# Use Both Lanes To Merge Point?



## flashlite (Mar 26, 2010)

You're on a two lane highway and there are signs far ahead of a lane closure that one lane is closed ahead. There are no signs that you must form one lane prior to the merge point and no signs indicating that you should use both lanes until the merge point. You're basically free to merge at any point prior to the lane closure. All drivers seem to have formed a single lane a mile or so before the merge point, leaving an empty lane far before the lane closure. What do you do? I believe studies have shown that in heavy traffic, it's better to use both lanes until the merge point. Not only does it increase capacity through the construction zone, but it's safer for various reasons. This, however, enrages drivers who merge as soon as they see the end of the single lane of traffic in the open lane. Some even take it upon themselves to regulate traffic by blocking drivers who legally pass in the lane that is closed ahead. Are you one of the "selfish" drivers who zooms to the front of the line or do you wait in the single lane of traffic?


----------



## big vin (Mar 26, 2010)

Selfish


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 26, 2010)

The above happens far more often in NYC than I care to remember. And yes, the average driver here is a selfish @$$ who races to the very end of the lane that is closed, and then noses his way into the lane that others had the courtesy to take far sooner.

Even more aggravating are the [email protected]$$e$ who let them in!

Yes, I merge sooner. I'm not an @$$. And I have been known to play the role of Blocker Car so those rude drivers who think they're more important than everyone else on the road are forced into driving the right damn way.


----------



## It01Firefox (Mar 26, 2010)

I don't know what the deal is anywhere else in the world, but in Germany it's in the law that you have to drive all the way to the lane closure or obstruction before merging into the ongoing lane. And every driver in the ongoing lane has to let in exactly one car right at the point of the obstruction.

This is done to prevent unneccesary traffic jams. But since most people here in Germany don't get the concept we actually had to create new traffic signs that tell you to merge right at the obstruction.

So yes I do drive all the way to the front before merging but since most people don't get it and adding to that the fact that I'm driving a Mercedes-Benz everybody thinks I'm the selfish @$$ who just wants to get ahead faster than everybody else so they start playing cop and try to give me s%&t.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 26, 2010)

What's legal and what's polite can be two different things. Also, it's one thing if the situation is bumper to bumper traffic vs. normal driving where the closed-up lane is virtually empty.

If it's the former, the polite thing is indeed to let one car merge in front of you from the closed lane. The next car merges in front of the next driver in the open lane. One at a time is perfectly fine when it's bumper to bumper. When the closed lane is pretty much open, and some @$$ decides to use it to race all the way up front in order to cut everyone else off (because let's face it, that's exactly what he's doing; and he knows it) then that's not okay at all.

A few months back I had some @$$ who not only tried that B.S. on me, but actually used that "Oh it's one at a time, you're supposed to let me in" nonsense on me. We were both by the spot where the lanes merged. He had his window down. In response, I rolled mine down; and told him he was full of it. Told him that only applied in heavy traffic. Told him that he damn well saw that the lane was closed up ahead, that he saw everyone else merge sooner into the open lane, but that he decided to race all the way to the end in order to get in front of everyone else. Told him he was a selfish jerk. Told him I wasn't letting him in in front of me. He wanted to race all the way to the end, now he could sit there and wait for someone else to let him in. He knew he was full of it! Didn't say another word to me after I told him off. He knew I was right. I called him out on his rude behavior. So he just sat there waiting for someone else to let him into the open lane.


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 26, 2010)

flashlite said:


> I believe studies have shown that in heavy traffic, it's better to use both lanes until the merge point. Not only does it increase capacity through the construction zone, but it's safer for various reasons.


If the traffic is really heavy no more traffic will get through the bottleneck whichever you do. So I be patient. (That doesn't sound grammatically correct. :thinking: )

Good on you Monocrom, but it sounds quite risky.


----------



## It01Firefox (Mar 26, 2010)

There's a logical reason for using both lanes right up to the point of the obstruction, it is to save space. If everybody merged way before the actual obstruction you turn a 200 yard traffic jam into a 400 yard one, possibly blocking the last intersection creating even more chaos/traffic jams.

Most people just don't think about that.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Mar 26, 2010)

I usually get over early, and try to be patient with those in a hurry. That lane will fill up soon enough. Sometimes you miss the warnings yourself.

