Remove yield signs from freeway ramps

[vdeane]

I definitely think that the most aggressive areas being the same as many of the most congested ones is related.  The aggression is how they deal with the congestion.

Actually, whether a merge is blocked or not does not depend on the speed of traffic at all - only on whether a sufficient gap is available. Tailgating can occur at any speed - "free flowing" or otherwise. If a sufficient gap is not available then the merge cannot occur. It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.

But is everybody tailgating?  In my experience, no.  You're supposed to survey the scene, model the behavior of every single car in your head, and adjust your speed to slip into a gap that is available.

[Revive 755]

Remove them?  Many states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin) don't even post them anyway for most ramps.

The Collinsville District must not have gotten that memo. 

Example 1 in East St. Louis
Example 2 in East St. Louis

EDIT:  Would the freeway sections of Palatine Road count also?  WB entrance west of Wolf Road.

EDIT 2:  Or how about the ramp from NB Mannheim to EB I-190?

[webny99]

Actually, whether a merge is blocked or not does not depend on the speed of traffic at all - only on whether a sufficient gap is available. Tailgating can occur at any speed - "free flowing" or otherwise. If a sufficient gap is not available then the merge cannot occur.

The merge cannot occur at one point, so it occurs at another, with a little bit of acceleration or deceleration as needed. This is really a very simple concept, and I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand.

It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.

I'm saying there isn't any blame to dish out because merges don't just "fail". If they can't happen at one point, they happen at another. Maybe you could explain what you believe a failed merge looks like.

I think you will find that (aside from having a crash, in which case the failed merge is the least of your worries), there is no such thing.

[yand]

I definitely think that the most aggressive areas being the same as many of the most congested ones is related.  The aggression is how they deal with the congestion.

Actually, whether a merge is blocked or not does not depend on the speed of traffic at all - only on whether a sufficient gap is available. Tailgating can occur at any speed - "free flowing" or otherwise. If a sufficient gap is not available then the merge cannot occur. It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.

But is everybody tailgating?  In my experience, no.  You're supposed to survey the scene, model the behavior of every single car in your head, and adjust your speed to slip into a gap that is available.

Your experience does not encompass the entire totality of possibilities. millions of merges occur every day. Anything that is possible has, can, and will happen
For the purpose of this discussion, tailgating is any distance too small to allow your vehicle (bike, smart car, van, bus, semi with multiple trailers) to accelerate up to the speed of traffic (speed limit +30 in 55 zones), and merge. It doesn't take many tailgating cars to affect the merge.
Not all ramps have good visibility. There might be a rock in the way and you can't see traffic to the side until you are in the acceleration area.

The merge cannot occur at one point

Because it is blocked.

so it occurs at another

Unless it is blocked at that point as well.

It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.

I'm saying there isn't any blame to dish out because merges don't just "fail".

If you feel you are being blocked in under these circumstances, it is because of a bad decision you made earlier. Either you were too aggressive or you were too slow, depends on the situation, but 100% avoidable either way.

Sounds like blame to me

If they can't happen at one point, they happen at another. Maybe you could explain what you believe a failed merge looks like.

Having to drive slow in the acceleration lane is failing to merge. It doesn't matter if eventually you are able to enter the through lane.

[Duke87]

So, here's the issue I have with the idea of "remove the yield signs from ramps, expect everyone to zipper merge".

Regardless of how efficient this may be if everyone did it, when you aim to change driver behavior over what is the current norm you are inevitably going to have drivers on the road who are all in various states of having gotten the memo or not having gotten the memo.

Currently, the ramp is expected to yield, and drivers who are on the freeway expect entering traffic to yield to them.

Trying to shift this is inevitably going to lead to situations where a driver in the right lane on the freeway (still thinking with the current method in mind) sees someone coming down the ramp but does nothing because they expect to be yielded to, but the driver on the ramp (with the proposed method in mind), because he's in front, keeps going because he's expecting the driver on the freeway to let him in as a zipper merge.

This... is a great way to cause a crash.

[webny99]

Why. Do. I. Feel. Like. I. Am. Beating. A. Dead. Horse.

The merge cannot occur at one point

Because it is blocked.

so it occurs at another

Unless it is blocked at that point as well.

Then it occurs at another point. We could go on, and on, but please, let's not.
Just acknowledge the chances of a merge being "blocked", in free flowing traffic, for the entire length of the acceleration lane are effectively 0%.

It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.

I'm saying there isn't any blame to dish out because merges don't just "fail".

If you feel you are being blocked in under these circumstances, it is because of a bad decision you made earlier. Either you were too aggressive or you were too slow, depends on the situation, but 100% avoidable either way.

Sounds like blame to me

If you are bound and determined to ride along next to somebody and claim that you are "blocked" until you run out of lane and sputter into the shoulder, then yes, you are to blame, and you are also lacking intuition. Isn't that obvious?

But most drivers don't actually do that, because that's a really silly thing to do. They get over when they can and move on with their business. Case closed. Nobody has failed, and nobody blames anybody for anything.

If they can't happen at one point, they happen at another. Maybe you could explain what you believe a failed merge looks like.

Having to drive slow in the acceleration lane is failing to merge. It doesn't matter if eventually you are able to enter the through lane.

fail  /fāl/  verb 1. be unsuccessful in achieving one's goal.

You should already be up to speed -- or close to it -- by the time you reach the freeway. If you have to slow down a bit or speed up a bit to get into a gap, then so be it. If you merge into the freeway as intended at any point, the merge (the goal) was not unsuccessful.
Unless you can make a compelling case that a merge must occur at one specific point, and if it does not occur at that point, there are profound and long-lasting negative consequences. You are welcome to it -- best wishes.

[kalvado]

Just acknowledge the chances of a merge being "blocked", in free flowing traffic, for the entire length of the acceleration lane are effectively 0%.

It is not about the length of acceleration lane, it is about speed differential between the acceleration lane and the travel lane. I calculated the choices above - there is not a lot of choice; and 2-3-4 truck travelling at a normal following distance can easily lock you off. Truck drivers are usually much more courteous than an average driver, so chances of getting into that situation are low; but getting no merge chance is a possible scenario.
Well, if  you're trained with roundabouts and can merge with a bumper-to-bumper distance equal to a thickness of a piece of paper, things may be a bit easier..

[1995hoo]

.... People aren't really going to attempt to shut you out–they understand you are just entering the roadway.

....

And my point above was simply along the lines of, "Of course they know you're entering the highway. Some people will still speed up or otherwise try to keep you out of 'their' lane."

In terms of trying to block people in slow traffic, no doubt part of what causes this around here is that at some interchanges, when traffic is slow people already on the highway will cut right into the onramp acceleration lane, drive down the end, and try to cut back in, so sometimes you never know who's legitimately entering the highway and who's trying to cut the line. (This is not the same thing as running the C/D road. Here's a Street View example of a spot where what I'm talking about happens all the time. When traffic is slow, some people in the lane where the Google Car is will cut right immediately at the end of that curb to use the acceleration lane to the right, which ends under that overpass up ahead. Some will then fight to get back into traffic, others will just drive on the shoulder unless people move over to block it.)

[kphoger]

I move over as soon as I can, even if I'm going 40mph. Staying in the acceleration lane until I reach the speed limit runs the risk of 1) a speeder on the freeway catching up and blocking the merge, or 2) a faster car behind me darting onto the freeway then passing me, blocking the merge.

I didn't say that.  Please fix your quote attribution.

[yand]

So, here's the issue I have with the idea of "remove the yield signs from ramps, expect everyone to zipper merge".

Regardless of how efficient this may be if everyone did it, when you aim to change driver behavior over what is the current norm you are inevitably going to have drivers on the road who are all in various states of having gotten the memo or not having gotten the memo.

Currently, the ramp is expected to yield, and drivers who are on the freeway expect entering traffic to yield to them.

Trying to shift this is inevitably going to lead to situations where a driver in the right lane on the freeway (still thinking with the current method in mind) sees someone coming down the ramp but does nothing because they expect to be yielded to, but the driver on the ramp (with the proposed method in mind), because he's in front, keeps going because he's expecting the driver on the freeway to let him in as a zipper merge.

This... is a great way to cause a crash.

I titled this post with the impression that removing yield signs would change right of way rules. Now that I've been informed that's not the case, an alternative would be to put up signs and markings at all ramps. People would get used to the new way very quickly.

[webny99]

I move over as soon as I can, even if I'm going 40mph. Staying in the acceleration lane until I reach the speed limit runs the risk of 1) a speeder on the freeway catching up and blocking the merge, or 2) a faster car behind me darting onto the freeway then passing me, blocking the merge.

I didn't say that.  Please fix your quote attribution.

Oops. Please forgive me; I was on mobile, so since you had pre-trimmed the quote from yand that I wanted to reply to, I quoted your quote. And then I screwed up. Should be fixed.

[kphoger]

I titled this post with the impression that removing yield signs would change right of way rules. Now that I've been informed that's not the case, an alternative would be to put up signs and markings at all ramps.

A better and cheaper alternative would be to leave things the way they are.  The system works.

[yand]

I titled this post with the impression that removing yield signs would change right of way rules. Now that I've been informed that's not the case, an alternative would be to put up signs and markings at all ramps.

A better and cheaper alternative would be to leave things the way they are.  The system works.

It is in fact possible for something to work, and for an improvement upon it to work better. Everything we have now is the result of generations of mostly incremental improvement.

[kphoger]

I titled this post with the impression that removing yield signs would change right of way rules. Now that I've been informed that's not the case, an alternative would be to put up signs and markings at all ramps.

A better and cheaper alternative would be to leave things the way they are.  The system works.

It is in fact possible for something to work, and for an improvement upon it to work better. Everything we have now is the result of generations of mostly incremental improvement.

Yes, but we don't agree that making through traffic on the highway slow down or move over is an improvement on the way things currently work.

[RobbieL2415]

I think the MUTCD should add new warning and regulatory signs specific for merging.  Signs that denote the approach type (acceleration lane/suicide entrance/long ramp followed by small merge area), speed of oncoming road and where to start merging.

Similar to PA's "Begin turn here" signs, use "Start merge here" signs where the acceleration lane begins to end.

Use "speed limit xx ahead signs" on all ramps

Use warning signs reading "long approach, short approach, no merge area, merge at speed limit".  "No merge area" should be supplemented with "prepare to stop"

Add "do not stop" signage on acceleration ramps.

[kphoger]

"No merge area"

I'd settle for just this, where appropriate.  On-ramps with sufficient merge area should be kept as-is, so these would stand out.  To put different types of signs at every single on-ramp would only invite people to ignore all of them, but doing this would make the important ones stand out.

Add "do not stop" signage on acceleration ramps.

Bad idea.  That would be officially directing people into a potential wreck.  Side-swipe a car in the through lanes, and you could simply tell the judge that a regulatory sign said you shouldn't have stopped.

[Big John]

Example of a ramp with yield and no merge area signs: https://goo.gl/maps/x71JvwtcJ9x

[kphoger]

Example of a ramp with yield and no merge area signs: https://goo.gl/maps/x71JvwtcJ9x

I really like that signage.

[RobbieL2415]

"No merge area"

I'd settle for just this, where appropriate.  On-ramps with sufficient merge area should be kept as-is, so these would stand out.  To put different types of signs at every single on-ramp would only invite people to ignore all of them, but doing this would make the important ones stand out.

Add "do not stop" signage on acceleration ramps.

Bad idea.  That would be officially directing people into a potential wreck.  Side-swipe a car in the through lanes, and you could simply tell the judge that a regulatory sign said you shouldn't have stopped.

You wouldn't use that sign when there's no merge area. It's meant to stand for "do not come to a complete stop in the acceleration lane". Or maybe it should say "keep up speed" instead. Bottom line, they need to be told its not okay to significaly slow down when it is unsafe and unreasonable.

[kphoger]

You wouldn't use that sign when there's no merge area. It's meant to stand for "do not come to a complete stop in the acceleration lane". Or maybe it should say "keep up speed" instead. Bottom line, they need to be told its not okay to significaly slow down when it is unsafe and unreasonable.

I know what you meant.  But there are rare occasions on which one actually needs to stop in order to avoid a wreck.  Instructing a person not to stop in such a wreck is not so good.

Also, if a timid 80-year-old lady would rather stop and wait for a huge gap in traffic, then I'd rather that happen than she try and do a maneuver beyond her ability and risk something far worse.

[1995hoo]

I'm positive I've seen a ramp somewhere in Northern Virginia with a yellow "No Merge Area" diamond-shaped warning sign, but I'm completely blanking on where it is or was.

[Scott5114]

"No merge area"

I'd settle for just this, where appropriate.  On-ramps with sufficient merge area should be kept as-is, so these would stand out.  To put different types of signs at every single on-ramp would only invite people to ignore all of them, but doing this would make the important ones stand out.

In construction zones where merging space is limited, Oklahoma DOT posts a standard Merge Ahead sign on the ramp with "NO MERGE AREA" as a supplemental plaque. So it's not a new practice.

[jakeroot]

I'm positive I've seen a ramp somewhere in Northern Virginia with a yellow "No Merge Area" diamond-shaped warning sign, but I'm completely blanking on where it is or was.

There's a bunch on US-50 in the Fort Myer/Courthouse/Rosslyn areas.

[1995hoo]

^^^^

Thank you! That's exactly the sort of sign I was thinking of. I don't use that particular ramp very often, but I know which one it is.

[kalvado]

And a somewhat extreme example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.409341,-73.6910528,3a,90y,337.32h,73.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spMUiXFqrleAenqIxoB4Qig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Granted, visibility is obscured by road bend - but the result is there is no enough time to accelerate before another car rear-ends you.