Traffic, merging lanes - when to merge?

[CaptainPanic]

In a thread created earlier, a list of (mostly ethical) discussion topics was generated. I figured that we should just discuss them all. So, I'll try to post others too, at a later stage (and if anyone else wants to do it, feel free!). Here's the 1st one.

 

The issue: Traffic, merging lanes - when to merge?

This discussion is based on this post by Phi.

 

Maybe a bit lowbrow, but it's been on my mind a lot lately.

 

In traffic, when they close a lane, they give you a few miles notice. Inevitably, as traffic approaches the point where the cars in the lane that's being closed are supposed to merge with another lane, you have that space that opens up because people are merging early.

 

Now the State Patrol (and physics) will tell you that you should wait until the traffic signs force you to merge so that more available road space is used to funnel the traffic. But we all hate the guys who go whizzing past us as we merge early (because the signs told us about this a couple of miles ago!) and then demand to be let in right at the merge point.

 

It's not really a legal point; you won't get a ticket either way. It's just that one way is the correct way but it doesn't feel like the right way. But if you do it the other way, it also doesn't feel right.

 

So who is right, the person who uses the road most efficiently but makes people angry or the one who thinks he's being responsible but is actually making traffic worse?

 

It is worth noting that there were already two replies too:

 

 

 

 

Neither is right.

 

I drive in the closed lane but try to drive the average speedof the open lane. This blocks people from going by and allows traffic at the choke point to flow more smoothly. If everyone accelerates behind me when they reach the closed lane the two lanes of rtraffic can merge and maintain a faster rate. It often works but it rarely works for long before somebody messes it up.

 

Usually there's no need for traffic to back up in the first place except idiots slow down as soon as no one can pass them. It takes only as many Illinois drivers as there are lanes to create a traffic jam.

 

And:

 

 

Neither - get a bike! Then you can cut alongside traffic all the time - and get sworn at all the time.

 

It's an ethical question without true answer. Before one pretends that one is cutting along to aid the common good one must be able to - hand on heart - state that if the action meant additional personal delay one would still do it. Otherwise the common good is an ex post facto justification. And castigating those who correctly judge the situation and move forward to the bottleneck and maximise road usage seems to be based almost entirely on the irrational and almost universal character change that accompanies getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. Almost all driving-based problems could, in this cyclist's opinion, be solved by drivers taking a damn chill pill and/or growing the hell up.

 

Personally, I believe the road should simply have a sign "Merge here (Dutch example)". Obviously, this should be announced at least a kilometer ahead, but if you decide to merge early, you shouldn't complain.

In the Netherlands, it took a national advertising campaign (youtube in Dutch, but easy to understand) to get people to merge later. But now everybody merges later. That has reduced the problem to a technical problem: how to do this safely? In order to do it safely, there is a safety zone after the "Merge here" sign in case of trouble, in which it is illegal to drive, but which is big enough for a safe emergency stop.

 

So, to answer the original question: you are wrong to get angry with the people who whizz past. They don't break the law (unless it is illegal to overtake in that lane). But the real problem is technical. IMHO. But perhaps someone else is happy to disagree?

[Phi for All]

The reason it seems like an ethical question to me is because of the "feeling cheated" component of driving. "I merged early like the sign warned me to, but that ASSHOLE just flew by on the left and forced everyone ahead of me to let him in!" The guy seems to be rewarded for his behavior with a better spot than I got, even though I obeyed the law. I feel cheated.

 

This feeling causes traffic slowdown as well. Studies have show that it's brake lights going on that slows traffic for miles behind and causes congestion. Most of that is because we follow too closely so people can't cut in front of us, which makes us feel cheated. We have to hit the brakes instead of coasting because we're too close. It always amazes me to see 10 cars piled up with crunched bumpers just because they were all 10 feet off each others bumpers at 50mph.

 

I think this is an issue where the practical choice can become the ethical choice by pointing out to people just why it's right to merge at the merge point and not before. I like the Dutch campaign, it could be a good solution in my state. Better that than messing around with more laws.