Geoff


----------



## jugornot (Mar 26, 2010)

A bottleneck is a bottleneck. It will only pass so much traffic at a speed. More people will get through the bottleneck if all merging was done ahead of the bottleneck and if you don't slow down to let other people merge in from a stop. Double lines cause slow downs. Jerks cause double lines when ample warning is given. As soon as you see a lane closure sign merge over. The definition of selfishness is putting yourself before others. By passing all of the people who have merged over is putting your interests ahead of the others and of the general welfare of the public. If you race up to the merge point as I approach after I have merged and waited patiently, you will WAIT!!! And in this country we have no law on merging it is left to common courtesy. Try to force your way in in front of me and you will have a repair bill for any damage you cause.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 26, 2010)

Technically speaking, in order to understand the best way to allow the most traffic through a point of restriction on a roadway, you first must understand that the restriction point has some fixed parameters of traffic flow. Let's all start with some basic assumptions and that all considerations will be within the parameters of the law. We'll also make an assumption that our restriction for this example is a construction zone where 2 lanes of traffic are merging down to 1.

Typically a construction zone speed limit is 45 MPH (which as I think about it this actually is irrelevant). We are also aware that the appropriate distance in between cars in good weather is considered 2 seconds. Assuming a perfectly spaced line of cars at the maximum speed, the maximum number of cars that will get through our constricted one lane of traffic is 30 cars per minute. When the traffic flow 5 miles back is 2 lanes of cars going 60 MPH (again irrelevant) with a perfect 2 second gap between cars, we understand that there are 60 cars per minute arriving at the point of congestion. Nothing we can do will eliminate the congestion, no matter how far back drivers begin merging. Demand (the number of cars) has overwhelmed supply (the finite volume of traffic which the restriction point can handle).

The important thing to consider when trying to reduce the severity of the congestion is do whatever possible to keep the flow of traffic through the congestion point at the perfect 2 second gap between cars. Any increase in the spacing between cars is what will worsen the congestion.

Now, here comes my opinion because I don't have any hard fact to back it up. It is my personal believe that by having some cars wait to the very end to merge, it creates the scenario where many cars do not have an appropriate amount of distance to get up to speed and pace themselves behind the car in front of them - which will inevitably lead to gaps between cars that are greater than 2 seconds; this is what can further reduce the total volume of traffic that can go through the point of restriction within a given amount of time.


----------



## PhotoWiz (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm with was.lost ... up until that last assumption. Merging at the last moment could create larger gaps momentarily, but drivers will quickly fill in those gaps a short distance further on. The flow is still limited by what can come out the end.

I believe the purpose of long merge lanes is to avoid abrupt merges and let everyone see what is going on in time. Merging at the last moment is NOT polite!

Next, we could talk about people who move into a turn lane before the turn lane is marked, thus endangering those who have waited until the proper point to move over!


----------



## jugornot (Mar 26, 2010)

to wlbnf and pw,

Lets get even more technical. Flow is flow. To achieve best flow, it should be laminar. A simplified meaning of this is smooth or a lack of turbulence. That is why a nozzle(flow restriction) usually has a long transition. The proper merging as far back as possible and as smoothly as possible is laminar. If you have two restrictions the same size, one having a smooth transition and one with a 90 degree transitions the flow will be reduced without the smooth transition. The turbulence causes further restriction. So even if it was not selfish or impolite, traffic is best served by the smooth orderly merge. Back to the real world while not only impeding traffic the arrogant sob that puts his time or needs or want above others is a burden to society in general. jmho


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 26, 2010)

jugornot said:


> to wlbnf and pw,
> 
> Lets get even more technical. Flow is flow. To achieve best flow, it should be laminar. A simplified meaning of this is smooth or a lack of turbulence. That is why a nozzle(flow restriction) usually has a long transition. The proper merging as far back as possible and as smoothly as possible is laminar. If you have two restrictions the same size, one having a smooth transition and one with a 90 degree transitions the flow will be reduced without the smooth transition. The turbulence causes further restriction. So even if it was not selfish or impolite, traffic is best served by the smooth orderly merge. Back to the real world while not only impeding traffic the arrogant sob that puts his time or needs or want above others is a burden to society in general. jmho


 
Thank you, this was the scientific concept I was lacking for the conclusion of my post.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 26, 2010)

TorchBoy said:


> Good on you Monocrom, but it sounds quite risky.


