Almost got into an accident yesterday from this very thing..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tVeJqDnb8E
Just couldn't move over, could you. Sure, they didn't know what they were doing, but this is yet another "Crash-It is a jerk" video.
No question the other driver should have already gotten up to speed. But you saw him coming in and you didn't slow down or move over, instead deliberately choosing to come right up on his tail. And no doubt that's the reason he put on his brakes, slowing down even more. So YOU made a dangerous situation even worse. But, yet again, all you care about is whether you're technically in the right, with no common sense regarding an actual situation.
I wish dash cams existed when I was a claims adjuster. I can only see someone doing the "I had the right of way" routine as they intentionally plow into someone when they could have just moved over a lane.
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 02:59:42 PM
Just couldn't move over, could you. Sure, they didn't know what they were doing, but this is yet another "Crash-It is a jerk" video.
There was no time to move over, did you not see the traffic going by in that other lane. The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 02:59:42 PM
Just couldn't move over, could you. Sure, they didn't know what they were doing, but this is yet another "Crash-It is a jerk" video.
There was no time to move over, did you not see the traffic going by in that other lane. The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
It was over 6 seconds from the time you recognized the merging vehicle to the time a car passed you in the next lane. If that is "no time to move over" then you have no business driving on freeways.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
The law says, and I quote (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-905.htm):
At an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the
driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
(emphasis mine)
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 02, 2021, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 02:59:42 PM
Just couldn't move over, could you. Sure, they didn't know what they were doing, but this is yet another "Crash-It is a jerk" video.
There was no time to move over, did you not see the traffic going by in that other lane. The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
It was over 6 seconds from the time you recognized the merging vehicle to the time a car passed you in the next lane. If that is "no time to move over" then you have no business driving on freeways.
If you can't match the speed of traffic then you have no business driving on freeways
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
The law says, and I quote (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-905.htm):
At an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
(emphasis mine)
Exactly and I clarified that in my vocal explanation
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
The law says, and I quote (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-905.htm):
At an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
(emphasis mine)
Exactly and I clarified that in my vocal explanation
You
said it, yes, but you
did it with only great delay, unnecessary frustration, poor skill, and pointless honking, and then you posted a video about it online. I mean, you didn't reduce your speed until you were about four feet off this guy's bumper. That is why I highlighted the "driver of each vehicle" bit of the law. You should have slowed down or moved over as soon as you saw the speed of the other car. As it stands, you did not act in an appropriate, wise, or legal way in this situation regardless of this other car's errors.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 05:44:29 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
The law says, and I quote (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-905.htm):
At an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
(emphasis mine)
Exactly and I clarified that in my vocal explanation
You said it, yes, but you did it with only great delay, unnecessary frustration, poor skill, and pointless honking, and then you posted a video about it online. I mean, you didn't reduce your speed until you were about four feet off this guy's bumper. That is why I highlighted the "driver of each vehicle" bit of the law. You should have slowed down or moved over as soon as you saw the speed of the other car. As it stands, you did not act in an appropriate, wise, or legal way in this situation regardless of this other car's errors.
I had adaptive cruise enabled.. That was already starting to happen until the PCS activated.. why doesn't the other driver just you know? Hit the gas as required to match speed of traffic (like you are taught in driver's ed) so stuff like this doesn't happen.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 05:27:56 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 02, 2021, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 02:59:42 PM
Just couldn't move over, could you. Sure, they didn't know what they were doing, but this is yet another "Crash-It is a jerk" video.
There was no time to move over, did you not see the traffic going by in that other lane. The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
It was over 6 seconds from the time you recognized the merging vehicle to the time a car passed you in the next lane. If that is "no time to move over" then you have no business driving on freeways.
If you can't match the speed of traffic then you have no business driving on freeways
So we agree that your video showed two drivers who have no business driving on freeways.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 06:06:35 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 05:44:29 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
The law says, and I quote (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-905.htm):
At an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
(emphasis mine)
Exactly and I clarified that in my vocal explanation
You said it, yes, but you did it with only great delay, unnecessary frustration, poor skill, and pointless honking, and then you posted a video about it online. I mean, you didn't reduce your speed until you were about four feet off this guy's bumper. That is why I highlighted the "driver of each vehicle" bit of the law. You should have slowed down or moved over as soon as you saw the speed of the other car. As it stands, you did not act in an appropriate, wise, or legal way in this situation regardless of this other car's errors.
I had adaptive cruise enabled.. That was already starting to happen until the PCS activated.. why doesn't the other driver just you know? Hit the gas as required to match speed of traffic (like you are taught in driver's ed) so stuff like this doesn't happen.
I'm not saying that the other car didn't make any errors. What I'm saying is that the other car's errors don't excuse your errors, which, as I and others have consistently said, are plentiful.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 02, 2021, 06:10:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 05:27:56 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 02, 2021, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 02:59:42 PM
Just couldn't move over, could you. Sure, they didn't know what they were doing, but this is yet another "Crash-It is a jerk" video.
There was no time to move over, did you not see the traffic going by in that other lane. The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
It was over 6 seconds from the time you recognized the merging vehicle to the time a car passed you in the next lane. If that is "no time to move over" then you have no business driving on freeways.
If you can't match the speed of traffic then you have no business driving on freeways
So we agree that your video showed two drivers who have no business driving on freeways.
Nope, just one and it's the person who is incapable of reaching and driving at freeway speeds. What state of mind would possess someone to think that merging on and then driving slowly is a good idea? Even if I moved over that driver is still creating a dangerous situation for everyone by driving so slowly.
You mentioned in the video the HP of the other vehicle. That's irrelevant.
I will say that driver probably shouldn't have braked at the end of the ramp, but when they saw you approaching they probably slowed up as they didn't know what you were doing, especially with how close you were.
We know you have a rear window cam, and you elected not to show that video in this case. That kinda says you probably did have the time to merge left, and you declined to show it due to that.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 06:37:46 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 02, 2021, 06:10:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 05:27:56 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 02, 2021, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 02:59:42 PM
Just couldn't move over, could you. Sure, they didn't know what they were doing, but this is yet another "Crash-It is a jerk" video.
There was no time to move over, did you not see the traffic going by in that other lane. The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
It was over 6 seconds from the time you recognized the merging vehicle to the time a car passed you in the next lane. If that is "no time to move over" then you have no business driving on freeways.
If you can't match the speed of traffic then you have no business driving on freeways
So we agree that your video showed two drivers who have no business driving on freeways.
Nope, just one and it's the person who is incapable of reaching and driving at freeway speeds. What state of mind would possess someone to think that merging on and then driving slowly is a good idea? Even if I moved over that driver is still creating a dangerous situation for everyone by driving so slowly.
Cripes, you're as closed-minded as FritzOwl. Actually more so, since you appear to actually be reading comments. So, one more time: We all agree the other driver created a dangerous situation. But you deliberately refused to proactively adjust for that situation and therefore you made it even more dangerous (by causing the other driver to slow down even more). What the fuck about that do you not understand? If you can't adapt to unexpected and even outright improper/illegal situations, you have no business being behind the wheel. The difference between you and the other guy is that you're complaining about bad drivers while demonstrating that you're one yourself.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2021, 06:53:19 PM
You mentioned in the video the HP of the other vehicle. That's irrelevant.
I will say that driver probably shouldn't have braked at the end of the ramp, but when they saw you approaching they probably slowed up as they didn't know what you were doing, especially with how close you were.
We know you have a rear window cam, and you elected not to show that video in this case. That kinda says you probably did have the time to merge left, and you declined to show it due to that.
HP is in every way relevant because the more you have, the faster you can accelerate.
As for the rear camera....
I elected not to show it because 1) it isn't relevant to show it for the situation
2) the way the camera attaches to the mount is damaged so the footage wouldn't have been straight or showed it correctly ( you'd see more pillar than road)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 02, 2021, 06:53:57 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 06:37:46 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 02, 2021, 06:10:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 05:27:56 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 02, 2021, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 02:59:42 PM
Just couldn't move over, could you. Sure, they didn't know what they were doing, but this is yet another "Crash-It is a jerk" video.
There was no time to move over, did you not see the traffic going by in that other lane. The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
It was over 6 seconds from the time you recognized the merging vehicle to the time a car passed you in the next lane. If that is "no time to move over" then you have no business driving on freeways.
If you can't match the speed of traffic then you have no business driving on freeways
So we agree that your video showed two drivers who have no business driving on freeways.
Nope, just one and it's the person who is incapable of reaching and driving at freeway speeds. What state of mind would possess someone to think that merging on and then driving slowly is a good idea? Even if I moved over that driver is still creating a dangerous situation for everyone by driving so slowly.
Cripes, you're as closed-minded as FritzOwl. Actually more so, since you appear to actually be reading comments. So, one more time: We all agree the other driver created a dangerous situation. But you deliberately refused to proactively adjust for that situation and therefore you made it even more dangerous (by causing the other driver to slow down even more). What the fuck about that do you not understand? If you can't adapt to unexpected and even outright improper/illegal situations, you have no business being behind the wheel. The difference between you and the other guy is that you're complaining about bad drivers while demonstrating that you're one yourself.
I understand it perfectly and the situation was properly adapted to because there was no accident. All a driver already on an interstate or other controlled access roadway has to do by law is not hit the other vehicle whether by braking or moving out the way.
This conversation leads me to believe that Crash-It is best left ignored. Altogether.
Just lay on the horn, that fixes everything.
Looks like he learned defensive social media posting instead of defensive driving.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 02, 2021, 08:49:17 PM
Looks like he learned defensive social media posting instead of defensive driving.
Somebody needs to get their priorities straight.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 08:41:57 PM
Just lay on the horn, that fixes everything.
You sound like someone who would drive slow after being honked at for being on your phone 5 seconds after the light turned green because you can't accept being notified of a stupid mistake. Cars have horns for a reason and I recently upgraded mine and it couldn't have came at a better time.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 07:30:13 PM
I understand it perfectly and the situation was properly adapted to because there was no accident. All a driver already on an interstate or other controlled access roadway has to do by law is not hit the other vehicle whether by braking or moving out the way.
Back in the day, I was taught in drivers' ed that if braking is required on a freeway, something has gone wrong.
While the other driver may have erred in not getting up to highway speed (perhaps due to their being uncertain of what you were going to do? perhaps they were electing to drive at a speed less than the limit but still above the minimum, for reasons unknown?), you had the opportunity to anticipate their actions and adjust in a way that didn't require either of you to brake.
I enjoy watching YouTube videos of driver errors. But as an insurance professional, I also find it oddly fascinating how some folks will post videos seeking validation when their own errors may have contributed to the near misses / accidents.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 09:19:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 08:41:57 PM
Just lay on the horn, that fixes everything.
You sound like someone who would drive slow after being honked at for being on your phone 5 seconds after the light turned green because you can't accept being notified of a stupid mistake. Cars have horns for a reason and I recently upgraded mine and it couldn't have came at a better time.
Ha, you don't even know anything about how I drive. But we know full well much of a douche bag behind the wheel you are.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 02, 2021, 09:24:13 PM
I enjoy watching YouTube videos of driver errors. But as an insurance professional, I also find it oddly fascinating how some folks will post videos seeking validation when their own errors may have contributed to the near misses / accidents.
And, more often than not, escalating the situation (and sometimes even taking efforts to create the situation in the first place) instead of de-escalating it. Because of course it wouldn't be very exciting or garner very many clicks to just move over and let them merge.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 09:30:21 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 09:19:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 08:41:57 PM
Just lay on the horn, that fixes everything.
You sound like someone who would drive slow after being honked at for being on your phone 5 seconds after the light turned green because you can't accept being notified of a stupid mistake. Cars have horns for a reason and I recently upgraded mine and it couldn't have came at a better time.
Ha, you don't even know anything about how I drive. But we know full well much of a douche bag behind the wheel you are.
