Zipper Merge News

[kalvado]

situations where you handpick one set of rules over the other set in each specific situation is a recipe for an accident. We can say that ramp merge is clearly different from construction zone merge - but soon there will be examples of situations in between, causing all sort of problems.

But this is how things change.  Any new thing is experimented with in certain locations in specific situations, then other places like the idea and try it out.  Eventually, sloppily, and haphazardly, it–whatever it is–becomes mainstream and even finds its way into the MUTCD.  Hardly anything just gets dropped on every highway in the nation at once like a nuke.

Is it broken enough so that it needs a fix?
If there are routine delays more than 10 minutes (1 mile worth of a backup - right where "free lane space" arguments gains weight), then maybe you need something other than a lipstick and a bandaid?..
Given that the price of it is total overhaul of "right of way" concept... This is pretty much like replacing red and green on traffic light because. uhm... people respond faster to green and orange, for example - with orange meaning "go" , and blue - "stop".  It would save 10 miliseconds per vehicle, it must be worth it!

[kphoger]

situations where you handpick one set of rules over the other set in each specific situation is a recipe for an accident. We can say that ramp merge is clearly different from construction zone merge - but soon there will be examples of situations in between, causing all sort of problems.

But this is how things change.  Any new thing is experimented with in certain locations in specific situations, then other places like the idea and try it out.  Eventually, sloppily, and haphazardly, it–whatever it is–becomes mainstream and even finds its way into the MUTCD.  Hardly anything just gets dropped on every highway in the nation at once like a nuke.

Is it broken enough so that it needs a fix?
If there are routine delays more than 10 minutes (1 mile worth of a backup - right where "free lane space" arguments gains weight), then maybe you need something other than a lipstick and a bandaid?..
Given that the price of it is total overhaul of "right of way" concept... This is pretty much like replacing red and green on traffic light because. uhm... people respond faster to green and orange, for example - with orange meaning "go" , and blue - "stop".  It would save 10 miliseconds per vehicle, it must be worth it!

Meanwhile, laws regarding turning right on red lights vary from state to state...

[GeekJedi]

And well, legality of zipper approach is quite questionable.

[Citation Needed]

[kalvado]

And well, legality of zipper approach is quite questionable.

[Citation Needed]

May I have your state, please?

[hbelkins]

And well, legality of zipper approach is quite questionable.

[Citation Needed]

It's been a few years, but I think there was one state that wrote the zipper merge into law for construction. Tennessee, perhaps?

[jakeroot]

And well, legality of zipper approach is quite questionable.

[Citation Needed]

May I have your state, please?

I think he's in Wisconsin.

[GeekJedi]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

[kalvado]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

Of course, construction zone sign is  a priority. If there is no sign..
346.13(1) " operator of a vehicle shall drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not deviate from the traffic lane in which the operator is driving without first ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety to other vehicles approaching from the rear. " In practical terms, in case of accident due to lane change, vehicle changing lane would be seen as responsible for the accident.
So whoever need to get an insurance for their clunker may drive into your door as you do last-second zipper, and have a good chance of charging your insurance. Otherwise zipper is no problem.

[jeffandnicole]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

Of course, construction zone sign is  a priority. If there is no sign..
346.13(1) " operator of a vehicle shall drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not deviate from the traffic lane in which the operator is driving without first ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety to other vehicles approaching from the rear. " In practical terms, in case of accident due to lane change, vehicle changing lane would be seen as responsible for the accident.
So whoever need to get an insurance for their clunker may drive into your door as you do last-second zipper, and have a good chance of charging your insurance. Otherwise zipper is no problem.

In that case, they would find any reason to have an accident - run a stop sign, hit a parked vehicle, etc, etc. 

[kalvado]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

Of course, construction zone sign is  a priority. If there is no sign..
346.13(1) " operator of a vehicle shall drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not deviate from the traffic lane in which the operator is driving without first ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety to other vehicles approaching from the rear. " In practical terms, in case of accident due to lane change, vehicle changing lane would be seen as responsible for the accident.
So whoever need to get an insurance for their clunker may drive into your door as you do last-second zipper, and have a good chance of charging your insurance. Otherwise zipper is no problem.

In that case, they would find any reason to have an accident - run a stop sign, hit a parked vehicle, etc, etc.

Nope, that would be THEIR fault - and that would reflect on insurance premium. Here we're talking about not at fault situation. Like someone running stop sign on you..

[kphoger]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

Of course, construction zone sign is  a priority. If there is no sign..
346.13(1) " operator of a vehicle shall drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not deviate from the traffic lane in which the operator is driving without first ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety to other vehicles approaching from the rear. " In practical terms, in case of accident due to lane change, vehicle changing lane would be seen as responsible for the accident.
So whoever need to get an insurance for their clunker may drive into your door as you do last-second zipper, and have a good chance of charging your insurance. Otherwise zipper is no problem.

How does that contradict a zipper merge, though?  Telling traffic to form one lane at the merge point, a half-mile upstream of the merge point, or at various points along the continuum doesn't change one's responsibility to make sure nobody's next to him before changing lanes.

[kalvado]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

Of course, construction zone sign is  a priority. If there is no sign..
346.13(1) " operator of a vehicle shall drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not deviate from the traffic lane in which the operator is driving without first ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety to other vehicles approaching from the rear. " In practical terms, in case of accident due to lane change, vehicle changing lane would be seen as responsible for the accident.
So whoever need to get an insurance for their clunker may drive into your door as you do last-second zipper, and have a good chance of charging your insurance. Otherwise zipper is no problem.

How does that contradict a zipper merge, though?  Telling traffic to form one lane at the merge point, a half-mile upstream of the merge point, or at various points along the continuum doesn't change one's responsibility to make sure nobody's next to him before changing lanes.

Forming single lane requires cars in one lane to stay in lane, and cars in the other lane - change lanes - so lanes are not equal. Strictly speaking, there is no legal requirement for cars already in continuing lane to let merging cars in. And if you try to merge without their cooperation, you may end up being fully responsible for accident. As mentioned above, such cooperation is a common courtesy, not legal requirement.
Forming single lane way upstream usually means doing so when there are still gaps in still moving traffic.

[kphoger]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

Of course, construction zone sign is  a priority. If there is no sign..
346.13(1) " operator of a vehicle shall drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not deviate from the traffic lane in which the operator is driving without first ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety to other vehicles approaching from the rear. " In practical terms, in case of accident due to lane change, vehicle changing lane would be seen as responsible for the accident.
So whoever need to get an insurance for their clunker may drive into your door as you do last-second zipper, and have a good chance of charging your insurance. Otherwise zipper is no problem.

How does that contradict a zipper merge, though?  Telling traffic to form one lane at the merge point, a half-mile upstream of the merge point, or at various points along the continuum doesn't change one's responsibility to make sure nobody's next to him before changing lanes.

Forming single lane requires cars in one lane to stay in lane, and cars in the other lane - change lanes - so lanes are not equal. Strictly speaking, there is no legal requirement for cars already in continuing lane to let merging cars in. And if you try to merge without their cooperation, you may end up being fully responsible for accident. As mentioned above, such cooperation is a common courtesy, not legal requirement.
Forming single lane way upstream usually means doing so when there are still gaps in still moving traffic.

So what do you think of Oklahoma's [ STATE LAW | MERGE NOW ----> ] signs that are posted a ways upstream of the lane closure?  I find that to be no different, legally speaking, than a zipper merge sign.

[GeekJedi]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

Of course, construction zone sign is  a priority. If there is no sign..
346.13(1) " operator of a vehicle shall drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not deviate from the traffic lane in which the operator is driving without first ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety to other vehicles approaching from the rear. " In practical terms, in case of accident due to lane change, vehicle changing lane would be seen as responsible for the accident.
So whoever need to get an insurance for their clunker may drive into your door as you do last-second zipper, and have a good chance of charging your insurance. Otherwise zipper is no problem.

How does that contradict a zipper merge, though?  Telling traffic to form one lane at the merge point, a half-mile upstream of the merge point, or at various points along the continuum doesn't change one's responsibility to make sure nobody's next to him before changing lanes.

Forming single lane requires cars in one lane to stay in lane, and cars in the other lane - change lanes - so lanes are not equal. Strictly speaking, there is no legal requirement for cars already in continuing lane to let merging cars in. And if you try to merge without their cooperation, you may end up being fully responsible for accident. As mentioned above, such cooperation is a common courtesy, not legal requirement.
Forming single lane way upstream usually means doing so when there are still gaps in still moving traffic.

You can bend semantics all you want, but it's pretty clear. A "zipper merge" sign in a construction area is a "controlling" sign (the signs are clearly labeled "Take Turns" and "Merge Here"). Don't follow it? You're responsible...aside from the fact that in any of your "what about" scenarios, the person hitting your car would be at fault - likely for inattentive driving, regardless of who's turn it was.

[jakeroot]

I think he's in Wisconsin.

Correct. From a recent news story:

"The Wisconsin State Patrol said there is no "bright line rule" as far as statutes go for merging. Law enforcement say cars already on the interstate have the right of way, meaning they do not have to move, but other than that, merging just comes down to common courtesy."

So it appears that, combined with the rule that construction signage trumps most everything else, removes any "question" on legality.

Of course, construction zone sign is  a priority. If there is no sign..
346.13(1) " operator of a vehicle shall drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not deviate from the traffic lane in which the operator is driving without first ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety to other vehicles approaching from the rear. " In practical terms, in case of accident due to lane change, vehicle changing lane would be seen as responsible for the accident.
So whoever need to get an insurance for their clunker may drive into your door as you do last-second zipper, and have a good chance of charging your insurance. Otherwise zipper is no problem.

How does that contradict a zipper merge, though?  Telling traffic to form one lane at the merge point, a half-mile upstream of the merge point, or at various points along the continuum doesn't change one's responsibility to make sure nobody's next to him before changing lanes.