 
I must admit, that type of situation is one in which my looks help a lot.

I look like the psycho from the film "Full Metal Jacket." Some @$$ looks over to argue with me where the lanes merge, they think twice. (Not joking.)


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 26, 2010)

It01Firefox said:


> Most people just don't think about that.


 
Most rude drivers don't think about other people. When the situation doesn't involve bumper to bumper traffic, racing to the end to cut everyone else off is just plain selfish and rude. It's the equivalent of telling every courteous driver who merged sooner to f**k off. 

If some rude jerk walked up and pushed you out of the way on a crowded street, would you be fine with that? If someone got angry, would you say that they just didn't think about increasing the flow of pedestrian traffic?


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 26, 2010)

Here's a similar type of behavoir but in a different situation. Traffic light turns red. There are one or two or three traffic lanes ( the exact number is irrelevant ), and all more or less end up with the same number of cars in line waiting for the light to change. Some butthole decides to squeeze in the space between the rightmost lane and the lane of parked cars. This just so happens to be even easier if there is a bike lane there. Even if not, it is sometimes possible. Jerk rides in his self-made "lane" right to the crosswalk. When the light turns green he actually _expects_ other drivers to let him back into the regular traffic lanes, then gets irate if they don't. Is he kidding? Bad enough he can't wait his turn like everyone else, but now he wants to delay people further just so he can be a big 5 or 7 car lengths ahead of everyone else. The pathetic part is often people do let these jerks in, so the behavoir continues. I make a point when I'm cycling to ride right in the middle of the space I have, and never get out of the way of some jack$$$ trying to save a big 3 seconds. It gets them fuming sometimes, but I rightly point out they have no business being there. It's not a traffic lane.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 26, 2010)

What you're described is illegal, plain and simple. What the OP described is more debatable.

Laws vary from state to state. Let me make it clear that I'm one that believes that real estate on the roadway should be utilized. Three lanes of traffic utilized up to a merge point creates much less of a backup than a single line of traffic. 

The situation described by the OP I believe was very poorly executed by the DOT. The better ones that I have seen that intend for an early merge have traffic cones that narrow the closing lane down indicating that they do want you to get out of that lane at that point, not at an abrupt stopping point. 

There is a permanent lane reduction very near where I live on the interstate and it has a sign that indicates that the left lane is closing ahead. The traffic signs from that point read 'lane closure 2000 feet' and continue with declining footage. That lane also contains markings on the road that say 'merge' and that's exactly what happens. Other drivers allow cars from that lane to merge into their lane, light or heavy traffic (stopped or flowing). 

The best ones, whether they narrow or not, have a sign that says, 'Alternate Merge.' To go a step further, I believe that any merge is an implied 'alternate merge.' 

Quite a few here have gone on and on about inconsiderate drivers and they are assuming that they are correct about when the single lane starts. 

I disagree. In fact, I think that those that form a single line way ahead of the merge point are inconsiderate (through ignorance) of other drivers by creating unnecessarily long back ups.

I am an aggressive driver, but a very considerate one. In the situation described here, I always allow others to merge. In other situations, I still usually give the benefit of doubt to the other driver just to be considerate. My exception would be the situation that jtr described above. That's an asshole. Not only would I not let them in, but I've been known to call police. 

If I make a mistake while driving, I make it known to the other driver and attempt to apologize through hand gestures. It is usually acknowledged.

And BTW, I've never been intimidated by another driver no matter how mean or ugly they look.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 26, 2010)

kitelights said:


> Let me make it clear that I'm one that believes that real estate on the roadway should be utilized.


 
Problem is some out there with similar attitudes as yours think the 3 feet behind my bumper at highway speed is also real estate that needs to be utilized.




kitelights said:


> I am an aggressive driver, but a very considerate one.


 
You must be the first considerate aggressive driver I have ever know, because up to this point I did not know that such a thing existed.