[zapatos]

I find it amusing how many people decide that the merge set up by the highway department (clearly identified by the 'merge' sign) is not appropriate, but that the merge envisioned and enforced by these individuals (unknown to others and varied by the person who is enforcing these rules) is the appropriate merge.

 

It is probably unethical of me, but I admit to occasionally taking great pleasure in getting in front of these people and enforcing what I have decided is the appropriate speed limit.

[Phi for All]

I find it amusing how many people decide that the merge set up by the highway department (clearly identified by the 'merge' sign) is not appropriate, but that the merge envisioned and enforced by these individuals (unknown to others and varied by the person who is enforcing these rules) is the appropriate merge.

 

It is probably unethical of me, but I admit to occasionally taking great pleasure in getting in front of these people and enforcing what I have decided is the appropriate speed limit.

 

I don't think it's that they find the rule inappropriate; I think it's that the rule is interpreted both ways by different people. It seems like taking unfair advantage of a road emergency to pass other cars to some, but a completely logical and efficient use of the road to others.

 

Maybe it's a mindset here in the US. So many people approach the road like race car drivers jockeying for the top places.

[dimreepr]

Merging early is easier and far less stressful, educating drivers would further reduce stress, created by those racers that simply must be in front; consequently reducing the effects of sudden/unnecessary braking. So merge early if that’s your bag and later if it’s yours, so everyone’s happy, dream world maybe, but temporary truths affect us all.

[Phi for All]

Merging early is easier and far less stressful, educating drivers would further reduce stress, created by those racers that simply must be in front; consequently reducing the effects of sudden/unnecessary braking. So merge early if that’s your bag and later if it’s yours, so everyone’s happy, dream world maybe, but temporary truths affect us all.

 

I'm not sure you can make that generalization. People are already merging early or later depending on their preference, and that's what's causing tension. Both feel the other is in the wrong, so not everybody is happy about it. The early merger resents losing his position because he did what he felt was right. The later merger resents being blocked by those who don't want to let him in because he waited till the last second.

 

It may be similar to the response to emergency vehicles. You're supposed to pull over when you hear the sirens, and sometimes that means others will pass you because they've already been passed by the emergency vehicle. I've seen people get irate because they feel taken advantage of, losing their position on the road due to an emergency situation. They've pulled over like they're supposed to, and then other cars pass them instead of letting them back in. Efficiency and fairness don't always go hand in hand.

[zapatos]

I've seen people get irate because they feel taken advantage of, losing their position on the road...

Yes, I think this is a major cause of the problem. People put too much emphasis on 'position'. If a car in front of them drives slightly slower and they get to their destination five seconds later because of it, no one give it a second thought. But if a car gets in front of them that they felt should have been behind them, and it causes them to get to their destination the same five seconds later, they take it personally.

[Phi for All]

There seem to be as many sets of road etiquette as there are drivers. Many people don't seem to relate their own condition to others when driving. They get mad when someone cuts them off because they feel it was done deliberately, but they hope we'll all forgive them when they cut us off, because with them it was just a mistake, nothing personal.

 

A long time ago, I cut this young woman off, she was absolutely gorgeous. I was staring at her as I passed her on the highway, and so I didn't realize how close I'd gotten to the car in front of me. I swerved over in front of the young woman, then looked back in the rearview mirror to sheepishly wave in apology. She was purple with rage, frothing at the mouth, calling me filthy names. I was struck by how ugly this beautiful girl became in an instant, all because she thought I'd cut her off deliberately.

 

I'm glad it happened, it made me much more aware of what I was doing while driving, and gave me a perspective I've appreciated all these years. I'm much more forgiving of driving mistakes.

[dimreepr]

 

I'm not sure you can make that generalization. People are already merging early or later depending on their preference, and that's what's causing tension. Both feel the other is in the wrong, so not everybody is happy about it. The early merger resents losing his position because he did what he felt was right. The later merger resents being blocked by those who don't want to let him in because he waited till the last second.

 

It may be similar to the response to emergency vehicles. You're supposed to pull over when you hear the sirens, and sometimes that means others will pass you because they've already been passed by the emergency vehicle. I've seen people get irate because they feel taken advantage of, losing their position on the road due to an emergency situation. They've pulled over like they're supposed to, and then other cars pass them instead of letting them back in. Efficiency and fairness don't always go hand in hand.