So it's perfectly ok in your book to enter an interstate under the minimum speed and then brake when there wasn't a safe enough gap for such behavior?
Quote from: Crash_It on May 03, 2021, 03:03:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 09:30:21 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 09:19:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 08:41:57 PM
Just lay on the horn, that fixes everything.
You sound like someone who would drive slow after being honked at for being on your phone 5 seconds after the light turned green because you can't accept being notified of a stupid mistake. Cars have horns for a reason and I recently upgraded mine and it couldn't have came at a better time.
Ha, you don't even know anything about how I drive. But we know full well much of a douche bag behind the wheel you are.
So it's perfectly ok in your book to enter an interstate under the minimum speed and then brake when there wasn't a safe enough gap for such behavior?
I just made a joke based off how much you lay on the horn in videos I've seen and you got all butt hurt about it. You subsequently fired back with an assumption about my driving behavior. My body of work isn't on display, your's is.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 03, 2021, 03:03:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 09:30:21 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 09:19:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 08:41:57 PM
Just lay on the horn, that fixes everything.
You sound like someone who would drive slow after being honked at for being on your phone 5 seconds after the light turned green because you can't accept being notified of a stupid mistake. Cars have horns for a reason and I recently upgraded mine and it couldn't have came at a better time.
Ha, you don't even know anything about how I drive. But we know full well much of a douche bag behind the wheel you are.
So it's perfectly ok in your book to enter an interstate under the minimum speed and then brake when there wasn't a safe enough gap for such behavior?
It's not an either or situation. Just because another driver was wrong doesn't make you right. Your responsibility is to reduce the probability that his driving error results in an accident, and you failed to do that by not moving over when it was safe to do so.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2021, 08:20:24 AM
It's not an either or situation. Just because another driver was wrong doesn't make you right. Your responsibility is to reduce the probability that his driving error results in an accident, and you failed to do that by not moving over when it was safe to do so.
One of the things you learn quickly when working with auto insurance is that fault is almost never an either/or determination.
The other person making a mistake doesn't preclude the possibility that you also erred.
BTW, how did the court case go?
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 04:22:12 PM
The law says that drivers merging on have to match the speed, this didn't happen.
The law says, and I quote (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-905.htm):
At an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
Correct. Under Illinois state law, it is
not only the responsibility of the driver entering the highway to adjust his speed. It is
also the responsibility of the driver already on the highway to adjust his speed too.
If there was a close call at a merge point, then both drivers were equally to blame.
Once again, |Crash_It| demonstrates that he doesn't understand what the law actually says, while showcasing his misguided road rage.
I still refuse to monetize this asshole by clicking on his videos.
I checked GSV just to confirm, too: No yield sign for the on-ramp.
Quote from: renegade on May 03, 2021, 03:23:21 PM
I still refuse to monetize this asshole by clicking on his videos.
He claims that he doesn't make money on them. Considering the antagonistic ambulance chaser-style in the videos I tend to question if that is really true.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2021, 08:20:24 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 03, 2021, 03:03:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 09:30:21 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 09:19:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 08:41:57 PM
Just lay on the horn, that fixes everything.
You sound like someone who would drive slow after being honked at for being on your phone 5 seconds after the light turned green because you can't accept being notified of a stupid mistake. Cars have horns for a reason and I recently upgraded mine and it couldn't have came at a better time.
Ha, you don't even know anything about how I drive. But we know full well much of a douche bag behind the wheel you are.
So it's perfectly ok in your book to enter an interstate under the minimum speed and then brake when there wasn't a safe enough gap for such behavior?
It's not an either or situation. Just because another driver was wrong doesn't make you right. Your responsibility is to reduce the probability that his driving error results in an accident, and you failed to do that by not moving over when it was safe to do so.
If it was safe to do so I would've moved over but it wasn't. I avoided the accident by taking the second option which was to brake so as not to hit him. If he had just hit 55mph which in a car like a BMW is not an issue, there wouldn't have been a problem at all. Many drivers in Chicagoland actually struggle with this. I have not seen this issue as bad anywhere else I've driven
This isn't the first time you've been objectively wrong. But you're blatantly objectively wrong. If you expect to drive with a cruise setting on an urban freeway, you don't know the first thing about driving in traffic. If you don't know that freeway traffic has to provide a space for onramp traffic to get on, either by slowing down or moving a lane to the left, then you don't know how to drive on a freeway. The world would probably benefit if you stopped doing both.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 03, 2021, 10:30:43 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2021, 08:20:24 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 03, 2021, 03:03:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 09:30:21 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 02, 2021, 09:19:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2021, 08:41:57 PM
Just lay on the horn, that fixes everything.
You sound like someone who would drive slow after being honked at for being on your phone 5 seconds after the light turned green because you can't accept being notified of a stupid mistake. Cars have horns for a reason and I recently upgraded mine and it couldn't have came at a better time.
Ha, you don't even know anything about how I drive. But we know full well much of a douche bag behind the wheel you are.
So it's perfectly ok in your book to enter an interstate under the minimum speed and then brake when there wasn't a safe enough gap for such behavior?
It's not an either or situation. Just because another driver was wrong doesn't make you right. Your responsibility is to reduce the probability that his driving error results in an accident, and you failed to do that by not moving over when it was safe to do so.
If it was safe to do so I would've moved over but it wasn't. I avoided the accident by taking the second option which was to brake so as not to hit him. If he had just hit 55mph which in a car like a BMW is not an issue, there wouldn't have been a problem at all. Many drivers in Chicagoland actually struggle with this. I have not seen this issue as bad anywhere else I've driven
The last time I drove in Chicago which was about a month ago I was on the Ike going westbound from the circle interchange and I swear in the middle lane this lady was doing about 40 miles an hour. I passed her and it was like no reason that she was going that slow. I can't believe that people struggle to get going on a highway.
I almost got stuck in a 144 minute* traffic jam on I-295 North in Maine on Monday en route to Orono due to an accident (https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/traffic/jackknifed-tractor-trailer-causing-delays-on-i-295-in-falmouth-maine-state-police-falmouth-fire-department/97-27c6c185-5de8-4e82-9bfb-2d5899483d7f)... according to witnesses, a car merging from Exit 10 onto 295 North failed to yield to a semi, resulting in the driver having to brake and jackknifed consequently.
QuoteAccording to Moss, witnesses at the scene said the crash happened when a car merging onto I-295 without yielding to the truck, causing Philbrick to brake and subsequently jackknife. No other vehicles were involved in the crash, Moss said.
*That number came from travel (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/mainegotimevlam557e.jpg) information (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/mainegotimevlam557f.jpg) signs I saw on the Maine Turnpike between Exit 36 and 42.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 03, 2021, 10:30:43 PM
If it was safe to do so I would've moved over but it wasn't.
You keep saying that but it's not true. It was at least 6 seconds before a car appeared in the next lane. If you can't safely change lanes safely in that time frame you're a worse driver than the merger.
It looks as Crash It ostensibly and intentionally tried to run some people off the road. Perhaps their braking was a warning for him to back off. He did honk at them after all. Slow down or Merge to the next lane is better. It is alarming that instead of avoiding problems, people cause them for the purpose of videos.
Saw this on Twitter this morning and immediately thought of this thread: "How dare that pilot not see that I was driving on this road and stay out of my way!"
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1389529046778847239
If anyone made it through this entire video, which only shows one thing... his misunderstanding of traffic laws... It was also noticed that he decided to pass the vehicle, then quickly merge back into the right lane clearly not giving enough distance between him and the person behind him.
I've also learned two things. He often says the other camera image that he has available isn't relevant, even though he tends to have no problem showing irrelevant portions of other videos.
And: how did that court case go?
Quote from: In_Correct on May 04, 2021, 07:52:18 AM
It looks as Crash It ostensibly and intentionally tried to run some people off the road.
This.
Road rage is not excusable by the other driver's mistake.
It bears to repeat my rants on this subject: both adaptive cruise control and autonomous control have a significant safety issue related to providing safe braking distance behind another vehicle entering traffic at an on-ramp or merge point. It appears that both systems have been intentionally designed to mimic the qualities of traditional cruise control in this manner.
The OP does not appear to be driving at an excessive speed in this video, but I'm seeing many more cases of folks setting their cruise speed way above the speed limit. Then in approach to an on-ramp, one of two things occurs: (A) the offending vehicle on ACC ratchets up the speed whenever other vehicles switch lanes to make room for merging traffic; or (B) the driver of and offending vehicle on ACC intentionally switches over to the right lane after other vehicles move left to make room for merging traffic. In both cases, the ACC requests full acceleration instead of anticipating that the merging vehicle is positioned to "take the gap".
Sometime in the early 1980s, the driverless train industry switched over to assuming full train acceleration as part of safe braking distance calculations. The affect of full acceleration in advance of detection of the need for brake application, and then changing the rate of acceleration over to the rate of deceleration, all results in significantly longer safe braking distances. The same concept applies here.
Why is this in Photos Videos, and More?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 07:30:58 PM
Why is this in Photos Videos, and More?
It's not a photo, but it is a video and more.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 07:30:58 PM
Why is this in Photos Videos, and More?
Because a narcissistic wants his channel to be viewed.
To the OP:
Think about this. A forum of dozens of people from all over the country, of all different ages, with driving experience ranging from relatively little to very extensive, several of whom have studied the pertinent traffic laws in detail, who bring various personalities and temperaments and worldviews to the table–almost unanimously and unwaveringly describe the circumstances you capture on video and share with us as being normal, commonplace driving situations, the sort of thing a good driver should expect to see and account for; and, as far as I can recall, have without exception described your reactions behind the wheel as the most hazardous factor in each one we've seen.
That should give you pause and prompt you to reevaluate your outlook. This is not just a couple of guys chatting in the break room at work. Rather, this forum is a cross-section of those most interested in roads and driving in America. Take the opinions expressed here seriously.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 03, 2021, 11:57:04 PM
This isn't the first time you've been objectively wrong. But you're blatantly objectively wrong. If you expect to drive with a cruise setting on an urban freeway, you don't know the first thing about driving in traffic. If you don't know that freeway traffic has to provide a space for onramp traffic to get on, either by slowing down or moving a lane to the left, then you don't know how to drive on a freeway. The world would probably benefit if you stopped doing both.
It is the responsibility of traffic merging to match the speed and safely fit into a gap. This simply was not the case. See this article
https://www.defensivedriving.com/safe-driver-resources/how-to-merge-into-traffic/#:~:text=How%20To%20Merge%20Into%20Traffic%201%20First%2C%20identify,change%20lanes%20at%20some%20point.%20More%20items...%20
Given that, the Illinois statute that defines it as well as what this cop that I know personally says (who.. By the way is the top cop in Lake County) the BMW driver is totally at fault.
Plus, I've taken that onramp in cars that are weaker than my current one and have not had an issue with getting up to speed. There simply was no reason for that BMW to be going so slowly and then braking other than just flat out not knowing how to drive.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 05, 2021, 10:37:52 AM
Given that, the Illinois statute that defines it ... the BMW driver is totally at fault.
What statute? The one we've already quoted on here that says it's the responsibility of
both drivers?
Quote from: Crash_It on May 05, 2021, 10:37:52 AM
... as well as what this cop that I know personally says (who.. By the way is the top cop in Lake County) ...
Cops get it wrong sometimes. I once received an e-mailed apology from the deputy chief of police in Wheaton, because a cop had gotten the law wrong and I e-mailed the department later to ask what I did wrong. (Might have been DuPage County, can't remember for sure if it was a local cop or a sheriff.)
Quote from: Crash_It on May 05, 2021, 10:37:52 AM
Plus, I've taken that onramp in cars that are weaker than my current one and have not had an issue with getting up to speed. There simply was no reason for that BMW to be going so slowly and then braking other than just flat out not knowing how to drive.
I think what we're saying is that the BMW driver's skills don't really matter because it takes two drivers to create conflict. This was an entirely avoidable situation that
both parties are
equally responsible for not taking action to prevent.