----------



## gswitter (Mar 26, 2010)

kitelights said:


> I think that those that form a single line way ahead of the merge point are inconsiderate (through ignorance) of other drivers by creating unnecessarily long back ups.


Agreed.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 26, 2010)

gswitter said:


> Agreed.


I don't understand why you believe it's inconsiderate to be prepared and aware of your surroundings.


----------



## Larbo (Mar 26, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> I must admit, that type of situation is one in which my looks help a lot.
> 
> I look like the psycho from the film "Full Metal Jacket." Some @$$ looks over to argue with me where the lanes merge, they think twice. (Not joking.)



It also helps to drive a 20 year old pickup for those who want to up the ante when their lane runs out, plus my 4 years of martial arts classes for any real problems afterwords.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 26, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Problem is some out there with similar attitudes as yours think the 3 feet behind my bumper at highway speed is also real estate that needs to be utilized.


At first I thought you had a legitimate point until I read your last post. For others that might also be concrete, anal thinkers, my statement about utilizing real estate refers directly to the OPs post regarding using a lane that is closing down or not using it. 

I do not tailgate, to a fault, and those that do irritate the hell out of me. The reason is my own safety, because I know that if there were some even slight braking for whatever reason, there is no possible way that they could stop in time without some type of mishap. Again, this is based on their ignorance, because if they knew the facts (stopping distance vs travel distance and reaction time) no sane person would do it. Again, my statement is based on your statement regarding 3 feet behind your bumper at hwy speed.


> You must be the first considerate aggressive driver I have ever know, because up to this point I did not know that such a thing existed.


 Seems you still have much to learn, so it's a good thing that you're still willing to learn.



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I don't understand why you believe it's inconsiderate to be prepared and aware of your surroundings.


 How the hell you ever got this assumption out of what's been said is beyond me, but certainly colored my first response in this post above.

Now for an update to my original post. I checked with VA State Police and got some interesting information. VA's laws are contradictory and at the very least conflicting and confusing. 

It is legal to use the closing lane up the point that it ends. The non closing lanes, however, have the right of way and have no obligation to let traffic from the closing lane in. 

This creates a serious conflict to me and I've written in detail to both my Delegate and Senator in my state's legislature regarding the issue with my own suggestions and asking that, at the very least, the conflict is eliminated.

So, (in the State of VA) those of you that think that the individuals that use the closing lane are inconsiderate, why is obeying the law deemed inconsiderate? I can just as easily think (and I do) that those in the travel lane that don't let others in, are the ones that are inconsiderate.

This was an excellent topic to post and should be a great example for us to realize that not every situation is black and white.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 26, 2010)

Larbo said:


> It also helps to drive a 20 year old pickup for those who want to up the ante when their lane runs out, plus my 4 years of martial arts classes for any real problems afterwords.


I remember years ago when I was much younger, thought I was invincible, was an extremely aggressive driver w/o the consideration part, and drove an old full sized Dodge PU that barely had paint on it. 

I got giddy if someone wanted to challenge me in traffic. I think I paid $300 for the truck. It was like driving a wrecking ball. You're right, it really does color your attitude. 

I had the same attitude as you w/o the martial arts. Had we met, I might have gotten my *** kicked. These days, I'm much older and like to think that I've matured. My attitude in driving has drastically changed. I'm a considerate and defensive driver, but I still consider myself aggressive. Maybe my definition of aggressive is different from others.

I'm not as likely to be confrontational as I used to be. I consider it maturity and maybe necessary these days. I can tell you that if you approached my car in anger with an attitude, you'd need a lot more than 4 years of martial arts, unless you're from the Matrix.


----------



## EndOfTheTunnel (Mar 26, 2010)

More often than not, I'll wait in line. But if I'm in the wrong mood, I'll take the closing lane because I don't feel like watching a couple dozen cars get ahead of me because of the 'polite' motorists ahead of me who will let them in.
I've watched this phenomenon many times, and without exception the closing lane moves faster than the lane adjacent to the closing lane. If each driver in the adjacent lane allowed exactly one vehicle from the closing lane to merge, then both lanes should theoretically proceed at the same rate. But that's not what happens. The only way the closing lane can move faster is if, on average, drivers in the adjacent lane allow more than one vehicle in from the closing lane. I try to lower that average by usually letting in zero vehicles.

I feel that drivers who let anyone in are truly impolite. They may feel good about themselves for letting one guy go, but I doubt they realize or care that they've delayed countless people behind them.


----------



## Larbo (Mar 26, 2010)

kitelights said:


> I remember years ago when I was much younger, thought I was invincible, was an extremely aggressive driver w/o the consideration part, and drove an old full sized Dodge PU that barely had paint on it.
> 
> I got giddy if someone wanted to challenge me in traffic. I think I paid $300 for the truck. It was like driving a wrecking ball. You're right, it really does color your attitude.
> 
> ...



When I was younger I was alot more mellow, as I have gotten a bit older my tolerance for peoples crap has diminished greatly (perhaps the reverse of most), this is mostly true toward the way these s*hitheads drive today, anyone who drives alot and isnt one of these needs no explanation. I dont speed, cut over at the last second or just drive onto the highway without "merging", the list go on. 
The things I see on the road everyday are unbelievable!


----------



## jugornot (Mar 26, 2010)

Kite you are about as wrong headed as most miscreants that think the world is their playground. According to your research you have found that it is perfectly legal to travel in the blocked lane until you reach the block. Having chosen to be in that lane it is your civic responsibility to remain in that position until traffic clears or enough of a break develops for you to safely merge into that lane. And the legal definition of safely merging is to not hinder or cause the person coming to slow down.If you force your way in or cause me to slow down in your attempt to merge you have broken the law and deserve prosecution. I on the other hand will obey the law, which you admit has no compulsion for me to show you any consideration. On the manners front I will show you the same respect and that you have shown others by letting you set in your chosen lane until you can merge legally. It is the same concept of cutting into line ahead of others. It is the equivalent of an eye for an eye. This is one step above of the selfishness you show. However my preferred mode of operation is to be kind and courteous to all drivers, but my baser human instincts surface when someone takes advantage or believes it is their right and not my kindness that has given them a break. I simply retract my kindness and stand firmly on equal inconsideration as the aggressor. In other words they usually get pissed because they get treated in the same manner they treat others. In another trite cliche, you have made your bed now sleep in it. Which If I were a police officer I would place myself bodily in your way, with my hand on my weapon, and force you to stay in your selected position until I was satisfied you had lost more time than your inconsideration had gained you by at least double. And smiled the entire time.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 26, 2010)

kitelights said:


> How the hell you ever got this assumption out of what's been said is beyond me, but certainly colored my first response in this post above.


 
You said this:



kitelights said:


> In fact, I think that those that form a single line way ahead of the merge point are inconsiderate (through ignorance) of other drivers by creating unnecessarily long back ups.


 
Forming a single line well ahead of the merge is essentially the state of high awareness among drivers, whether because they are familiar with the area, see the signs for upcoming construction, or were paying attention and saw an accident/disabled motorist up ahead.

Think if you were going to check out at a store. One line has two people, the one right next to it has none. Some walk right up for service, some say "after you" and let another person who has been waiting longer go first.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 26, 2010)

Larbo said:


> When I was younger I was alot more mellow, as I have gotten a bit older my tolerance for peoples crap has diminished greatly (perhaps the reverse of most), this is mostly true toward the way these s*hitheads drive today, anyone who drives alot and isnt one of these needs no explanation. I dont speed, cut over at the last second or just drive onto the highway without "merging", the list go on.
> The things I see on the road everyday are unbelievable!


Count me in as one of those who has less tolerance for people's stupidity as I get older. Not a car driver here, only a cyclist, but I fully agree the stuff you see on the roads each day defies belief. Oh, and the stories my brother and sister, who both drive, tell me! Suffice it to say the jerks are the majority, at least in this part of the country.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 26, 2010)

jugornot said:


> Kite you are about as wrong headed as most miscreants that think the world is their playground. According to your research you have found that it is perfectly legal to travel in the blocked lane until you reach the block. Having chosen to be in that lane it is your civic responsibility to remain in that position until traffic clears or enough of a break develops for you to safely merge into that lane. And the legal definition of safely merging is to not hinder or cause the person coming to slow down.If you force your way in or cause me to slow down in your attempt to merge you have broken the law and deserve prosecution. I on the other hand will obey the law, which you admit has no compulsion for me to show you any consideration. On the manners front I will show you the same respect and that you have shown others by letting you set in your chosen lane until you can merge legally. It is the same concept of cutting into line ahead of others. It is the equivalent of an eye for an eye. This is one step above of the selfishness you show. However my preferred mode of operation is to be kind and courteous to all drivers, but my baser human instincts surface when someone takes advantage or believes it is their right and not my kindness that has given them a break. I simply retract my kindness and stand firmly on equal inconsideration as the aggressor. In other words they usually get pissed because they get treated in the same manner they treat others. In another trite cliche, you have made your bed now sleep in it. Which If I were a police officer I would place myself bodily in your way, with my hand on my weapon, and force you to stay in your selected position until I was satisfied you had lost more time than your inconsideration had gained you by at least double. And smiled the entire time.


Wow, you sure put me in my place. And BTW, if bullfrogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ***.

Bottom line is the law states that the non ending lane has the right of way and that appears to be the rule rather than the exception. The exception does exist b/c I have experienced it (alternate merge) and it is my opinion that the alternate merge is the best solution for the situation being discussed. That is, however, my opinion, of which I am entitled to and it isn't right or wrong. 

The law (in my state) also states that it is legal for me to travel in an ending lane until its end, so while it may be your opinion that if I use it, I am inconsiderate, that is your opinion and not fact. It is my place to yield to the other lane and I can only enter when doing so safely. It is not illegal for me to be there. Some here think that there should be a single lane and that is their opinion. It is an opinion b/c the law allows for the ending lane to be occupied, therefore, it is fact, not an opinion.

In a similar vein, traffic entering a highway via an acceleration lane is required to yield to traffic on the hwy, yet we are taught to accelerate to the speed of the traffic and merge at the same speed. While the traffic on the highway knows that they have the right of way, they are taught to cooperate with the merging traffic. Some drivers adamantly maintain the attitude that 'I have the right of way' and go out of their way to make it difficult for drivers entering the hwy. On the other hand, there are drivers entering with attitudes that are determined to force their way in, no matter what and I certainly don't agree with that. It is, however, a dangerous situation when acceleration lanes have stopped traffic and can't allow acceleration when hwy traffic is moving at a normal speed.

I've already stated that I believe that it is in everyone's best interest (efficiency) for the real estate available to be used to reduce the back up. If the alternate merge law was the rule rather than the exception, I believe that it would be the most efficient way to handle merging traffic, not only for the physical logistics, but for the obvious conflicting attitudes for dealing with this situation. If alternate merging were the norm, the hostile attitudes would be eliminated. It's a no brainer to me, but that's my opinion.

I do find it interesting that the hostile attitudes and name calling seem to be coming from those that consider others to be inconsiderate and selfish. The mere presence of the heated emotions that have emerged in this thread are justification for the alternate merge to me.


----------



## Benson (Mar 26, 2010)

If I'm already in the closing lane traveling faster than the prevailing speed in the through lane, _and_ there's an available gap (that means one vehicle length and two safe following distances, naturally), I most certainly will merge late to get in that slot without hindering anyone else's travel. 

If I'm traveling at or below the prevailing speed in the through lane and there are no visible gaps ahead, I won't race ahead and hope someone lets me in.

(Of course, now that I'm a full-time cyclist, this situation doesn't really affect me...)

For situations in between, it might go either way. As a general rule, the farther people use both lanes _without_ causing a slow-down at the merge point, the more efficient things will run, but that doesn't make merging late automatically better. IMO anyone who either always merges early or always merges late will wind up causing trouble both for themselves and others, and is therefore both foolish and inconsiderate, no matter their claims to the contrary. Way too many of them on the roads, as well...


----------



## kitelights (Mar 26, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> You said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some of you guys sure are into the 'what if' scenario and I'm still talking about the 'what is' that the OP opened with. I don't disagree with any of the reasons that you stated, but you just arbitrarily injected them into the conversation. That's not the situation that the OP stated.

Your check out example is a good one and presents an even stronger case for alternate merge. One of my pet peeves is to be standing in a check out line for a long time and then an unused register opens. Most often those at the back of lines run to the newly open register and go through first. The ones waiting the longest wait longer and those waiting the least amount of time, go first. Some stores take the approach, "I'll take the next person in line," and that's the way that it should be. Best Buy at busy times forms a single line with ropes, like banks, and the next open register takes the next person in line. 

If all traffic lanes are utilized and traffic merges alternately, it is the fastest and fairest way to move traffic in a situation when eliminating a lane of traffic.

If we form a single line, as some suggest, we create two to three times the back up. If that's what DOT wants, cut off the lane. Wait, that is what they've done. The argument here is when it ends and the law says it's a travel lane until it ends. The conflict can ONLY be resolved fairly by how the merge takes place, and my opinion is that can be easily accomplished by alternate merges.

The only other solution that I can see is to make a law that states 'in a merge situation once a single line is formed and the ending lane is not being utilized, it is illegal to travel in that lane' even if that line is 5 miles long, which is exactly what you guys are saying. The conversation now becomes, 1 mile is OK, but not 3/4 mile, or 1/2 mile is OK, but not 1/4 mile or if the 5 mile rule is OK, why not 10 miles? Starting to sound like a bunch of socialists.


----------



## OCD (Mar 26, 2010)

So, if it is about using all the lanes up to the merge point, then I guess the same would hold true for a lenghty exit lane on an interstate? My route to and from work has several long exit lanes in which MANY drivers will actually move over to that lane and speed up, only to expect to be let in right before the lane exits.

By this argument, traffic should flow faster, right? :shakehead Sure they know the lane ends, but they will get where their going faster and that's all that counts to them.

IMHO, anyone who knows the lane they are traveling in ends and decides to pass a long line of cars, without making any effort beforehand to merge, feels they are more important than anyone else going the same direction and the ones who have already merged deserved to be passed.


----------



## jugornot (Mar 26, 2010)

kitelights said:


> snip
> 
> If all traffic lanes are utilized and traffic merges alternately, it is the fastest and fairest way to move traffic in a situation when eliminating a lane of traffic.
> 
> ...



The traffic can best be served by keeping the flow moving as quickly and smoothly as possible. A smooth flowing singe file is the quickest and safest method for moving traffic through a single lane restriction. If the intent of dot was to have everyone fill up all lanes and merge by alternate lanes then they would not bother with the merge warning signs. A simple barricade would be all that is necessary. The line of traffic may be shorter but the number of cars waiting will be higher because you have slowed traffic by using the alternate lane merging. The goal of dot is to get people where they are going. The length of the lines is not as important as the number of cars that pass through the restriction. Your basic premise is flawed. Getting the highest flow rate is done by a single line moving in a steady rate. If you can realize that the shorter lines you see contain more cars and therefore are less efficient. The law in most cases recognise this fact and give the right of way to the lane without the restriction. Making the onus of safe merging on the cars that failed to merge in proper time. The law system realizes the best way to move traffic and protects that method by law. 

Suppose for a moment you were at a supermarket with three checkout lanes. If 2 of the lanes were closed would you walk up to the first closed lane (with no line) and expect the patrons in the open lane to let you merge? Why do you expect that on the road? I hope your next wait is as long as the wait you would expect in the closed supermarket lane.


----------



## TedTheLed (Mar 26, 2010)

this happened to me exactly once in my life.
there was no warning, and by the time I noticed the line to my left the cars were bumper to bumper.. 
at the time I assumed, as I continued on in my lane, that these cars were lined up preparing to make a left turn into a driveway on the opposite side of the highway, for a wedding perhaps; I had seen this happen before.
when I got to the 'merge point' a cop there went absolutely BERSERK, screaming something like -- "when you see cars forming a line do you not follow suit?" I quite honestly replied "no." another cop tried to calm the first by suggesting maybe I had emerged from a driveway to find the line already formed -- officer berserk had me sit until the whole line went through, and then allowed me to continue on my way.
emotionally immature, stupid, irrational inconsiderate cops like that are more dangerous than some innocent guy who failed to merge soon enough.


----------



## jugornot (Mar 26, 2010)

TedTheLed said:


> this happened to me exactly once in my life.
> there was no warning, and by the time I noticed the line to my left the cars were bumper to bumper..
> at the time I assumed, as I continued on in my lane, that these cars were lined up preparing to make a left turn into a driveway on the opposite side of the highway, for a wedding perhaps; I had seen this happen before.
> when I got to the 'merge point' a cop there went absolutely BERSERK, screaming something like -- "when you see cars forming a line do you not follow suit?" I quite honestly replied "no." another cop tried to calm the first by suggesting maybe I had emerged from a driveway to find the line already formed -- officer berserk had me sit until the whole line went through, and then allowed me to continue on my way.
> emotionally immature, stupid, irrational inconsiderate cops like that are more dangerous than some innocent guy who failed to merge soon enough.



OOPS.

I'm not a cop and never been to California.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Mar 26, 2010)

People that drive to the last moment are generally uneducated. Barely evolved beyond swinging in the tree tops. Really should not be behind the wheel of a tricycle let alone a car.

They think the word "merge" means go like hell to the last moment then beg. Same type of brain that confuses unemployment compensation with paid vacation.

They feel that "merge" only applies to everyone else...again...a little slow upstairs. 

I sometimes let them in...cause I would rather have them in front of me than behind me...a slow mind might not remember which peddle is the brake or gas. Safety first


----------



## kitelights (Mar 26, 2010)

OCD said:


> So, if it is about using all the lanes up to the merge point, then I guess the same would hold true for a lenghty exit lane on an interstate? My route to and from work has several long exit lanes in which MANY drivers will actually move over to that lane and speed up, only to expect to be let in right before the lane exits.
> 
> By this argument, traffic should flow faster, right? :shakehead Sure they know the lane ends, but they will get where their going faster and that's all that counts to them.
> 
> IMHO, anyone who knows the lane they are traveling in ends and decides to pass a long line of cars, without making any effort beforehand to merge, feels they are more important than anyone else going the same direction and the ones who have already merged deserved to be passed.


And your guess would be wrong. An absolute idiotic 'example' to inject into this topic and doesn't even warrant a response. Your opinion does not appear to be humble and is certainly wrong in regards to how I 'feel' and what my actions indicate that I think.



jugornot said:


> The traffic can best be served by keeping the flow moving as quickly and smoothly as possible. A smooth flowing singe file is the quickest and safest method for moving traffic through a single lane restriction. If the intent of dot was to have everyone fill up all lanes and merge by alternate lanes then they would not bother with the merge warning signs. A simple barricade would be all that is necessary. The line of traffic may be shorter but the number of cars waiting will be higher because you have slowed traffic by using the alternate lane merging. The goal of dot is to get people where they are going. The length of the lines is not as important as the number of cars that pass through the restriction. Your basic premise is flawed. Getting the highest flow rate is done by a single line moving in a steady rate. If you can realize that the shorter lines you see contain more cars and therefore are less efficient. The law in most cases recognise this fact and give the right of way to the lane without the restriction. Making the onus of safe merging on the cars that failed to merge in proper time. The law system realizes the best way to move traffic and protects that method by law.
> 
> Suppose for a moment you were at a supermarket with three checkout lanes. If 2 of the lanes were closed would you walk up to the first closed lane (with no line) and expect the patrons in the open lane to let you merge? Why do you expect that on the road? I hope your next wait is as long as the wait you would expect in the closed supermarket lane.


If this was referring to smooth flowing traffic, I don't think that this topic would have been posted and commented on. The scenario that I see is that traffic is start and stop and backed up.

Since my basic premise is flawed, do you have any facts to back your statements? We're not talking about physics, nozzles or water pressure. We're talking about traffic. Cars, people, actions and reactions. 

When you start examples of getting in closed check out lanes and expecting service as parallels you lose my willingness to attempt to participate in an intelligent exchange.

Come on people. Can't there be some meaningful, intelligent discussion of the topic without cruel attacks? 

I thought that I've presented some compelling reasons to consider alternate merge. Does anyone else have thoughts on the matter out side of attacking me and accusing me of being selfish and inconsiderate?


----------



## Empath (Mar 26, 2010)

This would have been better as a part of the Pet Peeves thread. By itself, there's only so many posts that can be made before it devolves into poster vs poster, rather than thoughts vs thoughts. It's become acts of road rage, and we're not even on the road. It's time to take a breather.


----------