 

I agree, as things stand, most people do react badly in such circumstances, however with a little education in how temporary truths affect us all; maybe road rage could be drastically reduced and my dream, realised.

[vampares]

People who go all the way the front of the bottle neck slow the system down due to the absolute necessity to now stop. So it is not really merging it's an intersection regardless of who does the stopping.

 

When I drove denser traffic the rule of thumb I have is to use the brake pedal as little as possible. Red brake lights induce an undulating effect of stop and go. What I do is make predictive slowdowns coming in the brake lights so that I will not have to use my brakes. This results in a constant speed that can now accelerate.

 

The transit system in Berlin is very purist in philosophy. Moving from point "a to b", they minimize the amount of time for a stop, service as many people as they can all at once, and accelerate as much as possible to spend the least amount of time as they can moving slowly. The S bahn loops a 25 mile diameter in under one hour and make about 20 stops. This is equivalent to somewhere near 70 miles an hour. You can hop on a train somewhere within 5 minutes.

 

It's really nice to be able to move at such speed and not have to worry about the potential safety implications. Merging at a 120 mph is not fesible in a domestic passenger driven vehicle. NASCAR does demonstrate that it is possible to not only drive fast, but also drive like an asshole. All with relatively few safety issues. It is obviously a "death" sport. Most sports do not involve "death" as a possible outcome which one should be aware of.

[Phi for All]

People who go all the way the front of the bottle neck slow the system down due to the absolute necessity to now stop. So it is not really merging it's an intersection regardless of who does the stopping.

 

Well, you're assuming no one lets them in, so they HAVE to stop. That may reflect reality, but it's not the way it's supposed to work if drivers are cooperating.

 

My State Patrol is telling us that the right thing to do, the most efficient use of the available road, is to move all the way to the end of the lane ("front of the bottleneck" is more poisoning the well, but arguably justified) and then merge. This assumes that people are letting others merge as well. It's the ones who don't who create any bottleneck, those and the people that merge too early and leave empty, unused road that could have relieved some of the congestion.

 

I agree about the use of brakes. Red lights suck energy out of the system. I think a lot of people use them unnecessarily because they either treat driving like racing, or they treat it like a "pack" where they don't want to lose their position. It should be a fluid thing, but it's often not. I blame people who make it personal, instead of being part of a system. The system gives you lots of freedom but requires you to be consistent and work with everyone else out there to maintain the system's energy, keep things running smoothly and safely and get everyone where they need to be.

[imatfaal]

 

Well, you're assuming no one lets them in, so they HAVE to stop. That may reflect reality, but it's not the way it's supposed to work if drivers are cooperating.

 

My State Patrol is telling us that the right thing to do, the most efficient use of the available road, is to move all the way to the end of the lane ("front of the bottleneck" is more poisoning the well, but arguably justified) and then merge. This assumes that people are letting others merge as well. It's the ones who don't who create any bottleneck, those and the people that merge too early and leave empty, unused road that could have relieved some of the congestion.

 

I agree about the use of brakes. Red lights suck energy out of the system. I think a lot of people use them unnecessarily because they either treat driving like racing, or they treat it like a "pack" where they don't want to lose their position. It should be a fluid thing, but it's often not. I blame people who make it personal, instead of being part of a system. The system gives you lots of freedom but requires you to be consistent and work with everyone else out there to maintain the system's energy, keep things running smoothly and safely and get everyone where they need to be.

 

"I blame people who make it personal, instead of being part of a system. The system gives you lots of freedom but requires you to be consistent and work with everyone else out there to maintain the system's energy, keep things running smoothly and safely and get everyone where they need to be."

 

You are on dangerous ground there Phi - not that long ago dangerously socialist views like the above would get famous people like yourself hauled in front of the House Un-American Activities Comm. Not that I don't agree entirely with the perspective.

 

I might spend some time looking at the articles which investigate why mild mannered men (and your example excepted, they are mostly men) turn into raving hyper-competitive nut-jobs when they get behind the wheel of a car.

[Spyman]

This short Disney movie may be appropriate here: