly 1900 miles.
....
Instead of a school bus, a car caravan of church-members heading out
to Las Vegas to gamble?

Les
Kerr Mudd-John
2017-06-09 18:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made a
while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from AL to
NV, roughly 1900 miles.
You drove 1900 miles and all you got was one lousy Merge? Go back and complain!
Post by Charles Bishop
Driving though NM, there was some road work being done, or at least the
I'm sure folk know how to behave nicely in NM.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Questor
2017-06-10 07:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made a
while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from AL to
NV, roughly 1900 miles.
Driving though NM, there was some road work being done, or at least the
road was coned off in places, and the left lane had to merge into the
right hand lane. The signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.

At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico -- the
issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane without disrupting
other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before the merge point.

In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both lanes be
filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper merge should be
performed.
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-06-10 07:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico -- the
issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane without disrupting
other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both lanes be
filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper merge should be
performed.
TY!
Whiskers
2017-06-10 16:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
I'd say it's a bit late by then. Get to that point and someone is going
to have to stop - possibly the entire queue of traffic in both lanes.
That isn't 'optimal'.
Post by Questor
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico -- the
issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane without disrupting
other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both lanes be
filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper merge should be
performed.
TY!
Best results are obtained when the drivers in the lane being merged
into, allow the vehicle in front of them to get a bit further away so
that the drivers being required to merge have a space to merge into
without anyone having to change speed significantly or change direction
abruptly. If both sets of drivers manage a 'one for one' arrangement,
everything happens so smoothly that passengers might not even notice.
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Questor
2017-06-11 07:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
I'd say it's a bit late by then. Get to that point and someone is going
to have to stop - possibly the entire queue of traffic in both lanes.
That isn't 'optimal'.
If the traffic engineers wanted the merge point to be earlier, they would have
re-stripped the road to end the dotted line earlier. I do not understand why
people reject the obvious location and create imaginary merge points. Merging
is required at the merge point. Merging is voluntary prior to the merge point.

If both lanes are congested -- i.e., filled with slow-moving traffic -- then it
is fairly obvious that a zipper merge at the merge point is best. On the other
tentacle, if the road is otherwise empty, then it is also obvious that waiting
until the merge point to exit the terminating lane results in no disruption.

In between those extremes, the issue is as previously stated, one of "finding a
hole" and changing lanes with minimal disruption to other vehicles. If the hole
happens to be at the merge point, how is that a problem? Conversely, merging
well in advance of the merge point in no way precludes a clumsy maneuver that
causes traffic to slow down.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico -- the
issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane without disrupting
other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both lanes be
filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper merge should be
performed.
Best results are obtained when the drivers in the lane being merged
into, allow the vehicle in front of them to get a bit further away so
that the drivers being required to merge have a space to merge into
without anyone having to change speed significantly or change direction
abruptly. If both sets of drivers manage a 'one for one' arrangement,
everything happens so smoothly that passengers might not even notice.
That might be a wonderful fantasy of drivers acting as if they were lines
of synchronized chorus girls, but it does not align well with reality. It is
the responsibility of the drivers in the terminating lane to safely merge into
the remaining lane. Courtesy dictates the other drivers should "let them in"
if appropriate, but they have no obligation to slow down to create spaces
as you suggest.
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away" with
something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
Whiskers
2017-06-11 15:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
I'd say it's a bit late by then. Get to that point and someone is going
to have to stop - possibly the entire queue of traffic in both lanes.
That isn't 'optimal'.
If the traffic engineers wanted the merge point to be earlier, they would have
re-stripped the road to end the dotted line earlier. I do not understand why
people reject the obvious location and create imaginary merge points. Merging
is required at the merge point. Merging is voluntary prior to the merge point.
If both lanes are congested -- i.e., filled with slow-moving traffic -- then it
is fairly obvious that a zipper merge at the merge point is best. On the other
tentacle, if the road is otherwise empty, then it is also obvious that waiting
until the merge point to exit the terminating lane results in no disruption.
In between those extremes, the issue is as previously stated, one of "finding a
hole" and changing lanes with minimal disruption to other vehicles. If the hole
happens to be at the merge point, how is that a problem? Conversely, merging
well in advance of the merge point in no way precludes a clumsy maneuver that
causes traffic to slow down.
Where do these holes into which you an merge, come from? Do other
drivers have nothing to do with it?

Of course people /can/ merge clumsily wherever they do it. But it isn't
likely if it's done sensibly when someone offers you the space, whereas
it almost certainly will happen if you have to resort to bullying your
way in at the last moment.
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico -- the
issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane without disrupting
other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both lanes be
filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper merge should be
performed.
Best results are obtained when the drivers in the lane being merged
into, allow the vehicle in front of them to get a bit further away so
that the drivers being required to merge have a space to merge into
without anyone having to change speed significantly or change direction
abruptly. If both sets of drivers manage a 'one for one' arrangement,
everything happens so smoothly that passengers might not even notice.
That might be a wonderful fantasy of drivers acting as if they were lines
of synchronized chorus girls, but it does not align well with reality. It is
the responsibility of the drivers in the terminating lane to safely merge into
the remaining lane. Courtesy dictates the other drivers should "let them in"
if appropriate, but they have no obligation to slow down to create spaces
as you suggest.
So the gaps into which the merging drivers have to merge, appear
magically in the other lane, without drivers in that lane doing anything
to make room? Not on my planet. Courtesy is an essential part of
driving. If you manage to merge smoothly, no matter where you do it,
you do it thanks to someone else's courtesy - even if you don't notice
it. If you get as far as the end of the lane, then you've probably
already ignored several merge opportunities offered to you by courteous
drivers in the other lane.
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away" with
something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
How can you guarantee that a driver reaching the end of the lane he is
in, will find that there is a gap in the traffic in the next lane
allowing him to 'merge' at that point? What happens when there isn't?

What does anyone lose by merging or allowing others to merge before the
lane peters out? Why do the engineers put up signs well in advance of
that last chance if they don't want people to merge before getting
there?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Questor
2017-06-12 17:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
I'd say it's a bit late by then. Get to that point and someone is going
to have to stop - possibly the entire queue of traffic in both lanes.
That isn't 'optimal'.
If the traffic engineers wanted the merge point to be earlier, they would have
re-stripped the road to end the dotted line earlier. I do not understand why
people reject the obvious location and create imaginary merge points. Merging
is required at the merge point. Merging is voluntary prior to the merge point.
If both lanes are congested -- i.e., filled with slow-moving traffic -- then it
is fairly obvious that a zipper merge at the merge point is best. On the other
tentacle, if the road is otherwise empty, then it is also obvious that waiting
until the merge point to exit the terminating lane results in no disruption.
In between those extremes, the issue is as previously stated, one of "finding a
hole" and changing lanes with minimal disruption to other vehicles. If the hole
happens to be at the merge point, how is that a problem? Conversely, merging
well in advance of the merge point in no way precludes a clumsy maneuver that
causes traffic to slow down.
Where do these holes into which you an merge, come from? Do other
drivers have nothing to do with it?
The holes are simply the gaps between vehicles. They are either big enough to
allow a driver in the terminating lane to merge smoothly into them without any
action required by drivers already in the lane, or they are not. If they are
not, and that is not a brief, temporary condition, then the roadway is headed
for a slowdown regardless of whether drivers follow your advice or not.
Post by Whiskers
Of course people /can/ merge clumsily wherever they do it. But it isn't
likely if it's done sensibly when someone offers you the space, whereas
it almost certainly will happen if you have to resort to bullying your
way in at the last moment.
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico -- the
issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane without disrupting
other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both lanes be
filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper merge should be
performed.
Best results are obtained when the drivers in the lane being merged
into, allow the vehicle in front of them to get a bit further away so
that the drivers being required to merge have a space to merge into
without anyone having to change speed significantly or change direction
abruptly. If both sets of drivers manage a 'one for one' arrangement,
everything happens so smoothly that passengers might not even notice.
That might be a wonderful fantasy of drivers acting as if they were lines
of synchronized chorus girls, but it does not align well with reality. It is
the responsibility of the drivers in the terminating lane to safely merge into
the remaining lane. Courtesy dictates the other drivers should "let them in"
if appropriate, but they have no obligation to slow down to create spaces
as you suggest.
So the gaps into which the merging drivers have to merge, appear
magically in the other lane, without drivers in that lane doing anything
to make room? Not on my planet. Courtesy is an essential part of
driving. If you manage to merge smoothly, no matter where you do it,
you do it thanks to someone else's courtesy - even if you don't notice
it. If you get as far as the end of the lane, then you've probably
already ignored several merge opportunities offered to you by courteous
drivers in the other lane.
What do you think happens to the vehicles behind you when you slow down to
create a space for another vehicle to merge in front of you? They have to slow
down too. And if they follow your advice, they will slow down even more to
create spaces in front of them, and so on. The net result: the continuing lane
is congested and slows down, perhaps to a crawl. So now the terminating lane is
empty, the continuing lane is slow, and a driver approaching the rear of this
situation has a choice: slow down immediately, so as to merge into a crawling
lane well in advance of the merge point, or continue on in the empty terminating
lane, and then slow down and merge at the designated merge point. The correct
choice seems obvious to me, but then I don't like waiting in traffic
unnecessarily.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away" with
something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
How can you guarantee that a driver reaching the end of the lane he is
in, will find that there is a gap in the traffic in the next lane
allowing him to 'merge' at that point? What happens when there isn't?
There is no guarantee, but the situation is simple. Either the gaps between
vehicles are large enough to permit drivers to merge into them without
appreciable action on the part of other drivers, or they are not. If they are,
then there is likely to be a large enough gap with in a couple hundred yards of
the merge point. If the gaps are not large enough, then there *will* be some
congestion. That congestion starts at the merge point if one follows my advice.
If drivers follow your advice, the congestion starts well in advance of the
merge point, and to the extent that drivers follow your directives, will extend
further and further as drivers abandon an otherwise empty lane to merge into
a lane of slow traffic in advance of the actual merge point.
Post by Whiskers
What does anyone lose by merging or allowing others to merge before the
lane peters out? Why do the engineers put up signs well in advance of
that last chance if they don't want people to merge before getting
there?
Engineers put up signs well in advance of merges for the same reasons they do so
for exits: to give drivers a chance to wake up and figure out what the hell
they're going to do.