Forming single lane requires cars in one lane to stay in lane, and cars in the other lane - change lanes - so lanes are not equal. Strictly speaking, there is no legal requirement for cars already in continuing lane to let merging cars in. And if you try to merge without their cooperation, you may end up being fully responsible for accident. As mentioned above, such cooperation is a common courtesy, not legal requirement.
Forming single lane way upstream usually means doing so when there are still gaps in still moving traffic.

Zipper merging is not cramming your way in at the last second (at least not in principal). It's when the drivers in the lane that doesn't end, widen their following distance to allow drivers, in the lane that does end, to legally merge in front of them. Do they have any legal requirement to do so? Of course not (barring any sign that specifically tells drivers to zipper merge). But, drivers create the gaps so that the merge is a legal maneuver.

[kalvado]

Zipper merging is not cramming your way in at the last second (at least not in principal). It's when the drivers in the lane that doesn't end, widen their following distance to allow drivers, in the lane that does end, to legally merge in front of them. Do they have any legal requirement to do so? Of course not (barring any sign that specifically tells drivers to zipper merge). But, drivers create the gaps so that the merge is a legal maneuver.

SO it COULD be a legal maneuver - but it is equally legal NOT to cooperate. And this is same as yielding to the traffic which has no right of way. Not uncommon, but sometimes dangerous. I often wave drivers through on the crosswalk (if they can make it fast - as all it takes me is crossing on further side of crosswalk 2 second later, 100% safe, 0 delay for me, 10 seconds win for driver), but I get really pissed off when traffic on roundabout yields to entering traffic - even if they yield to me.
Not sure where zipper fits in here - often those staying in the lane past argeed yield point are really aggressive squeezing in

[kphoger]

it is equally legal NOT to cooperate.

I'm fairly certain that disobeying a construction zone regulatory sign (take turns at merge) is in fact not legal.

[kalvado]

it is equally legal NOT to cooperate.

I'm fairly certain that disobeying a construction zone regulatory sign (take turns at merge) is in fact not legal.

I still have to see such a sign myself. But if there is a sign - sure you're right. Is it a legal sign included into MUTCD, BTW?
But in case there is no sign, see above.

[kphoger]

it is equally legal NOT to cooperate.

I'm fairly certain that disobeying a construction zone regulatory sign (take turns at merge) is in fact not legal.

I still have to see such a sign myself.

This is how Minnesota does it.

[1995hoo]

it is equally legal NOT to cooperate.

I'm fairly certain that disobeying a construction zone regulatory sign (take turns at merge) is in fact not legal.

I still have to see such a sign myself.

This is how Minnesota does it.

Then there's this, seen on page 4 of this thread:

Yesterday we encountered this sign on I-70 passing Terre Haute, Indiana. Wasn't a true zipper merge because the left lane ultimately ended more than a mile further down the road, but the sign is clear enough, right? Not to the people on I-70. Almost everyone panicked and moved over a mile in advance of the merge point. On the plus side for us, that meant we sailed past a long line of cars because I merge at the end just like the sign said (only one guy from Oklahoma seemed to take umbrage, but that was right at the end anyway).

[hbelkins]

If one wants to quibble, the "Take Turns At Merge" verbiage is in temporary work zone warning colors, not regulatory colors.

[1995hoo]

If one wants to quibble, the "Take Turns At Merge" verbiage is in temporary work zone warning colors, not regulatory colors.

I find it hard to imagine anyone being ticketed for disobeying these sorts of signs regardless of what color is used!

[jakeroot]

Unless I'm crazy, the use of orange in a construction zone supersedes any MUTCD rules regarding sign color. Every sign seems to be orange, even guide signs (at least in some areas). Obviously, warning and guide signs don't have the same legal pickle that regulatory signage has. But my understanding has been that, even if the sign is orange, you are still required to follow the rules of the sign.

[kphoger]

On my way home from work today, I encountered an example of how it can be detrimental to merge early.

I was getting on the Interstate, and traffic was all backed up.  There were multiple orange signs saying "RIGHT LANE CLOSED", and so everyone in the right lane was scooting over into the left lane at the first opportunity.  This was bogging down the left lane, and some folks were coming to a dead stop in the right lane in order to wait for a gap in the left lane.  I proceeded along in the right lane.  And guess what?  The right lane was NOT closed.  Either the road work was finished or hadn't started yet, but both lanes were wide open.  All that bottleneck for nothing.  If everyone had simply waited until their lane was actually ending, then none of that delay would have happened.

I never trust a "LANE CLOSED" sign.  Unless I can see with my own eyes that there are cones blocking my lane, then I assume the sign is posted in error.  It turns out to be true quite often.

[jakeroot]

I've ran into similar issues in rural Virginia before, where people seem super lane change-happy whenever there's even a hint of a lane ending. Paid off last time I was out near Charlottesville. Sign said lane closed ahead...I stayed the course, all by myself. Lane never closed. Suddenly a bunch of cars filled in behind me...phanton congestion if I've ever seen it.