And if you
really want to shift blame in one direction or the other, shift it in the direction of the guy who had the greater number of options, including the option of moving left to accommodate entering traffic.
The BMW driver braked because you had forced him into a corner. Push came to shove, and so he did the defensive thing by braking.
Stuff like this is why I avoid the right lane at all times on 6+ lane freeways unless I'm within 3 miles of my exit.
As for who's responsible, my personal opinion is that Crash_It should have slowed down and not inched up to the BMW's bumper like that. You can be right, or be dead right. About the only thing the other driver did wrong was not use his turn signal. Regardless of whether or not you have the right-of-way (which in this case neither driver did under IL law), it is your responsibility to ensure that merging traffic can enter the freeway smoothly and without conflict. If you had simply slowed down even 5 MPH to allow the BMW space to merge, none of this would have happened. You need to learn how to judge safe gaps and distances, and more importantly, anticipate what is going to happen. You knew that sedan was coming in one way or the other, right? So you need to make room for them, even if you "have the right-of-way". And also, that angry pass afterwards is childish behavior. Don't do that.
This isn't the worst of the worst of driving mistakes, but don't get all worked up over what everyone is saying on here, and instead take some time to learn how to better manage freeway driving.
Around here, merging on to the freeway at 40 mph and only later speeding up to freeway speeds is extremely common. Is it right? No. Is it something to be expected, to the point where acting like it never happens would be flagrantly irresponsible? Yes.
Three observations:
1. I'll bet he gets told he's number one by a lot of other drivers.
2. I wonder how his videos would have been received on rec.autos.driving back in its heyday. There was lots of bleedover from r.a.d to m.t.r in those days. I remember Arif Khokar as being one person who took a lot of flack over his posts about his driving style.
3. The more I read about adaptive cruse control, the more I'm convinced I don't ever want it. I love regular cruise control as a means of maintaining a relatively-constant speed on the open road. Having a sensor system adjusting my speed on its own to conform to certain predetermined vehicle spacing parameters isn't what I want cruise control for. I'm capable of braking on my own.
Quote from: webny99 on May 05, 2021, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 05, 2021, 10:37:52 AM
Plus, I've taken that onramp in cars that are weaker than my current one and have not had an issue with getting up to speed. There simply was no reason for that BMW to be going so slowly and then braking other than just flat out not knowing how to drive.
I think what we're saying is that the BMW driver's skills don't really matter because it takes two drivers to create conflict. This was an entirely avoidable situation that both parties are equally responsible for not taking action to prevent.
And if you really want to shift blame in one direction or the other, shift it in the direction of the guy who had the greater number of options, including the option of moving left to accommodate entering traffic.
You cannot enter an interstate unless you can drive at the minimum speed which is what the BMW driver was not doing... therefore, he is more at fault. If he hadn't clashed with me, he would've done so with others because of his unlawfully slow speed.
Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2021, 12:47:01 PM
Around here, merging on to the freeway at 40 mph and only later speeding up to freeway speeds is extremely common. Is it right? No. Is it something to be expected, to the point where acting like it never happens would be flagrantly irresponsible? Yes.
I know it happens all the time which is why normally I'm in the second from right lane unless I have to exit soon... such was the case here
Quote from: Crash_It on May 06, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 05, 2021, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 05, 2021, 10:37:52 AM
Plus, I've taken that onramp in cars that are weaker than my current one and have not had an issue with getting up to speed. There simply was no reason for that BMW to be going so slowly and then braking other than just flat out not knowing how to drive.
I think what we're saying is that the BMW driver's skills don't really matter because it takes two drivers to create conflict. This was an entirely avoidable situation that both parties are equally responsible for not taking action to prevent.
And if you really want to shift blame in one direction or the other, shift it in the direction of the guy who had the greater number of options, including the option of moving left to accommodate entering traffic.
You cannot enter an interstate unless you can drive at the minimum speed which is what the BMW driver was not doing... therefore, he is more at fault. If he hadn't clashed with me, he would've done so with others because of his unlawfully slow speed.
I'm not sure if the road you're on has an actual minimum speed limit, but even if it does, I very strongly suspect that he would have reached that speed if you had moved over. It looks to me like he was being cautious because he wasn't sure what you were up to, not erratic.
Quote from: webny99 on May 06, 2021, 08:19:11 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 06, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 05, 2021, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 05, 2021, 10:37:52 AM
Plus, I've taken that onramp in cars that are weaker than my current one and have not had an issue with getting up to speed. There simply was no reason for that BMW to be going so slowly and then braking other than just flat out not knowing how to drive.
I think what we're saying is that the BMW driver's skills don't really matter because it takes two drivers to create conflict. This was an entirely avoidable situation that both parties are equally responsible for not taking action to prevent.
And if you really want to shift blame in one direction or the other, shift it in the direction of the guy who had the greater number of options, including the option of moving left to accommodate entering traffic.
You cannot enter an interstate unless you can drive at the minimum speed which is what the BMW driver was not doing... therefore, he is more at fault. If he hadn't clashed with me, he would've done so with others because of his unlawfully slow speed.
I'm not sure if the road you're on has an actual minimum speed limit, but even if it does, I very strongly suspect that he would have reached that speed if you had moved over.
Also, he doesn't know what the word "cannot" means. Of course you "can" enter the Interstate if you're going below the posted minimum. Whether you're "supposed to" is another question, but we know people both "can" and "do" do things they're not "supposed to" all the time (like the guy I saw in my neighborhood last night who used the bike lane to pass two cars going the speed limit–right as two pedestrians were walking in the bike lane to avoid someone on the sidewalk who had a big dog).
Crash_It wouldn't do too well at all in certain Deep South states where drivers assume you will move over to make room at onramps, regardless of what "the law" might say.
I'm not sure who's worse, Crash_It or a certain someone who's been out of control on the Fictional Highways side recently, but I suspect Crash_It simply chooses to be a troll and the other user in question has a different reason for that behavior.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 06, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
If he hadn't clashed with me, he would've done so with others because of his unlawfully slow speed.
Oh please, give up the "unlawfully slow" . The person was accelerating onto the highway and hadn't reached full speed yet. Any other reasonably driver he would've "clashed" with would've slowed off and let him in or sped past him, and moved on with their day, instead of going out of the way, pulling dashcam footage, doing a whole research project on state laws he might have violated, and uploaded it to YouTube then expected all this positive feedback.
I've ran into those type of merging situations countless times, and 99% of the time anticipating it and slowing off when the entering car is visible, letting them merge, then either speeding up with them or passing when possible, isn't an issue.
I could only imagine if that was an 18-wheeler. I suppose he should be written a ticket because he's fully loaded truck couldn't reach 45 mph coming on that short ramp.
Quote from: Crash_It on May 06, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
You cannot enter an interstate unless you can drive at the minimum speed which is what the BMW driver was not doing... therefore, he is more at fault.
Even subconsciously you're agreeing with most of the criticism directed towards you.
Fault is not a binary either/or concept. Most of the time, in two-vehicle incidents, both drivers are at least partially at fault, as there are actions they could have reasonably taken that would have produced a different outcome.
There's no reason to get upset over that reality. Humans are not perfect. The problem arises when people cannot grasp the possibility that they made a mistake and learn from the experience.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 06, 2021, 08:52:48 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 06, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
You cannot enter an interstate unless you can drive at the minimum speed which is what the BMW driver was not doing... therefore, he is more at fault.
Even subconsciously you're agreeing with most of the criticism directed towards you.
Fault is not a binary either/or concept. Most of the time, in two-vehicle incidents, both drivers are at least partially at fault, as there are actions they could have reasonably taken that would have produced a different outcome.
There's no reason to get upset over that reality. Humans are not perfect. The problem arises when people cannot grasp the possibility that they made a mistake and learn from the experience.
The last sentence is so true. People seem to have lost the feeling of being humble and go on their business as if the event did not happen.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 06, 2021, 08:59:03 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 06, 2021, 08:52:48 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 06, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
You cannot enter an interstate unless you can drive at the minimum speed which is what the BMW driver was not doing... therefore, he is more at fault.
Even subconsciously you're agreeing with most of the criticism directed towards you.
Fault is not a binary either/or concept. Most of the time, in two-vehicle incidents, both drivers are at least partially at fault, as there are actions they could have reasonably taken that would have produced a different outcome.
There's no reason to get upset over that reality. Humans are not perfect. The problem arises when people cannot grasp the possibility that they made a mistake and learn from the experience.
The last sentence is so true. People seem to have lost the feeling of being humble and go on their business as if the event did not happen.
Someone who was giving me my early driving lessons was more blunt:
"you are not the only idiot on the road, others make mistakes as well". That concept served me well ever since.
Quote from: webny99 on May 06, 2021, 08:19:11 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 06, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
You cannot enter an interstate unless you can drive at the minimum speed which is what the BMW driver was not doing... therefore, he is more at fault. If he hadn't clashed with me, he would've done so with others because of his unlawfully slow speed.
I'm not sure if the road you're on has an actual minimum speed limit ...
It doesn't.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2021, 08:43:50 AM
Oh please, give up the "unlawfully slow" . The person was accelerating onto the highway and hadn't reached full speed yet.
Yep, exactly. If there hadn't been an intimidating driver in the right lane, they probably would have accelerated more confidently, might even have made it up to the minimum speed limit–which, as pointed out, doesn't exist to begin with.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2021, 09:30:57 AM
BTW, how did the court case go?
see here
https://youtu.be/HWH7RWBQQIM
I will always get over to let someone in easily if I can. If I can't I speed up or slow down to whatever is the most appropriate to make it easy for them. However the ones who see the 100 feet behind me open who speed up to get ahead of me drive me crazy.
I hate being behind Semi's getting on the interstate because I know they won't get up to spend especially a loop ramp
SM-G950U
You don't really know what is up in the other driver's car. Did the other driver not see you? Did the car suffer a sudden mechanical failure? You don't know, and that's why you have a legal and moral responsibility not to threaten the other driver with a collision.
We are still on this Crash_It stuff?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 25, 2021, 11:06:53 PM
We are still on this Crash_It stuff?
Isn't it like people standing around looking at....a crash.
I saw someone end their life by an improper merge. There is a large merge from TN 396 to I-65 north that goes on for a good distance. A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point. Keep in mind there is like a good mile to make this movement. It starts out as two lanes going into two lanes until it is one lane going to two to the final two lanes. The right lane runners keep running the right lane until they cannot any longer. This causes traffic slow downs.
I cannot believe that people just cannot see this for what it is. If folks would merge as soon as possible then they would not choke up the highway such as they do. Traffic can come to a standstill due to this. Going back to the man that lost his life. He decided to be a right lane run all the way to the must merge point and then tried slingshot across the "fast lane" to get ahead of the game like so many others. Well needless to say that he miscalculated the space available and then proceeded to plant himself into his own car by the collision he just caused and he was gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7488561,-86.8707593,3a,75y,13.12h,80.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.031876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7488561,-86.8707593,3a,75y,13.12h,80.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.031876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2021, 08:15:50 AM
I saw someone end their life by an improper merge. There is a large merge from TN 396 to I-65 north that goes on for a good distance. A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point. Keep in mind there is like a good mile to make this movement. It starts out as two lanes going into two lanes until it is one lane going to two to the final two lanes. The right lane runners keep running the right lane until they cannot any longer. This causes traffic slow downs.
I cannot believe that people just cannot see this for what it is. If folks would merge as soon as possible then they would not choke up the highway such as they do. Traffic can come to a standstill due to this. Going back to the man that lost his life. He decided to be a right lane run all the way to the must merge point and then tried slingshot across the "fast lane" to get ahead of the game like so many others. Well needless to say that he miscalculated the space available and then proceeded to plant himself into his own car by the collision he just caused and he was gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7488561,-86.8707593,3a,75y,13.12h,80.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.031876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7488561,-86.8707593,3a,75y,13.12h,80.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.031876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Have you ever heard of a zipper merge? :pan:
QuoteI cannot believe that people just cannot see this for what it is. If folks would merge as soon as possible then they would not choke up the highway such as they do. Traffic can come to a standstill due to this.
If folks would merge as soon as possible, the highway would be choked up
more. Running until the end then zippering in
lessens the congestion. They are doing it right. You're doing it wrong.
Additionally, you mention traffic congestion is an issue. Aren't you similarly opposed to highway widening on this segment of I-65 that would reduce that congestion? Kind of seems counterintuitive.
It appears I-65 needs to be widened from 4 to 8 lanes between I-840 and TN-396.
Quote from: ibthebigd on May 25, 2021, 07:12:23 PM
I hate being behind Semi's getting on the interstate because I know they won't get up to spend especially a loop ramp
When there's a slow-moving truck in front of me on an on-ramp, I hang back at low speed for a while to let him get farther ahead. Then, for about the last half of the on-ramp, I accelerate pretty quickly, such that I'm gaining decent ground on him by the end of the on-ramp.
If there's an opportunity to quickly dart around him in the left lane, then it's a win. If there isn't, then I slow back down again and am none the worse for it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 05:59:01 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2021, 08:15:50 AM
I saw someone end their life by an improper merge. There is a large merge from TN 396 to I-65 north that goes on for a good distance. A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point. Keep in mind there is like a good mile to make this movement. It starts out as two lanes going into two lanes until it is one lane going to two to the final two lanes. The right lane runners keep running the right lane until they cannot any longer. This causes traffic slow downs.
I cannot believe that people just cannot see this for what it is. If folks would merge as soon as possible then they would not choke up the highway such as they do. Traffic can come to a standstill due to this. Going back to the man that lost his life. He decided to be a right lane run all the way to the must merge point and then tried slingshot across the "fast lane" to get ahead of the game like so many others. Well needless to say that he miscalculated the space available and then proceeded to plant himself into his own car by the collision he just caused and he was gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7488561,-86.8707593,3a,75y,13.12h,80.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.031876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7488561,-86.8707593,3a,75y,13.12h,80.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuQoYnNdzZQMuDhd26pRG1A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.031876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Have you ever heard of a zipper merge? :pan:
QuoteI cannot believe that people just cannot see this for what it is. If folks would merge as soon as possible then they would not choke up the highway such as they do. Traffic can come to a standstill due to this.
If folks would merge as soon as possible, the highway would be choked up more. Running until the end then zippering in lessens the congestion. They are doing it right. You're doing it wrong.
Additionally, you mention traffic congestion is an issue. Aren't you similarly opposed to highway widening on this segment of I-65 that would reduce that congestion? Kind of seems counterintuitive.
It appears I-65 needs to be widened from 4 to 8 lanes between I-840 and TN-396.
Of course, if you're the only person "doing a zipper merge", then it's not really a zipper merge, is it? Especially if traffic has to slow down or stop to let you in. A zipper merge is about two lines of cars taking turns to merge, not about one guy passing a bunch of people and then forcing them to stop to let him in.
My methodology is, if I can merge wherever without affecting traffic, then I will merge at the end. If I can merge now without affecting traffic but have reason to believe that will change, I will merge now. If traffic is so gunked up that traffic will have to let me in no matter what, I'll merge at the end. It's people who can merge without affecting traffic but pass that opportunity by to pass the stopped traffic ahead (or because their preferred speed was simply faster than traffic was going in the first place) and then need to be let in that are annoying.
Now would things be more efficient if everyone uniformly merged in the end, in terms of vehicles per hour? Yes. But we drive in the real world where people don't do that in practice, and so need to devise our behavior accordingly.
Quote from: vdeane on May 28, 2021, 08:23:34 PM
Now would things be more efficient if everyone uniformly merged in the end, in terms of vehicles per hour? Yes.
Has this actually been scientifically shown to be true? Despite all the conversations we've had on here about the zipper merge, and as much as I'm in favor of it, I can't recall having seen anyone link to a study showing it to be
proven more efficient in any metric.
https://itre.ncsu.edu/itre-studying-how-zipper-merges-reduce-congestion-at-sites-across-north-carolina/
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2602&context=ktc_researchreports
This definitely bears repeating for anyone who did not see it:
Quote from: kphoger on May 05, 2021, 09:24:29 AM
To the OP:
Think about this. A forum of dozens of people from all over the country, of all different ages, with driving experience ranging from relatively little to very extensive, several of whom have studied the pertinent traffic laws in detail, who bring various personalities and temperaments and worldviews to the table–almost unanimously and unwaveringly describe the circumstances you capture on video and share with us as being normal, commonplace driving situations, the sort of thing a good driver should expect to see and account for; and, as far as I can recall, have without exception described your reactions behind the wheel as the most hazardous factor in each one we've seen.
That should give you pause and prompt you to reevaluate your outlook. This is not just a couple of guys chatting in the break room at work. Rather, this forum is a cross-section of those most interested in roads and driving in America. Take the opinions expressed here seriously.
This sums up perfectly what I have observed across |crash_it|'s thread littering: total disregard for any opinion that is not his. What makes an already bad driver even worse is failure to recognize when they have committed an error of their own. It may take some time, since humans are naturally stubborn, but eventually they must begin to wonder why they have so much content for their bad-driving YouTube channel (hint: I think he's making poor judgements on purpose!)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2021, 08:15:50 AM
A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point
If there's not already an existing name to describe an issue, I'd likely call it more a personal problem than a societal one.
Ok, admittedly, I'm not really an experienced driver, I've only had a license for a little over a year. But I believe the technical term for people who refuse to move over to let someone merge on the highway is an asshole. If I'm driving and I see someone merging, if I can move over, I do. (It seems you had ample room to do so.) If I can't move over, I slow down (if the car is ahead of me) or speed up (if behind me) so that they can get in without an issue. Am I legally required to do this under Pennsylvania law? I have no idea. But it's called courtesy - I do it every time and I appreciate it when others do it for me - and it makes the road safer for everyone.
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2021, 09:37:19 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 28, 2021, 08:23:34 PM
Now would things be more efficient if everyone uniformly merged in the end, in terms of vehicles per hour? Yes.
Has this actually been scientifically shown to be true? Despite all the conversations we've had on here about the zipper merge, and as much as I'm in favor of it, I can't recall having seen anyone link to a study showing it to be proven more efficient in any metric.
Well, there is one reason to use wide backups - it reduces backup length possibly clearing upstream exits. Throughput of last second merge in congestion mode is worse, obviously
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2021, 09:57:10 PM
https://itre.ncsu.edu/itre-studying-how-zipper-merges-reduce-congestion-at-sites-across-north-carolina/
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2602&context=ktc_researchreports
Usually when it is studied, it's because they are looking for ways to reduce already-existing congestion. Sometimes a formal research study will state that assumption, but a lot of times they won't.
But there are also merges that are not congested. Going all the way to the merge point on those would just cause congestion in what was otherwise free-flowing traffic. The correct move is to maintain speed and merge at the first safe opportunity.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2021, 01:46:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2021, 08:15:50 AM
A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point
If there's not already an existing name to describe an issue, I'd likely call it more a personal problem than a societal one.
I say if one was to merge as soon as safely permitted it was ease traffic concerns.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 01, 2021, 08:06:52 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2021, 01:46:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2021, 08:15:50 AM
A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point
If there's not already an existing name to describe an issue, I'd likely call it more a personal problem than a societal one.
I say if one was to merge as soon as safely permitted it was ease traffic concerns.
What situation are you describing? An on ramp lane coming into a mainline that's already backed up?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 01, 2021, 08:51:25 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 01, 2021, 08:06:52 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2021, 01:46:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2021, 08:15:50 AM
A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point
If there's not already an existing name to describe an issue, I'd likely call it more a personal problem than a societal one.
I say if one was to merge as soon as safely permitted it was ease traffic concerns.
What situation are you describing? An on ramp lane coming into a mainline that's already backed up?
Negative. This is the beginning of the back-up. The traffic flow moving is free-flowing up to SR 396. The problem is that the right lane runners wait until the last minute to merge causing the back-up.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 29, 2021, 02:06:28 PM
Ok, admittedly, I'm not really an experienced driver, I've only had a license for a little over a year. But I believe the technical term for people who refuse to move over to let someone merge on the highway is an asshole.
People who, when merging, fully expect everyone else to move out of their way to accommodate them: those should be labeled the same.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 01, 2021, 08:06:52 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2021, 01:46:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2021, 08:15:50 AM
A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point
If there's not already an existing name to describe an issue, I'd likely call it more a personal problem than a societal one.
I say if one was to merge as soon as safely permitted it was ease traffic concerns.
So if we all merged when you deem appropriate, it would be fine then.
All hail king Avalanchez71!
The problem with your approach is the vagueness of where "as soon as safely permitted" would be; the safest point literally changes from driver to driver, perspective to perspective. Some may just deem it inappropriate to ever use lanes that end under your guidance.
Luckily, our DOTs are aware of these issues, so they established a merge point
for us: where the lane tapers and the arrows point left or right. Merging at this point maximizes roadway capacity, minimizes confusion around "the right place to merge", and maximizes safety as drivers know *this* point is where they need to watch for merging traffic.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 08:22:40 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 01, 2021, 08:06:52 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2021, 01:46:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2021, 08:15:50 AM
A typical day consists of what I call right lane runners running the right lane all the way to the merge point
If there's not already an existing name to describe an issue, I'd likely call it more a personal problem than a societal one.
I say if one was to merge as soon as safely permitted it was ease traffic concerns.
So if we all merged when you deem appropriate, it would be fine then. All hail king Avalanchez71!
The problem with your approach is the vagueness of where "as soon as safely permitted" would be; the safest point literally changes from driver to driver, perspective to perspective. Some may just deem it inappropriate to ever use lanes that end under your guidance.
Luckily, our DOTs are aware of these issues, so they established a merge point for us: where the lane tapers and the arrows point left or right. Merging at this point maximizes roadway capacity, minimizes confusion around "the right place to merge", and maximizes safety as drivers know *this* point is where they need to watch for merging traffic.
While a very well versed statement, one should take it with a grain - or rather teaspoon of salt and be prepared to dump a bucket of bullshit out of it. Merging at the last second may work fine while traffic is still free flowing throughout - and then it really makes little difference; but last second merge obviously makes things worse in congested flow.
Quote from: kalvado on June 02, 2021, 08:27:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 08:22:40 PM
So if we all merged when you deem appropriate, it would be fine then. All hail king Avalanchez71!
The problem with your approach is the vagueness of where "as soon as safely permitted" would be; the safest point literally changes from driver to driver, perspective to perspective. Some may just deem it inappropriate to ever use lanes that end under your guidance.
Luckily, our DOTs are aware of these issues, so they established a merge point for us: where the lane tapers and the arrows point left or right. Merging at this point maximizes roadway capacity, minimizes confusion around "the right place to merge", and maximizes safety as drivers know *this* point is where they need to watch for merging traffic.
While a very well versed statement, one should take it with a grain - or rather teaspoon of salt and be prepared to dump a bucket of bullshit out of it. Merging at the last second may work fine while traffic is still free flowing throughout - and then it really makes little difference; but last second merge obviously makes things worse in congested flow.
Speaking of grains: I've never seen a grain of evidence to support that statement.
I don't think there is anything "obvious" about which is more correct. I can see the logic behind merging when there is an "opportunity" (again -- very vague -- usually a bad thing when speaking about driving), but I can also see the bigger picture which is that congestion is not
usually caused by the merge itself; at I-705 & I-5 in Tacoma, it's lane changing between auxiliary lanes post-merge that causes the backups, not the lane-drops on I-705. Drivers gain nothing by merging "early" because the lane-drop is not the source of congestion.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 09:08:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 02, 2021, 08:27:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 08:22:40 PM
So if we all merged when you deem appropriate, it would be fine then. All hail king Avalanchez71!
The problem with your approach is the vagueness of where "as soon as safely permitted" would be; the safest point literally changes from driver to driver, perspective to perspective. Some may just deem it inappropriate to ever use lanes that end under your guidance.
Luckily, our DOTs are aware of these issues, so they established a merge point for us: where the lane tapers and the arrows point left or right. Merging at this point maximizes roadway capacity, minimizes confusion around "the right place to merge", and maximizes safety as drivers know *this* point is where they need to watch for merging traffic.
While a very well versed statement, one should take it with a grain - or rather teaspoon of salt and be prepared to dump a bucket of bullshit out of it. Merging at the last second may work fine while traffic is still free flowing throughout - and then it really makes little difference; but last second merge obviously makes things worse in congested flow.
Speaking of grains: I've never seen a grain of evidence to support that statement.
I don't think there is anything "obvious" about which is more correct. I can see the logic behind merging when there is an "opportunity" (again -- very vague -- usually a bad thing when speaking about driving), but I can also see the bigger picture which is that congestion is not usually caused by the merge itself; at I-705 & I-5 in Tacoma, it's lane changing between auxiliary lanes post-merge that causes the backups, not the lane-drops on I-705. Drivers gain nothing by merging "early" because the lane-drop is not the source of congestion.
OK, so what is the mechanism of congestion from the bigger picture point of view?
Quote from: kalvado on June 02, 2021, 10:02:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 09:08:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 02, 2021, 08:27:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 08:22:40 PM
So if we all merged when you deem appropriate, it would be fine then. All hail king Avalanchez71!
The problem with your approach is the vagueness of where "as soon as safely permitted" would be; the safest point literally changes from driver to driver, perspective to perspective. Some may just deem it inappropriate to ever use lanes that end under your guidance.
Luckily, our DOTs are aware of these issues, so they established a merge point for us: where the lane tapers and the arrows point left or right. Merging at this point maximizes roadway capacity, minimizes confusion around "the right place to merge", and maximizes safety as drivers know *this* point is where they need to watch for merging traffic.
While a very well versed statement, one should take it with a grain - or rather teaspoon of salt and be prepared to dump a bucket of bullshit out of it. Merging at the last second may work fine while traffic is still free flowing throughout - and then it really makes little difference; but last second merge obviously makes things worse in congested flow.
Speaking of grains: I've never seen a grain of evidence to support that statement.
I don't think there is anything "obvious" about which is more correct. I can see the logic behind merging when there is an "opportunity" (again -- very vague -- usually a bad thing when speaking about driving), but I can also see the bigger picture which is that congestion is not usually caused by the merge itself; at I-705 & I-5 in Tacoma, it's lane changing between auxiliary lanes post-merge that causes the backups, not the lane-drops on I-705. Drivers gain nothing by merging "early" because the lane-drop is not the source of congestion.
OK, so what is the mechanism of congestion from the bigger picture point of view?
Demand outstripping supply. That could mean two lanes instead of three, or a weave where there should be a flyover.
As to how ending a lane somehow
doesn't create congestion (even if the congestion is masked by something worse down the road): lane drops clearly reduce roadway capacity. It can create a simpler environment with fewer lane changes, but that does not mean less congestion, just more cars in one lane. You could theoretically paint off the lane, eliminating the merge, but that does not increase capacity, and is likely to create a more congested environment somewhere else. Lanes comes from somewhere, and must go somewhere too; that 'somewhere' is usually that lane-drop we love to hate.
If you don't support the concept of merging at the point of the lane drop, you must then support merging before the lane drop, or eliminating the lane drop altogether. Assuming you intend to support the first (merging before), you are not providing any evidence of (a) where drivers should merge instead, (b) how merging there is superior to merging at the lane drop, and (c) how capacity is somehow diminished by drivers using all available lane space.
The problem I have with those who do not support zipper merging is that they seem to live in this fantasy world where everyone could merge at exactly the perfect time, creating no congestion... :spin: This is total and complete fantasy. The vast majority of drivers are spectacularly awful at doing even the most mundane things like maintaining a lane or using their blinker; you honestly expect them to be able to calculate, at-speed, the exact perfect time to merge relative to number of lanes, distance to lane drop, and number of cars? Come on. Zipper merging is the best we can do with what we were given; we were given a plate full of ass-tastic drivers who can barely understand the concept of taking turns to begin with -- it's literally the most we could ever hope for.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2021, 02:04:43 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 02, 2021, 10:02:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 09:08:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 02, 2021, 08:27:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 08:22:40 PM
So if we all merged when you deem appropriate, it would be fine then. All hail king Avalanchez71!
The problem with your approach is the vagueness of where "as soon as safely permitted" would be; the safest point literally changes from driver to driver, perspective to perspective. Some may just deem it inappropriate to ever use lanes that end under your guidance.
Luckily, our DOTs are aware of these issues, so they established a merge point for us: where the lane tapers and the arrows point left or right. Merging at this point maximizes roadway capacity, minimizes confusion around "the right place to merge", and maximizes safety as drivers know *this* point is where they need to watch for merging traffic.
While a very well versed statement, one should take it with a grain - or rather teaspoon of salt and be prepared to dump a bucket of bullshit out of it. Merging at the last second may work fine while traffic is still free flowing throughout - and then it really makes little difference; but last second merge obviously makes things worse in congested flow.
Speaking of grains: I've never seen a grain of evidence to support that statement.
I don't think there is anything "obvious" about which is more correct. I can see the logic behind merging when there is an "opportunity" (again -- very vague -- usually a bad thing when speaking about driving), but I can also see the bigger picture which is that congestion is not usually caused by the merge itself; at I-705 & I-5 in Tacoma, it's lane changing between auxiliary lanes post-merge that causes the backups, not the lane-drops on I-705. Drivers gain nothing by merging "early" because the lane-drop is not the source of congestion.
OK, so what is the mechanism of congestion from the bigger picture point of view?
Demand outstripping supply. That could mean two lanes instead of three, or a weave where there should be a flyover.
As to how ending a lane somehow doesn't create congestion (even if the congestion is masked by something worse down the road): lane drops clearly reduce roadway capacity. It can create a simpler environment with fewer lane changes, but that does not mean less congestion, just more cars in one lane. You could theoretically paint off the lane, eliminating the merge, but that does not increase capacity, and is likely to create a more congested environment somewhere else. Lanes comes from somewhere, and must go somewhere too; that 'somewhere' is usually that lane-drop we love to hate.
If you don't support the concept of merging at the point of the lane drop, you must then support merging before the lane drop, or eliminating the lane drop altogether. Assuming you intend to support the first (merging before), you are not providing any evidence of (a) where drivers should merge instead, (b) how merging there is superior to merging at the lane drop, and (c) how capacity is somehow diminished by drivers using all available lane space.
The problem I have with those who do not support zipper merging is that they seem to live in this fantasy world where everyone could merge at exactly the perfect time, creating no congestion... :spin: This is total and complete fantasy. The vast majority of drivers are spectacularly awful at doing even the most mundane things like maintaining a lane or using their blinker; you honestly expect them to be able to calculate, at-speed, the exact perfect time to merge relative to number of lanes, distance to lane drop, and number of cars? Come on. Zipper merging is the best we can do with what we were given; we were given a plate full of ass-tastic drivers who can barely understand the concept of taking turns to begin with -- it's literally the most we could ever hope for.
I thought you were studying urban design, not philosophy? Reducing an issue to a paradox was a fashionable thing in the ancient world, possibly even earning you a textbook mention of "Jakeroot's paradox". By now most of them are resolved by mathematical logic, though, so let's try doing that.
"Supply and demand" is a good answer. "
momentary supply and demand" would be a great one. "momentary supply and demand in a situation of perishable supply and inelastic demand" for an extra credit.
So, why lane change affects "supply and demand" ratio?
PS: extra credit for considering supply and demand question in a context of "> like" traffic throughput curve
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 07:11:41 AM
I thought you were studying urban design, not philosophy? Reducing an issue to a paradox was a fashionable thing in the ancient world, possibly even earning you a textbook mention of "Jakeroot's paradox". By now most of them are resolved by mathematical logic, though, so let's try doing that.
"Supply and demand" is a good answer. "momentary supply and demand" would be a great one. "momentary supply and demand in a situation of perishable supply and inelastic demand" for an extra credit.
So, why lane change affects "supply and demand" ratio?
PS: extra credit for considering supply and demand question in a context of "> like" traffic throughput curve
1. Proof by contradiction isn't for the ancient world only, and it
is mathematical logic.
2. Supply decreases when you lose a lane.
The opportunity to get ahead of the other guy causes congestion. I have sat and watched this occur over and over. The right lane runner runs the right lane as it is at that point the fast lane. As soon as the lane runs out the right lane runner becomes a zipper and zips over to the left lane avoiding the middle lanes causes a sea of break lights.
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2021, 07:16:48 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 07:11:41 AM
I thought you were studying urban design, not philosophy? Reducing an issue to a paradox was a fashionable thing in the ancient world, possibly even earning you a textbook mention of "Jakeroot's paradox". By now most of them are resolved by mathematical logic, though, so let's try doing that.
"Supply and demand" is a good answer. "momentary supply and demand" would be a great one. "momentary supply and demand in a situation of perishable supply and inelastic demand" for an extra credit.
So, why lane change affects "supply and demand" ratio?
PS: extra credit for considering supply and demand question in a context of "> like" traffic throughput curve
1. Proof by contradiction isn't for the ancient world only, and it is mathematical logic.
2. Supply decreases when you lose a lane.
1. if done properly.
2. Not the question I asked.
The question was specifically in response to
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2021, 09:08:31 PM
I can also see the bigger picture which is that congestion is not usually caused by the merge itself; at I-705 & I-5 in Tacoma, it's lane changing between auxiliary lanes post-merge that causes the backups, not the lane-drops on I-705.
Which is at least partially correct. Hence the question -
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 07:11:41 AM
So, why lane change affects "supply and demand" ratio?
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2021, 02:04:43 AM
If you don't support the concept of merging at the point of the lane drop, you must then support merging before the lane drop ... you are not providing any evidence of (a) where drivers should merge instead, (b) how merging there is superior to merging at the lane drop, and (c) how capacity is somehow diminished by drivers using all available lane space.
Very well stated.
(a) If there are opportunities to merge earlier than the end of the line, then typically the highway isn't congested enough that this is even a problem to begin with. If, on the other hand, the highway is congested enough to make this an issue, then it's likely there's
no good spot to merge.
(b) Merging late instead of early only causes problems if you have to slow way down in order to do it. This commonly happens when the continuing lane is already backed up and drivers don't leave much space between them and the next car. More on this later...
(c) Does any of this actually relate to capacity? I understand that people might get annoyed by someone using the "available lane space" and then merging over, when everyone else has chosen to merge over early. But being annoyed does not equal reduced capacity. Similarly: trading a choke point at the merge taper for a longer tailback upstream isn't necessarily a win for "congestion". We need to first define what our goal is before we can debate the best path to meeting that goal.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:24:38 AM
The right lane runner runs the right lane as it is at that point the fast lane. As soon as the lane runs out the right lane runner becomes a zipper and zips over to the left lane avoiding the middle lanes causes a sea of break lights.
Now onto where I left off with (b). This is precisely what a zipper merge is supposed to eliminate. With a true zipper merge, there is no "continuing" lane and "ending" lane. Rather, two lanes simply become one, and traffic in
both lanes take turns to make that happen. There's no "lane running", because the entire concept of "lane ends" doesn't apply to one specific lane. This way, too, there shouldn't be a problem of a driving having to slow way down or stop before merging into the continuing lane, then entering the traffic stream at 0.8 mph, because–again–there's no such thing as "the continuing lane".
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 10:55:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2021, 02:04:43 AM
If you don't support the concept of merging at the point of the lane drop, you must then support merging before the lane drop ... you are not providing any evidence of (a) where drivers should merge instead, (b) how merging there is superior to merging at the lane drop, and (c) how capacity is somehow diminished by drivers using all available lane space.
Very well stated.
(a) If there are opportunities to merge earlier than the end of the line, then typically the highway isn't congested enough that this is even a problem to begin with. If, on the other hand, the highway is congested enough to make this an issue, then it's likely there's no good spot to merge.
(b) Merging late instead of early only causes problems if you have to slow way down in order to do it. This commonly happens when the continuing lane is already backed up and drivers don't leave much space between them and the next car. More on this later...
(c) Does any of this actually relate to capacity? I understand that people might get annoyed by someone using the "available lane space" and then merging over, when everyone else has chosen to merge over early. But being annoyed does not equal reduced capacity. Similarly: trading a choke point at the merge taper for a longer tailback upstream isn't necessarily a win for "congestion". We need to first define what our goal is before we can debate the best path to meeting that goal.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 07:24:38 AM
The right lane runner runs the right lane as it is at that point the fast lane. As soon as the lane runs out the right lane runner becomes a zipper and zips over to the left lane avoiding the middle lanes causes a sea of break lights.
Now onto where I left off with (b). This is precisely what a zipper merge is supposed to eliminate. With a true zipper merge, there is no "continuing" lane and "ending" lane. Rather, two lanes simply become one, and traffic in both lanes take turns to make that happen. There's no "lane running", because the entire concept of "lane ends" doesn't apply to one specific lane. This way, too, there shouldn't be a problem of a driving having to slow way down or stop before merging into the continuing lane, then entering the traffic stream at 0.8 mph, because–again–there's no such thing as "the continuing lane".
Again - if you think about it, instead of quoting some junky DOT writeups- there is a pretty narrow set of cases where zipper is better, a lot of cases where it is about the same, and many cases where it is worse. Last second merge when general traffic merges early generally makes things worse to much worse.
If Jake helps me with derivation, there will be a full set of reasoning - and of course, everyone is welcome to join discussion. But we'll be moving slowly...
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 12:03:35 PM
Last second merge when general traffic merges early generally makes things worse to much worse.
It sounds like you're still assuming there's one "ending" lane and one "continuing" lane. Which means you still seem to misunderstand the concept of a zipper merge.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171016/b28d4d998e486ed43b288c0ee080b5ba.jpg)
For what it's worth...
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/761683/2/images/5/Existing+Merging+Problems.jpg)
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/761683/2/images/13/Problems+Inconsistent+application+Some+mixed+messages.jpg)
Oh, wait, that was some junky DOT writeup.
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 12:25:03 PM
It sounds like you're still assuming there's one "ending" lane and one "continuing" lane. Which means you still seem to misunderstand the concept of a zipper merge.
The above is a perfect introduction to me contributing the following:
There's unique signage at some merges in Maryland that are specifically geared towards encouraging zipper merging and making it clear that neither lane is "ending" versus "continuing".
The most prominent example is the I-70 EB ramp to I-695 NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.304787,-76.7474889,3a,75y,90.62h,90.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX9lGy5PP9lNDoiBfGDBD4A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en), which has to condense into one lane to squeeze thru the existing stack interchange. (Click ahead in the streetview link to see the signs at the actual "zipper" point - this ramp backs up at peak times and will continue to do so until the interchange is reconstructed, but drivers are generally good at following the signs and alternating at the actual merge point.)
Have any other states tried signage similar to this?
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 12:25:03 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 12:03:35 PM
Last second merge when general traffic merges early generally makes things worse to much worse.
It sounds like you're still assuming there's one "ending" lane and one "continuing" lane. Which means you still seem to misunderstand the concept of a zipper merge.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171016/b28d4d998e486ed43b288c0ee080b5ba.jpg)
For what it's worth...
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/761683/2/images/5/Existing+Merging+Problems.jpg)
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/761683/2/images/13/Problems+Inconsistent+application+Some+mixed+messages.jpg)
Oh, wait, that was some junky DOT writeup.
So, an excellent solution is in search of a matching problem. Or there is anything else to see?
There is no discussion in these slides. They could write "moon is made of cheese" in the same font. Of course, you may believe in that text, and in the moon made of cheese - and you're protected by the First amendment in your believes. But, really, is that the discussion level we would like to have?
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 07:11:41 AM
I thought you were studying urban design, not philosophy? Reducing an issue to a paradox was a fashionable thing in the ancient world, possibly even earning you a textbook mention of "Jakeroot's paradox". By now most of them are resolved by mathematical logic, though, so let's try doing that.
"Supply and demand" is a good answer. "momentary supply and demand" would be a great one. "momentary supply and demand in a situation of perishable supply and inelastic demand" for an extra credit.
So, why lane change affects "supply and demand" ratio?
PS: extra credit for considering supply and demand question in a context of "> like" traffic throughput curve
Trust me, this is well beyond either my undergrad or graduate degrees. I'm not trying to get overly technical with my suggestion that zipper merge is better, and I don't think I possess the mathematical skills to prove it beyond relatively crude suggestions such as 'more lanes = more capacity', or 'ending lanes early is no different than ending them later', or even 'merging is merging no matter where it is done'.
The issue, I think, with trying to use excessive levels of math to determine which is the higher capacity option is that the math only works if drivers practice the higher capacity option. I don't know what that higher/highest capacity option is, but I feel that normal drivers simply do not possess the basic level of math required to quickly determine that
NOW is the best time to merge based on a serious of not-necessarily-obvious factors, assuming that is the best option at most times. Merging at the lane-drop, and not much, if at all, sooner, is a very simple concept that I think drivers can grasp relatively fast, and it's pretty effective in terms of maintaining whatever theoretical throughput may remain when lanes have to be dropped.
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 12:03:35 PM
Last second merge when general traffic merges early generally makes things worse to much worse.
Here's a fun consideration: what about areas where general traffic zipper merges by default? There are several locations in Seattle with heavy and consistent merging during peak hours where zipper merging is the norm (
here (https://goo.gl/maps/U9gGT2Gif34HTQrS9) is a good example). How does merging early in these scenarios affect the overall flow of the merging situation? In these situations, is it beneficial to continue zipper merging with traffic, or try and change things up by merging early? As a side-note, that example will soon be replaced by a three-lane meter as evidenced by
loop detectors (https://goo.gl/maps/VdGgTUDWicWqzh63A); any drivers not zipper merging will now be forced to zipper, so to speak.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2021, 02:23:43 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 07:11:41 AM
I thought you were studying urban design, not philosophy? Reducing an issue to a paradox was a fashionable thing in the ancient world, possibly even earning you a textbook mention of "Jakeroot's paradox". By now most of them are resolved by mathematical logic, though, so let's try doing that.
"Supply and demand" is a good answer. "momentary supply and demand" would be a great one. "momentary supply and demand in a situation of perishable supply and inelastic demand" for an extra credit.
So, why lane change affects "supply and demand" ratio?
PS: extra credit for considering supply and demand question in a context of "> like" traffic throughput curve
Trust me, this is well beyond either my undergrad or graduate degrees. I'm not trying to get overly technical with my suggestion that zipper merge is better, and I don't think I possess the mathematical skills to prove it beyond relatively crude suggestions such as 'more lanes = more capacity', or 'ending lanes early is no different than ending them later', or even 'merging is merging no matter where it is done'.
The issue, I think, with trying to use excessive levels of math to determine which is the higher capacity option is that the math only works if drivers practice the higher capacity option. I don't know what that higher/highest capacity option is, but I feel that normal drivers simply do not possess the basic level of math required to quickly determine that NOW is the best time to merge based on a serious of not-necessarily-obvious factors, assuming that is the best option at most times. Merging at the lane-drop, and not much, if at all, sooner, is a very simple concept that I think drivers can grasp relatively fast, and it's pretty effective in terms of maintaining whatever theoretical throughput may remain when lanes have to be dropped.
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 12:03:35 PM
Last second merge when general traffic merges early generally makes things worse to much worse.
Here's a fun consideration: what about areas where general traffic zipper merges by default? There are several locations in Seattle with heavy and consistent merging during peak hours where zipper merging is the norm (here (https://goo.gl/maps/U9gGT2Gif34HTQrS9) is a good example). How does merging early in these scenarios affect the overall flow of the merging situation? In these situations, is it beneficial to continue zipper merging with traffic, or try and change things up by merging early? As a side-note, that example will soon be replaced by a three-lane meter as evidenced by loop detectors (https://goo.gl/maps/VdGgTUDWicWqzh63A); any drivers not zipper merging will now be forced to zipper, so to speak.
This is really simple logic, not rocket science.
Answer I was looking for is that during the lane change - and for some time before and after change - car needs a spot in both lanes, so effective demand goes up with lots of changes, hence possibly causing supply-demand ratio to trip into deficiency mode and congestion to grow. Aligning with the gap in the other lane also takes more space from the current lane "supply". Should be well within the scope, I would say!
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 02:06:48 PM
So, an excellent solution is in search of a matching problem. Or there is anything else to see?
There is no discussion in these slides. They could write "moon is made of cheese" in the same font. Of course, you may believe in that text, and in the moon made of cheese - and you're protected by the First amendment in your believes. But, really, is that the discussion level we would like to have?
So which point on those slides do you disagree with?
– Merging early creates a longer tailback? (I think you've already stated that you agree with this.)
– Rear-end crashes happen because people merge all over the place? (I assume this means the folks who slow down to a near standstill in the "empty" lane, a half-mile before it ends, to try and merge in–while other drivers approach from behind at near-highway speeds. Do you have a solution to this?)
– Drivers exhibit road rage and some straddle the line to try and "be the cop"? (I'm sure we've all witnessed this, and sometimes it leads to driving on the shoulder or tailgating.)
– Zipper merge application is inconsistent?
– Road rage isn't necessarily eliminated by implementing a zipper merge, and most people still get irritated by early mergers?
– The zipper merge is still unfamiliar to many drivers?
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 03:00:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 02:06:48 PM
So, an excellent solution is in search of a matching problem. Or there is anything else to see?
There is no discussion in these slides. They could write "moon is made of cheese" in the same font. Of course, you may believe in that text, and in the moon made of cheese - and you're protected by the First amendment in your believes. But, really, is that the discussion level we would like to have?
So which point on those slides do you disagree with?
(1) Merging early creates a longer tailback? (I think you've already stated that you agree with this.)
(2) Rear-end crashes happen because people merge all over the place? (I assume this means the folks who slow down to a near standstill in the "empty" lane, a half-mile before it ends, to try and merge in–while other drivers approach from behind at near-highway speeds. Do you have a solution to this?)
(3) Drivers exhibit road rage and some straddle the line to try and "be the cop"? (I'm sure we've all witnessed this, and sometimes it leads to driving on the shoulder or tailgating.)
(4) Zipper merge application is inconsistent?
(5) Road rage isn't necessarily eliminated by implementing a zipper merge, and most people still get irritated by early mergers?
(6) The zipper merge is still unfamiliar to many drivers?
(numbers added for the ease of reference)
1. Agreed
2. Rear end collisions may occur whenever traffic comes to a crawl from highway speed, early or late merge equally possible. So?
3. Solution: do not spread fake news about so-called "zipper" to discourage erratic behavior.
4. Solution: do not spread fake news about so-called "zipper" to encourage more consistent behavior.
5. road rage would be there whenever there is a congestion. What would cause road rage flare out is irrelevant - anything works.
6. Solution: do not spread fake news about so-called "zipper"
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 02:38:30 PM
This is really simple logic, not rocket science.
Answer I was looking for is that during the lane change - and for some time before and after change - car needs a spot in both lanes, so effective demand goes up with lots of changes, hence possibly causing supply-demand ratio to trip into deficiency mode and congestion to grow. Aligning with the gap in the other lane also takes more space from the current lane "supply". Should be well within the scope, I would say!
Okay, how about this: next time I'm upstate, let's get some coffee and we can discuss this in-real-time. I'm definitely not stubborn but I would love to chat with you about this with, say, a pen and paper.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2021, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 02:38:30 PM
This is really simple logic, not rocket science.
Answer I was looking for is that during the lane change - and for some time before and after change - car needs a spot in both lanes, so effective demand goes up with lots of changes, hence possibly causing supply-demand ratio to trip into deficiency mode and congestion to grow. Aligning with the gap in the other lane also takes more space from the current lane "supply". Should be well within the scope, I would say!
Okay, how about this: next time I'm upstate, let's get some coffee and we can discuss this in-real-time. I'm definitely not stubborn but I would love to chat with you about this with, say, a pen and paper.
Sure, let me know.
Zoom is a plan B, though
I have seen some of the early mergers block up the right lane runners that late merge. This behavior doesn't phase the right lane runner as they believe they can grab whatever spot to get going. They seem not to grasp the concept of their behavior is the cause of the back-up.
Now in the case of I-65/SR 396 merge it would be nice if in advance many of the I-65 NB travelers could move over as safe as possible to the left lane allowing the merging traffic from SR 396 to move on in I would think there would be no back-up.
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 03:00:21 PM
(2) Rear-end crashes happen because people merge all over the place? (I assume this means the folks who slow down to a near standstill in the "empty" lane, a half-mile before it ends, to try and merge in–while other drivers approach from behind at near-highway speeds. Do you have a solution to this?)
2. Rear end collisions may occur whenever traffic comes to a crawl from highway speed, early or late merge equally possible. So?
So, if both lanes are being utilized equally until the merge point, then the situation I described is eliminated. And, if the tailback is going to happen regardless, and rear-end collisions are prone to happen my mere fact of that tailback, then the two are not "equally possible".
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 03, 2021, 03:22:58 PM
I have seen some of the early mergers block up the right lane runners that late merge. This behavior doesn't phase the right lane runner as they believe they can grab whatever spot to get going. They seem not to grasp the concept of their behavior is the cause of the back-up.
It isn't necessarily the cause of the backup. The cause of the backup is all the traffic going through half the lane-space.
There have been plenty of times that I've driven to almost the end of the merge point, found a decent space to merge in, and caused zero congestion that wasn't already there. No disadvantage compared to moving over at first sign of the tailback.
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 03:23:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 03:00:21 PM
(2) Rear-end crashes happen because people merge all over the place? (I assume this means the folks who slow down to a near standstill in the "empty" lane, a half-mile before it ends, to try and merge in–while other drivers approach from behind at near-highway speeds. Do you have a solution to this?)
2. Rear end collisions may occur whenever traffic comes to a crawl from highway speed, early or late merge equally possible. So?
So, if both lanes are being utilized equally until the merge point, then the situation I described is eliminated. And, if the tailback is going to happen regardless, and rear-end collisions are prone to happen my mere fact of that tailback, then the two are not "equally possible".
So, what is the difference between "running into a car stopped in want-to-merge spot" and "car stopped at the end of the queue"?
Idiots running full speed past a backup AND failing to realize there is a problem to watch out for AND rear-ending other cars after all that are totally at fault in such accidents, though.
The difference is that a stopped car in an otherwise open lane is more unexpected than a stopped car at the end of a merging lane.
It seems we're talking about two different things here -- merging onto a freeway from an entrance ramp (the original subject of this thread) -- and merging at temporary lane closures due to construction.
In years past, I wanted to know which lane was closed and which was open well in advance of the closure. I would actually advocate for signs as far back as 5 or 10 miles if backups were common at the merge point. When I encountered this during a work zone on I-64 when I was commuting between Winchester and Frankfort, I moved into the open lane as soon as possible when I approached the lane closure, and got irked at the people who ran in the closing lane all the way up to the merge point and then bullied their way into the open lane. I got infuriated one day when they changed the closed lanes, I did not know, and got caught in the closing lane and had difficulty getting into the open lane.
In cases like these, especially where slowdowns or stoppages are common, a zipper merge makes sense. You avoid one lane being backed up and people flying along in the soon-to-be-closed lane and then shoving their way into line (or using their signal and hoping some nice motorist will let them in).
I'm pretty sure I have seen examples of places where, well in advance of a lane closure, signs pointed out that it was illegal to continue in that lane beyond a certain point.
All of this is different than a merge from an on-ramp, where generally the traffic already on the freeway has the ROW and the entering traffic has to yield if necessary.
Kentucky doesn't frequently use zipper merges. I've seen them promoted in a handful of projects, but haven't seen any applicable signage here.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2021, 04:24:08 PM
I'm pretty sure I have seen examples of places where, well in advance of a lane closure, signs pointed out that it was illegal to continue in that lane beyond a certain point.
Oklahoma likes to do that. "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW". My question is this: if it's illegal not to merge, then why is the lane beyond that point even
open?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2021, 04:24:08 PM
All of this is different than a merge from an on-ramp, where generally the traffic already on the freeway has the ROW and the entering traffic has to yield if necessary.
I've pointed this out elsewhere, but that isn't necessarily the law. In Illinois (location of the OP), to reiterate:
Quote from: kphoger on May 03, 2021, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
The law says, and I quote (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-905.htm):
At an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
Correct. Under Illinois state law, it is not only the responsibility of the driver entering the highway to adjust his speed. It is also the responsibility of the driver already on the highway to adjust his speed too.
If there was a close call at a merge point, then both drivers were equally to blame.
Once again, |Crash_It| demonstrates that he doesn't understand what the law actually says, while showcasing his misguided road rage.
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2021, 04:24:08 PM
I'm pretty sure I have seen examples of places where, well in advance of a lane closure, signs pointed out that it was illegal to continue in that lane beyond a certain point.
Oklahoma likes to do that. "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW". My question is this: if it's illegal not to merge, then why is the lane beyond that point even open?
I was writing my own reply when you posted yours. I have never heard of such a sign. So they're posted even when there is no clear reason to not merge later?
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2021, 05:18:18 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2021, 04:24:08 PM
I'm pretty sure I have seen examples of places where, well in advance of a lane closure, signs pointed out that it was illegal to continue in that lane beyond a certain point.
Oklahoma likes to do that. "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW". My question is this: if it's illegal not to merge, then why is the lane beyond that point even open?
I was writing my own reply when you posted yours. I have never heard of such a sign. So they're posted even when there is no clear reason to not merge later?
Does anyone know what the law actually says?
ETA: The law seems to have been repealed in 2018 (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/march/oklahoma-s-first-zipper-merge-coming-to-i-35-in-pauls-valley-thi.html).
ETA: Here it was: (https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2014/title-47/section-47-11-1302/)
QuoteD. The “Merge Now” traffic-control device that is used to warn and guide the public using the highway to merge, shall be located no greater than one (1) mile nor less than one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet in advance of the highway construction or maintenance area. Whenever any traffic-control device requires traffic to merge due to the closure of a section or lane of highway, the merge shall be completed:
1. As soon as practicable after passing the traffic-control device; and
2. Without passing any other traffic proceeding in the same direction.
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2021, 04:24:08 PM
I'm pretty sure I have seen examples of places where, well in advance of a lane closure, signs pointed out that it was illegal to continue in that lane beyond a certain point.
Oklahoma likes to do that. "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW". My question is this: if it's illegal not to merge, then why is the lane beyond that point even open?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2021, 04:24:08 PM
All of this is different than a merge from an on-ramp, where generally the traffic already on the freeway has the ROW and the entering traffic has to yield if necessary.
I've pointed this out elsewhere, but that isn't necessarily the law. In Illinois (location of the OP), to reiterate:
Quote from: kphoger on May 03, 2021, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 02, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
The law says, and I quote (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-905.htm):
At an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
Correct. Under Illinois state law, it is not only the responsibility of the driver entering the highway to adjust his speed. It is also the responsibility of the driver already on the highway to adjust his speed too.
If there was a close call at a merge point, then both drivers were equally to blame.
Once again, |Crash_It| demonstrates that he doesn't understand what the law actually says, while showcasing his misguided road rage.
I don't think legal meaning of "lane ends" sign is universal across the states. Moreover, I looked into the issue a few years back, and NY has no legal definition of who has the right of way in such situation. Possibly there is a precedent somewhere, possibly every judge would see it as they think it should be.
I know at least one situation (2 lanes exiting roundabout quickly becoming one) where town police lieutenant in charge of traffic enforcement definitely had an opinion which didn't match design assumptions.
THat is totally different path of discussion, though, as existing law may not be the optimal one from traffic perspective.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 03, 2021, 12:31:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 12:25:03 PM
It sounds like you're still assuming there's one "ending" lane and one "continuing" lane. Which means you still seem to misunderstand the concept of a zipper merge.
The above is a perfect introduction to me contributing the following:
There's unique signage at some merges in Maryland that are specifically geared towards encouraging zipper merging and making it clear that neither lane is "ending" versus "continuing".
The most prominent example is the I-70 EB ramp to I-695 NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.304787,-76.7474889,3a,75y,90.62h,90.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX9lGy5PP9lNDoiBfGDBD4A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en), which has to condense into one lane to squeeze thru the existing stack interchange. (Click ahead in the streetview link to see the signs at the actual "zipper" point - this ramp backs up at peak times and will continue to do so until the interchange is reconstructed, but drivers are generally good at following the signs and alternating at the actual merge point.)
Have any other states tried signage similar to this?
I drive through there frequently enough to know that it does work very well. Where two lanes merge into one, and both lanes have equivalent importance as a lane, then the drivers should take turns. But where you have an on-ramp or a neckdown on a multiple lane road (3 lanes to 2), then there is clearly more signage that indicates that a lane is ending and people in that lane need to merge into other traffic, yielding to the thru traffic in the adjacent lane.
For construction issues, it seems clear that similar logic should apply. If construction dictates a 2 to 1 neckdown, then it is better for all involved to alternate the right of way. But where it is 3 to 2, then the right lane simply ends and traffic is going to need to merge over and make use of all of the lanes available.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 03, 2021, 05:19:20 PM
ETA: The law seems to have been repealed in 2018 (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/march/oklahoma-s-first-zipper-merge-coming-to-i-35-in-pauls-valley-thi.html).
Thank goodness!
Quote from: mrsman on June 03, 2021, 08:52:11 PM
Where two lanes merge into one, and both lanes have equivalent importance as a lane, then the drivers should take turns. But where you have an on-ramp or a neckdown on a multiple lane road (3 lanes to 2), then there is clearly more signage that indicates that a lane is ending and people in that lane need to merge into other traffic, yielding to the thru traffic in the adjacent lane.
For construction issues, it seems clear that similar logic should apply. If construction dictates a 2 to 1 neckdown, then it is better for all involved to alternate the right of way. But where it is 3 to 2, then the right lane simply ends and traffic is going to need to merge over and make use of all of the lanes available.
This sounds reasonable. I had never really considered the difference between 2-to-1 and 3-to-2, but it does seem there is an important distinction to be made.
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2021, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 03, 2021, 05:19:20 PM
ETA: The law seems to have been repealed in 2018 (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/march/oklahoma-s-first-zipper-merge-coming-to-i-35-in-pauls-valley-thi.html).
Thank goodness!
Quote from: mrsman on June 03, 2021, 08:52:11 PM
Where two lanes merge into one, and both lanes have equivalent importance as a lane, then the drivers should take turns. But where you have an on-ramp or a neckdown on a multiple lane road (3 lanes to 2), then there is clearly more signage that indicates that a lane is ending and people in that lane need to merge into other traffic, yielding to the thru traffic in the adjacent lane.
For construction issues, it seems clear that similar logic should apply. If construction dictates a 2 to 1 neckdown, then it is better for all involved to alternate the right of way. But where it is 3 to 2, then the right lane simply ends and traffic is going to need to merge over and make use of all of the lanes available.
This sounds reasonable. I had never really considered the difference between 2-to-1 and 3-to-2, but it does seem there is an important distinction to be made.
And for better or worse, MUTCD has only signs to specify a specific closed lane - left or right. One may assume that the closing lane should be at a disadvantage.
Sings are W4-2 and W9-1,2,3
https://goo.gl/maps/6L8yi92fXggpisFu6
Seems effective.
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2021, 01:07:59 PM
And for better or worse, MUTCD has only signs to specify a specific closed lane - left or right. One may assume that the closing lane should be at a disadvantage.
Sings are W4-2 and W9-1,2,3
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 04, 2021, 01:48:45 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6L8yi92fXggpisFu6
Seems effective.
Yes, there are plenty of ways to sign it. But none of them are in the MUTCD, are they? Unless you simply posted a W4-2 sign on the right and its mirror image on the left. I don't think that would technically be a violation of the MUTCD.
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2021, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2021, 01:07:59 PM
And for better or worse, MUTCD has only signs to specify a specific closed lane - left or right. One may assume that the closing lane should be at a disadvantage.
Sings are W4-2 and W9-1,2,3
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 04, 2021, 01:48:45 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6L8yi92fXggpisFu6
Seems effective.
Yes, there are plenty of ways to sign it. But none of them are in the MUTCD, are they? Unless you simply posted a W4-2 sign on the right and its mirror image on the left. I don't think that would technically be a violation of the MUTCD.
Just for reference, european version:
https://starttraffic.uk/image/catalog/product-photos/signs/post-mount/warning-signs/inline/road-narrows-both-sides-inline516.jpg
I carpooled with a right lane runner one day and she just didn't not understand the concept of right lane running. I tried to tell her that she is slowing traffic down. She said but this lane is faster. She said I can't understand why there is a back-up.
Australia has almost-but-not-quite:
Road narrows
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Australia_road_sign_W4-3.svg/120px-Australia_road_sign_W4-3.svg.png)
End divided road
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Australia_road_sign_W4-6.svg/120px-Australia_road_sign_W4-6.svg.png)
One lane
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Australia_road_sign_W8-16.svg/120px-Australia_road_sign_W8-16.svg.png) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Australia_road_sign_R9-9.svg/120px-Australia_road_sign_R9-9.svg.png)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 04, 2021, 02:39:47 PM
I carpooled with a right lane runner one day and she just didn't not understand the concept of right lane running. I tried to tell her that she is slowing traffic down. She said but this lane is faster. She said I can't understand why there is a back-up.
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2021, 03:25:52 PM
The cause of the backup is all the traffic going through half the lane-space.
1. If traffic is free flowing with adequate spacing leading up to and/or at the merge point, then it's best to move over as soon as you can.
2. If traffic is stopped leading up to and/or up to the merge point, then it's best to use both lanes and zipper merge
The problem becomes when enough people move over early AND there is enough traffic to slow overall traffic down...that creates the situation where the closing lane is open and the continuing lane is jammed. That is the least ideal situation in terms of safety, efficiency, and emotionally. But the timing of when that occurs...the switchover from 1. to 2., is situational.
So to me...move over as soon as you can as long as traffic is free flowing...but when traffic volumes become high enough that slowdowns in the continuing lane begin, then a zipper merge should start right at that time, so that you don't end up with the least ideal situation. I'm not sure if it can be any less complicated than that.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on June 04, 2021, 04:42:39 PM
1. If traffic is free flowing with adequate spacing leading up to and/or at the merge point, then it's best to move over as soon as you can.
Why is that best?
Quote from: jemacedo9 on June 04, 2021, 04:42:39 PM
2. If traffic is stopped leading up to and/or up to the merge point, then it's best to use both lanes and zipper merge
Why is that best?
Most of the time around here, when traffic is light, distribution among two lanes of traffic that merge together seems to be fairly equal, with a slight favor towards the "continuing" lane.
Typically, this is what happens:
(1) traffic approaches the merge spaced however they were leading to that point
(2) when the merge signs appear, traffic begins to space out a bit
(3) by the time the merge is quite close, traffic has spaced enough that there are clear gaps into which the ending lane may merge into
(4) at the merge point or very slightly beforehand, drivers merge into those newly-formed gaps
I-705 to I-5 in Tacoma is where I see this behavior first-hand most frequently: during heavy traffic (https://goo.gl/maps/v4cZDjZ56CjzFUM67), during light traffic (https://goo.gl/maps/H8AnJX44jjsXtcSP7) (note these are two adjacent time-frames in GSV, and were not cherry-picked).
This whole "move over as soon as you can" business is completely unnecessary because drivers (at least around here) naturally space out at the merge point to accommodate other drivers. Given the effects of rubber-band braking, this seems like the best option since it reduces the number of cars in one lane following closely (the case with merging early), thus reducing the chance of brake-tapping as drivers adjust to people merging early, and provides the maximum amount of time to drivers to adjust to those around them.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 05:43:23 PM
Most of the time around here, when traffic is light, distribution among two lanes of traffic that merge together seems to be fairly equal, with a slight favor towards the "continuing" lane.
Typically, this is what happens:
(1) traffic approaches the merge spaced however they were leading to that point
(2) when the merge signs appear, traffic begins to space out a bit
(3) by the time the merge is quite close, traffic has spaced enough that there are clear gaps into which the ending lane may merge into
(4) at the merge point or very slightly beforehand, drivers merge into those newly-formed gaps
I-705 to I-5 in Tacoma is where I see this behavior first-hand most frequently: during heavy traffic (https://goo.gl/maps/v4cZDjZ56CjzFUM67), during light traffic (https://goo.gl/maps/H8AnJX44jjsXtcSP7) (note these are two adjacent time-frames in GSV, and were not cherry-picked).
This whole "move over as soon as you can" business is completely unnecessary because drivers (at least around here) naturally space out at the merge point to accommodate other drivers. Given the effects of rubber-band braking, this seems like the best option since it reduces the number of cars in one lane following closely (the case with merging early), thus reducing the chance of brake-tapping as drivers adjust to people merging early, and provides the maximum amount of time to drivers to adjust to those around them.
When the traffic is light, as you said. If total traffic is significantly less than what the lanes after merge can handle, then it doesn't really matter. Think about it - when can traffic
space enough in general?
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2021, 05:50:13 PM
When the traffic is light, as you said. If total traffic is significantly less than what the lanes after merge can handle, then it doesn't really matter. Think about it - when can traffic space enough in general?
As provided in my GSV links, my point was also that the "take turns" style of merge persists no matter the traffic levels. The only difference is that the gaps are much smaller during heavy traffic, as traffic is going slower, but they're still large enough to accommodate a vehicle by the time you reach the physical taper; up to that point, traffic generally drivers bumper-to-bumper.
All things considered, the way things are done here strikes me as far more organized and friendlier than the chaos I witness in Virginia, which is one lane jammed with cars and the other (ending lane) having maybe a dozen cars spaced out trying to merge randomly into non-existent gaps. Around here, there is virtually no lane changing up to the merge point. There may as well be a barrier between the lanes; the rare early-merging driver is swiftly passed in the shoulder by traffic behind them on most occasions.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 06:27:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2021, 05:50:13 PM
When the traffic is light, as you said. If total traffic is significantly less than what the lanes after merge can handle, then it doesn't really matter. Think about it - when can traffic space enough in general?
As provided in my GSV links, my point was also that the "take turns" style of merge persists no matter the traffic levels. The only difference is that the gaps are much smaller during heavy traffic, as traffic is going slower, but they're still large enough to accommodate a vehicle by the time you reach the physical taper; up to that point, traffic generally drivers bumper-to-bumper.
All things considered, the way things are done here strikes me as far more organized and friendlier than the chaos I witness in Virginia, which is one lane jammed with cars and the other (ending lane) having maybe a dozen cars spaced out trying to merge randomly into non-existent gaps. Around here, there is virtually no lane changing up to the merge point. There may as well be a barrier between the lanes; the rare early-merging driver is swiftly passed in the shoulder by traffic behind them on most occasions.
Again - difference between heavy and congested. Or you use those interchangeably?
At this (https://goo.gl/maps/kx9c1cJ9YQf9KhWQ8) "form one lane" type merge that I use every day coming home from work, traffic on the right generally gives way to traffic on the left, despite traffic on the left having the YIELD sign. At least, that's the case in normal traffic. When traffic is backed up, people just take turns. (Neither ramp is "more important" than the other, as both are coming from I-135 to US-54/400.)
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2021, 06:29:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 06:27:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2021, 05:50:13 PM
When the traffic is light, as you said. If total traffic is significantly less than what the lanes after merge can handle, then it doesn't really matter. Think about it - when can traffic space enough in general?
As provided in my GSV links, my point was also that the "take turns" style of merge persists no matter the traffic levels. The only difference is that the gaps are much smaller during heavy traffic, as traffic is going slower, but they're still large enough to accommodate a vehicle by the time you reach the physical taper; up to that point, traffic generally drivers bumper-to-bumper.
All things considered, the way things are done here strikes me as far more organized and friendlier than the chaos I witness in Virginia, which is one lane jammed with cars and the other (ending lane) having maybe a dozen cars spaced out trying to merge randomly into non-existent gaps. Around here, there is virtually no lane changing up to the merge point. There may as well be a barrier between the lanes; the rare early-merging driver is swiftly passed in the shoulder by traffic behind them on most occasions.
Again - difference between heavy and congested. Or you use those interchangeably?
I don't think there is a need for distinction, at least for my example: cars in both lanes make gaps for each other throughout the day, regardless of the level of traffic. The only difference is the size of the gaps: smaller during peak hours, larger during off-peak hours. In either case, with rare exception, drivers are not blocking each other.
But for the record, yes, I was using those terms interchangeably. I generally use the term "busy" to describe lots of cars near the speed limit, reserving "heavy" or "congested" to describe peak-hour traffic.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2021, 06:29:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 06:27:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2021, 05:50:13 PM
When the traffic is light, as you said. If total traffic is significantly less than what the lanes after merge can handle, then it doesn't really matter. Think about it - when can traffic space enough in general?
As provided in my GSV links, my point was also that the "take turns" style of merge persists no matter the traffic levels. The only difference is that the gaps are much smaller during heavy traffic, as traffic is going slower, but they're still large enough to accommodate a vehicle by the time you reach the physical taper; up to that point, traffic generally drivers bumper-to-bumper.
All things considered, the way things are done here strikes me as far more organized and friendlier than the chaos I witness in Virginia, which is one lane jammed with cars and the other (ending lane) having maybe a dozen cars spaced out trying to merge randomly into non-existent gaps. Around here, there is virtually no lane changing up to the merge point. There may as well be a barrier between the lanes; the rare early-merging driver is swiftly passed in the shoulder by traffic behind them on most occasions.
Again - difference between heavy and congested. Or you use those interchangeably?
I don't think there is a need for distinction, at least for my example: cars in both lanes make gaps for each other throughout the day, regardless of the level of traffic. The only difference is the size of the gaps: smaller during peak hours, larger during off-peak hours. In either case, with rare exception, drivers are not blocking each other.
But for the record, yes, I was using those terms interchangeably. I generally use the term "busy" to describe lots of cars near the speed limit, reserving "heavy" or "congested" to describe peak-hour traffic.
Well, true, no strict need for distinction in this case. Specifically, as far as I understand you're discussing a short-range merge of approximately equally traveled roads, where basic fairness would dictate more or less equal merge priority within a pretty limited merge distance. This is somewhat unlike different scenarios - merge of two lanes (about equal priority, infinite merge distance) or a merge at freeway exit (limited distance, arguably lower priority for merging traffic, but more opportunities for through traffic to accommodate the merge)
My pet question here is what strategy would achieve the highest throughput in different scenarios, and what would be the least stressful one. Of course, the highest throughput may not be the only metric as well
And that optimal strategy may depend on congested / non-congested flow and ability to switch from one strategy to the other once conditions change.