lane striping to prevent left lane losers?

[agentsteel53]

I noticed something the other day on CA-52 eastbound - part of my daily commute.  at Mast Ave. in Santee, the right lane drops, resulting in a two-lane freeway.  after a particular narrow bridge is crossed, a third lane opens up ... on the left.

while the drop to two lanes is less than ideal, I did notice that it gave me an instant ability to pass on the left, as the moron in front of me did not merge left.  so now I'm thinking - would it be a viable solution to left lane idiocy to simply close a right lane, and open a new left lane, every so often?  this would be most effective in contexts where a new right lane exists due to an on-ramp: stripe everything diagonally to the right, merging the on-ramp into the extant right lane, and providing a new left lane.

[hotdogPi]

Was this "two lane freeway" two in each direction or two total?

[agentsteel53]

two lanes eastbound.  west has either 2 or 3; I can't remember the exact layout.

[jeffandnicole]

I noticed something the other day on CA-52 eastbound - part of my daily commute.  at Mast Ave. in Santee, the right lane drops, resulting in a two-lane freeway.  after a particular narrow bridge is crossed, a third lane opens up ... on the left.

while the drop to two lanes is less than ideal, I did notice that it gave me an instant ability to pass on the left, as the moron in front of me did not merge left.  so now I'm thinking - would it be a viable solution to left lane idiocy to simply close a right lane, and open a new left lane, every so often?  this would be most effective in contexts where a new right lane exists due to an on-ramp: stripe everything diagonally to the right, merging the on-ramp into the extant right lane, and providing a new left lane.

Seeing it happen one time does not mean it'll happen every time. 

[agentsteel53]

Seeing it happen one time does not mean it'll happen every time.

happens pretty consistently.  only last night did I realize I was, as a regular habit, anticipating the lane opening up so I could go around.

[Scott5114]

It is an interesting idea, but I doubt it is worth either the expense to restripe to such a configuration or the modest safety hit that forcing a lane change causes.

[briantroutman]

Yeah–I had long thought that freeways could incorporate periodic lane shifts...always adding a lane to the left and taking away a lane from the right, so that the more clueless drivers that pick a lane and stick with it will find themselves in the right lane eventually.



The diagram is exaggerated a bit; in reality, the lane shift would probably be less abrupt. These could be placed as a sort of corrector where people have a tendency to overcompensate and get too far to the left, such as after large merges and long grades.

I imagine that any lane shift adds a potential safety issue–which may or may not be significant in comparison to the left lane bandit problem. And of course I have no idea where the cost-benefit ratio would be on this one. It might not be worth the cost.

Then again, I have noticed that some of these left-laners aren't so much inattentive as they are simply moronic. They seem to have this notion that the right lane is for losers driving beat-up old trucks and clown cars (not them in their sleek '92 Cavaliers), so they'll always be at least one lane over from the right, no matter what the traffic conditions may be. And if there are only two lanes in each direction, you can guarantee they'll be in the left lane.

So the morons might keep moving a lane to the left through the lane shifts.

[Alps]

I love left lanes that open up. I-80 EB past Exit 52 and NJ 24 EB at Exit 7 are two of my local favorites. The hogs will either stay in the middle lane (great, go around them) or follow the left lane line (great, go around them).

[1995hoo]

The problem if you did that here is that the lane drop would cause congestion as people bunched up to prevent right lane traffic from getting over.  They act afraid somebody else might get through sooner.

[Avalanchez71]

There is a huge problem with right lane runners on I-65 around the SR-840 interchange and then southbound near the SSR 248 interchange.  If the morons would merge earlier traffic would not choke up.  I just can't see that people just can't see it.  They run the right lane all the way to the force merge.  Maybe a lane shift and restripe could alleviate some of this?

[jeffandnicole]

There is a huge problem with right lane runners on I-65 around the SR-840 interchange and then southbound near the SSR 248 interchange.  If the morons would merge earlier traffic would not choke up.  I just can't see that people just can't see it.  They run the right lane all the way to the force merge.  Maybe a lane shift and restripe could alleviate some of this?

Traffic will still choke up.  The issue is the volume of traffic thru a specific area, not where people are merging.  Even if those people merged a 1/2 mile before the interchange, congestion would still occur. 

[briantroutman]

There is a huge problem with right lane runners on I-65 around the SR-840 interchange and then southbound near the SSR 248 interchange.  If the morons would merge earlier traffic would not choke up.  I just can't see that people just can't see it.  They run the right lane all the way to the force merge.  Maybe a lane shift and restripe could alleviate some of this?

This has been discussed endlessly, but that kind of thinking doesn't work. First of all, what is "early"? Should traffic merge a quarter-mile before the lane drop? Half a mile? Two miles?

When you merge early, you put yourself in the position of being a traffic cop..."I merged early, so I'm going to stay on the bumper of the guy in front of me so that the guy in the right lane can't merge". Sure, when the left lane is creeping along–you think you've done the right thing by merging early–and someone blasts up the right lane at 80 mph, that person certainly looks like a royal jerk. But if all of those people who merged early had just stayed in the right lane, the jerk wouldn't be able to race ahead of everyone else.