From my POV, the problem is that you want to use a behavior suitable only for
light traffic when the road is congested, and for failing to recognize that
congestion is not just when there is bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling at 10mph,
but occurs even at near highway speeds if the gaps between vehicles are not
large enough to allow for merging.
Whiskers
2017-06-12 20:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Questor
What do you think happens to the vehicles behind you when you slow down to
create a space for another vehicle to merge in front of you? They have to slow
down too. And if they follow your advice, they will slow down even more to
create spaces in front of them, and so on. The net result: the continuing lane
is congested and slows down, perhaps to a crawl.
Well, duh. That's going to happen no matter what, you're trying to fit
more cars into a finite space. The trick is to do it smoothly and
safely and efficiently.
Post by Questor
So now the terminating lane is
empty, the continuing lane is slow, and a driver approaching the rear of this
situation has a choice: slow down immediately, so as to merge into a crawling
lane well in advance of the merge point, or continue on in the empty terminating
lane, and then slow down and merge at the designated merge point. The correct
choice seems obvious to me, but then I don't like waiting in traffic
unnecessarily.
So you go zooming off along the lane you know to be blocked, until you
get to the blockage and expect by some miracle that someone will let you
in to the other lane at that point. Clever. You might save yourself
several seconds, with a bit of luck, or waste minutes while all the
drivers you've annoyed by zooming past them on your dead-end race
co-operate with each other to make sure you don't get into the moving
lane in front of them. Or you collect some dents.
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away" with
something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
How can you guarantee that a driver reaching the end of the lane he is
in, will find that there is a gap in the traffic in the next lane
allowing him to 'merge' at that point? What happens when there isn't?
There is no guarantee, but the situation is simple. Either the gaps between
vehicles are large enough to permit drivers to merge into them without
appreciable action on the part of other drivers, or they are not. If they are,
then there is likely to be a large enough gap with in a couple hundred yards of
the merge point. If the gaps are not large enough, then there *will* be some
congestion. That congestion starts at the merge point if one follows my advice.
If drivers follow your advice, the congestion starts well in advance of the
merge point, and to the extent that drivers follow your directives, will extend
further and further as drivers abandon an otherwise empty lane to merge into
a lane of slow traffic in advance of the actual merge point.
Post by Whiskers
What does anyone lose by merging or allowing others to merge before the
lane peters out? Why do the engineers put up signs well in advance of
that last chance if they don't want people to merge before getting
there?
Engineers put up signs well in advance of merges for the same reasons they do so
for exits: to give drivers a chance to wake up and figure out what the hell
they're going to do.
From my POV, the problem is that you want to use a behavior suitable only for
light traffic when the road is congested, and for failing to recognize that
congestion is not just when there is bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling at 10mph,
but occurs even at near highway speeds if the gaps between vehicles are not
large enough to allow for merging.
I suspect you've annoyed quite a few other drivers, if you find them
disinclined to make room for you. Perhaps even me. You'd probably like
Paris though, everyone drives like you (when they're not ground to a
halt waiting for the recovery vehicles to clear the wreckage).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Questor
2017-06-13 18:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
[...]
Post by Questor
What do you think happens to the vehicles behind you when you slow down to
create a space for another vehicle to merge in front of you? They have to slow
down too. And if they follow your advice, they will slow down even more to
create spaces in front of them, and so on. The net result: the continuing lane
is congested and slows down, perhaps to a crawl.
Well, duh. That's going to happen no matter what, you're trying to fit
more cars into a finite space.
At least we can agree on that.

However you want drivers, upon seeing warning of an upcoming merge, to
immediately abandon a perfectly good roadway lane.

Why have multi-lane roadways at all? Why not have all roads be a single lane in
each direction?

If there was a sign that said, "Merge Ahead -- Lane Ends In 20 Miles," would you
immediately merge and not drive in that lane for twenty miles? What if it was
ten miles? Five? Why does a one or two-mile warning mandate an immediate
merge as opposed to merging at or within a couple hundred yards of the indicated
merge point?

Why is creating congestion in one lane a mile (or more) in advance of the merge
point superior to creating congestion in two lanes beginning at the merge point?
Post by Whiskers
The trick is to do it smoothly and safely and efficiently.
Nothing I've written or advocated precludes or prevents that.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
So now the terminating lane is
empty, the continuing lane is slow, and a driver approaching the rear of this
situation has a choice: slow down immediately, so as to merge into a crawling
lane well in advance of the merge point, or continue on in the empty terminating
lane, and then slow down and merge at the designated merge point. The correct
choice seems obvious to me, but then I don't like waiting in traffic
unnecessarily.
So you go zooming off along the lane you know to be blocked, until you
get to the blockage and expect by some miracle that someone will let you
in to the other lane at that point. Clever. You might save yourself
several seconds, with a bit of luck, or waste minutes while all the
drivers you've annoyed by zooming past them on your dead-end race
co-operate with each other to make sure you don't get into the moving
lane in front of them. Or you collect some dents.
Negative characterization (and caricature) duly noted. You don't seem to have
any logical basis for your argument, just a misplaced sense of courtesy and
fairness that don't comport with the vehicle code. And, since merging is
required at the merge point, your supposed "co-operating" drivers would in fact
be the ones in violation for failing to take their turn in yielding
right-of-way.

If you're standing in a long line at the grocery checkout, and through
circumstance another line becomes shorter, do you get annoyed at a customer
who, newly arriving at the checkout area, stands in the shorter line? Do you
think they should get in the line behind you because you've been waiting there
longer, even though the other line is shorter?
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away" with
something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
How can you guarantee that a driver reaching the end of the lane he is
in, will find that there is a gap in the traffic in the next lane
allowing him to 'merge' at that point? What happens when there isn't?
There is no guarantee, but the situation is simple. Either the gaps between
vehicles are large enough to permit drivers to merge into them without
appreciable action on the part of other drivers, or they are not. If they are,
then there is likely to be a large enough gap with in a couple hundred yards of
the merge point. If the gaps are not large enough, then there *will* be some
congestion. That congestion starts at the merge point if one follows my advice.
If drivers follow your advice, the congestion starts well in advance of the
merge point, and to the extent that drivers follow your directives, will extend
further and further as drivers abandon an otherwise empty lane to merge into
a lane of slow traffic in advance of the actual merge point.
Post by Whiskers
What does anyone lose by merging or allowing others to merge before the
lane peters out? Why do the engineers put up signs well in advance of
that last chance if they don't want people to merge before getting
there?
Engineers put up signs well in advance of merges for the same reasons they do so
for exits: to give drivers a chance to wake up and figure out what the hell
they're going to do.
From my POV, the problem is that you want to use a behavior suitable only for
light traffic when the road is congested, and for failing to recognize that
congestion is not just when there is bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling at 10mph,
but occurs even at near highway speeds if the gaps between vehicles are not
large enough to allow for merging.
I suspect you've annoyed quite a few other drivers, if you find them
disinclined to make room for you. Perhaps even me. You'd probably like
Paris though, everyone drives like you (when they're not ground to a
halt waiting for the recovery vehicles to clear the wreckage).
I *know* I've annoyed quite a few other drivers, but not because of my behavior
at merges. (grin)

I've driven my share in Boston, Manhattan, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, so I
know a little something about the daily demolition derbies held in the U.S.
I have not been to Paris. Rome either, which I hear is similar. From what I
see on the teevee machine, cities in Asia are the worst.
Whiskers
2017-06-14 11:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
[...]
Post by Questor
What do you think happens to the vehicles behind you when you slow down to
create a space for another vehicle to merge in front of you? They have to slow
down too. And if they follow your advice, they will slow down even more to
create spaces in front of them, and so on. The net result: the continuing lane
is congested and slows down, perhaps to a crawl.
Well, duh. That's going to happen no matter what, you're trying to fit
more cars into a finite space.
At least we can agree on that.
However you want drivers, upon seeing warning of an upcoming merge, to
immediately abandon a perfectly good roadway lane.
No, I want drivers to start thinking about it and be ready to do it when
the chance comes, not all wait till the last possible bit of road. If
you get to the end of the lane you're in, something didn't work
properly.
Post by Questor
Why have multi-lane roadways at all? Why not have all roads be a single lane in
each direction?
If there was a sign that said, "Merge Ahead -- Lane Ends In 20 Miles," would you
immediately merge and not drive in that lane for twenty miles? What if it was
ten miles? Five? Why does a one or two-mile warning mandate an immediate
merge as opposed to merging at or within a couple hundred yards of the indicated
merge point?
I've never seen a merge sign that far in advance. It would be silly,
and pointless. There are towns closer together than that, let alone
junctions and interchanges.

Mostly the signs appear a matter of a few hundred yards in advance,
depending on the speed limit of the road concerned. I don't think I've
ever seen a merge sign with a junction or traffic lights between it and
the blockage or end of the lane concerned.
Post by Questor
Why is creating congestion in one lane a mile (or more) in advance of the merge
point superior to creating congestion in two lanes beginning at the merge point?
I don't know where you get 'a mile or more in advance' from. That just
doesn't happen here; many multi-lane roads aren't that long.

Inevitably, when two lanes merge into one there is going to be an effect
on the number of cars in the lane being merged into, and thus on the
length of the line of cars in it.
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
The trick is to do it smoothly and safely and efficiently.
Nothing I've written or advocated precludes or prevents that.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
So now the terminating lane is
empty, the continuing lane is slow, and a driver approaching the rear of this
situation has a choice: slow down immediately, so as to merge into a crawling
lane well in advance of the merge point, or continue on in the empty terminating
lane, and then slow down and merge at the designated merge point. The correct
choice seems obvious to me, but then I don't like waiting in traffic
unnecessarily.
So you go zooming off along the lane you know to be blocked, until you
get to the blockage and expect by some miracle that someone will let you
in to the other lane at that point. Clever. You might save yourself
several seconds, with a bit of luck, or waste minutes while all the
drivers you've annoyed by zooming past them on your dead-end race
co-operate with each other to make sure you don't get into the moving
lane in front of them. Or you collect some dents.
Negative characterization (and caricature) duly noted. You don't seem to have
any logical basis for your argument, just a misplaced sense of courtesy and
fairness that don't comport with the vehicle code. And, since merging is
required at the merge point, your supposed "co-operating" drivers would in fact
be the ones in violation for failing to take their turn in yielding
right-of-way.
If you're standing in a long line at the grocery checkout, and through
circumstance another line becomes shorter, do you get annoyed at a customer
who, newly arriving at the checkout area, stands in the shorter line? Do you
think they should get in the line behind you because you've been waiting there
longer, even though the other line is shorter?
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away" with
something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
How can you guarantee that a driver reaching the end of the lane he is
in, will find that there is a gap in the traffic in the next lane
allowing him to 'merge' at that point? What happens when there isn't?
There is no guarantee, but the situation is simple. Either the gaps between
vehicles are large enough to permit drivers to merge into them without
appreciable action on the part of other drivers, or they are not. If they are,
then there is likely to be a large enough gap with in a couple hundred yards of
the merge point. If the gaps are not large enough, then there *will* be some
congestion. That congestion starts at the merge point if one follows my advice.
If drivers follow your advice, the congestion starts well in advance of the
merge point, and to the extent that drivers follow your directives, will extend
further and further as drivers abandon an otherwise empty lane to merge into
a lane of slow traffic in advance of the actual merge point.
Post by Whiskers
What does anyone lose by merging or allowing others to merge before the
lane peters out? Why do the engineers put up signs well in advance of
that last chance if they don't want people to merge before getting
there?
Engineers put up signs well in advance of merges for the same reasons they do so
for exits: to give drivers a chance to wake up and figure out what the hell
they're going to do.
From my POV, the problem is that you want to use a behavior suitable only for
light traffic when the road is congested, and for failing to recognize that
congestion is not just when there is bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling at 10mph,
but occurs even at near highway speeds if the gaps between vehicles are not
large enough to allow for merging.
I suspect you've annoyed quite a few other drivers, if you find them
disinclined to make room for you. Perhaps even me. You'd probably like
Paris though, everyone drives like you (when they're not ground to a
halt waiting for the recovery vehicles to clear the wreckage).
I *know* I've annoyed quite a few other drivers, but not because of my behavior
at merges. (grin)
I've driven my share in Boston, Manhattan, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, so I
know a little something about the daily demolition derbies held in the U.S.
I have not been to Paris. Rome either, which I hear is similar. From what I
see on the teevee machine, cities in Asia are the worst.
I prefer to merge by slowing from 70 to 65, or from 20 to 10, smoothly
and in plenty of time, rather than be forced to stop while drivers at
the end-point of the lane try to get into the moving traffic.
Sometimes, congestion is such that everyone is going to have to stop
anyway. But that's still no excuse for leaving the merge till the last
possible moment. (Reducing the speed of the traffic is an effective way
of reducing the duration and number of stoppages and getting more cars
into the available space; many of our motorways have 'variable speed
limits' for this reason).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Kerr Mudd-John
2017-06-14 12:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[].
Post by Whiskers
Sometimes, congestion is such that everyone is going to have to stop
anyway. But that's still no excuse for leaving the merge till the last
possible moment. (Reducing the speed of the traffic is an effective way
of reducing the duration and number of stoppages and getting more cars
into the available space; many of our motorways have 'variable speed
limits' for this reason).
You're being far too reasonable; he's here for the full half-hour argument.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Whiskers
2017-06-14 19:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr Mudd-John
[].
Post by Whiskers
Sometimes, congestion is such that everyone is going to have to stop
anyway. But that's still no excuse for leaving the merge till the last
possible moment. (Reducing the speed of the traffic is an effective way
of reducing the duration and number of stoppages and getting more cars
into the available space; many of our motorways have 'variable speed
limits' for this reason).
You're being far too reasonable; he's here for the full half-hour argument.
I actually came for a silly walk.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Questor
2017-06-16 21:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
[...]
Post by Questor
What do you think happens to the vehicles behind you when you slow down to
create a space for another vehicle to merge in front of you? They have to slow
down too. And if they follow your advice, they will slow down even more to
create spaces in front of them, and so on. The net result: the continuing lane
is congested and slows down, perhaps to a crawl.
Well, duh. That's going to happen no matter what, you're trying to fit
more cars into a finite space.
At least we can agree on that.
However you want drivers, upon seeing warning of an upcoming merge, to
immediately abandon a perfectly good roadway lane.
No, I want drivers to start thinking about it and be ready to do it when
the chance comes, not all wait till the last possible bit of road. If
you get to the end of the lane you're in, something didn't work
properly.
I have to disagree. Merging at the indicated merge point is perfectly
acceptable driving behavior, either because that's when & where there's a gap
in the continuing lane, or when previously discussed traffic conditions occur.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Why have multi-lane roadways at all? Why not have all roads be a single lane in
each direction?
If there was a sign that said, "Merge Ahead -- Lane Ends In 20 Miles," would you
immediately merge and not drive in that lane for twenty miles? What if it was
ten miles? Five? Why does a one or two-mile warning mandate an immediate
merge as opposed to merging at or within a couple hundred yards of the indicated
merge point?
I've never seen a merge sign that far in advance. It would be silly,
and pointless. There are towns closer together than that, let alone
junctions and interchanges.
Mostly the signs appear a matter of a few hundred yards in advance,
depending on the speed limit of the road concerned. I don't think I've
ever seen a merge sign with a junction or traffic lights between it and
the blockage or end of the lane concerned.
Minor point: I have seen many lane closures and resultant merges on highways,
primarily for construction. Yes, they are signed as much as one or two miles in
advance. I suspect that's probably to comport with the MUTCD.

Major point: You obviously think that drivers should NOT merge at the indicated
merge point. My question regarding 20/10/5 mile signage was in part to locate
the upper bound to where your invisible merge point is located. And for the
lower bound, how close is too close? Is it okay to merge within 200 yards of
the indicated merge point? A quarter mile? A half mile?

I know where the traffic engineers think the merge point is -- they marked it
using paint on pavement. How are other drivers to know where you think the
merge point is, and why is your opinion the one they should conform to?
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Why is creating congestion in one lane a mile (or more) in advance of the merge
point superior to creating congestion in two lanes beginning at the merge point?
I don't know where you get 'a mile or more in advance' from. That just
doesn't happen here; many multi-lane roads aren't that long.
Inevitably, when two lanes merge into one there is going to be an effect
on the number of cars in the lane being merged into, and thus on the
length of the line of cars in it.
"We decided that one big backup was better than two smaller backups, and rather
than have them merge into our lane, we decided to merge into theirs. So that's
what we did. We would have gone home and had a Thanksgiving dinner that
couldn't be beat, but we were stuck in traffic."
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
The trick is to do it smoothly and safely and efficiently.
Nothing I've written or advocated precludes or prevents that.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
So now the terminating lane is
empty, the continuing lane is slow, and a driver approaching the rear of this
situation has a choice: slow down immediately, so as to merge into a crawling
lane well in advance of the merge point, or continue on in the empty terminating
lane, and then slow down and merge at the designated merge point. The correct
choice seems obvious to me, but then I don't like waiting in traffic
unnecessarily.
So you go zooming off along the lane you know to be blocked, until you
get to the blockage and expect by some miracle that someone will let you
in to the other lane at that point. Clever. You might save yourself
several seconds, with a bit of luck, or waste minutes while all the
drivers you've annoyed by zooming past them on your dead-end race
co-operate with each other to make sure you don't get into the moving
lane in front of them. Or you collect some dents.
Negative characterization (and caricature) duly noted. You don't seem to have
any logical basis for your argument, just a misplaced sense of courtesy and
fairness that don't comport with the vehicle code. And, since merging is
required at the merge point, your supposed "co-operating" drivers would in fact
be the ones in violation for failing to take their turn in yielding
right-of-way.
If you're standing in a long line at the grocery checkout, and through
circumstance another line becomes shorter, do you get annoyed at a customer
who, newly arriving at the checkout area, stands in the shorter line? Do you
think they should get in the line behind you because you've been waiting there
longer, even though the other line is shorter?
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away" with
something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
How can you guarantee that a driver reaching the end of the lane he is
in, will find that there is a gap in the traffic in the next lane
allowing him to 'merge' at that point? What happens when there isn't?
There is no guarantee, but the situation is simple. Either the gaps between
vehicles are large enough to permit drivers to merge into them without
appreciable action on the part of other drivers, or they are not. If they are,
then there is likely to be a large enough gap with in a couple hundred yards of
the merge point. If the gaps are not large enough, then there *will* be some
congestion. That congestion starts at the merge point if one follows my advice.
If drivers follow your advice, the congestion starts well in advance of the
merge point, and to the extent that drivers follow your directives, will extend
further and further as drivers abandon an otherwise empty lane to merge into
a lane of slow traffic in advance of the actual merge point.
Post by Whiskers
What does anyone lose by merging or allowing others to merge before the
lane peters out? Why do the engineers put up signs well in advance of
that last chance if they don't want people to merge before getting
there?
Engineers put up signs well in advance of merges for the same reasons they do so
for exits: to give drivers a chance to wake up and figure out what the hell
they're going to do.
From my POV, the problem is that you want to use a behavior suitable only for
light traffic when the road is congested, and for failing to recognize that
congestion is not just when there is bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling at 10mph,
but occurs even at near highway speeds if the gaps between vehicles are not
large enough to allow for merging.
I suspect you've annoyed quite a few other drivers, if you find them
disinclined to make room for you. Perhaps even me. You'd probably like
Paris though, everyone drives like you (when they're not ground to a
halt waiting for the recovery vehicles to clear the wreckage).
I *know* I've annoyed quite a few other drivers, but not because of my behavior
at merges. (grin)
I've driven my share in Boston, Manhattan, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, so I
know a little something about the daily demolition derbies held in the U.S.
I have not been to Paris. Rome either, which I hear is similar. From what I
see on the teevee machine, cities in Asia are the worst.
I prefer to merge by slowing from 70 to 65, or from 20 to 10, smoothly
and in plenty of time, rather than be forced to stop while drivers at
the end-point of the lane try to get into the moving traffic.
Sometimes, congestion is such that everyone is going to have to stop
anyway. But that's still no excuse for leaving the merge till the last
possible moment.
That's precisely what it means, especially if "congestion is such that everyone
is going to have to stop anyway" -- both lanes should be used and a zipper merge
performed at the indicated merge point.
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-18 00:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
That's precisely what it means, especially if "congestion is such that
everyone is going to have to stop anyway" -- both lanes should be used
and a zipper merge performed at the indicated merge point.
That's what I've been talking about anyway. I get the impression other
people are talking about when traffic is zipping right along. In my
experience, that's unusual when a lane is being closed. But if it's the
case, then sure, merge over whenever it seems like a good time. Do it a
mile ahead for all I care. I'll do that sometimes just to get it done and
not have to think about it.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Snidely
2017-06-13 06:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday or thereabouts, Questor declared ...
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The
traffic engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is
required: it's where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is
the merge point.
I'd say it's a bit late by then. Get to that point and someone is going
to have to stop - possibly the entire queue of traffic in both lanes.
That isn't 'optimal'.
If the traffic engineers wanted the merge point to be earlier, they would
have re-stripped the road to end the dotted line earlier. I do not
understand why people reject the obvious location and create imaginary
merge points. Merging is required at the merge point. Merging is
voluntary prior to the merge point.
If both lanes are congested -- i.e., filled with slow-moving traffic --
then it is fairly obvious that a zipper merge at the merge point is best.
On the other tentacle, if the road is otherwise empty, then it is also
obvious that waiting until the merge point to exit the terminating lane
results in no disruption.
In between those extremes, the issue is as previously stated, one of
"finding a hole" and changing lanes with minimal disruption to other
vehicles. If the hole happens to be at the merge point, how is that a
problem? Conversely, merging well in advance of the merge point in no way
precludes a clumsy maneuver that causes traffic to slow down.
Where do these holes into which you an merge, come from? Do other
drivers have nothing to do with it?
The holes are simply the gaps between vehicles. They are either big enough
to allow a driver in the terminating lane to merge smoothly into them without
any action required by drivers already in the lane, or they are not. If they
are not, and that is not a brief, temporary condition, then the roadway is
headed for a slowdown regardless of whether drivers follow your advice or
not.
Post by Whiskers
Of course people /can/ merge clumsily wherever they do it. But it isn't
likely if it's done sensibly when someone offers you the space, whereas
it almost certainly will happen if you have to resort to bullying your
way in at the last moment.
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico
-- the issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane
without disrupting other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before
the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both
lanes be filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper
merge should be performed.
Best results are obtained when the drivers in the lane being merged
into, allow the vehicle in front of them to get a bit further away so
that the drivers being required to merge have a space to merge into
without anyone having to change speed significantly or change direction
abruptly. If both sets of drivers manage a 'one for one' arrangement,
everything happens so smoothly that passengers might not even notice.
That might be a wonderful fantasy of drivers acting as if they were lines
of synchronized chorus girls, but it does not align well with reality. It
is the responsibility of the drivers in the terminating lane to safely
merge into the remaining lane. Courtesy dictates the other drivers should
"let them in" if appropriate, but they have no obligation to slow down to
create spaces as you suggest.
So the gaps into which the merging drivers have to merge, appear
magically in the other lane, without drivers in that lane doing anything
to make room? Not on my planet. Courtesy is an essential part of
driving. If you manage to merge smoothly, no matter where you do it,
you do it thanks to someone else's courtesy - even if you don't notice
it. If you get as far as the end of the lane, then you've probably
already ignored several merge opportunities offered to you by courteous
drivers in the other lane.
What do you think happens to the vehicles behind you when you slow down to
create a space for another vehicle to merge in front of you? They have to
slow down too. And if they follow your advice, they will slow down even more
to create spaces in front of them, and so on. The net result: the
continuing lane is congested and slows down, perhaps to a crawl. So now the
terminating lane is empty, the continuing lane is slow, and a driver
approaching the rear of this situation has a choice: slow down immediately,
so as to merge into a crawling lane well in advance of the merge point, or
continue on in the empty terminating lane, and then slow down and merge at
the designated merge point. The correct choice seems obvious to me, but then
I don't like waiting in traffic unnecessarily.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away"
with something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge
point in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road
markings.
How can you guarantee that a driver reaching the end of the lane he is
in, will find that there is a gap in the traffic in the next lane
allowing him to 'merge' at that point? What happens when there isn't?
There is no guarantee, but the situation is simple. Either the gaps between
vehicles are large enough to permit drivers to merge into them without
appreciable action on the part of other drivers, or they are not. If they
are, then there is likely to be a large enough gap with in a couple hundred
yards of the merge point. If the gaps are not large enough, then there
*will* be some congestion. That congestion starts at the merge point if one
follows my advice. If drivers follow your advice, the congestion starts well
in advance of the merge point, and to the extent that drivers follow your
directives, will extend further and further as drivers abandon an otherwise
empty lane to merge into a lane of slow traffic in advance of the actual
merge point.
Post by Whiskers
What does anyone lose by merging or allowing others to merge before the
lane peters out? Why do the engineers put up signs well in advance of
that last chance if they don't want people to merge before getting
there?
Engineers put up signs well in advance of merges for the same reasons they do
so for exits: to give drivers a chance to wake up and figure out what the
hell they're going to do.
From my POV, the problem is that you want to use a behavior suitable only for
light traffic when the road is congested, and for failing to recognize that
congestion is not just when there is bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling at
10mph, but occurs even at near highway speeds if the gaps between vehicles
are not large enough to allow for merging.
You're both optimists, but Questor more so. Many times terminating
lane driver at the termination point can only get over by being rude or
depending on the kindness of others. This causes a WHOLE LOT OF SLOWING
at the very-last-moment-merge-point, often to the point of complete
stops. I've seen this on freeways, but the conditions then generally
limit the approach speed to 50 mph or under.

I've also been driving in an almost-empty terminating lane (lane
closure for bridge maintenance in the most memorable case), and made
the mistake of swooping along, only to have someone from the through
lane decide to pull out and seek his fortune up ahead, forcing me to do
emergency braking and start measuring the shoulder.

I've plenty of experience with SoCal merges on freeways. For instance,
the 22W (SR22, officially, in the westbound direction) merges with
I-405N by turning 3 lanes into one (two step-downs).

And as Whiskers noted, those who to the last moment to merge often
encounter hostility from those in the remaining lane.

2 miles later, the on ramp from Seal Beach Blvd happens a couple
hundred feet before the western stub of the 22 peels off 1 lane, and a
2nd lane gets peeled off for I-605N within another quartermile. Lots
of fun the on-rampers who want to go to Carson or LAX. The traffic
that wants to go 22Stub/7th street is light, but the traffic headed to
the 605 is heavy, making for much entertainment for those who want to
be to the left of it.

And the 405 has lots of construction zones, and I-5 has its. The big
ones are in San Clemente and Westwood for the San Diego Fwy (doesn't
get too close to San Diego ... only as far as Irvine) and around Sante
Fe Springs for the Old Route.
<URL:http://www.panoramio.com/photo/47018686>

One of the one ramps I use, from east Long Beach, runs out with a curb
in the shoulder; since I generally use that one weekend evenings, I've
not had to find out what it feels like when you can't get in in time,
but it figures in my less happy dreams.

/dps
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-13 07:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
You're both optimists, but Questor more so. Many times terminating
lane driver at the termination point can only get over by being rude or
depending on the kindness of others. This causes a WHOLE LOT OF SLOWING
at the very-last-moment-merge-point, often to the point of complete
stops. I've seen this on freeways, but the conditions then generally
limit the approach speed to 50 mph or under.
Yeah, but the reason this happens is that people wrongly thing it's rude
to wait to merge. I am told this is not a problem in Germany where the
wait-to-merge rule is known. (You don't get your driver license in
Germany unless you get 100% on their written test.) So you know who THEY
think is rude? Idiots who try to merge TOO SOON. Those morons gum up the
flow of traffic. Why can't they wait till the appropriate point and merge
then? Are they brain dead? Oh. No. They're just Americans. Go home,
Janqui.

What we need is some PSAs to teach people how to drive like civilized
adults rather than brats on a playground.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Howard
2017-06-13 15:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
What we need is some PSAs to teach people how to drive like civilized
adults rather than brats on a playground.
We could also have groups like these Russians:

http://boingboing.net/2017/06/12/presence-of-bodybuilders-convi.html

It's not quite clear to me who these guys are. It appears that they were
founded by members of a pro-Putin youth group, Nashi, and received funding
from the Russian government, but they also seem to have had that funding
cut off at least once:

http://thebea.st/1qkP3KZ
Snidely
2017-06-14 07:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
You're both optimists, but Questor more so. Many times terminating
lane driver at the termination point can only get over by being rude or
depending on the kindness of others. This causes a WHOLE LOT OF SLOWING
at the very-last-moment-merge-point, often to the point of complete
stops. I've seen this on freeways, but the conditions then generally
limit the approach speed to 50 mph or under.
Yeah, but the reason this happens is that people wrongly thing it's rude
to wait to merge. I am told this is not a problem in Germany where the
wait-to-merge rule is known. (You don't get your driver license in
Germany unless you get 100% on their written test.) So you know who THEY
think is rude? Idiots who try to merge TOO SOON. Those morons gum up the
flow of traffic. Why can't they wait till the appropriate point and merge
then? Are they brain dead? Oh. No. They're just Americans. Go home,
Janqui.
What we need is some PSAs to teach people how to drive like civilized
adults rather than brats on a playground.
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may be
at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.

/dps
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-14 07:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may be
at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who can't go
through the intersection because you moved over too soon and created one
line where there could still be two but, hey, it was SMOOTH for you?

Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Snidely
2017-06-15 10:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may be
at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally?
For everybody. It involves an existing opening.
Post by Opus the Penguin
The people back at the light who can't go
through the intersection because you moved over too soon and created one
line where there could still be two but, hey, it was SMOOTH for you?
What light?

There aren't a heck of a lot of places I encounter a lane reduction
where my merge would affect traffic at a light behind me. One place,
arguably, is the I-105 transitions to I-10N, but that's a ramp control
signal across many lanes, and everyone expects it to be dog-eat-dog
because, well, because The Ten in LA.
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also
involves not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane
into empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.

/dps
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Tim Wright
2017-06-15 14:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may
be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally?
For everybody. It involves an existing opening.
Post by Opus the Penguin
The people back at the light who can't go through the intersection
because you moved over too soon and created one line where there could
still be two but, hey, it was SMOOTH for you?
What light?
There aren't a heck of a lot of places I encounter a lane reduction
where my merge would affect traffic at a light behind me. One place,
arguably, is the I-105 transitions to I-10N, but that's a ramp control
signal across many lanes, and everyone expects it to be dog-eat-dog
because, well, because The Ten in LA.
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question
is whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge
early view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view).
Neither view is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the
first cone. Both views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not
the point of disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also involves
not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane into
empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.
/dps
This all reminds me of the great Blinker Wars of a few years back. Are
your blinkers requesting permission to change lanes, or telling people
what you're about to do.

I don't know about yours, but mine are telling people what I'm about to do.
--
Studies have shown that the people of Dubai don't understand the humor
of the Flintstones, but the people of Abu Dhabi do.

Tim W
Whiskers
2017-06-15 16:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Wright
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally?
For everybody. It involves an existing opening.
Post by Opus the Penguin
The people back at the light who can't go through the intersection
because you moved over too soon and created one line where there
could still be two but, hey, it was SMOOTH for you?
What light?
There aren't a heck of a lot of places I encounter a lane reduction
where my merge would affect traffic at a light behind me. One place,
arguably, is the I-105 transitions to I-10N, but that's a ramp
control signal across many lanes, and everyone expects it to be
dog-eat-dog because, well, because The Ten in LA.
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The
question is whether you should create congestion as soon as possible
(the merge early view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the
correct view). Neither view is suggesting waiting until your front
bumper hits the first cone. Both views advocate smooth, clean
merges. Smooth is not the point of disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also
involves not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane
into empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.
/dps
This all reminds me of the great Blinker Wars of a few years back.
Are your blinkers requesting permission to change lanes, or telling
people what you're about to do.
I don't know about yours, but mine are telling people what I'm about to do.
That sounds expensive.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-06-16 00:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:14:52 -0500, Tim Wright
Post by Tim Wright
This all reminds me of the great Blinker Wars of a few years back. Are
your blinkers requesting permission to change lanes, or telling people
what you're about to do.
I don't know about yours, but mine are telling people what I'm about to do.
A dear departed friend, who was otherwise quite intelligent,
worked at the Labs at Berkeley, would _never_ signal for a lane
change—cuz if you did it would just make the other guy speed up
to thwart you.
Questor
2017-06-16 21:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also
involves not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane
into empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of the
indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to let them
into the continuing lane.
s***@gmail.com
2017-06-17 02:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also
involves not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane
into empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of the
indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to let them
into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)

/dps
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-06-17 07:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of the
indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to let them
into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I see it several times daily.
--
"Everybody knows a turkey..." — Mel Tormé
Snidely
2017-06-17 09:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of
the indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to
let them into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I see it several times daily.
Hmm. Not a SoCal feature, not an Oregon feature.

/dps
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
Snidely
2017-06-17 09:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Snidely is guilty of <***@snitoo> as of
6/17/2017 2:04:28 AM
Post by Snidely
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of
the indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to
let them into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I see it several times daily.
Hmm. Not a SoCal feature, not an Oregon feature.
But people do stop at the end of the lane because no one has let them
in yet.

/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
Les Albert
2017-06-17 15:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of
the indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to
let them into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I see it several times daily.
Hmm. Not a SoCal feature, not an Oregon feature.
He's correct. I see it many times here in the Bay Area when there is
a lane shut down for road repairs.

Les
Charles Bishop
2017-06-20 16:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of
the indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to
let them into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I see it several times daily.
Hmm. Not a SoCal feature, not an Oregon feature.
Topanga Canyon offramp from the 118 (westbound) at certain times of the
day. Also others. I don't use the 101 much anymore, at least around here.
--
charles
Whiskers
2017-06-17 14:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
Post by Questor
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in
advance of the indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait
for someone to let them into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on, never
having seen such a thing in my driving career (ObDisclaim: memory is
fallible, but such an event could be expected to stand out)
I see it several times daily.
It's common in my experience too. The culprit is usually one who has
dashed along the empty dead-end lane only to realise that eventually
he's going to reach the dead and have to stop while all those cars he's
passed co-operate to keep him out of the moving lane, and he wants to
avoid that ignominy. Sometimes the driver concerned has even merged
_into_ the dead-end lane hoping to gain some yards or seconds on
everyone else.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
John Mc.
2017-06-20 11:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
Post by Questor
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in
advance of the indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait
for someone to let them into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on, never
having seen such a thing in my driving career (ObDisclaim: memory is
fallible, but such an event could be expected to stand out)
I see it several times daily.
It's common in my experience too. The culprit is usually one who has
dashed along the empty dead-end lane only to realise that eventually
he's going to reach the dead and have to stop while all those cars he's
passed co-operate to keep him out of the moving lane, and he wants to
avoid that ignominy. Sometimes the driver concerned has even merged
_into_ the dead-end lane hoping to gain some yards or seconds on
everyone else.
I've no sympathy for the latter example. Take your turn and get in line.
The local highway I use going home has this. The two right hand lanes have
heavy traffic. The left hand lane actually divides and becomes the left
turn lanes for the northbound interstate. And every afternoon these folk
try to use the rightmost of these to skirt around traffic going straight.
And it's not that they don't know. There's is ample signage warning that
this happens. They're just being asshats.

John Mc.
Charles Bishop
2017-06-20 16:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also
involves not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane
into empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of the
indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to let them
into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I saw it often on freeways, southern and northern. Usually for an exit
ramp where there is no real need to merge, but one needs to to use the
exit. The offending driver has counted on there being a space when they
reach the last possible place (or near to it) to get in the exit lane
only to find there is no such space.
--
charles
Snidely
2017-06-21 06:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also
involves not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane
into empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of the
indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to let them
into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I saw it often on freeways, southern and northern. Usually for an exit
ramp where there is no real need to merge, but one needs to to use the
exit. The offending driver has counted on there being a space when they
reach the last possible place (or near to it) to get in the exit lane
only to find there is no such space.
That's different from doing it "well in advance of the merge point".

/dps "not in advance at all"
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Charles Bishop
2017-06-22 19:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also
involves not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane
into empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of the
indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to let them
into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I saw it often on freeways, southern and northern. Usually for an exit
ramp where there is no real need to merge, but one needs to to use the
exit. The offending driver has counted on there being a space when they
reach the last possible place (or near to it) to get in the exit lane
only to find there is no such space.
That's different from doing it "well in advance of the merge point".
/dps "not in advance at all"
Well, if you put it like that. [I see something similar when. . .]
Insert as necessary.
--
charles, we're supposed to be logical??
Charles Bishop
2017-06-22 19:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Questor
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
Smooth involves understanding when openings occur. Smooth also
involves not running over someone who pulls out of the through lane
into empty-but-for-your-rapid-approach disappearing lane.
Similarly, the driver who blocks the terminating lane well in advance of the
indicated merge point because they've stopped to wait for someone to let them
into the continuing lane.
I'm inclined to think this is a bale of straw with clothes on,
never having seen such a thing in my driving career
(ObDisclaim: memory is fallible, but such an event could be expected
to stand out)
I saw it often on freeways, southern and northern. Usually for an exit
ramp where there is no real need to merge, but one needs to to use the
exit. The offending driver has counted on there being a space when they
reach the last possible place (or near to it) to get in the exit lane
only to find there is no such space.
Something more to add - I was out and about, on the highways and byways
around agricultural land. On a "highway" that is one lane each way.
Except that at a signal there is a short (100-200 feet) right hand lane,
presumably there to allow people making a right hand turn not to have to
wait for the signal to change. On the opposite side of the signal, there
is a similar right hand lane, presumably to allow drivers who have made
a right turn to get up to speed before using the main lane.

When I was there there were quite a few cars on the highway and on a red
signal, there was a backup of maybe 10-15 cars. Of course there were
cars that went into the right hand lane planning on continuing across
the intersection and gaining a better position in the traffic.

There is something of a Prisoner's Dilemma here as if I don't use the
right hand lane, I'll lose a (small) amount of time, but if I do, I'll
be a jerk.
--
charles
HVS
2017-06-22 23:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:53:52 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Something more to add - I was out and about, on the highways and byways
around agricultural land. On a "highway" that is one lane each way.
Except that at a signal there is a short (100-200 feet) right hand lane,
presumably there to allow people making a right hand turn not to have to
wait for the signal to change. On the opposite side of the signal, there
is a similar right hand lane, presumably to allow drivers who have made
a right turn to get up to speed before using the main lane.
When I was there there were quite a few cars on the highway and on a red
signal, there was a backup of maybe 10-15 cars. Of course there were
cars that went into the right hand lane planning on continuing
across
Post by Charles Bishop
the intersection and gaining a better position in the traffic.
There is something of a Prisoner's Dilemma here as if I don't use the
right hand lane, I'll lose a (small) amount of time, but if I do, I'll
be a jerk.
I recall reading of a tactic for that situation:

1. Go to the front of the "cutting-in/queue-jumping" lane.
2. While the light's red, start inching forward, and rev your engine
a bit.
3. When the light turns green, stay where you are, or start rolling
forward, slowly.
4. The person next to you will floor it, to stop you cutting in.
5. Leisurely pull into the gap he's created.

(I've never tried it, but I suspect it works.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years),
indiscriminately mixed
Greg Goss
2017-06-23 13:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
1. Go to the front of the "cutting-in/queue-jumping" lane.
2. While the light's red, start inching forward, and rev your engine
a bit.
3. When the light turns green, stay where you are, or start rolling
forward, slowly.
4. The person next to you will floor it, to stop you cutting in.
5. Leisurely pull into the gap he's created.
(I've never tried it, but I suspect it works.)
I do this all the time. Challenge the car next to you for first. Let
him open up a nice big space for you to merge in second.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
John Mc.
2017-06-16 17:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may be
at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who can't go
through the intersection because you moved over too soon and created one
line where there could still be two but, hey, it was SMOOTH for you?
Nobody's advocating waiting until it's dangerously late. The question is
whether you should create congestion as soon as possible (the merge early
view) or wait to do so if you safely can (the correct view). Neither view
is suggesting waiting until your front bumper hits the first cone. Both
views advocate smooth, clean merges. Smooth is not the point of
disagreement here.
I start looking at the adjacent lane once I pass the first sign. Doesn't
mean I horn in and cut them off just I start looking. The only caveat being
semis. If I see two or three semis ahead I'll actually speed up to pass
them. As a rule because of the way the lane restrictions are set up semis
tend to go slower than the already reduced speed in the construction zones.


John Mc
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
2017-06-22 05:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may be
at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who can't go
through the intersection because you moved over too soon and created one
line where there could still be two but, hey, it was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-22 05:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may
be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon and
created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it was
SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into the
left turn lane.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
2017-06-22 06:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may
be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon and
created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it was
SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into the
left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into my
way by doing so.

Xho
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-22 16:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Les Albert
2017-06-22 18:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:46:54 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I have the Matchbox cars. http://tinyurl.com/yce29ba5

Are you talking about a left turn situation as shown here:
Loading Image...

Les
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-22 19:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Les Albert
Post by Opus the Penguin
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I have the Matchbox cars. http://tinyurl.com/yce29ba5
Nice! Pop quiz: which one of those vehicles is least likely to favor the
zipper merge?
Post by Les Albert
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/imageserver/dmv/images/dlhdbk/29a.gif
I was actually thinking of a situation with a dedicated left turn lane
and traffic backed up beyond the entry to that lane. But I think your
example probably illustrates the point even better.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Snidely
2017-06-26 07:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Remember when Opus the Penguin bragged outrageously? That was
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Les Albert
Post by Opus the Penguin
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I have the Matchbox cars. http://tinyurl.com/yce29ba5
Nice! Pop quiz: which one of those vehicles is least likely to favor the
zipper merge?
Post by Les Albert
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/imageserver/dmv/images/dlhdbk/29a.gif
I was actually thinking of a situation with a dedicated left turn lane
and traffic backed up beyond the entry to that lane. But I think your
example probably illustrates the point even better.
It happens all the time without zipper merges being involved, so why
should I care?

[Yes, blocked from the turn lane, with 3 through lanes, often with all
3 backed up past the turn lane start. Aliso Creek Road at Pacific Park
is a familiar example near my workplace. Aliso Creek goes 2 more miles
and through 7 more lights before narrowing to 2 through lanes.]

/dps
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
Charles Bishop
2017-06-22 19:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.

If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point. On
the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there there
will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the merge
point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early merger,
then will be an additional red car in front of you that wouldn't have
been there otherwise.
--
charles
Snidely
2017-06-26 07:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point. On
the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there there
will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the merge
point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early merger,
then will be an additional red car in front of you that wouldn't have
been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?

/dps
--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15
Whiskers
2017-06-26 22:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early,
it may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth.
Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light
who can't go through the intersection because you moved over too
soon and created one line where there could still be two but,
hey, it was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what
difference would it make? If they did get through the
intersection, they would immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten
into my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different
things. I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some
matchbox cars to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The
left lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car,
blue car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge
point. On the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early,
there there will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't
reached the merge point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind
this early merger, then will be an additional red car in front of you
that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
/dps
I think there may be some drivers who believe more or less fervently
that all travellers should reach the end of the road in exactly the same
order as they reached the beginning. A significant sub-group believe
that all travellers _other than themselves_ should arrive in the same
sequence as they began; they themselves are of course entitled to arrive
in front of everyone who set off before they did.

I'm content to arrive in a good frame of mind, and one piece.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Tim Wright
2017-06-26 22:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early,
it may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth.
Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light
who can't go through the intersection because you moved over too
soon and created one line where there could still be two but,
hey, it was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what
difference would it make? If they did get through the
intersection, they would immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten
into my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different
things. I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some
matchbox cars to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The
left lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car,
blue car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge
point. On the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early,
there there will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't
reached the merge point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind
this early merger, then will be an additional red car in front of you
that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
/dps
I think there may be some drivers who believe more or less fervently
that all travellers should reach the end of the road in exactly the same
order as they reached the beginning. A significant sub-group believe
that all travellers _other than themselves_ should arrive in the same
sequence as they began; they themselves are of course entitled to arrive
in front of everyone who set off before they did.
So you've met my wife?
--
Studies have shown that the people of Dubai don't understand the humor
of the Flintstones, but the people of Abu Dhabi do.

Tim W
Whiskers
2017-06-27 12:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Wright
Post by Whiskers
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early,
it may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth.
Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light
who can't go through the intersection because you moved over too
soon and created one line where there could still be two but,
hey, it was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what
difference would it make? If they did get through the
intersection, they would immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten
into my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different
things. I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some
matchbox cars to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The
left lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car,
blue car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge
point. On the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early,
there there will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't
reached the merge point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind
this early merger, then will be an additional red car in front of you
that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
/dps
I think there may be some drivers who believe more or less fervently
that all travellers should reach the end of the road in exactly the same
order as they reached the beginning. A significant sub-group believe
that all travellers _other than themselves_ should arrive in the same
sequence as they began; they themselves are of course entitled to arrive
in front of everyone who set off before they did.
So you've met my wife?
We may have passed each other. Several times, in the same queue.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Bishop
2017-06-30 15:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point. On
the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there there
will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the merge
point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early merger,
then will be an additional red car in front of you that wouldn't have
been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
I'm not merging, I'm in a blue car in the right hand lane. Red cars are
merging into my lane. If they all merge at the merge point, politely,
slowing to let alternate cars in, then everything is fine.

But if a red car merges early, it can still be done smoothly, but this
allows another red car to merge behind it at some point, slowing the
rate of travel of the blue cars wrt the red cars.

It's possibly minor, but the "unfairness" of it upsets my sense of order.
--
charles
Snidely
2017-07-01 06:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point. On
the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there there
will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the merge
point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early merger,
then will be an additional red car in front of you that wouldn't have
been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
I'm not merging, I'm in a blue car in the right hand lane. Red cars are
merging into my lane. If they all merge at the merge point, politely,
slowing to let alternate cars in, then everything is fine.
But if a red car merges early, it can still be done smoothly, but this
allows another red car to merge behind it at some point, slowing the
rate of travel of the blue cars wrt the red cars.
It's possibly minor, but the "unfairness" of it upsets my sense of order.
I think your sense of order is disordered.

/dps
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
bill van
2017-07-01 07:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point. On
the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there there
will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the merge
point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early merger,
then will be an additional red car in front of you that wouldn't have
been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
I'm not merging, I'm in a blue car in the right hand lane. Red cars are
merging into my lane. If they all merge at the merge point, politely,
slowing to let alternate cars in, then everything is fine.
But if a red car merges early, it can still be done smoothly, but this
allows another red car to merge behind it at some point, slowing the
rate of travel of the blue cars wrt the red cars.
It's possibly minor, but the "unfairness" of it upsets my sense of order.
I think your sense of order is disordered.
Whose, chasler's? D'ya think?
--
bill
Charles Bishop
2017-07-03 14:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point. On
the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there there
will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the merge
point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early merger,
then will be an additional red car in front of you that wouldn't have
been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
I'm not merging, I'm in a blue car in the right hand lane. Red cars are
merging into my lane. If they all merge at the merge point, politely,
slowing to let alternate cars in, then everything is fine.
But if a red car merges early, it can still be done smoothly, but this
allows another red car to merge behind it at some point, slowing the
rate of travel of the blue cars wrt the red cars.
It's possibly minor, but the "unfairness" of it upsets my sense of order.
I think your sense of order is disordered.
I can only sense that this is due to a misunderstanding of the
description.
--
charles, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate
Snidely
2017-07-05 07:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point. On
the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there there
will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the merge
point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early merger,
then will be an additional red car in front of you that wouldn't have
been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
I'm not merging, I'm in a blue car in the right hand lane. Red cars are
merging into my lane. If they all merge at the merge point, politely,
slowing to let alternate cars in, then everything is fine.
But if a red car merges early, it can still be done smoothly, but this
allows another red car to merge behind it at some point, slowing the
rate of travel of the blue cars wrt the red cars.
It's possibly minor, but the "unfairness" of it upsets my sense of order.
I think your sense of order is disordered.
I can only sense that this is due to a misunderstanding of the
description.
I think the people who most fit your description are the ones who will
merge too late no matter what anybody else does. In the zipper merges
I've seen, there's going to be a guy who passes on the right to get
further along than the cars that are doing it right.

/dps
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Snidely
2017-07-05 07:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox
cars to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point.
On the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there
there will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the
merge point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early
merger, then will be an additional red car in front of you that
wouldn't have been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
I'm not merging, I'm in a blue car in the right hand lane. Red cars are
merging into my lane. If they all merge at the merge point, politely,
slowing to let alternate cars in, then everything is fine.
But if a red car merges early, it can still be done smoothly, but this
allows another red car to merge behind it at some point, slowing the rate
of travel of the blue cars wrt the red cars.
It's possibly minor, but the "unfairness" of it upsets my sense of order.
I think your sense of order is disordered.
I can only sense that this is due to a misunderstanding of the description.
I think the people who most fit your description are the ones who will merge
too late no matter what anybody else does. In the zipper merges I've seen,
there's going to be a guy who passes on the right to get further along than
the cars that are doing it right.
Whichever value of "right" is being used.

/dps
--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
Charles Bishop
2017-07-11 18:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox
cars to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point.
On the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there
there will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the
merge point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early
merger, then will be an additional red car in front of you that
wouldn't have been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
I'm not merging, I'm in a blue car in the right hand lane. Red cars are
merging into my lane. If they all merge at the merge point, politely,
slowing to let alternate cars in, then everything is fine.
But if a red car merges early, it can still be done smoothly, but this
allows another red car to merge behind it at some point, slowing the rate
of travel of the blue cars wrt the red cars.
It's possibly minor, but the "unfairness" of it upsets my sense of order.
I think your sense of order is disordered.
I can only sense that this is due to a misunderstanding of the description.
I think the people who most fit your description are the ones who will merge
too late no matter what anybody else does. In the zipper merges I've seen,
there's going to be a guy who passes on the right to get further along than
the cars that are doing it right.
Whichever value of "right" is being used.
Riiiiggghhht.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
2017-07-11 17:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Snidely
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it
may be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon
and created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it
was SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into
the left turn lane.
But that is just as likely to happen the other way, you would have
gotten out of my way by merging early, rather than having gotten into
my way by doing so.
I don't think that's so, but we may be talking about different things.
I'm not a good artist, so we'd have to sit down with some matchbox cars
to figure it out.
I like to think of two lanes of traffic. The one on the left has only
red cars in it, the right hand land has only blue cars in it. The left
lane merges with the right.
If the cars alternate at the merge point, then it will be red car, blue
car, red car, blue car, red car, blue car. . . after the merge point. On
the other hand if a car in the left hand lane merges early, there there
will be a red cars between two blue cars that haven't reached the merge
point. If you're in the blue car immediately behind this early merger,
then will be an additional red car in front of you that wouldn't have
been there otherwise.
But you're only merging early because there was an opening. So what
difference does it make?
I'm not merging, I'm in a blue car in the right hand lane. Red cars are
merging into my lane. If they all merge at the merge point, politely,
slowing to let alternate cars in, then everything is fine.
But if a red car merges early, it can still be done smoothly, but this
allows another red car to merge behind it at some point, slowing the
rate of travel of the blue cars wrt the red cars.
It's possibly minor, but the "unfairness" of it upsets my sense of order.
I think your sense of order is disordered.
I can only sense that this is due to a misunderstanding of the
description.
I think the people who most fit your description are the ones who will
merge too late no matter what anybody else does. In the zipper merges
I've seen, there's going to be a guy who passes on the right to get
further along than the cars that are doing it right.
We're having trouble envisioning each other's physical layout, I think.
When we last did this, or during the 2005-20010 period, we couldn't get
agreement on the situation, but I don't remember what position you took
then. I know my good friend Opus tP agreed with me on the 2 or 3 second
rule during heavy freeway traffic.
--
charles
Greg Goss
2017-07-12 15:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
then. I know my good friend Opus tP agreed with me on the 2 or 3 second
rule during heavy freeway traffic.
Two seconds works. Three doesn't. At least where I live. I took a
phone vid but had no way to get it to OtP.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Charles Bishop
2017-07-14 17:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Charles Bishop
then. I know my good friend Opus tP agreed with me on the 2 or 3 second
rule during heavy freeway traffic.
Two seconds works. Three doesn't. At least where I live. I took a
phone vid but had no way to get it to OtP.
We've been here before, and didn't reach consensus, want to try again?

The problem seems to be that it's difficult to accurately describe the
exact conditions under which "3 seconds works" or "3 seconds doesn't
work".

I was driving the 101 into SF when I first participated, and did find
that trying to describe the conditions across 4 lanes of fwy, along with
entrance and exit ramps, as well as the conditions ahead and behind me,
probably caused me to leave out details, extending the discussions.

Good news from the Front, perhaps. - I've been driving mostly for
enjoyment (getting to and from a place where that can be found) and so,
not during commute times, mostly. However, this being LA and its
environs, "commute times" doesn't hold much meaning. I have noticed
that, driving while leaving a space ahead is becoming more common - I'm
not the only one doing it -there are more drivers than before - and it
seems to me that when traffic is congested it's moving slowly rather
than the speed up and stop patterns from ago.

On the other hand, if I turn my lights on and off to let a trucker know
he can pull out in front of me, I rarely get the "turn his lights on and
off" thank you. Maybe one out of 10 does it now.

charles, youngsters, what do they know
Whiskers
2017-07-14 18:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Charles Bishop
On the other hand, if I turn my lights on and off to let a trucker know
he can pull out in front of me, I rarely get the "turn his lights on and
off" thank you. Maybe one out of 10 does it now.
charles, youngsters, what do they know
In Britain, the customary 'thanks' seems to be a few blinks of the
'hazard warning lights'.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Goss
2017-07-15 05:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
[...]
Post by Charles Bishop
On the other hand, if I turn my lights on and off to let a trucker know
he can pull out in front of me, I rarely get the "turn his lights on and
off" thank you. Maybe one out of 10 does it now.
charles, youngsters, what do they know
In Britain, the customary 'thanks' seems to be a few blinks of the
'hazard warning lights'.
Most cars in Canada cannot turn off their headlights. OK, some of
them switch between true headlights and bright pseudo headlights for
daytime. So we flash high beams (pull the turn signal) to tell
someone that I'm leaving them a space.

I still see trucker's flash their "back up hitching light" in thanks.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Charles Bishop
2017-07-16 01:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
[...]
Post by Charles Bishop
On the other hand, if I turn my lights on and off to let a trucker know
he can pull out in front of me, I rarely get the "turn his lights on and
off" thank you. Maybe one out of 10 does it now.
charles, youngsters, what do they know
In Britain, the customary 'thanks' seems to be a few blinks of the
'hazard warning lights'.
Yes, that's the ones I meant and wasn't specific enough. They are orange
here and are also the running lights that are spaced along the perimeter
of the trailer body.
--
chrles
Greg Goss
2017-07-16 18:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Whiskers
[...]
Post by Charles Bishop
On the other hand, if I turn my lights on and off to let a trucker know
he can pull out in front of me, I rarely get the "turn his lights on and
off" thank you. Maybe one out of 10 does it now.
charles, youngsters, what do they know
In Britain, the customary 'thanks' seems to be a few blinks of the
'hazard warning lights'.
Yes, that's the ones I meant and wasn't specific enough. They are orange
here and are also the running lights that are spaced along the perimeter
of the trailer body.
Many of the tractor units have a spotlight aimed backwards from the
left side somewhere (mirror, left rear corner, etc.) I assume that's
either to aid in backing into a trailer, or to back a trailer into
position. This light, if there is one, is the one that's usually
flashed to show appreciation. I don't think I ever see the marker
lights flashed.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Greg Goss
2017-07-15 05:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Greg Goss
Two seconds works. Three doesn't. At least where I live. I took a
phone vid but had no way to get it to OtP.
We've been here before, and didn't reach consensus, want to try again?
The problem seems to be that it's difficult to accurately describe the
exact conditions under which "3 seconds works" or "3 seconds doesn't
work".
Typical spacing where I drive is about a second and a quarter.
Cutting into a two second gap is forcing your way. If there's a three
second gap, the other driver thinks he's leaving you plenty of space.
Every time you slow down, people behind you want to get around the
slowpoke, so change lanes and find the new gap. The recording I meant
to send Opus became ludicrous.

But I've been using the two second rule since I learned to drive in
the seventies, with no problems. I don't know if drivers are
different where you and Opus live -- I never tried the three second
experiment anywhere but Calgary. But Calgary drivers are pretty
mellow compared to Toronto - I would expect Toronto to be far worse.
Or maybe you guys aren't counting true seconds. But this is a pretty
nerdy group. I would expect measurements to be precise.

I don't remember much Vancouver freeway driving -- all I remember are
"empty" and "congested to 15 MPH". In neither case is a spacing count
meaningful.
Post by Charles Bishop
I was driving the 101 into SF when I first participated, and did find
that trying to describe the conditions across 4 lanes of fwy, along with
entrance and exit ramps, as well as the conditions ahead and behind me,
probably caused me to leave out details, extending the discussions.
Good news from the Front, perhaps. - I've been driving mostly for
enjoyment (getting to and from a place where that can be found) and so,
not during commute times, mostly. However, this being LA and its
environs, "commute times" doesn't hold much meaning. I have noticed
that, driving while leaving a space ahead is becoming more common - I'm
not the only one doing it -there are more drivers than before - and it
seems to me that when traffic is congested it's moving slowly rather
than the speed up and stop patterns from ago.
On the other hand, if I turn my lights on and off to let a trucker know
he can pull out in front of me, I rarely get the "turn his lights on and
off" thank you. Maybe one out of 10 does it now.
charles, youngsters, what do they know
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Whiskers
2017-06-22 10:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may
be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon and
created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it was
SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into the
left turn lane.
If a lane closure is going to interfere with a road junction, then the
'merge' signs and bollards and so on should be arranged to mitigate the
difficulties and as far as possible separate the 'turn off this road'
traffic from the 'stay on this road but get out of this closed lane'
traffic. Judicious placing of 'get in lane' and 'stay in lane' signs is
needed, and clear temporary signs about which lane to get into in order
to leave this road at the junction. Temporary traffic lights or a
worker with 'stop/go' boards may be helpful, so that drivers who want to
'turn off' are queued in one lane in advance of the junction, and those
who want to stay on this road are queued in another lane or lanes. The
two sets of traffic then use the available lanes alternately as
permitted by the lights or stop/go boards. There shouldn't be a lane
closure soon after a road junction, the engineers should get the traffic
sorted in advance.

Where there is a permanent road narrowing, there's no excuse for it
being engineered in a way that confuses a road junction. But it
happens, and then drivers have to cope - which works best when everyone
co-operates and tries to predict possible problems and make them not
happen, by acting in advance and making allowances for strangers who
aren't familiar with the way locals handle it.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
John Mc.
2017-06-23 16:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Snidely
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may
be at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
Smooth for whom? You personally? The people back at the light who
can't go through the intersection because you moved over too soon and
created one line where there could still be two but, hey, it was
SMOOTH for you?
Since the traffic is backed up nearly to the light, what difference
would it make? If they did get through the intersection, they would
immediately be stopped in traffic.
It makes a difference to the people behind them who can't get into the
left turn lane.
Don't get me started about use of turn lanes. IF YOU ARE TURNING and the
turn lane becomes available. YOU PULL into it. Not in Indiana though.
Instead the #%^* idiots start braking or slowing down while in the through
lane. Then they leisurely pull over usually at the last moment.

John Mc.
Howard
2017-06-23 16:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Mc.
Don't get me started about use of turn lanes. IF YOU ARE TURNING and
the turn lane becomes available. YOU PULL into it. Not in Indiana
though. Instead the #%^* idiots start braking or slowing down while in
the through lane. Then they leisurely pull over usually at the last
moment.
The best is when they do that in the right lane for a left turn. I see the
wisdom of rotaries, NJ jughandles and Michigan lefts.
John Mc.
2017-06-24 10:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard
Post by John Mc.
Don't get me started about use of turn lanes. IF YOU ARE TURNING and
the turn lane becomes available. YOU PULL into it. Not in Indiana
though. Instead the #%^* idiots start braking or slowing down while in
the through lane. Then they leisurely pull over usually at the last
moment.
The best is when they do that in the right lane for a left turn. I see the
wisdom of rotaries, NJ jughandles and Michigan lefts.
I see the turn from the far lane at least once a week at the entrance to
the local Meijer store along with the left turn at the no left turn
exit. All they need do is go left across the parking lot and exit at the
light. But that's too hard for their addled brains. Most of the shopping
centers around here have the same layout. There's at least one entrance
/exit with a stop sign and another that's at a light. They'll line up ten
cars deep at the stop sign rather than wait their turn at the light. Why
is beyond me.

John Mc.
Greg Goss
2017-06-14 15:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
What we need is some PSAs to teach people how to drive like civilized
adults rather than brats on a playground.
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may be
at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
One problem I've noticed here is when the lane-to-end is empty and the
lane-to-merge-into is moving smoothly but far below its speed limit.
The empty lane fills, and then the entire row merges cleanly into the
desired lane pretty much simultaneously. The to-end lane is now empty
and re-fills. You end up with three batches merged in front of you.
You can either refuse to let the second or third batch in by being
agressive in defending your space.

Doing a clean merge when the lane ends prevents these multi-zipper
column merges.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Whiskers
2017-06-14 19:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Snidely
Post by Opus the Penguin
What we need is some PSAs to teach people how to drive like civilized
adults rather than brats on a playground.
The place to merge is where it is smooth. That may be early, it may be
at the end, or somewhere in between. Smooth. Smooth.
One problem I've noticed here is when the lane-to-end is empty and the
lane-to-merge-into is moving smoothly but far below its speed limit.
The empty lane fills, and then the entire row merges cleanly into the
desired lane pretty much simultaneously. The to-end lane is now empty
and re-fills. You end up with three batches merged in front of you.
You can either refuse to let the second or third batch in by being
agressive in defending your space.
Doing a clean merge when the lane ends prevents these multi-zipper
column merges.
Well, no, it doesn't, but by the time you're close enough to have to
think about what to do about cars at the end of the lane, you're probably
not watching what's going on behind you, even if you could see it.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-06-11 19:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
I'd say it's a bit late by then. Get to that point and someone is going
to have to stop - possibly the entire queue of traffic in both lanes.
That isn't 'optimal'.
If the traffic engineers wanted the merge point to be earlier, they would have
re-stripped the road to end the dotted line earlier. I do not understand why
people reject the obvious location and create imaginary merge points. Merging
is required at the merge point. Merging is voluntary prior to the merge point.
If both lanes are congested -- i.e., filled with slow-moving traffic -- then it
is fairly obvious that a zipper merge at the merge point is best. On the other
tentacle, if the road is otherwise empty, then it is also obvious that waiting
until the merge point to exit the terminating lane results in no disruption.
In between those extremes, the issue is as previously stated, one of "finding a
hole" and changing lanes with minimal disruption to other vehicles. If the hole
happens to be at the merge point, how is that a problem? Conversely, merging
well in advance of the merge point in no way precludes a clumsy maneuver that
causes traffic to slow down.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico -- the
issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane without disrupting
other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both lanes be
filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper merge should be
performed.
Best results are obtained when the drivers in the lane being merged
into, allow the vehicle in front of them to get a bit further away so
that the drivers being required to merge have a space to merge into
without anyone having to change speed significantly or change direction
abruptly. If both sets of drivers manage a 'one for one' arrangement,
everything happens so smoothly that passengers might not even notice.
That might be a wonderful fantasy of drivers acting as if they were lines
of synchronized chorus girls, but it does not align well with reality. It is
the responsibility of the drivers in the terminating lane to safely merge into
the remaining lane. Courtesy dictates the other drivers should "let them in"
if appropriate, but they have no obligation to slow down to create spaces
as you suggest.
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away" with
something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
¡TY!
Snidely
2017-06-13 06:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The
traffic engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is
required: it's where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is
the merge point.
I'd say it's a bit late by then. Get to that point and someone is going
to have to stop - possibly the entire queue of traffic in both lanes.
That isn't 'optimal'.
If the traffic engineers wanted the merge point to be earlier, they would
have re-stripped the road to end the dotted line earlier. I do not
understand why people reject the obvious location and create imaginary merge
points. Merging is required at the merge point. Merging is voluntary prior
to the merge point.
If both lanes are congested -- i.e., filled with slow-moving traffic -- then
it is fairly obvious that a zipper merge at the merge point is best. On the
other tentacle, if the road is otherwise empty, then it is also obvious that
waiting until the merge point to exit the terminating lane results in no
disruption.
In between those extremes, the issue is as previously stated, one of
"finding a hole" and changing lanes with minimal disruption to other
vehicles. If the hole happens to be at the merge point, how is that a
problem? Conversely, merging well in advance of the merge point in no way
precludes a clumsy maneuver that causes traffic to slow down.
Post by Whiskers
Post by Questor
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico
-- the issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane
without disrupting other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before
the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both
lanes be filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper
merge should be performed.
Best results are obtained when the drivers in the lane being merged
into, allow the vehicle in front of them to get a bit further away so
that the drivers being required to merge have a space to merge into
without anyone having to change speed significantly or change direction
abruptly. If both sets of drivers manage a 'one for one' arrangement,
everything happens so smoothly that passengers might not even notice.
That might be a wonderful fantasy of drivers acting as if they were lines
of synchronized chorus girls, but it does not align well with reality. It
is the responsibility of the drivers in the terminating lane to safely merge
into the remaining lane. Courtesy dictates the other drivers should "let
them in" if appropriate, but they have no obligation to slow down to create
spaces as you suggest.
Post by Whiskers
Of course, there are always idiots who can't bear to have empty
road-space between them and the car in front, even for a moment, or who
insist that they leave every manoeuvre to the last possible chance or
must always be 'in front' - and come to a sudden stop if no-one lets
them get away with it.
There is nothing to "get away with" -- those drivers simply merged poorly,
albeit possibly intentionally so. The notion that they are "getting away"
with something implies they should have merged at some imaginary merge point
in advance of the actual merge point as indicated by the road markings.
¡TY!
I think Whiskers was talking about the through lane drivers getting
away with not letting you in.

No Thanks.

/dps
--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
2017-06-13 04:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
Unless those same traffic engineers have also put up a sign saying
"merge here". In which case, they have clearly indicated....
Post by Questor
At speed -- very likely in a sparsely populated state such as New Mexico -- the
issue is largely one of courtesy: merging into the one lane without disrupting
other vehicles by "finding a hole" somewhere before the merge point.
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates both lanes be
filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a zipper merge should be
performed.
This is, quite frankly, retarded. If you maintain a spacing such that a
zipper merge is eventually possible, you might as well do the zipper
merge already. That way the other lane is kept free for people who are
trying to turn off somewhere before the last-second merge point.

Xho
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-13 07:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Questor
In heavily-congested traffic, optimal roadway utilization dictates
both lanes be filled with vehicles up to the merge point whereupon a
zipper merge should be performed.
This is, quite frankly, retarded. If you maintain a spacing such that
a zipper merge is eventually possible, you might as well do the zipper
merge already. That way the other lane is kept free for people who
are trying to turn off somewhere before the last-second merge point.
Did anyone mention such a turnoff? Why not say it's retarded because
you'll end up running over the people playing touch football in the other
lane? Obviously a turnoff in the middle of the merge zone would change
things. There is no such turnoff. There's just idiots making the line of
cars stretch farther back than it needs to. The idiots end up blocking
access to the hypothetical turnoff you forgot about that comes up a mile
before the non-exesistent turnoff you mentioned. They also make it so
that cars at the hypothetical light a mile back end up unable to cross
the intersection at the green because there's traffic backed up ahead of
them in both lanes.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Alfalfa Bill
2017-06-17 02:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Charles Bishop
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made a
while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from AL to
NV, roughly 1900 miles.
Driving though NM, there was some road work being done, or at least the
road was coned off in places, and the left lane had to merge into the
right hand lane. The signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
I wonder if Bill T was remembering a merge that happened in Oklahoma. We do most things differently in Oklahoma, including merging.