The correct answer is: Everyone should use all open lanes–right up to the merge point, keeping the traffic balanced as much as possible between the lanes, and then take turns merging there...at the merge point. This is the most equitable solution for everyone and makes the most use of the available lane capacity.

[Avalanchez71]

There is a huge problem with right lane runners on I-65 around the SR-840 interchange and then southbound near the SSR 248 interchange.  If the morons would merge earlier traffic would not choke up.  I just can't see that people just can't see it.  They run the right lane all the way to the force merge.  Maybe a lane shift and restripe could alleviate some of this?

This has been discussed endlessly, but that kind of thinking doesn't work. First of all, what is "early"? Should traffic merge a quarter-mile before the lane drop? Half a mile? Two miles?

When you merge early, you put yourself in the position of being a traffic cop..."I merged early, so I'm going to stay on the bumper of the guy in front of me so that the guy in the right lane can't merge". Sure, when the left lane is creeping along–you think you've done the right thing by merging early–and someone blasts up the right lane at 80 mph, that person certainly looks like a royal jerk. But if all of those people who merged early had just stayed in the right lane, the jerk wouldn't be able to race ahead of everyone else.

The correct answer is: Everyone should use all open lanes–right up to the merge point, keeping the traffic balanced as much as possible between the lanes, and then take turns merging there...at the merge point. This is the most equitable solution for everyone and makes the most use of the available lane capacity.

I like your anecdote better than your solution. 

[1995hoo]

I'm not trying to start an argument, but what is your "solution" if you don't like what "briantroutman" suggested?

For what it's worth, I agree that when traffic is flowing freely and you're approaching a lane drop it makes sense to get over whenever it's safe to do so and you can accomplish the move without having to slow down. Brake lights wind up just slowing traffic as other people slow as well. But when traffic is already at a crawl for whatever reason, it makes the most sense to go to the end of the lane and take turns, for several reasons.

(a) It ensures there's only one merge point everyone agrees on.

(b) It maximizes the use of the available pavement.

(c) Why have the ending lane extend to that point at all if you're not supposed to use it? (That is, if you're "supposed to" get over half a mile before it ends, then aren't you saying that final half a mile shouldn't be there at all?)

(d) But once you designate an earlier point prior to the lane's end as the "actual" merge point, then shouldn't you in turn advocate getting over even earlier? (That is, if you say everyone should get over half a mile in advance, then that point becomes the lane's effective end. Won't you just create the same problem where you then say "people should have gotten over earlier" in relation to the NEW end point?)

I mean, heck, I've seen construction zones where a lane is ending and the obedient sheep (mostly elderly people in the case of the one I'm thinking of–it was on US-29 in Charlottesville when that road was being rebuilt in the early 1990s) all got over so early that there was a full mile of empty left lane. You're damn right I'm going to use that space. That's what it's there for!


I know this is the type of thing that gets discussed ad nauseam and the two sides will never agree. But I'd really like to know what "solution" you propose if you think "briantroutman" is wrong in saying "merge at the end," and I'd like to know your reasoning.

[Mr_Northside]

There is a huge problem with right lane runners on I-65 around the SR-840 interchange and then southbound near the SSR 248 interchange.  If the morons would merge earlier traffic would not choke up.  I just can't see that people just can't see it.  They run the right lane all the way to the force merge.  Maybe a lane shift and restripe could alleviate some of this?

This has been discussed endlessly, but that kind of thinking doesn't work. First of all, what is "early"? Should traffic merge a quarter-mile before the lane drop? Half a mile? Two miles?

When you merge early, you put yourself in the position of being a traffic cop..."I merged early, so I'm going to stay on the bumper of the guy in front of me so that the guy in the right lane can't merge". Sure, when the left lane is creeping along–you think you've done the right thing by merging early–and someone blasts up the right lane at 80 mph, that person certainly looks like a royal jerk. But if all of those people who merged early had just stayed in the right lane, the jerk wouldn't be able to race ahead of everyone else.

The correct answer is: Everyone should use all open lanes–right up to the merge point, keeping the traffic balanced as much as possible between the lanes, and then take turns merging there...at the merge point. This is the most equitable solution for everyone and makes the most use of the available lane capacity.

THIS.

One thing I gotta give PennDOT credit for in the last handful of years is really pushing the "zipper method". 
Though it's mostly focused in work zones where a highways loses a lane, they'll usually have the signs out telling people to "Use both lanes to merge point", with a "Merge Here.  Take Your Turn" sign where the lane actually ends.  And they usually try to remind people of that in news reports / press releases for construction projects.

[hbelkins]

Does Tennessee still require all traffic to be out of the ending lane at a certain point before the lane actually ends?

At one time, Tennessee did the exact opposite of what Pennsylvania's trying to push with the zipper merge. They wanted traffic out of the ending/closed lane well in advance of the merge point.

[empirestate]

When I find myself using up that last stretch of a lane that's ending, I usually do so at a speed that's not confrontationally faster than those in the through lane. What makes people look like jerks is when they drive as fast as possible down that ending piece of lane, or actually get out of the through lane, pass a bunch of people, then screech to a halt in front of someone further down the line. But I've found it's much easier to ease into whatever hole does open up if I'm going more or less the same speed as the traffic next to me.

[Scott5114]

I merge over early to prevent myself from getting stuck at the merge point waiting as the entire population of the state cruises by with no gap to merge into.

[empirestate]

I merge over early to prevent myself from getting stuck at the merge point waiting as the entire population of the state cruises by with no gap to merge into.

Well, exactly. I merge over late, but don't go appreciably faster than the people in the other lane, so the entire population of the state doesn't really get that opportunity.

[briantroutman]

I merge over early to prevent myself from getting stuck at the merge point waiting as the entire population of the state cruises by with no gap to merge into.

But, you see, this is a direct consequence of a prior incorrect action: everyone else merging early–and, more importantly, obstructing traffic by refusing to allow other motorists to merge as they should. Of course you're in OK where they have that "merge early" law (with which I vehemently disagree), so all bets are off.

If it isn't in any of the states' vehicle codes already, I'd like to see a specific offense for "intentionally obstructing a merge", which would also apply when a joker in the rightmost lane cruising along at 55 speeds up to 70 when he sees a vehicle coming down the next on-ramp. Make sure that the public is informed of the law, of course....but at a construction zone or a perennially congested merge point, a highway patrol officer handing out $250 tickets to the entire population of the state might convince at least a few of them not to be jerks.

[Scott5114]

This is a prime example of the prisoner's dilemma. If I could trust everyone to do a zipper merge, I'd give it a shot, but I can't, so it makes more sense to merge early.

Merging early may be less efficient in the strictest sense,  but it is not done with an eye for efficiency, but to make sure that everyone can merge with a minimum of hassle. Yes, it leaves pavement "unused", but this is not the same as if it were closed–it serves as a reserve space in case someone has a problem merging–they can keep rolling at a speed close to traffic as they look for a space, rather than having to come to a full stop and wait, then hit the gas when a break comes.

The problem with an "intentionally obstructing a merge" is that would be difficult to prove that there was intent if challenged in court. Proving intent is something that prosecutors can struggle with for murder cases. I doubt it's something a traffic cop could pull off. I would imagine the vast majority of cases would get thrown out because they are borderline enough that someone could say "oh, I didn't even notice that guy was there, I was too busy daydreaming about the Piggers game this weekend".

[vdeane]

Plus there are some drivers who think they don't have to let mergers in because it's the responsibility of the merging driver to find a spot.  One of the drivers at the Binghamton meet got forced into the shoulder on I-81 because of this.

[briantroutman]

The problem with an "intentionally obstructing a merge" is that would be difficult to prove that there was intent...

I suppose the word "intentionally" was misleading and unnecessary. The violation should be simply "obstructing a merge". Intention wouldn't be relevant–just as it's irrelevant whether you intended to exceed the speed limit or intended to run through a stop sign. So being distracted or inattentive also wouldn't help the driver's case, in fact it would probably be damning evidence in that he was not paying attention to the road.

While verifying intent isn't necessary, what I think would be needed is some language to clarify when the law applies: both lanes moving approximately the same speed, absence of other traffic controls or emergency conditions, etc. In low traffic conditions and when there's a differential between the vehicle's speeds, the regulation wouldn't apply.

Enforcing the law should be straightforward just by demonstrating that a motorist prevented another from taking his or her rightful turn. Like in this example–the letters correspond to the order in which they are entitled to pass the merge point.



B and C reached the merge point at approximately the same time–so that's not the most clear-cut situation–but B appears to be slightly ahead, and it's C's lane that's ending, so B could legitimately proceed. But D clearly arrived at the merge point after C, and C was signaling his lane change and had already begun to make his move, but D blocked him and proceeded though the merge point anyway. So the driver in D would get a ticket. If F tried to ride D's coattails (which I've seen in real world scenarios many times...once one person snubs another, it reverts to rule of the jungle), that driver would be ticketed too.

If the merge point was clearly indicated by some kind of a pavement marking–spanning both the dropped lane and the adjacent one–and a clear regulatory sign, I think that would make violations more obvious to both highway patrol and the would-be violator. And some kind of a "WHEN FLASHING" indicator could be used to control the merge just during heavy traffic periods.

[agentsteel53]

here in California, D would not dare do that because there is a statistically significant probability that C would hit him.

[Duke87]

Meanwhile here in New York City, C and D would have been playing a game of chicken adjacent to each other for a ways back in order to see who could get to the merge point first. And there is a chance that if the exact situation pictured is reached after that happening, D would be riding B's bumper as closely as possible in order to prevent C from even being able to attempt to get in front of him.

Classic NYC rule of the road: the right of way belongs to whomever more aggressively asserts their claim to it.