In Oklahoma the first sign is a warning sign and says something like Construction Ahead Prepare to Merge. About 1/2 mile upstream from where the disappearing lane ends is a sign reading "Merge Now State Law." That sign is the merge point. You can be given a $100 ticket for merging after that second sign. State law.

The reason for requiring an early merge is to protect construction workers who could be within a couple of feet of traffic in the lane that ends.

A research paper from the University of Kansas found that during the transitional period when the "Merge Now State Law" signs were first introduced they did not then result in earlier merges but did reduce conflicts over right of way.
Whiskers
2017-06-17 15:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alfalfa Bill
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:44:55 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made
a while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from
AL to NV, roughly 1900 miles.
Driving though NM, there was some road work being done, or at least
the road was coned off in places, and the left lane had to merge
into the right hand lane. The signage began a mile or so before the
work, and then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final
merge point. At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now"
(or the equivalent) and, you know what? People Merged There, rather
than driving on and merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from
all states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of
NMians, but for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car
that merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The
traffic engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging
is required: it's where the dotted line between the lanes ends.
That is the merge point.
I wonder if Bill T was remembering a merge that happened in Oklahoma.
We do most things differently in Oklahoma, including merging.
In Oklahoma the first sign is a warning sign and says something like
Construction Ahead Prepare to Merge. About 1/2 mile upstream from
where the disappearing lane ends is a sign reading "Merge Now State
Law." That sign is the merge point. You can be given a $100
ticket for merging after that second sign. State law.
The reason for requiring an early merge is to protect construction
workers who could be within a couple of feet of traffic in the lane
that ends.
A research paper from the University of Kansas found that during the
transitional period when the "Merge Now State Law" signs were first
introduced they did not then result in earlier merges but did reduce
conflicts over right of way.
In the UK we are supposed to follow 'The Highway Code', which has this
to say about 'road works':

Road works (rule 288)
Rule 288
When the ‘Road Works Ahead’ sign is displayed, you will need to be more
watchful and look for additional signs providing more specific
instructions. Observe all signs - they are there for your safety and the
safety of road workers.

You MUST NOT exceed any temporary maximum speed limit.

Use your mirrors and get into the correct lane for your vehicle in
good time and as signs direct.

Do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic.

Take extra care near cyclists and motorcyclists as they are
vulnerable to skidding on grit, mud or other debris at road works.

Where lanes are restricted due to road works, merge in turn (see Rule
134).

Do not drive through an area marked off by traffic cones.

Watch out for traffic entering or leaving the works area, but do not
be distracted by what is going on there. Concentrate on the road
ahead, not the road works.

Bear in mind that the road ahead may be obstructed by the works or by
slow moving or stationary traffic.

Keep a safe distance - there could be queues in front.

Rule 134
You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as
directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes
unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and
appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when
approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended
at high speed.

<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-works-level-crossings-and-tramways-288-to-307>
<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158#rule134>
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Les Albert
2017-06-17 15:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 16:07:39 +0100, Whiskers
Post by Whiskers
In the UK we are supposed to follow 'The Highway Code', which has this
Road works (rule 288)
Rule 288
When the ‘Road Works Ahead’ sign is displayed, you will need to be more
watchful and look for additional signs providing more specific
instructions. Observe all signs - they are there for your safety and the
safety of road workers.
You MUST NOT exceed any temporary maximum speed limit.
Use your mirrors and get into the correct lane for your vehicle in
good time and as signs direct.
Do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic.
Take extra care near cyclists and motorcyclists as they are
vulnerable to skidding on grit, mud or other debris at road works.
Where lanes are restricted due to road works, merge in turn (see Rule
134).
Do not drive through an area marked off by traffic cones.
Watch out for traffic entering or leaving the works area, but do not
be distracted by what is going on there. Concentrate on the road
ahead, not the road works.
Bear in mind that the road ahead may be obstructed by the works or by
slow moving or stationary traffic.
Keep a safe distance - there could be queues in front.
It also says:

Along the Queen's great highway
We drive our merry load.
At 20 miles an hour
In the middle of the road.

From "A Transport of Delight" by Flanders and Swann. Hear all the
lyrics at


Les
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
2017-06-22 05:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
In the UK we are supposed to follow 'The Highway Code', which has this
Road works (rule 288)
Rule 288
When the ‘Road Works Ahead’ sign is displayed, you will need to be more
watchful and look for additional signs providing more specific
instructions. Observe all signs - they are there for your safety and the
safety of road workers.
You MUST NOT exceed any temporary maximum speed limit.
Use your mirrors and get into the correct lane for your vehicle in
good time and as signs direct.
Which time is the 'good time'? Is it 'well ahead of time', or is 'when
Bill thinks the time is good'?
Post by Whiskers
Do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic.
Take extra care near cyclists and motorcyclists as they are
vulnerable to skidding on grit, mud or other debris at road works.
Where lanes are restricted due to road works, merge in turn (see Rule
134).
When is my turn? Does my turn occur at the last possible moment, or the
first possible moment?
Post by Whiskers
Rule 134
You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as
directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes
unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and
appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when
approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended
at high speed.
So, you should do that thing which is the thing which you should do?
Unless you are at high speed, in which case you should disappear a in
puff of smoke?

Xho
Whiskers
2017-06-22 09:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Whiskers
In the UK we are supposed to follow 'The Highway Code', which has this
Road works (rule 288)
Rule 288
When the ‘Road Works Ahead’ sign is displayed, you will need to be more
watchful and look for additional signs providing more specific
instructions. Observe all signs - they are there for your safety and the
safety of road workers.
You MUST NOT exceed any temporary maximum speed limit.
Use your mirrors and get into the correct lane for your vehicle in
good time and as signs direct.
Which time is the 'good time'? Is it 'well ahead of time', or is 'when
Bill thinks the time is good'?
'In good time' means 'don't leave it till the last moment'.
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Whiskers
Do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic.
Take extra care near cyclists and motorcyclists as they are
vulnerable to skidding on grit, mud or other debris at road works.
Where lanes are restricted due to road works, merge in turn (see Rule
134).
When is my turn? Does my turn occur at the last possible moment, or the
first possible moment?
Negotiate - give signals that you want to merge, if you're in a lane
that is closed ahead, and if you're in a lane that isn't closed ahead,
watch for vehicles signalling a wish to merge and give them space.
Don't force anyone to go right to the end of a closed lane, and don't
try to force your way into the other lane. 'Take it in turns'.
Post by Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Post by Whiskers
Rule 134
You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as
directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes
unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and
appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when
approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended
at high speed.
So, you should do that thing which is the thing which you should do?
Unless you are at high speed, in which case you should disappear a in
puff of smoke?
Xho
'Changing lanes' is something an individual vehicle does, for example to
overtake a slower vehicle or to be in the correct lane for a place where
routes diverge or converge up ahead. 'Merging' involves all the
vehicles in one lane being required to move into an adjoining lane. The
latter is clearly something that requires co-operation and planning by
all the drivers in all the lanes concerned, and is forced on them by
something about the road ahead, and when there are many vehicles
involved; conditions in which all the vehicles should be moving at much
the same speed, slower than 'highway speed'.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Questor
2017-06-17 17:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alfalfa Bill
Post by Questor
Post by Charles Bishop
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made a
while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from AL to
NV, roughly 1900 miles.
Driving though NM, there was some road work being done, or at least the
road was coned off in places, and the left lane had to merge into the
right hand lane. The signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
I wonder if Bill T was remembering a merge that happened in Oklahoma. We
do most things differently in Oklahoma, including merging.
In Oklahoma the first sign is a warning sign and says something like Construction
Ahead Prepare to Merge. About 1/2 mile upstream from where the disappearing
lane ends is a sign reading "Merge Now State Law." That sign is the merge point.
You can be given a $100 ticket for merging after that second sign. State law.
The reason for requiring an early merge is to protect construction workers
who could be within a couple of feet of traffic in the lane that ends.
If the State of Oklahoma dictates that the merge point is at such a sign, then
that is the merge point. I have no problem with that; it's unambiguous. What
doesn't make sense to me is drivers who have (arbitrarily in my view) decided
that the merge point should be some other (unmarked) location, and then expect
other drivers to adhere to that.
Whiskers
2017-06-17 18:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Alfalfa Bill
Post by Questor
Post by Charles Bishop
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made a
while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from AL to
NV, roughly 1900 miles.
Driving though NM, there was some road work being done, or at least the
road was coned off in places, and the left lane had to merge into the
right hand lane. The signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo regarding merging is about. The traffic
engineers have clearly indicated the point at which merging is required: it's
where the dotted line between the lanes ends. That is the merge point.
I wonder if Bill T was remembering a merge that happened in Oklahoma. We
do most things differently in Oklahoma, including merging.
In Oklahoma the first sign is a warning sign and says something like Construction
Ahead Prepare to Merge. About 1/2 mile upstream from where the disappearing
lane ends is a sign reading "Merge Now State Law." That sign is the merge point.
You can be given a $100 ticket for merging after that second sign. State law.
The reason for requiring an early merge is to protect construction workers
who could be within a couple of feet of traffic in the lane that ends.
If the State of Oklahoma dictates that the merge point is at such a sign, then
that is the merge point. I have no problem with that; it's unambiguous. What
doesn't make sense to me is drivers who have (arbitrarily in my view) decided
that the merge point should be some other (unmarked) location, and then expect
other drivers to adhere to that.
There is no 'point at which all merging must happen', there is only a
'point by which it's too late'. Like a dead-line for any project, you
don't wait till the closing date and time before submitting your work,
you aim to get it done before then.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Wisnia
2017-06-14 20:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Actually more like actual Astonishment. As part of a promise I made a
while ago, I recently found myself part of a caravan driving from AL to
NV, roughly 1900 miles.
Driving though NM, there was some road work being done, or at least the
road was coned off in places, and the left lane had to merge into the
right hand lane. The signage began a mile or so before the work, and
then the cones began roughly a half mile before the final merge point.
At this half mile point there was a sign "Merge Now" (or the equivalent)
and, you know what? People Merged There, rather than driving on and
merging at the last possible moment.
Of course since this was on I-40, you'd expect to see people from all
states, and some of them probably don't have the manners of NMians, but
for the most part, everyone merged 1/2 mile back.
I'm trying to decide if this is actually better than a smooth, and
polite merge near the final merge point, and can't decide. One car that
merged at the last 100 feet was from CA - go figure.
The corollary to that kind of merge is a filled up right lane before a
highway exit turnoff ramp. Despite signs a mile or two before the
turnoff telling drivers where it is there are always some Massholes
(Massachusetts drivers)who won't get into the right lane until they are
two or three cars from the exit and then crowd into the line of cars
which has been patiently moving slowly along.

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.
Loading...